Historical Materialist Explanation of Social Institutions

One of Marx's most enduring legacies is his approach to historical analysis, commonly referred to as "historical materialism."  It rests, in part, on the principle that at any given time the possibilities of existence are limited and shaped by what already exists.  History is not a random succession of eras, ideas, and cultures.  Neither is it teleological:  in other words, its coherence is not in any relation to any end result (although Marx's view of history is somewhat teleological).  Rather, the "progress" of history is driven by the collective and contradictory attempts of human beings to adapt to a pre-formed world - a world that is not of their own creation - and shape it to their own needs.  Obviously, the least amount of work, the smallest amount of change to accomplish this task, the better.

In this way, historical materialism stands in contrast to functionalist brands of social theory, which explain social realities (often focusing on "the institutions" - family, economy, religion, schools, government, etc.) in terms of a function that may be intended but just as likely is below the realm of consciousness.  Functionalist reasoning goes something like this:  "X [social institution] exists because it functions to ______ [create social bonds, effectively allocate scarce resources, manage behavior, socialize members into particular roles, diffuse conflict, etc.]"  Thus, social institutions come into being in order to serve a specific purpose, and are created and maintained in a rather mystical way (independent of the activities of individual people).

On the other hand, defining an institution as a highly coherent network of people, ideas, material artifacts, processes, and relationships, a historical materialist would emphasize how the same collection of human and material resources can be used by different people for different ends.  Furthermore, the existence of any particular social institution is not a given, it is a historical peculiarity.  If a certain nexus of social artifacts and relationships happens, regardless of the original reason for its formation, to be useful to someone with a certain degree of social dominance, it will persist, perhaps with some alterations to adapt it to new purposes.  Or it might be dismantled entirely, with segments of the network incorporated into other new or existing networks.

*******

I raise these issues as a sort of theoretical introduction to a series of posts I intend to write about education.  Seeing as to how the fall is approaching and school started this week, I thought it would be apt.  My goal is to provide an alternative to the generalized functionalist framework which characterizes public discussion of education and outline how one might view the role of educational institutions in a capitalist society.