International Organisations on Social and Emotional education: a mere exercise of self-management to adapt to social order?

• In Event: Education policy: actors, ideas and implications

Proposal

The development of Social and Emotional Skills (SES) has moved to the top of many countries' education policy agendas (UNESCO, 2015)​​. Since schools represent a microcosm of society, they are considered the perfect hub for social and emotional learning (OECD, 2023) as classrooms become more ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse (OECD 2011). Moreover, in school, children observe, identify, learn, and replicate social and emotional skills, social norms, and behaviour codes (WORLD BANK, 2019).

In this context, we ask why social and emotional skills (SES) have become relevant for International Organisations (IOs) such as the OECD, UNESCO, and the World Bank. What educational aims do they consider relevant when encouraging the development of SES? And what kind of social, economic, and political coexistence is envisioned by IOs when highlighting the need to develop SES?

According to IOs, SES are expected to contribute to the achievement of a variety of goals. For instance, SES are important for reaching a peaceful future (OCDE, 2023; becoming a responsible citizen (OECD, 2021); getting a better academic performance (OCDE, 2022; World Bank, 2013; UNESCO, 2022); adapting to a world in constant evolution (OCDE, 2018); leading to social cohesion in the aftermath of violence and conflict (World Bank, 2013); understanding one’s and other’s emotions (UNESCO, 2024); building a moral compass (UNESCO, 2003); and generating equal opportunities for all (OCDE, 2018), among others.

However, not only is the diversity of objectives associated with the development of SES particularly striking, but also the number of elements included within the SES category. For example, the SES comprise emotions, capabilities, feelings, attributes, dispositions, behaviours, and abilities, among others. Yet, is it possible to propose a notion of educability that encompasses all those elements? Is there, for instance, a common discourse for the educability of emotions, attitudes, and behaviours? Do IOs offer a notion of educability?

Although the policy documents offer some definitions of SES and Social and emotional learning (SEL), they also need to be more robust when defining and proposing distinctions between all those elements considered SES. As we will claim, this becomes particularly relevant and problematic when it comes to defining emotions and proposing a rough distinction between positive and negative emotions.

Despite the lack of conceptual clarity, it is possible to identify common underpinnings when analysing some relevant policy documents elaborated by IOs. Firstly, the educability of SES, particularly emotions, is linked to self-control and self-management to achieve better academic performance. Secondly, as mentioned, a poorly justified distinction between positive and negative emotions is outlined to argue that not all emotions contribute to learning. Thirdly, the education of emotions is usually presented as developing skills for adapting to and conserving the social order. In this sense, it is worth noting that emotions such as anger, shame, sadness, and anxiety, which may be caused by political, economic, and cultural factors, are also considered negative for learning and excluded from the classroom.

In this paper, we analyse the discourses of IOs in the field of SES and SEL education to explore the effects of implementing emotional education projects in neoliberal societies. At this point, two relevant considerations will arise: What level of coincidence exists between IOs and the neoliberal understanding of emotions? And how viable is it to promote the development of two “positive emotions” such as empathy and compassion in neoliberal societies?

On the first question, we will claim that both IOs and neoliberal discourses see emotional education as a process of individual responsibilisation based on self-regulation. This is an approach characterised by overlooking the impact of socio-structural conditions and does not aim to question the social order. In response to the second question, we will argue that developing projects of emotional learning that promote empathy and compassion involves questioning and transforming socio-structural conditions. This shift moves from a culture of compassion without action (Boler, 1999) to compassionate acts that could be subversive (LaMothe, 2018). Therefore, we propose a critical pedagogy of compassion (Zembylas, 2022) which understands emotions as historically, culturally, and politically determined phenomena rather than the purely individual transversal and transhistorical (aka timeless and universal) qualities (Truran, 2022).

What interests us is that educators and students gain awareness of their emotions, as well as their causes, paying attention not only to individual aspects (biographical or family) but also the outcome of the ongoing workings of social structures and social relations (cultural, political and economic). Thus, we are committed to an education of emotions that is not separated from the understanding of social phenomena but rather recognises their importance in shaping the emotional experiences of students. Hence, the result of the education of emotions can lead to a critical interrogation of social processes and not a mere adaptation to them.

The importance that emotions play in our daily lives and the need to link them with education cannot become pretexts to define them through formulas that reduce their complexity or that make them functional to political and economic models (Author, 2024). For this reason, we propose an approach where the predominant aspect is not the conceptualisation of emotions or distinctions between those that are positive or negative. Using this approach allows us to claim that the education of emotions does not mean a mere exercise of self-management or self-regulation to adapt to social order.

Authors

• Carlos Navia, University of Cambridge - Faculty of Education

• Susan Lee Robertson, The University of Cambridge