From Reductionist Marxism and Revolutionary Socialism to Post-Liberal Democracy and Ambiguity: Some Comments on the Changing Political Philosophy of Bowles and Gintis

Abstract

In this paper I examine the changing political philosophy of two influential thinkers of the Left who have had a profound effect on developments in the sociology of education and important influences on sociology in general. I begin by arguing that in their first major work Schooling in Capitalist America the theoretical orientation of Bowles and Gintis unambiguously is to reductionist Marxism and their political commitment is demonstrably revolutionary Socialism: I then suggest that in 'Contradiction and Reproduction in Educational Theory' their attempts, in the light of comradely critical responses to Schooling in Capitalist America, to distance themselves from a reductionist conceptual position, lead to an improved but weakly formulated theory of sites and practices. I then go on to point out that their latest writing, Democracy and Capitalism, heralds a retreat from Marxism and a new commitment to 'post-Liberal democracy'. This retreat, the seeds of which had been sown in 'Contradiction and Reproduction in Educational Theory', I suggest, is unfortunate. I do not find their current arguments about major changes occurring as a result of the expansion of personal rights very convincing. On the positive side, I argue that the increasing centrality in their analyses of forms of oppression in addition to class is to be welcomed, though racial oppression should still be more central than it is. I conclude by arguing that the main strengths of their latest book, Democracy and Capitalism, lie in its excellent critique of Liberalism. We cannot move forward through the band-aid remedies of liberal educational reform. The people of the United States do not need a doctor for the moribund capitalist order: we need an undertaker. Nor can the political challenge facing us be met through the The British Journal of Sociology [ olume X,\I, Number .S This content downloaded from 157.55.39.116 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:31:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The chainging political philosophy of Bowles and Gintis 453 spontaneous efforts of individuals or groups working in isolation. The development and articulation of the vision of a socialist alternative, as much as the ability to meet today's concrete human needs requires a mass based party able to aid in the daily struggles of working people throughout the United States and committed to a revolutionary transformation of the US economy. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America, concluding paragraph Whether the optimistic scenario of a no doubt tumultuous encroachment by economic democracy on the economic prerogatives and ideological hegemony of capital will come to pass will depend in large measure on the ability of democrats first to understand, and then to effectively pursue, the historic project of the expansion and deepening of democratic personal rights in the face of the tenacious and no less expansionary claims of property. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1986), Democracy and Capitalism, concluding paragraph Robert Moore has argued that 'for the past decade the Marxist sociology of eduction (in the Anglo-Saxon world at least) has been essentially a dialogue with Bowles and Gintis'.l Whether one agrees with him or not, there is certainly no denying the importance of their first joint major work, Schooling in Capitalist AmericaS in influencing thinking in the sociology of education (and to a lesser extent, sociology in general) in recent years. Bowles and Gintis are still widely quoted in introductory texts as epitomising the Marxist approach to the sociology of education. There are two problems with this assertion. First of all, it is more accurate to thus describe Schooling in Capitalist America, rather than its authors, since, as we shall see, Bowles and Gintis have moved on in the ten years or so since the publication of that book, a fact not sufficiently generally acknowledged. Secondly, while it is true that the book is a Marxist text, it does represent, as has been widely recognised, a particular interpretation of Marxism, namely reductionism, a Marxism which overemphasises the extent to which the base determines the superstructure. In this paper, I want to examine the changes in their political philosophy since the publication of Schooling in Capitalist America. This will involve in part an exposition of Bowles and Gintis's attempts to distance themselves from economic determinism; it will entail also an analysis of their ultimate rejection of Marxism in favour of postLiberal democracy. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.116 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:31:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms