The Transformation of Classrooms into Commercial Video Production Studios

From a contemporary sociological perspective, education can no longer be viewed as a fortress impervious to the encroachment of capitalism. Instead, the classroom has adapted to become a centre and a breeding ground for what is termed surveillance capitalism. In the digital era, surveillance capitalism is unavoidable, though the commercialisation of education is not a new phenomenon. The digital age has merely initiated a new chapter in the commercialisation of education. Attention has become a vital commodity in digital business, as teaching and learning activities are transformed into public spectacles. The curriculum is no longer just a written document disseminated by the government; it has morphed into a social media schema dictating how teachers and students must perform in front of the camera to accumulate digital capital, which is presented as their future livelihood. In liberal economic literature, the function of a commercial institution is to apply the principle of behaviour as a producer, where production is aimed at ‘profit maximising’ by reaping the greatest possible returns. In reality, the commercialisation of education has been a lucrative field long before the digital age, beginning with the establishment of the school itself through registration fees, building costs, and uniforms. A worrying situation arises when many people cannot afford school uniforms at the start of the new academic year or pay monthly fees. The original focus of education on character development and critical thinking is increasingly being steered towards economic objectives. Educational institutions compete to offer programmes and sell promises of career success, eroding the goal of shaping rational and critically courageous human beings. The widespread phenomenon of creating digital content for platforms like TikTok, YouTube Shorts, or Instagram within the school environment signifies that learning interactions have become a relationship between two parties running a business with unlimited liability. The digital space now deliberately makes the pedagogical relationship between teacher and student more public. This relationship, which is inherently personal and requires a safe space for making mistakes, now functions as a free production studio, replacing the classroom’s original role as a social laboratory where students are trained naturally. From a sociological viewpoint, genuine classroom moments—ranging from a student’s innocent humour to incorrect answers that provoke laughter, and children’s emotional expressions—are sociologically repackaged to increase the institution’s branding value by accumulating likes and followers. The educational process is now judged by how viral a video becomes, rather than by the cognitive depth or affective maturity of the students. Consequently, a visual standardisation occurs where authentic learning activities are often sacrificed to satisfy the whims of a shallow digital market. The most tangible and dangerous impact of this digital shift operates through a mechanism of hidden synchronisation, or a hidden curriculum. When students are forced to live under the daily glare of the camera, they unconsciously absorb a dangerous market ideology. This hidden curriculum subtly teaches students that the most fundamental aspects of their humanity—such as privacy, emotional vulnerability, the struggle of the learning process, and honest self-expression—are legitimate assets to be exploited to feed social media algorithms. They are educated in the ‘attention economy’, a concept introduced by Herbert A. Simon which posits that human attention is a scarce commodity. In this concept, attention becomes a ‘currency’ where their self-esteem, social validation, and existential recognition are calculated by on-screen statistics. Schools, which should educate students about privacy rights and ethical boundaries, instead become the primary source normalising the loss of that privacy. The moral of education is corrupted by a culture of showing off, a culture not sourced from the individual but shaped by consumerism and image crafting. In the symbolic interactionism view of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman, showing off is a symbolic communication that displays a self-image before a public audience. This teaches students to always be ready to perform, to manipulate their expressions for the camera, and to view themselves as visual products ready for public consumption rather than as whole human subjects. The peak of this classroom commercialisation is a severe deviation in the power relationship between educator and student. The interpersonal relationship, which should be based on emancipatory principles, empathy, and sincere guidance, is distorted. A teacher, who holds structural power in the classroom, is vulnerable to being trapped in a situation where they become an irresponsible director. The teacher’s focus is split; they are no longer fully attentive.