Consider:

-holders of advanced degrees and credentials (gatekeeping)

-assigns labour (literally called worksheets!) to pupils (proles)

-gives out sanctions, extra work, and bad reviews to punish bad work behaviour

-literally trained in discipline

-sharing of knowledge is forbidden, calls it cheating

-insists that you not work directly with your best friend, assigns you pairwork with a gender you’re not yet comfortable with

-according to most media, teachers are the most liberal profession

-creates quarterly performance reports for workers, stressing constant need to improvement (report cards)

-have direct access to whiteboard markers and notebooks, the means of instruction!

  • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netMEnglish
    56·
    10 months ago

    If any of you try to take this seriously and make a struggle session I will personally come to your house and make you eat a bar of soap like you’re 7 years old and said a bad word.

    I am once again begging for hexbear users to learn that bourgeois is not just a synonym for bad.

  • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    21·
    10 months ago

    I['m pretty sure I] know this is a joke, however

    No. Teachers do not make their living by owning capital, and thus are not bourgeois.

  • dead [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    18·
    10 months ago

    The intended purpose of public schooling is to prepare children for a job ie sell their labor to a capitalist. It’s not some sort of secret; every public school will tell you this. Public grade school is designed to simulate working at a job. Public school teachers simulate the management of a job.

    School teachers are not bourgeois.

  • thedarkfly@feddit.nlEnglish
    15·
    10 months ago

    I know this is a joke but…

    The school system can, and definitely has been oppressive. They have imposed cultural norms of the dominant class or colonial rulers, and worse, have actively suppressed, punished and taught to be ashamed of local cultures.

    I’m no expert and I believe it has been worst with natives in the Americas and in Africa. However, I’ll consider the case with which I’m most familiar as an example.

    I’m from Belgium, which has been invaded or ruled by a succession of foreign powers throughout its history (namely Gauls, Romans, Franks, Burgonds, Austrians, Spaniards, French, Dutch). Which has made the region ethnically diverse. To simplify, there are two main language families: those germanic, descendant from frankish (flemish, brabantic, limburgish…) and those romance, descendant from latin (waloon, picard, lorrain…).

    At the end of the 19th century, nationalism arose and with it mandatory schooling. It was thought by the bourgeoisie that the local languages were inferior to french and that it was important that the people spoke the same language (more efficient army and economy). Hence, the pupils were forbidden to speak their mother tongues, punished, humiliated and encouraged to denounce peers. Such tactics were used in the whole of (currently) french-speaking europe (cf. the occitan “vergonha”).

    This idiocide didn’t work with the germanic people who opposed it politically with the “flemish mouvement”. The flemish bourgeoisie finally adopted standard dutch, very close to brabantic dialects, and imposed it in their region. Other languages are still in use but dwindeling due to lack of state recognition.

    But it totally worked on the romance, southern region. French, a foreign language controlled from abroad is now the mother tongue of 100% of the population. Very few speak the native languages. Indoctrination worked like a charm as they now have a terrible reputation. Most people don’t care about their death, and the rest is positively happy about it.