The recent article, The problematization of the (im)possible subject: an analysis of Health and Physical Education policy from Australia, USA and Wales, invites readers to engage in a deeper dialogue about the ways in which HPE policies construct the very subjects they purport to support. In this comparative study, the authors employ Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) approach to interrogate policy documents from Australia, the USA, and Wales, urging educators and policymakers alike to question the assumptions behind current curricular practices.
Unpacking the Problem Representation
At the heart of the study lies the notion that policies do not merely react to pre-existing issues but actively create and define problems. The article posits that HPE policies contribute to a persistent ‘deficit discourse’ by characterizing learners as inherently lacking. Three particular subject positions are identified:
The Sedentary Learner: Seen as lacking an active lifestyle, this group is expected to adopt physical activities with confidence and creativity. However, the burden of responsibility is placed solely on the learner, often neglecting broader systemic factors.
The Un-Educated Learner: This representation underscores a perceived deficiency in the knowledge and skills necessary to make informed health decisions, reinforcing a view where the learner must be remade into a more capable citizen.
The Naïve Learner: Positioned as vulnerable and at risk, the naïve learner is depicted as someone in need of protection and enlightenment—a portrayal that not only simplifies the complexity of individual circumstances but also sets up impossible expectations.
The authors argue that these representations are underpinned by overlapping discourses such as idealism, neoliberalism, healthism, and individualism. As a result, the policies reinforce a narrative that learners are defined by their deficits, constructing an “impossible subject” who is expected to transform rapidly within limited curricular timeframes.
Discussion: The Politics of Governing Through Policy
The discussion within the article pushes the debate further by urging us to look beyond superficial readings of policy language. It critically examines how curricular documents, by emphasizing skills and behaviors that all learners must acquire, inevitably marginalize those whose experiences do not conform to the normative ideal. The discussion calls for a reimagining of HPE that acknowledges diverse voices and experiences—challenging educators to reflect on their own practices and the broader political, social, and cultural contexts that shape these policies.
Importantly, the article critiques the assumption that all learners have equal access to the resources necessary to meet these high expectations. It highlights the risk of “problematizing” learners in ways that ultimately contribute to their further marginalization. The authors conclude by calling on curriculum policy writers and government stakeholders to foster a more inclusive dialogue—one that not only identifies silences and omissions within existing policy frameworks but also imagines alternative futures in which HPE is a space for genuine empowerment rather than exclusion.
Key Takeaways for Educators and Policymakers
Critical Reflection: Policies embed assumptions that shape learner identities. Educators must challenge these presumptions and engage in critical dialogue to foster more inclusive practices.
Deficit Discourse Awareness: By recognizing how learners are constructed as lacking, teachers and policymakers can work towards approaches that celebrate strengths rather than merely outlining deficits.
Systemic Change: The disconnect between the idealized learner and the lived experiences of many students highlights the need for systemic reform. This involves not only reworking policy language but also ensuring that educational practices and resources align with more realistic and equitable goals.
Future Directions: Educators are encouraged to become active participants in policy discussions, leveraging their insights to advocate for curricular changes that better reflect the diversity of student experiences and needs.
Ultimately, the article is a clarion call for a shift in perspective—a move away from policies that produce the “impossible subject” toward those that nurture, empower, and celebrate the full diversity of learners in Health and Physical Education.
Full Article:
Alfrey, L., Lambert, K., Aldous, D., & Marttinen, R. (2021). The problematization of the (im)possible subject: an analysis of Health and Physical Education policy from Australia, USA and Wales. Sport, Education and Society, 28(4), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.2016682
This blog post was written with the assistance of AI to support clarity and accessibility. It is intended to help disseminate and discuss research findings with a broader audience. However, for the most accurate and reliable information—including conclusions and practical applications—please refer to the original peer-reviewed publication on which this blog is based. The peer-reviewed article remains the most authoritative source.