The Death of
the Ideal in Education:
Weber,
Bourdieu, Baudrillard, and the
American Dream
by
Brenda K. Savage
and
M.
N. Barringer
University
of Central Florida
The American Dream implies that all
Americans have a uniform chance for
advancement and prosperity through
strenuous effort and merit, and this
idyllic vision is continually reproduced
and upheld through the United States
education system. Despite its
successful perpetuation of the American
Dream, however, education has not been
able to facilitate the universal
realization of success through hard
work, revealing the Dream to be an
inconsistent, if not empty, promise. In
this paper, we theoretically propose
that the educational system should cease
intentional promotion of the Dream as a
national ideology given its inequitable
probability for individuals with limited
resources and opportunities based on
their social and economic positions.
Although the American Dream may be
considered laudable and vital to the
promulgation of national core values,
the realization of its promises has been
and continues to be practically
unattainable and essentially farcical
for a portion of Americans. The American
dream encourages the individual to
succeed, and it is based on the
assumption that all have an equal
opportunity to do so. This is
problematic because there are
substantial socio-economic differences
related to race, ethnicity and gender
that can gravely inhibit the possibility
for an individual to do well and achieve
personal goals (Massey 2007).
Further, a disregard for such
disparities causes an additional wound;
those who fail to attain the Dream face
the stigma of being labeled as lazy,
inept, or incompetent, indicating that
they are completely at fault for their
lack of progress. Previous scholarship
(e.g., Beach 2007; Hochschild and
Scovronick 2003; McNamee and Miller
2004; Rowland and Jones 2007) has
exposed the problematic nature of the
American Dream; however, as the Dream is
so deeply ingrained in the American
psyche, it continues to be promoted as
the overarching ideal for society.
Despite its centrality, the Dream has
not translated into a universal reality
for all Americans, and the gaps of
inequality continue to exist.
Using a perhaps unlikely combination of
the theoretical perspectives of Max
Weber, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jean
Baudrillard to examine the Dream, this
paper proposes that it is time to
challenge the prevailing
conceptualization of this national ideal
and the use of education to promulgate
it. First, employing the
theoretical lens of Weber, it can be
argued that the education system has
served to indoctrinate students into a
highly rationalized, bureaucratic
structure that solidified the American
Dream ideology by institutionalizing the
tenets of the Protestant Ethic.
Second, an application of the works of
Bourdieu reveals that the American Dream
is employed to legitimize dominance in
society, and education facilitates and
reinforces that dominance. Finally, the
postmodernist approach of Jean
Baudrillard serves to demonstrate how
the symbol of the American Dream has
moved from reflecting any real
possibilities to its current disconnect
from any concrete reality; it has simply
become a simulation that education
perpetuates. Taken together, these
three theorists offer a useful
perspective through which the American
Dream can be reevaluated, providing a
basis from which to challenge its
current place of prominence in education
and American society.
The American
Dream is Birthed
Given the differing interpretations of
the American Dream, it is important to
begin this discussion by providing a
conceptual framework for this paper by
establishing the meaning of the Dream
and its connection to education that
will be here employed. This is not
intended to be an all-inclusive analysis
of the American Dream from the
beginnings of the American Republic to
the present, nor is it a complete exposé
of the history of education in America;
such is beyond the scope of this paper.
The purpose here is to briefly
discuss the Dream and note the
centrality of education in supporting
its ideal in order to establish a
foundation for the theoretical
discussion that follows.
This consideration of the American Dream
begins with the indelible and
oft-repeated words of the Declaration of
Independence (U.S. 1776): "We hold these
Truths to be self-evident, that all Men
are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, and that among these
are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness." Inscribed by the quill
of Thomas Jefferson during the birth of
the United States, these words
encapsulate the possibilities that this
new nation was to provide for all those
who lived and would come to live within
her borders. Taken together, these
remarks capture the ideal, comprised of
equality and opportunity, which is to be
the collective experience of all
Americans. This pronouncement
hails the potential of a universal
experience in which each and every
persons ambitious pursuit is rewarded,
suggesting what has come to be termed
the American Dream. While Horatio
Algers rags-to-riches stories might
spring to mind when one considers the
conceptualization of the Dream,
Jeffersons words half a century earlier
served to provide the ideological basis
for this Dream, pronouncing the
opportunity for success and the liberty
to pursue it. Unfortunately, however, as
Massey (2007) argues, this has not been
the reality for many Americans
throughout the history of the nation,
particularly those with minority
status(es) linked to race, ethnicity,
gender, sexuality, or nativity. Social
stratification persists, resulting in
unequal access to resources, which in
turn can result in limited life chances
and opportunities for those in
disadvantaged socioeconomic
positions.
Hochschild (1995:18-24) summarizes the
basic tenets of the Dream. The first
tenet addresses "who" is entitled to the
American Dream, proposing that everyone
can pursue their dreams, regardless of
their family history, place of origin,
or personal background. The second
tenet indicates "what" people can expect
in relation to the American Dream;
person "may reasonably anticipate
success." The "how" of the
American Dream is conveyed by the third
tenet, which indicates that everyone can
pursue and have a reasonable expectation
to achieve their goals through talent,
hard work and meritocracy. Finally, the
fourth tenet provides an answer to "why"
everyone should commit to pursuing the
ideal of the dream, highlighting the
intertwining nature of success and
virtue. Along with these tenets,
Hochschild (1995:24) further notes that
the American Dream has an "evocative
resonance greater than the sum of its
parts." This conceptualization of
the American Dream captures the ideal
familiar to many Americans.
It has also been advanced by that the
American Dream consists of two
fundamental tenets; one is
individualistic and the other is
communal. If an individual is
responsible and works hard, success will
follow; further, the Dream suggests a
collaborative ideal of meritocracy that
ensures equal opportunity and the
collective good (Hochschild and
Scovronick 2003). Barack Obama
captured this duality in his 2008
presidential acceptance speech in which
he emphasized both an individual
responsibility and a responsibility to
the collective that is related to "the
promise of America." Beach (2007)
presents a similar view; designating an
individual, "conservative," aspect of
the Dream, and a collective, "radical"
facet, both of which were put forward by
Thomas Jefferson; therefore, there is a
contradiction inherent in the American
Dream. The "radical" dream
consists of the universal opportunity
proclaimed in the aforementioned "all
men are created equal" (emphasis added),
with the right to exercise liberty in
such a manner as to engender success. It
was a far-reaching vision supporting
democratic ideals and the public good.
This is inconsistent, however,
with the conservative version of the
Dream in which there is the
"counter-ideal" of a discriminatory
success based on meritocracy, class
hierarchy, heredity, property, and,
ironically, inequality, which might be
expected given the social position of
the nations early leaders, perhaps best
exemplified by Jefferson, a wealthy
propertied slave owner who believed
strongly in the image of a nation in
which the white males with property,
lead the mindless masses (Zinn 1999:89).
This then was a Dream under which
a small, talented (and propertied) class
could advance its own status without
concern for the egalitarian,
all-inclusive notion of collective
progress (Beach 2007; Zinn 1999).
It is this conservative tenet,
promoting prosperity through
self-sufficiency, effort, and merit,
which became the dominant and
individualistic ideal of the American
Dream, serving as "the binding ideology
of the nation," while the more radical
dream of a collective success faded
(Beach 2007:151).
Education served to advance the
conservative dream in a nation loath to
offer equal footing to all who lived
within its borders, enabling the
propertied class to maintain their
standing while denying opportunities to
those of lower rank, and it continues to
do so today. This is evident in
the "categorical inequality," defined as
an institutionalized stratification that
funnels people into social categories
based on statuses such as race, class,
and gender, and then inequitably parcels
out resources (Massey 2007:6).
Massey (2007) argues this layering has
been reproduced between generations in
United States society. The fundamental
purpose of education in America has been
to create a responsible and informed
citizenry and proclaim the virtue of
hard work and individual responsibility,
and historically it has focused on the
reification of the patriotic myth of
America, which is seen as essential for
the building of the nation (Beach 2007;
Knight and Pearl 2000). Education
consistently presents and encourages a
success based on individual industry and
meritocracy while ignoring the influence
of gender-, race-, and class-related
issues that are already entrenched in
society; thus, from its beginnings,
education has served to reinforce the
stratification of American society.
Instead of promoting egalitarian
success and opportunity, education is
employed to suggest that those who do
not prosper have only themselves (and
their lack of initiative) to blame while
simultaneously serving to help those who
are already advantaged to further their
dominance. In this manner,
education in America has transmitted the
individualistic ideal of the Dream,
thereby solidifying the structural
inequality on which the nation was
founded (Beach 2007).
Despite the fact that education has
helped to perpetuate inequality, many
still consider it the best agent for
promulgating the American Dream.
Hochschild and Scovronick (2003:7)
state unequivocally that the
responsibility for making the Dream a
reality lies with education, arguing
that its ideal should be fostered and
advocated by the education system.
While some admit that the American
Dream is a veneer under which
"systematic injustice" can occur; it is
still viewed as the best possible path
toward equality for most Americans
(Hochschild and Scovronick 2003:201).
An outright abandonment of the
Dream may be considered as nonsensical
given its entrenchment in the American
psyche and the overwhelming democratic
support for it, and to think otherwise
might be considered an ill-guided waste
of energy. Education is expected
to maintain as its underlying goal the
creation of those conditions necessary
to encourage "people to believe in and
pursue the ideology of the American
Dream" (Hochschild and Scovronick
2003:9). This line of thinking
should be challenged, however, as it is
altogether possible that the
perpetuation of the Dream itself may be
part of the problem. While public
opinion may indeed support the ideal of
the Dream, this paper, aided by the
theoretical perspectives of Weber,
Bourdieu, and Baudrillard, suggests that
it is necessary to challenge the Dreams
looming presence and influence in
American society, particularly in the
education of her youth.
Max Weber:
The Ideal Becomes Institutionalized
The American Dream is a longstanding
paragon because, as an application of
the theoretical concepts of Max Weber
suggest, it has been integrated into a
rationalized social structure that
ensures its continuation through
education. The Dream exists as the
legitimate ideal in America and
education has become the means-to-an-end
in supporting and achieving a national
vision of prosperity. Weber's work
reveals how the Protestant Ethic led to
the development of legitimated orders,
or rules that dictate the actions of
individuals in a society, thereby
allowing an extrapolation that these
orders have been reinforced through
education. As Weber (Weber,
Heinrich, and Wright 1946) clearly
noted, Western industrial societies have
undergone rationalization, and perhaps
no where is this more evident than in
education, an institution which has
bureaucratized the maxims of the
American Dream, particularly those of
hard work and discipline (Alvarado 2010;
Hilbert 1987).
Protestants laid a foundation for social
behavior in early America, the ideals of
which became part of the symbolic
underpinnings of the American Dream
(Weber, Baehr, and Wells 2002). The
Protestant Ethic indicated a lifestyle
grounded in discipline, hard work, and
fortitude; these values were viewed as a
divine calling and the means for proving
that one was predestined for eternal
salvation (Weber et al. 2002). As Weber
(2002) notes, the ethic contributed to
the growth of modern capitalism (driven
by the profit motive), which in turn
translated its ideal into a legitimated
order with its associated maxims
encouraging individuals to embrace a
life of hard work and sanctioning those
who failed to do so. Since that
time, individuals have submitted to the
maxims expecting to gain success and
social mobility. Today, the maxims
related to the Protestant Ethic (hard
work, discipline, fortitude) are
guideposts in the American Dream and are
transmitted through the educational
system. Therefore, education is
now regarded as the primary
means-to-an-end, not in attaining
salvation, but in achieving the American
Dream.
In its attempt to reinforce the
legitimated orders connected first with
the Protestant Ethic and subsequently
with the American Dream, education has
become increasingly rationalized (Weber
et al. 2002). Weber (2002:26) recognized
and predicted the ever-increasing
rationalization of society, noting that
it aids in the maximization of
efficiency and profits, and
unfortunately, education has not
escaped. The rationalization of the
education system does not encourage
creativity, individuality, and problem
solving; instead, students are
indoctrinated into a highly rigid,
bureaucratic structure. Education
has become over-rationalized, and
students have become entrapped by the
"iron cage" of regulations imposed upon
them (Weber et al. 2002:121). Thus,
students must conform to a particular
way of thinking and learning in order to
be successful, and the American Dream is
employed to define what such success
entails (e.g., home ownership, financial
independence, high salaried jobs,
prosperity, transgenerational success).
The educational system therefore is
structured to imbue students with the
rationality of the maxims related to
success in accordance with the Dream.
The ideal of the American Dream has thus
been institutionalized and ingrained in
American society with education serving
as the primary means for achieving its
vision, but the shortcomings of this
highly rationalized institution are
evident as many students do not attain
the "ends" to which education is
supposed to lead despite their best
efforts. Educational policies and
standards (tools of rationalization) are
created and maintained to promote
achievement, yet the success promised in
connection with the maxims of the
American Dream is not equally accessible
to all. Children from a low
socioeconomic status can seldom
compensate for disadvantages they face
early in life, and therefore cannot
perform at the mandated levels set forth
by the education system (Grodsky,
Warren, and Felts 2008; Massey 2008).
Regardless, the Dream hearkens
back to the Protestant Ethic, demanding
that those starting from a lower
position must work harder to reach the
aforementioned standards and prove their
merit; the ideal promises that doing so
will guarantee success and future
opportunities. However, some
students are not able to bridge this
gap, but their failure is not attributed
to the handicaps generated by
socioeconomic disparities in society;
instead they are condemned for failing
to fulfill the maxim of hard work
(Blanchard and Muller 2014). In other
words, they are lazy and their failure
is their fault. Thus, the blame is
not focused on the unattainable
standards that were placed upon these
individuals by a highly rationalized
system, but on the individuals
themselves for not pulling themselves up
by their bootstraps. Most often,
this is not a reflection of intellect or
work ethic, but is instead a result of
socioeconomic status; students may start
at a disadvantage, but the bureaucratic
nature of education assumes that the
starting line is the same for everyone,
and sets its standards for measurement
accordingly.
Built upon the maxims of hard work,
self-discipline, and the need to prove
oneself worthy, education has become the
structure through which the Protestant
Ethic, and therefore the American Dream,
has become institutionalized. The
proclaimed ideal of the ethic and the
Dream have been rationalized and
translated into educational standards,
thereby foiling creativity,
freethinking, and flexibility, and
serving to further the gap between those
who start with an advantage and those
who do not. Education's role in
the furthering of social stratification
is evidenced by the criticism leveled at
the system throughout recent history
(see Hochschild and Scovronick 2003, for
example), however, the American Dream
has generally eluded direct criticism by
burying itself in the bureaucratic
framework of education, thereby
employing the institution to ensure its
perpetuation.
Pierre Bourdieu: The
Ideal Legitimized Domination
Similar to Weber's ideas, the work of
Pierre Bourdieu helps explain how the
American Dream has been advanced through
education; however, Bourdieus
theoretical propositions further serve
to reveal how this ideal, aided by
education, has found legitimacy and
sustenance through symbolic domination.
Bourdieu submits that a particular
group of people occupies a particular
position in a social space due to the
capital they possess, and therefore,
they have a particular habitus, or way
of seeing the social world, that
generally keeps them in that position.
This leads to a system of dominance in
which those with sufficient capital
become the dominant who define the
legitimate categories of society while
those without sufficient capital become
the dominated. The American Dream,
which advances a vision that ensures the
perpetuation of structural inequality by
making it feel natural, aids this
system, and education helps ensure that
it continues across generations.
Bourdieu deems objective and subjective
social forces as inseparable in the
quest to determine how agents think and
act in the social world, and he
encapsulates this in the concept of the
habitus (1990b:26-29). The habitus
is a perspective through which an
individual interprets social life and
establishes a course of action.
Bourdieu terms the habitus,
"structured structures predisposed to
function as structuring structures,"
proposing that an individual's thoughts
and behaviors are constrained by an
externality that is internalized through
the habitus (1990b:52-53).
Developed in ones formative years,
the habitus reinforces itself by
favoring choices to which it has been
pre-adapted (1990b:60-61). Through
the habitus, certain behaviors appear
natural and practical, thereby
encouraging their selection and
reinforcing the habitus. While
behavior is not a determined response;
guided by the habitus, choices made
generally conform to the past social
experiences associated both with an
individual's position in the social
space and that of the generations
previous, most often resulting in
actions and thoughts befitting that
position (Bourdieu 1990b:54-55).
The habitus reflects an individual's
social position, which is based on the
possession and employment of capital.
Bourdieu delineates four types of
capital, the dissemination of which
creates the objective class structure.
The first two types, economic and
cultural capital, combine to create the
external structures that the habitus
internalizes. Economic capital consists
of material resources that can be used
to generate wealth, and cultural capital
includes knowledge, tastes, credentials,
manners, and other forms of nonmaterial
resources. Economic and cultural
capital combine to determine the social
space that one occupies, serving as the
externality that shapes the habitus,
thereby becoming internalized and
constraining (Bourdieu 1998:6-7). The
third type is social capital, comprised
of the networks allowing a person to
maintain or advance their position
(Bourdieu 1990b:35). The fourth type,
symbolic capital, is a presentation of
the other forms of capital that are
misrepresented as such, instead
appearing in the form of prestige,
charisma, or reputation. It
provides a power based in the other
forms of capital, but it is symbolic,
"misrecognizable, transfigured, and
legitimated" (Bourdieu 1979:83).
The control of capital is the basis of
struggle in fields such as science,
religion, or politics; capital is
mobilized by its holders to establish
the legitimate vision of the social
world, either supporting or challenging
the status quo, and prompting conflict
between the dominant and the dominated
(Bourdieu 1990a:134-135). For
Bourdieu, this contest to determine the
vision of society and control the words
used to define and build social reality
is the basis of all action
(1990a:134-135). The dominant
establish the legitimate view by which
those without capital will be dominated.
Further, because the dominant
possess symbolic capital and designate
the categories on which social life is
built, they can subject the dominated to
symbolic violence (Bourdieu
1990b:118,133). Symbolic violence
is a "gentle, disguised form" of
misrecognized dominion that appears
natural because those who control such
capital are able to dictate the
legitimate vision and categories of the
social world that the dominated view as
fitting (Bourdieu 1990b:118). The
dominated thus aid in their domination,
thereby ensuring structural inequality.
Connecting Bourdieu to the American
Dream, it becomes possible to suggest
that the ideal is a weapon of symbolic
violence that legitimizes those who
realize its ideal and condemns those who
fail to achieve it, and in doing so,
reinforces itself. Capital
constrains ambitions, choices, and what
is deemed possible. Those with
sufficient capital employ the rhetoric
of the Dream to simultaneously sustain
and mitigate their domination of those
who lack the necessary capital to
challenge the status quo; this recalls
Jefferson's vision of the white
propertied class leading the
masses. The perpetuation of
superiority established using the ideal
of the Dream feels natural, arguably for
both the dominant and the dominated.
Those who are successful are
viewed as rightfully holding their
positions, while those who are not are
considered lacking in fundamental
personal qualities. Domination has
been misrecognized as failure to thrive
instead of a direct outcome of
structural inequality, and the Dream has
served to legitimize this domination.
Those with capital have employed
it to articulate a social reality that
marries hard work to a guarantee of
success, accessible to all, despite the
fact that many will have little chance
to attain it due to their lack of
capital.
Recalling the importance placed upon the
early experiences of an individual in
the shaping of the habitus, it naturally
follows that education is a key
component in maintaining the objective
structures that perpetuate disparities
in society (Bourdieu 1998:20-22).
Aiding in the natural feel of
structural inequality through
misrecognition, education serves to
maintain the legitimate vision and
division of society by appearing to be a
meritocracy, when in fact it reproduces
social inequalities by increasing the
distance between students with capital
and those lacking it. English
(2012) suggests that academic standards
are used to dominate the educational
system and reproduce existing structures
of power. Schools help legitimize social
inequality and reinforce the status quo
by setting academic standards and then
blaming the students who fail (often
because they lack learning opportunities
and access) instead of the inequities in
the educational system (Hochschild and
Scovronick 2003:97). Children do
not start on equal footing with one
another, and schools do not adequately
address this; education has not served
to "equalize opportunities across
generations" because the success and
educational achievement of children is
often influenced by success and
socioeconomic class of the parents
(Hochschild and Scovronick 2003:2;
Lareau 2003). The gulf between the
schools for the rich and those for the
poor, particularly urban schools,
continues to widen in term of staff,
resources, and opportunities, serving to
reinforce and reproduce categorical
inequalities (Alonso et al. 2009; Kozol
1991). Heredity and capital can trump
aptitude, and the limited educational
opportunities experienced by the
dominated are misrecognized as personal
shortcomings and lack of ability.
Education therefore perpetuates social
inequality because the dominant dictate
the legitimate view of the social world
and use schools to reinforce it, while
the dominated remain unequipped to
challenge that vision (Desan 2013).
Bourdieu's theoretical approach thus
offers a unique insight in a
consideration of the American Dream and
education. For over two centuries,
the Dream has been the legitimate ideal
promulgated by those who have held the
greatest share of economic and cultural
capital (misrecognized as symbolic
capital). Education has served to
reinforce both that vision and the
divisions resulting from the unequal
distribution of capital. In the
service of education, the Dream helps
stabilize the objective structures of
the social world that are built upon the
power relations established through the
control of capital, and through habitus,
those structures are confirmed.
Education has long been held as
the field in which everyone has an equal
opportunity to gain the capital
necessary to achieve the ideal of the
Dream; however, despite being touted as
the great equalizer, education actually
best serves those who are already
advantaged, and therefore it increases
inequality.
Bourdieu notes that education "maintains
the preexisting order…[and] the gap
between pupils endowed with unequal
amounts of cultural capital" (1998:20).
Schools help to perpetuate a
subtle oppression, which is organized to
elicit the aid of the dominated in their
own domination (Knight and Pearl 2000).
The assurance of success through
industry, against a backdrop of
objective structures that guarantees
with near certainty that such is
actually unattainable, is symbolic
violence. It pacifies the
dominated with a hope that improvement
is possible, despite the intent of the
dominant group to maintain its own
status. Education does not promote
social justice and facilitate the
success of all; it generally assists
only those who already possess the
capital necessary to succeed.
Further, through its proclamation of the
Dream, education may actually increase
feelings of failure by encouraging
children to try hard despite living in a
social world built to deny them success.
As a result, failure can become an
unconscious fit for those lacking
capital.
With the American Dream as the
overarching ideal in education, many
students are promised more and
encouraged to aspire for more than the
objective structures of the social
system permit. The Dream
encourages students to upset or
challenge the status quo by aspiring to
a higher position through the
accumulation of capital; this could
undermine the position of the dominant
who are not going to willingly concede
their dominance. A few of the
dominated might advance, making the
right connections and attaining extra
capital, but this will be rare. In
fact, those who do so are reified to
maintain the "truth" of the Dream.
The intentionality behind this use
of the Dream is debatable; however, it
is pervasively influential, and
education in particular is guilty of
sustaining it. As such, it is a
Dream meant to remain unrealized and
therefore doomed to failure. It is
a cruel irony to encourage the dominated
to reach for what is meant to be beyond
their grasp, and the use of education to
advance an ideal which is not equally or
genuinely accessible for all individuals
is arguably reprehensible.
Jean Baudrillard:
The Ideal is not Real
The postmodern theory of Jean
Baudrillard, with its emphasis on the
distance between signs and the reality
they are intended to represent, offers a
perspective in the study of the American
Dream that adds a unique dimension to
the above discussion of Weber and
Bourdieu. Baudrillard argues that
although images or symbols may have once
represented a reality, they no longer
do; they have become simulacra, or signs
become separated from what they were
first meant to reflect. As Baudrillards
consideration of simulacra is generally
employed for the analysis of media and
advertising, at first glance, it may
appear a strange choice for this
discussion of the American Dream.
However, by suggesting that this
national ideal of possibility is not
connected to an empirical reality,
despite the efforts of American polity
and education to employ the symbol as a
sign of hope, progress, and success, it
becomes feasible to discuss the Dream in
Baudrillard's terms, thereby revealing
its lack of substance.
Baudrillard proposes that signs and
symbols move through four stages
(2001:170). First, the image
directly represents the natural world or
symbolizes a basic reality.
Second, that reality is obscured
and misrepresented by the sign, which no
longer reflects the exact form of a
tangible actuality. Third, the
sign "masks the absence of a basic
reality;" signs are used to represent
signs, thereby moving further from the
reality first reflected by the sign.
Finally, in the fourth stage, the
sign becomes a pure simulacrum,
disconnected completely from the reality
upon which it was based. This
stage is encapsulated in Baudrillards
(mis)quotation, "The simulacrum is never
that which conceals the truth--it is the
truth which conceals that there is none.
The simulacrum is true"
(2001:169). The four stages of the sign
and its relationship to reality can be
summarized as beginning with the real,
and moving from the symbolic to the
imaginary, and finally, to what
Baudrillard terms the hyperreal
(2001:170).
Hyperreality is the state of existence
for the postmodern world. Baudrillard
explains that as signs are no longer
connected to a material reality, it is
impossible to determine the difference
between the simulated and the real
(2001:170). This results in the
"hyperreal," which is built on
simulations of simulations, totally
devoid of empirical reality
(2001:169). Culture is filled with
simulations, resulting in a world
lacking a concrete reality, and in this
scenario, the sign is being consumed,
not the actuality upon which the sign
might have been based. Signs and
symbols are imbued with meaning and
value, but this comes from their place
in the semiotic code (the system of
signs and their interpretation), and is
entirely separate from the reality they
are proposed to represent. This is
particularly evident in advertisements,
in which perfumes, shoes, clothes, cars,
and other consumer goods are
represented, not as commodities with use
value, but as dispensers of power, sex,
and prestige (2001:128-132).
This leads then to the American Dream,
arguably the longest running
advertisement in the history of the
United States, which is transmitted as a
symbol of possibility while lacking any
relationship to reality. The Dream
has progressed through Baudrillard's
stages of the symbol, moving from a
representation of reality to an image
totally disconnected from any reality,
thus becoming its "own pure simulacrum"
(2001:173). The Dream narrative
depicts America as a land of unbridled
opportunities (Rowland and Jones 2007).
This reality, a new land and a new
nation with new opportunities, may have
existed in the early years of the
American republic, although some might
suggest it was never so (Rus 2012).
Either way, since that time, the
image of the Dream and any actuality
upon which it might have been based are
now separate; the symbol is figurative,
having no substance. Thus, the
American Dream ideology is merely a
simulacrum that continues to be
reproduced through various institutions
within American society.
Unfortunately, as Baudrillard
notes, "never again will the real have
to be produced" (Baudrillard 2001:170);
the opportunities for success through
merit and effort, promised by the Dream,
no longer have to be generated in
reality for the ideal to be reproduced
and perpetuated.
Political speeches are full of simulacra
through which the American Dream
ideology manifests and enacts its power
over individuals. As Wyatt-Nichol (2011)
argues that the political discourse of
the United States employs the American
Dream to generate hope among citizens
and buttress our acceptance of and
belief in meritocracy and the Protestant
Work Ethic. Political candidates use
representations of the Dream to remind
the public of a belief in the ideals
that Americas forefathers envisioned for
society. However, these ideals are
merely romanticized notions, for "there
is significant difference between the
image that people create for themselves
and for the country they live in and the
reality as such" (Rus 2012:316).
These ideals exist only in the sense
that people rally behind political
candidates and their representation of
the American Dream because it is viewed
as a collective good. Regardless
of their place on the ideological scale,
politicians sell images of the American
Dream, available to all through
education and hard work, suggesting a
reality attainable by merit for
everyone, regardless of their
socioeconomic position and heredity
(Rowland and Jones 2007). Alvarado
(2010) counters this presentation,
noting in the connection to the
meritocracy myth (the inevitability of
success if one works hard enough) that
people fail to realize that the American
Dream is not based on reality. It
is a symbol filled with empty promise,
sentimentally bantered about while
representing nothing but a wistful
reminiscence of what America is thought
to be, "the land of opportunity," for as
Baudrillard noted, "When the real is no
longer what it used to be, nostalgia
assumes its full meaning" (Baudrillard
2001:174).
The reproduction of the symbol of the
American Dream is perpetuated to create
a sense of what it means to be
"American" and to expound the ideal that
both children and adults should follow
to achieve success. Politicians
and those within the educational system
believe, preach and act as though the
Dream still exists despite its current
devolution from historical reality.
Given Baudrillards framework, the
American Dream is a romanticized idea
that has no potential for
actuality. The essential problem
is that the American Dream has become
completely divorced from contemporary
socioeconomic realities. In consequence,
disadvantaged populations are held
liable for any failure to live up to a
fundamentally flawed ideal that is based
on a symbol lacking substance or basis.
The image of the American Dream
sells opportunity and success in
exchange for hard work and perseverance.
It reifies the industry of the
individual, however, Baudrillard notes
that in an artificial world filled with
simulacra, the individuals labor is no
longer productive (Baudrillard
2001:133-134). It is therefore
cynical to use a symbol, which by its
role in the semiotic code helps render
individual agency insignificant, to
encourage that same individual to hard
work, promising success and advancement.
Education is often trumpeted as the path
to success; however, it cannot deliver
what the Dream promises because the
ideal is a simulacrum. Key aspects
of Baudrillard's work, including
simulation, representation, and
reproduction, are applicable to a
discussion of an education which serves
to replicate inequalities instead of
eliminating them (Moran and Kendall
2009:330). As Hochschild and
Scovronick (2003:10) aptly note, "The
American Dream is a brilliant
ideological invention..."
(emphasis added). The sustainability of
the "truth" embodied by the symbol of
the Dream depends on the reproduction of
images depicting those who have achieved
it, and education helps generate such
duplication. The symbol of the
American Dream is not only construed as
an avenue for individual success, but
also as a means for transgenerational
progress and mobility, and education
holds the ideal aloft as a goal to be
pursued and, if one is suitably
meritorious, attained. The
romanticized set of ideals represented
by the American Dream creates the sense
that an ordinary American citizen can
achieve extraordinary greatness and reap
material and financial rewards. By
selling this brand, however, education
actually encourages students to pursue
something devoid of reality, and the
continual reproduction of this empty
ideal through education will serve to
further replicate the inequalities of
the social world.
It is education that is presented as the
best tool for a realization of the
American Dream, but using education to
promote a simulacrum is a poor idea.
Public schools are deemed the lead
institutions through which the Dream is
realized (Hochschild and Scovronick
2003:1). It therefore encourages
hard work, suggesting that children can
create a better life for themselves if
they subscribe to the values set forth
by the Dream ideology. However, as
minority youth sit in the crumbling
edifices which society calls schools,
lacking basic supplies and equal access,
living in areas riddled with poverty and
crime, the symbol of the American Dream
bears no relation to their reality.
By continuing to accept and
embrace an ideal that is empty of
empirical meaning, people contribute to
the perpetuation of this hyperreality.
In fact, by embracing the symbol,
individuals actually become victims of
it, for if one fails to achieve it, it
must then (according to the Dream) be
due to personal shortcomings. Further,
as Wyatt-Nichol (2011:263) notes, the
perpetuation of this myth that hard work
guarantees success has enabled society
to marginalize issues related to social
class and social inequalities,
"increasing the potential for greater
inequality." Paradoxically, the more
education encourages the non-reality on
which the American Dream is built, the
further from reality the symbol becomes,
ensuring it remains a representation
absolutely devoid of any actuality of
the hope it promises.
Conclusion: The
Death of the Ideal
Despite its optimistic outlook, the gap
between the Dream and its reality is
vastly different for many Americans,
often due to mitigating circumstances
and socioeconomic differences that have
been transmitted intergenerationally
compounded in the present. Regardless,
the Dream acclaims the conquest of such
situational contexts through hard work
and perseverance, concurrently
acknowledging the difficulties while
promising equal access if one would only
endeavor to overcome. This proverbial
essence is the basis of education in
America; if one works hard, success will
follow. As Alvarado (2010:14)
aptly states, "Americans want the
educational system to translate the
American Dream from vision to practice."
Conversely, if one fails, it is due to a
lack of individual effort or merit.
Certainly, hard work (or merit) has a
place in the potential success of
individuals, but despite the many
factors that determine life outcomes
(such as socioeconomic status and
ethnicity) this tenet remains the
mythological ideal at the center of the
American Dream (Alvarado 2010).
Education serves to convey this ideal to
American youth. Indeed, as the
Dream is so integral to the norms,
values, and beliefs of Americans, to
discard it, oppose it, or reject it may
seem untenable to many people
(Hochschild and Scovronick 2003).
Although the realization of the Dream
has been gravely inconsistent through
the history of the nation (Beach 2007),
evidenced by the vast socioeconomic
inequalities in today's society, it is a
commonly held belief that the American
Dream should be kept alive to underlie
any attempts to reform or revamp the
public education system in the United
States (Hochschild and Scovronick
2003:6). This paper calls for a
consideration of the opposite approach,
suggesting that the death of this ideal
is the way forward.
Taken together, Weber, Bourdieu, and
Baudrillard offer a useful perspective
into the relationship between education
and the American Dream, and their
theoretical insights form a strong
foundation for proposing a cessation in
the promotion of this ideal in a society
where its realization is unlikely for a
significant number of people. An
application of Weber's theory revealing
the role of the Protestant Ethic and
rationalization in education suggests
that it is time to inject creativity,
innovation, and variability into the
educational system and stop excessive
standardization that stymies students
interest in learning. The
institutionalization of the American
Dream in education has been used to
promote hard work and encourage
conformity to the legitimated order,
instead of providing an arena for
critical thinking. Bourdieu's analysis
regarding the right of the dominant to
establish legitimacy can be employed to
demonstrate that education helps ensure
that the Dream is used to condemn those
who do not succeed while simultaneously
ensuring that they remain unlikely to do
so. Those in positions of dominance
promote the ideal while holding its
promises beyond the reach of the
dominated. While it might seem
ironic to expect any "dream" to have a
reality, the work of Baudrillard
suggests that, for American Dream, this
is indeed a fair interpretation, and
therefore, education is selling an ideal
with no viable actuality. As it
stands, the stated purpose of education,
an institution most crucial to a child's
success, is connected to nothing; it has
no basis in reality. This has,
unfortunately, been the experience of
many who embark on their education full
of hope for the future, only to find it
does not deliver anything of
substance.
It is time to consider a cessation in
the perpetuation of the Dream and the
use of education to purport this ideal
that, for many Americans, appears
lacking; it is groundless at its best,
and a betrayal at its worst. The
education system, despite its
proclamation of the Dream, has not led
to an egalitarian realization of
individual success embedded in the
ideal, nor the collective good that it
implies. The education system is
often viewed as the means-to-an-end in
which students are provided with equal
opportunity to pursue their dreams;
however, this has remained beyond the
grasp of many. The American dream and
the education system combine to
perpetuate the promise of success
through individual agency and merit;
however, this is a chimera. For
those who, despite their best efforts,
do not achieve success, the only thing
that is "self-evident" is that the
much-lauded Dream is, in reality, a
pipedream. Thus, while it may be
accurate to state that the national
identity is rooted in the American
Dream, it is not necessary to use the
educational system to fertilize and keep
the ideal alive.
References
Alonso, Gaston, Noel S. Anderson, Celina
Su, and Jeanne Theoharis. 2009. Our
Schools Suck. New York: New York
University Press.
Alvarado, Lorriz Anne. 2010. "Dispelling
the Meritocracy Myth: Lessons for Higher
Education and Student Affairs Educators."
Vermont Connection 31: 10-20.
Baudrillard, Jean. 2001. Selected
Writings. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Beach, J.M. 2007. "The Ideology of
the American Dream: Two Competing
Philosophies in Education, 1776-2006."
Educational Studies 41(2):148-164.
Blanchard, Sarah and Chandra Muller. 2014
"Gatekeepers of the American Dream: How
Teachers Perceptions Shape the Academic
Outcomes of Immigrant and
Language-Minority Students." Social
Science Research.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.10.003
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. "Symbolic
Power." Critique of Anthropology
4:77-85.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. "The Social Space
and the Genesis of Groups." Theory and
Society 14(6):723-744.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. "What Makes
a Social Class? On the Theoretical
and Practical Existence of Groups." Berkeley
Journal of Sociology 32:1-17.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Practical
Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990a. In Other
Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive
Sociology. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990b. The
Logic of Practice. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Desan, Mathieu Hikaru. 2013. "Bourdieu,
Marx, and Capital A Critique of the
Extension Model." Sociological Theory
31(4):318–42.
English, Fenwick. 2012. "Bourdieus
Misrecognition: Why Educational
Leadership Standards Will Not Reform
Schools or Leadership." Journal
of Educational Administration and
History 44(2):155-170.
Grodsky, Eric, John Robert Warren, and
Erika Felts. 2008. "Testing and Social
Stratification in American Education." Annual
Review of Sociology 34:385–404.
Hilbert, Richard A. 1987. "Bureaucracy as
Belief, Rationalization as Repair: Max
Weber in a Post-Functionalist Age."
Sociological Theory 5(1):70.
Hochschild, Jennifer. 1995. Facing Up
to the American Dream: Race, Class, and
the Soul of the Nation. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hochschild, Jennifer and Nathan
Scovronick. 2003. The American
Dream and the Public Schools.
New York City: Oxford
University Press.
Knight, Tony, and Art Pearl. 2000.
"Democratic Education and Critical
Pedagogy." The Urban Review
32(3):197-226.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage
Inequalities: Children in Americas
Schools. New York: Broadway Books.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal
Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family
Life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Massey, Douglas S. 2008. Categorically
Unequal: The American Stratification
System. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
McNamee, Stephen J. and Robert K. Miller,
Jr. 2004. "The Meritocracy Myth." Sociation
Today 2(1) ISSN: 1542-6300.
Moran, Paul and Alex Kendall. 2009.
"Baudrillard and the End of Education." International
Journal of Research and Method in
Education 32(3):327-335.
Obama, Barack. 2008. "Transcript: Barack
Obamas Acceptance Speech." National
Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved 22
January 2016
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=94087570).
Rowland, Robert C. and John M. Jones.
2007. "Recasting the American Dream and
American Politics: Barack Obama's
Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic
National Convention." Quarterly
Journal of Speech 93(4):425–48.
Rus, Dana. 2012. "Imagery vs. Reality in
the Perception of American
Exceptionalism." Studia Universitatis
Petru Maior - Philologia 13:314-319.
Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C.
Wright Mills. 1946. From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max, Peter Baehr, and Gordon C.
Wells. 2002. The Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism: And Other
Writings. New York: Penguin
Classics.
Wyatt-Nichol, Heather. 2011. "The Enduring
Myth of the American Dream: Mobility,
Marginalization, and Hope." International
Journal of Organization Theory and
Behavior 14(2):258-279.
Zinn, Howard. 2003. A Peoples
History of the United States.
New York, NY: HarperCollins
Publishers.