Advertisement

Girl Trouble: Not the Ideal Neoliberal Subject

  • Michele Paule
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I consider a totemic figure of the early twenty-first century—the successful girl—in the context of the legacy of UK New Labour’s ‘Gifted and Talented’ policies and of girls’ success as a defining trope of the period. Highly achieving girls have been a focus of discourses of choice, of self-improvement, and of postfeminist optimism; I explore ways in which such girls engage with neoliberal success narratives as they encounter them in schools, as formally identified successful subjects. While for some, meritocratic accounts of self-management and hard work provide satisfactory explanations for their success, others seek to evade restrictions, reconcile contradictions, and to find spaces for thinking differently about competition and success in the gaps and cracks created by neoliberalism’s paradoxes and elisions.

References

  1. Academies Commission. (2013). Unleashing Greatness: Getting the Best from an Academised System. RSA. http://www.academiescommission.org/?s=.
  2. Allen, K. (2016). Top Girls Navigating Austere Times: Interrogating Youth Transitions Since the ‘Crisis’. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(6), 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L. (2005, November). The Impossibility of Girls’ Educational ‘Success’: Entanglements of Gender, ‘Race’, Class and Sexuality in the Production and Problematisation of Educational Femininities. Paper presented at ESRC Seminar Series: Girls in Education 3–16. Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, L. (2012). ‘Between Authenticity and Pretension’: Parents’, Pupils’ and Young Professionals’ Negotiations of Minority Ethnic Middle-Class Identity. The Sociological Review, 60(1), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, L., & Francis, B. (2006). Challenging Classes? Exploring the Role of Social Class Within the Identities and Achievement of British Chinese Pupils. Sociology, 40(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words (2nd ed). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, J. (2010). Great Expectations and Post-feminist Accountability: Young Women Living up to the ‘Successful Girls’ Discourse. Gender and Education, 22(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ban Bossy. (2014). http://banbossy.com/.
  9. Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, Codes and Control (Vol. 3). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Blair, T. (1996). Speech to Labour Party Conference. October 1996. http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=202.
  11. Bradford, S., & Hey, V. (2007). Successful Subjectivities? The Successification of Class, Ethnic and Gender Positions. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, D. (2013). Speech to the Conservative Party Conference. October 2013. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10349831/David-Camerons-speech-in-full.html.
  14. Cawston, A. (2016). Are Feminism and Competition Compatible? Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 31(1), 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crittenden, B. (2006). The School Curriculum and Liberal Education. Education Research and Perspectives, 33(1), 105–127.Google Scholar
  16. Crozier, G., Reay, D., James, D., Jamieson, F., Beedall, P., Hollingworth, S., et al. (2008). White Middle-Class Parents, Identities, Educational Choice and the Urban Comprehensive School: Dilemmas, Ambivalence and Moral Ambiguity. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(3), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Henau, J., & Reed, H. (2013). A Cumulative Gender Impact Assessment of Ten Years of Austerity Policies. Women’s Budget Group. https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/De_HenauReed_WBG_GIAtaxben_briefing_2016_03_06.pdf.
  18. DfEE. (1997). Excellence in Schools. DfEE Publications.Google Scholar
  19. DfES. (2001). White Paper: Schools Achieving Success. DfES Publications.Google Scholar
  20. DfES. (2006). Identifying Gifted and Talented Pupils: Getting Started. DfES Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, A. D., Fitz, J., & Whitty, G. (1989). The State and Private Education: An Evaluation of the Assisted Places Scheme. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  22. Elwood, J. (2010). Exploring Girls’ Relationship to and with Achievement: Linking Assessment, Learning, Mind and Gender. In C. Jackson, C. Paechter, & E. Renold (Eds.), Girls and Education 3–16: Continuing Concerns, New Agendas (pp. 38–49). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Featherstone, B., Scourfield, J., & Hooper, C. A. (2010). Gender and Child Welfare in Society. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (2008). “The Birth of BiopoliticsLectures at at the Collège de France 1978–1979 (G. Burhcell, Trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977–1978 (A. I. Davidson, Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gillborn, D. (2006). Race Equality, ‘Gifted and Talented’ Students and the ‘Increased Use of Setting by Ability’. Memorandum of Evidence, Ev 187, in House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2006) The Schools White Paper: Higher Standards, Better Schools for All. HC 633-II. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  29. Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (2011). New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonick, M. (2006). Between Girl Power and Reviving Ophelia: Constituting the Neo-Liberal Girl Subject. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 18(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  31. Gonick, M., Renold, E., Ringrose, J., & Weems, L. (2009). Rethinking Agency and Resistance: What Comes After Girl Power? Girlhood Studies, 2(2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, A. (2004). Future Girl: Young Women in the Twenty-First Century. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Harris, M. (2017). Kids These Days: Human Capital and the Making of Millennials. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, A., & Dobson, A. (2015). Theorizing Agency in Post-girlpower Times. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 29(2), 145–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2015.1022955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hey, V. (1997). The Company She Keeps: An Ethnography of Girls’ Friendships. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hey, V. (2003). Joining the Club? Academia and Working-Class Femininities. Gender and Education, 15(3), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hollows, J., & Moseley, R. (2006). Popularity Contests: The Meaning of Popular Feminism. In J. Hollows & R. Moseley (Eds.), Feminism in Popular Culture. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  38. Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, Knowledge, Materiality, History. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. House of Commons Select Committee: Children, Schools and Families Committee. (2010). The Gifted and Talented Programme. London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
  40. Jackson, C., & Nyström, A. S. (2014). ‘Smart Students Get Perfect Scores in Tests Without Studying Much’: Why Is an Effortless Achiever Identity Attractive, and for Whom Is It Possible? Research Papers in Education, 30(4), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson, L. (1993). The Modern Girl: Girlhood and Growing Up. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Klein, N. (2017). Daring to Dream in the Age of Trump. https://www.thenation.com/article/daring-to-dream-in-the-age-of-trump/.
  43. Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as Plutocracy: The Marketising of ‘Equality’ Under Neoliberalism. New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 80(80), 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Littler, J. (2017). Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power, and Myths of Mobility. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liu, W. M. (2011). Developing a Social Class and Classism Consciousness. In M. Elizabeth Altmaier & J.-I. C. Hansen (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Counseling Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lucey, H., Melody, J., & Walkerdine, V. (2003). Uneasy Hybrids: Psychosocial Aspects of Becoming Educationally Successful for Working-Class Young Women. Gender and Education, 15(3), 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McRobbie, A. (2008). The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Mendick, H. (2013). Modern Girlhoods. Sociological Research Online, 18(2), 23.  https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mendick., H., Allen, K., Harvey, L., & Ahmad, A. (2018). Celebrity, Aspiration and Contemporary Youth: Education and Inequality in an Era of Austerity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  50. Morris, M., Rickinson, M., & Davies, D. (2001). The Delivery of Careers Education and Guidance in Schools (Research Report No. 296). DES/National Foundation for Educational Research. HMSO.Google Scholar
  51. Ofsted. (2013). The Most Able Students: Are They Doing as Well as They Should in Our Non-selective Secondary Schools? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405518/The_most_able_students.pdf.
  52. Patrick, F. (2013). Neoliberalism, the Knowledge Economy, and the Learner: Challenging the Inevitability of the Commodified Self as an Outcome of Education. ISRN Education, 2013(108705), 8.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/108705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paule, M. (2015). Dinosaur Discourses: Taking Stock of Gendered Learning Myths. Gender and Education, 27(7), 744–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paule, M. (2016). Girlhood, Schools and Media: Discourses of the Achieving Girl in Schools, On Screen and Online. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Queen’s Speech. (1997). BBC Politics Archive. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/issues/education.shtml.
  56. Reay, D. (2008). Tony Blair, the Promotion of the ‘Active’ Educational Citizen, and Middle-Class Hegemony. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Renold, E., & Allan, A. (2006). Bright and Beautiful: High Achieving Girls, Ambivalent Femininities, and the Feminization of Success in the Primary School. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(4), 457–473.Google Scholar
  58. Ringrose, J. (2007). Successful Girls?: Complicating Post-feminist, Neo-Liberal Discourses of Educational Achievement and Gender Equality. Gender and Education, 19(4), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ringrose, J. (2012). Postfeminist Education?: Girls and the Sexual Politics of Schooling (Foundations and Futures of Education). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ringrose, J. (2013). Postfeminist Education? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Ringrose, J., & Epstein, D. (2017). Postfeminist Educational Media Panics, Girl Power and the Problem/Promise of ‘Successful Girls’. In M. Pteres, B. Cowie, & I. Menter (Eds.), A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Singapore, Gateway East: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  63. Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2012). Educating the Highly Able (Research Report for the Sutton Trust). http://www.suttontrust.com/research/educating-the-highly-able/.
  64. Soyland, A., & Kendall, G. (1997). Abusing Foucault: Methodology, Critique and Subversion. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 25, 9–17.Google Scholar
  65. Tomlinson, S. (2008). Gifted, Talented and High Ability: Selection for Education in a One-Dimensional World. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  67. Walker, R. (2014). The Shame of Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. White, J. (2006). Intelligence, Destiny, and Education: The Ideological Roots of Intelligence Testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Wilkinson, H., & Howard, M. (1997). Tomorrow’s Women. London: DEMOS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesOxford Brookes University, Harcourt Hill CampusOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations