Whilst the intention of this conference was to discuss the relationship between education and social class, the issue brought to the fore was a debate between ‘Marxists’ and ‘feminists’. It was clear as soon as Carole Leathwood began to speak that the real issue up for discussion was which intellectual group had the greatest claim to represent the Left. Is it trade unionists, who some characterise as chauvinist, working-class, burly, bicep-baring cavemen, or is it the feminists, typically depicted as bra-burning, short-haired, lesbian and fundamentally middle class activists? While neither side actually lives up to its characterisation, there was a clear division between the male and female intellectuals in the room.

Historically, it is male trade unionists who have the strongest claim of the legacy of the Labour Party, though clearly not in its current form. Feminists have arguably been sidelined to single-issue politics, especially gender equality and the right to choose. When the suffragettes were throwing bricks through Asquith’s window in the early 1910s, they had little if any support from the emerging Labour party. George Lansbury was refused a Labour platform during its early elections on the basis of his strong support for female suffrage. The only other notable force in the Labour party of the time who supported women’s right to vote was Philip Snowden, who initially opposed the idea, but was later convinced by his wife (who was somewhat predictably more left-wing than Snowden). The modern Labour party claims to have strongly backed equal rights but the very existence of the phrase ‘Blair’s Babes’ suggests otherwise.

Feminists through both ‘waves’ of activity would argue that the issues they fought (and still fight) for were far-reaching, but many on the Left rejected the idea that feminism is a holistic political ideology. I’m not sure what the answer to that would be, but certainly the reluctance of the Left to adopt feminism has concreted the perception of feminism as a single issue. It certainly isn’t a single issue, but it is unclear whether it is really completely holistic either.

Feminist academics such as Carole Leathwood and Valerie Hey clearly believe feminist ideology can be used in the sphere of sociology. Many post-structuralists would argue that if feminism can be used in sociology, then it is inherently relevant to every other area of life. I’m not sure that is true, but feminism is undoubtedly an important framework by which to see educational trends and developments.

Personally, I found the subplots at times more interesting than the presentations, possibly due to frequent use of impenetrable academic terms. There was a clear message from the two feminists that Marxism was inherently a male epistemology. Hay argued that this was about consciousness, and seemed to say that a consciousness of gender could be more powerful than a consciousness of class, particularly in today’s society.

Leathwood looked more at the class issues surrounding higher education. She argued that choice in higher education was as much to do about young people feeling they would belong in a certain type of institution, as about academic potential. I would argue that this may be a superficial assumption, or possibly an assumption that young people base their life choices on superficial information. It may be the case that some groups of young people feel that for example, Russell Group institutions are not for them, based on the media perception of them. If this is the case, then those myths and potential barriers need to be broken down. I believe that those kind of institutions, and particularly Oxford and Cambridge, work hard to dispel the idea that you have to be a specific kind of person to apply and enjoy studying there, but that the media (largely made up of graduates from these kind of institutions) are self-interested in perpetuating the myths. It may that too many young people still believe the myths, but if so, then they are not making informed choices about higher education. That in itself may be a product of class, but I would rather challenge the myths and perceptions than state that regardless of full information, these kinds of choices will always be made.

Another debate at the conference revolved around the appropriate model of education for the twenty-first century, and this also helped to illuminate the use of Marxist thought by those attending the conference. The dissenter on this issue was the humanist Dennis Hayes, who argued for education for education’s sake. The idea of truly liberal, humanist education may be dead and buried for many people, but Dennis Hayes is certainly not one of them. Where the feminists found it difficult to convince a room of intellectual male structuralist Marxists that Marxist ideology needed rethinking and reframing because it was chauvinist, Hayes found it difficult to put forward an arguably 19th century model of education in a room of Marxists obsessed with the concept of ‘skills’. Many at the seminar felt that the government’s skills agenda is justified, and that learning only what is necessary to become employed has a place. When one seminar member suggested that Marx had advocated the teaching of children alongside those children working, and that that should be a suitable model in today’s society, a groan could be heard amongst those who would describe themselves as feminists and/or humanists.

There is definitely strength in the argument that at least some education should be for its own sake, and indeed the Workers’ Educational Association was set up for that very purpose; not to teach skills for the workplace. The skills agenda began during the Thatcher years as a way of justifing state subsidised education to the Right. If the working class are taught skills then they will always be in work, albeit low paid work, and so not claim benefits, was the mantra during the 1980s. It didn’t work of course, as the redundant miners discovered to their (and the country’s) loss. It is only since the electoral victory of the Tories in 1979 that ‘skills’ has been a word associated with school education, and it is surprising in that sense that ‘skills’ are advocated by even some Marxists. Most would expect Marxists to abhor the word, and fundamentally believe that working class people can become intellectuals like Marx himself, in order to change society. It was clear from the questions that this approach had been completely rejected by many of the Marxists attending the conference (if only because by many, it had never even been considered).

So if the feminists and the humanists were dismissed, were the views of anyone not subscribing to the approved version of Marxism welcomed? No, is the answer, as far as I could make out. According to the literature provided for the conference, there is a renewal in support of Marxists writing on education, but it made me wonder whether the historic debates between the Marxist historians in particular, had never happened. While this is a different discipline, I cannot believe that history was the only subject affected by the dominance of the New Left from 1964. While Perry Anderson remains in control at the New Left Review, I am baffled as to how it is possible to forget the changes EP Thompson brought to Marxist theory. It is his concept of class which actually draws the feminists into the Left and out of the cold. The idea of class as a social construct is easily adaptable to gender, and was adapted by Catherine Hall and others. Thompson taught Marxists to shy away from dogmatism, from following the views of Marx so completely that models are imposed in areas where they have little relevance. In history, at least, Marxism was used by the New Left as a framework, not a ready-made model.

Even Marx himself, like all good academics, began to change his mind the more he wrote and the more he read. It seems to me that by denying the rights of the feminists and humanists to talk with equal respect, it is the structural Marxists like Dave Hill that are actually rejecting the views of Marx (and I say views, not teachings; Marx was not a prophet or a god, but an academic with interesting ideas). Marx did not intend his own views to be used as the ‘opium of the masses’: he was not trying to create a new religion. The New Left has taken the position I have favourably described since 1964, and I fail to see why it has suddenly become less relevant and so Marxists must revert to a dogmatic view.

The next ‘Marxism and Education’ conference is set to discuss gender. I would like to see how the masculine and dogmatic perspectives of many attendees will respond to the idea that simply reciting Marx is not sufficient when looking at current trends of gender in education. In that vein, I would applaud any feminists who chose to attend the next meeting, and hopefully at least something will get through. The Marxist educationalists attending the conference made it smack of old fashioned structuralist and dogmatic Marxism, but it is only through continued discussions and presentations by feminists and humanists that vibrant debate will arise.