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