Character and resilience in English education policy: social mobility, self-governance and biopolitics

Abstract

Character education has enjoyed a resurgence of interest among education practitioners and policy makers in recent years in different national contexts. In England, the publication of a 'Character and Resilience Manifesto' by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility in 2014 put character education on the government's agenda, primarily as a means to improve social mobility.Drawing on Foucault's notion of 'problematization', this article examines how 'problems' and 'solutions' are constructed and legitimised through expert knowledges in the Manifesto. We find that by drawing on evidence from psychology and behavioural economics, 'character' is predominantly understood as a set of skills and dispositions to be developed in order to boost individual labour market outcomes and wider economic growth. Contextualising the findings in Foucault's work on 'governmentality' and 'biopolitics', we argue that the call for character education is part of a wider intensification of the demand for self-government and self-investmenta demand that is particularly pronounced for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The article concludes with some reflections on the urgent need to critically interrogate the assumptions, expert discourses and values underpinning current forms of character education.

Talking the Talk of Social Mobility: The Political Performance of a Misguided Agenda

“…This was further exemplified by yet another education secretary in 2018. In a speech about social mobility and educational attainment to the Resolution Foundation, then Conservative education minister, Damian Hinds (2018), explains his 'seven key truths' about social mobility, the first six of which are about family and educational experience (itself problematic) and the final, seventh truth, pointing to individual character traits, a focus that has emerged more generally within English education policy, resulting in significant academic critique (Bull and Allen, 2018;Spohrer and Bailey, 2020). In instructing on social mobility, Hinds informs us that 'someone's personal resilience and emotional wellbeing can be as important as their exam results -and, of course, frequently linked'.…”

“…The SMC itself has also commissioned and produced social science research on social mobility by academics, and members of the SMC have been social scientists. Academic social scientists have thus been present in the workings of the SMC, while others have criticised the limits and discourse of the commission itself and the social mobility agenda more broadly (Maslen, 2019;Spohrer and Bailey, 2020).…”

Lessons in character education: incorporating neoliberal learning in classroom resources

“…This individualised perspective ultimately excludes a political understanding of social problems, and therefore undermines the possibility of social rather than merely individual change (Suissa, 2015;Kisby, 2017). Spohrer and Bailey (2018) deepen this critique using Foucault's work on 'governmentality' and 'biopolitics' (see Burchell et al, 1991) which is concerned with the governmental techniques deployed to administer the life of a given population, and which attempt to shape citizen behaviour to create governable subjects. Whilst there are historical precedents in Victorian social reformers' attitudes to the poor (Taylor, 2018, p.6), Spohrer and Bailey (2018) argue that character education in the current British context indicates a shift in the governance of citizens that increasingly draws on biological and psychological understandings of how individuals can improve their own economic position in society (Ecclestone, 2012).…”

“…Spohrer and Bailey (2018) deepen this critique using Foucault's work on 'governmentality' and 'biopolitics' (see Burchell et al, 1991) which is concerned with the governmental techniques deployed to administer the life of a given population, and which attempt to shape citizen behaviour to create governable subjects. Whilst there are historical precedents in Victorian social reformers' attitudes to the poor (Taylor, 2018, p.6), Spohrer and Bailey (2018) argue that character education in the current British context indicates a shift in the governance of citizens that increasingly draws on biological and psychological understandings of how individuals can improve their own economic position in society (Ecclestone, 2012). This article answers their call for a critical debate about the 'assumptions and values' that underpin contemporary forms of character education.…”

The Rise of Character Education in Britain

“…We build on an existing critical literature (e.g. Kohn, 1997;Purpel, 1997;Winton, 2008b) and an emerging critique of character education in the British context (see Allen and Bull, 2018;Bates, 2019;Kisby, 2017;Spohrer and Bailey, 2018;Suissa, 2015;Walsh, 2018 for criticisms of particular aspects). This book critically analyses the theoretical ideas underpinning character education and the teaching resources produced by character educators in Britain, who put forward the development of 'character' as the way to address a very wide range of social problems.…”