Resistance and Relative Autonomy Theories: problems of distortion and incoherence in recent Marxist analyses of education

Abstract

Abstract This article takes issue with the claims of Arnot & Whitty in the previous number of this journal, that many recent Marxist analyses of education are theoretically ‘open’ and use evidence to interrogate theory. On the contrary, it is argued, contemporary Marxist sociology of education is characterised by theoretical closure and an absence of empirical rigour. The reason for these shortcomings is to be found in a third factor which Arnot & Whitty mistakenly regard as a virtue of recent Marxist analyses — the optimistic commitment to social transformation. The effect of such commitments on the validity of social scientific explanations, it is suggested, have made themselves fell in two ways: in distorted theories of resistance and transformation, where schools are seen as sites of resistance and struggle as well as places of ideological subjection; and in incoherent theories of relative autonomy which attempt to demonstrate the simultaneous autonomy and dependence of schooling. At the end of the article, it is proposed that theoretical openness and empirical rigour can only be developed within a value‐free analysis of schooling and capitalism, and that this will entail the suspension of political commitments during the course of the analysis. Contrary to the usual Marxist critique of ‘value‐freedom’ it is also argued that such a ‘value‐free’ sociology of education is quite compatible with socialist theory and practice.