The election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote were the most visible aspects of a widespread revolt against globalization and all it stood for. As western societies attempted to understand this phenomenon, it became clear that there were divides across society, with that divide typified by urban and rural communities, and also the university educated and non-university educated.
Research from the University of Amsterdam casts doubt on this thesis, however, and argues instead that our parental environment is more influential on our views on globalization than our education level.
Polarized world
In Europe, issues such as EU integration and immigration have been hot topics for a number of years, and it seemed like opposing camps are largely defined by their education levels, with graduates typically pro-immigration and pro-EU. Those with lower education levels were typically opposed to both.
The author argues, however, that this thesis hasn’t really been examined in such a way as to bring clarity to the question of just how education might influence these differences of opinion. Their paper suggests that while education is a factor, it is not sufficient on its own to explain the difference in opinion between the two camps.
What’s more, the author argues that our views on things such as European integration and immigration aren’t really influenced by education.
“This runs counter to the idea that the education system has the capacity to socialize students into espousing core democratic values, such as tolerance, pluralism and equality with an open, tolerant world view,” he explains.
Parental education
One hypothesis that was explored was that it’s actually the education level of our parents that is key, and that they influence us so heavily that our views are largely formed by the time we enter school ourselves.
The author found that there was a significant continuation in adherence to views associated with the environment in which people grew up, with our subsequent education largely unable to counter such socialization.
For instance, well-educated parents can provide a buffer to aid those who don’t reach the same level of education from holding any negative perceptions of globalization. Similarly, however, low education levels among parents can have an inhibitory effect on our ability to assimilate into the middle classes if we surpass their own educational achievements.
The author then examined what role schools play, especially if the schools tend to segregate classes and families with certain education levels together.
“If children from particular groups are unevenly distributed across schools, then they are more likely to be surrounded by classmates with similar social and political views, potentially giving rise to opinion ‘bubbles’ comprising like-minded individuals,” he explains.
There did indeed appear to be a correlation between lower levels of social diversity within schools and a subsequently lower level of diversity in the opinions of students on globalization.
“Whereas students from privileged backgrounds are exposed to other students of a cosmopolitan bent and their cosmopolitan principles, adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds miss out on these opportunities and stimuli,” the author explains.
As such, the author concludes that education may not be the levelling influence we perhaps hope it is, with any link between our level of education and our views on globalization generally not causal by definition.
“I did not find any conclusive evidence that education brings about a greater degree of support for European integration or immigration,” the author concludes. “Even though there is some correlation between level of education and views on globalization, I did not find any solid evidence that education is the sole factor shaping these views. Views are also shaped by the social environment one hails from and education cannot totally undo this.”
