Introduction
The use of the terms “social justice” and “equity” are often used by so-called progressive educators, but such references are often vague and, through such vagueness, fail to link up to the class nature of contemporary society–in particular the class power of employers and the exploitation and oppression of workers by that class.
Equity and Social Justice in Schools: The Theory and Practice of Principals in Schools
Social justice and equity are concepts that have become fairly common in school circles these days. For example, in 2016 a report was published, Towards Equity in Education. This report was a project of “The Social Planning Council of Winnipeg in partnership with: Manitoba Association of School Superintendents,, Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning, Manitoba School Boards Association, and the Manitoba Teachers Society.
In that report, it is claimed that there are 21 current equity practices used within various school divisions. These equity practices are grouped into five categories: Board practices (11); Parents and Community Practices (2); Educator Focused Practices (1); Teaching and Learning Practices (3); and Student Focused Practices (4). With so many practices across various areas, surely social justice and equity issues are being addressed adequately. So you would think. But buzz words and reality, though, often diverge.
Principals, for example, often do not engage seriously with the nature of equity and social justice issues. An article by Laura Pinto, John Portelli, Cindy Rottmann, Karen Pashby, Sarah Barrett, and Donatille Mujuwamariya, entitled Social Justice: The Missing Link in School Administrators’ Perspectives on Teacher Induction, (2012) questions the extent to which principals in schools, as the front-line administrators, take equity and social-justice issues seriously. The authors interviewed 41 principals in Ontario. They found that less than 20 percent of administrators took into account the complexities of social justice and equity. Most principals considered social justice and equity issues in a superficial manner, excluding systemic issues of racism, sexism and classism.
Consider how these principals relate to newly hired teachers. Most of them expect teachers to transmit knowledge of the current social structure without questioning the systemic problems inherent in such structures (Pinto, etc., pages 13-14):
This transmission model of induction in Ontario (Barrett et al., 2009) emphasizes
shepherding new hires through the transition from student to teacher in a way that promotes conformity to the existing culture of schooling (see, for example, Feinman-Nemser, 2001; Cho et al., 2009). An emphasis on student success is understood as achieved through relational and individual action rather than including action aimed at addressing systemic inequities and social justice. The systemic context in which the teacher and students work is largely unexamined and left as given and unchangeable. Thus, this model is reproductive, since it reinforces existing values, behaviours and structures. Societal inequities that enter the classroom with the students, such as racism, sexism and classism, are dealt with on an individual basis for the sake of individual achievement and smooth classroom processes. The new teacher is not encouraged to question the role of outside institutions or schooling itself in such societal ills but rather, at best, to simply monitor his or her own biases (Henry & Tator, 1994). As a consequence, teachers working in these settings (and particularly new, vulnerable teachers) may feel pressured to focus
on classroom management and transmission models of education since those are the ones prioritized in TPA evaluation criteria articulated in the competencies identified (see also Cho et al., 2009; Barrett et al., 2009).
Issues of equity and social justice are sifted administratively by pressuring new hires to conform to the curriculum and to providing a very one-sided and hence limited view of issues associated with social justice and equity. When, for example, do teachers (even permanent teachers) address the power of employers as a class to dictate to workers and the impact that power on peoples’ lives? Or when do they address the fact that there is a market for workers and the impact that market has on peoples’ lives? Or when do they address the fact that workers, once they become hired, are expected to subordinate their wills to the will of the employer? What impact does that have on their lives? What psychological damage does it produce, for example, as workers navigate their split experiences of making independent decisions outside work and making restricted decisions (or no decisions) at work?
The Vagueness of the Terms “Equity” and “Social Justice” by So-Called Progressive Educators: Microchanges Possible that Ignore the Need to Address Macrochanges in Order to Really Subvert the Class Powe of Employers
Unfortunately, even apparently progressive authors are vague about what they mean about social justice and equity–especially in the context of a society dominated by a class of employers and their associated economic, social and political structures. For instance, John Portelli, one of the above authors, along with Ardavan Eizadirad, have this to say about equity and social justice (Subversion in Education: Common Misunderstandings and Myths, International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, Volume 9, Numeber 1, 2018, pages 54-55):
In this paper, we are expanding on this conceptualization of subversion and making the argument that subversion is a necessary tool for survival and opening up of new possibilities in the context of the 21st century where neoliberalism and its extreme market-driven ideologies and institutional practices and power relations permeate and impact all social settings, public and private, ranging from everyday interactions and decision-making to institutionalized laws, policies, and practices.
Subversion is subtle mechanism(s) of resisting abusive forms of power that create and/or maintain oppression. Subversion is a form of resistance, yet not all acts of resistance are identical to acts of subversion. The objective of subversion is to stand up to injustice and inequitable practices as a means of rupturing the status quo, in the process preventing and/or reducing harm to self, others, and members of the community, and harnessing hope for change and opening up of new possibilities. At the core of subversion is an understanding that everyday decisions and actions have consequences far beyond the surface level and that they impact others in numerous ways. Brickell (2005) states, “In the everyday settings of our lives, we act against and in concert with others in ways that express support, cooperation, violence, or appropriation. Whether instituted individually or collectively, these actions legitimate, bolster, contest, resist, and/ or leave unaltered the power inherent in social structures” (p. 37).
However, subversion is different from explicit resistance since it is carried out in a less explicit manner.
Although there are circumstances where we indeed should not openly expose ourselves to retaliation from exploitative and oppressive powers, we should also be willing to engage in open defiance of such exploitation and oppression. There are objective conditions for overthrowing the power of employers as a class, and subtle means should not be dogmatically be considered to be the primary or only method for doing so.
Indeed, the idea that subtle means of engaging in equity and social justice practices can easily slide into the view that ‘one is doing one’s part’ by merely engaging at the micro level with issues of classism, sexism and racism: I contribute what I can–and that is sufficient. There is no need to risk one’s own life in order to realize equity and social justice. If that is indeed the case, then equity and social justice are superficial indeed.
Vague References to Class–Probably Limited to Level of Income and Not to the Class Situation of Workers and Employers
It is also unclear what Portelli and other critical pedagogues mean by classism. It is a term that he seems to use to refer to level of income–a category of distribution of products and services (the results of the production process) rather than a category related to production. Although the use of class in relation to distribution can serve useful purposes (in relation to relative control over our lives outside work, but within the confines of having to purchase what is offered on the largely capitalist market), the concept of class in relation to production and its control or lack of control seems to play little role in his critical analysis. Thus, Portelli, Carolyn Shields and Anne Vibert state the following (Toward an Equitable Education: Poverty, Diversity, and Students at Risk: The National Report, 2007, page 2):
Maynes (1999) states that as the middle class declines in number (60% of the population in 1973 and 44% in 1996), an increasingly large proportion of children may be considered “at-risk.” Recent claims are that 20% of American children are living in poverty, while in Canada the numbers have been cited as high as 25% for urban centres and 19.9% nationally (Ross, Scott & Smith, 2000; Maynes, 1999).
Portelli and Vibert (2010) further write, in another article, “A Curriculum of Life,” Education Canada, volume 42, number 2, page 36):
Emily Carr Elementary, a school of approximately 350 students, is located in a suburban mixed working class and middle class community.
Although it is hardly clear what Portelli and Vivert mean by class, it is probable that they mean some version of the level of income.
Such a conclusion gains credence when we read part of a specific section in the above report by Portelli, Shields and Vibert. From pages 38-39:
DAILY EFFECTS OF SOCIAL CLASS
Perhaps the central challenge for schools serving high poverty communities is located in the class structure of schooling itself. The processes, policies, practices and structures on which schooling is based are pervasively white middle and professional class. Notions like school readiness, early and emergent literacies, meritocracy, background knowledge, and previous experience are all based in unexamined assumptions that universalize white middle class habitus (Connell, 1994; Dei, 2002; Finn, 1999). This habit of thought presents daily challenges for students, community members, and teachers working in diverse and high poverty sites.
Students who come from high poverty communities don’t necessarily bring the automatic
advantages of knowing their basic material needs are met. It is not equitable, for instance, to assume that all kids have access to the kinds of sneakers, jackets, skates, scribblers and
equipment required to participate fully in schooling. It is not fair to assume that all kids have access to the kinds of nutrition, recreation, and leisure activities that underpin what is so thoughtlessly called “school readiness.” It is not fair to assume that all kids have access to the particular pre-school literacies and discourses on which school knowledge is grounded. And more and more in these days of school fund-raising to provide educational necessities, it is not fair to assume that all communities have equal access to
disposable income.
This focus on distribution and level of income to define class with little reference to class relations at work and calls for equity and social justice generally reflect a social-democratic and reformist political position. It is wholly inadequate to deal with the issue of class as defined in relation to work relations.
This is important politically. Most social democrats rely predominantly on income level to differentiate the poor from the non-poor.
Using levels of income or socio-economic status (SES) to define class implies that everyone can become middle class in a capitalist economy. Thus, if only everyone could achieve a level of income above the poverty line, then there would be no “poor” or working class. Class mobility is conceived to be very high, and social reforms are supported to enable workers and their children to “climb into the middle-class.”
Using levels of income (SES) to define class may be useful in some circumstances (for example, in deciding the likelihood of support for certain socialist policies related to housing), the use of levels of income is a social-democratic method of excluding most people from the working class.
The Use of the Level of Income as a Criterion of Class Taken to the Extreme to Determine Middle-Class Status
The absurdity of classifying people as middle class on the basis of income can be seen from one article on distribution of income in some so-called Third World countries. This article refers to earning $2-$4 a day (presumably in American dollars) as the lower end of the middle class in Guatemala and $6-$10 a day to be the upper end in Guatemala. They justify such a classification in the following manner. From Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, “What is Middle Class about the Middle Classes around the World?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 22, Number 2—Spring 2008, page 5:
In what sense should people living on between $2 and $10 per day be called “middle class”? These households are still very poor by developed country standards; the poverty line in the United States in 2006 for someone who lives in a family of five, for example, was $24,385, which when divided by five people in the family and 365 days in a year, works out to be about $13 per day.
On the other hand, the middle class in these countries are clearly much better off than the poor, who live on less than $1 or $2 a day.
This definition of middle class is purely in terms of relative level of income and takes no account of how this so-called middle class obtains its money. It is a definition based on a “standard of living” concept–a consumerist concept.
Consider the situation of my wife. She was born in Guatemala and earned around 2,800 Quetzales a month–around $373 US a month, or $12,44 US a day. How can anyone call her a member of the middle class? Her last job in Guatemala was a salesclerk in Guatemala City. Before that, she was a receptionist (earning about the same amount), but the company downsized and consolidated positions, throwing her out of work. She was unemployed for several months afterwards, with no income. In all her jobs, she had a boss who evaluated her performance and ultimately controlled her work and indeed whether she would work at all (power to fire). This is the situation of a member of the working class.
Marxian Definition of Class
Compare this approach with a Marxian approach to the definition of poverty. From Geoffrey Kay, The Economic Theory of the Working Class. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1979, pages 2-3:
The absolute poverty of the working class is visibly present in the conditions of work where everything the worker touches belongs to another. The means of production he uses, that is, the machines, buildings, materials, etc. all belong to the employer, who also owns the output. The only thing the worker owns is his capacity to work, and his economic welfare depends upon his being able to sell this at the best possible price. In the course of this [the twentieth) century, particularly during the period of the post-war boom, this price measured in terms of the commodities it can purchase, the real wage, has risen to unprecedented heights, at least in the advanced industrial countries of the west.
As a result of this and the maintenance of full or near full employment backed up by social welfare, the working class has enjoyed greater prosperity and security than at any time in history. In these circumstances it appears strange to talk of absolute poverty, and the old socialist claim that the working class has nothing to lose but its chains seems and archaic relic of the past when the working class did indeed live in dire poverty. Yet the fact remains that the working class today has no greater economic autonomy than its forbears a hundred years ago.
Consider the situation of a contemporary worker who loses his job. This has happened to several million workers in the industrialized world since the long boom faltered in 1973 not counting the other millions of young people who have never found jobs at all. Many of the workers who have recently suffered unemployment for the first time, earned wages that allowed them to enjoy all the trappings of ‘affluency’—decent housing, cars, television, refrigerators and so on. But the loss of the job puts the standard of living immediately in jeopardy, particularly if unemployment lasts for anything more than a few weeks. In the unlikely event of a working class family having a large private income, its initial response to unemployment is to cut back spending on marginal items, and attempt to maintain its lifestyle intact in the hope that new work will be found shortly. As the period of unemployment lengthens, it begins to eat into savings, but this does not hold out much hope.
Working class savings are notoriously low, and often take the form of insurance policies that can only be cashed in at a considerable loss. If the family decides to sell of its consumer durables, apart from reducing its standard of living immediately, it will invariably make further losses as second-hand prices are always far below prices for new articles. Moreover, many working class purchases are financial by hire purchase where the interest element makes the actual price higher than the market price, and the family that sells off relatively new times bought in this way often finds that, far from releasing cash, it lands itself in further debt. Working class affluence is entirely dependent upon wages: remove these—i.e., unemployment—and the absolute poverty of its social situation shows through very quickly. In the nineteenth century unemployment meant immediate destitution; the modern worker is clearly much better off than his forbears—for him and his family poverty is a few weeks, maybe even a few months away.
In the Marxian definition of class, classes are mainly defined in an antagonistic fashion: one class emerges at the expense of another class through control over the conditions of work. The level of income comes into play in determining classes in relation to the extent to which the level permits one to be in one of the two major classes.
One class gains what the other class loses, and the class that loses often tries to regain what it has lost, so there is a class struggle that only ends when either the two classes mutually ruin each other, or the lower class defeats the ruling class and creates a new form of society (with or without classes).
In the context of modern society, it is not the level of income but the fact that most workers have to work for an employer that characterizes class relations. Portelli, Shields and Vibert, by defining class in terms of levels of income, fail to develop an analysis that looks toward the relationship of exploitation and oppression of employees by employers (and, by implication, the overcoming of that relation) ; indeed, their definition of class according to levels of income actually hides the real class relations by excluding a concept of class that involves the exploitation of one class by another.
Even apart from the issue of exploitation, there is the additional issue of treating workers as things to be used by others. In a capitalist society, class power relations are linked to control over things–human beings are controlled through control over things that have social power (such as money, but also machines, buildings and so forth). Things gain human-like power, and human beings become thing-like (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Portelli, Shields and Vibert’s use of level of income as the basis for defining class not only fails to capture the need for class exploitation but also fails to capture the need for treating human beings as things and the need for things to gain human-like powers (what can be called commodity fetishism, money fetishism–treating things such as beer, money and means of production as possessing inherent social powers independently of human beings).
Given the inhernt and extensive exploitation and oppression of workers in a society dominated by the class power of employers, the solution cannot be to try to shift everyone to a fictional middle class (who would work for employers in that case?) but for workers to aim at abolitioning the class power of employers. Social justice and equity demands nothing less.
The Middle Class Between the Class of Employers and the Working Class
It is true that there are members of a middle class in modern society, but they should be seen as related to the two other antagonistic classes.My sister-in-law’s husband is a doctor in Guatemala and has his own practice. He sets his own hours, fees and so forth. His work life is much more independent than was the work life of my wife. He can be considered part of the Guatemalan middle class.
Thus, just like my brother-in-law, doctors can usually be considered part of the middle class, but not just because of the level of income but because they control their own work, on the one hand, and they lack control over many workers lives on the other. Supervisors and lower-level managers could also be considered part of the middle class in that part of their function is to control the work of workers while, on the other hand, they themselves are hired workers who depend on a wage or salary to live. Superintendents undoubtedly can be considered part of the middle class.
Principals may also be considered part of the middle class, but approach perhaps more closely to the position of the working class since they are further down in the dictatorial hierarchy. On the other hand, the extent to which principals function as oppressors of members of the working class also needs to be taken into account. On a practical level, whether a principal is a member of the working class or the middle class would have to be determined organizationally–whether in fact they oppose the working class or support them.
Conclusion
Many who speak of social justice and equity in the field of education implicitly use the level of income to define classes–which may or may not have to do with exploitation and the antagonism of classes. More often than not, such a definition has little to do with characterizing classes in terms of exploitation and oppression. The Marxian definition of class (and hence its corresponding concepts of social justice and equity) as necessarily involving exploitation and oppression, by contrast, involves an antagonistic view of classes, with one class existing at the expense of the other class. Middle-classes may of course exist, but they are defined in relation to the two major classes–workers and employers.
The importance of the difference between the definition of classes in terms of level of income and being exploited and oppressed is that the definition in terms of income need not involve anatagonistic class interests–the class harmony point of view. By contrast, the definition of class in terms of exploitation and oppression involves the antagonism of classes and a necessary struggle between them. In addition, the definition in terms of income greatly exaggerates class mobility and generally supports a politics of social reform so that more workers can attain a so-called “middle-class” status. By contrast, the definition of class in terms of exploitation and oppression considers class mobility to be possible but unlike for most of the working class; such a view supports a radical politics of overcoming the class structure through the abolition of classes spearheaded by the working class.
The Abolitionary 