Curriculum, Capitalism, And Democracy

7/29/2019 Curriculum, Capitalism, And Democracy

1/10

Curriculum, Capitalism, and Democracy: A Response to Whitty's CriticsAuthor(s): Michael W. AppleReviewed work(s):Source: British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1986), pp. 319-327Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1392821 .

Accessed: 12/03/2013 16:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toBritish Journal

of Sociology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:08:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1392821?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1392821?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/10

BritishJournal of Sociologyof Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1986 319

Curriculum, Capitalism, and Democracy:a response to Whitty'scritics

MICHAEL W. APPLE, Universityof Wisconsin,Madison

I do not make a habit of responding to reviews either of my own work or of thework of others whom I respect, even when the reviewers sometimes get it wrong.Reviewers must do what they do and readers surely understand that reviewersconstruct the meaning of the text they are reading in just the same way as allreaders bring their own positions to bear on the words of the pages they areturning. However, since I take the publication of Geoff Whitty's long awaitedvolume, Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge(1985), as important and since I believethe book itself is a significant intervention into an ongoing debate about thepolitics of policy and practice in education, I want to add an American perspec-tive -but one that I hope will not be limited to the "peculiarities of theAmericans" (Hogan, 1982)-to the comments made by Lacy, Lawton and Sharpin the Review Symposium in Vol. 7, No. 1, 1986. In the process, I shall have tounpack the (sometimes unwarranted) assumptions that underlie some of theircriticisms.In the space of an essay of this size, I cannot deal with all of my agreements anddisagreements with the reviewers' arguments. What I shall do is select those thatseem to me to be the most worthy of comment. Let me begin with some generalobservations about Whitty's recent book that account for my positive evaluationof it.There is no volume currently available that does a better job of reviewing thegrowth, and the conceptual, political, and ideological lacunae, of the new socio-logy of education and of critical work on the curriculum. So clearly has Whittyaccomplished this that I have made the book, especially its first half, requiredreading for all of my graduate students in both curriculum studies and thesociology' of education. The way Whitty accomplished this is no small feat.American readers have grown rather cautious in approaching some British work.Here I shall speak bluntly and honestly. While critical sociologists of education inBritain have made considerable headway conceptually and politically, all too oftentheir investigations have such involved theoreticisms, ones that often cover rather

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

320 M. W.Applecommonsensical points, that many Americans have learned that it takes a gooddeal of time to unpack the simple kernel from the overly 'complexified' covering.Also, some British work has been all too 'trendy', moving from theory to theory aseach new wave of European (usually French) academic work washes up on theshores. Not enough time is taken to refine and use these theories in theinterrogation of actual curricular and teaching policies and practices. Of course,Americans have more than their own share of trendy theorists; but there reallymay be a greater sense of the political importance of unmystified writing on thewestern side of the Atlantic.

One of the reasons Sociologyand SchoolKnowledgewill be welcomed by manypeople in the United States and Canada who are part of, say, the criticalcurricular tradition is Whitty's obvious hard work in making complex political andconceptual issues clear. He has managed to do this without in the main sacrificingtheoretical elegance in the process. Whitty has also attempted-successfully Ibelieve-to apply this political and conceptual apparatus to concrete politics andtendencies involved in evaluation, in the "authoritarian populism" of the conser-vative restoration (Hall, 1980; Shor, 1986; Apple, 1987), and to counter-hege-monic possibilities in education. Finally, he has managed to do this in a way that isunusual for books that are politically involved. That is, while arguing from andfor a leftist position, he has done so in a manner that is open and self-critical.This is critically important. As I have learned from nearly three decades of hardpolitical work and nearly two decades of writing and speaking, such openness andhonesty constitutes one of the most crucial elements in developing a base ofsupport for leftist political positions.Yet such openness is not just important strategically. It is also significanttheoretically, especially for those interested-as Whitty surely is-in the specifici-ties of the economic, political, and cultural/ideological conditions underlyingeducation as a material practice. Let me discuss this in somewhat more detail.In a field where work done under differing theoretical or ideological assump-tions is often dismissed outright, Whitty's openness to other traditions is to beapplauded. His willingness to entertain aspects of the neo-Weberian perspective isrefreshing. Some neo-Marxists may be dismayed by such openness. But since weare not in a church, we should not worry about heresy. Our task is to understandand to act, and if such a process requires us to reconstruct parts of the receivedtradition, so be it. As Erik Olin Wright-surely no Weberian himself-remindsus, to deal with the complexity of real people in real institutions under capitalism,we need both Weberian and Marxist traditions (Wright, 1978, pp. 181-225). Thatis, we need to understand the bureaucratic structure of the State as a politicalform that acts in a dialectical manner with socio/economic and ideologicaldeterminants (Wright, 1978, p. 222). Weber may have been wrong on manycrucially important issues, but he was not a fool. We are in danger of committingthe genetic fallacy (i.e. the political position of a theorist unalterably pollutes allof her or his later work or work that comes out of that tradition, thereby makingit imperative that we reject at every point any of her or his insights), and in theprocess we remain all too insulated from criticism.A paradigm case in point here is the criticism levelled against traditionalMarxist interpretations by feminist authors. Many of their arguments have beendevastating to orthodox Marxist assertions (Barrett, 1980), so much so that manypeople on the left believe that any attempt at understanding our social formation



4/10

A Response o Whitty'sCritics 321that does not combine in an unreductiveway analyses of class and gender togetheris only half a theory at best (Apple & Weis, 1983; Dale, Esland, Fergusson &MacDonald, 1981). The same, of course, needs to be said of race as well (Apple,1987; Omi & Winant, 1987). The rejection of major aspects of the receivedorthodox Marxist tradition and the emerging sensitivity to the truly constitutivenature of gender and race demonstrate not a weakness but the continued growthand vitality of a tradition of critical analysis that is attempting to deal honestly andopenly with the complexity of life under present conditions of domination andexploitation.In this regard, the arguments advanced by Stuart Hall, one of the mostinsightful writers on these issues, are essential.

The task of critical theory is to produce asaccurate a knowledge of complexsocial processes as the complexity of their functioning requires. It is not itstask to console the left by producing simple but satisfying myths,distinguished only by their super-left wing credentials. (If the laws andtendencies of the capitalistmode of production can be stated in a simplifiedform because they are essentially simple and reducible, why on earth didMarxgo on about them for so long-three incompleted volumes, no less?)Most important of all, these differences and complexities have real effects,which ought to enter into any serious calculations about how theirtendencies might be resisted or turned. (Hall, 1981, p. 36)It is just this sense of complexity and real effects that I find refreshing inWhitty. While I would have wanted a greater recognition of non-class dynamics-in particular race and gender-in his analysis, his caution about the tendencytoward economic reductionism that has plagued the left for decades and hisability to withstand the propensity to reject out of hand the insights fromalternative theories mark a maturing of the leftist enterprise I believe. This isreadily seen in other people's work as well, in particular in Bob Connell, whosenon-marxist socialism (Connel, 1983), sensitivity to the real lives of students,teachers, and parents, and non-elitist style have struck a responsive chord withmany individuals. If our analyses are to make a difference, and if they are to havea place in building a larger democratic movement, it is this very openness both incontent and style that is necessary. This, of course, needs to be done in a mannerthat sacrifices neither the emancipatory intent of democratic socialism nor theconscious action against the oppressive conditions experienced by so manyidentifiable groups of people, but it is necessary nevertheless.There is more than a hint in Denis Lawton's otherwise relatively fair review thatWhitty ought to face up to the fact that his sympathetic treatment of the neo-Weberian position must mean a rejection of neo-Marxism. My own position onthis, one developed in discussions with Stuart Hall and one that my discussionswith Geoff Whitty lead me to believe he would accept, is that such a rejection isunwarranted. Unlike the neo-Weberian tradition, neo-Marxist work is organisedaround a set of fundamental positions that I find exceptionally insightful. One isthe utter centrality of capitalism as a massively structuring force which has amajor impact on every other structural relationship and antagonism. A secondcenters around the fact that such work wants to think through the determinationsof social practice. No social practice takes place on an unstructured terrain. WhileI do not believe this alwaysentails a strong sense of determinism, this remains one



5/10

322 M. W.Appleof the profound insights of the Marxist tradition. Thirdly, it is essential tocontinue to think through the problem of class and classes, even as we recognizethe parallel power of gender and race. And fourthly, neo-Marxist work continuesto provide a sense of the social totality, a sense of differences within a totalizingenvironment. Thus, to speak theoretically for a moment, one of its major foci ison the 'overdetermination' of and contradictions among practices in the eco-nomic, political, and cultural spheres. This was something I was at pains todemonstrate in Educationand Power (1982, revised edition 1985) and it is clearlyone of the orienting principles behind Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge.One of the criticisms made of Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge s its lack of anelaborated program. It does not entail a "socialist curriculum". I too believe thatit is crucial that we develop the principles and practices entailed in such acurriculum. In fact, there are few tasks of greater import than establishing what"really useful knowledge" for the majority of the population actually is. Yet thereviewers may have been too harsh here. Unlike other positions, a democraticcurriculum is not a 'received' one. It is not established by a few and thenchanneled downwards so that the only real question left for the majority ofpeople involved is how to implement it. To do so would be to mirror thedominant ways curricula are already too often dealt with today. 'We' shall decidewhat is important to know; 'you' will teach it or learn it (Apple, 1979, 1983,1987).In contradistinction to this, a truly socialist curriculum-one that is democraticin more than a rhetorical sense-must be decided in exactly that way, democrati-cally. Thus, it needs to be built deliberatively, out of the inevitable and timeconsuming conflicts and compromises that a consensual politics at the baserequires (See Hinton, 1966, for an interesting set of possibilities). This means thatwhile it may be helpful to have a broad outline of the political and pedagogicprinciples involved in such a curriculum established by people such as Whittybeforehand, there is a real danger if this is done too specifically. In the absence ofparticipation of all persons involved, there can not be a genuinely socialistcurriculum except in name only.This can be a source of criticism of the kind levelled at Whitty. I prefer,however, to think of it positively. By the very fact that there is a constitutivetension here between preordaining a curriculum (an act that would at least givegroups of people ideas upon which to work) and having it built from the groundup in both its principles and practices (but which may not guarantee 'progressive'content and may be difficult to convince people to do in the absence of somegeneral principles and working models that have already been built), the criticallyoriented educator mustponder the politics of her or his position. There simply isno other choice but to reflect deeply upon this tension. In few other traditions isthis so powerfully the case.This recognition is clear in Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge.For Whitty, the

taskis for politically oriented teachers, labor, critical sociologists of the curriculum,and others to jointly build a program, each one cooperating and teaching theothers. "In any future alliance between radical teachers and the labour move-ment, curriculum issues need to be matters of open discussion and collaborationfrom thestart and sociologists of education could have a significant role to play insuch development" (Whitty, 1985, p. 176).There are other weaknesses implied by the reviewers, one being Whitty's



6/10

A Response o Whitty'sCritics 323alleged failure to deal sufficiently with certain empirical investigations that mightsubstantiate his or the new sociologists' claims. Yet, a close reading of Whitty'schapters reveals that he too is critical of the overall lack of 'empirical' workspecifically employing the critical culturalist traditions that had their roots insome of the tendencies within the new sociology of education. One of his majorpoints is that such work has been done more outside of Britain than inside. In theUnited States in particular the past decade has witnessed a flowering of attemptsat understanding specific curricular histories, policies, and practices by linkingthem not only to internal educational relations but to the race, class, and genderdynamics of the larger social formation (See Apple & Weis, 1983; Christian,1984; Teitelbaum, 1985; Everhart, 1983; Weis, 1985; Valli, 1986; McNeil, 1987).Surely, it is the search for this linkage that is the key.

Lacy would have liked Whitty to include more of the work of, say, Ball,Hammersley, Goodson, and others. Some of this work is very well done indeed. Itcertainly deserves even greater recognition and might profitably have beenmentioned. However, the unique integration of what might be called internalistand externalist analysis-with neither one of these being privileged over the otherand both guided by the analytic categories generated out of a concern for morejust structural relations-that some strands of the new sociology promised isfound somewhat less in this work (though it is not totally absent to be sure) thanin, for example, the more American and Australian studies Whitty points to (see,for instance, Connell, 1982, 1985). No author can include everything andWhitty's selection-given his interest in advancing a position based on sorting outthe complex linkages between 'internal' and 'external'-seems judicious.I want to devote much of my attention in this last section of my response toRachel Sharp's arguments. I shall do this for a number of reasons. First, I havealways found her analyses provocative. She has historically been one of the mostimportant figures in the sociology of education in pushing the field to recognizethe socio/economic context in which not only schooling but the analyses of it aswell operate. In my mind, this requires that she be taken very seriously. Secondly,she writes with obvious political commitment. In a time when so many forcesconspire to transform education into merely a technical enterprise, to purge itshistory of political, economic, and cultural conflict from our collective memory,the importance of such political commitments cannot be denied. Finally, she isclear, an achievement that as I mentioned earlier is more unusual than we mightlike to admit. As I argue in considerably more detail in Teachersand Texts,all toomuch of the current crop of critical literature on education is so obtuse, so filledwith neologisms, that it tends to embody a social relationship between author andreader nearly as elitist as the class elitism being overtly argued against in theliterature itself (Apple, 1987). With Sharp, at least you know where she standsand what her arguments entail. With few exceptions, perhaps most notably GeoffWhitty, this is not as often the case as it should be. With all this said, however, thisdoes not mean that many of her arguments against Whitty's book are correct.Behind Sharp's comments is a particular set of unarticulated assumptions.Among the most significant is the perception that the State has been, is, and canonly be an "arm of capital". Thus, no struggles within it can be efficacious. Nearlyall initiatives that have "transformative potential" have been incorporated by thecapitalist State, "thereby subverting and dissipating their progressive potential"(Review Symposium, 1986, p. 100). Hence, only action outside the State matters.



7/10

324 M. W.AppleSharp's arguments are a bit too close to the orthodox Leninist theory whichheld in essence that the only good bourgeois State is a dead one. Yet, sinceGramsci's time, there has been a gradual but considerable movement away from

this position (Carnoy, 1984, p. 257). Rather than the State being seen as totallycontrolled by capital, it is seen as riven with conflicts and contradictions (Dale,1982; Apple, 1982). It is not simply an arm of capital, but a site of struggle. Inboth capitalist metropoles and in 'industrializing periphery countries' such asBrazil, Mexico, South Korea and elsewhere, the focus has shifted to the accentua-tion of these conflicts over the State and within it and to the building of socialmovements "that aim to control State apparatuses". In short, this shift points outthe importance not only of the economic but the political as well. It emphasizesnot only action in civil society against the State, but political action through andin the State as well (Carnoy, 1984, p. 258).In his thorough review of the recent gains made in our understanding of bothhow the State works and how one collectively builds democratic movements,Martin Carnoy summarizes the major points.Poulantzas in France, Offe in Germany, Ingrao and Bobbio in Italy,O'Connor, Castells, Wolfe, and others in the United States all argue forone form or another of change through capitalist democracy to expandmass power over resources already controlled by the State, and toexpand mass political power itself through the contradictions implicit inthe democratic process. Given the extensive involvement in the economyby the welfare State-even if that involvement is not necessarily in directproduction-this kind of politics makes eminent sense. Since the Statehas become increasingly the primary source of dynamic for the mono-poly-dominated capitalist economies, it is the State rather than pro-duction that should be and will be the principal focus of class conflict.And given the emphasis on expanding democracy, the State necessarilybecomes the arena for that conflict. (Carnoy, 1984, p. 258)

These points may be a bit overstated, but they provide insights that are in directconflict with the more unilinear view held in Sharp. For if the State only 'coopts'democratic initiatives in education and in other spheres of social life, then anyaction for democracy in it is doomed to failure and is merely a sideshow to the'real' struggles outside the State where the 'real' class struggle goes on. While Iam not without some sympathy with this view-since it does remind us that this iscapitalism and the State does depend on capital accumulation for its ownrevenues if for nothing else-it really is too mechanistic. It uses the rhetoric ofclass struggle without acknowledging the previous successes of such struggles onState policy itself. In so doing, rather than providing effective arguments againstWhitty's position on the importance of acting within the State, as one arena ofstruggle, it tends to picture a history in which only capitalists have won victories inthe State. The bulk of the population-women, labor, people of color (thesegroups are obviously not exclusive)-have been duped and have never gainedanything of lasting substance. All is cooptation.Yet a more dynamic perspective on the history of the relationship between theState and class (to say nothing of gender and race) politics allows for a moreaccurate picture. By being the site in which the conflicts between what I haveelsewhere called propertyrights and person rights are worked out, the State has



8/10

A Response o Whitty'sCritics 325progressive as well as retrogressive elements in it. Action on it and in it has servedto mobilize social movements and has had no little degree of success (Apple,1982, 1987; Omi & Winant, 1987; Piven & Cloward, 1982). Once again, Carnoyis helpful in summarizing many of these points.

In the class struggle view, the class State can be moved against capitals'interests by the development of movements inside and outside the Stateto force it to move against its fundamental role as reproducer of classrelations. This position suggests that such political action has alreadybeen successful and can continue to be so. The State is shaped by suchmovements: its functions are expanded and it takes increasing responsi-bility for capital accumulation and social peace. But the State will notreform in a progressive direction without such movements pressing it. Inother words, the capitalist State is inherently class-based and will act inthat way unless pressured by mass organizations. The correct politicalstrategy is to organize at the base, both outside and inside the State,bringing those organizations to bear on society's dominant institutionsto reform them. (Carnoy, 1984, p. 259)

These points have importance in any discussion about the efficacy of educationalaction or any other on the terrain of the State itself since they provide a far moresubtle theory (and provide for a far more dynamic politics than ultra-leftrejectionism) than that hinted at in Rachel Sharp's response.

I do not mean these to be taken as purely academic points. Sharp's criticisms ofWhitty's stance-that action within the State (towards building a more vigorousleft position within the Labour Party, action in the educational apparatus, instruggles over the reform of curricular policy and practice at the local, regional,and national levels, and so on) is not only necessary but can lead somewhere iforganized around and with mass social movements-rests upon a particularposition on the State itself. If this position can be shown to be weak or overly onesided, as I think it is, then it raises distinct questions about the foundations fromwhich such criticisms arise. Of course, it is possible that Whitty may be toooptimistic, that he does under-represent the utter power of capital; but I believehe is actually much closer to the historical record, to the power of real people tocollectively and successfully struggle over the policies of the State than Sharpgives him credit for. Evidence for such successful struggles in both education andthe larger State in the United States is clear (see, for example, Piven & Cloward,1982; Cohen & Rogers, 1983; Hogan, 1985; Wrigley, 1982; Reese, 1986; Omi &Winant, 1987). I cannot but assume that it is possible to find evidence for a moredynamic interpretation in Britain as well. At the least, it should make one pausebefore accepting Sharp's provocative arguments prematurely. The State is contra-dictory. It has been neither the site of all losses nor the agent of total recupera-tion of all initiatives. To hold such a position is to assume that people have notorganized, have not had victories, have only been puppets in the face of theunending machinations of the capitalist State.Once more, we must thank Sharp for doing what she does best-raisingimportant issues, making us stop and think more seriously about the politics ofthe stances the left and educators in general have taken. Yet, in this instance, shemay have overstated her case more than a little. Thus, I think Whitty has groundsenough to substantiate his claims. Certainly, any arguments against them need to



9/10

326 M. W. Applebe grounded both in the emerging and highly insightful literature on the Stateand in the formation of social movements on the terrain of the State by gender,race, and class actors. Absent such arguments, we have good reason to respondpositively to Whitty's analysis, especially since I believe he has taken all thesepoints into consideration and has thought long and hard about their implications.Let me conclude my response by saying that Sociologyand SchoolKnowledgeisnot a perfect book. Such a thing is probably an empirical impossibility in the firstplace. Yet it is a very good one, one that I believe makes a very real contribution.The quality of its arguments, its synthesis of not only British but American andAustralian work, its openness and its clarity, all make it a volume worth reading,discussing, and taking seriously.

Correspondence:rofessor Michael Apple, Department of Curriculum and Instruc-tion, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Teacher Education Building, 225 NorthMills Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA.

REFERENCESAPPLE,M.W. (1979) Ideologyand Curriculum Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).APPLE,M.W. (1982) Educationand Power (Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).APPLE,M.W. (1983) Curriculum in the year 2,000: tensions and possibilities, Phi Delta Kappan,64, pp.321-326.APPLE,M.W. (1987) Teachers nd Texts:a political economy f class and genderrelations n education NewYork, Routledge & Kegan Paul).APPLE,M.W. & WEIS,L. (Eds) (1983) Ideologyand Practice n Schooling (Philadelphia, Temple UniversityPress).CARNOY,M. (1984) The State and Political Theory Princeton, Princeton University Press).CHRISTIAN, . (1984) Becoming a woman through romance, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, University ofWiconsin, Madison.COHEN,. & ROGERS,. (1983) On Democracy New York, Penguin).CONNELL,.W. (1982) Making theDifference Boston, Allen & Unwin).CONNELL,.W. (1983) WhichWayis Up?(Boston, Allen & Unwin).CONNELL,.W. (1985) Teachers'Work Boston, Allen & Unwin).DALE,R. (1982) Education and the capitalist state: contributions and contradictions, in M.W. APPLE(Ed.) Cultural and EconomicReproductionn Education(Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).DALE, R., ESLAND, G., FERGUSON,R. & MACDONALD,M. (Eds) Education and the State, Vol. I: politics,

patriarchy,and practice(Barcombe, Falmer House).EVERHART,. (1983) Reading, Writingand Resistance Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).HALL,S. (1980) Popular democratic vs. authoritarian populism: two ways of taking democracyseriously, in: A. HUNT Ed.) Marxism and Democracy London, Lawrence & Wishart).HALL,S. (1981) The whites of their eyes: racist ideologies and the media, in: G. BRIDGES R. BRUNT(Eds) Silver Linings: somestrategiesor the eighties(London, Lawrence & Wishart).HINTON,W. (1966) Fanshen(New York, Vintage).HOGAN,D. (1982) Education and class formation: the peculiarities of the Americans, in M.W. APPLE(Ed.) Cultural and EconomicReproductionn Education(Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).HOGAN,D. (1985) Class and Reform(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press).McNEIL,L. (1987) Contradictionsof Control(New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul).OMI, M. & WINANT,H. (1987) Racial Formation n the UnitedStates (New York, Routledge & KeganPaul).

PIVEN, F.F. & CLOWARD,R. (1982) The New Class War (New York, Pantheon).REESE,W. (1986) Politics and thePromiseof SchoolReform(New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul).REVIEWYMPOSIUM1986) on Geoff Whitty, Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge,BritishJournal of Sociology

of Education, 7, pp. 88-101.SHOR, . (1986) CultureWars(New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul).



10/10

A Response o Whitty'sCritics 327TEITELBAUM,. (1985) Schooling for good rebels, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin,Madison.VALLI,L. (1986) BecomingClerical Workers New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul).WEIS,L. (1985) Between Two Worlds(Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).WRIGLEY,. (1982) Class Politics and Public Schools(New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press).WHITrY, G. (1985) Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge(London, Methuen).WRIGHT, .O. (1978) Class, Crisis and the State(London, New Left Books).

Documents

Curriculum, Capitalism, And Democracy