Advertisement

Making and Unmaking “objects”

  • Carol Bacchi
  • Susan Goodwin
Chapter
  • 6.2k Downloads

Abstract

Through applications of the WPR approach from several policy fields, this chapter explores the proposition that policies produce “objects”. It draws upon theory introduced in Chapter 3, with emphasis upon the notions of discursive practice, genealogy, and governmentality. The following questions guide the analysis: What does it mean to problematize an assumed “object for thought”? How are “objects” constituted through governing practices? What role do expert knowledges play in constituting “objects for thought”? How do concepts become “objects” through measurement? How does rethinking “objects” as the products of practices open up space to cultivate alternative problematizations?

Keywords

“cycling” “social inclusion” “addiction” “literacy” “competence” “wellbeing” 

Bibliography

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Substance-related and addictive disorders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Commonwealth Government (2005). Government response to: Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report on poverty and financial hardship “A hand up not a hand out”: Renewing the fight against poverty. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchi, C. (1996). The politics of affirmative action: “Women”, equality and category politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bacchi, C., & Bonham, J. (2014). Reclaiming discursive practices as an analytic focus: Political implications. Foucault Studies, 17, 173–192.Google Scholar
  5. Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (eds) (2010). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bastian, A., & Coveney, J. (2013). The responsibilisation of food security: What is the problem represented to be? Health Sociology Review, 22 (2), 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhabha, H. (1984). Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse. October (Spring), 28, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bletsas, A. (2007). Contesting representations of poverty: Ethics and evaluation. Policy & Society, 26 (3), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bletsas, A. (2012). Spaces between: Elaborating the theoretical underpinnings of the “WPR” approach and its significance for contemporary scholarship. In A. Bletsas, & C. Beasley (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bonham, J. (2006). Transport: Disciplining the body that travels. The Sociological Review, 54 (Issue Supplement s1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonham, J., Bacchi, C., Wanner, T. (2015). Gender and cycling: Gendering cycling subjects and forming bikes, practices and spaces as gendered objects. In J. Bonham, & M. Johnson (Eds.), Cycling futures. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chia, R. (1996). The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: Towards a postmodern science of organization. Organization, 3 (1), 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, K. (2010). Social inclusion: Is this a way forward for young people, and should we go there? Youth Studies Australia, 29 (2), 16–24.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2000) [1982]. The subject and power. In J.D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3, Hurley, R. and others (trans.). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, S. (2013). Junk: Overeating and obesity and the neuroscience of addiction. Addiction Research and Theory, 21 (6), 496–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, S., & Moore, D. (2011). Governing through problems: The formulation of policy on amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser, S., Moore, D., Keane, H. (2014). Habits: Remaking addiction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. East Sussex: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Green, K., Tones, K., Cross, R., Woodall, J. (2015). Health promotion: Planning and strategies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Gusfield, J. (1996). Contested meanings: The construction of alcohol problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, M.P. (2014). Non-normative critique: Foucault and pragmatic sociology as tactical re-politicization. European Journal of Social Theory [online], 21 December, doi: 10.1177/1368431014562705.Google Scholar
  22. Hoagland, S.L. (1988). Lesbian ethics: Toward new value. Palo Alto, CA: Institute of Lesbian Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, J., & Graham, P. (2006). Introduction to political concepts. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  24. Keane, H., Moore, D., Fraser, S. (2011). Addiction and dependence: Making realities in the DSM. Addiction, 106, 875–877.Google Scholar
  25. Kelly, S.J. (2015). Governing civil society: How literacy, education and security were brought together, PhD thesis, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  26. Lake, M. (2006). From Mississippi to Melbourne via Natal: The invention of the literacy test as a technology of racial exclusion. In A. Curthoys, & M. Lake (Eds.), Connected worlds: History in transnational perspective. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larner, W. (2008). Comments on Kevin Stenson’s “Governing the local: Sovereignty, social governance and community safety”. Social Work and Society – International Online Journal, 6 (1), 21–25, www.socwork.net/sws/article/download/87/144. Accessed 14 January, 2016.
  29. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Marshall, N. (2012a). Disability, inclusive development and the World Bank: The construction and problematisation of disability in international development policy, PhD thesis, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  31. Mausethagen, S. (2013). Governance through concepts: The OECD and the construction of “competence” in Norwegian education policy. Berkeley Review of Education, 4 (1), 161–181.Google Scholar
  32. McEwan, C., & Butler, R. (2007). Disability and development: Different models, different places. Geography Compass, 1 (3), 448–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLeod, J., & Wright, K. (2015). Inventing youth wellbeing. In K. Wright, & J. McLeod (Eds.), Rethinking youth wellbeing: Critical perspectives. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Education and Research (2004). Kultur for læring [Culture for learning] (White Paper 30 [2003–2004]), The Ministry, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  35. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law, & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, D., & Fraser, S. (2013). Producing the “problem” of addiction in drug treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 23 (7), 916–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen, R., & Bonham, J. (2015). More than a message: Producing cyclists through public safety advertising campaigns. In J. Bonham, & M. Johnson (Eds.), Cycling futures. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.Google Scholar
  38. OECD (2013). How’s life? 2013: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pereira, R.B. (2014). Using critical policy analysis in occupational science research: Exploring Bacchi’s methodology. Journal of Occupational Science, 21 (4), 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Room, R. (1983). Sociological aspects of the disease concept of alcoholism. In R. Smart (Ed.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenberg, C.F. (2003). What is disease? In memory of Owsei Temkin. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 77 (3), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salter, P. (2013). The problem in policy: Representations of Asia literacy in Australian education for the Asian century. Asian Studies Review, 37 (1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tanesini, A. (1994). Whose language? In K. Lennon, & M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the difference: Feminist perspectives in epistemology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. UNICEF (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview (Innocenti Report Card 11). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.Google Scholar
  45. Veyne, P. (1997). Foucault revolutionizes history. In A.I. Davidson (Ed.), Foucault and his Interlocutors, Porter, C. (trans.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wade, M. (2015). Key measure of Australia’s wellbeing has been stagnant for two years. The Age, September 5.Google Scholar
  47. Wright, K., & McLeod, J. (eds) (2015). Rethinking youth wellbeing: Critical perspectives. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol Bacchi
    • 1
  • Susan Goodwin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations