Class Differences - Internal Factors (Education)

What does labelling mean in education?

Labelling is the process of attaching a meaning or definition to someone.

Teachers may base these labels not on pupils’ actual ability or behaviour, but on stereotyped assumptions about their social class, with working-class pupils more likely to receive negative labels and middle-class pupils more likely to receive positive labels.

How do interactionists explain class differences in educational achievement?

Interactionists focus on small-scale, face-to-face interactions, such as those between teachers and pupils in the classroom.

They argue that teachers attach labels to pupils based partly on their social class, and these labels can influence how teachers treat pupils and how pupils respond to them, potentially contributing to differences in educational achievement.

What did Howard Becker (1971) find about teacher labelling?

Becker interviewed 60 Chicago high-school teachers and found that teachers judged pupils according to how closely they fitted their image of the ‘ideal pupil’.

Teachers based their judgements on factors including pupils’ work, conduct and appearance. They saw middle-class pupils as closest to the ideal, while working-class pupils were seen as furthest from it, partly because teachers viewed them as more badly behaved.

How does Becker’s study explain class differences in educational achievement?

Becker suggests that teachers may judge pupils according to middle-class standards of what an ‘ideal pupil’ should be like. This means working-class pupils may be negatively labelled because their behaviour or appearance does not match teachers’ expectations.

This could disadvantage working-class pupils because negative labels may lead teachers to have lower expectations of them, potentially affecting the amount of attention, encouragement and opportunities they receive. Therefore, differences in achievement may partly result from teacher expectations rather than differences in pupils’ actual ability.

What did Hempel-Jørgensen (2009) find about teachers’ definitions of the ‘ideal pupil’?

Hempel-Jørgensen studied two English primary schools and found that teachers’ ideas of the ‘ideal pupil’ varied according to the social class composition of the school.

At the mainly working-class Aspen school, where discipline was considered a major problem, the ideal pupil was defined as quiet, passive and obedient. At the mainly middle-class Rowan school, where discipline was less problematic, the ideal pupil was defined more in terms of personality and academic ability.

How does Hempel-Jørgensen challenge Becker’s explanation of labelling?

Hempel-Jørgensen suggests that teacher labelling is not necessarily based on a universal middle-class image of the ideal pupil. Instead, teachers’ expectations may depend on the social class composition and circumstances of the school.

This means that working-class pupils are not automatically labelled negatively simply because teachers hold middle-class values. For example, at Aspen, the main concern was discipline, so being quiet and obedient was more important than academic ability.

How could teacher labelling contribute to class differences in educational achievement?

If teachers label working-class pupils negatively, they may develop lower expectations of them and treat them differently from positively labelled middle-class pupils.

These different expectations can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: pupils may respond to the way teachers treat them, causing the negative label to become increasingly accurate. This could contribute to lower achievement among working-class pupils, meaning class differences in education may be partly produced within the school rather than simply reflecting differences between pupils’ families.

What is a limitation of the labelling explanation of class differences in educational achievement?

Labelling theory can be criticised for placing too much emphasis on teachers’ interactions with pupils and not enough on wider factors affecting achievement.

For example, material deprivation and differences in cultural capital may influence pupils’ achievement before teachers even label them. This suggests that teacher labelling may contribute to class differences, but it is unlikely to be the only explanation for why working-class pupils achieve differently from middle-class pupils.

What did Dunne and Gazeley (2008) argue about labelling in secondary schools?

Dunne and Gazeley argue that schools ‘persistently produce working-class underachievement’ because of teachers’ labels and assumptions.

From interviews in nine English state secondary schools, they found that teachers ‘normalised’ working-class underachievement and felt they could do little about it, whereas they believed they could overcome the underachievement of middle-class pupils.

How did teachers’ views of pupils’ home backgrounds contribute to class differences in achievement?

Teachers labelled working-class parents as uninterested in their children’s education, while they labelled middle-class parents as supportive.

For example, middle-class parents were seen as supportive because they paid for music lessons or attended parents’ evenings.

How did teachers treat underachieving working-class and middle-class pupils differently?

Teachers responded differently to pupils they perceived as underachieving:

• Middle-class pupils → given extension work

• Working-class pupils → entered for easier exams

How could teachers’ assumptions about home background produce class differences in achievement?

Working-class parents labelled as uninterested → teachers expect less from working-class pupils → less challenging work / easier exams → fewer opportunities to demonstrate higher ability → working-class underachievement is reinforced

How could teachers’ attitudes towards working-class underachievement contribute to the reproduction of class inequality?

Working-class underachievement seen as normal → teachers feel there is little they can do → less effort to overcome underachievement → lower expectations and less challenging opportunities → underachievement continues

Middle-class underachievement seen as something teachers can overcome → greater intervention → greater opportunities to improve

What effect did teachers’ expectations have on working-class pupils according to Dunne and Gazeley?

Teachers underestimated working-class pupils’ potential.

Working-class pupils who performed well were seen as ‘overachieving’ → their success was viewed as unexpected → suggests teachers had lower expectations of working-class pupils → potentially reinforces the idea that high achievement is unusual for them.

What did Ray Rist (1970) find about labelling in primary schools?

Rist studied an American kindergarten and found that the teacher used information about children’s home background and appearance to place them into separate groups.

She seated each group at a different table, meaning labelling occurred from the beginning of the child’s educational career.

How did the teacher treat the ‘tigers’ in Rist’s (1970) study?

The ‘tigers’ were labelled as fast learners and tended to be middle-class with a neat and clean appearance.

They were seated closest to the teacher and received the greatest encouragement.

How were the ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’ treated in Rist’s (1970) study?

The ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’ were seated further away from the teacher and were more likely to be working-class.

They were given lower-level books and fewer opportunities to demonstrate their abilities. For example, they had to read as a group rather than individually.

How does Rist’s study show how labelling can create class differences in education?

Working-class background / appearance → more likely to receive negative labels → seated further from teacher → less encouragement + lower-level books + fewer opportunities to show ability → working-class pupils receive fewer opportunities to succeed

Why could the treatment of the ‘cardinals’ and ‘clowns’ contribute to underachievement?

Lower-level books + fewer opportunities to demonstrate ability → pupils have fewer chances to develop and demonstrate their abilities → their achievement may be restricted by the treatment they receive → labelling can contribute to educational inequality.

What is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true simply because it has been made.

Interactionists argue that labelling can affect pupils’ achievement by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What happens at the first stage of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Teacher labels pupil → teacher makes a prediction based on the label.

Example: Pupil labelled as very intelligent → teacher predicts they will make outstanding progress.

What happens at the second stage of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Teacher treats pupil according to the prediction → acts as if the prediction is already true.

Example: Teacher gives the pupil more attention + expects a higher standard of work.

What happens at the third stage of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Pupil internalises teacher’s expectations → expectation becomes part of their self-concept / self-image → pupil becomes the kind of pupil the teacher originally believed them to be.

Result: More confidence → tries harder → succeeds → prediction is fulfilled

How can labelling create a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Teacher label → prediction about pupil → teacher treats pupil according to prediction → pupil internalises expectation → expectation becomes part of self-concept → greater confidence + effort → success → original prediction becomes true

This means the teacher’s original label can help create the behaviour and achievement that appears to confirm the label.

What did Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) do in their study of Oak Community School?

Rosenthal and Jacobson told the school that they had a new test designed to identify pupils who would ‘spurt’ ahead.

This was untrue because the test was actually a standard IQ test. They tested all pupils, but randomly selected 20% and falsely told the school that the test had identified them as ‘spurters’.

What did Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) find?

When they returned to the school a year later, 47% of the pupils identified as ‘spurters’ had made significant progress.

The effect was greater on younger children.

How did Rosenthal and Jacobson explain the progress of the ‘spurters’?

The teachers believed the supposed test results → teachers’ beliefs about the pupils changed → teachers conveyed these beliefs through their interactions with pupils.

This included their body language and the amount of attention and encouragement they gave pupils.

How does Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study demonstrate the self-fulfilling prophecy?

Pupils selected at random → teachers told they were likely to ‘spurt’ ahead → teachers believed the prediction → more attention + encouragement → pupils made significant progress → prediction became true

Because the pupils were selected at random, their progress strongly suggests that teachers’ expectations themselves could influence pupils’ achievement.

Why is the random selection of pupils important in Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study?

Pupils were selected as ‘spurters’ purely at random → they were not originally identified because of their actual ability → 47% later made significant progress → suggests teachers’ beliefs and expectations could have contributed to the change in achievement.

What important interactionist principle does Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study demonstrate?

What people believe to be true → can have real effects, even when the belief was not originally true.

In this case, teachers believed some pupils would ‘spurt’ ahead → their interactions with those pupils changed → the pupils actually made significant progress.

How can a self-fulfilling prophecy produce underachievement?

Low teacher expectations → expectations communicated through interactions → pupil develops a negative self-concept → sees themselves as a failure → gives up trying → fulfils the original prophecy

How can teacher expectations produce both achievement and underachievement?

High expectations → more attention + encouragement → positive self-concept → greater effort → success

Low expectations → negative expectations communicated → negative self-concept → pupil sees themselves as a failure → gives up trying → underachievement

Therefore, teacher expectations can influence pupils’ achievement by affecting how pupils see themselves and how they respond to school.

What is streaming?

Streaming involves separating children into different ability groups or classes, called ‘streams’.

Each ability group is then taught separately from the others for all subjects.

Why are working-class pupils more likely to be placed in lower streams?

Teachers do not usually see working-class children as ideal pupils → tend to see them as lacking ability → have lower expectations of them → working-class children are more likely to be placed in a lower stream.

Why can being placed in a lower stream reinforce teachers’ expectations?

Lower stream → difficult to move to a higher stream → pupils become more or less locked into teachers’ low expectations → pupils ‘get the message’ that teachers have written them off as ‘no-hopers’.

How can streaming create a self-fulfilling prophecy for working-class pupils?

Working-class pupils → more likely to be placed in lower streams → teachers have low expectations → pupils receive the message that they are ‘no-hopers’ → self-concept affected → pupils live up to expectations → underachievement

What did Douglas find about children placed in lower streams?

Douglas found that children placed in a lower stream at age 8 had suffered a decline in their IQ score by age 11.

How can middle-class pupils benefit from streaming?

Middle-class pupils → more likely to be placed in higher streams because teachers see them as ideal pupils → develop a more positive self-concept → gain confidence → work harder → improve their grades.

What did Douglas find about children placed in higher streams?

Douglas found that children placed in a higher stream at age 8 had improved their IQ score by age 11.

Higher stream → positive expectations → positive self-concept + confidence → greater effort → improved achievement.

What did Gillborn and Youdell (2001) find about streaming and social class?

Gillborn and Youdell studied two London secondary schools and found that teachers were less likely to see working-class and Black pupils as having ability.

As a result, these pupils were more likely to be placed in lower streams and entered for lower-tier GCSEs.

How can streaming contribute to class differences in GCSE achievement?

Working-class pupils → more likely to be placed in lower streams → entered for lower-tier GCSEs → denied the knowledge and opportunities needed to gain good grades → class gap in achievement widens.

What are exam league tables and why do schools want a good position?

Exam league tables rank schools according to their exam performance, for example, the percentage of pupils gaining five or more GCSE grades A to C*, equivalent to grades 9 to 4.

Schools need a good league table position to attract pupils and funding.

What is Gillborn and Youdell’s ‘A-to-C economy’?

The ‘A-to-C economy’ is a system in which schools focus their time, effort and resources on pupils they believe have the potential to gain five grade Cs.

This is because achieving these grades can boost the school’s league table position.

How can teachers’ stereotypical views of ability widen the class gap in achievement?

Working-class pupils seen as having less ability → placed in lower streams → entered for lower-tier GCSEs → denied knowledge + opportunities needed for good grades → class gap in achievement widens

How do league tables contribute to the ‘A-to-C economy’?

Schools need good league table position → league tables based partly on exam performance → schools focus resources on pupils likely to gain five grade Cs → pupils seen as unlikely to achieve these grades receive less focus → school resources are distributed unequally

How can the ‘A-to-C economy’ contribute to class differences in educational achievement?

Working-class pupils stereotyped as having less ability → more likely to be seen as unlikely to achieve five Cs → lower streams / lower-tier GCSEs → less access to knowledge + opportunities needed for good grades → class differences in achievement are reinforced.

This means that school policies designed around league-table performance can help reproduce the inequalities created by teacher labelling.

What do Gillborn and Youdell mean by ‘educational triage’?

‘Triage’ means sorting. Gillborn and Youdell use the term to describe how the A-to-C economy leads schools to categorise pupils according to their perceived chances of achieving good grades.

What are the three categories of pupils created by educational triage?

Schools categorise pupils as:

1. Those who will pass anyway → can be left to get on with it.

2. Those with potential → helped to achieve a grade C or better.

3. ‘Hopeless cases’ → seen as doomed to fail.

How can educational triage disadvantage working-class pupils?

Stereotypical view of working-class pupils as lacking ability → more likely to be labelled ‘hopeless cases’ → ‘warehoused’ in bottom sets → less attention + support + resources → self-fulfilling prophecy → failure

How does the A-to-C economy lead to educational triage?

Need for good league table position → schools focus resources on pupils most likely to achieve good grades → pupils categorised according to their perceived potential → educational triage → resources concentrated on selected pupils.

How do Gillborn and Youdell link interactionist processes to the wider education system?

Micro level: teacher labelling + stereotyping during face-to-face interactions → pupils treated differently.

Macro level: schools operate within a wider education system → marketisation policies, including exam league tables, influence these interactions → micro-level processes contribute to class differences in achievement.

How can marketisation policies contribute to class differences in achievement?

Exam league tables → pressure on schools to achieve good results → A-to-C economy → educational triage → resources focused on pupils seen as likely to achieve good grades → working-class pupils more likely to be labelled as lacking ability → less attention, support and resources → lower achievement.

What is a pupil subculture?

A pupil subculture is a group of pupils who share similar values and behaviour patterns.

Pupil subcultures often emerge as a response to the way pupils have been labelled, particularly as a reaction to streaming.

What does Lacey (1970) mean by ‘differentiation’?

Differentiation is the process of teachers categorising pupils according to how they perceive their ability, attitude and/or behaviour.

Streaming = a form of differentiation → pupils categorised into separate classes → pupils seen as ‘more able’ placed in high streams and given higher status → pupils seen as ‘less able’ placed in low streams and given inferior status.

What does Lacey (1970) mean by ‘polarisation’?

Polarisation is the process where pupils respond to streaming by moving towards one of two opposite ‘poles’ or extremes.

What did Lacey (1970) find in his study of Hightown boys’ grammar school?

Lacey found that streaming polarised boys into two pupil subcultures:

• Pro-school subculture

• Anti-school subculture

How can streaming lead to the development of pupil subcultures?

Differentiation: teachers categorise pupils by perceived ability → high streams given higher status + low streams given inferior status

→ Polarisation: pupils respond to their different status within the school → move towards opposite poles

→ Pro-school / anti-school subcultures develop

This shows how teacher categorisation can influence pupils’ own values and behaviour, rather than simply affecting how teachers treat them.

What is a pro-school subculture?

A pro-school subculture is formed by pupils who remain committed to the values of the school.

Pupils in high streams, who are largely middle-class, tend to form a pro-school subculture.

How do pupils in the pro-school subculture gain status?

High-stream pupils → largely middle-class → remain committed to school values → gain status in the approved manner through academic success.

How can being placed in a high stream contribute to a pro-school subculture?

High stream → higher status within school → academic success valued → pupils remain committed to school values → pro-school subculture develops.

What is an anti-school subculture and who is likely to form one?

Pupils placed in low streams, who tend to be working-class, may form an anti-school subculture.

Being placed in a position of inferior status can cause a loss of self-esteem, as pupils feel that the school has undermined their self-worth.

Why might pupils in low streams seek an anti-school subculture?

Low stream → inferior status + loss of self-esteem → label of failure → need to find an alternative way of gaining status → pupils may form an anti-school subculture.

How do pupils in an anti-school subculture gain status?

Pupils may invert the school’s values, turning them upside down.

School values: hard work + obedience + punctuality

→ Anti-school values: rejecting or challenging these expectations → alternative source of status among peers.

What behaviours might pupils use to gain status within an anti-school subculture?

Pupils may gain status among their peers by:

• Cheeking a teacher

• Truanting

• Not doing homework

• Smoking

How can joining an anti-school subculture become a self-fulfilling prophecy of educational failure?

Poor academic work → low status → join anti-school subculture to gain status → group encourages behaviour that rejects school values → work remains poor / gets worse → educational failure is reinforced

The attempt to solve the problem of low status therefore creates further problems for the pupil.

What did David Hargreaves (1967) find about pupils in a secondary modern school?

Hargreaves found that boys in the lower streams were ‘triple failures’:

1. Failed the 11+ exam

2. Placed in low streams

3. Labelled as ‘worthless louts’

Some responded by seeking each other out and forming a group where high status was given to those who flouted the school’s rules.

How did the delinquent subculture found by Hargreaves contribute to educational failure?

Failed 11+ → low stream → labelled as ‘worthless louts’ → status problem → pupils seek each other out → high status given to those who flout school rules → delinquent subculture develops → helps to guarantee educational failure.

What did Stephen Ball (1981) study?

Ball studied Beachside, a comprehensive school that was in the process of abolishing banding, a type of streaming, in favour of teaching mixed-ability groups.

Banding had produced the type of pupil polarisation described by Lacey.

What happened to pupil polarisation when Beachside abolished banding?

Abolishing banding → basis for pupils to polarise into subcultures was largely removed → influence of the anti-school subculture declined → pupil polarisation all but disappeared.

What happened to differentiation after banding was abolished at Beachside?

Although pupil polarisation largely disappeared, differentiation continued.

Teachers continued to categorise pupils differently and were more likely to label middle-class pupils as cooperative and able.

How did positive labelling affect middle-class pupils at Beachside?

Middle-class pupils labelled as cooperative and able → positive labelling → better exam results → suggests a self-fulfilling prophecy had occurred.

What does Ball’s study suggest about the relationship between streaming, labelling and class inequality?

Abolishing banding → pupil polarisation largely disappears → anti-school subculture declines

BUT

Teacher differentiation continues → middle-class pupils more likely to receive positive labels → better exam results → class inequalities can continue even without streaming or pupil subcultures.

What trend has occurred since Ball’s study and especially since the Education Reform Act (1988)?

Back: Trend towards more streaming and a greater variety of types of school, with some having a more academic curriculum than others.

→ More opportunities for schools and teachers to differentiate between pupils based on class, ethnicity or gender → pupils may be treated unequally.

What does Peter Woods (1979) argue about pupils’ responses to labelling and streaming?

Pro-school and anti-school subcultures are two possible responses, but Woods argues that pupils may respond to labelling and streaming in other ways.

These include ingratiation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion.

What four alternative responses to labelling and streaming did Woods (1979) identify?

• Ingratiation → being the ‘teacher’s pet’

• Ritualism → going through the motions + staying out of trouble

• Retreatism → daydreaming + mucking about

• Rebellion → outright rejection of everything the school stands for

What does John Furlong (1984) argue about pupils’ responses to school?

Many pupils are not permanently committed to one response.

They may move between different types of response → behave differently in lessons with different teachers → pupil behaviour is therefore not necessarily fixed.

What does Bourdieu mean by ‘habitus’?

Habitus refers to the ‘dispositions’ or learned, taken-for-granted ways of thinking, being and acting shared by a particular social class.

It includes tastes and preferences about lifestyles and consumption, outlook on life, and expectations about what is normal or realistic for ‘people like us’.

How is a social class’s habitus formed?

A group’s habitus is formed as a response to its position in the class structure.

→ Class position → shapes shared ways of thinking, being and acting → creates particular tastes, preferences, outlooks and expectations.

Why does the middle-class haveus give middle-class pupils an advantage in education?

Middle-class habitus is not intrinsically better than working-class habitus.

However, the middle class has the power to define its habitus as superior → impose it on the education system → schools place greater value on middle-class tastes and preferences → middle-class pupils gain an advantage.

How is habitus linked to Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital?

Back: School has a middle-class habitus → middle-class tastes and preferences are valued more highly → middle-class pupils’ cultural background fits what the school values → middle-class pupils gain an advantage.

Working-class culture is regarded as inferior.

How can the school’s middle-class habitus contribute to class differences in achievement?

Middle-class habitus imposed on education system → school values middle-class tastes + preferences → middle-class pupils’ habitus is valued → working-class culture regarded as inferior → middle-class pupils gain an educational advantage → class inequality is reproduced.

What does Bourdieu mean by ‘symbolic capital’?

Because schools have a middle-class habitus, pupils socialised at home into middle-class tastes and preferences gain symbolic capital.

→ School recognises and values their tastes + preferences → pupils gain status and recognition → they are deemed to have worth or value.

What does Bourdieu mean by ‘symbolic violence’?

Symbolic violence is the withholding of symbolic capital from working-class pupils.

Working-class habitus devalued by school → their tastes, clothing, appearance and accent are viewed as tasteless and worthless → working-class culture defined as inferior.

How does symbolic violence reproduce the class structure?

Middle-class habitus defined as superior → working-class habitus defined as inferior → working-class pupils denied symbolic capital → lower classes kept ‘in their place’ → class structure is reproduced.

Why might working-class pupils experience education as alien and unnatural?

Working-class pupils’ habitus → clashes with the school’s middle-class habitus → their tastes + ways of presenting themselves are devalued → education may feel alien and unnatural.

What did Archer find about working-class pupils and educational success?

Archer found that working-class pupils felt that to be educationally successful, they would have to change how they talked and presented themselves.

Educational success → pressure to adopt middle-class ways of talking + presenting yourself → can be experienced as ‘losing yourself’.

How can symbolic violence affect working-class pupils’ educational aspirations?

Working-class habitus devalued → middle-class educational spaces seen as ‘not for the likes of us’ → university + professional careers viewed as inaccessible → working-class pupils may feel they have to change themselves to succeed → educational success experienced as ‘losing yourself’ → potentially limits their sense of what is realistic for them.

Why did working-class pupils develop ‘Nike’ identities?

Working-class pupils were conscious that society and school looked down on them → symbolic violence led them to seek alternative ways of creating self-worth, status and value → constructed meaningful class identities through styles, especially branded clothing such as Nike.

Why was wearing branded clothing important to working-class pupils?

Wearing brands was a way of ‘being me’ → without them, pupils could feel inauthentic.

Nike styles therefore became an important part of working-class pupils’ identities.

How did peer groups influence working-class pupils’ styles?

Style performances heavily policed by peer groups → not conforming seen as ‘social suicide’ → correct appearance earned symbolic capital + peer approval + safety from bullying.

Why did working-class pupils’ ‘Nike’ identities conflict with the school?

Nike / ‘street’ styles → conflict with school dress code → school’s middle-class habitus views these styles as ‘bad taste’ or a threat → pupils adopting them risk being labelled as rebels.

How does Archer explain the significance of working-class ‘Nike’ identities?

School’s middle-class habitus → working-class identities stigmatised → pupils use style as a struggle for recognition → ‘Nike’ identities provide symbolic capital + self-worth → what the middle class sees as tasteless can be meaningful to working-class pupils.

Why did working-class pupils see higher education as unrealistic?

University seen as ‘not for people like us’ → associated with richer, posher and cleverer people → pupils felt they would not fit in.

Higher education was also seen as an unaffordable and risky investment.

Why did working-class pupils see higher education as undesirable?

Higher education seen as incompatible with their preferred lifestyle and habitus → student loan would leave them unable to afford the street styles that gave them their identity → university viewed as undesirable.

How can working-class pupils’ ‘Nike’ identities contribute to educational self-exclusion?

School’s middle-class habitus → working-class identities stigmatised → pupils develop ‘Nike’ identities to gain self-worth + symbolic capital → higher education seen as unrealistic + undesirable → education does not fit their identity / way of life → self-elimination or self-exclusion from education.

This means pupils don’t simply ‘get the message’ that education isn’t for people like them. They may also actively reject education because it conflicts with their identity and preferred lifestyle.

What did Nicola Ingram (2009) study?

Ingram studied two groups of working-class Catholic boys from the same highly deprived neighbourhood in Belfast.

• One group had passed the 11-plus and attended grammar school.

• The other had failed and attended a local secondary school.

The grammar school had a strongly middle-class habitus of high expectations and academic achievement, while the secondary school had a habitus of low expectations of underachieving pupils.

How was working-class identity linked to locality in Ingram’s study?

Working-class identity was inseparable from belonging to a working-class locality.

Dense networks of family + friends → key part of boys’ habitus → intense feeling of belonging.

Street culture + branded sportswear → important parts of their habitus and sense of identity.

Why could conformity create difficulties for working-class boys at grammar school?

Working-class communities place a strong emphasis on conformity → pressure to ‘fit in’ with the neighbourhood → particular problem for grammar school boys → tension between working-class neighbourhood habitus and middle-class school habitus.

What happened to Callum in Ingram’s study?

Callum came to school in a tracksuit on a non-uniform day → fitting in with his working-class neighbourhood habitus → classmates ridiculed him because the tracksuit conflicted with the school’s middle-class habitus.

He experienced a choice between ‘unworthiness at school’ for wearing certain clothes and ‘worthlessness at home’ for not.

How does Callum’s experience demonstrate symbolic violence?

Working-class identity / tracksuit → devalued by school’s middle-class habitus → ridicule → pupil pressured to abandon aspects of working-class identity to succeed → symbolic violence.