Education – HL (Notes PG 33/34)
Pupils’ Class Identities and the School
‘Nike Identities’ – Archer (2010)
Within School
Due to symbolic violence (the manner In which they are looked down upon socially and in school
because of their ‘symbolic capital’ i.e. appearances/accents are deemed worthless), it can be argued
that working-class pupils sought different ways to create self-worth and status – by investing heavily
in different branded clothing, such as ‘Nike’.
They saw not conforming to these style trends was almost ‘social suicide’ and the right appearance
would earn symbolic capital and status within the working-class. However, this directly contrasted
with school rules and the teacher’s opinions many labelling the students negatively as such – as
‘rebels.
Archer (2010) further asserts that the middle-class habitus within schools stigmatises these identities
of the working-class and the prospect of ‘Nike Identities’ is one of a battle for recognition with the
school and the middle-class habitus to garner self-worth.
Rejection of Higher Education
They saw higher education as both unrealistic and undesirable:
Unrealistic – not for ‘people like us’, for more academic and richer individuals. They viewed it as
unaffordable (risky investment), unattainable and they would not fit in.
Undesirable – Not aligned with their preferred habitus (i.e. could not afford branded ‘styles’ under
loans/student life which would mean a loss of identity).
Archer argues that their investment in Nike identities due to the educational marginalisation by the
school. Working-class pupils as a result may choose self-elimination from education – they ‘get the
message’ that education is not for the likes of them – and as it does not fit in with their identity/way
of life.
Working Class Identity and Educational Success
However, some children from working-class do succeed – relationship between educational success
and working class identity.
Ingram (2009) studied two groups of working-class Catholic boys from the same highly deprived
region in Belfast – with one passing their 11plus (in a grammar school) and the others to a local
secondary school) – the grammar school had a predominant middle-class habitus of high
expectations and academic achievement whilst the secondary schools habitus primarily consisted of
low expectations of its underachieving pupils. She found that belonging to a working-class locality
was seemingly inseparable from the working-class identity – with the networks of family and friends
paying a key role in their habitus – leading to the branded clothing identity.
However, she argues that the working-class communities place great emphasis on conformity, which
can, especially for the grammar school boys creates conflict and tension between the habitus of the
, schools (which primarily seek middle-class habitus). And choosing to wear and support these
working-class identities (such as tracksuits) they are viewed as unworthy at school.
School view the working-class habitus as ‘worthless’ and it has to be dropped if the students want to
succeed, Maguire (1997) furthered this and argued that ‘the working class cultural capital of my
childhood counted for nothing in this new setting’.
Class Identity and Self-Exclusion
Working-class pupils are increasingly represented within higher education – despite class
inequalities, however, the clash between the working-class identity and habitus of higher-education
persists providing still, a barrier to success.
Evans (2009) studied a group of 21 working-class girls from a South-London comprehensive, studying
for their a-levels and found that they were reluctant to apply for elite universities (i.e. Oxbridge) –
and those whom did felt a sense of hidden barriers if they got in. Evans further found that the girls
had a strong attachment to their locality – very few opted to move away from home to study.
Bourdieu (1984) asserted that many working-class people think of places like ‘Oxbridge’ for not
being suitable for the ‘likes of us’, as they did not think it suited their habitus and they would not ‘fit
in’.
These sociologists assert that the belief becomes ingrained into their identity and leads to self-
exclusion from these elite universities. Raey (2005) argues that self-exclusion from elite or distant
universities narrows the options of many working-class pupils and limits their success.
These studies show a consistent pattern of a predominant middle-class educational system that
devalues the experiences and habitus of the working-class pupils, labelling it as ‘worthless’ and
‘unvaluable’ – therefore working-class pupils are often forced to choose between maintaining their
working-class identities or abandoning them and conforming to the middle-class habitus of
education in order to succeed.
The Relationship between Internal and External Factors
Internal and External Factors are interrelated:
- Working-class pupils habitus and identities formed outside of school may create conflict
within the school’s middle-class habitus, resulting in symbolic violence and pupils feeling
that education is not for the likes of them
- Working-class pupils using the restricting speech code (an external cultural factor) may be
labelled by teachers as less able – leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy (internal factor)
- Dunne and Gazeley show that the teacher’s belief about students’ home/external
backgrounds produce underachievement through labelling and setting.
- Poverty (external) may lead to stigmatisation and bullying within schools – leading to
truancy/underachievement (internal).
- Wider external factors can affect the processes within the school, such as streaming,
Gillborn and Youdell argue that the A*-C economy (through league tables) allocates funding
and can lead to closure due to ‘failing’. They argue that this is (the use of League tables and
national educational processes) external factors, which can lead to labelling and streaming
within schools (internal)
Pupils’ Class Identities and the School
‘Nike Identities’ – Archer (2010)
Within School
Due to symbolic violence (the manner In which they are looked down upon socially and in school
because of their ‘symbolic capital’ i.e. appearances/accents are deemed worthless), it can be argued
that working-class pupils sought different ways to create self-worth and status – by investing heavily
in different branded clothing, such as ‘Nike’.
They saw not conforming to these style trends was almost ‘social suicide’ and the right appearance
would earn symbolic capital and status within the working-class. However, this directly contrasted
with school rules and the teacher’s opinions many labelling the students negatively as such – as
‘rebels.
Archer (2010) further asserts that the middle-class habitus within schools stigmatises these identities
of the working-class and the prospect of ‘Nike Identities’ is one of a battle for recognition with the
school and the middle-class habitus to garner self-worth.
Rejection of Higher Education
They saw higher education as both unrealistic and undesirable:
Unrealistic – not for ‘people like us’, for more academic and richer individuals. They viewed it as
unaffordable (risky investment), unattainable and they would not fit in.
Undesirable – Not aligned with their preferred habitus (i.e. could not afford branded ‘styles’ under
loans/student life which would mean a loss of identity).
Archer argues that their investment in Nike identities due to the educational marginalisation by the
school. Working-class pupils as a result may choose self-elimination from education – they ‘get the
message’ that education is not for the likes of them – and as it does not fit in with their identity/way
of life.
Working Class Identity and Educational Success
However, some children from working-class do succeed – relationship between educational success
and working class identity.
Ingram (2009) studied two groups of working-class Catholic boys from the same highly deprived
region in Belfast – with one passing their 11plus (in a grammar school) and the others to a local
secondary school) – the grammar school had a predominant middle-class habitus of high
expectations and academic achievement whilst the secondary schools habitus primarily consisted of
low expectations of its underachieving pupils. She found that belonging to a working-class locality
was seemingly inseparable from the working-class identity – with the networks of family and friends
paying a key role in their habitus – leading to the branded clothing identity.
However, she argues that the working-class communities place great emphasis on conformity, which
can, especially for the grammar school boys creates conflict and tension between the habitus of the
, schools (which primarily seek middle-class habitus). And choosing to wear and support these
working-class identities (such as tracksuits) they are viewed as unworthy at school.
School view the working-class habitus as ‘worthless’ and it has to be dropped if the students want to
succeed, Maguire (1997) furthered this and argued that ‘the working class cultural capital of my
childhood counted for nothing in this new setting’.
Class Identity and Self-Exclusion
Working-class pupils are increasingly represented within higher education – despite class
inequalities, however, the clash between the working-class identity and habitus of higher-education
persists providing still, a barrier to success.
Evans (2009) studied a group of 21 working-class girls from a South-London comprehensive, studying
for their a-levels and found that they were reluctant to apply for elite universities (i.e. Oxbridge) –
and those whom did felt a sense of hidden barriers if they got in. Evans further found that the girls
had a strong attachment to their locality – very few opted to move away from home to study.
Bourdieu (1984) asserted that many working-class people think of places like ‘Oxbridge’ for not
being suitable for the ‘likes of us’, as they did not think it suited their habitus and they would not ‘fit
in’.
These sociologists assert that the belief becomes ingrained into their identity and leads to self-
exclusion from these elite universities. Raey (2005) argues that self-exclusion from elite or distant
universities narrows the options of many working-class pupils and limits their success.
These studies show a consistent pattern of a predominant middle-class educational system that
devalues the experiences and habitus of the working-class pupils, labelling it as ‘worthless’ and
‘unvaluable’ – therefore working-class pupils are often forced to choose between maintaining their
working-class identities or abandoning them and conforming to the middle-class habitus of
education in order to succeed.
The Relationship between Internal and External Factors
Internal and External Factors are interrelated:
- Working-class pupils habitus and identities formed outside of school may create conflict
within the school’s middle-class habitus, resulting in symbolic violence and pupils feeling
that education is not for the likes of them
- Working-class pupils using the restricting speech code (an external cultural factor) may be
labelled by teachers as less able – leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy (internal factor)
- Dunne and Gazeley show that the teacher’s belief about students’ home/external
backgrounds produce underachievement through labelling and setting.
- Poverty (external) may lead to stigmatisation and bullying within schools – leading to
truancy/underachievement (internal).
- Wider external factors can affect the processes within the school, such as streaming,
Gillborn and Youdell argue that the A*-C economy (through league tables) allocates funding
and can lead to closure due to ‘failing’. They argue that this is (the use of League tables and
national educational processes) external factors, which can lead to labelling and streaming
within schools (internal)
