In this blog post, we will examine whether education truly functions as a means of social mobility, or if it is merely an illusion that perpetuates inequality.
A famous Korean proverb, “A dragon rises from a muddy pond,” is used to describe someone who has grown up in difficult circumstances but has achieved great things. Despite the diverse purposes of education, the most important thing at the individual level is maintaining and improving one’s social status through education. In other words, social mobility (there are various types of social mobility, such as intra-generational and inter-generational mobility, but here we refer to vertical mobility, which is the upward or downward movement of socioeconomic status based on personal factors such as desires, family background, and abilities) has become the main purpose of education. However, the social environment for those receiving education to achieve this goal is not favorable. Recent studies have shown that the higher the father’s educational attainment and household income, the more likely male guardians are to be engaged in professional occupations, and the more likely students are to live in urban areas, the higher their academic achievement. In this situation, it cannot be said that education contributes to social equality; rather, it should be seen as promoting social inequality.
Before discussing this issue, there are a few things that need to be clarified to avoid misunderstanding. First, the purpose of this discussion is not to examine the impact of education itself on social equality under identical conditions. Rather, we will consider whether people in different situations can achieve social equality through education, or whether social inequality will be exacerbated.
Furthermore, we assume that the social situation is not the same for everyone, but that there are differences between individuals, as is the case today, where there is a gap between the rich and the poor. In other words, as mentioned above, we are not focusing solely on the act of “education” itself, but rather considering social equality when “education” is applied as a tool in the context of modern society.
Furthermore, the class and social status we are referring to are not the same as concepts such as social status. In modern society, there are various ways to divide social classes, such as occupation and income level, but to simplify, let’s divide them into upper class, middle class, and lower class and describe their characteristics. The upper class is characterized by a conservative nature that values family and tradition, a socially prominent family background, and wealth. The middle class is characterized by being future-oriented, placing great importance on education, being interested in social mobility, and leading stable lives. Finally, the lower class is mainly composed of the working class and is often characterized by having present-oriented values.
Finally, this article is not intended to disparage certain groups of people or deny their potential. It is merely an argument that, when viewed through the lens of social circumstances and the tool of education, there is a higher possibility that social inequality will become more severe. This is not to say that so-called “success” is impossible, but only that it may be more difficult to achieve than for others.
Getting to the main point, we first need to consider what social equality is. Simply put, social equality can be defined as the fair distribution of resources and status in order to protect the socially disadvantaged, giving priority to those who are socially, economically, and politically disadvantaged. There are two main perspectives on social equality and its opposite, social inequality, from an educational standpoint.
The first is the functional perspective, which is an optimistic view of education, believing that the upper and lower classes are determined by individual achievement and that anyone can move up the social ladder if they work hard. This perspective holds that social mobility is possible in modern society and that education functions to enable individuals to achieve high social status through fair and legitimate competition. It is a perspective that believes education can reduce or eliminate unequal structures and enable social status to be determined based on ability, thereby contributing to the formation of social equality.
The remaining perspective is the conflictive perspective. This is a pessimistic view of education, believing that education is not achieved solely through individual ability and effort, but is also greatly influenced by family background. This perspective views education as a means of maintaining and deepening social inequality, as it is for the ruling class and the quality of education differs between the upper and lower classes. The important point here is that, when looking at today’s society, the conflictive perspective is more applicable. In other words, education should be seen as a means of maintaining and deepening social inequality. Let’s take a look at this.
Recently, the so-called “spoon class theory” (spoon theory), which refers to the social class of people based on the material wealth of their parents, has been a hot topic of conversation. This new term is believed to have originated from the English idiom “born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth,” which means “born into a wealthy family,” referring to the practice in wealthy families in old Europe of using silver tableware and having nannies feed babies with silver spoons from the moment they were born. In short, it means that a person’s social status is determined at birth by their parents’ financial status, or in other words, that social status is determined by what one inherits rather than by one’s own efforts. Amidst the popularity of such expressions, society is becoming increasingly divided between the rich and the poor. The rich continue to pass on their wealth to their children, while the poor continue to pass on their debts.
So what is the current state of education? Of course, compulsory education is designated up to junior high school, free school meals are provided, and equal educational opportunities appear to be realized, but there is a social norm that a college degree is essential for getting a good job, so there is a difference between those who go on to high school and college and those who do not. Parents send their children to private tutoring in order to get them into better schools, and this is where the gap begins.
Children can prepare for high school and university entrance exams by attending expensive private tutoring classes and prestigious cram schools, but it is inevitable that children from wealthy families will have an advantage in this regard. For example, according to the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs’ research report, “Social Integration Diagnosis and Response Measures II,” parental social class and social capital have a significant impact on academic performance.
This has been found to have a greater impact on the younger generation.
In summary, the better the economic conditions, the more opportunities for a good education, and the higher the probability of becoming a so-called “successful” person. It is important to note that this is not a 100% causal relationship, but rather a higher probability.
Let’s start with the idea that family background and genetics are related. “Excellent family background” can be defined as being superior to one’s peers in terms of economic status or personal abilities (such as research achievements worthy of a Nobel Prize or outstanding manual dexterity, which may ultimately be correlated with economic status, but we will consider it in a slightly different sense). From a genetic perspective, there are two main cases. One is when there is an outstanding person in the family (a person with outstanding genes related to economics or ability, which we will refer to as outstanding genes) or when the descendants continue to maintain what they have (wealth or ability) or achieve slight improvements, resulting in steady growth.
Let’s look at the first case. If there is even one person with outstanding genes, the probability of their descendants inheriting those outstanding genes will be higher than in a family where there were no outstanding genes in previous generations. Even if such genes are not passed down, the probability that ordinary genes may mutate into outstanding genes due to external environmental factors such as family customs, traditions, and behavioral habits cannot be ignored. In other words, the same genetic mutation may occur in descendants who follow the same customs, traditions, and behavioral habits.
In other words, this is related to epigenetics. In the second case, genes that enable the maintenance or slight improvement of existing wealth or abilities continue to be passed down, and when considering the interaction with the environment, it can be said that such genes are suitable for living in that environment, which can be seen as a form of survival of the fittest.
In this way, families that survive will have an increased frequency of genes that enable them to develop their existing wealth and abilities, and the degree of development will gradually increase, so that eventually, the descendants of those families will have an outstanding ability to develop what already exists. In a sense, this is a story about genes and evolution.
In this way, having outstanding abilities can be seen as superiority in terms of receptivity and applicability, even if the same education is received, and when applied to the current state of education in Korea, this could lead to even greater disparities.
The two genetic perspectives above are not always the case. It is simply that the probability is higher. This means that it is difficult to bridge the gap with the tool of “education.” In other words, education cannot contribute to social equality.
Before summarizing the entire content, I would like to reiterate that this article is not intended to ignore or dismiss people who are poor or incapable. It is simply stating that, when applied to the current social situation, they face relatively more difficulties than others.
The above content presents two perspectives: a functional perspective, which argues that education contributes to social equality by enabling social mobility, and a conflictive perspective, which argues that differences in the quality of education between social classes maintain or exacerbate social inequality. In the current situation, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the conflictive perspective is more applicable. From a genetic perspective, it can be assumed that children from families with excellent backgrounds will also be highly capable, and that even with the same education, there is a high probability that disparities will arise. In other words, “education” cannot contribute to social equality, but rather should be seen as maintaining or exacerbating social inequality. Ultimately, the saying “a dragon can rise from a muddy pond” has become a thing of the past, and considering the current situation, wouldn’t the saying “a dragon rises from a first-class pond” be more appropriate?
