Principalities and Powers: A Catholic Response to Inequalities in Education

“There is a growing awareness of the sublime dignity of human persons, who stand above all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable. They ought, therefore, to have ready access to all that is necessary for living a genuinely human life: for example, food, clothing, housing, the right to education, and work.”

-Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”), Vatican II

Is it really all that surprising that we continue to see the same inequalities in the education system today? At least anecdotally, it seems that despite our best efforts we have either a steady rate or increase in class, race, and sex/gender inequality. In order to understand discrimination or unequal treatment of individuals, we must understand the origins of such treatments and their respective ideological breeding grounds. There are a number of theoretical lenses that one can take in tracing ideas and behaviors in society. One might utilize a psychoanalytic lens, a Marxist lens, post-structural, queer, symbolic interactionist, etc. The list appears to be as endless as the history, people, and ideas that they analyze. One angle of analysis that appears to be particularly helpful, that of the Marxist or conflict theorist, considers inequalities as productions and reproductions of their institutional and economic milieu. When considering this approach, it should not be surprising that we continue to see the same inequalities within our educational system. With this presupposition in tow, one can apply a variety of analyses as instruments to observe, describe, explain, predict, and intervene with social ills and struggles within education. For the purpose of this analysis, a Catholic lens will be the instrument of examination and study. The Catholic lens is unfortunately one that has fallen out of vogue with the academy and seen as passé. Sadly relegated to seminaries and religious studies, an overabundance of thousands of years of philosophy and theory has largely been forgotten. Therefore, from within the frame of considering educational inequalities as reproduced powers, an application of Catholic Social Teaching illuminates their causes and seeks to provide guidance on how to change the status quo.

The Reproduction of Class Inequality

When considering the reproduction of inequality, it is imperative to pay attention to how classes are both created and sustained through their ideological and economic milieus. This is true regardless of what institution is the subject on inquiry. While Marx spent much of his work speaking to his own cultural conditions and issues—namely the industrial factory life—we can speak about the institution of education today. For example, in his Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, Marx states, "The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity--and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally” (Marx 2007). This commodification of labor and the creation of alienation between a laborer and their work can be seen both with the teacher and their teaching and the student and their learning. As a teacher faces contemporary issues such as the standardization of learning, they are distanced from their practice and love of teaching the material. Likewise, when a student only sees school as work and a number to be obtained in order to pass and move on with their life, they are alienated from their now commodified learning. Knopp & Bale echo this observation in their text Capitalism and Education, “Under capitalism, most workers are totally divorced from the mental processes involved in planning their work, and lose all control over what they produce. That which made us human in the beginning is stripped away” (Knopp & Bale 2012). In the context of our examination, this “mental process” is the actual act of learning and building a relationship and love of learning. Similar to losing control over what is produced, the thing which makes and student a student is stripped away here. Again returning to the notion of commodification, Knopp and Bale write, “Another attribute of capitalism that affects the learning process is that everything is “commodified,” or assigned a numeric value based on what it’s “worth” in the marketplace” (Knopp & Bale 2012). Here we see an exact application of our analytical lens, just as a laborers product is commodified, the learning process of the student is commodified and given a value of worth determined by the market. The question is, how does power construct itself to reproduce such capitalist ideologies that influence and shape educational policy and its associated problems?

Historical Precedent

In order to answer this question, an examination of precedent is helpful to understand the history and development of a problem and perhaps uncover the mechanism by which power sustains it. Writing in his famous text, Discipline and Punish, Foucault undergoes a historical analysis of the concepts of discipline and punishment and how power has sustained, formed, changed, and molded these throughout history. In discussing discipline Foucault states, “Discipline 'makes' individuals; it is the specific technique of a power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise. It is not a triumphant power...it is a modest, suspicious power, which functions as a calculated, but permanent economy” (Foucault 1995). Discipline here is a categorizing of things and events. The things and events, for our purposes, are teachers, students, learning, teaching, etc. Discipline works to chop up the world into “objects,” as Foucault states. In seeing everything as an object or instrument, power is able to make manifest its ends by manipulating its objects. Therefore, one must ask the question now: what is the telos of Capitalism? Profit. When the economic milieu of the educational system is that of nearly unfettered capital, privatization, and the influence of the market and business, class inequalities are reproduced. They are reproduced by alienation, commodification, and providing economic advantage of some schools and individuals over others. If a teacher is constantly worried about teaching to the test and standardized scores, do you think they are at their best? Of course not, anxiety has risen far above optimal arousal. As long as a student’s worth is commodified by capital, we can expect to see class inequality as the student’s potential continues to be limited and suppressed.

Changing the Status Quo

So, given this framework and understanding the historical precedent of how power operates, what insights can be drawn from Catholic thought and how can change be made to the status quo? First, we see an agreement from the Church on the problems of commodification, consumerism, and capitalism. St. John Paul II writes the following in his encyclical letter Centesimus annus: “Alienation is still a reality in Western societies, because of consumerism, that does not help one appreciate one’s authentic personhood and because of work, which shows interest only in profit, and none in the workers, considering them to be mere means” (John 1991). Writing from a personalist philosophy, St. John Paul II couches the problem of capitalist discipline as a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the person. Whether one assumes a deontological, consequentialist, or value ethics system of ethics, it is a universal understanding that persons should not be viewed as means to ends. Therefore, we have a depravity of ethical and philosophical understanding in our society at large. Indeed, rather than truly understanding the value of persons and community, classism is not only reproduced, but indirectly taught. The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops instructs us to be cautious to pit groups or classes against one another as a response to the issue. They state, “The “option for the poor,” therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community” (Catholic Church 1986). Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have done both in the past and now. Rather than being united in the understanding that when one part of the body of the community suffers we all do, we have engaged in identity politics and social ostracization of those we disagree with. The irony here is that this is exactly what continues to reproduce the problem. When the solution to a problem is the cause of a problem it is a big problem.

The Reproduction of Race Inequality

Most theorists and activists today see social issues as multifaceted, intersectional, and complex multiplicities. Therefore, a discussion of each “type” of inequality found within education and society at large must include the topic of race. Race along with sex/gender are perhaps the most discussed and thus most likely to be misrepresented by the populous. Even within groups which claim to be socially progressive or anti-racist problems incur. For example, the term “social construction” has spread from its use by social theorists into general society without context or understanding. As Fields and Fields point out in their book entitled Racecraft: “Scholars who intone ‘social construction’ as a spell for the purification of race do not make clear—perhaps because they do not themselves realize—that race and racism belong to different families of social construction, and that neither belongs to the same family as the United States of America or the London Underground. Race belongs to the same family as the evil eye” (Fields & Fields 2014). The problem here is that in naming something a social construction, as many things are, this does not dismiss the reality of racism as lived and experienced. Fields & Fields work to unbind the construction of race and the ugly reality of racism. They continue their analysis in stating that “Racism belongs to the same family as murder and genocide. Which is to say that racism, unlike race, is not a fiction, an illusion, a superstition, or a hoax. It is a crime against humanity” (Fields & Fields 2014). This serious treatment of racism is what is necessary and called for—for if the classroom sits within a racist milieu is it not inevitable that the system is influenced to be racist? Racism, therefore, must be addressed at both the personal and institutional level as power constitutes itself both in the micro and macro.

Historical Precedent

As before, to proceed with an analysis of the reproduction of racism, we must look to historical precedent for a very brief survey of the literature. Luckily, much work and effort has been done in this area for us. In his highly influential book entitled The Wages of Whiteness, Roediger reaches back to Dubois in uncovering the creation of whiteness—a term that is directly related to and important for understanding race and power in the United Stated. Roediger writes, “Dubois concluded that the nineteenth-century workers prized whiteness to such an extent that instead of joining with blacks with whom they shared common interests, they perpetuated a white supremacist vision that supported capitalism and ruined democracy” (Roediger 2007). The interconnectedness of class and race is perfectly depicted here. Stretching back to the emancipation of slaves and the early advocacy for blacks in America, one can see that rather than joining with common racial interests, blacks indirectly supported white supremacism via the influence of capital. What’s important to understand here is that racism and classism cannot be separated. Roediger continues and states that “Whiteness was a way in which white workers responded to a fear of dependency on wage labor and to the necessities of capitalist work discipline” (Roediger 2007). Therefore, given their distasteful dependence and reification of one another, it is imperative that both be addressed for change to occur. While most are aware of this today, little effort has been taken outside of academic discourse—which further illustrates the influence and existence of these issues even within higher education.

Changing the Status Quo

The first step then is to verbalize and make this relationship known. However, doing so is not so simple—especially when voices are drowned out by the larger capitalist machine via distraction and manipulation—commonly utilized power tactics. Indeed, the Catholic Church has been speaking about this issue for over 40 years now: “Racism and economic oppression are distinct but interrelated forces which dehumanize our society. Movement toward authentic justice demands a simultaneous attack on both evils” (Catholic Church 1979). However, while such statements are indeed good and productive, note that this pronunciation was made in 1979 and the struggles of racial injustice continue to exist in our schools and in our society. Perhaps then the means of how we have gone about addressing these instantiations of power are to blame? In 1975 the Church issued forth a document entitled The Church and racism: Towards a more fraternal society. Herein the Church offers a critique of how we might address and eliminate racial inequality in our communities: “Equality does not mean uniformity. It is important to recognize the diversity and complementarity of one another’s cultural riches and moral qualities. Equality of treatment therefore implies a certain recognition of differences which minorities themselves demand in order to develop according to their own specific characteristics, in respect for others and for the common good of society and the world community. No human group, however, can boast of having a natural superiority over others, or of exercising any discrimination that affects the basic rights of the person.” (Catholic Church 1975) Equality does not mean uniformity. This can be read as a direct critique of color blindness and the importance to recognize diversity rather than eliminating it—a problem that continues to manifest from the fascist 1900s. While there has been a movement of late to do just this—recognize diversity—this has sadly been usurped by identity politics that result in tribal warfare—even within the public school system. Therefore, the emphasis given by the Catholic Church regarding respect for others, the good of society, and the world community cannot be overlooked. This is not common sensical or simplistic instruction either. Rather, it is deeply rooted in Catholic Social Teaching’s dual emphasis on subsidiarity and solidarity—a strong concern for social justice and wealth distribution.

The Reproduction of Sex/Gender Inequality

Another frequently experienced injustice in our schools and society is that of discrimination based on sex and gender. While sex and gender could be separated in their own right for inquiry, for our purposes we speak widely too all these associated inequalities. One could also include sexual orientation here as well. This categorization of discipline again groups people off as objects and means for distraction and turning populations against one another rather than the commonly shared struggles of unifying community, solidarity, and working towards just wealth distribution and work. One of the oldest kinds of Othering, this injustice often manifests without conscious realization; that is, the very language of the unconscious has been shaped that this division is embedded in our social DNA. Pulling here from Marx, in Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory he states: “As Marx often suggested, history is not made as actors might consciously and immediately wish. Circumstances exist, generated prior to any given instance of history in the making, which condition the social act and limit the extent to which any co-ordinated action may be fully explained as the pursuit of rational ends” (Held 1980). We all are born into a particular social ideological milieu. This is a complex and complicated truth and takes effort to realize and acknowledge. However, it is an important phenomenon to understand in order to understand our being-in-the-world.

Historical Precedent

As with the two prior forms of inequality we have analyzed, the discrimination of gender/sex requires a historical archeological dig. The highly praised and famous feminist author Bell Hooks provides more insight into this unawareness that plagues and reproduces inequality. Hooks writes, “Many women do not join organized resistance against sexism precisely because sexism has not meant an absolute lack of choices. They may know they are discriminated against on the basis of sex, but they do not equate this with oppression” (Hooks 1994). Here is a kind of disconnect between theory and practice—a lack of sociological praxis. Speaking particularly of women here, while it is commonly understood that discrimination exists regarding one’s sex, women do not recognize the ways in which this discrimination manifests as oppression. Hooks continues in saying, “Under capitalism, patriarchy is structured so that sexism restricts women's behavior in some realms even as freedom from limitations is allowed in other spheres. The absence of extreme restrictions leads many women to ignore the areas in which they are exploited or discriminated against; it may even lead them to imagine that no women are oppressed” (Hooks 1994). Here we again see the interconnectedness and intersectionality of these principalities and powers and how they reinforce and reproduce different kinds of inequality not only in the educational system but within all social institutions. Speaking particularly of the educational system here, it is commonly understood that women makeup much of the teaching workforce. An example then of this kind of patriarchal limitation, often from the market, is the weakening and removal of teachers unions. When we do not make these connections, it is hard to see how power works to reproduce these realities and itself within particular controlling groups.

Changing the Status Quo

Similar to the issue of class inequality, there seems to be a gap here with sex/gender inequality between theory and awareness to practice. So much “in-house” fighting within the theoretical realm appears to largely prevent the development of an effective praxis. The Catholic Church too has called for this kind of action: “It is important for our society to continue to combat discrimination based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disabling condition, or age, as these are grave injustices and affronts to human dignity. Where the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice, including vigorous action to remove barriers to education and equal employment for women and minorities.” (Catholic Church 2007) It is common, even law, for employers to make similar statements regarding race, religion, sex, ethnicity, etc. discrimination—that is not the focus here. Rather, it is the vigorous action to remove barriers that is key. A call to action that is rooted in the understanding of the dignity of simply being a person who, in the eyes of the Church and its faithful, is made in the Imago Dei—the Image of God. The Church further presses this point in saying that “The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design” (Catholic Church 2000). Again, Catholic Social Teaching’s intentional use of a personalist view which holds not only individuals but individuals and the lifeworld network to high esteem and worth via doctrine on subsidiarity and solidarity is something that needs to be seriously taken up as praxes in academia and social organization. When we work together at the local level as a community we can dismantle systems of power which create injustices from the bottom-up.

The Reproduction of Political Ideology

Moreover and stretching past of the confines of analyzing the educational system or any institution, underlining these unjust power structures is a much larger base ideology that functions to sustain these superstructures. In America there is a staunch and severe ideological dividing line that separates and politically categorizes and divides people. In her book entitled Strangers in Their Own Land, Hochschild describes a kind of wall between these two ideological camps. Hochschild writes, “An empathy wall is an obstacle to deep understanding of another person, one that can make us feel indifferent or even hostile to those who hold different beliefs or whose childhood is rooted in different circumstances” (Hochschild 2018). Between the two camps of progressives and conservatives there are what Hochschild calls “deep stories” that construct two different political landscapes. In-between these landscapes is a wall, an empathy wall, that prevents people on either side from seeing the other simply based on differences in living circumstances. Hochschild continues in writing about this phenomenon: “We, on both sides, wrongly imagine that empathy with the “other” side brings an end to clearheaded analysis when, in truth, it’s on the other side of that bridge that the most important analysis can begin” (Hochschild 2018). It is this inability to see through the eyes of the Other that divides and traps us and sustains these ideological power constructs which harm rather than help. It is impossible to have community and cooperation if we cannot see the Other as a real human person. This struggles is, of course, a human struggle throughout all of history; however, it is not an essentialist aspect to ignore and not work on. Rather, history tells us that there have been times where we have been worse and better at overcoming this empathy wall—a wall that has now grown to be so high in America.

Historical Precedent

Oftentimes the struggle of understanding the view of an Other is simply due to not stepping into their experience—this is something we can easily work on if we care to try. Other times, there are issues that make scaling the empathy wall more difficult. Oftentimes, this has to deal with negotiating between contradictory beliefs on what is true about issues and what is not. Phillips and Milner in their text entitled You Are Here, seek to analyze the historical makeup of different belief systems and how people come to hold them. However, what might be more important that this endeavor is what they state about the truth and reality of social problems. They write, “Certain beliefs can be real in the sense that they are perceived as real, and therefore really shape the world, without being objectively true” (Phillips & Milner 2021). This distinction appears to be a helpful one—the distinction between what is true and what is real. Make no mistake, the pursuit of truth is undoubtable important to the Catholic worldview; however, we might benefit from understanding what realities are real for someone and to understand their experiences that have constructed their world and their being in it. Phillips and Milner press forward with a thought provoking question: “What would happen if we shifted our culture rights, whose narratives center on what’s mine, to a culture of responsibilities, whose narratives focus on what’s ours” (Phillips & Milner 2021)? This shift in prerogative and focus would seem to facilitate or construct a ladder that we can utilize to climb the empathy wall and at least look over. Perhaps what lies at the heart of our divide is not something strictly intellectual but something emotional and requiring of a change of attitude and openness of heart.

Changing the Status Quo

If we follow our line of reasoning and focus on the local community and empathy for one another to change society from the bottom-up, we can begin to think about what we can do in our local schools. So, what does it mean to be open in our hearts to the Other and to work to transcend the empathy wall? How do we approach this as praxis in as educators? A final turn to the wisdom of Catholic Social Teaching provides a picture and guidance of how we might go about it: “The term “education” refers not only to classroom teaching and vocational training — both of which are important factors in development — but to the complete formation of the person” (Benedict 2009). Education is about the complete formation of the person. It should be holistic. It should work to engage the Other as Thou—to use Martin Buber’s language. Education is and should be transformative and speak to all the parts of who we are. This is in contrast to how we currently work: like machines that treat students like means to ends and numbers on a page. St. John Paul II writes, “Work and industriousness also influence the whole process of education in the family, for the very reason that everyone “becomes a human being” through, among other things, work, and becoming a human being is precisely the main purpose of the whole process of education” (John 1981). The becoming of a human being is the purpose of education. Education is not simply what happens in the four walls of a classroom but between teacher and student and between student and student. Until we learn or remember how to appreciate and care for the whole person, it seems that we will continue to struggle in the very same ways that we do now by continuing to reproduce systems of power by which principalities exert control.

Conclusion

While essays have conclusions to them, the conclusion to this topic, to this struggle, to this praxis, is not written yet. In fact, its conclusion will never come. Our fight as educators against injustice is perpetual. Our duty and our effort to reach the whole person of the student and to transcend the empathy wall is ceaseless. No one has power as if it is something to possess. Rather, power is found in the in-between. Power is action and it exists everywhere. Therefore, we must be active, we must work, and we must move forward. If we stay static, indifferent, or helpless, our goals and our hopes will never be achieved. Furthermore, while there are many inequalities and injustices in the schools and in our society, it is important to remember that we are trying and we have tools and these can come from many lenses, theories, and praxes—yes, even from the oft ignored Catholic Church.

References

Benedict. (2009). Caritas in veritate: On integral human development in charity and truth : encyclical letter of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI. Ottawa, ON: CCCB Publications.

Catholic Church. (1979). Brothers and sisters to us: U.S. Bishops' pastoral letter on racism in our day, November 14, 1979.

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the catholic church (2nd ed.). Our Sunday Visitor.

Catholic Church. (1975). The Church and racism: Towards a more fraternal society. Vatican City: The Commission.

Catholic Church. (1986). Economic justice for all: Pastoral letter on Catholic social teaching and the U.S. economy. Washington, D.C: U.S. Catholic Conference.

Catholic Church. (2007). Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. USCCB. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title

Fields, B. J., & Fields, K. E. (2014). Racecraft. Adfo Books.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

John, P. (1981). On human work: Encyclical Laborem exercens. Washington, D.C. (1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington 20005: Office of Publishing Services, United States Catholic Conference.

John, P. (1991). Centesimus annus: Encyclical letter addressed by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to his venerable brothers in the episcopate, the priests and deacons, families of men and women religious, all the Christian faithful and to all men and women of good will on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum. Sherbrooke.

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory. Amsterdam University Press.

Hochschild, R. A. (2018). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (First Trade Paper ed.). The New Press.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

Knopp, S., & Bale, J. (2012). Education and Capitalism: Struggles for Learning and Liberation. Haymarket Books.

Marx, Karl. (2007). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 (M. Milligan, Trans.). Dover Publications.

Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2021). You Are Here: A Field Guide for Navigating Polarized Speech, Conspiracy Theories, and Our Polluted Media Landscape. The MIT Press.

Roediger, D. R. (2007). The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New Edition). Verso.