Cultivating the socially competent body: bodies and risk in Swedish programmes for social emotional learning in preschools and schools

The Paradoxes of Socio-Emotional Programmes in School : Young people’s perspectives and public health discourses

“…In order to make sense of this problematic intervention design and the paradoxes it entailed for the students, I focus on what Petersen and Lupton (1996) referred to as the expert discourses that form the structure of public health interventions. Previous sociological and educational studies have scrutinized socio-emotional programmes based on a governmentality perspective and theories regarding a therapeutic culture in society (e.g., Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg, and Hultin, 2014a;Dahlstedt, Fejes and Schönning, 2011;Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009;Gillies, 2011). While this field of research has made an important contribution to the knowledge base, it has failed to shed light on the broad array of expert discourses drawn upon in socioemotional programmes.…”

“…Two ethnographic studies conducted in different municipalities in Sweden (Bartholdsson, GustafssonLundberg, and Hultin, 2014b;Jepson Wigg, 2014) have both argued that this counter-discourse allowed schools to adopt a more flexible approach to socioemotional programmes. They showed how -after the critique was voiced in the media -the municipalities, which had previously declared that all schools were obliged to implement the SET programme, changed their recommendations and instead allowed the schools and teachers themselves to choose what methods to apply (Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg and Hultin, 2014a;Jepson Wigg, 2014).…”

“…The individualizing and pathologizing effects of psychologically based interventions have been a recurrent topic for critical discussion in policy studies inspired by a governmentality perspective and theories regarding therapeutic culture (e.g., Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg, and Hultin 2014a;Coppock, 2011;Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009;Graham, 2015;Gillies 2011;Gunnarsson, 2015). A key point of criticism has been the narrow focus of psychologically based interventions on internal and emotional life and self-regulation, suggesting that this focus reduces complex problems to assumed skill deficits and results in pathologizing effects (ibid.).…”

“…One central finding is that socioemotional programmes are not neutral -on the contrary, they bring specific norms and regulations into the school (Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg, and Hultin, 2014a;Dahlstedt, Fejes and Schönning, 2011;Ecclestone and Hayes, 2009;Gagen, 2013;Gillies, 2011). The present dissertation's positioning of students as social actors implies acknowledging that students can reproduce, transform and give new meanings to the discourses and practices incorporated into such programmes (cf.…”

“…These studies scrutinize both the content and form of socio-emotional programmes and examine their political and ideological function in contemporary schools (e.g., Bartholdsson, Gustafsson-Lundberg and Hultin, 2014a;Bergh and Englund 2014;Coppock, 2011;Dahlstedt, Fejes and Schönning, 2011;Irisdotter Aldenmyr, 2014a;Wright, 2015). This field of research is dominated by policy studies and document analysis of programme manuals.…”