Ed - Neo Marxism

How does Paul Willis (1977) explain the relationship between schooling and capitalism in Learning to Labour?

Willis agrees with Marxists that education reproduces inequality and serves capitalism, but rejects the idea that pupils are passively brainwashed.

He found that W/C boys actively resist schooling by forming a counter‑school culture. They rejected the myth of meritocracy, mocked conformist peers (“ear’oles”), and valued “having a laff” over qualifications.

Their behaviour mirrored W/C manual work culture: sexism, anti‑authority attitudes, and rejection of intellectual work. Thus, pupils show agency, but ironically still end up in the low‑paid jobs capitalism needs.

What is meant by counter‑school culture, according to Willis?

A set of shared values/norms among W/C lads, opposing school goals. Features included: disrupting lessons, smoking/drinking, rejecting academic success, prioritising fun over qualifications, and showing disrespect for authority. This culture was oppositional but still reproduced class inequality because it prepared them for low‑status, manual labour.

How does Willis’ view of pupils differ from Bowles & Gintis’?

Bowles & Gintis saw students as passively indoctrinated by ruling‑class ideology through the hidden curriculum. Willis argued pupils were active agents, consciously resisting school values and rejecting meritocracy. However, their resistance was self‑defeating, still leading to W/C labour exploitation.

In what ways did Willis find a correspondence between school culture and W/C workplace culture?

Both involved sexism, lack of respect for authority, manual over intellectual work, and using humour to cope with boring, oppressive environments. Thus, resistance in school ironically prepared them for manual jobs, sustaining class reproduction.

What are two major criticisms of Willis’ Learning to Labour study?

(1) Small‑scale case study (12 boys) → lacks representativeness and generalisability.

(2) Willis arguably romanticised the lads, portraying them as W/C heroes, but ignored their sexism and anti‑social behaviour. Exam Tip:Use this evaluation to critique Neo‑Marxism in essays.

How did Willis’ “lads” view the myth of meritocracy?

They saw it as a con—believing qualifications wouldn’t change their class position. They ridiculed the idea that effort = success and mocked conformist students who followed school rules, showing class consciousness in rejecting meritocratic ideology.

Apply Willis’ ideas to explain why some students deliberately misbehave in class.

Misbehaviour may be part of a counter‑school culture that rejects academic values and authority. Disruption is used to build peer status, resist school discipline, and avoid investing in qualifications they see as irrelevant. Ironically, this resistance can reproduce class inequality by preparing them for low‑status jobs.

How could Willis’ findings connect to Interactionist theories of education?

Both emphasise pupil agency. Interactionists highlight labelling and self‑fulfilling prophecy, while Willis shows resistance through subcultures. Together, they challenge deterministic Marxism by showing students don’t just absorb ideology.

What is one Feminist critique of Willis’ study?

His work largely ignores gender. The lads’ counter‑school culture relied heavily on sexism and exclusion of girls, but Willis failed to challenge or analyse this. Feminists argue schools reproduce both class and gender inequalities.

Define: Neo-Marxism

blend of Marxist structure with pupil agency/resistance.

Define: Counter School culture

group norms rejecting academic success/authority.

Define: Myth of meritocracy

false belief that success is based only on ability/effort.