No abstract

Social injustices, structural and personal crises as well as intensifying stress on some citizens seem increasing preoccupations in contemporary society and social policy. In this context, the concept of vulnerability has come to play a prominent role in academic, governmental and everyday accounts of the human condition. Policy makers and practitioners are now concerned with addressing vulnerability through an expansive range of interventions. As this special issue draws attention to, a vulnerability zeitgeist or ‘spirit of the time’ has been traced in contemporary welfare and disciplinary arrangements (Brown, 2014, 2015), which now informs a range of interventions and approaches to social problems, both in the UK and internationally. As prominent examples, ‘vulnerable’ people are legally entitled to ‘priority need’ in English social housing allocations (Carr and Hunter, 2008), vulnerable victims of crime are seen as requiring special responses in the UK criminal justice system (see Roulstoneet al., 2011; Walkgate, 2011), ‘vulnerable adults’ have designated ‘protections’ under British law (Dunnet al., 2008; Clough, 2014) and vulnerable migrants and refugees are increasingly prioritised within international immigration processes (Peroni and Timmer, 2013). There is a long tradition in the field of social policy of critiquing the implications of particular concepts as mechanisms of governance, from poverty (Townsend, 1979; Lister, 2004) and social exclusion (Levitas, 1998; Young 1999) to risk (Beck, 1992; Kemshall, 2002) and resilience (Ecclestone and Lewis, 2014; Wright, 2016). Yet while vulnerability seems to be one of the latest buzzwords gathering political and cultural momentum, critiques and empirical studies of how it is operationalised in different policy and practice contexts are less well elaborated.

No abstract

In numerous countries, pessimism about enduring social and educational inequalities has produced a discernible therapeutic turn in education policy and practice, and a parallel rise in therapeutic understandings of social justice. Focusing on developments in England and Finland, this paper explores the ways in which radical/critical conceptualisations of social justice privilege attention to psycho-emotional vulnerabilities. Extending older forms of psychologisation, therapeutic understandings of social justice in many contemporary radical/critical accounts resonate powerfully with the wider therapisation of popular culture and everyday life. Using theories of discursive power, we explore the new forms of governance, subjectivity and agency in mainstream therapeutic programmes, and evaluate their implications for pedagogies rooted in radical/critical notions of social justice.

Contemporary educational goals place increasing emphasis on conferring recognition and building self-esteem for people deemed to be marginalised and vulnerable. Such goals coalesce with the language, symbols and practices of therapy inscribed within a broader 'therapeutic ethos'. The paper relates these trends to broader cultural demoralisation about people's potential for human agency and evaluates their effects on educational debates.A therapeutic ethos in education appears benign and empowering. Yet, the paper argues that it produces a diminished view of people and low expectations about people's capacity for resilience and autonomy. One effect is to encourage an alignment between the values and activities of education and welfare. This both legitimises and extends institutional and government influence over people's psychological and emotional states. The paper explores these trends and evaluates their implications for educational ideas about human agency.

It is difficult to challenge a strong consensus that governments must intervene in a worsening crisis of emotional and psychological well-being. The article relates rising estimates of problems and corresponding calls for intervention in educational settings to the increasingly blurred boundaries between a cultural therapeutic ethos, academic research and policy. The recent revival of an old discourse of 'character' reinforces a search for better measurement as the basis for behaviour change strategies reflected in government interest in new ideas from behavioural science. In response to C. Wright Mills' injunction that a sociological imagination should try to understand how social change reflects changing images of the human subject, the article explores the educational implications of these development. It argues that the depiction of well-being and character as a set of behaviours and the parallel drive to measure them are rooted in a diminished view of an essential human vulnerability. This legitimises the imposition of psychological interventions that avoid moral and political questions about the nature of well-being and character and the conditions needed to develop them.

No abstract

Two increasingly important strands in current educational thinking are reflected in growing interest amongst researchers, policy-makers and qualification designers in formative assessment strategies that motivate learners and enhance their educational attainment. In addition, a body of research suggests that learners develop 'learning careers' from primary education, through the National Curriculum into post-compulsory education and beyond. This article engages with this work in order to highlight some key factors in 'learning careers', particularly in relation to the impact of formative assessment practices. It aims to relate findings from research on formative assessment in primary and further education, carried out by the authors, to studies which use Bourdieu's notions of 'habitus', 'field', 'cultural capital' and 'social capital' to explore learning careers and learning identities in different sectors of education. The article evaluates whether the concept of 'assessment careers' illuminates a specific strand within young people's 'learning careers'. In particular, it asks whether the concept might offer more precise insights about how practices produced by different assessment systems, particularly those purporting to promote formative assessment, affect learners' identities and dispositions for learning.