Aren't Students divorced from class relations?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I was thinking about this question, and how traditional analysis is that students whose parents are proletariat; are proletariat. Students whose parents are petty bourgeoisie, are petty bourgeoisie. But aren't they all actually divorced from class relations because no strata has a job that pays for their living and because they'll be distributed into various social layers upon graduation?

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:32 am
I was thinking about this question, and how traditional analysis is that students whose parents are proletariat; are proletariat. Students whose parents are petty bourgeoisie, are petty bourgeoisie. But aren't they all actually divorced from class relations because no strata has a job that pays for their living and because they'll be distributed into various social layers upon graduation?
Not really.

Psychologically speaking the bourgeois kids will hang out with their own while the proletariat kids tag along with their own cliches.

Schools are not seperated from the class system.

[Rawthentic]

Not at all, they grow up and are nurtured in that very environment, whether it be bourgeois or proletarian, and this shapes their outlook. This isn't really a serious question, so no students are not "divorced" from class relations.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

hmmm... well on the contrary, in my experience there is a blend in that. There are rich white kids who dress "ghetto" hanging out with working class black kids, and shit like that. While there is of course class tension but what I mean by divorced from class relations is that students aren't intwined in class relation. Students don't work to provide housing forthemselves and shit like that no matter what class their in.

[KC]

I think it goes both ways depending on the different circumstances, but I would say that on the whole students' classes are based on their parents'.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

also i think that may explain why alot of petty bourgeois students were active in the 60s turmoil.

[Rawthentic]

Um...how?

[KC]

also i think that may explain why alot of petty bourgeois students were active in the 60s turmoil.


I don't really think it really explains that. There were many different conditions that went into that.

[which doctor]

One must also analyze to what extent the school acts as a workplace where the students are the workers.

[Mujer Libre]

Also the changing situation in which students increasingly have to work (in addition to full time study) to support themselves. i.e. neoliberalism and the breakdown of the welfare state.

Of course that also has the effect of forcing working class students out of later years of high school and university because they don't have parents who can support them all the way through, making schools and universities more and more ruling class.

I think issues like that prove that students and educational institutions are definitely not divorced from class, but are one arena where class-based issues and conflicts are played out.

[Hiero]

What proof is that students from lower income families have reduced their representation as HSC and Uni students?

This may be the case in the USA, but in Australia what I have seen is the opposite.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:13 am
hmmm... well on the contrary, in my experience there is a blend in that. There are rich white kids who dress "ghetto" hanging out with working class black kids, and shit like that. While there is of course class tension but what I mean by divorced from class relations is that students aren't intwined in class relation. Students don't work to provide housing forthemselves and shit like that no matter what class their in.
thats not really true.. it's too much of a generalization to assume people don't work and go to school etc.

[chebol]

Although I would dearly love to disagree with Hiero, this (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/school-leavers-shun-trades-for-university-report/2007/06/17/1182018938169.html) backs him up, for Australia at least.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

of course people work to go to school what I mean is that in the case of K-12 students, they very, very rarely work as a means of paying for their own food, textbooks, housing, entertainment devices, plumbing, and electricity AKA they don't support themselves or if they do, its partial. And Since its one institution for all classes they have more of a chance to blend as I point out unlike in real life where the bourgeois sit in some fancy office while the workers work in the factory below. What FoB points out I think is interesting to because it would explain the reason for the radicalization of the normally petty bourgeois students at times like the 1960s as well as even today with Iraq and all.

[bolshevik butcher]

I would say that students are of the same social class generally as their parents are and are products of the same environment and social conditions as they were, and share the same place in society as a result.

It's true that petty bourgoirse students took a radical turn during hte 1960s, perhaps this was though them addapting to the mood of the times? During periods of revolution the petty bourgoirse often sdies with the proletarians.

On top of this, I think it's worth remembering there is in most countries anyway an educaiton system for the working class and one for the bourgoirse. State and private education.

[luxemburg89]

I am forever trying to understand what class those people from middle-class background, like Lenin for example, would belong too. I mean he led the revolution but was not a proletarian - but he could hardly be called petit-bourgeois or especially not bourgeois. I suppose he was working tirelessly for the benefit of the working-classes, the revolutionary class, does that mean he joins them?

[Janus]

I suppose he was working tirelessly for the benefit of the working-classes, the revolutionary class, does that mean he joins them?
Working for a party isn't the same thing as being an actual worker. Lenin, Trotsky, and some of the other Bolshevik leaders didn't have a direct relationship to the means of production, they received their income through donations and their writing/editing.

How did Lenin, Trotsky,etc. support themselves? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53742)

[Janus]

Students are not a class to themselves, rather they are a social group and as such are quite varied in their backgrounds. Since some of them do not necessarily work during this period though the majority of those from a working class background usually do, much categorization is done based on their class background/who they are financially supported by.

Students? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51145)

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:31 am
What proof is that students from lower income families have reduced their representation as HSC and Uni students?

This may be the case in the USA, but in Australia what I have seen is the opposite.
I was thinking more in terms of the future, since the higher education changes haven't fully come into force, but they will in the next few years and they are definitely going to make things harder for working class students. (Like the reduction in HECS places, more degrees becoming postgrad etc.) Regarding high school I imagine the changes will be/are more subtle, but it's clear that the government's policies are promoting class divisions, with the funding of private over public schools etc.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:21 pm
Although I would dearly love to disagree with Hiero, this (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/school-leavers-shun-trades-for-university-report/2007/06/17/1182018938169.html) backs him up, for Australia at least.
Why would you "dearly love to dissagree" with me? I was just repeating what sociology class at uni state. They are usually correct in their statistics and numbers, though usually very liberal and anti-marxist in the conclusion they draw from them.


I was thinking more in terms of the future, since the higher education changes haven't fully come into force, but they will in the next few years and they are definitely going to make things harder for working class students. (Like the reduction in HECS places, more degrees becoming postgrad etc.) Regarding high school I imagine the changes will be/are more subtle, but it's clear that the government's policies are promoting class divisions, with the funding of private over public schools etc

I think the government is setting up education for a sterile society in Australia. They want more university students in technology/engineering and science course and downgrading humanities. Every semester a lecturer will have a rant how the government is harming their school. At QUT (Queensland Univeristy of Technology) this will be the last year they will accept new students for humanities. The will gradually shut it down as their students graduate.

This is going to harm the average Australian citizens pursuit in humanities outside of official education structure. I don't really want to live in a society that ignores english, drama and arts, and the humanities such as sociology, anthropology, philosophy and history. I think it will create alot of problems.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:32 am
I was thinking about this question, and how traditional analysis is that students whose parents are proletariat; are proletariat. Students whose parents are petty bourgeoisie, are petty bourgeoisie. But aren't they all actually divorced from class relations because no strata has a job that pays for their living and because they'll be distributed into various social layers upon graduation?
Students produce commodities, such as knowledge and their own labour force. Most students also work beside their studies, generally they are used as cheap labour. There are plenty of staffing firms that focus on students only, because students can work to almost any price. Student have a wage-dumping function in todays society, and it is important for us to demand more public funding for students. Today almost only students from wealthy families can focus on their studies 100% of their time, while the rest must work for a lousy wage besides their studies.