Cultural Factors in Mental Health: An Anthropological Perspective

Allinsmith, Wesley; Goethals, George W.

doi:10.2307/1169336

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond the sources that can be traced, via the bibliographical archaeology, indirectly to Learning to Labor (Willis, 1977/1981b), this review located other discussions of pre-Willis resistance in the literature (Allinsmith & Goethals, 1956; Bellaby, 1974; Clarke, Hall, Jefferson, & Roberts, 1976; P. Cohen, 1972/1997; Corrigan & Frith, 1976; Duke, 1978; Edington, 1970; Engle, 1975; Hernandez, 1973; Matza, 1969; Sexton, 1967; Spaulding, 1964; Stinchcombe, 1964; Travers, 1967; Wodtke & Brown, 1967).…”

Section: The Origins Of Resistance Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These articles vary in how contemporary their notions of resistance appear to be. The earliest of these describes a very contemporary notion of resistance, with the authors stating that students adopt “themes and attitudes which may be damaging to them when, as a countervalue, there is a tremendous psychological gain from such behavior, resulting from membership in the minority culture” (Allinsmith & Goethals, 1956, p. 436). Paul Corrigan and Simon Frith (1976), in their chapter in the CCCS collected book Resistance Through Rituals , write,…”

Section: The Origins Of Resistance Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Class-Based Theories of Student Resistance in Education

McGrew¹

2011

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the origins, influence, and contemporary understandings of class-based theories of student resistance in education, contributing to or emerging from Learning to Labor by Paul Willis. It reports the results of a review of the literature that discusses class-based student resistance and cites the seminal book. More than 500 published articles were reviewed, in addition to books and book chapters. This review reveals misconceptions in the literature that have developed around both the book and its theory. These misconceptions include the belief that the resistance theory described by Willis was original and that it was a drastic departure from reproduction theory, or at least correspondence theories like those of Bowles and Gintis, and that the resistance theory attributed to Willis, one of the most influential theories in contemporary critical scholarship in education, is the same theory that Willis himself describes. These misconceptions, and the failure to acknowledge them, raise questions about both the validity of resistance theory and the ability of the critical education community, collectively, to engage with unwelcome evidence, to refine, and to evolve.

show abstract