ABSTRACT
I have consistently argued in this book that, in analysing the character and dynamics of ideological struggles over education and within education, it is vital to move beyond any notion that the educational apparatuses of the state respond in a mechanistic manner to the imperatives of capital or even the dominant fraction of capital. Similarly, the outcomes of crises are dependent on the disposition of political and ideological forces and are not in any simple sense necessarily functional for capital. While it would be difficult to deny that there have been some remarkable similarities between the ideological struggles fought out within and around education in advanced capitalist societies in recent years and, in particular, in those experiencing severe crises of capital accumulation, the outcomes of these struggles have varied. Thus it is understandable why, when exploring the forms in which these struggles have been played out, most contemporary sociologists have displayed something of a neurosis about following Althusser's injunction to hold on to ‘both ends of the chain’ between economic determination and the relative autonomy of political and ideological practice (Hall 1981). Yet, as we have seen, the temptation to emphasize one end at the expense of the other can lead to the production of simplistic accounts of the politics of the curriculum, which in turn can produce inappropriate political responses. I therefore want to consider in this final chapter the nature of an appropriate political response to the sorts of insights about the curriculum that may be derived from recent work in the sociology of school knowledge.
