| THE THEORY OF BASIL BERNSTEIN | |||
BASIL BERNSTEIN
Basil Bernstein was professor of the Institute of Education of the University of London and director of the Sociological
Research Unit. His publications started in 1958 and flowed continuously until 2000. He is among the greatest sociologists of the 20th century, showing a particular concern
for education. "His ideas have measured the change that has taken
place in our systems and they offer the most developed grammar
for understanding the shape and character of our current
educational practice" (Davies, 2001, p.1).
Without loosing his identity as a great sociologist,Bernstein made constant links with other areas of knowledge
such as psychology, linguistics, anthropology and epistemology.This may be one of the many reasons why his theory has been
widely used across different areas of knowledge.
The importance of his theory to the work carried out by
researchers of the most diverse areas of knowledge and of the
most diverse fields of analysis and intervention, has acquired
crescent recognition and his ideas have gained increasing
visibility through international symposiums, dedicated to
research made around the theory, the first of which took place
in Lisbon, June 2000.
Basil Bernstein constructed a genuinely original line of thought, developed through a constant refinement, deepening and
reorganisation of ideas, as a consequence of a permanent reflexive and interrogative attitude before the problems which
interested him. As a researcher, he always valued the work carried out by his research students, using the discussion
around that work as a source of new ideas, experiences and fundamental sources of questioning for the development of his
theory. The explicit recognition, in various of his writings, of the importance given to this joint work, reveals the
sensitivity and honesty of his character.
Basil Bernstein was a magnificent talker, who was able to listen, and a marvellous company with an ironic sense of
humour. Throughout the years, he made many friends among his students and colleagues. His sensitivity to others' problems,
his generosity and his open minded spirit will never be forgotten by those who had the privilege of working with
him.
The evolution of Bernstein's ideas appears fundamentally in
five volumes referred to collectively as Class, Codes and
Control, I-V. The first edition of Volume I was published
in 1971 and the second edition of the last volume in 2000. Looking back at his work, Bernstein (2001b) considers four of his papers as the benchmarks of the development of his theory: 1971 - On the classification and framing of educational knowledge 1981 - Codes, modalities and the process of cultural reproduction: A model 1986 - On pedagogic discourse 1999 - Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay
He says that the early work in the Sociological Research Unit crystallised in the Classification and Framing
paper, where he was able to free himself of the imperfections of the socio-linguistic theorising, make distinctions between
power and control which he thought were absolutely invaluable and necessary and show that one could have modalities of
elaborated codes. So the question was what were the principles selecting, why a particular modality was institutionalised for
particular groups of children.
Although Bernstein considers this a crucial paper, he thought that the most important paper was the Codes,
Modalities and the Process of Cultural Reproduction: A Model. It took ten years from classification and framing to
the code modality paper. He says that this paper looked back and produced a much more formal and conceptually elegant
theorising of codes. The code modality paper attempted to remedy earlier deficiencies with respect to the
transmission/acquisition process, the defining of context, and macro-micro translations by the developement of what was
thought to be a more powerful language of description. This paper looked forward to the pedagogic device. Up to the 1980s
the work was directed to an understanding of different principles of pedagogic transmission/acquisition, their
generating contexts and change. These principles were conceptualised as code modalities. However, what was
transmitted was not in itself analysed apart from the classification and framing of the categories of the
curriculum.
In the mid-1980s, what was transmitted became the focus of the analysis. A theory of the construction of pedagogic
discourse, its distributive, recontextualising and evaluative rules, and their social basis, was developed: the pedagogic
device.
The On Pedagogic Discourse paper, firstly published in 1986, had a much more elegant version in 1990. There a form
of analysis was created which distinguished between class fractions and where it was hypothesised that ideological
orientation, interests and modes of cultural reproduction would be related to the functions of the agents (symbolic control or
economy), field location and hierarchical position.
However, the forms of the discourses, i.e. the internal principles of their construction and their social
base, were taken for granted and not analysed. Thus, there was an analysis of modalities of elaborated codes and their
generating social contexts, and an analysis of the construction of pedagogic dicourse which the modalities of elaborated codes
pre-supposed, but no analysis of the dicourses subject to pedagogic transformation (1999). This was done in the
Vertical and Horizontal Discourse: An Essay paper.
This text does not intend to present the multiple aspects of Bernstein's theory. Its aim is to provide the reader with the
main ideas of his theory which have grounded theoretically most of the research developed by the ESSA Group. A substantial part
of the text is devoted to the description of the two central models of the theory - Model of reproduction and cultural
transformation and Model of pedagogic discourse. This is followed by a particular reference to the most recent
developments of the theory, including Bernstein's ideas about vertical and horizontal discourses and also to the importance
of the theory within the framework of empirical research. Model of reproduction and cultural transformation
Central to the development of this model, is the concept of code which, according to Bernstein, is a regulative principle
tacitly acquired which selects and integrates the relevant meanings, the form of their realisation and the evoking
contexts. Thus, the code is a regulator of the relation between contexts and a generator of guiding principles to the
production of the texts adequate to each context. At an operational level, the code is defined by the relation between
the coding orientation and the form how this orientation is realised, according to the formulae:
In this formulae, OE/R refers to coding orientation, restricted or elaborated. In the restricted
orientation the meanings are particularistic, context dependent and have a direct relation with a specific material basis. In
the elaborated orientation the meanings are universalistic, relatively independent of the context and have an indirect
relation with a specific material basis. By its own nature, the official pedagogic discourse and practice of the school
institutionalise an elaborated orientation. Family local pedagogic discourses and pratices may correspond either to a
restricted orientation or to an elaborated orientation, depending fundamentally on the family's position in the social
division of labour - a simple division of labour leads to a restricted orientation and a complex division of labour leads
to an elaborated orientation. However, such is not a linear relation as it can be changed by the access of the family to
differentiated contexts, available either through formal education or through participation in agencies of opposition/
challenge/ resistance (unions, political parties) or agencies of cultural reproduction (e.g. sports or religious
institutions). It is important to note that all families use a restricted orientation in given interactional contexts.
The coding orientation, restricted or elaborated, may give rise to a large range of realisations. The form how meanings
are realised depends on the distribution of power and on the principles of control which regulate the social relations and
the contexts of pedagogic interaction. In the above formulae, C and F correspond to the concepts of classification and framing,
used to analyse respectively power and control relations which characterise a given social structure; +/- refer to strong and
weak values of classification and framing; i refers to internal relations that is relations within a given context of
communication (family, school, work); e refers to external relations that is relations between distinct
communicative contexts (family and school, community and school, school and work). Classification refers to the degree
of maintenance of boundaries between categories (subjects, spaces, discourses). Classification is strong when there is a
sharp separation between categories, this originating hierarchies in which each category has a specific status and
voice and therefore a given power; classification is weak when there is a blurring of boundaries between categories. Framing
refers to the social relations between categories, that is to communication between these categories. Framing is strong when
the categories with higher status have the control in that relation and is weak when the categories with lower status also
have some control in the relation. Between the extremes of strong and weak classifications and framings a grading may
exist.
When using in the analysis the concepts of classification and framing, Bernstein considers two ideal types of social
structure. One is based on the rule 'things must be kept apart'. The stronger this rule, the stronger the classification
and framing which control the transmission. Control is explicit and appears as inherent of a formal position. The other type of
social structure is based on the rule 'things must be kept together'. In this case, the control is implicit and appears as
inherent to a person and not to a formal position. Socialisation within this rule encourages spontaneous
behaviours, the manifestation of social relations and their questioning and the social types produced are probably not
strong and well marked. The structure of the socialisation reflects, therefore, given classification and framing relations
which model the mental structures by establishing coding procedures based on distinct rules. However, behind a given
classification and framing are, respectively, the power relations and the fundamental principles of social control.
Power maintains the classification that is the insulations, the boundaries between 'things', be them internal or external to
the subject. The modality of socialisation, that is the pedagogic interaction, is regulated by the strength of framing.
However, because power can be realised through framings of distinct strengths, a situation may occur in which power
relations are not altered but they are realised through a change in the form of socialisation.
With the model which refers to the generation and acquisition/transformation of codes (Figure 1), Bernstein
intends to make explicit the relations between the macro institutional level and the micro interaccional level. It
explores the idea that, depending on the social structure that characterises a given society, given principles of the
distribution of power and social control are generated which, at the level of the code, will translate respectively in given
values of classification and framing. From a theoretical point of view, this means that in a society characterised by an
equitative distribution of power and by principles of control based on horizontal/open social relations, the dominant code is
a code which legitimates weak classification and framings. On the contrary, in a society characterised by a hierarchical
distribution of power and by principles of control based on vertical/closed social relations, the dominant code is a code
which legitimates strong classifications and framings.
Figure 1 - Generation, acquisition and transformation of the code (Bernstein, 1981).
The vertical lines of the model indicate that power refers to classification and the principle of control refers to
framing, showing in the first case what must be reproduced and in the second the process of its acquisition. The codes
integrate two aspects and give the subjects the possibility of making their reading and creating the texts which can be
legitimately constructed, or texts which are within the possibilities of the syntaxes of generation and realisation, as
ortodox/heterodox potential texts. The diagonal lines indicate the process of resistance, challenge and opposition. The shadow
area represents the process of modelling answers to clivages, contradictions and dilemmas that the insulations created by
classification intend to suppress.
It is through the codes that the subjects acquire a given voice and message. The voice is generated by the nature of the
categories created by the principles of the social division of labour. If categories - agents or discourses - are specialised,
each of them has its specific identity and that identity can only be maintained and reproduced if the insulation between the
categories is kept. The strength of the insulation between categories (classification) gives a specificity to the category
according to it a given voice. Thus, the various degrees of insulation between categories refer to diverse principles of
classification. In this way, power relations regulate the principles of classification, through the maintenance or change
of the degree of insulation between categories created by the social division of labour. Power relations establish the voice
of a category, positioning the subjects through the principles of classification they establish.
The social division of labour in education may exemplify the relation between power, classification and voice. This social
division of labour is constituted in the school by categories of agents and discourses. When classification is strong there
is a strong insulation between the educational discourse and the everyday discourses and, consequently, each one of these
discourses has its specialised voice. In this way, the transmitters and the acquirers constitute specialised
categories with specialised voices. From the point of view of the acquisition of the voice, the distinction of categories
provides a set of criteria of demarcation that permit the recognition of categories in the variability of its
presentation and give to the subject the basis to infer the recognition rules. These rules regulate whan can be associated,
that is which meanings can be legitimately associated, therefore regulating the principles for the generation of
legitimate meanings, and in this way they create what can be designated by syntax of generation of the legitimate meanings.
In this way, a relation can be established between the distribution of power (external to the subject) and the syntax
of the generation of meanings (internal to the subject), a relation which derives from the principle of classification of
the social division of labour. However, in the tacit acquisition of a specific syntax of generation of meanings, are
produced not only dominant and dominated voices, but there is also, in opposition to the voice, the production of something
that is to have voice and whose syntax is constituted by the insulations created by the principle of classification. It is
the arbitrary nature of the principles of classification and of power relations that create the potential for the tacit
practice of the transformation of the voice.
Although it is not possible at the level of the subject to separate the voice from the message, it is important from an
analytical point of view, the distinction between power and control, that is between the what it is to be reproduced and
the form of its acquisition. The message constitutes the form of socialisation in the code and refers to the relations which,
at the school level, correspond to pedagogic relations. The principles of control establish the form of social relations
between categories that is they establish the principles of communication that translate a given message. The pedagogic
relations which take place in the classroom can exemplify the relation between control, framing and message.
It is also explicit in the model the idea that, depending on the values of classification and framing that characterise the
regulative code of a given context of communication, at the level of the subjects are acquired recognition and realisation
rules which are a function of those values. According to Bernstein, the values of classification and framing define the
mode of transmission-acquisition or practice in the basic contexts of communication. Classificational values in a
pedagogic practice create specific recognition rules whereby students recognise the specificity of a particular context. If
classificational values change from strong to weak, so do their contexts and recognition rules. Framing values shape the form
of pedagogic communication and context management. Different framing values transmit different rules for the creation of
texts, whether these texts are instructional or regulative. Just as different classificatory values produce and expect
different recognition rules on the part of the subject, so different framing values entail different realisation rules to
be acquired by the subject.
Generally it can be stated that whereas the part of the model which relates the social structure with the code
corresponds to the level of the generation of the code, the part of the model which refers to the relation of the context
of communication with the specific coding orientation corresponds to the level of the acquisition of the code. When
Bernstein makes the link between these two parts, he intends to make explicit the mechanisms that are accountable for the
social and cultural reproduction. However, when he considers, in the same model, reciprocal relations between distinct
components and distinct levels he also intends to highlight the mechanisms that may lead to potential situations of change and
therefore to social and cultural transformation. This is an aspect of crucial importance in the development of the model as
it shows how the relations generated at the structural level may be reproduced, but also transformed at the interaccional
level. It is also important, in the analysis of this model to refer that the code contains both an interpersonal dimension
and an intrapersonal dimension. The first is social and reflects the relations created by the type of structure of
society, therefore being external to the subject. The second, although socially determined, reflects what occurs at the level
of the subject, therefore being internal to it.
When attention is focused on the intrapersonal component of Bernstein's model, it is important to explicate in a detailed
way the relation between the specific coding orientation and the text considered legitimate in communicative contexts (e.g.
educational contexts).
According to Bernstein, text production in a given context depends on the possession of the specific coding orientation to
that context. This means that subjects must have both the recognition rules, that is, be able to recognise the context,
and the realisation rules, that is, be able to produce a text adequate to that context. Realisation rules concern both the
selection and the production of meanings. Subjects must select adequate meanings and produce texts according to them, in this
way showing correct performance in context, demonstrating possession of both recognition and realisation rules. Failure
to show performance may indicate lack of recognition or realisation rules or both. As to realisation rules, subjects
may not be able to select meanings or produce them or both. If they are able to select meanings but are incapable of producing
the text, we say that they have a passive realisation. If the text is produced, they exhibit active realisation. However, for
text production to be accomplished, subjects must also possess socio-affective dispositions specific to the context, that is,
they must have the appropriate aspirations, motivations and values. Recognition rules regulate realisation rules. Both
principles and the requisite socio-affective dispositions are socially acquired and become part of the subjects' internal
structures.
Figure 2 shows the relations between specific coding orientations and socio-affective dispositions in text
production. The interrelation shown in the model between specific coding orientation and socio-affective dispositions is
intended to highlight their mutual influence. Although constituting different realities within the subject, the
possession of a specific coding orientation may be limited by socio-affective dispositions, which are in turn limited by
coding orientation.
Figure 2 - Specific coding orientation, socio-affective dispositions and student's performance in specific learning contexts (Morais & Neves, 2001).
Exemplifying these relations among the cognitive competences required in specific classroom contexts, we would say that
students receiving a pedagogic practice which requires, for instance, problem solving competence succeed by (a) recognising
the specificity of the micro-context of problem solving within the instructional context of their practice (recognition
rules); (b) selecting meanings adequate to that micro-context, that is, knowing how to proceed to solve problems correctly
(passive realisation); (c) producing the text, that is, presenting a correct solution to the problem (active
realisation); and (d) possessing socio-affective dispositions favourable to that realisation (motivations, aspirations,
values). In the case of socio-affective competences, students receiving a pedagogic practice which requires, for instance,
the competence of co-operation succeed if they (a) recognise the specificity of the micro-context of co-operation within the
regulative context of their practice (recognition rules); (b) select meanings appropriate to that micro-context, that is,
know what should be done to achieve co-operation (passive realisation); (c) produce the text, that is, co-operate
according to the rules of the classroom (active realisation); and (d) possessing socio-affective dispositions towards that
realisation (motivations, aspirations, values).
In these terms, a relation of continuity is established between family and school whenever an elaborated orientation is
present in the former and both practices are convergent in terms of the classification and framing relations present in
their socialisation processes. However, a relation of discontinuity is not a necessary condition of children's school
failure, that is, it is not a condition of non-recognition and non-realisation in the school specific contexts in which
students are evaluated. Specific characteristics of school pedagogic practices can be favourable to the acquisition of
recognition and realisation rules underlying the development of cognitive and socio-affective competences.
The possession of recognition and realisation rules to local contexts leads to the acquisition of a restricted orientation
whereas the possession of these rules to generalised contexts leads the subject to the acquisition of an elaborated
orientation.
Another crucial aspect, present in the model, refers to the relation "social structure-positioning-code". This relation
expresses the idea that the subjects positioning, determined by the principles of power and control that characterise a given
social structure, determines the code that regulates the form of interaction with other subjects. In this way, and
considering the macro hierarchical structure of society, subjects with distinct positionings in that structure will tend
to have access to distinct codes, showing in the communicative contexts a specific coding orientation (recognition and
realisation rules) which varies in function of that positioning. However, the model allows also to think of a
relation of inverse direction between positioning and code. In fact, the access to contexts of formal education or the
participation in agencies of opposition/challenge/resistance (e.g. unions, political parties) or agencies of cultural
reproduction (e.g. sports, religious institutions), may lead to a change of the code initially acquired by the subjects and
that change may, in its turn, influence their positioning and, consequently, the form of their relation with other subjects in
specific contexts of communication.
The application of the model to the analysis of contexts of communication in the family, in the school and in teacher
training (e.g. at the level of the father/mother-child, teacher-student and educator-teacher relations) assumes that
any context of pedagogic interaction reflects a social structure with a given hierarchical organisation. Thus, in the
same way as at the macro-level of the social structure are created principles of power and control that generate the code,
also at the level of the family and school contexts are created power and control relations which will determine the code that
regulates the pedagogic interactions present in these contexts. In this case, to speak of code means to speak of the principle
which regulates the discourses and practices present in transmission-acquisition contexts in the family and in the
school and which lead to the acquisition by children/students/teachers to the specific coding orientation
to these contexts. Furthermore, in the same way that at the macro level of the social structure there is a hierarchical
organisation where the various subjects are placed in distinct positions, also at the level of the various contexts of the
family and the school there is a similar type of organisation where parents and children, teachers and students and educators
and teachers occupy given positions. Therefore, to speak of positioning in the family, in the school or in teachers
education means to speak of a position of the subject in the interaction with other subjects differentially positioned.
The application of the model to the analysis of the social relations which characterise any pedagogic context, shows that,
in the same way as at the macro level of the structure of society also at the micro level of the educational structures,
is the nature of those relations which will greatly determine the reproductive or transformative role of the social
structure. This shows the interest that should be attributed, in the educational context, to the interactions that take
place.
The model of pedagogic discourse is directly centred on the what is transmitted as educational knowledge and with it
Bernstein develops a theory about the production and reproduction of pedagogic discourse. He considers that the
internal grammar of that discourse is provided by the pedagogic device, through the distribution, recontextualising and
evaluation rules. Distribution rules accord and specialise, for distinct social groups, the thinkable/unthinkable and
respective practices, through pedagogic agencies differently specialised. The distribution rules regulate the degree of
classification between the thinkable and the unthinkable (and respective practices) and, therefore, the degree of insulation
between groups, practices and contexts and between principles of communication differently specialised and as such they
constitute a principle of basic classification which regulates the relations between the distribution of power, the knowledge
and the forms of consciousness. The recontextualising rules, which are regulated by the distribution rules, regulate the
constitution of specific pedagogic discourses, that is, they regulate the what (discourses to be
transmitted-acquired) and the how of the transmission-acquisition (discourses which regulate the
principles of transmission-acquisition). The evaluation rules are regulated by the recontextualising rules and constitute the
fundamental principles of ordering of any pedagogic discourse, therefore regulating the specific pedagogic practices that is
the relation between transmission and acquisition of the specific pedagogic discourses. The pedagogic device regulates
the relation between the distribution, recontextualising and evaluation rules and as such establishes the relation between
power, knowledge and consciousness, constituting a crucial instrument of cultural reproduction. The
pedagogic device, through the distribution rules, distributes the power. This power, embedded in the educational
knowledge, according to the recontextualising principles of the pedagogic discourse, is internalised by the subjects
when, through the evaluation rules, they are differentially positioned, acquiring a specific consciousness.
In order to understand the importance of the pedagogic discourse as a dominant instrument in the regulation of cultural reproduction,
it is important to understand how it is produced and reproduced. The model of figure 3 refers to the production and
reproduction of the official pedagogic discourse in developed contemporary societies and is based on two fundamental
assumptions.
Figure 3 -Bernstein's model of pedagogic discourse (Morais & Neves, 2003, Adapt. from Bernstein, 1990)
One of the assumptions is that the general contemporaneous context of educational reproduction is related to the field of
economy which refers to the production of goods and services and distribution and circulation of economic capital. It is
also related to the field of symbolic control where takes place the legitimate creation, distribution, reproduction and change
of consciousness through symbolic means, that is principles of communication. Another assumption is that the context of
educational reproduction has the general objective of positioning the subjects (teachers and students) with reference
to a set of meanings, that is recontextualised discourses, generally designated by educational knowledge
transmitted by the school. It also has the objective of positioning the subjects with reference to a set of social
relations, that is specific regulative practices of the transmission-acquisition of legitimate meanings and of the
constitution of order, relation and identity. Implicit to the meanings and social relations is the pedagogic code
which is tacitly acquired by students. The model contains three fundamental levels of analysis - generation, recontextualising
and transmission - and shows that the pedagogic discourse is determined by a complex set of relations which require the
intervention of distinct fields and contexts. The two first levels of analysis are associated to the production of the
pedagogic discourse and the third level to its reproduction.
Although being primarily constructed for the formal educational system, the model may be (and it has been) extended
to other contexts of cultural reproduction, namely to the context of family/community. Thus, the analyses that take as
reference this model have potentially the capacity of establishing relations at the various levels of educational
intervention, either internally in the formal educational system or between formal education and family education.
Focusing on the distinctive characteristics which constitute and distinguish the specialised form of communication which is
realised by pedagogic discourse, this model shows the multiple and complex relations which intervene in the production and
reproduction of such discourse. In the model, the production of official pedagogic discourse is seen as the result of relations
which are established at the generative and recontextualising levels of general regulative discourse. The general regulative
discourse contains the dominant principles of society and is generated as a result of the relations and influences between
the State field and the fields of economy (physical resources) and symbolic control (discursive resources). It is also, to a
lesser or greater extent, under international influence. The State functions at the generative level to legitimise the
principles of distribution of social power and control which are incorporated in official pedagogic discourse. However,
official pedagogic discourse is not the mechanical result of the dominant principles of society because these principles
undergo a recontextualising process. In this recontextualising process, two fields intervene directly-the official
recontextualising field, which is directly controlled by the State, and the pedagogic recontextualising field.
They are both influenced by the fields of economy and symbolic control and their main activity is the definition of the
what and the how of pedagogic discourse. When pedagogic discourses produced at the level of the official and
pedagogic recontextualising fields are inserted at the transmission level, they can still undergo a recontextualising
process dependent on the specific context of each school and the pedagogic practice of each teacher. In this way, the
discourse reproduced in schools and classrooms is influenced by the relationships which characterise its specific transmission
contexts. It can also be influenced by relations between schools and family and community contexts.
The model suggests that the production and reproduction of pedagogic discourse involve extremely dynamic processes. On the
one hand, the dominant principles which are conveyed by general regulative discourse reflect positions of conflict rather than
stable relationships. On the other hand, there are always potential and real sources of conflict, resistance, and inertia
among the political and administrative agents of the official recontextualising field, among the various agents of the
pedagogic recontextualising field, and between the primary context of the acquirer and the principles and practices of the
school. Furthermore, teachers and textbook authors may feel unable or reluctant to reproduce the educational transmission
code underlying official pedagogic discourse. It is this dynamism which enables change to take place. According to
Bernstein, a pedagogic device which offers greater recontextualising possibilities through a greater number of
fields and contexts involved, and/or a society characterised by a pluralistic political regime, can lead to a higher degree of
recontextualising and, therefore, to greater space for change.
At the level of the transmission of the discourse, the code,
a concept central to Bernstein's theory, comes out in its
pedagogic dimension as the principle which regulates the
relation between transmitters and acquirers (be they
teachers-students, parents-children, teachers
educators-teachers) which takes place, during a given period of
time in specialised contexts/spaces.
The pedagogic discourse is defined by the relation ID/RD – ID corresponds to
the instructional discourse, which respects to knowledges and competences,
and RD corresponds to the regulative discourse, which respects to principles
and norms of social conduct. The
pedagogic discourse is transmitted in the context of pedagogic
relation according to practices whose characteristics are a
function of the code which regulates that relation.
The form of specialisation of educational communication is
regulated by the pedagogic code, this meaning that the
pedagogic discourse, present at the various levels and in
various educational agencies, contains a sociological message
which is a function of the code modality that regulates the
pedagogic interaction (being, at the same time, regulated by
that interaction). From this point of view, the pedagogic code
may originate diverse forms of pedagogic discourse (and
practice) and its social contexts, depending on the
distribution of power and principles of control.
The concepts of classification and framing, used to explore
distinct contextual realisations of the coding orientation
(restricted or elaborated), come here as fundamental concepts
to make the crucial distinction between the power and control
dimensions which underly the structure of the formal
educational knowledge. A code of educational knowledge is a
principle which models a given curriculum, pedagogy and
evaluation, and as such, the typology of pedagogic codes
(invisible reality) derives from the distinction between the
types of curriculum (visible reality). Thus, on the basis of
two extreme types of curriculum (collection and integration),
it is possible to characterise, by using the concepts of
classification and framing, the general codes that underly them
- collection code and integration code. When classification is
strong (collection code), contents are well insulated by sharp
boundaries; when classification is weak (integration code), the
insulation between contents is reduced as boundaries are
blurred. Classification refers to the degree of maintenance
between contents, the strength of the boundary being the
critical distinctive feature of the division of educational
knowledge. Framing tends to be strong in a collection code
because there are reduced options available to teacher and
students concerning the control of what is transmitted and
acquired in the context of the pedagogic relation. In an
integration code, framing tends to be weaker, teachers and
students having a range of options in the context of the
pedagogic relation.
A change from collections codes to integration codes may
correspond to a change in the form of control and yet power
relations are not altered. If integration codes may be
considered as technological procedures, they may also
correspond to potential matrixes of change to alter the
distribution of power and the principles of control. This
explains why integration codes may be supported by groups with
radically distinct ideologies.
Let us now concentrate on specific pedagogic social
contexts, namely the classroom/school. These contexts are
defined by specific power and control relations between
subjects, discourses, and agencies/spaces (Figure 4). The
interactional dimension of a context is given by relationships
between its subjects, the organizational dimension by those
between subjects, discourses and spaces. Classification is used
to analyse the organisational dimension and framing is used to
analyse the interacional dimension of pedagogic contexts.
Figure 4 -Specific power and control relations in pedagogic social contexts.
Particularly important at the level of the interactional
dimension and within the teacher-student relation, are the
relations which refer to selection of knowledges and
competences, sequence of learning, pacing i.e.
expected rate of acquisition, and evaluation criteria,
i.e. the criteria that determine the production of the
legitimate text. The principles underlying these relations are
jointly designated by discursive rules
as they refer to the principles which regulate the transmission-acquisition
of the what either of the specific instructional discourse
(SID – for example, knowledge and cognitive competences related to Biology,
History, Arts, etc.) or of the specific regulative discourse (SRD –
attitudes, values, socio-affective competences). In the first case, we speak of an
instructional practice to the instructional discouse and in the
second case of an instructional practice to the regulative
discourse.
The discursive rules refer to the control that transmitters
and acquirers may have in the process of
transmission-acquisition and the concept of framing allows to
determine the nature of control for each one of the rules. For
example, concerning the discursive rules which regulate the
SID, framing will be strong if the teacher (transmitter) has
control upon the subjects and activities (selection), the order
followed by learning (sequence), the time given to learning and
if s/he makes clear to students the text produced as the result
of learning (evaluation criteria). Framing will be weak, when
the student (acquirer) has some control upon selection,
sequence, pacing and evaluation criteria.
In order to characterise the pedagogic practice, again in
the teacher-student relations, hierarchical rules are
also crucial. They regulate the form of communication between
subjects with distinct hierarchical positions (as it is the
case of teacher and students) and which refer to the control
that the subjects in interaction may have upon the norms of
social conduct. In this case, a weak framing means, for
example, that the student may criticize teachers' practices,
the teacher explains the reasons why the student should behave
in a given way, etc., appealing therefore to an interpersonal
relation - personal control. A strong framing
characterises a positional control in which the teacher
appeals to given rules and statuses. When the teacher uses
orders, admonitions, verbal or physical, as a form of leading
students to behave in a given way, without providing reasons,
the control is imperative and, in this case, framing is
very strong.
At the level of the structural dimension of the pedagogic
code, in the classroom context, various relations can be
considered: (a) between subjects - teacher-student and
student-student; (b) between discourses - intradisciplinary
relation, interdisciplinary relation and relation between
academic and non-academic knowledges; (c) between spaces -
teacher's space-students' space and spaces of different
students. These relations may be characterised by distinct
values of classification. For example, a weak classification of
the student-student relation means that boundaries are blurred
between students of different social groups (social class,
gender, race, school achievement) and a weak classification
between spaces of different students means that they share
physical and material spaces. Contrary, a strong classification
means the existence of hierarchies between students themselves
and very sharp boundaries between spaces and material. The
relation between teacher's space and students' spaces may be
characterised by different values of classification according
to the existence of a separation (strong classification) or
proximity (weak classification) of those spaces. The
teacher-student classification is always strong, given the high
status of the teacher in the pedagogic relation. Thus,
differences in the teacher-student relation correspond to
strong degrees of classification of a greater or smaller degree
of intensity.
With regard to the relation between discourses, there is a
weak classification at the intradisciplinary level when
boundaries between the several contents of a given discipline
are blurred, this giving rise to an interrelation between its
contents to achieve more and more broad concepts. A strong
classification corresponds in this case to a separation of the
contents, this giving rise to a sum of facts without explicit
interrelation between them. At the interdisciplinary level,
there is a strong classification when a relation of the
contents of a discipline with contents of other disciplines of
the curriculum does not exist, whereas classification is weak
when that interrelation is present. In the first case we are in
the presence of a collection code and in the second case we are
in the presence of an integration code, underlying respectively
a collection and an integration curriculum. It is important to
notice that in a collection code, the classification will
always have a strong value as, even when relations with
knowledges of other disciplines exist, it is the knowledge of
the discipline in question that has higher status; the
differences will not lie on a weak or strong classification but
on a more or less strong classification. The same applies to
different classifications that may exist at the level of the
relation between academic and non-academic knowledge - in the
school context it is the academic knowledge that has higher
status and therefore the possible relations with the
non-academic knowledge correspond to different degrees of an
always strong classification.
Classification and framing refer either to relations within
a given agency (internal C and F) or to relations between
agencies (external C and F) and can vary according to different
degrees of power and control in the relations between
categories. Variations in classification and framing at various
levels and in the coding orientation itself determine specific
modalities of code. These modalities of code regulate specific
pedagogic practices, either in the school or in the family.
The classification and framing relations in school contexts
presented in Figure 4 apply equally well to family contexts,
provided we change teacher by mother/father, student by child,
and disciplines by family knowledges. They also apply to
teacher education contexts, exchanging teacher by trainer,
student by teacher, parents by other agents,
school-family/community by teachers' educational
agencies/external agencies, and non-academic knowledge by
teachers' practical knowledge. Vertical and horizontal discourses
In a more recent development of his theory, Bernstein focus
on the forms of the discourses, that is in the internal
principles of their construction and in their social basis,
that are subject to pedagogic transformation. He relates the
internal structure of specialised knowledges, the positional
nature of their fields or practices arenas, the construction of
identities and their change and the forms of acquisition for
successful performances.
Bernstein starts from the distinction between 'horizontal'
and 'vertical' discourses and considers, as the criteria for
their definition, the distinct 'forms of knowledge' which are
realised in the two discourses. The horizontal discourse
corresponds to a form of knowledge which is segmentally
organised and differentiated. Usually understood as the
everyday or common sense knowledge, tends to be an oral, local,
context dependent and specific, tacit and multy-layered
discourse. The vertical discourse, referred as
school or official knowledge, presents the form of a coherent,
explicit, hierarchically organised structure (as in the case of
natural sciences) or the form of a series of specialised
languages with specialised modes of questioning and specialised
criteria of production and circulation of texts (as in the case
of the social sciences and humanities). In the context of
formal education, the distinction between the horizontal and
vertical discourses corresponds to the distinction that is
usually made between non-academic and academic knowledge,
between local and official knowledge, the two discourses being
ideologically positioned and differently evaluated.
Given the distinct nature of the horizontal and vertical
discourses, the form taken by pedagogy and, consequently, the
mode of acquisition of those discourses, has distinct
characteristics. In the case of the horizontal discourse,
knowledges to be acquired are related not by the integration of
their meanings through a given coordinating principle but
through the functional relation of segments or contexts to the
everyday life. This means that what it is acquired and the form
how it is acquired in a segment or context may not have any
relation with what is acquired or how is acquired in another
segment or context. For example, to learn how to do one's shoes
laces has no relation with to learn how to use the bathroom
correctly. In this way, the segmented organisation of the
knowledges of the horizontal discourse leads to segmentally
structured acquisitions, where there is no necessary relation
between what is learned in the different segments of this
discourse. Furthermore, the pedagogic practice may also vary
according to the segments and, depending on social
groups/classes, similar segments may differ in the modality of
code which regulates acquisition. The emphasis of this
segmented pedagogy of the horizontal discourse lies, in
general, in the acquisition of a common competence and not in a
graded performance.
The integration within the vertical discourse is not made at
the level of the relation between segments/contexts but at the
level of meanings. Consequently, the procedures of the vertical
discourse are not horizontally interrelated by the contexts but
hierarchically interrelated to other procedures. Given the fact
that the vertical discourse does not consist of segments
culturally specialised but of specialised symbolic structures
of explicit knowledge, the official or institutional pedagogy
of the vertical discourse is a process that takes place along
the time. The social units of acquisition of this discourse
have an arbitrary basis different from the arbitrary basis of
the social units of the segmented pedagogy of the horizontal
discourse, being constructed, evaluated and distributed by
different groups and individuals and structured in time and
space by principles of recontextualisation. Whereas in the
horizontal discourse there is contextual specificity through
'segmentation', in the vertical discourse there is contextual
specificity through 'recontextualisation'.
Bernstein distinguishes two modalities of knowledge within
the vertical discourse - hierarchical structures and
horizontal structures of knowledge. The hierarchical
structures of knowledge (as in the case of natural sciences)
correspond to forms of knowledge which are characterised by
integrating propositions and theories that operate at more and
more abstract levels, so that as to explicate the uniformity
underlying an extense range of apparently distinct phenomena.
The horizontal structures of knowledge (as in the case of
social sciences and humanities) are characterised by a series
of specialised languages with their specialised modes of
questioning and with specialised criteria for the production
and circulation of texts. Whereas in the hierarchical
structures of knowledge there is an integration of language, in
the horizontal structures of knowledge there is an accumulation
of languages. From the point of view of the development of
these two forms of knowledge, the opposition between theories
in the hierarchical structures of knowledge is, in some way,
analogous to the opposition between languages in the horizontal
structures of knowledge.
If we take Biology as an example of knowledge of a
hierarchical structure, we can say that the theory of evolution
or the cell theory contain principles which integrate and unify
ideas related with a set of biological phenomena and that the
development of these theories results from a more and more
broad conceptualisation of former theories about the same
phenomena. The development of a conceptual language in Biology,
as in any knowledge of a hierarchical structure, may imply the
refutation of former positions or incorporation of former
positions into more general propositions but, in any case, it
corresponds to a development which occurs according to a
hierarchical structure.
If we take Sociology as an example of knowledge of a
horizontal structure, we can say that functionalism,
pos-structuralism, pos-modernism, etc, correspond to distinct
languages within that area of knowledge which are not
transmutable, as each one of them starts from distinct and
sometimes opposed assumptions. Thus, whereas the development of
hierarchical structures of knowledge corresponds to the
development of successfully more general and integrating
theories, the development of the horizontal structures of
knowledge corresponds to the introduction of a new language,
with a new set of questions, relations and with an apparent new
problematic and with a new set of theoreticians/speakers.
In the case of the horizontal structures of knowledge, there
is also a difference between those knowledges which have an
internal language of description with strong grammars (e.g.
economics, mathematics, linguistics and parts of psychology)
and those which have an internal language of description with
weak grammars (e.g. sociology, social anthropology and cultural
studies). That difference lies in the fact that the former
possess an explicit conceptual syntax which has the potential
of generating relatively precise empirical descriptions and/or
the construction of formal models of empirical relations.
Another aspect which distinguishes among horizontal structures
of knowledge is related to the number of internal languages
that characterise these structures, being smaller in the case
of the structures of knowledge of strong grammars.
Speaking about these distinctions, Bernstein intends to make
evident the internal principles of the construction of distinct
areas of academic knowledge which are the subject of pedagogic
transformation. He also gives special attention to the problems
of acquisition of different forms of knowledge. He says that,
within the hierarchical structures of knowledge, the acquirer
is not concerned with the problem of knowing if s/he is talking
about physics or writing about physiscs but with the correct
use of physics. Since this form of knowledge is characterised
by a strong grammar, that grammar makes visible its subject
and, for the acquirer, the passage from a theory to another
does not indicate a breaking of language but simply an
extension of the explanatory and descriptive power of the
language. In the case of the horizontal structures of knowledge
(as in the social sciences), the problems of acquisition exist,
in particular, when the grammar is weak.
The languages of the horizontal structures of knowledge tend
to be redundant and may be called retrospective languages. The
hegemonic conceptual relations they generate have the past
embedded in them and, for that reason, their descriptions refer
to something that belongs to the past. However, in conditions
of rapid social change, what it is to be described is not
describable or is only inadequately describable in a
retrospective language. In order to support the fact that the
languages of the horizontal structures of knowledge are
retrospective, Bernstein considers that those who contribute to
the horizontal structures of knowledge have no means to
insulate their constructions from the experiences constructed
by the horizontal discourse. As a consequence of their
acquisition, the horizontal structures of knowledge tend to
originate speakers obsessed by problems of language which in
their turn will be used to construct, destruct, state and, as
such, reproduce the positional structure of a given
intellectual field. This obsessive orientation is particularly
accentuated where the derivations of the specialised language
give rise to very weak powers of non ambiguous specific
empirical descriptions. Weak powers of empirical descriptions
remove a crucial source of either development or rejection of a
particular language and, in this way, they contribute to their
stability as a frozen form.
Within the weak grammars of the horizontal structures of
knowledge, a distinction can be made on the basis of the form
according to which they are transmitted and acquired. In the
case of the social sciences, transmission is explicit and
refers to a pedagogy which makes explicit (or tries to do it)
the principles, procedures and texts to be acquired. In the
case of the arts, transmission is tacit, according to a
pedagogy where the showing and moddeling precedes the making.
This is the structure of knowledge which is closer to the
horizontal discourse (non academic, local discourse), emerging
as a specialised practice to satisfy the material demands of
its segments.
As part of the movement to make specialised knowledges more
accessible to youngsters, the segments of the horizontal
discourse are recontextualised and inserted in the content
knowledge of school disciplines. However, such
recontextualising does not necessarily lead to a more effective
acquisition. When segments of the horizontal discourse become
resources to facilitate the access to the vertical discourse,
such appropriations are probably mediated through the
distributive rules of the school. The recontextualisation of
the segments is limited to specific social groups, usually the
'less able'. This movement to use segments of the horizontal
discourse as resources to facilitate the access, usally limited
to the processual or operational level of a discipline, may
also be related to the 'improvement' of students competence to
deal with students' everyday emergent themes (health, labour,
domestic skills, etc.). Here, the access and relevance are
restricted to the level of strategy or operations derived from
the horizontal discourse. Vertical discourses are reduced to a
set of strategies that become resources which allegedly improve
the efficiency of the repertoires made available in the
horizontal discourse. However, another motive may exist. The
horizontal discourse may be seen as a crucial resource to the
pedagogic populism in the name of giving power to or listen to
the silenced voices, in order to fight the elitism and alleged
authoritarism of the vertical discourse. It is offered to the
students an official context where it is spoken what is thought
that students are. The change from equity of equality ('of
opportunity') to the recognition of diversity (of voice), may
well be responsible by the colonisation of the vertical
discourse or by the appropriation of the horizontal discourse
by the vertical discourse. This raises an interesting question
of the implications for equality of the recognition and
institutionalising of diversity.
An interesting aspect which comes out of the
conceptualisation about the difference between hierarchical and
horizontal structures of knowledge is related to the form how
teachers of areas of scientific knowledge are socialised.
Experimental sciences are hierarchical structures of knowledge.
Theories of instruction (social sciences) are horizontal
structures of knowledge. That is to say, the what that
is to be taught in science classes is quite distinct in its
structure from the how that is to be taught. Science
teachers and educators have been primarily socialised within
specific hierarchical structures of knowledge and they have
always found some difficulty in accepting knowledges
characterised by parallel languages. This primary socialisation
prepares science teachers and educators to the what of
teaching and learning. However, the how of teaching and
learning requires from teachers a further socialising process
in the horizontal structures of knowledge. To reconcile them,
teachers have to make a 'big jump', especially when passing to
horizontal structures characterised by weak grammars. This may
be one of the reasons why science teachers, science teachers'
trainers and science educational researchers have not shown
much interest for subjects like sociology.
However, because of the stronger grammar that appears to
characterise some aspects of psychology, science educators have
accepted them more willingly as knowledges for grounding
science education than the knowledges of sociology,
characterised by weak grammars. In general, they tend to feel
that sociology is very 'loose', poorly conceptualised and
unable to help them with their research and practice. This may
constitute a serious problem for improving science education
because sociological analysis is then, in general, discarded as
non relevant.
Bernstein's theory constitutes a remarkable exception. This
theory, which departs from other sociological theories in many
aspects, can be seen to be characterised by a strong grammar
because "it has an explicit conceptual syntax capable of
'relatively' precise empirical descriptions and/or of
generating formal modelling of empirical relations" (Bernstein,
1999, p.164) and this may be one of the many reasons why some
science educators have been more willing to accept it. In fact,
the strong conceptualisation that it contains, its tendency to
higher and higher levels of abstraction, its power of
description, explanation, diagnosis, prediction and
transferability have appealed to science educators. These
science educators are likely to be those who have an interest
in the sociological, mainly (but not only) the Vygotskyan
followers, and who have found in Bernstein's theory a 'form of
thinking' closer to the hierarchical structures in which they
were socialised. The theory in the framework of the empirical research
One of the important aspects of Bernstein's theory, and which expresses his epistemological position in the field of
empirical research, refers to the model of the methodology he defends as the 'motor' of the development of a theory.
On the basis of a reflection about the opposite modes of inquiry, that is about the quantitative and qualitative methods
of research, Bernstein uses the concepts of internal and external languages of description to propose a model of
methodology in sociological research which has the potential to allow a reflexive dialectical relation between the concepts
contained in a theory (internal language) and the empirical data one intends to analyse. He defines language of description
as a scheme of translation through which a language is transformed in another language and he associates the internal
language of description to the synthax through which a conceptual language is created (theoretical model) and the
external language of description to the syntax through which the internal language may describe something more than itself.
In other words, the external language of description is the means through which the internal language is activated,
functioning as the interface between the empirical data and the concepts of the theory.
The language of description should not be confounded with content analysis, as this is, in general, interested in
apparently self proclaimed contents. The principles of description construct what counts as empirical relations and
transform those relations in conceptual relations. A language of description construct what counts as empirical referents,
how these referents relate to each other in order to produce a specific text and how these referential relations are
transformed in theoretical objects or potential theoretical objects.
To synthesise, the methodology of research, as suggested by Bernstein, rejects both the analysis of the empirical without
an underlying theoretical basis and the use of the theory which does not allow for its transformation on the basis of the
empirical. He defends the development of an external language of description where the theoretical and the empirical are
viewed in a dialectic way. The theoretical models, the language of description and the empirical analysis interact
transformatively to lead to greater depth and precision. Figure 5 shows these relations between the components of the research schematically.
Figure 5 - Sociological methodology of research (Morais & Neves, 2001).
The diagram entails the following conditions:
a) The internal language of description is constituted by a theory or set of theories (e.g. Piaget, Vygotsky, Bernstein)
which contain concepts and models of a high level of abstraction.
b) The external language of description is constituted by propositions and models derived from the internal language of
description, now with a higher degree of applicability. It is the external language of description which activates the
internal language of description (Bernstein, 2000).
c) The internal and external languages of description constitute the theoretical level of the research
methodology.
d) The social relations of pedagogic activity refer to pedagogic texts and contexts and constitute the empirical level
of the research methodology.
The arrows in the model intend to represent the dialectical relation between the theoretical and the empirical - the
internal language of description directs the external language of description and this directs the practical structuring of
research and the analysis and interpretation of results. Inversely, the results obtained at the various stages of the
empirical work lead to changes of the external language of description, so that its degree of precision is increased. In
turn, the external language of description, encompassing changes originated by the empirical, leads to changes of the
internal language of description. In this way, the three levels constitute active, dynamic instruments which undertake changes
in a real research process.
Whereas orthodox quantitative research has placed the focus on theory, orthodox qualitative research has placed the focus
on practice/the empirical. At their extremes, these two research modes are separated by strong classification:
quantitative research attributes higher status to theory and qualitative research attributes higher status to practice/the
empirical. The dialectical relation between the theoretical and the empirical intends to weaken this classification,
considering theory and practice to be equally important for sound research. However, this dialectical process is only
possible when the internal language of description is sufficiently strongly conceptualised to contain the power to
diagnose, describe, explain, transfer and predict.
It should be highlighted that the development of this methodology of research is intimately dependent on the
potentialities offered by the theory (internal language of description) where it is grounded and that the development of
the theory depends on the potentialities offered by the models/propositions (external language of description),
constructed on the basis of the dialectics of the theoretical and empirical. Bernstein's theory, possessing a conceptual
structure which contains potentialities of diagnosis, prediction, description, explanation and transference, provides
a powerful internal language of description. This strong internal language of description contributes to the development
of an external language of description which permit to broaden the relations under study and to increase the level of
conceptualisation of the analyses to be made.
References Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control. London: Collier-Macmillan. Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and Control, Vol. III: Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. Language and Society, 10, 327-363 Bernstein, B. (1986). On pedagogic discourse. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and Control, Vol. IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20 (2), 157-173. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (revised edition). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bernstein, B. (2001a). From pedagogies to knowledges. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels
(Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York:
Peter Lang.
Bernstein, B. (2001b). Video conference with Basil Bernstein. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H.
Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York:
Peter Lang.
Davies, B. (2001). Introduction. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a
sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York: Peter Lang. Domingos, A. M. (now Morais), Barradas, H., Rainha, H., & Neves, I. P. (1986). A teoria de Bernstein em sociologia da educação. Lisbon: Gulbenkian Foundation.
Morais, A., & Neves, I. (2001).
Pedagogic social
contexts: Studies for a sociology of learning. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards
a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to
research (chap. 8). New York: Peter Lang. |
|||
