Advertisement

Social Class Stereotypes in Upper-Secondary School

  • Dennis Beach
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is a little different to the two preceding ones, in the sense that although it has been produced within an ethnographic research project, it is not primarily an ethnographic chapter. It is based on reconsidered data and analyses from an article from 2015 called Institutional discrimination: Stereotypes and social reproduction of “class” in the Swedish upper-secondary school by Anna-Carin Jonsson and Dennis Beach that was published in the journal of the Social Psychology of Education. Following up on findings described in an earlier publication it is based on a questionnaire submitted to upper-secondary school pupils and discusses some alarming effects of separating 15–16 year-old school pupils for isolated academic and practical study programmes. It considers specifically the creation of stereotypes by youth on academic programmes regarding themselves and people like them (in-group characteristics) on the one hand, and young people who are enrolees on vocational programmes on the other (out-group characteristics). These are shown to be very discriminatory stereotypes about the self and others that are very negative toward students on vocational, so-called practical programs. Academic programme pupils describe themselves as civilised, aware and cultivated individuals and others as uncivil, uncultivated and irrational beings who need a form of moral surveillance in both their own best interests and the collective (common) interests of the societies they are part of. Like the ruling colonial elite as described in books such as Orwell’s Burmese Days, they see themselves as members of a special group who are the bearers of civilisation, rationality, self-control and autonomy due to their possession of bourgeois cultural and educational capital and the purported absence of cultivation in the other group.

The investigation involved 224 individuals from upper-secondary school academic programmes. It showed how they produced strongly polarised statements about themselves and others with extremely negative potentials in relation to future social solidarity and equity. Two stereotypes were constructed from the statement sets. One was an in-group stereotype describing clean, moral, intellectual and hardworking upper-class individuals who were globally and environmentally conscious, politically aware and responsible. The other was an out-group stereotype that was principally diametrically opposed to this. The out-group stereotype described rough and tough, scary, ignorant and unintelligent anti-intellectual and primitive lower class individuals who gave in too easily to their basic instincts to smoke and drink excessively and party too much instead of studying. The out-group members were also constructed as essentially uninterested in education, and lazy, with this reproducing therefore findings and suggestions in earlier research in the USA, and in post-colonial theorists’ accounts of cultural imposition, colonisation and oppression by imperialist conquerors over what they considered to be a more primitive less than human people.

References

  1. Abraham, J. (1989). Testing Hargreaves’ and Lacey’s Differentiation-Polarisation Theory in a Setted Comprehensive. The British Journal of Sociology, 40(1), 46–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, J. (1994). Positivism, Structurationism and the Differentiation-Polarisation Theory: A Reconsideration of Shilling’s Novelty and Primacy Thesis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(2), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antikainen, A. (2006). In Search of the Nordic Model in Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antikainen, A. (2010). The Capitalist State and Education: The Case of Restructuring the Nordic Model. Current Sociology, 58(4), 530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum (25th Anniversary 3rd ed). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, S. J. (1981). Beachside Comprehensive: A Case-Study of Secondary Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beach, D. (1999). Matematikens politik och ideologi. Nämnaren, 26, 56–60.Google Scholar
  8. Beach, D. (2001). Alienation, Reproduction and Fetish in Swedish Education. In G. Walford (Ed.), Ethnography and Education Policy, Studies in Education Ethnography (Vol. 4, pp. 193–220). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beach, D. (2003). Mathematics Goes to Market. In D. Beach, T. Gordon, & E. Lahelma (Eds.), Democratic Education—Ethnographic Challenges. London: Tufnell Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beach, D. (2017a). Personalisation and the Education Commodity: A Meta-Ethnographic Analysis. Ethnography and Education, 12(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beach, D. (2017b). Whose Justice Is this! Capitalism, Class and Education Justice and Inclusion in the Nordic Countries: Race, Space and Class History. Education Review.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1288609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2007). Education and the Commodity Problem: Ethnographic Investigations of Creativity and Performativity in Swedish Schools. London: Tufnell Press.Google Scholar
  13. Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2009). Making Right Choices: An Ethnographic Investigation of Creativity and Performativity in Four Swedish Schools. Oxford Review of Education, 35(6), 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2011). Twelve Years of Upper-Secondary Education in Sweden: The Beginnings of a Neo-liberal Policy Hegemony. Educational Review, 63(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beach, D., & Puaca, G. (2014). Changing Higher Education by Reform: Education Choices and Student Identities. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beach, D., & Sernhede, S. (2011). From Learning to Labour to Learning for Marginality: School Segregation and Marginalisation in Swedish Suburbs. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(2), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Beach, D., & Sernhede, O. (2012). Learning Processes and Social Mobilization in a Swedish Metropolitan Hip-Hop Collective. Urban Education, 47, 939–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Beach, D., Dovemark, M., Schwartz, A., & Öhrn, E. (2013). Complexities and Contradictions of Educational Inclusion: A Meta-Ethnographic Analysis. Nordic Studies in Education, 33(2), 254–268.Google Scholar
  19. Beach, D., From, T., Johansson, M., & Öhrn, E. (2018). Educational and Spatial Justice in Rural and Urban Areas in Three Nordic Countries: A Meta-Ethnographic Analysis. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Berggren, J. (2013). Engelskaundervisning i gymnasieskolan för mobilisering av ungdomars livschanser [English Teaching in Secondary Schools for the Mobilization of Young People’s Life Chances] (Doctoral Thesis). Växjö, Linnaeus University Press. p. 203.Google Scholar
  21. Bernstein, B. (1960). Language and Social Class. British Journal of Sociology, 11(3), 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control: Volume 1 – Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, Codes and Control: Volume 2 – Applied Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and Control: Volume 3 – Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions (1977, 2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 4: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (1996; 2000, 2nd ed.). London: Rowman & Littlefield PublisherGoogle Scholar
  27. Börjesson, M. (2016). Från Likvärdighet Till Marknad: En Studie av Offentligt och Privat Inflytande över Skolans Styrning i Svensk Utbildningspolitik 1969–1999. Örebro: Örebro Studies in Education 52.Google Scholar
  28. Bouakaz, L. (2007). Parental Involvement in School: What Promotes and What Hinders Parental Involvement in an Urban School (Doctoral Thesis). Malmö: Malmö University Electronic Publishing. http://muep.mau.se/handle/2043/4684
  29. Broady, D., & Börjesson, M. (2008). En social karta över gymnasieskolan, pp. 24–35 i Ulf P Lundgren (red.), Individ - samhälle - lärande. Åtta exempel på utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning, Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 2008:2.Google Scholar
  30. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bunar, N. (2008). The Free Schools Riddle: Between Traditional Social Democratic, Neo-Liberal and Multicultural Tenets. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bunar, N. (2010). Choosing for Quality or Inequality: Current Perspectives on the Implementation of School Choice Policy in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 1–18. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Bunar, N., & Ambrose, A. (2018). Urbam polarisering och marknadens förlorare. In A. Fejes & M. Dahlstedt (Eds.), Skolan, Marknaden och framtiden (pp. 169–186). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  34. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading Families: The Literate Lives of Urban Children. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  36. Dewey, S. (2006). Imperial Designs, Post-Colonial Replications: Class and Power at Cathedral and John Connon School in Bombay. Ethnography and Education, 1(2), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dovemark, M. (2004). Ansvar-flexibilitet-valfrihet. En etnografisk studie (Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences 223). Göteborg: ACTA.Google Scholar
  38. Dovemark, M., & Beach, D. (2015). Academic Work on a Back-Burner: Habituating Students in the Upper-Secondary School Towards Marginality and a Life in the Precariat. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(6), 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dovemark, M., & Beach, D. (2016). From Learning to Labour to Learning for Precarity. Ethnography and Education, 11(2), 174–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2015.1101383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dovemark, M., & Beach, D. (2018). Skolan, marknaden och prekariatet. In A. Fejes & M. Dahlstedt (Eds.), Skolan, Marknaden och framtiden (pp. 187–202). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  41. Erlandson, P., & Beach, D. (2014). Ironising with Intelligence. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(4), 598–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fjellman, A.-M., Yang Hansen, K., & Beach, D. (2018). School Choice and Implications for Equity: The New Political Geography of the Swedish Upper Secondary School Market. Educational Review.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1457009.
  43. Forsberg, H. (2018). Gymnasieval och segregation. In M. Dahlstedt & A. Fejes (Eds.), Skolan, Marknaden och framtiden (pp. 203–226). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  44. Furlong, J. (1985). The Deviant School. Sociological Perspectives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gilbertson, A. (2014). ‘Mugging Up’ Versus ‘Exposure’: International Schools and Social Mobility in Hyderabad, India. Ethnography and Education, 9(2), 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the Problem of Poverty and Schooling: Deconstructing the Class Stereotype that Mis-Shape Education Practice and Policy. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Hargreaves, D. (1967). Social Relations in a Secondary School. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  49. Hillyard, S. (2010). Ethnography’s Capacity to Contribute to the Cumulation of Theory: A Case Study of Differentiation-Polarisation Theory. Oxford Review of Education, 36(6), 767–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jervis, R. (2006). Understanding Beliefs. Political Psychology, 27(5), 641–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johansson, M. (2009). Anpassning och motstånd: En etnografisk studie av gymnasieelevers institutionella identitetsskapande (Göteborg Studies in Educational Science 281) Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  52. Jonsson, A.-C., & Beach, D. (2013). A Problem of Democracy: Stereotypical Notions of Intelligence and Identity in College Preparatory Academic Programmes in the Swedish Upper Secondary School. Nordic Studies in Education, 32, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jonsson, A.-C., & Beach, D. (2015). Institutional Discrimination: Stereotypes and Social Reproduction of “Class” in the Swedish Upper-Secondary School. Social Psychology of Education, 18(4), 703–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jonsson, A.-C., & Beach, D. (2017). The Influence of Subject Disciplinary Studies on Students’ Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Achievement Goals in one Swedish Upper-Secondary School. Education Inquiry, 8(1), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict Between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lacey, C. (1970). Hightown Grammar: The School as a Social. System. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ledman, K., Rosvall, P.-Å., & Nylund, M. (2017). Gendered Distribution of ‘Knowledge Required for Empowerment’ in Swedish Vocational Education Curricula? Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 70(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lgy (2011). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  61. Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Holm, A., & Lundström, U. (2013). Educational Marketization the Swedish Way. Education Inquiry, 4(3), 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Holm, A.-S., & Lundström, U. (2014). Gymnasiet som marknad. Umeå: Boréa.Google Scholar
  63. Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Lundström, U., & Rönnberg, L. (2010). Setting Things Right? Swedish Upper Secondary School Reform in a 40-Year Perspective. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lundberg, O. (2015). On Cultural Racism and School Learning: An Ethnographic Study (Göteborg Studies in Educational Science). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothenburgensis.Google Scholar
  65. Norlund. (2008). Kritisk läsning av sakprosa - didaktiska perspektiv på läroböcker, lärare och nationella prov (Doctoral Thesis). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  66. Norlund. (2011). The Interplay Between Subject Recontextualizers: Social Reproduction Through Critical Reading. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(5), 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nylund, M. (2013). Vocational Education, Class and Knowledge (Acdemic Thesis). Örebro: Örebro University (see also for ch. 2).Google Scholar
  68. Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1999). Social Categorization and Social Context: Is Stereotype Change a Matter of Information or of Meaning? In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity and Social Cognition (pp. 55–79). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Öhrn, E., Lundahl, L., & Beach, D. (Eds.). (2011). Young People’s Influence and Democratic Education. Ethnographic Studies in Upper Secondary Schools. London: Tufnell.Google Scholar
  70. Parker, I. (2007). Revolution in Psychology. Alienation to Emancipation. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  71. Pilhammar, E. (1991). Det är vi som är dom: Sjuksköterskestuderandes föreställningar och perspektiv under utbildningstiden. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  72. Pratto, F., Hegarty, P. J., & Korchmaros, J. D. (2008). How Communication Practices and Category Norms Lead People to Stereotype Particular People and Groups. In Y. Kashima, K. Fiedler, & P. Freytag (Eds.), Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to the Formation, Maintenance, and Transformation of Stereotypes (pp. 293–313). Mahwah: LEA.Google Scholar
  73. Puaca, G. (2013). Educational Choices of the Future. A Sociological Inquiry into Micro-Politics in Education (Academic Thesis). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  74. Reay, D. (2012). What Would a Socially Just Education System Look Like? Saving the Minnows from the Pike. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosvall, P-Å. (2012). … det vore bättre om man kunde vara med och bestämma hur det skulle göras…. En etnografisk studie om elevinflytande i gymnasieskolan. Doktorsavhandlingar i Pedagogiskt arbete, nr 49. Skrifter från Högskolan i Borås, nr 37.Google Scholar
  76. Schwartz, A. (2013). Pedagogik, plats och prestationer: en etnografisk studie om en skola i förorten (Gothenburg studies in educational sciences; 340). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  77. Sharp, R., & Green, A. (1975). Education and Social Control: A Study in Progressive Primary Education. London: RKP.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, L., Allen, A., & Bowen, R. (2010). Expecting the Worst: Exploring Associations Between Poverty and Misbehavior. Journal of Poverty, 14(1), 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Solorzano, D. (1997). Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Racial Stereotyping, and Teacher Education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19.Google Scholar
  80. Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and Prejudice. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  81. Statens Offentliga Utredningar SOU 1981:96. En reformerad gymnasieskola: Betänkandet / av 1976 års gymnasieutredning. Stokholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  82. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU). (1990:44). Demokrati och makt i Sverige: Maktutredningens huvudrapport. Statens offentliga utredningar. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  83. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU). (2017:35). Samling för skolan-Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet (Swedish School Commission Report). Stockholm: Government.Google Scholar
  84. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  85. Trondman, M., Taha, R., & Lund, A. (2012). For Aïsha: On Identity as Potentiality. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 19, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social Categorization and the Self-Concept: Asocial-Cognitive Theory of Group Behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  87. Weis, L., Cippollone, K., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Class Warfare: Class, Race and College Admissions in Top Tier Secondary Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Woddell, G., & Henry, J. (2005). The Advantage of a Focus on Advantage: A Note on Teaching Minority Groups. Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Beach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Education and Special EducationUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations