Meanwhile, one simple notion I learned from Bernstein that has very
practical implications: strong classification and framing make things
worse. Basil of course would not put it so over-simply, I'm sure, but he
does try to show how strong classification (rigid separation of social
practices by types, one from the other) and strong framing (rigid
context-control of what practices of what types are appropriate under
various circumstances) tend to reproduce the dominant social class's ways
of doing things, seeing things, and staying dominant.
I do not see his articulation of these principles in terms of social class
as in any way different from a cultural view; in fact it has always seemed
to me that what BB describes is the class culture, something not too
different from the class habitus, but like culture, more explicit and
consciously practiced. He describes particularly the class-specific
educational culture, its norms and values regarding pedagogy, but these in
turn are instances of much broader cultural values and norms.
Bernstein's theorizing, not unsurprisingly, has grown more subtle over the
years; I was mainly influenced by his earlier work in the 70s. He perhaps
stated things a bit too baldly in the beginning, and while I think that he
was right in how he characterized the middle- vs. working-class culture
divide on these matters, it was less clear just WHY things worked out this
way, and became I think clear with time that even Bernstein had classified
things a bit too strongly, in the sense that the class difference is not
categorial but more a matter of emphasis, tendency, framing, frequency.
Strong classification says that physics has its own logic and methods and
should be learned as an autonomous discipline, and likewise all the other
modern notions of what the disciplines are. Weak classification says, let's
look at issues and problems and where they lead us, and if people who call
themselves physicists have something relevant to say, let's listen, and our
methods and ways of thinking will evolve within our group and for our
problems and will not be universal methods for anything.
Strong framing says this is a physics problem and so we should use physics
methods to solve it, this is a physics class and in here we just do
physics, let the classification of situations and problems match perfectly
one-to-one with the classification of methods and practices.
The class culture of strong classification and strong framing has
institutionalized itself not only in schools and middle-class families but
in many places in society, and it has made of its claimed superiority a
self-fulfilling prophecy: if you want to solve many of the problems defined
by a SC&F culture, you need SC&F ways of working. On the other hand if you
see basic flaws in the world the SC&F culture has built and built itself
into materially, then you need WC&F alternatives, and these are often to be
found in working-class social institutions and lifeways. Maybe a rich
cultural and material world just needs a better balance of both, or more of
a sliding scale between the two, adjustable at need (but this is itself a
WC&F viewpoint, I think.)
Personally I have little real insight into working-class or 'underclass'
culture. I mainly see things, including Bernstein's work, in terms of
promoting or opposing the dominant tendencies of the dominant class and its
canonical culture.
I would be very interested to hear examples of educational reforms or
radical alternatives that had their origins either in working-class
interpretations of Bernstein, or in working-class dispositions generally.
Too many radical reforms of the kind I like are really middle-class reforms
that resist middle-class culture's extremes in ways that are still
themselves extremely middle-class -- at least as I see them.
JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------