University of Malta. Centre for Resillience & Socio-Emotional Health
Abstract
With early school leaving prevention being an agreed European Union headline target of
10% across the EU by 2020, emotional-relational dimensions to education are gaining
renewed attention in European education policy. Against this backdrop, prominent
criticisms of an emotional well-being agenda in education by Ecclestone and Hayes
require further consideration. The key objective of this paper is to challenge and
reconstruct six key arguments of Ecclestone and Hayes against emotional wellbeing in
education. There is a need to move beyond paradigms of conceptual coherence that rest
upon diametric oppositions – thought/feeling, healthy/sick, diminished/undiminished,
optimism/pessimism, subject/negation of a subject, learning/therapy. It is argued that an
emotional well-being agenda in education is a conceptually coherent one, once different
levels of prevention and intervention are distinguished and the argument goes beyond
flat, undifferentiated conceptions of ‘therapeutic culture’. The Cartesian model
supported by Ecclestone and Hayes to frame a ‘diminished’ self is but one selfhood. A
more nuanced debate would focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different,
pluralistic conceptions of selfhood. Their most substantive objections to an emotional
well-being agenda in education concern deficit labelling and privacy and are important
cautionary notes.peer-reviewe