A review of class-based theories of student resistance in education: Mapping the origins and influence of Learning to Labor by Paul Willis

McGrew, Ken. (2011). A review of class-based theories of student resistance in education: Mapping the origins and influence of Learning to Labor by Paul Willis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 234-266.

I was drawn to this article because of my interest in how I believe our school system has failed to reach boys, particularly working class boys, and especially boys in the urban core. The notion of resistance is about why some boys reject the values of school and decide that the kinds of learning that school rewards are not worthwhile for them, and that school achievement is not worth the effort, discipline, conformity, and self-denial it seems to require. The consequences of this resistance range from a limitation of career choice and a ceiling on potential income, to more destructive outcomes such as violence, addiction, participation in gangs and organized crime, and ultimately the waste of human potential in prison and even in premature death. I’ve worked with boys in the urban core as young children. I know that there is the same possibility for a future with those children as with any child in the affluent suburbs. I am interested in ALL children realizing their potential, and I dread the thought of any child’s future being truncated. In approaching this article, I wanted to know more about the literature on school resistance. Learning to Labor, the report of an ethnographic study of working class “lads” in schools in the United Kingdom, is a seminal work on the topic, so I approached the article with expectations of broadening my knowledge on school resistance. My expectations were not met.

I should have known that in a journal which contains reviews of extensive research bodies, I might run into agendas that differ from what I wanted from this article. As I have found many times in my reading of the literature, extensive literature reviews such as this one may be more valuable for their comprehensive reference lists than they are for the points actually made by the authors. It is not that I do not believe McGrew is making a valuable point, only that what he has to say here did not satisfy my own goal as a reader, which was to learn more about the phenomenon of school resistance. I do owe a debt to McGrew for exposing me to much literature on the topic, however, and it will be up to me to seek out some of the references he provides if I want to know more.

That being said, McGrew makes an important point here: It is vital that researchers have a deep understanding of the theories and research that they use as the foundation for their own studies and for making recommendations for change. McGrew makes the case that Willis’s seminal text is probably misunderstood by many researchers. He also argues that Willis’s theory, though often cited as original, probably has its roots in earlier theories, which are not always given full credit as its foundation. I will not go into detail as to the nature of the misunderstandings; that was not what I found useful in the article. One may read the article if interested, though I doubt that most of the people who read my annotations would be. However, I share McGrew’s concern about theories being cited when those citing them may have incomplete or even totally inaccurate understandings of those theories. When misunderstood theory is used to effect change, serious problems arise. When these misunderstandings are unquestioned, and when “seminal” works themselves are unquestioned, healthy debate does not occur. At best, intellectual stagnation occurs; at worst, harm may actually be done.