Crossing the Border

At this point in my life and in my education, I have to consider myself as having crossed the border.  The crossing has happened in the questions I have been asking, the resistances I am beginning to make, and in the application of alternate perspectives that I have been able to approach a situation with.  These changes have enabled me to be in a different space and crossing back is not an alternative for me anymore. I am able to better realize where my struggles come from with particular aspects of developmentally appropriate practice, and how its discourse shapes who I am as an Early Childhood Educator.  When a parent comes to me I am able to take some time to think over a situation that has been brought to my attention, rather than having to have an immediate prescribed response or resolution.  

It has become more obvious to me that there cannot be a universal practice that everyone must adapt to.  How can we know beforehand what works best for each individual?  Do we not have a responsibility to the other to not make assumptions of who she/he is and what will work best for her/him?  Levinas (as cited in Dahlberg & Moss, 2005) explains how we have this need to know the other and therefore we apply pre-constructed and universal notions that tell us who the other is .  However, how is our discomfort with uncertainties ‘best practice’ for the children, families, and staff in our centres?  What would happen if we tried to resist some of our insecurities and allowed for other meanings to occur?  What if we saw the other as Levinas (as cited in Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.79) sees her/him “This is an Other whom I cannot represent and classify into a category; this is an Other whom I cannot totalize and grasp, that is, seek to understand through a framework of thought I impose on the Other."  I can begin to imagine the possibilities that could stem from this course of action.

More often I find myself taking the time to encounter the other in a more meaningful way, realizing that I cannot ever know her/him. In addition I am beginning to recognize, question, and at times resist what Foucault (as cited in MacNaughton, 2005) describes as sanctioned truths that regulate our actions and decisions of how we behave.  However, there is still that part of me that grapples with many unknowns similar to some of your own questions raised in the responses. How do we include the voice of others, including co-workers that do not share the same views?  What about the parents and children, when their values and views can be so diverse?  How do we answer to those who set the guidelines and have expected outcomes? 

Last May, I visited the preschools in Reggio Emilia, Italy for an entire week.  I began to have answers for some of my questions, and at the same time numerous other questions arose for me.  I saw how a community, a whole city has come together over time to bring forth an alternate meaning of being with children, family and community.  As Italian is my first language, I was able to hear some of the same struggles that we have in our own classrooms.  However, the difference was in the open dialogue that all, both adults and children took part in.  There was no sense of rush for a resolution, and conflict was not frowned upon, but instead seemed to be an opportunity for conversation.

 I can now relate these experiences to what Dahlberg and Moss (2005) describe as preschools that are able to examine, question and deconstruct dominant discourses.  I have found new inspiration and encouragement to have open discussions when dealing with uncertainties, rather than immediately conforming to what is known to be desirable.  When you have that moment of doubt or conflict, why not sit with it for awhile, question it, open up a space for communication.  Can there only really be one method, one appropriate or inappropriate practice; what if we really didn’t have the answer?

Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. (2005).  Ethics and politics in Early Childhood Education.

            London, New York:  RoutledgeFalmer

MacNaughton, G. (2005).  Doing Foucalt in early childhood studies: 

           Applying poststructural ideas.  New York:  Routledge

Thinking with another: A source of inspiration

I have tried to point out how a dominant discourse in early childhood education can produce standardized practices such as developmentally appropriate practice that we become familiar and accustomed to.   I want to step back for a moment and look at a definition of discourse that Ryan and Grieshaber (2005) give us:

Discourses are systems of meanings that circulate through social life by

individuals taking them up and speaking them as if they were their 

own. Every discourse creates its own politics of truth that determines

 the ways people behave and what counts as valid knowledge.  (p. 37) 

I have to admit that I intentionally did not give discourses much thought until I started reading with the ideas of Foucault, the French philosopher and historian. He has been a true source of inspiration, and his ideas have allowed me to think differently about the things I know and the way I use that knowledge in my work, and in my relationships with others as an early childhood educator.  As I pay attention, I realize that discourses are all around us and that they help shape who we are as individuals and as a whole of society.
 From discourses, truths are produced and Foucault (1980) describes how some attain more dominance than others and then become ‘regimes of truth’.   “'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A 'regime' of truth” (133).  Thinking with Foucault’s ideas, I can see how DAP derives from a discourse that has developed into a regime of truth.  We become so guided by a regime of truth that this is the sole knowledge that forms our responses to children, and it becomes impossible for other perspectives to exist.  When this happens, what possibilities are being hampered? What consequences occur when we become so faithful to a particular body of knowledge, such as the scientific discourse of developmental theory?   What effect does it have on what we speak, and on who we are?  

 As I read Foucault’s ideas of the dangers of discourses and their domination, I begin to see myself in these situations time after time.  The dangers become more obvious to me as I see relationships with children and their families being compromised.    How do we change this?  Can we change this?  Foucault (as cited in MacNaughton, 2005) tells us that in order not to be subjected to the domination of a particular truth, we need to seek other truths, other perspectives.  This is sometimes difficult because we as humans have the tendency to have to know things; uncertainty is something that we do not want to be familiar with.  However, as I sit with Foucault’s ideas, I am able to use my discomforts as a way of opening up other possibilities.  The desire to conform to practices such as DAP without questioning it has subsided.  It is one meaning I can turn to, rather than a single doctrine that I am governed by.    

For more information on Foucault, please see the attached links: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ and http://www.michel-foucault.com/.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge:  selected interviews and other writings

            1972- 1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

MacNaughton, G. (2005).  Doing Foucalt in early childhood studies: 

Applying poststructural ideas.  New York:  Routledge.

Ryan, S. & Grieshaber, S. (2005) Shifting from developmental to postmodern  

           practices in early childhood. Teacher Education, Journal of  

            Teacher Education, 56(1), 34-45.

            http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487104272057

‘Others’, our own self and our world

I would like to clarify that my objective is not to take sides on developmentally appropriate practice or to encourage the creation of other dominant discourses. I am reminded by Foucault 1983 that “all discourses are dangerous, especially without continued examination.” (as cited in Canella, 2000, p.38).  I think it would be easy to find myself stifled by other particular truths that would create other types of constraints.   However, at the same time, we are so used to this way of doing things that it would be difficult to sit in a place that is uncomfortable, a place where knowledge is not prescribed and where we do not always have imposed outcomes and solutions to lean on.  We might say we want to get away from a standardized system, governing rules, imposed curriculum but how would we feel if it’s all taken away from us?  Would we know what to do?

 Even though I have these questions and you might add others, I would like for us to think around the possibilities of expanding our horizons.   I’ve come to a place where I feel the importance lies in being able to reflect on our practices, then taking it a step further, questioning and perhaps beginning to resist, even if it proves to feel troublesome.  Canella (2000, p.36) who problematizes the discourse of education through the work of Foucault says “parents and educators have accepted and contributed to the discourses of ‘scientific childhood’ without question or critique, without recognition that younger human beings may not always benefit from the prederminism imposed by others.”   Rather than becoming dormant and submissive to particular truths that have been assumed, ask yourself how it is working for you and the others you are relating to? And it begins making very good sense to me, not only are the children not benefiting form imposed practices but we too are not benefiting from this as well  .

I begin to imagine the possibilities of being open to other meanings, not only for myself but for the children I work with. I’m not looking for answers, however I am in a place where I am questioning what I know, what I have been taught “to know” and I am beginning to take small steps in crossing the boundaries of my experiences.   As I am beginning to do this, I realize that at times I have already visited another meaning, for example when I find myself deciding to stay with something even though it has no resolution at the time.  Is this a way of stepping away from what I have always known.  Through these small crossings, imposed limitations begin to reveal themselves, and what becomes obvious to me is that they are not few. Do we not have a responsibility to ourselves and our children to practice together in a reflective manner in order to create endless possibilities rather than endless limitations,  and  in order for all of us to be part of a world that we created together in unity?

  I would like to leave you with a quote from Arendt (1968, p.196)  which I hope enlightens us on our responsibility to our children, and on our responsibility of allowing them the opportunity to rejuvenate our world:  “And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world”. 

Canella, G. (2000). The scientific discourse of education: Predetermining others - Foucault, education, and children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 36-44. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2000.1.1.6

Arendt, H. (1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. 

            New York:  Penguin.

Turning limitations into possibilities

I would like to take a closer look at why we should even think about looking at alternate ways of practicing with children.  Why should we consider crossing that border?  Is there really a danger of relying on this discourse alone based on one theory of development?  If we take the time to reflect on the way we listen and respond to children, we may find some answers.  We can look at the dialogue we have with children, families, colleagues and community.  Do we base our relationships and listening on predetermined guidelines and outcomes that do not allow room for dialogue, that do not allow for children to reach their potential? Whose voices are being privileged and whose voices are being silenced when we give power to one set of rules and truths?  Jor’dan (as cited in Hatch et Al, 2002) also points out that it is essential to ask ourselves who created these guidelines, when were they created, on what concept were they based on and who was observed in this process, the program, the teacher, the children?
            When we reflect on all these questions, we can begin to deconstruct the meanings that come from a dominant discourse that drives our practice with children, and we can see the limitations that we can put on ourselves, families, and children.  Foucault (1983) writes of ‘how an Other is always pushed aside, marginalized, forcibly homogenized and devalued as {Western} cognitive machinery does its work’ (as cited Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.78).  What would happen if we did not push the ‘other aside’, if we came away from conforming to prescribed practice; would we provide ourselves, our children, our world with endless possibilities?

            When we follow prescribed measurements and outcomes, we are practicing with an assumption that we know children, children are universal, and there is no need include the voices of children.  Levinas describes to us how we should view the other,  “this is an Other whom I cannot represent and classify into a category; this is an Other whom I cannot totalize and grasp, that is, seek to understand through a framework of thought I impose on the Other” (as cited in Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.79). Therefore, our acceptance of the knowability of others without question or reflection, does not allow for a true relationship with the other in which differences and uncertainties are received without resistance.

The following is a video of a group of adults and children who have stepped away from conforming to the norm, who have made decisions according to their own situation, values, and through their relationships with each other.

When I watch this video, it begins to make more sense to me of how there cannot be one way of being and knowing the other.  What would even make us think that this is a possibility?  Why aren’t we trying to relate to others in a new way each time, rather than assuming that we already know them?  The group in this video did take that leap, opening up to a new space.  Together with the child and others, we can find alternate truths and ways of practicing that are limitless, exciting, responsive, offering endless possibilities.

 Hatch, A., Bowman B., Jor’dan, J. R., Lopez-Morgan, C., Hart, C., Diaz-Soto,  L. Lubeck, S., Hyson, M. (2002). Developmentally appropriate practice: Continuing the dialogue. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 439-457. doi:/10.2304/ciec.2002.3.3.10

Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. (2005).  Ethics and politics in early childhood education.

            London, New York:  RoutledgeFalmer.

Gupta, A (Speaker). (2011).  Cultural Perspectives (Amita Gupta) [online video]. 

            Birmingham :  European Early Childhood Research Association Conference.

            Retrieved from  http://www.teachers.tv/videos/cultural-perspectives-amita-gupta

Dominant discourses, why should we question them?

Early childhood education, and the education of children as a whole is engulfed in an arena of universal standards, limitations, and norms forming a dominant discourse based on scientific knowledge alone.   I feel that this discourse has become so familiar to us as educators that it is the only truth we know and rely on.  And one area in which I feel we can see the traces of this dominant discourse is in the governance of developmentally appropriate practice.  This is an area which I have been finding myself questioning more often, and wanting to further investigate its implications.  Are there other possibilities when we are able to move across its imposed boundaries?

For a quick reminder of the meaning of this practice, I turn to MacDonald’s (2007) description of a framework that compares the child to a set of norms and that allows practice to be seen as appropriate or inappropriate.  It is a guideline for educators to use and is based on developmental theory which she points out is a theory which creates “preoccupation with the child’s limits, stages, or classifications rather than the child’s potential…( p. 7).  What I find concerning is the fact that we as educators are not able to step away from this practice at any given time.  It really has become all we know or all that we feel we can know.   If we are solely relying on one type of knowledge, then are we not limiting children, normalizing children, objectifying children, and creating standards of appropriate and inappropriate, normal and abnormal behavior? 

What I am realizing, and wonder if others are too is that accepting the power of one set of truths can limit so much of what we do.  Without reflection of our practices and responsibility to the other, we are conforming to one set of universal rules, one way of being and the notion of sameness. How can this be a possibility in the world we live in?  How do we view our children?  How can we say that we are listening to children, ‘meeting their needs’ when we shut their ideas down and close off any possibilities for conversation?

 I would encourage educators to reflect on their practices and question this dominant discourse.  Let’s think about what restrictions are imposed, and what possibilities are banished when we do not make allowance for other likelihoods.   Foucault and Lather tell us that “Discourse reflects and generates power, serving as a mirror of particular ideologies and socially constructed norms” (as cited in Cannella, 2000, p. 38).  Educators get themselves into trouble when they follow only one discourse, one set of ideals, one set of being without ever questioning it or allowing room for other meanings.  What would happen if we drew upon the power of developmentally appropriate practice and used it to open up spaces for other ways of thinking, for other places of knowing? 

MacDonald, M. (2007).  Developmental theory and post-modern thinking in early

childhood education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Young Children, 32(2) 7-10.

Canella, G. (2000). The scientific discourse of education: Predetermining others - Foucault, education, and children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 36-44. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2000.1.1.6