Moral Education by Durkheim

Education as more than learning subjects

In Moral Education, published in 1925 and republished in 1973, Émile Durkheim argued that education’s major function is to transmit society’s norms and values. A norm is an expectation about behaviour, such as waiting your turn. A value is a belief about what matters, such as respect for others. Education therefore teaches children how to live together, not just how to read, write or pass examinations.

Durkheim’s view is functionalist: it examines how institutions contribute to the functioning of society as a whole. For him, society cannot work well if everyone thinks only about their own interests. People need some shared understanding of acceptable behaviour and a commitment to others. This broad agreement is called value consensus.

Schools contribute through secondary socialisation: children learn norms and values beyond the family. Durkheim saw this as a vital way of turning separate individuals into a united social whole.

How history creates a sense of belonging

Durkheim gave particular importance to teaching history. Learning about their country’s past can help children see themselves as members of a community that existed before them and extends beyond their own lives. Their experiences become connected to a wider shared story.

He argued that this encourages social solidarity: a sense of belonging and commitment that holds society together. The connection matters because children may become more willing to consider the interests of the social group rather than just their own wishes. In Durkheim’s account, history is therefore not simply knowledge of past events; it helps build a link between the individual and society.

This is an argument about what education can achieve, rather than proof that every pupil develops the same sense of belonging.

Learning to cooperate beyond family and friends

Family relationships and friendships involve people with whom children already have close personal ties. School brings children into contact with others whom they have not chosen and may not particularly like. Durkheim believed this provides preparation for membership of wider society, where cooperation cannot depend on everyone being relatives or friends.

For example, pupils completing a group task may need to share materials, listen to different suggestions and take responsibility for their contribution. They can practise cooperation even when they are not working with their closest friends. The important lesson is that shared activities depend on considering other people and fulfilling obligations to the group.

School thus connects personal behaviour to collective life: the group’s success depends partly on what each individual does.

Why Durkheim supported strict discipline

Durkheim believed that school rules should be strictly enforced. Rules establish limits on behaviour and teach children that their immediate wishes do not always come first. Moral education involves learning what is right and wrong, including recognising responsibilities towards other people.

Consider a pupil repeatedly interrupting a lesson. The interruption affects more than that pupil: it prevents others from listening and learning. Enforcing a rule against interruption can show why restraint matters for the whole group.

The intended outcome is self-discipline, not permanent dependence on punishment. Children should gradually learn to control their own behaviour because they understand and accept the rules. Durkheim argued that this would help them recognise that misbehaviour damages society as a whole. External discipline at school would therefore support internal responsibility in adult life.

Evaluating whose values schools teach

Durkheim’s account helps explain how shared rules and cooperation can make collective life possible. A classroom in which nobody respects others’ opportunity to learn illustrates why some common expectations are useful. However, this does not establish that everything schools teach benefits everyone equally.

Marxists argue that the values transmitted through education serve the ruling class rather than society as a whole. From this viewpoint, encouraging obedience may help preserve unequal power relationships, rather than simply create cooperation. Feminists similarly question whether education benefits everyone equally: values and expectations that reproduce male advantage serve men’s interests rather than a genuinely shared interest.

There are also limits to assuming a single shared culture. In a multicultural society, people may hold different values and interpretations of the past. A shared national history may not create an equal sense of belonging for every pupil. Moreover, pupils do not necessarily accept what schools teach: some reject school rules or the values behind them.

A justified judgement is that Durkheim identifies important ways schools can encourage social solidarity, but his explanation should not be treated as a guaranteed outcome. Cooperation can benefit a wider group, while particular rules and values may still be contested or advantage some groups more than others.

Durkheim’s central argument

Moral Education: 1925, republished 1973. Functionalist view: education transmits society’s norms and values, encouraging value consensus and social solidarity.

How education unites people

• History: connects pupils to a shared past and something larger than themselves, encouraging commitment to society.
• School life: teaches cooperation with people who are neither relatives nor friends.
• Strictly enforced rules: teach limits, responsibility and the consequences of misbehaviour for the whole group.
• Intended outcome: self-discipline, so people regulate their behaviour without constant external control.

Evaluation

• Strength: explains why shared expectations and cooperation matter for collective life.
• Marxist challenge: transmitted values may benefit the ruling class, not everyone.
• Feminist challenge: education may reproduce male advantage.
• Other limits: society contains different cultures and values; pupils can reject school expectations.

Judgement: education can encourage solidarity, but agreement and equal benefit cannot simply be assumed.