While I appreciate that in Chapter 2, MacLeod outlines the theoretical framework that will allow us to better analyze and generalize the experiences of the Hangers and the Brothers, I don't think he does a good job of providing concrete examples. For example, although he explains the points of view of the various theorists, he doesn't use examples to back up their points. I understand that since the rest of the book is mostly empirical the author may find it unnecessary, but I think it would be useful for understanding what he means by, say, cultural capital.
That said, I think we can all draw examples of this concept in our own lives. I'm going to generalize here and say that most Rhodes students come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds (middle- to upper-class) and educational tracks (Gifted, Target, Advanced, or Magnet anyone...?). Even the way we interact with our professors is representative of what Bernstein explains as elaborated linguistic codes. We've been socialized as children to question and to respond to questions posed by authorities rather than just responding to directives. I wonder what the results would look like if a study analyzed who takes the most advantage of office hours...working-class kids or "privileged" kids--I'd take a gander that it would be the latter.
So, it's interesting that MacLeod points out that schools don't cater to working-class students, because even on the most basic level of conversation it is true. What would a school look like that does cater to all socioeconomic groups, I wonder?
No comments:
Post a Comment