Read Part I

Education can change community norms and encourage loyalty to formal institutions

Social behaviour and the allocation of resources are governed by informal norms and formal institutions. Norms are enforced by communities or social groups and formal institutions (including laws and legal systems) are sanctioned by the state. Education enhances the mobility of people from one group to the other, and it may lead to a lesser dependence on the norms of specific communities. Adherence to community norms could work against education in certain cases. For example, it is one factor that works against girls’ education in different parts of the world. There are communities that do not value education and this may have a negative impact on the educational achievements of their children (Santhakumar et al, 2016; Wilson, 1987;¹ Fernandez-Kelly, 1995;² Lewis, 1971³)

Higher levels of education may lead to a greater dependence on formal institutions. This is a desirable change since such institutions are more likely to depend on values that cut across different communities. In certain contexts, formal institutions are likely to be those which negotiate between or go beyond, the differing perspectives of relatively smaller groups. This may push the formal institutions much closer to a universal set of values, and hence, could be shaped by the global discourses on individual freedom and human rights. On the other hand, community norms while ensuring certain cooperation within the community may sanction exclusion or violence against others (WHO, 2009⁴). Hence, a movement away from such community norms is desirable if it can be achieved through education. However, what is the actual evidence in this regard?

Education is found to be one of the variables, along with age, gender, and marital status which influence the nature of one’s social relationships (Cornwall, 1985⁵). The role of education in creating social capital is also noted (Heyneman, 1998⁶). These impacts of education could be partly due to the processes – students practice skills for participation and reciprocity as part of schooling; schools provide forums for community activity; students may learn how to participate responsibly in society and so on. In that way, public education which caters to children of all class/​caste/​ethnic/​gender backgrounds is important. However, the impact of education in this regard could be also due to the changes in the ​‘location’ of individuals from close-knit communities to a multi-group, civil space.

Education encourages people to internalise a generalised social trust (rather than community loyalty). It was noted that the levels of social participation have not risen in line with the dramatic increase in education in the Western, developed world (Putnam, 1995⁷). However, this could be due to the difference between absolute and relative levels of education as noted by Nie et al (1996)⁸. According to them, social participation is determined more by relative education and not the absolute one. However, Helliwell and Putnam (2007)⁹ could see, based on two large surveys held in the US, that education of self and average education (in society) both lead to a significant increase in social trust. They could not find any evidence to show that an increase in average education has any negative effect on social participation.

A specific case in point is that of gender norms. There is not enough discussion in the literature on the ways through which education leads to a change in gender norms.¹⁰ Education, particularly secondary education, is strongly associated with changes in gender attitudes and practices, such as female genital cutting. The delay in marriage by educated girls has also been noted. Educated girls have a relatively smaller age gap between them and their spouses, and this may give them greater control (ICRW, 2005¹¹). Das (2008)¹² documents that educated women report having a stronger voice within the family as an important gain from education. Though these are not directly related to gender norms, one can expect that such voices and control by women may lead to greater resistance to the practice of gender-discriminatory norms in these communities. However, there are contexts where education reinforces certain prevailing gender norms, for example, the subjects that girls should study or the jobs that they should take up and so on (Rao et al., 2012;¹³ Kodoth and Mridul, 2005¹⁴).

We may consider whether education changes the gender attitude of men. One analysis¹⁵ using data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in three countries (the US, Germany, and the UK) shows that education is a significant predictor for the change in gender attitude among men. It was noted in the US that more of the highly educated, white men hold liberal attitudes about women’s gender roles than the less-educated white men (Blee and Tickmyer, 1995¹⁶). Another way to look at this issue is to note that gender attitudes began changing in developed societies during the second half of the twentieth century (Thornton, 1989¹⁷), which is also the period when most of these societies acquired higher levels of education. In general, education seems to have made a positive difference in gender attitudes in society, even though gender discrimination in different forms continues to prevail even in educated societies.

Mixed evidence of education enhancing equal opportunity

The relationship between education, meritocracy and democracy is discussed in the literature (Arrow, Bowles & Durlauf 2000;¹⁸ McNamee & Miller, 2009¹⁹). Education is expected to promote the equality of opportunity; and inequality, if any, sustained by education (or meritocracy) has certain social legitimacy. This is so since educational attainment and performance determine the so-called ​‘merit’ and it is seen as a transparent way to achieve socio-economic mobility. Such a meritocracy is compatible with the needs of a just society. This is so since it rejects the arbitrary domination by aristocracy, birth or inheritance.²⁰ Meritocracy and democracy are ​‘acceptable’ since these enhance the ​‘status’ of a person according to their ability, effort and virtue and collectively determine freedom and rights. However, what if this meritocracy itself is determined by one’s own birth into a specific family, as noted by Young (1958)?²¹

It has been noted that access to and performance in higher education in the US is strongly influenced by social class, despite the fact that opportunities have increased for a relatively small share of the population belonging to lower socio-economic groups (Arrow, Bowles & Durlauf, 2000). Hence, children with parents belonging to higher socio-economic groups are likely to have access to a wider range of academic support and opportunities. The factors that are found to be influencing educational outcomes include the presence of both parents in the family, being the child of a father who is highly educated, interacting with peers and family members who value education and higher achievement in this regard and having access to a variety of math and science courses (McNamee and Miller, 2009). Therefore, it is somewhat obvious that a person’s educational achievement is determined by the educational status of their family or social environment. The advantage enjoyed by educated people could persist over generations. There can be political advantages for parents belonging to higher socio-economic groups. For example, they may be in an advantageous position to demand what is needed for their children and get a positive response from school officials (Lareau, 2000²²).

There are several studies that note or theorise the role of educational institutes in this regard (Apple, 2006;²³ Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990²⁴). According to them, educational institutions fail to recognise and nurture students from lower socio-economic groups. Moreover, institutes may be influenced by the social capital brought in by the affluent sections, and this may lead to the perpetuation of social inequalities.

There are studies on intergenerational social and economic mobility.²⁵ The family background still seems to have an influence on the educational and occupational paths chosen by young people in Italy. The availability of different types of schools that promote participation either in higher education or vocational education and the way this choice is made in Italy seem to have a long-term influence on the occupational choices of its citizens. The quality differences between different kinds of educational institutes, the age at which students are directed to a particular type of education and parental influences are determining factors, as well. In Italy, students make this choice at the age of 13 years, and their family influences this choice. The fact that those who opt out of university education are likely to start working at an early age could be an inducement for certain families. On the other hand, children of those people who hold a university degree are more likely to opt for an education that prepares them for admission to universities. The age at which this choice is made is important since other studies also show that the sooner this choice is made, the higher the risk of socio-economic background of the family influencing it. Hence, several countries have decided to postpone that choice. For example, Finland has decided to provide compulsory and uniform schooling to all children up to the age of 16 years. It was noted that the increase in social mobility spurred by this change was higher than 20 percent.

However, the role of education in enhancing the equality of opportunity in India could be undermined since nearly half of the students do not complete schooling. They are more likely to come from socially and economically less-privileged backgrounds (Santhakumar et al, 2016). They do not have access to higher education and educated employment.

In summary, education, in theory, has the potential to enhance the equality of opportunity (for higher education) and employment. However, the evidence is mixed. Even in a developed country like the USA, social mobility facilitated through education is mediated through the socio-economic background of the family. This could be more so in India.

Impact of education on attitudes to discrimination

Does education change racial prejudices? In theory, formal education can reduce racial prejudice in the following three ways (Quinley and Glock, 1979:188²⁶):

1. It may provide people with more knowledge about minorities and about the historical, social, and economic factors responsible for minority and majority group differences
2. By teaching people to recognise prejudice and to understand its dangers
3. By providing cognitive skills, which increase people’s capacity to detect prejudice and to reject it.

Several empirical studies have noted that education and contact between students coming from different racial backgrounds in American colleges and universities have contributed to a positive change in racial attitudes and commitment to improving racial understanding (Chang 2002;²⁷ Hogan and Mallott 2005²⁸). This is not to say that racism has disappeared. Many studies have noted its persistence (Downey and Torrecilha 1994;²⁹ Feagin, Vera, Imani 1996³⁰). Wodtke (2012)³¹provides a review of studies and some new evidence in this regard. As expected, most of the studies have looked at the attitudes of white Americans towards black Americans.

There are two sides to the debates on the impact of education on racial attitudes. It is seen as a positive, liberalising force encouraging people to reject racial attitudes ( Hyman, Wright, and Reed 1975;³² Quinley and Glock, 1979). There is a sizable body of empirical evidence which supports this view (for a review, see Schuman et al. 1997³³). These show that highly-educated whites are more likely to reject negative racial stereotypes and that it is the structural factors that cause white versus black inequality. However, the evidence on whether highly educated whites support policies (including the allocation of public resources) for mitigating racial inequality is not clear. There are studies that find that highly-educated whites are no more likely (than less-educated whites) to support specific policies designed to overcome racial inequality (Jackman 1978³⁴; Jackman and Muha 1984;³⁵ Schuman et al.1997).

Hence, the picture could be that higher education enables certain sophistication in attitude whereas no serious change in the willingness to alter structures and resource allocation (Jackman 1978; Jackman and Muha 1984; Schuman et al. 1997). Such remedial measures may include government-enforced school integration and affirmative action in higher education, for which there may not be adequate support even among highly educated whites. This could be true even in other countries where the conflict between different groups is severe.

Vodtke (2012) extends this research to include other groups, not only whites and blacks. These include Hispanics and Asians. It is interesting to note that this study found that whites, Hispanics, and blacks with higher levels of education are more likely to reject negative stereotypes, whereas this effect is less consistent among Asians. Hence, racial discrimination and its persistence despite education is not only an issue for people of European origin but also of Asia. This need not be surprising for Indians due to their continued practice of the caste system despite improvements in education (especially for the upper caste groups). On understanding the processes by which this continues, studies, such as Mahalingam (2007),³⁶ show how essentialist understandings of identity shape perceptions of ​‘upper caste’ groups and how it shapes their social behaviour and relations with other caste groups.

Changing racial attitudes may need special efforts in education. One study conducted in South Africa notes that a module of education talking about human variation could influence student attitudes towards race. It showed that education could counteract other external influences.

Education and altruistic behaviour

A significant section of people mostly those belonging to the middle class (and not only the rich) contribute to charitable initiatives in the developed world. For example, out of more than $300 billion that US citizens donate to charitable initiatives each year, 15 percent comes from foundations, 6 percent is from corporations and the rest is contributed by individuals. There can be many factors (like religious beliefs, personal experience, and income) determining individual contributions. Does education play a role in this? Bekkers and Wiepking (2007)³⁷ provide an overall picture based on a review of a large number of studies. Most of these studies are from the US, UK, the Netherlands and Canada. According to them, there is a positive relationship between philanthropy and the level of education, visible in most empirical studies that have included education as a variable. Higher levels of education are also associated with the tendency to give away a higher proportion of income (Schervish and Havens, 1997³⁸) Such a relationship between education and charitable donations seems to exist only for secular giving and not for religious donations (Yen, 2002³⁹), but it has been noted that such a relationship between education and religious donation exists for protestants but not for Catholics (Hoge and Yang, 1994⁴⁰). Hence, education-induced giving can be separated from donations driven by religious beliefs. There are other studies that have not seen a positive impact of education (Regnerus et al, 1998;⁴¹ Marx, 2000;⁴² Bryant et al, 2003⁴³). Brooks (2002)⁴⁴ finds no relationship between education and the amount contributed after controlling for income indicators. A study in Canada⁴⁵ did not see education status as a significant determinant of contribution to charity. There are other studies that have found education as a significant factor along with wealth indicators (for example, Awan and Hameed, 2014⁴⁶). Two studies from East Asia (Korea and Taiwan) did not see a positive impact of education (Wu et al, 2004;⁴⁷ Park and Park, 2004⁴⁸). Interestingly, the review by Bekkers and Wiepking (2007)⁴⁹ cites a few studies which have noted that though education encourages people to contribute to environmental, human and animal rights, and also for development aid, but not for health-related charitable actions.

The generally positive impact of education could be due to several factors. This could be even due to their better ability to understand and respond to survey questionnaires. Brown (2005)⁵⁰ notes that people with higher education get into networks that facilitate/​encourage such contributions. Brown and Ferris (2007)⁵¹ find that this tendency could be due to generalised social trust. Bekkers (2006)⁵² sees that higher education is related to charitable contributions through generalised social trust, verbal intelligence, and enhanced confidence in charitable organisations. We have not come across any such study on the socio-economic determinants of charity in India. This could be due to the lack of a data set or due to the lack of reporting or transparency in such giving. There can be a higher level of mixing of religious and secular giving in India.

One study⁵³ on charitable donations has noted that happier people give more and giving makes people happier, such that happiness and giving may operate in a positive feedback loop. Hence, if education contributes to happiness, it may contribute to ​‘generosity’.

Author

Santhakumar V, Professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru