Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict (Changing Images Challenging Issues in Early Childhood)

Rethinking Parent and Child CONFLICT Changing Images in Early Childhood Series Editor: Nicola Yelland Rethinking Par...

Author: Susa Grieshaber

5 downloads 286 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Rethinking Parent and Child

CONFLICT

Changing Images in Early Childhood Series Editor: Nicola Yelland Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict Susan Grieshaber

Rethinking Parent and Child

CONFLICT

Susan Grieshaber

NEW YORK AND LONDON

Published in 2004 by RoutledgeFalmer 29 W 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by RoutledgeFalmer 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE www.routledge.co.uk Copyright © 2004 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.

This edition published in the Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the publishers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 0-203-46357-9 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-47137-7 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0–415–93078–2 (Print Edition) ISBN 0–415–93079–0 (pbk.)

Contents

Series Editor’s Introduction

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

Chapter 1

Relationships among Parents and Children as a Modernist Understanding

1

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation

21

Parent and Child Conflict as Relationships of Power

57

Chapter 4

Researching with Families

77

Chapter 5

Introducing the Families

95

Chapter 6

Food to Go

123

Chapter 7

School’s In

147

Chapter 8

Tidy Houses and Bedtime Stories

163

Chapter 9

More Than Sibling Rivalry

181

Chapter 10

Regimes of Practice as Normalizing Agents

191

Chapter 2 Chapter 3

Appendix

209

v

vi • Contents

References

211

Index

221

Tables Table 1: Discourses and Regimes of Truth

92

Table 2: Key Discourses of Parenting in Each Family

119

Table 3: Adult Rules about Table Manners

130

Series Editor’s Introduction

Early childhood education has long been organized and justified around the principles of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), which was founded in the developmental psychology literature from the early twentieth century. The theories of learning and socialization inherent to this literature were conceptualized in vastly different social and economic contexts and while the world has moved into the twenty-first century, education often seems to be caught in a time warp and justifications for continued and outdated practices and attitudes need to be challenged. DAP privileged certain ways of being and knowing that did not recognize the diverse qualities of children and their families in a global context. In doing so it had the effect of alienating the qualities of diversity that should be celebrated, and further suggested that there was a universal state that we should all be striving for which was based on western ways of doing and knowing. In recent times these contentions have been challenged. Early childhood education is coming to be known for its openness to new ideas, and the multidisciplinary nature of the field has facilitated the process of reconceptualization. The terrain of early childhood has been remodeled significantly over the past decade, and alternative views and perspectives are beginning to have an impact on practices and pedagogies. The changing images of early childhood are reflected in the books that will comprise this series, which will challenge educators and confront them with a wide range of topics. The books will enable early childhood professionals to engage with contemporary ideas and practices from alternative perspectives other than those which have been traditionally associated with the education of young children and their families. They will provide opportunities to critique aspects of the field that many early childhood educators have accepted as being beyond question as well as act as catalysts for contemporary interrogations and investigations. The ideas contained in the books in this series will incorporate a wide range of theoretical perspectives that are particularly appropriate to life in vii

viii • Series Editor’s Introduction the postmodern world. Additionally, issues which have been taboo (e.g. sexuality) or only viewed from one perspective (e.g. moral development) will be presented. In this way the multidisciplinary perspective of the field becomes evident. Today instead of being influenced solely by the psychological perspective, early childhood education benefits from the ideas that have emerged from other disciplines such as anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy. This has enriched the capacity of early childhood educators to respond to the new demands of contemporary times with pedagogies and practices that are appropriate to the varying and changing needs and interests of young children and their families. The books in this series will assist early childhood students and professionals to engage in such dialogues from an informed base. They consider alternative theoretical perspectives and demonstrate their relevance to everyday practices, and in doing so enable us to create learning environments which are underpinned by a respect for all, equity, and social justice. In her book Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict, Susan Grieshaber encapsulates this movement from the past to the present by providing an eloquent critique of the ways in which developmental psychology has inadequately accounted for family conflict and its resolution. She reports on a major study that she conducted and introduces us to four families who share the intimacies of their lives in very frank and meaningful scenarios so that we are able to gain greater insights into the diverse ways in which families interact and negotiate activities with each other in their daily encounters. Grieshaber draws on critical, social and discourse theory to challenge assumptions about parent and child conflict and in doing so provides alternative understandings of the complex relationships based on power, knowledge, and resistance, as exemplified in Foucault’s work. This frame is used as a basis for analyzing the daily domesticity of the families of which conflict is a significant part. This is an important book since it not only deals with a topic that is fundamental to the lives of young children and their families, but demonstrates the ways in which new frames of thinking can be applied to important issues in our lives. Grieshaber has presented alternative ways of viewing conflict that give us new insight into ways that we can understand and deal with it in a myriad of contexts. The book intimately portrays family life as it happens and does not set up artificial ideal contexts to which we are all supposed to strive. We are thereby faced with the dilemmas of family life that we all experience in different ways and then are able to consider the multiple ways of dealing with such issues. There is no one solution. This is the essence of our work as early childhood educators from a broader perspective. There are multiple ways of viewing and knowing and as practitioners we need to be cognizant of this and the various interpretations and resolutions that are possible. Grieshaber’s book assists us in this process and at the same time considers issues that are fundamental to our everyday lives. Nicola Yelland RMIT University

Acknowledgments I extend my heartfelt thanks to the families who were involved in the pilot study for this research project, and to the four families who allowed me to intrude into their lives at odd hours with a video camera, capturing aspects of their daily activities. Without you this research would not have been possible. My imposition into your lives was made much easier by your understanding and friendship. Thanks go to Nicola Yelland, Series Editor, for her support and encouragement of this project, and to Sharon Ryan for her insightful feedback on draft chapters, as well as to many colleagues for the ways they challenge my thinking and who share my passion for wanting to understand. My own family has endured my attempts at mothering and is a source of continual learning and inspiration. The origins of this work lie in my doctoral studies. This has been extended to incorporate several other theoretical perspectives that have evolved in my work, and that of other scholars, since that time. The analysis of parent and child conflict is a complex undertaking and the devices used for gathering data in families are highly sophisticated; however, it remains a fact that we can never see and understand everything that has occurred in family life. Nor can we capture everything on a visual record. The data analyzed here were aspects of family life that have been extracted from their original contexts and presented in a textual form. They can never represent the deep complexity of family life adequately. But these attempts provide some insight into the daily functioning of these four families, despite the limitations of data-gathering mechanisms. Some parts of the following work appear in this book and I thank the editor for permission to use these parts: Grieshaber, S. (1997). Mealtime rituals: Power and resistance in the construction of family mealtime rules. British Journal of Sociology, 48(4), 648–666. ix

CHAPTER

1

Relationships among Parents and Children as a Modernist Understanding

This book is set in the context of contemporary life and depicts relationships among parents and children in four families living in a capital city in Australia. It tells stories about conflicts that occurred among these parents and their children in the course of daily domestic activity in four ordinary families. Parent and child conflict has been addressed in child or developmental psychology through research that began in the early years of the twentieth century and gained momentum rapidly. At the close of the twentieth century parents had access to a wide range of advice about childrearing and managing conflict between themselves and their children. Because of the overabundance of manuals and the step-by-step advice that many provide, it is often assumed that parent and child conflict is easily resolved. This chapter provides an introduction to themes raised in the book by explaining how psychology has achieved a place of dominance as the purveyor of parenting advice. Following this, it argues that postmodern times necessitate different approaches to understanding family relationships and maps out how this occurs in the remainder of the book. Being a parent is by no means an easy job. The Hollywood film Parenthood implies that childrearing means a lifetime of anxiety for parents and goes as far as to suggest that after so many centuries, somebody must have found the formula for turning children into happy and successful adults. This surely reflects the difficulty of the process in contemporary life. In a review of the film, Stannard and McGuiness (1989) indicated that parenthood 1

2 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict

is the world’s toughest job and a responsibility that “we are all expected to embrace cheerfully and yet without the slightest qualification” (p. 50). Contemporary “Western” culture supports a multimillion dollar child advice industry composed of child psychiatrists and psychologists, pediatricians, social workers, teachers, support organizations, and a host of media publications (Willis, 1991). In this context, parents are searching continually for more effective ways of handling childrearing generally and, more specifically, parent and child conflict. Much of this advice is about how parents can help children to become successfully socialized (i.e., how to produce “good” children, and, by association, how to be “good” parents). Underlying tenets also suggest it may be more about helping parents learn how to control and train their children to be particular types of people. This is exemplified by best sellers such as Toddler Taming (Green, 1984, 1987, 1990), which has been reprinted up to twelve times for each edition. For the primary caregiver, the everyday realities of domestic life are fraught with what the child advice industry describes as problematic constructions of the child: the bed wetter, the child who eats too little, the arguer, the disobedient child, the nagger, the child who has temper outbursts, the hitter/fighter, the child who back answers, the constant attention seeker, the fibber, and the child who resists going to bed, to mention just a few (Grieshaber, 1993). These are all examples of potential conflict situations between parents and children because the child advice industry identifies children who wet the bed after a certain age, children who argue, and so on, as problems. Advice about how to manage, resolve, or prevent such problems comes from research based in psychological theory, from the professionals or experts, to parents. Learning how to control children according to what the experts say is very difficult, despite the assumption that conflict should be resolved easily because of the answers provided by the (psychologically based) child advice industry. However, in the everyday interaction of domestic life, conflict and child noncompliance persist. The number of books and manuals written about childrearing and disciplining children indicates the significance of the child advice industry and the concern that it generates about effective childrearing. Some time ago Cleverley and Phillips (1987) claimed that the “best-selling book in the Western world, after the Bible, is a handbook on child care” (p. vii). Despite this, they have said that it “is not generally appreciated how a small number of theories—theories with sometimes controversial underpinnings— have decisively shaped the patterns of child rearing and educational practices that have been adopted” (p. vii). Cleverley and Phillips continue, claiming that

Relationships among Parents and Children • 3 the bases of popular child-rearing practices, and of deep-seated attitudes towards children, pass largely unexamined . . . attention has been focused upon a small number of models of the child that have been of undoubted influence in Western thought in the last three hundred years, and that are still with us. (p. viii)

This is of concern because ideas that are up to three hundred years old still influence what we think about and how we interact with children. One example comes from the idea of original sin, which informed parents and educators in Britain and the United States in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who subscribed to the Puritan evangelical tradition (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987). The assumption underlying the Puritan model was that the child and the child’s nature were defective in some way and had to be overcome. One of the most important things that parents could do for their children was to restrain their self-will, as this was what had created problems for Adam (in the Christian tradition). The traditional saying encapsulates the Puritan approach: spare the rod and spoil the child. Physical punishment, discipline, strict routines, and Christian training to rid children of evil habits were some of the characteristics associated with Puritan approaches. Although social, political, and economic conditions have changed considerably since the Puritan ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were widely accepted, modern interpretations of Puritan ideas about children and childhood prevail today. Cleverley and Phillips (1987) noted that religious fundamentalism was revived during the 1970s and 1980s in the United States, specifically the “Moral Majority” (p. 32), which was a political and cultural force. Along with this return to religious fundamentalism came modern advice to parents about original sin: “all children—not just certain children, all children—are born delinquent” (Stedman et al., cited in Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 32). Modern versions of the Puritan evangelical model also provide advice for parents about how to rid children of poor moral habits: Good habits can be impressed and bad ones broken in a variety of ways. Thumb sucking can be overcome by encasing the child in a zipper-type sheet at night; a disobedient child may be put in an isolated place for punishment, or deprived of his favorite food; and corporal punishment can be used freely. . . . Parents should never attempt to reason with children or shame them into good behavior—correctly used, spanking guides and controls initiative, inventiveness and self-reliance and will instill a deep sense of respect, discipline, selfcontrol, and a settled, orderly appreciation of loving authority. Right habits develop when children do what they are told, play orderly games, and are not allowed to play war games or games in which they pretend they are adults or dress up in adults’ clothes. (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, pp. 32–33)


Although this example comes from the perspective of parenting, Leavitt and Power (1997) have documented how young children in long day-care settings have been treated so they also learn the correct habits: Benjamin was running around when he was supposed to be sitting in his chair. The teacher caught him, sat him in a chair, and turned his body to face the wall. “You should be ashamed of yourself.” Benjamin put his head down and sat quietly for the duration of his time out. At snack time he was placed at a table with three other boys. The four children were given pretzels, labeled by the teachers as “regular snack.” At the other tables, the children were given birthday cake. Benjamin, very upset at being excluded, cried while the children recited their before-meal prayer. He was so upset he could not say grace. The teacher noticed, walked over to his table and said, “You may not eat snack until you say grace!” Benjamin continued to cry. The teacher looked down at him and commanded, “Say it!” Benjamin whispered a hoarse response, but afterward he could barely swallow his snack. (pp. 54–55)

Here, rules that were transgressed were treated with “time out” and special food (birthday cake) was not only withheld from the culprit, but three other boys as well. The rigid enforcement of the rule about grace reminds one of Puritan ideas about breaking children’s self-wills. Recent movements in the United States have focused on a return to traditional Christian beliefs and values in schools and curricula. For instance, Apple (2001) identified the group, the “authoritarian populists— religious fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals who want a return to (their) God in all of our institutions” (p. 11; emphasis in original). Further, Apple sees the authoritarian populists pushing to “restore “our” traditional common culture and stress discipline and character, return God to our classrooms as a guide to all our conduct inside and outside the school” (Apple, 2001, p. 5). These calls for a return to Puritan pasts and the reinstatement of God to classrooms sit alongside Rousseau-influenced ideas of childcentered education, where children have choice and are able to grow and develop at their own pace. Such approaches are endorsed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) through its notion of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and are known for their rejection of traditional or academic approaches to early childhood curricula. These and other models have an enduring presence in literature about children, families, and early childhood education. The discipline of psychology constructs parent and child conflict as either abnormal or normal, depending on the level of deviancy shown by the parent, the child, or both. Professionals, including child psychologists and educators, advise parents that it is normal to experience some conflict between parents and children, and that parent and child conflict can

Relationships among Parents and Children • 5

occur when parents discipline children, or when child noncompliance to parental requests results in conflict and argument. Serious behavior problems (potentially abnormal) are considered to be those actions that are not socially acceptable and would result in a child failing to become successfully socialized. Anglo-European and Western understandings or discourses of the “parent” and the “child” in nuclear families locate parents in positions of power with responsibility for their children from birth to the late teenage years. The processes of socialization or enculturation encompass development from infancy to adulthood and have been variously charted and described by psychologists, sociologists, ethnographers, and others in allied disciplines. From a child development perspective, socialization is generally understood as adult responsibility for “teaching children how to act in ways that are acceptable to the community culture in which they live” (Kostelnik, Whiren, Soderman, Stein, & Gregory, 2002, p. 200). Socialization thus enables the transmission of culture between generations, where culture is understood as “norms, attitudes, beliefs and social roles” (Howe, 1999, p. 12). Norms, attitudes, and beliefs about parent and child conflict and how they are acquired are part of the focus of this book. Difficulties with disciplining children and children who do not comply with parental requests often mean that some form of parent and child conflict results. This can be expressed in various forms, including verbally, physically, by silence, and various combinations of these elements. Because most research about parent and child conflict has been undertaken within the field of child psychology, the research often begins from the idea that social behavior is attributable to, and ultimately sourced in, the individual. Studies have therefore tended to identify the behavior of the parent or the child as the cause of conflict and recommended change strategies for parents and children. Likewise, not coping effectively with the way children behave is seen to be the result of some difficulty on the part of the parent and/or the child. Parents and/or children are often seen as lacking in some way, as being deficient in their parenting or child role (deficit theory). The large variety of programs developed to educate and in some cases remediate parents having difficulty coping with noncompliant child behavior reflects the great concern expressed by child psychologists and educators in this area. For their part, children are typically classified using terms such as behavior management problem, noncompliant, defiant, a difficult child, and, in extreme cases, deviant, the latter conjuring images of the evil child described by James, Jenks, and Prout (1998). Because of what these categories mean, children are directed into specially organized programs aimed at changing undesirable or socially unacceptable behavior. The establishment of these categories and the programs to treat “difficult”


children are important parts of developmental psychology and how it operates to create standards for what it means to be a “good” parent and a “good” child. They are also part of the functioning of the era known as modernity. To explain further, I consider modernism and modernity, and then postmodernity, with a focus on children and families. Social theorists understand modernity as a period in “Western” history from roughly the Middle Ages to the 1960s. Since the early 1900s, parent and child conflict has received significant research attention. The discipline of child psychology has established itself as a major influence on childrearing practices, as well as exerting a powerful and pervasive influence in the institutional field of early childhood education (Burman, 1994; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999; Weber, 1984). From the late 1960s, the foundations of modernist theories have been challenged by those who have come to be known as “postmodernists.” Generally speaking, postmodernists have questioned the tools of analysis and the categories of operation that psychologists have used, arguing that conditions in society have changed so much that more insightful ideas are required to understand and explain contemporary social circumstances.

Modernity Modernism is described as the social, cultural, intellectual, political, and economic situations that exist in modernity. Modernity began with the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with the shift from religious, philosophical, and intuitive perspectives to secular, rational, and positivist perspectives (Cannella, 1997). Thus the Enlightenment saw an end to feudal societies and a questioning of and a rejection of the power of the church. The invention of the printing press meant that others had learned to read and that the clergy had lost control of reading and interpreting the scriptures. The nineteenth century ushered in “processes of individualization, secularization, industrialization, cultural differentiation, commodification, urbanization, bureaucratization, and rationalization which together have constituted the modern world” (Best and Kellner, 1991, p. 3). In the gradual change from feudalism, modernity came to be characterized by a focus on the moral and reasoning individual, the development of industry, the transition from agrarian to urban societies, a rise in the importance of commodities and therefore consumerism, and the development of various means for measuring and controlling the population and aspects of everyday life (such as registers of births, deaths, and marriages; systems of government and law enforcement). All of these changes were based on particular systems of reasoning and the notion of progress embraced by modernism.


The Enlightenment or Age of Reason spawned the idea that knowledge or truth could be discovered through reason and that this would bring “freedom and happiness” (Cannella, 1997, p. 21). The significance of Descartes’ ideas of the separateness of mind and matter resulted in the belief in differences between the internal mind, and external nature and reality. Cartesian dualism meant that dichotomous ways of thinking developed, particularly the scientific belief that separation of perception (the internal mind) from objective reality would result in scientific discoveries. Science became oriented to the search for universal human truths that could be discovered through reason and the use of scientific tools. The notion of progress developed and scientific advances combined with reason provided a way for the advancement and progress of man [sic]. O’Farrell (1999) described the Enlightenment project as expressing the . . . idea that, through the use of intellect and reason, principally in the form of science, humanity can understand the universe and find solutions to all the problems which plague existence. In other words, the judicious use of reason and our powers of rational science will eventually solve all our political and social problems as well as allow us to master [sic] our physical environment in the form of our own bodies and the broader natural environment. (p. 12)

Modernism and the idea of progress were so seductive that they produced a blind faith in the ability of those who were “civilized” to control not only human destiny, but also nature and knowledge. But, as O’Farrell goes on to ask, where did modernism take us? In her answer she listed “two World Wars, several revolutions and dictatorships” (p. 12), a devastated natural environment (p. 13), and mass slaughter and vast numbers enslaved and excluded from mainstream society on a scale unprecedented in history. A schooling system which promised social equality and enlightenment for all has done little more than reinforce social division and entrench new forms of conformity, ignorance and exclusion. (p. 13)

These experiences of modernity strike a chord with many people. Although scientific advances and notions of progress have resulted in improved living conditions for many in the “West,” war, poverty, terrorism, and disease are parts of everyday life for many. Science and rationality have been unable to deliver the promise of controlling nature, and social, political, and economic problems persist around the globe. The ways in which knowledge has been defined, structured, and constructed have been debated and technological and social changes have altered society in ways unanticipated. In general, the very fabric of modernity has been questioned because of changes that have occurred in the last few decades of the


twentieth century. These changes have become known as the condition of postmodernity.

Postmodernity Postmodernity is an historical period that dates from the late 1960s to the present (O’Farrell, 1999), and is described as the cultural, intellectual, political, and economic conditions that have existed since this time. Although we live in the condition of postmodernity (Harvey, 1990), we are surrounded by many examples of modernity. Features that Best and Kellner (1991) describe as characterizing the transformation from modernity to postmodernity include An explosion of media, computers and new technologies, a restructuring of capitalism, political shifts and upheavals, novel cultural forms, and new experiences of space and time produced a sense that dramatic developments have occurred throughout culture and society. (p. ix)

A series of economic and cultural transformations interrupted what had occurred previously in society. Postmodernity is also about a new epoch, a new socioeconomic order, associated with the notion of a postculture, ‘post-industrial’ society and the change produced by information technology, particularly in the sphere of global communications media. It is an epoch of post-Fordism or “flexible specialization” where human lives are being reshaped, and in may cases disrupted, by new forces and desires. (Usher & Edwards, 1994, p. 8)

The conditions of postmodernity with which we are most familiar include global capitalism, service, info/entertainment, niche markets, flexible production (post-Fordism), the sale of symbols (e.g., for sporting goods), and work that is varied, team based, requires multiskilling, low supervision (self-regulation), and is less certain (O’Brien, 1999). Although theorists of the condition of postmodernity resist attempts at defining it, there are some features that are generally associated with it. These include refutations or critiques of the characteristics of modernity. One of the most notable of features associated with postmodern theorizing is a rejection of metanarratives (O’Farrell, 1999), which are referred to by Harvey (1990) as totalizing discourses. Metanarratives are large-scale universalizing theories such as the Western “grand narratives” that purport to explain such things as liberalism, science, philosophy, and Marxism (Lyotard, 1984). Postmodernists reject the idea that one theory can explain cultural features such as philosophy, science, child development, and so on, and that such theories are objective (value free). Piaget’s stages of child development have been applied to early childhood education and have the status of a grand narrative (Burman, 1994). “Developmentally appropriate


practice” (DAP) also has the status of a grand narrative in early childhood education. It is claimed that DAP is applicable to all children in all cultures in all places and at all times (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Although this has been the topic of a good deal of debate (e.g., Charlesworth, 1998a,b; Lubeck, 1998a,b; Mallory & New, 1994), much of which has been informed by postmodernist approaches, claims have also been made that child development norms have been established on white middle-class values and applied to all sectors of the population of children (Walkerdine, 1984a; Weber, 1984). This means that child development norms are not objective and value free, as thought by some (e.g., Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Stainton Rogers (2001) points out that adopting a particular understanding of children and childhood “implies that we need to act towards children in a particular way” (p. 29). Adopting a developmental discourse, for example, involves understanding children as innocent, passive, incompetent, and in the process of becoming an adult (Burman, 1994; Cannella, 2002; James et al., 1998; Silin, 1995). So, from a postmodern perspective, metanarratives are refused in favor of little narratives that can account for diversity of people, places, times, and spaces: there are many truths, rather than one truth that is purported to explain all things for all people at all times in all places. Another feature of postmodern analysis (of modernism) includes refuting the idea of the world as ordered and able to be known, and of a rational autonomous subject, also able to be known. Postmodern theory abandons the idea of a rational autonomous subject through challenging the nature and privileged status of the “Western” reasoning subject. The “subject” is a “generic term used in philosophy” (Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn, & Walkerdine, 1984, p. 2) for what is meant by the human being, the person, or the individual. In psychology the term used is “the individual”—in child development, “the child” is used. Postmodern theorists reject the idea that there is a “real” world to be found, that there is an “inherent and preordained human nature, existing independently of context and relationships, that can be fully realized through the transmission of a pre-constituted body of knowledge, assumed to be value-free, universal and offering a true account of the world and ourselves” (Dahlberg et al., 1999, p. 20). Thus there is no essential notion or “true” knowledge of man, childhood, woman, or family waiting to be discovered. Understandings of man, childhood, woman, and family are different in every culture, in every time period, and in every social, political, and economic circumstance (Hatch, 1995, p. 118). This means that experiences of childhood and adulthood are not fixed and unchanging entities. Instead, “man/child is an invention of thought. . . . Before childhood became a “structure,” the child, as we conceive of it today, had to be invested with the


needs and the capacities that we assume are part of the child’s nature” (Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001, pp. 2–3). However, as Wyness (2000) has pointed out, the dominant characteristics of childhood (innocence, naivety, and vulnerability) are associated with the modernist conception of the nuclear family. These are the capacities (innocence, naivety, vulnerability, etc.) that child development theorists have assumed are part of the child’s nature. Contrary to views that construct “the child” as embracing static qualities, there is much evidence to show that childhood is an event that is made and continuously remade: childhood “does not float around in some timeless and placeless space, above and beyond the influence of historical and social forces. Like any other human dynamic, childhood is shaped by macro-social forces” (Kincheloe, 2002, p. 75). Families and children are no exception. They too, are shaped by larger social, economic, and political circumstances, meaning that experiences of childhood and family life are varied, change over time, and are not restricted to dominant understandings of the Anglo middle-class nuclear family and its activities. Relations between parents and children are now explored from a postmodern perspective, by considering children, families, and motherhood.

Children In the late nineteenth and for the duration of the twentieth century, children were studied primarily through the paradigm of developmental psychology (Burman, 1994), a theoretical perspective grounded in modernism. For example, in relation to children, the belief in linear progress has been translated into the “truth” that all children progress through a series of (Piagetian) sequential stages on the way to reaching the pinnacle of becoming fully socialized adults. Silin (1995) argued that Piaget viewed children as “incomplete beings, falling short of adult standards of functioning . . . part of the explanation lies in his belief of reason over other forms of knowing” (p. 91). For Silin, the other part of the explanation is the developmental metaphor borrowed from the biological sciences: . . . its use [the developmental metaphor] implies not only a continuity of physical and psychological growth but also an adult-centered perspective in relation to children. Research making this assumption begins with a set of adult characteristics, usually defined by middle-class Western standards of maturity, and examines growth as progress toward the achievement of these characteristics. (p. 91)

Because in modernity children are considered “cultural symbols that represent the future” (Cheal, 1996, p. 3), the ultimate achievement of the fully socialized adult included the growth of a systematic body of knowledge (child development) about children and their development toward the adult ideal. The systematic body of knowledge known as child develop-


ment put pressure on parents to achieve the ideal of children growing into successfully socialized adults. According to child development, there are preferred ways of doing this, most of which are associated with nuclear, Anglo, middle-class values (Walkerdine, 1984a). However, to achieve the ideal meant that parents had to deal with resistance and noncompliance from their children. Parents also had to cope with knowing that they might not have used the preferred (child development) method when children resisted their efforts to socialize them. For example, parents may have resorted to the use of punishment and inadvertently created more problems for themselves: Punishment often simply drives bad behavior underground; it stops it from happening in front of parents, but it does not stop the behavior altogether. Children, in fact, become experts at not getting caught. Parents may even say, “Don’t let me catch you doing that again!” (Wyckoff & Unell, 1984, p. 4)

This warning about the dangers of punishment from the childrearing advice literature may have the effect of causing parents to feel inadequate if they use punishment. The child advice literature can also have the effect of making parents want to be “good” parents and emulate the advice provided in the manuals (cf. Rose, 1985).

Families Although developmental psychologists have concentrated on the study of “the child” as an individual entity [mostly without context being taken into account (Burman, 1994)], sociologists have tended to study the family as a social institution in its social context. For example, Talcott Parsons used functionalist theory in the 1950s to describe the organisation of family life in the United States (Cherlin, 1999). Functionalist theorists tried to understand the major ways in which a society is organized (for Parsons this was studying the family). Parsons’ description of the family has endured to the present: “the middle-class ideal in the 1950s was the twoparent family in which the husband worked outside the home and the wife stayed home and did the housework and childcare” (Cherlin, 1999, p. 31). This is a description with which many in the “West” are familiar because it is a description of the nuclear family. What is of concern is that it acts as a prescription for what families should be, and other family forms that differ are compared with the nuclear family, often in terms of being deficit. Schaffer (1998) has identified the pervasiveness of the idea of the normal family in psychology: A ‘normal’ family contains both a mother and a father. Much of psychological theory, attempting to account for the course of children’s development and socialization, has assumed this is not merely normal but essential: each parent

12 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict has a distinctive role to play; the roles are not exchangeable; and so it follows that for proper development to occur children require both these individuals, one of each sex. (p. 79)

Because proper development of children is regarded as occurring in the nuclear family with all members enacting their designated roles, the proper development of children in other family situations is considered to be at risk. Although in Australia (Dau, 2001) and many other “Western” countries the nuclear family is still the most common family form, there is now recognition of a variety of family types, including single-parent families, stepfamilies, extended families, and same-sex families. Nevertheless, the nuclear family remains the yardstick by which all other family forms are measured. Doherty (1999) claims that the social science of the family was “born out of modernism of the twentieth century. Its pioneers sought to apply rational, valuefree scientific principles and procedures to the study of families” (p. 206). If modernity describes “the dominant culture during the period of time leading up to, and perhaps including, the present” (Cheal, 1996, p. 3), then the dominant culture supports a number of norms or stereotypes that describe children, parents, and families in particular ways. These include the idea of the family as a “heterosexual conjugal unit based on marriage and cohabitation” (Silva & Smart, 1999, p. 1), the responsibility of the family to ensure that it remains independent of state support, and that children are properly socialized (Morgan, 1995). Some theorists of modernization have claimed that the nuclear family suits the particular needs of modern industrial society (cf. Cheal, 1996) and others (e.g., Carrington, 2002) have argued that the nuclear family as we know it is a highly politicized patriarchal unit because it has been shaped within capitalism by government and church policy, and the mass media. Although contemporary “Western” societies have a wide range of different living arrangements that include family and nonfamily situations, there is a continuing “epistemological and moral debate about what the family is and what the family ought to be” (Silva & Smart, 1999, p. 1, emphasis in original). This debate tends to be between those who support the idea of the nuclear family and see any departure from this family form as destabilizing (and deficient), and those who understand that a diversity of family practices exists because of changed social circumstances such as “employment patterns, shifting gender relations, increasing options in sexual orientations . . . economic restructuring, market forces and financial, legal, technological and political change” (Silva & Smart, 1999, pp. 1–2).

Mothering Within the enduring concept of the nuclear family, the role of the mother who stays at home and cares for the children is pivotal. Burman (1994) claimed that in many ways, “mothers have replaced children as the primary


focus for developmental psychology . . . it is the adequacy of mothering that developmental psychology is called upon to regulate and legislate” (pp. 3–4). Commenting about how developmental psychology concentrates on the mother–child dyad to the exclusion of the father, Phoenix and Woollett (1991) discussed how the discourse of developmental psychology construes mothers as critical influences on children’s intellectual and emotional well-being. At the same time it lends support to the notion that the ideal childrearing environment for young children is at home, spending all day with their mothers. (p. 3)

Phoenix and Woollett (1991) have indicated that research to support the idea that children benefit from mothers caring for them at home does not exist, or is at best unclear. Over twenty years ago Riley (1983) used a feminist approach to shown that the belief that mothers should stay at home with their children was a pervasive popular idea. According to Walkerdine (1992), the environment provided at home by the mother must be the “right” one to ensure that things are done correctly. Those considered at risk in providing the proper home environment were white and black working-class mothers because they did not have the necessary white middle-class values and resources (Walkerdine, 1992, p. 12). For instance, Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) have shown in a study in the United Kingdom that middle-class mothers were able to make domestic duties into pedagogic tasks for their children to complete. Working-class mothers in the same study did not engage in such activities, causing the authors to suggest that black and white working-class mothers were risks in terms of being able to provide an appropriate environment. This is an example of how normative assumptions have been produced about white middle-class family values. These assumptions are based on a distinct segment of the population (white middle-class values) but are generalized to the society as a whole. Judgments about others are made on the basis of what is considered normal (white middle-class values or the dominant culture) and so those who do not display these values are considered insufficient or lacking in some way. More recently, Braun (2001) stated that in “much of the literature and practice, parent usually means mother. This is frequently justified on the grounds that mothers usually do the majority of childcare” (p. 239). In the intervening years between the Phoenix and Woollett (1991), Walkerdine (1992), and Braun (2001) articles, what appears to have happened is simply a change in the use of terms from mother to parent. Although Braun (2001) acknowledges that there are many people who contribute to the well being of a family (including fathers, mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, godparents, older siblings, neighbors, child minders, and so on), there is also an increased number of single-parent families headed by both mothers and fathers, more mothers who are the major


wage earners, and more fathers who are staying at home to care for children. The significance here is the existence of diversity in family forms and functions in a postmodern society and the need to recognize such diversity by moving beyond generalizations about families that are based on nuclear Anglo middle-class family values.

Is the Family and Childhood in Crisis? In short, I do not think so. However, social circumstances have changed. Many who see the decline of the nuclear family as destabilizing also understand childhood to be in crisis and associate the decline of the nuclear family with a loss of adult authority and social breakdown (Wyness, 2000). The idea of the “loss of childhood” (Foley, Roche, & Tucker, 2001, p. 1) is based on the notion that children are being denied their right to be children, especially in relation to their perceived vulnerability “to new forms of exploitation, particularly to an intense commercialization with children as consumers of technical goods, toys and leisure services” (Foley et al., 2001, p. 1). In addressing the issue of “childhood in crisis,” Wyness (2000) said that the two major reasons for thinking that childhood is in crisis rest on the perceived decline of the nuclear family and the waning of play in childhood: Children are no longer children because they are now less likely to be ‘nucleated’, that is, controlled and nurtured under the watchful, hopeful eyes of a morally and socially united mother/father unit. At the same time the little degree of autonomy that children are granted—the residual space of the playground and park—has now all but disappeared as adults seek to regulate all aspects of the child’s social world in the interests of a political and economic sphere that makes ever-increasing demands for a more disciplined and productive workforce. Thus play is sacrificed in the interests of profit maximization; spontaneity and innocence are replaced with regulation and bureaucracy. Children are then less childlike because they can no longer be neatly positioned within family and peer group, institutions and structures that typify the essential characteristics of childhood. (p. 19)

To Wyness, the essential characteristics of childhood are the dominant ideas about childhood and include innocence, naivety, and vulnerability (p. 7). The problem for Wyness is that these attributes are bound in a single conception of childhood (that is, children are supposed to be innocent, naive, and vulnerable). Cannella (2002) goes further in her assessment, claiming that younger human beings are constructed as the “other” (p. 3), and that this includes dependency, cuteness, and needing control, as well as the notion of innocence: . . . this othering labels them as innocent (i.e., simple, ignorant, not yet adult), dependent (i.e., needy, unable to speak for themselves, vulnerable, victims), cute

Relationships among Parents and Children • 15 (i.e., objects, playthings, to be watched and discussed), and needing control (i.e., savage, lacking discipline, needing structure), to name just a few. (p. 3)

As Cleverly and Phillips (1987) and James et al. (1998) have noted, these constructions of children and childhood can be traced to antecedents that are several hundred years old, yet they still form many of the dominant understandings that we have of children and childhood today. Relatedly, Foley at al. (2001) discuss how a particular version of childhood of the past is lamented as “nostalgia for a ‘golden age’” (p. 1). Such versions of childhood interfere with how we think about children today, because they are used as a standard against which to measure current versions of childhood and children’s behavior, yet they fail to take into account the changes that have occurred in society. This modernist understanding of children and childhood stands in stark contrast to the everyday postmodern conditions and circumstances of many children, families, and their lives. Not all childhoods are the same and there are many factors that influence children and childhood. Postmodern theorists question the modernist belief that social and moral progress occurred through the rational application of social and scientific theories to social institutions such as the family, children, and childhood. Robb (2001) prompts us to remember that although the experience of childhood is changing, there is no evidence that change is straightforward and linear (p. 25), as in the modernist understanding. Instead, Robb (2001) presents evidence from the United Kingdom to suggest that change in childhood and what children experience is almost the complete opposite: “It also reminds us of the sheer diversity of children’s experience and the danger of making sweeping generalizations” (p. 25). Sheer diversity is one of the reasons that Lyotard (1984) says that the grand narratives or big stories of modernism have been replaced by a lot of competing small stories or “little narratives.” Little narratives focus on what is local and contextual and make no claims about universality of knowledge.

How Psychological Discourses Become Normalized Practices in Everyday Life The popular media provide examples of some of the ways that preferred, taken-for-granted, or normalized practices come to dominate everyday life. For instance, books, the Internet, popular magazines, television, and radio programs that advise parents about every aspect of childhood from conception to adolescence are central to the generation and exchange of meanings about children and childrearing. These texts, along with the comprehensive services available for children and parents, spread normalized understandings of the child and the complementary role of the parent


so that such views, opinions, and beliefs are unquestionably accepted as the way it should be and the way it should be done. Consequently, parents do not need a parenting manual to know when they have crossed the boundary of what is acceptable. They know because the accepted ways of being a parent are beamed constantly at them from the popular media. Consider for instance, the example of a young child crying loudly in a supermarket because she cannot have something she wants. The parent and child are subject to the scrutiny of all who pass by, many of whom generate nonverbal responses to the situation. Smacking the child would be unacceptable in this situation, as it is highly likely that nonverbal communication from those nearby would condemn the parent for such action. This is not the way that it should be done. The way it should be done (according to normalized versions of parenting) is to reason with the child, explaining why it is not possible to have the item. This is supposed to produce a successful resolution. For many parents, the stress of a child crying loudly in a supermarket demanding an item is all it takes to make the decision that the child can have what she wants. However, normalized versions of parenting indicate that this is not an acceptable solution, as the reasoned explanation should be done in a way that helps the child understand why she cannot have the item and results in compliance by the child. Ideas about the way things should be done (normalized versions) usually come from childcare manuals, often written “by ‘experts’ who are frequently men and often doctors” (Phoenix & Woollett, 1991a, p. 7). These ideas gain popularity because they come from experts, are reiterated in the media, and come to be seen as the accepted, natural, and normal way that things should be done. Some of Foucault’s (1977) writing explained processes such as normalization and the ways in which discourses can shape and position people in relation to social networks of knowledge and power. Foucault used ideas about power and knowledge, and how they are linked, to provide understandings of how things become taken for granted in everyday life. Often the things that become taken for granted are those practices that have been endorsed by psychology. Foucault’s ideas provide a way of understanding how such practices come to regulate or normalize what we do in our everyday lives. Normalized accounts of family and childhood move into everyday life in ways that are difficult to detect because the processes of normalization and regulation are gradual and seem natural. As a result, such accounts remain largely invisible and often beyond comment. A direct consequence of the influence of normal and natural discourses of childrearing has been the significant change in the values and beliefs about everyday childrearing practices. For example, books published as childrearing manuals in the middle of the twentieth century have differ-


ent advice about caring for children than books published in the later years of the twentieth century. In the immediate post-World War II period, “baby boomer” parents were advised not to pick up a crying infant before the prescribed feeding time (Gribben, 1979). From the 1980s, parents have been made to feel guilty if they left the baby to cry for a short time (Green, 1988). For many years fathers were not allowed into the labor wards of hospitals. Current advice encourages fathers to accompany mothers not only to the birth, but also to the recommended preparatory courses leading up to the birth (age and class factors may provide some variance in this respect). As well, mothers used to be unconscious during the birth process, whereas “now the thing is to find it a happy, natural experience and have the baby suckling before the cord is cut” (Gribben 1979, p. 5). This advice regarding suckling is in contrast to that given by Dr. Spock (1946), who indicated that a “baby is usually put to breast twelve or so hours after birth” (p. 37). These examples show how accepted practices have changed over time, regulated by updated advice from medical experts. Accepting such changes so that they become a part of everyday understanding and almost unquestioned is the way that processes of normalization work.

Purposes of the Book The stories of parent and child conflict in this book are told from a point of view of parent and child relationships that is different from that found in child or developmental psychology handbooks. The stories of the families are ways of understanding the interrelationships between structures and organizations of society (a macroview) and the everyday actions and interactions of individuals in families (a microview). Having said this, it does not make a claim to have all the answers and it does not depict a value-free process or product, or a “discovery” of truths: it simply provides another way of looking at relationships among parents and children, one in which blame for inadequacies is not located with individuals. This means that the book explores conflict between parents and their children at the level of the family and at the macrolevel, where sociological issues can account for social tension. In contrast, child psychology tends to concentrate on the little picture, examining factors in the life of the individual. In such accounts, little or no consideration is given to variables of class, gender, culture, ethnicity, and the economy, or to the interplay of these with macrostructures such as the state and institutions of work. This book assists in understanding how such variables can play out in the everyday lives of families. Several theoretical perspectives are used in an attempt to understand who can say what to whom, when and where things can be said, and why.


One of the purposes of this book is to show that particular modernist psychological understandings of parent and child conflict have become takenfor-granted elements in everyday life. These metanarratives or dominant discourses have become regulatory devices that operate in society to produce unquestioned or normalized accounts of childhood, parenting, and childrearing (Grieshaber, 1993). This is problematic because preferred ways of dealing with parent and child conflict are an integral part of these grand narratives of child development and the regulatory strategies associated with them. A second purpose of this book is to show how parent and child conflict can be viewed productively from a range of perspectives outside the child development paradigm. To this end, aspects of poststructuralist theory (e.g., Foucault, 1977, 1980), parts of postcolonial theory (e.g., Gandhi, 1998; Loomba, 1998), recent work concerning masculinities (e.g., Connell, 2000, 2002; Lingard & Douglas, 1999), as well as Butler’s (1990, 1993) theories of performativity are drawn on to retheorize parent and child conflict. A third purpose of the book is to show that in the four families studied, parent and child conflict was a highly gendered phenomenon. To understand the gendered conflict that occurred in these families, I draw on Butler’s (1990, 1993) ideas of gender as performance as well as feminist poststructuralist perspectives from Davies (1989, 1993), MacNaughton (2000), and Weedon (1997). A fourth purpose of this book is to show that what has been called socialization in child development can be understood from a poststructuralist position as processes as normalization (Foucault, 1977). In this regard I show that many of the events in daily domestic activity are processes of normalization that regulate children and parents in particular ways, according to (psychological) grand narratives of family, parenting, childhood, and childrearing. In Chapter 2, I examine some of the literature from developmental psychology about parent and child conflict and discuss how such understandings have become taken for granted in everyday life. Chapter 2 also begins an argument to show how dominant understandings of parent and child conflict are ways of regulating parents and children and ensuring that these preferred ways of handling conflict with children remain dominant. A retheorization of parent and child conflict is the focus in Chapter 3, where several theoretical perspectives are drawn on to consider parent and child conflict. Chapter 4 explains the methodology used when researching the four families and discusses how the families came to allow someone with a video camera to record everyday activities and conflict inside their homes. The parents in the four families and their beliefs and values are introduced in Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 presents data about the preparation, consumption, and cleaning associated with food and eating. Chapter 7 discusses the routines involved in preparing for school, traveling to and from


school, and the conflict that occurred as a result. Tidying practices and bedtimes are considered in Chapter 8, and Chapter 9 focuses on sibling relationships. The final chapter (Chapter 10) concludes that daily living in these four families is about ways in which children are normalized and regulated through the pervasiveness of dominant understandings of managing parent and child conflict.

CHAPTER

2

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation

A major tenet of this book is that parent and child relations are assembled differently in different places and at different times. Historical perspectives are useful for understanding current constructions and dominant discourses of parent and child relations, all of which are inventions of thought (Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001). I draw on several historical perspectives to investigate dominant discourses of parent and child conflict, and these too are inventions of thought. To show how parent and child conflict has been conceptualized in developmental psychology for the past century, I analyze the major theoretical perspectives that have been used to explain and “treat” it. I show how each has constructed children, parents, and parent and child conflict, and offer explanations of how these came to be what is considered normal and what ought to be considered normal. Although the ideas discussed in this chapter were all “new” at some time and had their origins in the philosophy and psychology of their respective time periods, these same ideas also need to be located in the social, political, cultural, and economic circumstances of their time. Similarly, those theories used here to analyze the ways parent and child conflict has been conceptualized in child development are also products of historical, social, political, cultural, and economic times and circumstances. In this chapter I begin by discussing briefly some of the theorists and educators whose ideas have influenced psychology, child development, and education that are significant for parent and child conflict. Aspects of the child study movement are then investigated to show links between child study and some of the approaches to child development. I then trace 21


major areas of research undertaken throughout the twentieth century and show how it established standards and defined the boundaries of parent and child conflict, and ways in which parent and child conflict was to be managed. Foundational underpinnings of these approaches are also discussed. The last section of the chapter deconstructs theoretical approaches to parent and child conflict found in developmental psychology over the past one hundred years, arguing that these approaches have acted as a means of social control and regulation. Weber (1984) has made the point that with the exception of Dewey, those theorists “influencing the curriculum in early childhood education have been psychologists. Thus the dilemmas of psychology become the dilemmas of early childhood education” (pp. xiv–xv). In many ways, the dilemmas of parent and child conflict are also reflected in the dilemmas of psychology. This is evident in the varied attempts to guide parents about socializing their children effectively, and the different theoretical perspectives that have been drawn on in an effort to identify what constitutes good (and bad) parenting and how it should be done. The “good” early childhood teacher grew from the professionalization of the work of the “good” (middle-class) mother (Walkerdine, 1984a).

Influential Ideas Historically, research about parent and child conflict has been influenced by theorists from earlier centuries who had an impact on the origins of psychology, child psychology, and early childhood education. Although there are many whose ideas have been influential, including the Puritan approach discussed in Chapter 1, here I consider ideas from John Locke, Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, and, under the banner of child study, G. Stanley Hall. These ideas and models have some longevity in child development and early childhood education and have influenced how parent and child conflict has been understood and managed. John Locke was associated with environmentalism and learning theory in England in the late seventeenth century. He subscribed to ideas such as the importance of the child’s environment and the significance of experience in influencing children’s thoughts and behavior (Phillips & Soltis, 1998). Locke’s view about children and learning has often been described as the empty vessel (tabula rasa) model, in which children’s minds are sensitive to and ready to receive impressions from the external world (Weber, 1984). These impressions from the external world were what the child experienced from the environment through the senses, rather than coming from within the child. To Locke, the mind had no “inborn ideas” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 23), but it did have abilities that could produce complex

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation • 23

ideas from simple ones. Locke saw the main aim of education as self-control. His principles of learning were association, repetition, modelling, and rewards and punishments—[and] all have become cornerstones of one or another version of modern learning theory. His thoughts on changing behavior by “gentle degrees” is fundamental to some of the most contemporary thinking in the field [of psychology]. (Crain, 2000, p. 10)

Although Locke might be considered to be ahead of his time, he did not think that memory could be improved by practice, and he did not believe in what is now called “transfer of training” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 23). Transfer of training is the ability to apply an idea to a new situation. In relation to parents, Locke detailed the responsibility of the family in educational matters, including the type of relationships there should be between parents and children, and the “qualities that should be promoted in the learner: virtue, wisdom, breeding, and learning” (Weber, 1984, p. 24). Locke held the view that education “is essentially a socialization process. The child learns to gain our approval, and in this way the child learns what he or she needs to know to become a useful and virtuous member of society” (Crain, 2000, p. 10). However, as Weber (1984) has pointed out, Locke’s approach was limited by the position of class privilege (English gentry) from which he wrote, as well as by the importance attached to the natural environment. Today, many of Locke’s ideas are evident in teaching approaches that situate children as needing rewards such as praise and grades to learn (and behave), and that indicate that children need to be taught certain things (Crain, 2000). His ideas are also evident in many early childhood programs (in kindergartens, preschools, and childcare centers) that emphasize play, experience, and the value of the senses (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987). Environmental views are still highly influential in other ways. For instance, the U.S. government has continued to support compensatory education programs such as Headstart since they began in the early 1960s, endorsing the idea that environment makes a significant difference (Phillips & Soltis, 1998). The television program “Sesame Street” is based on Lockean assumptions: “its aim has been to give underprivileged children, especially in inner cities, the simple ideas and basic experiences that their environment does not normally provide” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 26). In regard to behavior, the headmaster of Summerhill School in the United Kingdom (A. S. Neill) understood bad behavior in the Lockean tradition of environmentalism “as a product of misguided early education or the lack of love” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 38). Locke’s successors were Pavlov and Skinner, known for classical and operant conditioning, respectively.


Jacques Rousseau has been described as a romantic naturalist, and as initiating the romantic stream of thinking based on the biological metaphors of “health” and “growth” (Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972). Rousseau wrote about children in the eighteenth century after experiencing a turbulent childhood himself. According to Weber (1984), his writing was a revolt against the absolutist regimes of the time, including “absolute monarchy, closed economic systems, rigid social stratification, and religious authoritarianism” (p. 25). Rousseau advocated naturalism, favoring genius, freedom, and originality. He rejected the idea of original sin and children as evil (as in the Puritan approach, see Chapter 1), asserting instead the “natural goodness of man [sic]” (Weber, 1984, p. 25). His belief in noninterference was based on the notion that “there is some innate driving force within children that leads them to make wise decisions if not interfered with by adults” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 39). Rousseau’s advice to mothers was to “let children eat, run and play as much as they wanted and to trust the child’s spontaneous impulses” (Weber, 1984, p. 27). This model of freedom was almost the opposite of that sanctioned by the Puritans. There were three major contributions that Rousseau’s ideas about the natural development of the child made to developmental theory. These included first, the idea that “development proceeds according to an inner, biological timetable” (Crain, 2000, p. 18). Development then is not a response to the environment; it unfolds independently of environmental influences, meaning that children are capable of growing and learning by themselves. Second, Rousseau began the developmental tradition in psychology by suggesting there were four stages of development from infancy to adolescence (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996). Finally, Rousseau proposed what today is called child-centered education, the idea that education should be planned according to the child’s particular stage of development. The pervasiveness of Rousseau’s ideas is captured by Cleverley and Phillips (1987): “One may be a spokesman [sic] of Rousseauan naturalism in education without ever having read the great romantic, perhaps even without having heard of him” (p. 40). Rousseau’s followers included Gesell, Montessori, Werner, and Piaget. Writing in the late nineteenth century, Charles Darwin was the first scientist to suggest a theory of evolution. For those who subscribe to evolution, his premises are still regarded as accurate today, with most biologists taking Darwin’s theories as a starting point (Crain, 2000). Generally speaking, Darwin suggested that the process of natural selection ensured that over generations, those who survived were the best in the species at adapting to their surroundings. Of significance for parent and child conflict is Darwin’s idea that natural selection is applied to physical characteristics as well as to “the capacities for social behavior and reason” (Crain, 2000,


p. 35). Darwin’s ideas were so powerful that they quickly overshadowed Locke’s view that children’s thought patterns could be explained simply by tracing “their accumulation of sense experiences” (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 42). The appeal of Darwin lay in both his ideas and the time in which he made his claims: “The concept of evolution transformed human thought during the nineteenth century” (Gould, 1981, p. 113). The time was right for new understandings of children and an influential model of the child known as racial recapitulation theory developed from an amalgam of Darwin’s evolutionary theory and embryology (the study of embryos) (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987, p. 42). The essence of this theory was that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or, . . . that an individual in its own growth, passes through a series of stages representing adult ancestral forms in their correct order” (Gould, 1981, p. 114, emphasis in original). According to this logic, “The gill slits of an early human embryo represented an ancestral adult fish: at a later stage, the temporary tail revealed a reptilian or mammalian ancestor” (Gould, 1981, p. 114). Recapitulation theory spread quickly from biology to many other areas of science: Recapitulation also provided an irresistible criterion for any scientist who wanted to rank human groups as higher or lower. The adults of inferior groups must be like children of superior groups, for the child represents a primitive adult ancestor. If adult blacks and women are like white male children, then they are living representatives of an ancestral stage in the evolution of white males. . . . Recapitulation served as a general theory of biological determinism. All “inferior” groups—races, sexes, and classes—were compared with the children of white males. (Gould, 1981, p. 115)

Arguments based on recapitulation theory were aimed at all aspects of society including a justification for racism (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995) and imperialism (Gould, 1981, p. 118), the inevitability of poverty (Gould, 1981, p. 112; Kliebard, 1992, p. 52), as well as the similarity between the emotions of children and those of savages and women (Gould, 1981, p. 116); and the higher suicide rates for women than men, which were seen as indications of women’s primitive evolutionary status (p. 118). In the German version of recapitulation theory, known as cultureepoch theory (Cleverley & Phillips, 1987), individual development mirrored the stages of human history from primitive to more civilized epochs (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 79). The irony of culture-epoch theory is that it ignored the external influence of the environment on the child. What this meant was that the child developed according to the “internalized history of the human species, not the nature of his or her present


family or his or her present school. Such an antienvironmental view would seem to negate the theory itself, as the theory depended upon the original imprinting influence of various epochs” (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 80). Nevertheless in Germany, the Herbartians embraced the theory of culture-epochs enthusiastically. Before becoming an integral part of the child study movement in the United States, G. Stanley Hall studied Herbartianism in several different parts of Germany. Herbaritanism was one of the earliest documented educational movements to study childhood scientifically (Baker, 2001).

The Scientific Study of the Child The scientific study of “the child” gained momentum rapidly in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and was a dominant influence in the United States for thirty years, from 1880 to 1910. Herbartianism and American Herbartianism inspired the child study movement in the United States, and there were several branches that emphasized different aspects of studying children. The impact of the child study movement declined after 1910 but its legacy is evident today in many aspects of child development, education, and early childhood education. Child study has been documented mostly from the perspective of education in the United States, as one of Hall’s purposes was to use the copious data gathered from observing children to infer how they should be educated (Kliebard, 1986). G. Stanley Hall has been acknowledged as one of the leaders in the child study movement in the late nineteenth century in the United States (Weber, 1984). Although he used his experience in Germany studying Herbartianism to inform his work in the United States, Charles Darwin’s ideas formed an important part of Hall’s opinions about child study. Hall believed in the notion of evolutionary growth, which supported the idea of progress and development, and had the advantage of associating child study with the scientific approach of evolution. To Pinar et al. (1995), Hall was “a social Darwinian, . . . [believing] that social change occurred in slow, evolutionary fashion” (p. 89). Evolution provided the basis for his ideas about culture-epoch theory and in his understanding, heredity was a “stronger determining factor than the environment. . . . Indeed, Hall accepted eugenics as a long-term remedy for society” (Weber, 1984, p. 52). Eugenics proposes that hereditary is much more important than environment in relation to human progress. Pinar et al. (1995) argue that some proponents of eugenics were “outright advocates of racism” (p. 94). According to Baker (2001), Hall identified four strands of child study: anthropological (studies of the “civilized child”), pathological (listing of faults or problems in childhood), pedagogical pathological (diseases and


physical defects such as eyesight), and “the study of the child’s mind” (which revealed the “great amount of ignorance” in children”) (pp. 468–469). Hall’s work was in the area of anthropological child study. Whereas Baker identified four strands of child study, Kliebard (1992) named two strands, the anthropological and experimental. These two were the most prominent. Anthropological child study was associated with Hall and his students, and favored the observation of children in natural settings such as playing with sand (Kliebard, 1986). The point of making observations in naturalistic settings was to produce “written descriptions of what a child looked like, did, or said, [so that] generalizations about how to adapt curricula to the culture-epoch were [able to be] made” (Baker, 2001, p. 470). Like anthropological child study, experimental child study also used observations of children, but required children to complete tasks in different settings: “it was through changing the environment that the ‘true laws’ of ‘natural development’ were to be elicited” (Baker, 2001, p. 470). One of those associated with the experimental strand of child study was Edward Thorndike. Pinar et al. (1995) connected the influence of Herbartianism in Hall’s work with his favoring of stages. The combination of hereditary and stages suggested “a large predetermined force in human development” (Weber, 1984, p. 52). Although there was never any objective evidence that could support Hall’s ideas about culture-epoch theory (Weber, 1984, p. 52), the combination of fixed development based on hereditary was enduring. For instance, as Pinar et al. (1995) argued, Hall’s concept of developmental stages was a precursor to more recent stage theorists: “Contemporary fascination with ‘stages’ associated with the work of Piaget (1977) and Kohlberg (1981) and their employment in curriculum conceptualizations can be traced to Hall’s concept of child development” (p. 88). Further, in the late nineteenth century in the United States, Hall’s ideas about stages were instrumental in school reform, where they helped to “legitimate administratively convenient school organizations by grade” (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 88). The enormous consequence this had on “Western” organizations of schooling was captured by Pinar et al. (1995): “The interrelated notions of gradedness and ‘stages’ would become taken-for-granted educational knowledge” (p. 89). Although Rousseau was the first to designate stages, Hall’s work and later that of Gesell came to be referred to as “ages and stages” because it linked “stages of growth to age norms” (Weber, 1984, p. 171). Proponents of the child study movement advocated strongly that schooling should be reoriented from traditional studies and classic curricula to center on the child (Baker, 2001). In other words, the close study of children was necessary to construct a curriculum that was in keeping with


their nature. Baker (2001) associated this departure from the classic tradition with progressivism and other ideas of the time that were consistent with rescuing the child through the establishment of orphanages, “children’s hospitals and common schools [that] represented a new governance of the young child’s physical, moral, intellectual and economic state of being” (p. 471). Weber (1984) also acknowledged the importance of Hall’s desire to save the child, stating that he appealed to “all who wanted to understand and rescue the child; he was the entrepreneur and evangelist of child study” (p. 54). However, concerns about the physical, moral, intellectual, and economic state of being of children soon became ways in which thinking about children was structured, and ways in which children were managed and organized. Describing and investigating children in terms of physical, moral, intellectual, and economic states were much more than a disjuncture in the organization of schooling: it marked a distinct change in “ways of reasoning about the young, their potential, and the need for rescue” (Baker, 2001, p. 471). Ways of reasoning about children were manifested in the objects of child study (children) becoming “knowable, scientific objects with intriguing insides that not only required further and further observation, questioning, and examination, but that admitted a theory of power that would be posited as though it was an undisputable biological given” (Baker, 2001, p. 473). The child, child development, the development of the minds of children, and the naturalization of reason had become objects of scientific enquiry (Walkerdine, 1984a, p. 171). The child study movement declined around 1910 amid criticisms that included romanticism and mystical approaches associated with Hall (Weber, 1984); ways in which data about children were collected [“the indiscriminate collecting of data by untrained observers” (Kliebard, 1992, p. 64)] the “absence of theory and hypothesis” (p. 64), mounting doubts that psychology could or should be used to decide what to teach and how to teach, and the absence of a social and political reform agenda such as that held by Rousseau (p. 65). Given these concerns, the way was open for the experimental branch of child study, which was influenced by the psychologist Edward Thorndike. For a while in the early years of the twentieth century, Edward Thorndike was associated with the experimental strand of child study and conducted stimulus and response experiments (classical conditioning). He was one of a number of scientists studying the behavior of humans under controlled conditions, taking detailed observations and careful measurements of what occurred. Behaviorism, a theory of learning that had its basis in Locke’s beliefs about the environment, considers that behavior is determined by the external environment. Using classical conditioning,


John Watson was the first to apply the principles of learning theory to child development, claiming that only overt behavior should be studied (Crain, 2000). Watson (1930/1998) had a great deal to say about childrearing, which he thought should be a scientific and objective enterprise and not tainted by too much mother love. Too much coddling of infants prevented the development of discipline, making the home an unsuitable place for children. Watson (1930/1998) thought that having children cared for outside the home was a good idea, as it was “an open admission that the home is inadequate, unqualified and unwilling to care for children” (p. 469). To Watson, mother love was such a danger that it accounted for many and varied problems later in life: The bride coddled in her infancy runs home to mother or father taking her trunk every time a disagreement occurs. We have hundreds of pathological cases on record where the mother or father attachment has become so strong that a marital adjustment even after marriage has taken place becomes impossible. To escape the intolerable marriage tie the individual becomes insane or else suicides. In the milder cases, though, the struggle between young married people coddled in infancy shows itself in whines and complaints and the endless recounting of ills. Not enjoying the activities that come with marriage they escape them by tiredness and headaches. (Watson, 1928/1998, p. 475)

For Watson (1928/1998), it wasn’t just marital happiness that infant coddling threatened, the vocational future of the child was also at stake (p. 475). Advice about preventing the overcoddled child included rigid schedules for babies and to “put it [the baby] out in the backyard for a large part of the day. Build a fence around the yard so that you are sure no harm can come to it. Do this from the time it is born” (Watson, 1928/1998, p. 474). According to Crain (2000), Watson’s advice was influential in the 1930s, but “too extreme to last” (p. 176). Even so, Crain (2000) credits Watson with applying scientific learning principles to childrearing, which he says “remain[s] a vital part of child care in the United States” (p. 176). What is notable from Watson’s tirade is the culture, gender, and class specificity of the way in which he discussed parenting. Parenting occurs around the globe in a myriad of places, with countless variations across cultures, races, ethnicities, and geographic locations. None of this was conceded in Watson’s account, which was characteristic of work undertaken around this time.

Early Studies of Resistance in Children The proliferation of monographs and journal articles that discussed child development and related issues began to gather pace from the beginning of the second decade of the twentieth century. As early as 1923, the National


Research Council in the United States sponsored a Committee on Child Development, which was aimed at fostering and coordinating rapidly growing research in the area (Gesell, 1950). Interest in what was called child resistance and negativism began with studies by Levy and Tulchin (1925), Goodenough (1929) and Reynolds (1928). Levy and Tulchin (1925) investigated the resistant behaviour of infants and children during mental tests, which were versions of the tests developed by Alfred Binet in France. Binet was studying “memory, attention and intelligence in children to arrive at a conception of “normal mental age”” (Weber, 1984, p. 64). An updated version of the Stanford Revision is currently used by psychologists to assess a variety of developmental aspects of young children. Levy and Tulchin (1925) noted chronological patterns of resistant behaviour in infants undertaking mental tests from as early as six months through fifty-three months of age. They concluded that oppositional behavior began between eighteen months and two years of age, reached its height between three and one half and four years of age, and had usually declined by the age of five and one half to six years (Levy & Tulchin, 1925). This study revealed more resistance in girls than boys. The research by Reynolds (1928), Goodenough (1929), and Frederickson (1942) was instrumental in building an understanding of the socioemotional development of the young child, with Reynolds (1928) investigating the type and nature of negative behavior exhibited by young children during their early years. Blanchard (1933) discussed children with “difficulties of adjustment,” whom he distinguished as “normal” or “problem” children (p. 859). Gender differences did not escape the attention of researchers. Investigating sex differences, Hattwick (1937) verified many previous findings, such as boys being more distractible than girls in mental test situations and the tendency of boys to display nonsocial behavior such as breaking toys, taking the property of others, rushing into danger and having temper outbursts more frequently than girls. Hattwick (1937) also reported that boys were “predominantly negative” (p. 345), with such behavior manifesting itself through noncompliance, ignoring requests, being difficult to reason with, and resisting at rest time. Hattwick (1937) did acknowledge that on the question of negativism some disagreement over sex differences existed in the literature. For example, Levy and Tulchin (1925) concluded that girls demonstrated more resistance than boys, whereas Goodenough (1929) and Nelson (in Hattwick, 1937) found that in mental test situations there was a greater tendency for negativism in boys. Such research built and reinforced common sense assumptions concerning differences between boys and girls, in effect reinforcing or naturalizing behavioral differences between the sexes. The research about parent and child conflict that began in the mid1920s continued with a focus on negativism, resistance, and opposition. By 1955, Levy had defined oppositional behavior as follows:

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation • 31 it may be said that the term negative, or oppositional, or stubborn, or any one of its large number of synonyms is applied most commonly to behaviour readily explained as refusal to conform to the ordinary requirements of authority and conventional behaviour. (p. 205)

Aspects of behavior characteristic of negativism included the following: The refusal to conform involves also the notion of wilful contrariness. The individual who acts in this way is thought to derive some kind of satisfaction in pitting his will against others, in opposing the laws of society, in flaunting his disrespect of the amenities. (Levy, 1955, p. 205)

These studies set precedents for later research, but in the process firmly established standards that are still used as guidelines for what is considered to be normal behavior for young children and parents. For instance, Levy described negative behavior as refusing to conform to ordinary requirements and conventional behavior, and as opposing the laws of society. Refusal and opposition indicated a difficulty with the potential success of the socialization process. To review more recent research about parent and child conflict within child development, I consider the literature from child development about socialization. In doing so, four theoretical perspectives about children’s compliance and resistance are discussed. They are external control theories, internal control theories, relational theories, and contextual theories of socialization (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). Each is discussed in turn considering major tenets and how parents and children are positioned, and then each is critiqued.

External Control Theories External control theories include behavior theory and what Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997) called traditional authoritarianism (p. 228). Both have similarities in how they see the role of parents and children, both are represented prominently in parent education manuals found in the popular press as well as in research literature about compliance, and both attest to the significance of reward and punishment. As both behaviorism and traditional authoritarianism focus on the here and now, they allow no room for acknowledging relationships between parents and children. Behaviorism A basic concept of behaviorism is that children and parents are passive in their reception of and response to environmental stimuli (Crain, 2000). Behaviorism posits parent and child conflict as resulting from oppositional or noncompliant child behavior, which is a consequence of ineffective child management or discipline techniques on behalf of the parent.


Behaviorist programs developed for rectifying oppositional and noncompliant child behavior often use Skinner’s operant conditioning techniques, which are based on the study of overt behavior. Mental states are acknowledged but behaviorists emphasize the relationship between the external environment and observed behavior. Based on the importance of the environment and the behavior that is demonstrated, programs are aimed at educating parents through training them to incorporate reward, extinction, and “time out” strategies to manage behavior such as temper tantrums. Techniques including ignoring, shaping, and modeling are used to increase desirable behaviors and reduce those that are undesirable (Gordon & Browne, 1996). Generally speaking, behaviorist approaches emphasize children’s obedience to parents, their compliance with parental requests, and the amount of time it takes children to respond. Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997) commented on how the lack of concern with motivation, context, cognition, or emotions is not problematic for behaviorists, as compliance is measured by the length of time (in seconds) it takes children to conform to parental requests. In other words, motivation and context are not part of the equation as they do not impact on overt behavior. The model operates on a unilateral basis, where children are required to attend and respond to the authority of the parents. External controls in the form of rewards and punishments are the techniques used to control and manage children’s behavior, although physical punishment is not condoned. Children are positioned as minors without access to authority and as being problematic if adult authority is challenged on a regular basis (i.e., there is something wrong with the child). The reason for remedying the behavior of these children is to stop them from challenging adults, who are defined as authority figures. In describing the behavior used to categorize children as oppositional and noncompliant, Gard and Berry (1986) indicated that such children “refuse to conform to ordinary rules and conventions, are perceived as wilful and contrary, and appear to derive satisfaction in provoking adults” (p. 149). Behaviorist discourse positions parents as responsible for the management of appropriate child behavior that leads to normal socialization. This means that unusual or abnormal behavior patterns exhibited by children are frequently categorized as inabilities of the parent. Patterson (1980) has acknowledged that childrearing interactions are stressful even in normal families, and that ineffective child management techniques could produce feelings of anger, depression, and doubt in mothers. But parents are required to manage power struggles so that children will comply with parental commands (Hoffman, 1975), and they have been discouraged from using reasoning and explanation on the basis that these methods are


ineffectual in eliciting immediate compliance (Patterson, 1982). If they are unable to elicit immediate compliance, parents are classified as failing to manage the behavior of the child because such behavior patterns are unlike or dissimilar to the patterns of other normal children (Gard & Berry, 1986). Noncompliant and oppositional behavior such as refusal to conform to the ordinary rules and conventions of society threatens the social and moral order because such children continually challenge society’s positioning of adults as authority figures. Because oppositional children engage in power struggles with their parents (Bradley, 1989), behaviorism requires an examination of the parents of these children. The general characteristics of mothers of oppositional children have been identified as overcontrolling, aggressive, and depressed, whereas fathers have been described as passive, peripheral, and distant (Bradley, 1989; Giplin & Maltz, 1980). According to Delfini et al. (in Gard & Berry, 1986), mothers of oppositional children also engaged in “significantly more threatening, angry, humiliating and nagging behaviors” (p. 149). Parents (in contrast to mothers) of oppositional children also gave their children significantly more commands to follow (Delfini et al., in Gard & Berry, 1986, p. 149) and did not allow them enough time to comply with the commands. These examples demonstrate how parents have been identified as deficient and in need of remediation in order to resolve the problem of oppositional children. Behavior modification techniques have also been recommended for use with normal children who exhibited undesirable behavior such as tantrums (Christie, 1987, p. 2). For example, parents are warned that yelling and smacking are inappropriate strategies (Balson, 1994; Dreikurs with Solz, 1995; Saunders & Goddard, 1998; Wyckoff & Unell, 1984) because they prevent children from learning the natural consequences of their behavior (Christie, 1987, p. 6). In advising parents to make “the punishment fit the crime,” Christie (1987, p. 6) explained that food repeatedly thrown on the floor at the evening meal should be removed and the child given nothing else to eat that night. Here the principle of operant conditioning is applied, where parents attempt to make the child see the relationship between the offense committed and the punishment inflicted. In relation to “problem” families, behaviorism identifies the ability of parents to elicit immediate compliance in their children (Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986) as the critical element in the effective use of behavior modification programs. Problem families are believed to demonstrate what has been called coercive interaction patterns (Patterson, 1980, 1982). Such patterns occur in families in which parents generally respond to repugnant child behavior with aversive behavior of their own. A response such as this is said to escalate the original child behavior, prompting a “no


win” situation. Patterson (1980, 1982) identified a critical element in such families as parental use of weak forms of initial punishment. Weak initial punishment is seen as ineffectual because it does not immediately stop aversive child responses. Behaviorism promotes the use of nonphysical punishment procedures including positive reinforcers such as praise and attention, and negative reinforcers such as time out and/or deprivation of privileges as being effective in obtaining immediate compliance (Forehand, 1977; Gordon & Browne, 1996; Patterson, 1980, 1982). It is believed these techniques are more productive with problem families than cognitive approaches such as reasoning (Patterson, 1980, 1982). In the clinical situation behaviorist programs have attached little weight to family relationships, focusing instead on achieving immediate compliance from children. This approach makes the assumption that compliance leads to effective relationships rather than the reverse: that good relations between parents and children set the scene for compliance (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). More recently, some behaviorist programs for parents have recognized the pertinence of parent and child relations, and have included training for relationship enhancement and the development of communication skills (Forehand & Long, 1996).

Traditional Authoritarianism Authoritarianism was one of three parenting styles identified and discussed in the classic study by Baumrind (1971): Authoritarian parents attempt to shape, control and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of their children in accordance with a set standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard, theologically motivated or formulated by a higher secular authority. They attempt to inculcate such conventional values as respect for authority, work, and preservation of order and traditional structure. They do not encourage give-and-take, believing that children should accept their parents’ word for what is right. (p. 127)

In the United States and other Western countries, authoritarian parenting has become associated with ineffectual or coercive forms of parenting (Maccoby & Martin, 1982). Grusec, Rudy, and Martini (1997) noted that authoritarian approaches to parenting in other cultures do not produce the negative effects found in Anglo-European cultures. They attribute this to the use of positive rather than negative cognitions in other cultures, claiming that in Anglo-European cultures authoritarian parenting is detrimental because of the association with negative cognitions and affect (p. xix). Kunzynski and Hildebrandt (1997) view traditional authoritarianism as a current form of Puritanism that is disseminated as a contemporary approach to parenting: “it persists in explicit form in current North American fundamentalist Christian religions” (p. 231). Puritan ethics are at the


base of the traditional authoritarian approach: strict obedience, respect for parental authority (especially the father), contingent parental affection (based on compliance), and corporal punishment (Kunzynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). These principles carry on the historic idea of the evil child and the necessity to break the child’s will (see Chapter 1), where noncompliance is seen as the manifestation of the child’s will. Overall, the parent–child relationship is a hierarchical one and parental competence is judged by how effectively power-assertive strategies are used. Behaviorist and traditional authoritarian methods are similar in their conceptions of parents, children, and compliance. In regard to parent and child conflict, behaviorist and traditional authoritarian approaches are similar because they recognize the importance of the environment in eliciting behavior. However, both fall victim to biological reductionism because they conceive of children and parents as organisms responding to their environment. Modification in behavior patterns is achieved following an environmental response, such as a reward for a child having exhibited a particular behavior. Venn (1984) argued that behaviorism is ultimately reducible to biological origins, that is, of an organism responding to its environment: “Behaviourism, ostensibly not concerned with causes, in the end must found the assumed universality of the processes it describes in biological or organismic origin” (p. 128). Critics of behaviorism argue that it deals only with observable stimuli and observable behavior, and denies the existence of internal processes such as consciousness, intention, or meaning attached to behavior (Harre, 1986). The mind is viewed in the Lockean tradition as a blank slate (Burman, 1994). Consequently, all information is drawn from the observation and experimental control of behaviors that can be seen and measured in the external environment. Many sociologists and some psychologists reject the idea that behavior can be studied in isolation from “states of mind,” that is, divorced from its social and subjective meanings and myriad of social contacts and contexts (e.g., Bradley, 1989; Burman, 1994; Harre, 1986). Behaviorism works to identify “problem” children and families by “marking the gaps” (Foucault, 1977, p. 181) between those who are in need of regulation in order to return to normal and those who are not. In many such programs, parents are targeted for treatment so that in turn, the behavior of oppositional children can be regulated and the children normalized, or socialized successfully according to society’s norms. This means that parents are pathologized (Burman, 1994), that is, considered responsible for oppositional, noncompliant, and deviant children, to be problematic themselves and therefore requiring “treatment.” One of the factors contributing to the development of humanist psychology was the dehumanization inherent in behaviorist methods, which


were characterized by controlled, objective, and efficient approaches to the human encounter. Humanist psychology emphasized relating to people as people in an “egalitarian, empathetic and caring mode” (Hollway, 1984, p. 31). In this way the human characteristics ignored by behaviorism were within reach, and the subjective aspects of human activity such as consciousness, intention, and social meaning could be studied. Internalization approaches moved beyond considering merely overt behavior and compliance but retained the emphasis on parental authority.

Internalization Approaches Socialization is the process whereby children learn to conform to the expectations of the society in which they grow up and to behave in socially accepted ways. Like the external control theories, socialization is the goal of internalization approaches. According to Harre (1986), socialization involves cognition and is “something that is required of an individual and it is achieved by the acquisition of something mental” (p. 289). The existence of cognition was an aspect that traditional authoritarianism and behaviorism denied. Theories about parent and child conflict that come under the general umbrella of internalization can be grouped according to the influence attributed to the environment and that credited with the effect of development, or internal factors. The environment is important in ecological and ethological theories, although instincts or internal drives are principal tenets in ethological theories. The developmental perspective holds that learning to conform to the rules of society is derived from something innate, from “an intrinsic, autonomous impulse” (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 249). Growth is governed by internal forces, “by biological maturation or by the individual’s own structuring of experience” (Crain, 2000, p. 170). Motivational theories and cognitive developmental theories about moral development are included in the developmental perspective. Although the internalization approaches discussed here are disparate, generally speaking, internal control is valued over immediate compliance, and extrinsic rewards and punishment are an early part of the sequence in the development of compliance, which moves from external to internal motivation. Cognitive strategies such as reasoning and explanation are endorsed, but the parent–child relationship remains based on parental authority and discipline rather than having a relationship focus. Grusec and Kuczynski (1997) claim that the internal control perspective is representative of the “more traditional approaches to socialization” (p. xviii). Motivation and Cognitive Developmental Discourses The idea of a sequence has been used in motivational theories, with children encouraged initially by external pressure for compliance through re-


wards and punishments from their parents. Extrinsic motivation declines over time, contingent on whether “proper” experiences have been provided by parents. These proper experiences enable children to transition gradually from external to internal motives for compliance. When this occurs, children become self-regulating. Early studies such as that by Hoffman (1970) indicated that guilt may be a motivating factor that caused children to comply with parental requests, and a study by Lytton (1980) suggested a connection between compliance and other internal factors. One of the problems with research about motivation and compliance is the difficulty in identifying whether motivation is extrinsic, intrinsic, or both. More recent research (Grolnick, Deci & Ryan, 1997) has grappled with this through self-determination theory, where internal motives are believed to have intrapsychic connections with both internal and external motivation. Internal motives are related to qualities of internal restraint that operate in competition with feelings of autonomy, which are connected to compliance or conforming behavior associated with the individual. The loss of confidence in behaviorism left a theoretical and methodological void that was quickly filled by cognitive approaches such as Piagetian stage theory. The cognitive developmental theories of both Kohlberg (1969) and Piaget (1965) involved stages of moral development that showed a progression from compliance based on external influence to self-regulation based on internal control. For Piaget, younger children are morally obliged to comply because they perceive rules as unchangeable. Older children are believed to be operating in a stage of moral cooperation (due to cognitive development) in which rules are subject to negotiation. Piaget located parents in positions of power and decision making, so it was difficult (theoretically) for negotiation to occur as it was something associated more with peer relations than parent and child relationships. Kohlberg (1969) too thought that the early learning environment was constrained by parental pressure for conformity exercised through reward and punishment. Through a progression of stages, some (not all) adults reached the phase of autonomous reasoning. In internalization approaches, parental use of reasoning and explanation to gain compliance is valued (Hoffman, 1970; Kuczynski, 1982, 1983). In addition, the provision of choice is endorsed, as are strategies that promote the development of autonomy (Grolnick et al., 1997; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1997). There is minimal use of overt power strategies by parents and an assumption that through the use of effective discipline such as reasoning and explanation, parents can gain child compliance to requests without having to resort to what is defined as “irrational” behavior. Use of behaviorist or traditional authoritarian approaches is discouraged because they rely on external, as opposed to internal motivation for compliance. Internally controlled compliance is the goal.


Environmental Discourses Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), the major proponent of ecological theory, emphasized the importance of the interrelationship between social context and child development, arguing against conceptions of developmental psychology that study the behavior of children as isolates in research settings such as laboratories for short periods of time (p. 19). The child must be studied in relation to a variety of environmental and cultural systems (that operate at many levels and in a hierarchy) such as the family, school, and community (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Emphasis is placed on the importance of analyzing the relationships between the reciprocal role of the child and the other environmental systems with which she or he interacts. Hence the environment is attributed a major role and is responsible for eliciting and modifying behavior patterns (Hetherington & Parke, 1986). The child is conceptualized as a passive recipient responding to environmental conditions. Ecological studies related to parent and child conflict have been conducted in supermarket environments and examined attempts by parents to modify child behavior while shopping. There is little evidence of the child’s perceptions being considered, as most importance is attached to the role of parents in changing their child’s behavior, and changing other conditions such as when shopping is undertaken. Other ecological studies have focused on the treatment of child conduct disorders. These studies are highly compatible with research investigating child conduct disorders undertaken in the behaviorist model (Dadds, 1987, p. 342) Parental reports of shopping trips with children indicated the experience to be exhausting and frustrating, with children requiring constant disciplinary action (Sanders & Hunter, 1984; Holden, 1983). Parents involved in the pilot study for the research reported here indicated similar concerns (Grieshaber, 1993). One reason parents find shopping trips so draining is the burden society places on them to ensure that children demonstrate socially acceptable behavior while shopping. Clark, Greene, MaCrae, McNess, Davis, and Risley (1977) and Sanders and Glynn (1981) identified socially unacceptable supermarket behavior as product disturbance, demanding, and wandering, and believe such “problems” are common in both nonproblem and behaviorally disturbed children. Ecological discourse problematizes parents and children by blaming parents (mostly mothers) for children’s antisocial behavior in a supermarket/shopping context. For example, a study by Holden (1983) demonstrated how the pathologization of mothers occurred through identification of the actions of “normal” mothers and the subsequent comparison with those experiencing difficulties. Holden showed that mothers who used preventive control techniques such as avoiding potential conflict situations by distracting children or engaging them in conversation, had children who exhibited


fewer transgressions. As a result, Holden (1983) argued, “child misbehaviour is due to inadequate child management” (p. 239). This conclusion is similar to that drawn by Patterson (1980) from his work with mothers. To regulate these “inadequate” parenting techniques, several parent training programs have been developed. For example, the scheme developed by Barnard, Christophersen, and Wolf (1977) trained parents to teach appropriate child behavior while in the supermarket setting itself, whereas the package of Clark et al. (1977) provided specific advice to parents for family shopping trips. Similarly, the ecological stance adopted by Sanders and Hunter (1984) recommended first, the development of treatment programs with parent trainers and second, ecological intervention in supermarkets such as express lanes for parents with children. Treatment programs have taught parents how to overcome ecological hazards within their control, for example, shopping at certain times, shopping at particular locations, and using the confectionary free checkout. Such programs are based on the idea that correcting parental behavior and other environmental conditions will result in “normal,” that is, socially accepted child behavior in supermarket/shopping center settings. Ethologists view children’s development within the evolutionary (Darwinian) tradition. Much ethological research has been undertaken by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (Crain, 2000), who have investigated the attachment of infants to their mothers. Both Bowlby and Ainsworth have suggested that infants have in-built signals or instincts that they emit at times, to which parents or caregivers should respond appropriately. According to Crain (2000), the work of Ainsworth filled a void in the move from behaviorism to cognitive models, as cognitive research approaches gave the impression that “It was as if humans had brains but no emotions or relationships” (p. 62). Ethological discourse constructs the child through taxonomies of behavior that have been built from extensive observation. Like behaviorist and ecological discourses, ethology positions the child as a respondent to the environment. However, unlike behaviorism and ecology, ethological discourse positions children as being predisposed to compliant behavior. This is similar to Rousseau’s idea that children are naturally good (Cleverely & Phillips, 1987). Ethological theory postulates that parents must respond sensitively and promptly to infants and children, taking their cues from the child. They should not be oversensitive or overzealous as this removes opportunities for the child to take the initiative. In relation to parent and child conflict, ethological discourse positions parents to value child compliance (Marion, 1983). Compliant behavior is important for both child safety and the enculturation process (Toepfer, Rueter, & Maurer, 1972). Ethological discourse places an enormous burden on parents, as they are held responsible


for demonstrating adult behaviors that are deemed necessary to support the development of compliance. This means that parents must display sensitive patterns of adult behavior combined with cooperation and supportiveness, as this is part of the general emotional climate/environment that is required in the home. Parents must also show sensitivity to the needs of the child and communicate expectations to the child in a way that will ensure the child will want to comply (i.e., adapt to the environment). Marion (1983) explained how the discourse works: “When control is necessary, the cooperative, sensitive caregiver, knows how to set the mood so that the child is willing to accept the controls” (p. 547). Parents are further burdened by ethological discourse as it accepts that noncompliant child behavior can result from coercive attempts by adults to have children comply (Lytton & Zwirner, 1975). Coercive measures include adult use of criticism, threat, and the expression of displeasure in an effort to achieve compliance. Parents are to provide opportunities for children to pursue their own interests, then to wait, watch, and be available when children need them. Their very presence will provide support for children to become involved in their own interests. This is sensitive caregiving. By implication, lack of sensitivity and child noncompliance are the fault of the adult. Attaining child compliance through sensitivity has been an integral part of the way in which mothers have been conceptualized in developmental psychology. Critiques of motivation and cognitive developmental discourses, as well as environmental discourses have come from inside and outside child development. Cognitive approaches such as those proposed by Piaget and Kohlberg about moral development filled the theoretical vacuum in developmental psychology on a temporary basis only (Ingleby, 1986), but as history has shown they have been particularly enduring (Burman, 1994). However, Piagetian theory, with its focus on cognitive processes that construct meaning, still neglected social aspects. Analysis from within developmental psychology indicates that the study of socialization is now broader and incorporates all aspects of life rather than having a narrow focus on “the development of correct or moral behaviours” (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998, p. 389). Although most early views of socialization positioned children and parents/society as oppositional, or parents as responsible for gaining child compliance, later work talks about the ways in which children come to participate in society. There are several reasons for this, including challenges to internalization as an adequate explanation of socialization, moving beyond conceiving of mothers as the primary agents of socialization, and the linking of socialization to a range of other areas of study, including language, emotion, cognition, and sense of self (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998),


not to mention fathers. For example, the proportion of cooperative behavior exhibited by children has been linked to the quality of the parent–child relationship outside episodes of control, and the quality of initial cooperation early in the relationship has brought into question the validity of the enduring idea of a developmental sequence of external, followed by internal compliance (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). From outside developmental psychology, the innate drives or instincts of ethological theory are known as biological predispositions. Therefore, they too succumb to the argument of biological reductionism (see critique of behaviorism). Although ecological theory does acknowledge the impact of context, in the ecological studies referred to here, the child is still reduced to a biological organism responding to a system(s) context. In ethological discourse, in which the role of the sensitive parent is paramount, parents are regulated and controlled by subliminal threats and implications about what can happen if they fail to demonstrate the necessary sensitivity. Critiques of internalization have also targeted the position of mothers as the primary agents of socialization, and the reasoning and sensitive approach of the “good” mother. The division between the individual and the social, known as dualism, remains problematic for theories of socialization. I consider mothering first and then dualism. Because of the historical period in which much of the research categorized as internalization occurred (1960s–1980s), mothers were positioned as responsible for the socialization of children and fathers as wage earners. This assumption was based on the place of mothers in the nuclear family. Phoenix and Woollett (1991, p. 2) argued that developmental psychology has marginalized mothers by discussing them “as people who are the most important influences on their children” (p. 2); that women themselves have not been consulted about their experiences and feelings concerning motherhood; and that . . . the phrases ‘the mother’ and ‘the child’ reflect the tendency to view motherhood and childhood as homogeneously universal categories. Knowledge about motherhood tends, therefore, to be assumed rather than examined. (p. 2)

Further, Phoenix and Woollett (1991) made a case that developmental psychology incorporated an idealized mother–child relationship as well as the responsibility of mothers for “fostering good child development” (p. 6). Ethological discourse construes “good” mothers as those who are able to avert the possibility of conflict because of the way in which the environment is structured. Likewise, motivational theories highlight parental (mother) explanation and reasoning as essential for achieving compliance. For instance, the warm, supportive and nurturing atmosphere created by the sensitive mother is supposed to entice the child


into compliance with adult requests. If conflict does eventuate, the “good” mother is able to reason with the child and therefore gain compliance through the ability to make the child see the reason behind requests. The skill in fostering what is considered good child development rests on the proficiency of the mother to use the technique of reasoning to prevent or resolve conflict. To this end, internalization discourses place significant emphasis on correct models of socialization that provide specific details of how mother–child interaction should occur, thus attempting to prevent parent and conflict from arising. Establishing correct models of socialization that publicize preferred ways of interacting with children has the effect of pathologizing a significant proportion of parents, notably mothers (cf. Burman, 1994). Walkerdine (1992) has argued that such models produce normalized conceptions of mothering: The idea became common that there was an observable truth of correct mothering, a type of care and interaction which was normal in that it could ensure the production of normal children, that is, ones who would not grow up to be anti-social. (p. 12)

What Walkerdine claimed was that a normalized ideal had emerged in relation to mothering. Deviation from the norm was observable: one merely had to look at the mother, the mothering practices or, the child, and as a result mothers and children were either exalted or problematized. This was evident from the late 1960s when the United States began compensatory preschool education programs such as Project Headstart, which were aimed at reducing race and class tensions through equalizing educational opportunity via cognitively oriented curricula. Walkerdine (1992) has argued that programs like Headstart “placed the blame for urban decay and poor educational standards onto the mothers” (p. 11). Responsibility for providing the right home environment rested with mothers, who were to ensure that things were done correctly: those considered at risk in not being able to provide the right home environment were white and black working-class mothers (Walkerdine, 1992, p. 12). Books about parenting in the mid-1980s were full of ideas about how to raise children properly. They specified the role of parents in relation to academic, health, and household responsibilities. For example, Cherry (1985) maintained that parents were expected to • • • •

Maintain an orderly, wholesome household; Be an expert on child health and nutrition; Dress children to look as the ads tell you they should; Maintain an atmosphere of civilised cooperation;

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation • 43 • Know what is needed for the achievement of preacademic and, later, academic skills; • Teach children to demonstrate socially acceptable behaviour; • Know how to be a counsellor and arbitrator. (p. 25)

These characteristics were more evident in middle-class families in the study of middle- and working-class mothers by Walkerdine and Lucey (1989). The middle-class mothers knew how to counsel and arbitrate so that their children were regulated covertly, thus maintaining an atmosphere of civilized cooperation (socially acceptable behavior). Because they were able to make household duties into pedagogic tasks, these mothers were also teaching preacademic and what was needed for later academic skills. Walkerdine (1984a) argued that parental advice packages (such as those taken up here about how to manage parent and child conflict) are based on observations of white, middle-class mothers with able-bodied children. Further, claimed Walkerdine (1984a), such packages often assume ‘the child’ is male. These class and gender differences are a classic example of how cultural values were reified and presented as facts of nature (Ingleby, 1986). The variables of individualism inherent in psychology predisposed culture itself as an enduring measure of comparison (Ingleby, 1986). Because models of internalization aim to produce particular types of children/persons (children who have been socialized through reasoning and explanation to become correctly socialized adults), they have inbuilt penalties to deal with those who do not measure up to the model. These include the parenting programs referred to earlier. However, for parents (mothers) who are at risk of producing antisocial children, contemporary Western culture has its own mechanisms of ultimate control: “Society demands that mothers be in control, blames them when they are not, and has the power to remove children from their care if they consider that mothers’ control is insufficient” (Woollett & Phoenix, 1991, p. 37). The sensitive reasoning mother is esteemed as the ideal in theories of internalization. In a poststructural feminist study of mother and daughter interaction, Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) found that sensitive mothers frequently utilized reasoning with children and were able to make educational games of domestic chores. These same sensitive mothers were inevitably middle class, and reflected the type of mothering characteristics that are endorsed by psychologists and teachers to covertly regulate children (Walkerdine & Lucey, 1989). Covert regulation ensured that there was no visible form of “mother-power” operating, which meant that the middleclass mothers were able to structure situations so that children would comply. Structuring situations so that children comply with parental requests is a revered characteristic of ethological discourse (Marion, 1983). The en-


vironment is managed to ensure compliance through the use of unobtrusive or covert techniques. Mahoney (in Kuczynski, 1984, p. 1070) has argued that obtrusive attempts at manipulation aroused opposition from children. Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) related the covert regulation of children to autonomy, saying that sensitive mothers used covert power strategies (through reasoning) to produce an illusion that the child possessed autonomy or a free will. These mothers were then able to avoid overt mother/daughter conflict because situations were managed so that children would comply, and thereby seem to have developed autonomy. One of the problems of internalization theories is accounting for how children become socialized, that is, how the outside world “gets in,” or becomes part of the child. Shotter’s (1974) radical humanism attempted to theorize the infant’s entry into the social world and account for the difference between the individual and the social. In their analysis, Henriques et al. (1984, p. 17) showed that Shotter approached the problem by creating a dichotomy or dualism between what is considered to be social and what is considered to be related to the individual. Internalization of the social is the only way to link this division, that is, by suggesting that the individual internalizes interactions and other features of the social world. Another word to describe it is osmosis, with the child soaking up what is in the surrounding environment. However, this is problematic because internalization fails to grapple with the contribution made by the infant (known as agency). It also fails to account for how certain aspects of the environment are internalized and others are not. Henriques et al. (1984) surmised that the remaining vacuum (created by the lack of contribution by the infant) would be occupied by a “pregiven psychological subject, a rational individual as a starting point in development” (p. 17). In this instance the problem of internalization, of accounting for how the outside gets in, can be resolved only through reliance on the notion of a pregiven rational individual, that is, an assumption that all infants have internal structures that ensure that they will develop reasoning minds and become rational individuals (in Chapter 1, this was discussed as an aspect of modernism). The continuing concern with agency was based on the lack of resolution of the problem of dualism. In response, a relativist approach was incorporated that framed child development as culturally specific. Such a stance meant that many understandings of developmental stages, attachment, and so on, were possible. However, as Ingleby (1986) commented, there were still major problems: Textbook developmental psychology presented a stereotyped and idealised notion of ‘normal’ development, hardly representative even of its authors’ culture. It overlooked the fact that a standard nuclear family was absent from the background of an increasing number of children’s lives, and that for all the talk

Parent and Child Conflict as Social Control and Regulation • 45 about mother-infant interaction, mothers were by no means the only ones who counted. (p. 301)

The cultural broadening of child development did not involve a new theory that attempted to redress the substantial criticisms of dualism and agency (Adlam, Henriques, Rose, Salfield, Venn, & Walkerdine, 1977; Ingleby, 1986). Nor did it deal effectively with the issues raised about motherhood by Phoenix and Woollett (1991), or the idealized rational sensitive mother. From the perspective adopted in this book, issues remain with theories of internalization including biological reductionism, the way in which mothers have been conceptualized, and the problem of dualism. Relational perspectives depart from the idea of parental authority characteristic of external control and internalization theories.

Relational Perspectives Relational perspectives situate parent and child interaction in the context of a long-term familial relationship that has the general aim of socialization (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). Although this is a different orientation from behavioral and internalization approaches, Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997) maintained that relations have been on the periphery of research about socialization for some time. Relational perspectives contest the idea of parents as authority figures, contending instead that parents and children “are both powerful and vulnerable with regard to each other despite apparent differences in legitimate authority, individual capacities, and material resources” (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 236). Bidirectionality in terms of resistance (e.g., Patterson, 1982) and cooperation (e.g., Schaffer, 1991) in parent and child relationships has been evident for some time, although it has not been conceptualized as a mutual relationship until recently. The work of Bowlby and Ainsworth alerted developmental psychologists to the significance of relationships for infants’ development (Crain, 2000). In the relational perspective, the focus on specific techniques aimed at control and compliance in external control theories and internalization approaches has been replaced by parental skill, determined by the way in which the parent–child relationship is managed. Significantly, it is up to the parent to manage the parent–child relationship (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997), thus maintaining parents as ultimately responsible for successful socialization. In the early years it is possible to conceive compliance and self-regulation as joint social ventures with parents, rather than individual achievements or failures on the part of the parent or the child (features of external control and theories of internalization). Confirmation of this idea comes from


early studies by Lytton (1980) and Lytton and Zwirner (1975), which showed that verbal and nonverbal scaffolding influenced compliance. These studies were undertaken with boys aged two and three years with their mothers in their homes. Results showed that parental suggestions rather than commands (even with reasoning) produced greater compliance. In addition, a positive suggestion accompanied by supportive action was even more effective in facilitating compliance. The reverse also occurred: physical control and criticism increased noncompliance. A study by Kuczynshi, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, and Girnius-Browne (1987) also showed that maternal support was more effective when verbal requests were accompanied by touch and gesture. Thus these studies endorsed the importance of parents providing social scaffolding as a way of achieving compliance. The long-term effect of continuing relationships of this nature is coregulation, which is valued by the relational perspective. Failure to manage the relationship properly manifests itself in problems, which have been categorized by Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997) in terms of failure on the part of the parent and the child. For children, failure is evidenced by noncompliance and high levels of resistance. For parents, failure occurs through inefficient management of the parent–child relationship. High levels of resistance by children can be caused by anxiety in the attachment relationship (Bretherton, Golby, & Cho, 1997), poor parental affection and nurturance (MacDonald, 1997), and lack of development of autonomy. Lack of autonomy is apparent because children use passive noncompliance strategies (e.g., ignoring the parent) instead of developing negotiation strategies (such as asking the parent for a justification or reason) (Kuczynski et al., 1987). Older children using passive noncompliance may not have developed negotiation skills and so may be seen as skill deficient (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). Parents are assumed to be responsible for such situations and are encouraged to model negotiation strategies (Kuczynski et al., 1987) and to support scaffolding so mutual coregulation develops (Schaffer, 1991). Baumrind’s (1971) category of authoritative parenting has been endorsed by developmental psychology and has become embedded in Western culture to the extent that it is regarded as commonsense. Because relational perspectives favor rationality, warmth, autonomy, choice, reciprocity, and specifically negotiation, they can be aligned with Baumrind’s (1971) authoritative approach to parenting. In Baumrind’s research, negotiation in the authoritative parenting style was associated with higher levels of social competence in boys and girls. Although parents retained their high expectations of behavior, they were prepared to engage in responsive negotiation with children. The reciprocity apparent in this type of negotia-


tion no doubt starts in the early years with social scaffolding of the sort provided by the parents in the studies by Kuczynski et al. (1987) and Lytton and Zwirner (1975). Because the relational perspective works on an understanding of a mutual relationship between parents and children that is developed over a length of time, constraints are placed on the use of power coercive strategies by parents. The point is that power coercive strategies may be effective in the short term, but when conceptualized as a longterm relationship, the value of power coercive strategies is questionable. Relational perspectives conceptualize the position of children as one of accommodation/negotiation, which suggests a “nonexact, mutually coregulated from of cooperation [that] passes for compliance within relationships” (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 240). This implies a mutual approach to sustaining the parent–child relationship. Because of the time dimension, children and parents are involved in relationships that extend beyond the determination of immediate compliance or noncompliance. The way that accommodation plays out in relationships is through “an expectation of a cooperative response, and also that the form of the cooperative response will be chosen by the recipient rather than by the sender of the request” (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 240). Expecting a cooperative response from the child is reminiscent of Rousseau’s concept of the “good” child. Although important in internalization theories, the development of autonomy is essential in the relational perspective. Kuczynski et al. (1987) and Leavitt (1991) have shown that moderate levels of noncompliant behavior are usual in the development of autonomy. Nevertheless, the complexity of the situation was shown by Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997), who indicated that when children’s capacity for self-regulation is developing in the second and third years of life, parents raise their expectations, which occurs around the same time that children are developing independence and a motive to resist threats to their autonomy; thus: “at a time when children are more able to comply, they become less and less willing to comply” (p. 241). Dealing with autonomy effectively requires the give-andtake of the relational approach, where the development of coregulation includes verbal requests accompanied by social scaffolding. Children’s resistance has been studied from the perspective of assertive and nonassertive types of oppositional behavior. According to Haswell, Hoch, and Wenar (1982), oppositional behavior in the preschool years shows “the need to assert autonomy” (p. 16). They claim that giving children options or choices creates situations in which children will comply, and assists in the development of autonomy. Conversely, lack of choice heightened the chances of noncompliance and reduced opportunities for


autonomy to grow. Kuczynski and Kochanska (1990) and Kuczynski et al. (1987) found that as children’s autonomy developed, passive noncompliance was replaced by more active resistance that was also more skilful. For example, ignoring the parent and temper tantrums were replaced by outright refusals and more sophisticated negotiation strategies such as asking the parent for a justification or explanation. These behaviors are indications of the successful development of autonomy, prefaced on the understanding of a mutually responsive parent–child relationship from the early days of life. For those children who fail to develop autonomy, risks include “a lasting pattern of rebelliousness and others may remain excessively compliant and dependent” (Haswell et al., 1982, p. 17). Children’s resistance and noncompliance are not the only sources of conflict in families (Eisenberg, 1992). Other episodes that produce conflict include parents not complying with children’s requests, and disagreements over things such as statements of fact, intent, and opinion (Eisenberg, 1992). This evidence suggests parental authority has changed over time, along with social expectations and values. Lollis and Kuczynski (1997) and Kuczynski, Marshall, and Schell (1997) have argued that the influence of the child in parent–child relationships needs to be studied within a new framework. They have suggested a bidirectional approach rather than a unidirectional one, as the latter assumed a flow of influence in one direction (from parent to child), that parents were active and children were passive, that parents and children operated separately rather than in a relationship, and that parenting operated on the basis of a static asymmetrical model of power. Lollis and Kuczynski (1997) presented a model of parent and child interactions in the context of parent and child relationships that showed the many ways that bidirectionality can occur, including “between the microanalytic investigation of interactions and the macroanalytic investigation of relationships” (p. 441). The authors concluded that a bidirectional approach acknowledged the agency and power of participants in relationships, as well as “an interest in thought processes, not just behaviours” (p. 455). Other developments also included moves to expand the notion of the agency of the child, with a particular focus on socialization in the family (e.g., Kuczynski, Harach, & Bernardini, 1999). Kuczynski et al. (1999) described a bilateral model of parent–child relations that positions children and parents in interrelationships with equal agency and bidirectional causality. Although acknowledging that the development a model of power that is better suited to understanding parent and child relations in needed, Kuczynski et al. (1999) proposed a model of power known as interdependent asymmetry. In this model, power is bilateral, multifaceted and dialectical, and involves the agency of the child.


The bilateral nature of power indicates that both children and parents have resources on which to draw in relation to power. Power is multifaceted because it involves individual, relational, and cultural resources where “young children are routinely empowered in their interactions with their parents” (Kuczynski et al., 1999, p. 38). The dialectical nature of power supposes a nonlinear (dialectical) relationship between power and causality (p. 38). A linear relationship locates power with the parent and can therefore also attach blame to the parent or child. Although parents are invested with more power than children (simply by dint of being parents), a nonlinear approach suggests that parental power does not equate with causality. Kuczynski et al. (1999) propose that power needs to be understood in relation to the specific, shifting contexts of parent-child relations. The idea of interdependent symmetry shifts the focus from the traditional question of who has more power to a new question of what powers and resources parents and children can draw on in their relationship. (p. 38)

Although this effort is laudable, there is no attention to a theorization of power in this instance, or considerations of any other theories of power. This is probably because developmental psychology has not theorized power except in terms of uni- and now bidirectionality, which, as the titles suggest, are concerned with the directions in which power flows, and with bidirectionality, the sources of power that are available. From within developmental psychology come claims that authoritative parenting may not be universally positive in its outcomes, as some cultures may not value the development of autonomy (Grusec et al., 1997). This admission indicates the move by some within developmental psychology to acknowledge the significance of culture and context, as well as the recognition that research generated from developmental psychology is culturally specific and cannot be applied universally as had been the case (Parke & Buriel, 1998). Rogoff ’s (1990) work for example, pointed to the fact that generalizations from research in the United States were not necessarily valid in other cultures. Taking class, culture, and race differences into account also forced a rethinking by some of research in developmental psychology. Much research about parenting has been undertaken with while middle-class families (Deater-Deckard, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1996; Kolar & Soriano, 2000) and this has had the effect of legitimating parenting practices associated with white middle-class families and invalidating others: “Beliefs and practices about parenting can be so embedded within a culture that they are regarded as a matter of commonsense” (Kolar & Soriano, 2000, p. 5). The relational explanations of parent and child conflict considered here have become accepted in Western society as commonsense ways of rearing children. Thus the discourse of reciprocity between parent and


child, operating in a long-term familial context and developing autonomous and independent children through provision of choice, is bound by culture and class factors. In the process of creating norms of parenting and childrearing, developmental psychology effectively “propagate[d] spurious norms of development: cultural values were presented as facts of nature” (Ingleby, 1986, p. 299). One example of how this occurred concerns the work of Arnold Gesell, who studied children attending the Yale Clinic of Child Development for a period of thirty years from 1911 (Weber, 1984). Those who attended this clinic were mostly children of students and professors at Yale, but “Norms derived from this population of children were generalized to all children, evidencing a complete disregard for environmental influence. This was the blinder erected by such faith in development as inherently or genetically predetermined” (Weber, 1984, p. 61). From outside developmental psychology, critiques of biological reductionism and dualism remain current. Although agency has been the focus of renewed interest in child development (as discussed above), it is by no means evident that an alignment with the notion of agency characteristic of the sociology of childhood addresses the critique of dualism (cf. Kuczynski et al., 1999). Further, lack of attention to the theorization of power relationships beyond directionality and resources available to both parents and children means that the asymmetry of power approach remains underdeveloped. The major difference between theories of internalization and relational perspectives is the way the parent–child relationship in the latter is understood as reciprocal. Contextual perspectives offer a different orientation to parent and child relationships, rather than a theoretical distinction.

Contextual Perspectives Contextual perspectives focus on the ability to adapt behavior to suit the context. The theories discussed previously are drawn on in accordance with the context at hand, which implies that the environment determines the behavior that will be employed to manage certain situations. As specific situations require specific types of behaviors, choice of behavior in the appropriate circumstances is necessary (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). This means that in some circumstances, a behaviorist response of immediate compliance may be necessary (such as at school), whereas in others, self-regulation is the preferred option. Research undertaken with children in natural contexts that deals with parent and child conflict suggests that parental responses to children’s indiscretions are situation specific (Chapman & Zahn-Waxler, 1982; Lytton, 1980; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Likewise, parental management strategies are related to the existing con-


text (Hoffman, 1970; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1986). Kuczynski and Hildebrandt (1997) remarked on the interrelated nature of context and strategies, suggesting that techniques used in one situation may impact subsequent situations. For example, a study by Kuczunski (1984) showed that mothers who had long-term compliance in mind joined their children in play before attempting to manage their behavior in particular ways. Such action set up a climate of responsiveness in the parent–child interaction before an attempt was made to change the child’s behavior. In this example, the onus was on the parent to manage the parent–child relationship effectively.

Summary In this review of literature I have shown that ideas about parents and children associated with Locke, Darwin, Hall, Rousseau, and the Puritans have endured in various forms to the present. These include the prominence of the external environment, evolution, biological maturation, and internal structuring of experience, interspersed with beliefs about children as evil and naturally good. Over the past century, ways of dealing with parent and child conflict have changed. Child study began the focus on the moral, intellectual, physical, and economic state of “the child,” but also introduced ways of reasoning about young children, their potential, and the perceived need for rescuing children to ensure successful socialization. Children and children’s minds became objects of scientific inquiry. The first studies of opposition and resistance occurred with the observation of infants and young children during mental testing situations. Behaviorist approaches for gaining child compliance began early in the twentieth century and are still part of the “treatment” of problematic parents and children today. By the early 1980s, research traditions in child development supported the view that effective parental discipline produced compliant children and that the ultimate aim of successful socialization was a compliant child (Maccoby, 1980; Maccoby & Martin, 1982; Marion, 1983). Up to this point, the principal focus of research concerning parent and child conflict was parental strategies for controlling the behavior of young children, and the vulnerability of children to parental influence. More recently, the bidirectionality approach has suggested that children and parents do not operate in isolation, but in the context of a family where members’ actions and interactions influence and affect each other. Research undertaken in the field of developmental psychology concerning the generation and resolution of parent and child conflict in the context of family life has been binary in orientation, locating the cause of conflict specifically within the parent or the child. Developmental psychology constructs parent and child conflict as either abnormal or normal,


depending on the level of deviancy. Experts, including child psychologists and educators, advise parents that it is normal to experience some conflict between parents and young children, that parent and child conflict can occur when parents discipline children or when child noncompliance to parental requests results in conflict and argument. Serious behavior problems are considered those actions that are not socially acceptable and result in a child failing to become successfully socialized. Child psychologists and educators alike endorse approaches that rationalize conflict, portraying effective parents as those who are able to deal with parent and child conflict through effective management of a longterm parent–child relationship. Rational debate that does not dehumanize children by shouting or using punitive and physical punishment techniques is the preferred version of childrearing. Successful integration of the child into the familial and social order should therefore occur through the use of techniques that minimize parent and child conflict, aggression, and noncompliance. As I have shown here, theoretical approaches to parent and child conflict discursively frame and define this conflict in terms of noncompliance of the child and ineffective parental disciplinary and management methods. These approaches are based on some form of identified inadequacy within the individual, who is diagnosed as requiring remediation to rectify the existing problem. Thus social control and regulation are both the aims and the way in which parent and child conflict has been constructed in developmental psychology. The research about parent and child conflict in developmental psychology presents conflict as a “frequent, sustained, and mutually tolerated feature of social interactions within parent-child relationships” (Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 240). Yet those within developmental psychology still strive to fix the conflict as consensus is deemed necessary. Weber (1984) unveiled the grand scheme of developmental psychology as one that was “propelled by the urge to build a science of psychology that would ultimately supply enough information about the important domains of development to predict and control behavior” (p. 173). The critiques of each section have highlighted some of the difficulties of each of the perspectives presented. In the following section I analyze further four ideas found in the previous literature. These include biological reductionism, dualism, mothering, and the use of reasoning as a regulatory device. The constructions of parent and child conflict produced by these four ideas are central because they foreground the nature of the paradigmatic shift required for an alternative view of parent and child conflict. This analysis is undertaken to explain how these four ideas are problematic, and in the process, the parameters for establishing an alternative framework for examining parent and child conflict are defined broadly.


Theories from materialist philosophy/psychology such as behaviorism, and ethological and ecological discourse position the individual as a passive organism responding to environmental changes. Such approaches rely on an environmentally invoked stimulus–response explanation of child behavior and consequent changes to it. This means that behavior is ultimately reducible to organism or biological beginnings (Venn, 1984). In identifying the importance of the environment, these discourses rely on a descriptive version of “the child,” where characteristics that are deemed natural and innate are presumed as “given.” As subject and object of the prescriptions of these discourses, “the child” can then be seen in relation to two significant binary opposites: passive rather than active; and respondent as opposed to initiator. The influence of biology in developmental psychology cannot be underestimated. According to Weber (1984), all theories from Hall to Piaget, including the quasi-psychological position of Dewey, are embedded in Darwin’s biological and evolutionary ideas. . . . They have in common a belief in the nature of growth as discernable through observational methodology and an acceptance of the phylogenetic scale as continuous and not discontinuous. (p. 173)

For those discourses of developmental psychology that incorporate a cognitive and/or social element, the dualism between the individual and society remains problematic. Ingleby (1986, p. 301) noted that most historical and cross-cultural studies of child development were based on behaviorist social learning theory. This meant that an understanding of the relationship between an individual and society came from a socialization model. In such a model, social structures were “embodied in roles, which were external to the individual and acquired by a process of learning” (Ingleby, 1986, p. 301). The difference between roles and positioning is discussed by Davies (1994): The concept of “positioning” rather than “role” show[s] the way in which discourses open up, or make possible, certain subject positions through and in terms of which we interact with the world. Whereas role is somehow external to the person, something that can be taken up or put aside (the “real” person presumably remaining separate from those various roles) . . . there is no self independent of the positions through which we each fabricate our selves and are fabricated. Position is a much more fluid concept than role and recognises the constitutive force of discourse to make/fabricate the stories or narratives through which meaningful lives are made. (p. 23)

The task facing psychology was a reconstruction of the object of psychology in a way that overshadowed the dualism between the individual and society. It also involved accounting for the agency of the child (Ingleby,


1986). This task was attempted through the cognitive theory of Piaget. However, incorporation of a cognitive and/or social domain left power relationships untheorized at both the micro- and macrolevels. The way in which Walkerdine (1988, 1992) and Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) analyzed discourses of parenting and childrearing that are operating in contemporary Western culture provides some alternative perspectives for understanding parent and child conflict. Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) argued that the idealized middle-class sensitive mother, characteristic of socialization discourses in developmental psychology, regulates children through an illusion of autonomy. Part of the illusion is achieved through the use of reasoning, where reasoning is understood as subverting conflict and as being situated in specific historical, cultural, and social circumstances. As such, reasoning functions covertly to produce and control specific types of persons (Walkerdine, 1992). To understand the way in which these practices operate to produce specific types of persons, as well as the meanings that are produced, it is necessary to look at the way in which “the subject and the social are created together, not a knowing subject creating a known world” (Walkerdine, 1992, p. 15). By examining the way in which the subject and social are created together in specific instances, Walkerdine (1992) argued that Western rationalist thought has successfully perpetuated the idea that man can dominate and control nature: . . . forgetting meanings, practices, the constructed character of the subject, produces a very special form of power and it is this power, the power of Western Rationality, which has understood nature as something to be controlled, known, mastered. . . . Such a fantasy is omnipotent because it is unfulfillable. (pp. 20–21)

Here Walkerdine argued that Western rationalist thought produces specific types of persons and that those persons perpetuate the idea that nature can be controlled and mastered (this was raised in Chapter 1 in the critique of modernism). Given the theoretical discontinuities apparent in the developmental psychology literature concerning parent and child conflict, Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) have shown that it is possible to conceptualize parenting and childrearing in ways other than those prescribed by dominant psychological discourses of socialization. Walkerdine argued that the principal way in which the child is understood is as a developing rational (modernist) being. It is assumed that children become reasoning beings because of the process of internalization and because of the high value placed on reasoning by the dominant (Anglo middle-class) culture. The ultimate aim is a fully socialized rational individual. Walkerdine’s (1992) point is that Cartesian rationality is assumed to be a natural feature of consciousness and so powerful that it overcomes


experience: “In this view Cartesian ideas are an example of ‘forgetting’. When we treat the world in this way we ‘forget’ the practices that form us, the meanings in which we are produced, we ‘forget’ history, power and oppression” (p. 17). In other words, rationality is so powerful, it ensures that earlier experiences related to power and oppression are forgotten. The challenge becomes accounting for parent and child conflict using theoretical approaches that are not based on biological reductionism or the logic of Western rationality, or in which the problematic of individual/social dualism remains. In the following chapter I consider some theoretical perspectives that provide alternative ways of understanding parent and child conflict.

CHAPTER

3

Parent and Child Conflict as Relationships of Power

It is paradoxical that parent and child conflict is about relations of power but no theory of power has been advanced. Recent work in developmental psychology has discussed power and agency (Kuczynski et al., 1999), drawing links between child development and the sociology of childhood. This work falls short of developing a theory of power relations among parents and children. However, theoretical constructs are available to think about parent and child conflict as relations of power and to ground such ideas in empirical data. In an attempt to understand the conflict between parents and children that was occurring in the four families, I draw on aspects of four theoretical perspectives and discuss these aspects in this chapter. As I have questioned the assumptions about parent and child conflict that developmental psychology posits as true, I draw on aspects of these theories to provide an alternative analysis of parent and child conflict. The perspectives drawn on include • Foucault’s (1977, 1979, 1982) notion of power–knowledge–resistance; • Colonialism/postcolonialism (Gandhi, 1998; Loomba, 1998); • Feminist poststructuralism (Weedon, 1997); and • Butler’s (1990, 1993) concept of gender as performativity. In addition to these four theoretical perspectives, I refer to work undertaken recently about hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995; Davies,

57


1996), masculinities (Connell, 2002; Gilbert & Gilbert, 1998; Lingard & Douglas, 1999), and Butler’s (1990) concept of the heterosexual matrix. The perspective adopted here is that the social relations that are lived in the four families are considered as relations of power. In combination with the other theoretical perspectives on which I draw, this provides a way of understanding the generation and resolution of parent and child conflict in the four families. The readings (interpretations) of daily domestic interaction and practice found in later chapters utilize the same aspects of the four theoretical perspectives that are discussed here. I begin by considering Foucault’s ideas of power-knowledge.

Power–Knowledge Many explanations of power consider it as something an individual or a group of people can possess and that can be exercised to obtain intended outcomes. Foucault’s (1977) understanding of power differs significantly from this. It combines understandings about power with knowledge and resistance. Foucault rejected theories about power that considered it as being tied to macrostructures in society such as the ruling classes, or views that considered power to be repressive. Instead, he understood power as “dispersed, indeterminate, heteromorphous, subjectless and productive, constituting individuals’ bodies and identities” (Best & Kellner, 1991, pp. 48–49). This means that power “shows itself on a subject’s body because various happenings are ‘written’ on the body—they shape the way we perform, or act out, our bodily selves” (Danaher, Schirato, & Webb, 2000, p. 46). In writing about the body in Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1977) traced how power worked at a microlevel in society. Investigating parent and child conflict from this perspective enables an understanding of how power is written onto the bodies of family members and how family members are positioned in their daily lives as a consequence. Foucault (1980) understood knowledge as a product of power relations, which he regarded as integral to regimes of power. He argued that knowledge and truth are “produced out of power struggles (between different fields, disciplines and institutions) and they are used to authorise and legitimate the workings of power” (Danaher et al., 2000, p. 64). This means that power and knowledge have a circular relationship, and that knowledge is not neutral or objective—it is always drawn from a particular perspective or viewpoint and is influenced by that perspective in specific ways. In this understanding, no knowledge is neutral. Instead, the actions and processes of power produce information (knowledge) that is used in ways that can have powerful effects. Much of the research about parent and child conflict undertaken in developmental psychology up until the late 1990s presented

Parent and Child Conflict as Relationships of Power • 59

itself as neutral and objective (see Chapters 1 and 2). However, the effects of this knowledge have been to produce norms about parent and child conflict, childrearing, and parenting that are so powerful, that those who exist outside the norms are pathologized (cf. Burman, 1994). Societies such as ours are governed in different ways from the past (Foucault, 1977). One of the differences is the “modern” form of power that now operates, which is different from the power that monarchs were able to exercise over their subjects. Foucault (1980) discussed two models of power that he thinks have dominated our understanding and theorizing about modern forms of power. These include the economic model associated with Marxism and the juridical model. Foucault rejected the Marxist approach as being reductionist because it condenses understandings of power in society to class domination (by the ruling class) and economic imperatives about production (Best & Kellner, 1991, p. 49). Juridical power concerns monarchical or sovereign power, something that was endowed legally as a right of the sovereign (king or queen), which required obedience from the sovereign’s subjects and was regarded as a repressive form of power. Foucault analyzed it because many assumptions about this model of power continue to inform modern thought, in particular the repressive nature of power and understandings of power associated with liberal theory. Foucault (1980) moved beyond the juridical understanding of power as repressive, as something that can be possessed and that emanates from a central point such as a monarch or the state. He argued instead that power is productive, that it “needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the entire social body, much more than a negative instance whose function is oppression” (p. 119). Power operates “not through physical force or representation by law, but through the hegemony of norms, political technologies, and the shaping of the body and soul” (Best & Kellner, 1991, p. 49). This is known as biopower, which is aimed at shaping the bodies and minds of people. Instead of analyzing what happens at the center of power, Foucault (1980) suggested investigating the periphery or the extremities in order to understand power as a relationship among people that is played out in local forms, or at the microlevel. Parent and child conflict is an example of a local form of power relations that can be analyzed at the level of everyday operation and routine application. Foucault (Smart, 1983) called for a shift from the view of power as the intention of an individual to understanding the exercise of power as a way of examining how persons and their bodies are constituted as effects of power. For Foucault (1980) then, power is not the property of individuals or of a class of people, nor is it something that can be possessed or “appropriated


as a commodity or piece of wealth” (p. 98). Foucault understood power as a relation that does not act directly or immediately on others: “Instead it acts on their actions: an action on an action, on existing actions or on those which may arise in the present or future” (Foucault, 1982, p. 220). The power–knowledge relationship begins with power relationships and works as part of a network with an extensive number of interconnecting parts, similar to a mode of action. In the process of doing this, power relationships establish the rules associated with institutions in society. These rules identify what is normal and work coercively to produce people who adhere to these rules or norms. Although the rules change over time, those who do not demonstrate the required behaviors are excluded. Because of the possibility of exclusion (i.e., being abnormal), opposition and resistance are also effects of power–knowledge relations. Much of Foucault’s work analyzed the relation between the emergence of particular forms of knowledge and the exercise of specific forms of power. This is often called a genealogical critique because it provided an understanding of how power relations are rationalized, or a critical analysis of rationalities that are characteristic of modernism (see Chapter 1 for a discussion of modernism and rationality). The last two centuries have witnessed major changes in how society is governed. Government and governmentality are connected closely with the emergence of certain types of knowledge and the exercise of particular types of power.

Government and Governmentality Major changes in how society is governed have affected key institutions in society, including the forms and functions of the family, and as a result have “reorganised the way in which people conceptualise who and what they are, as individuals” (Tait, 2000, p. 7). Changes that began with industrialization and are associated with modernity meant that the exercise of monarchical power shifted from exclusive concerns of the ruler to managing the population in precise ways. These new forms of government included detailed information about the population and its characteristics, and created many new categories of persons (the unemployed, the longterm criminal, teenage mothers, sole supporting parent, the behavior problem child, and so on). The management of the population now included direct and indirect intervention that was aimed at improving conditions as well as “managing its habits, aspirations and interests” (Tait, 2000, p. 9). Liberalism, a form of governing that differentiates between what should be governed and what should not, was instrumental in the management of the habits, aspirations, and interests of the population. Liberalism identified certain “areas of necessary state intervention from those of autonomy” (Tait, 2000, p. 9).


For example, liberalism defined the limits of government as responsibility for laws and criminal punishment, but not the economic marketplace or the family. Subtle, less direct forms of governance were used with families and raising children, and these are mechanisms or techniques of government that “operate at a distance” (Miller & Rose, 1990). Operating at a distance meant that government . . . administered the raising of children through the expertise associated with disciplines like family guidance, welfare, psychology, community medicine, counselling and pedagogy. In this way the family could at once be private and autonomous, while at the same time being regulated as an important site for instilling the capacities, aspirations and habits required of the population. (Tait, 2000, p. 9).

These new forms of government need to be differentiated from what is understood as governmentality. According to Dean (1999), government is about attempting to shape our behavior according to sets of norms that have a range of ends (p. 10). Tait (2000) argued that the new family is governed in ways that ensure it produces (willingly) “good and healthy future citizens” (p. 11). To study government then, one might focus on the regulation of families, children, teachers, parents, or a range of other things in society, but “only so far as the government of these things involves the attempt to shape rationally human conduct” (Dean, 1999, p. 11). The emphasis on rationality is significant, especially as it is connected to issues of morality and ethics. Government then is about practices of government (the practices used to conduct the conduct of others) but also about practices of the self, or one’s own conduct (Dean, 1999). Analyses of government seek to “connect questions of government, politics and administration to the space of bodies, lives, selves and persons” (Dean, 1999, p. 12). Governmentality is concerned with how power and the practices associated with power are connected to the formation of subjects. This is discussed further in the section about subjectivity.

Power–Knowledge–Resistance Foucault (1982) suggested that another possible route toward developing a new approach to understanding power relations was to start with resistance to different forms of power because where there is power, there is also resistance (Foucault, 1979). Resistance can be used to detect power relations, to “locate their position, and find out their point of application and methods used” (Foucault, 1982, p. 780). Resistances to power have particular characteristics: Their existence [power relationships] depends on a multiplicity of points of resistance: These play the role of adversary, target, support, or handle. . . .

62 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict Hence there is no single locus of all rebellions, no pure law of the revolutionary. Instead there is a plurality of resistances, each of them a special case: resistances that are possible, necessary, improbable; others that are spontaneous, savage, solitary, concerted, rampant, or violent; still others that are quick to compromise, interested, or sacrificial. . . . The points, knots, or focuses of resistance are spread over time and space at varying densities, at times mobilising groups or individuals in a definitive way, inflaming certain points of the body, certain moments in life, certain types of behavior. . . . But more often one is dealing with mobile and transitory points of resistance, producing cleavages in a society that shift about, fracturing unities and effecting regroupings, furrowing across individuals themselves, cutting them up and remoulding them. (Foucault, 1979, pp. 95–96)

Like power, the best place to begin an examination of resistance is in the everyday operation and routine application of power–knowledge–resistance. Investigating parent and child conflict shows that both children and parents can be adversaries and targets as well as allies, and that resistance in family life is spread over different times and spaces in varying densities, with different family members being assembled in different ways at different times and with different parts of their bodies. Family members at times can be supporters and at other times challengers, as power–knowledge– resistance relations shift about and alliances are fractured, family members regroup and realign themselves as their bodies are remoulded time and again. The main point here is that power and the effects of power–knowledge relationships are distributed and exercised unevenly (Foucault, 1980). This is particularly evident in families. Although Foucault (1982) did not talk about families in great depth, the type of struggles among family members mentioned above can be called “immediate” (p. 786). They are immediate because those to whom the resistance or opposition is directed are the immediate “enemy” and not the chief enemy. For children, parents are the immediate enemy. In immediate struggles there is no expectation to find a solution, as in some form of revolution or liberation. However, there is the possibility of empowerment. Children are in a unique position for several reasons, including the age factor, the immediate nature of the struggles in which they are positioned, and the state placing legal–juridical responsibility with parents to care for children. The analysis of immediate struggles is the substance of this book.

Disciplinary Power Disciplinary power endorses particular types of discourse and produces a variety of disciplinary practices. Foucault (1980) argued that rather than sovereign power, we now have disciplinary power. Instead of the authoritarian sovereign–subject relationship, we have a type of power (juridiciodiscursive) that is able to mask itself well enough to go almost undetected:


“Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms” (Foucault, 1981, p. 86). Disciplinary power acts in a way that conceals its authoritarian mode and works on people’s bodies and minds, “shaping how they behave and how they ‘see’ the world” (Danaher et al., 2000, p. 62). Institutions associated with disciplinary power emerged in nineteenth century in Europe. Disciplinary power was initially targeted at the working class, which was subjected to techniques of discipline in institutions such as prisons, hospitals, barracks, workshops, universities, and schools (Foucault, 1980). The techniques of discipline used in these institutions included methods of observation and surveillance, recording, regulation, calculation, and training. Because of the success of surveillance techniques used in prisons (such as the panopticon), similar approaches were used on society as a whole and people began to regulate and monitor themselves and their behavior according to what was considered normal. This is important because the regimes of knowledge that identify what is normal (and abnormal) are the ways in which power operates. All of these techniques were aimed at the process of individualization; that is, the “formation and control of individuals through training and normalization” (Smart, 1983, p. 110). Institutions such as schools and prisons had routine procedures including timetables that required inhabitants to comply and conform. Families also have routine practices that members are required to know and rules that are to be obeyed. These routine procedures are examples of the disciplinary power that operates in institutions as well as how disciplinary power works in ways that conceal its authoritarian or coercive mechanisms. Discipline refers to the idea of coercion or punishment, as well as the set of behaviors and knowledge that inhabitants must know to be able to inhabit the schoolroom successfully as a student, be a compliant prisoner, or a productive family member. The aim of disciplinary power is to regulate people through norms and turn individuals into obedient subjects. This is achieved through three mechanisms: • Hierarchical observation • Normalizing judgment • The examination. (Foucault, 1977) Disciplinary power aims at the creation of docile yet productive bodies that are constantly subjected to the law of normalization. This means that normative judgments are used to measure and monitor what people do and say, and how they behave. Constant, hierarchical observation allows normative judgments to be made. Society and each institution have sets of norms or rules on which judgments are made. The purpose of judging according to the established norms is to divide the normal from the abnormal. Chapter 2


has identified how this has happened in relation to parent and child conflict, specifically in relation to the identification of those who need treatment to return to being normal parents and children.

Discourses Discourse includes the type of language that is used in an institution such as a government department, field of knowledge (e.g., child development), schools, or families. The type of language associated with schools includes assessment, examination, test, literacy, numeracy, teacher, discipline, behavior, and so on. Discourses associated with parent and child conflict have been discussed in Chapter 2. These discourses endorse particular approaches to childrearing and use language to describe problematic child and parent behavior that includes the terms oppositional behavior, deviant, child resistance, and negativism. Each institution, as well as society, has sets of rules or norms that are associated with it. Foucault (1977) called these sets of rules or discourses regimes of truth. Discourses produce the possibility of certain behaviors and actions that are then adopted as “normal” for children and parents. Regimes of truth (or regimes of practice) produce “truths” that form the basis of operation of each institution. In regard to families, these truths or practices are frequently common sense or taken-for-granted understandings about what families should be and how they should operate. Often these common sense understandings are not questioned. For example, the regime of practice that accompanies parenthood implies knowledge, competence, and qualification to be a parent, and comes with a power (by virtue of being a parent) to impose unexplained, distorted, and confusing decisions on children (Cannella, 1997; Grieshaber, 1993). Such privileges remain unquestioned by most parents and society. According to Ingleby (1986), it is through regimes of truth (and practices) that society is regulated. Regimes of truth “construct the mentality, the aspirations, and the feelings of those they regulate” (p. 311). They are perpetuated through the operation of particular practices in family domesticity such as regular meal and sleeping times and the eternal processes of cleaning and tidying. Regimes of truth about appropriate childrearing techniques exercise a great deal of control over children’s bodies, health, education, and life in general. Subjectivity At the center of traditional discourses of psychology is a concept called “the subject.” The psychological subject, whether theorized as ego, actor, self, or “I,” is a common sense notion that our identity is the product of our “conscious self-governing self ” (Danaher et al., 2000, p. 44). This is problematic given the claim by poststructuralists and feminists that “the per-


sonal” itself, and not just particular kinds of persons, is not a natural phenomenon, but is formed by the discourses of psychology, allied disciplines, and institutions. Subjectivity therefore refers to the identity of individuals, where identity and identities are understood to be constructed by discourses, disciplinary power, and institutional practices, in conjunction with thought and self-reflection (Danaher et al., 2000). Thought, analysis, and self-reflection are ways in which persons can consider their positions as social subjects and “attempt to negotiate, and negotiate with, the social order” (Danaher et al., 2000, p. 44).“Thought and criticism, then, enable us to problematise—and, potentially transform— our subjectivity” (Danaher et al., 2000, p. 45). This suggests that people are able to make decisions about their subjectivity and that we are not totally at the mercy of discourse and disciplinary power. An understanding of these processes can lead to personal autonomy. However, a key point is that Regimes of government do not determine forms of subjectivity. They elicit, promote, facilitate, foster and attribute various capacities, qualities and statuses to particular agents. They are successful to the extent that these agents come to experience themselves through such capacities (e.g. of rational decision-making), qualities (e.g. as having a sexuality) and statuses (e.g. as being an active citizen). (Dean, 1999, p. 32; emphasis in original)

Sites of resistance and conflict hold the key for potential change to subjectivities, however, such possibilities depend entirely on individuals because “the success of a normalizing power also depends on the willing compliance of the subject who is the target of the technologies of normalization” (Henriques et al., 1984b, pp. 115–116). The “willing compliance” of the subject is the pivotal node: whether individuals comply, resist, remain neutral, or re-create, and the way in which this occurs provides ways of understanding how subjectivities are played out in daily life. Following Henriques et al. (1984b), I argue that conflict, resistance, and contradiction are “always-already inscribed” (p. 115) in power–knowledge relations, first, because of the way in which power is “invested in discourse,” and second, because “discursive practices produce, maintain or play out power relations” (p. 115). As opposed to a deterministic understanding, potential for change occurs in the struggles and resistance of power relations. In this way, power relations, discourse, and resistance are not essentialized, as power is seen as an effect of discourse (Henriques et al., 1984b, p. 115). In summary, power is understood as an integral part of the social relations in which persons are engaged on a daily basis. As part of the effects of power, these relationships can be negotiated, challenged, contested, resisted, endorsed and changed, depending on the circumstances. Discourses are political because power relationships construct ways of thinking, feeling,


being and acting (subjectivity, or how we become who we are) and define what can be said and done within any discursive framework. Particular discourses enable or constrain certain ways of being because of the way in which power relationships operate, and some discourses are more powerful politically than others because of their particular institutional affiliations. Persons can locate themselves in various discursive positions (multiple subjectivity) because subjectivity, language and meaning are never fixed. A principal concern in this book is governmentality, or how power and the practices associated with power are connected to the formation of subjects, namely parents and children in families.

Colonialism/Postcolonialism The colonial/postcolonial literature was a response to the imperialism of European countries such as Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal and the cultural exploitation (colonization) that has occurred in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific for the past few centuries. Postcolonial studies investigate how colonization has subjugated those who have been colonized, not only by physical force, but also by imposing specific regimes to civilize, create order, reform, and provide cultural “enlightenment” (Gandhi, 1998). Imperialism operated on the basis of a binary logic where “binary oppositions . . . establish a relation of dominance. A simple distinction between . . . colonizer/ colonizer; . . . civilized/primitive represents very efficiently the violent hierarchy on which imperialism is based” (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1998, p. 24). Those colonized were seen as primitive and needing to be civilized by the imperialists or colonizers. Although Foucault did not write specifically about colonialism, his ideas about how bodies are colonized are important in relation to the adult/child binary being explored here. The adult/child binary refers to the combination of two things, in this case adults and children, where a binary opposition “is the most extreme form of difference possible—sun/moon; man/ woman; birth/death; black/white” (Ashcroft et al., 1998, p. 23): adult/child. Developmental psychology understands children as the most extreme form of difference possible from adults, as requiring effective socialization so as to take their place as normal members of society. Techniques of surveillance combined with the regulation and training of bodies were used extensively in colonial rule as a way of trying to ensure that the colonized would turn from “savages” into “civilized” beings. Similarly, techniques of observation and surveillance have been used ad nauseum in developmental psychology as ways of monitoring children and ensuring that they follow the correct pathway to successful socialization.


The specific aspect of colonialism/postcolonialism I use concerns the difference between adults and children, and the position of children as “Other.” Young children occupy a relatively powerless position in society. In Chapter 2, I discussed how society and parents valued the successful socialization of children because parents are held responsible as authority figures for the effective socialization of their children. Children are positioned as minors without access to authority and as being problematic if adult authority is challenged on a regular basis. Another aspect of colonialism/postcolonialism that has relevance here also concerns the “Other.” The colonized subject, such as the child, is identified as “Other” through terms and ideas such as primitivism and naivety. Notions of primitivism and naivety are evident in developmental psychology. For example, in recapitulation theory (see Chapter 2) the child represents a primitive but adult ancestor (Gould, 1981). Also noted in Chapter 2 was Gould’s (1981) argument that recapitulation theory was used as a justification for imperialism. The naïve child, as an example of immaturity and inexperience, is depicted by lack of knowledge and competence. As in the Lockean tradition, the environment (particularly adults) plays a significant part in children becoming fully socialized adults. These ideas mark the territory of the colonized (the child) as primitive and naïve, and the colonizer (the adult), as experienced, mature, and sophisticated. Primitivism and naivety also assert the superiority of the (adult) colonizing culture and perspective over the colonized (child) (Ashcroft et al., 1998). In colonial discourse, “the subjectivity of the colonized is continually located in the gaze of the imperial Other” (Ashcroft et al., 1998, p. 171). This means first, that children gain a sense of their identity as “Other” from adults, but at the same time as dependent on adults. Second, it is highly likely that this relationship or framework of “Other” is the way in which children come to understand the world. This has led to the “creation of the adult, and the ‘other,’ the child, who in his [sic] Otherness, requires control and ‘structure’ “ (Viruru & Cannella, 1999, p. 5). This point is consistent with the literature considered in Chapter 2, where children who are at risk of not achieving normal socialization required control and structure through treatment programs aimed at remedying their behavior. From this perspective, errant parents could also be seen as “Other” in regard to the discourse of effective socialization of children. The value of colonial/postcolonial theory is that it can be applied to the situation of children and therefore offers an explanation of the way in which adults, such as parents and teachers, can colonize children. Virilio (in Danaher et al., 2000) talked about how Foucault was more concerned


with endo-colonialism than with exo-colonialism. Endo-colonialism is significant for this project because it is concerned with • “the way an internal territory is colonised” (p. 106) • Exo-colonialism is about how “other territories are colonised and brought within the control of an imperial power.” (p. 106) Endo-colonialism offers ways to consider how the internal territory of children is colonized by adults. The adult/child binary and endo-colonialism are closely linked to Foucault’s understanding of discourses, disciplinary power, and the gaze. Discourses, disciplinary power, and the gaze also play important parts in how children’s bodies are colonized. Like poststructuralist theorists, postcolonial theorists acknowledge the opportunity for subjectivity to be remade, and for postcolonial theorists this can occur within and across national borders. This acknowledgment of the fluid nature of identities endorses the continual ways in which identities change and alter according to contextual situations (Gandhi, 1998). So although children can be positioned as “Other” in terms of colonialism/postcolonialism, and the long-term effects of this are unknown (Viruri & Cannella, 1999), it is still possible for identities to be made and remade in various ways. Viruru and Cannella (1999) raise the issue of applying the term colonization to children, given that “they are in the unique position of being an ‘other’ who can become the ‘norm’ ” (p. 6). Children outgrow their status physically as minors but Viruru and Cannella (1999) ask whether children necessarily outgrow their experiences of colonization: “we question whether one can really outgrow prolonged experiences, directed by those who are in power over one, that treat one’s own perspectives as invalid and devoid of meaning” (p. 6). To sum up this section, children occupy a relatively powerless position in society and parents are charged with their successful socialization. This adult/child binary positions children as primitive and unknowing, and parents/adults as knowledgeable, competent, and mature. Children have a sense of identity that is constructed in the context of being other to adults, but dependent on adults. Although the enduring effects of this are unknown, in a way similar to feminist poststructuralism, there remain possibilities for identities to be created and re-created.

Feminist Poststructuralism Poststructuralist theory is often associated with Foucault’s ideas. Foucault proposed an understanding of power in society as relationships among people that are challenged, resisted, and negotiated in daily life. As dis-


cussed previously, this differs significantly from sovereign power that was exercised by kings and queens. Feminist theories had their origins in the absence of women and women’s experiences in explanations provided by social theories such as liberalism and Marxism. Because social theorists have assumed that what is true for men is also true for women, feminist theories question assumptions that are made about women in general and that are portrayed as being true. Feminist poststructuralism combines feminist interests with issues of power and makes no general assumptions that are supposed to be true for all men, women, children, wives, and husbands. Instead, it recognizes that there are many ways to be a woman, man, girl, or boy, but there are preferred or dominant ways (sometimes called stereotypes) of being masculine and feminine. It is these preferred ways of being masculine (strong and aggressive) and being feminine (caring, nurturing, and submissive) that limit the ways we engage in our daily lives. There is great pressure on girls, boys, women, and men to adopt the dominant forms of masculinity and femininity in society. The way that girls and boys and men and women engage in this process and adopt, reject, combine, or re-create various ways of being masculine and feminine is the substance of subjectivity. As a theory, feminist poststructuralism has been explained by Weedon (1997) and used to investigate gender in a variety of contexts that include families (Grieshaber, 1998, 2001; Simpson, 1999; Walkerdine & Lucey, 1989), children in nursery school (Walkerdine, 1981), preschool and school aged children (Davies, 1989, 1993; Kamler, Maclean, Reid, & Simpson, 1994; Reid, 1999), and early childhood teachers (MacNaughton, 1998, 2000). It is the combination of feminist concerns with issues of power that feminist poststructuralism confronts. This is particularly useful for analyses of family situations, as patriarchy is often a characteristic of family and social life. Patriarchy refers to power relations in which women’s interests are subordinated to the interests of men. These power relations take many forms, from the sexual division of labour and the social organization of procreation to the internalised norms of femininity by which we live. Patriarchal power rests on the social meanings given to biological sexual difference. In patriarchal discourse, the nature and social role of women are defined in relation to a norm which is male. (Weedon, 1997, p. 2)

Feminist poststructuralism is useful as a tool for understanding not only patriarchy, but also relationships of power and how they are played out in daily life in families and other institutions. Through feminist poststructuralism it is possible to build understanding about the complexities of life in families and the intersections among ethnicity, gender, class, physical size, and age that criss-cross daily life.


Feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis is undertaken in later chapters for the purpose of “’taking apart’ and critically reflecting” (MacNaughton, 1998, p. 158) on the “social beliefs and practices” (p. 158) associated with parent and child conflict. In addition, the analyses examine “our emotional investments in them [the social beliefs and practices associated with parent and child conflict] and the contribution of social institutions to beliefs, practices and emotions. Through such ‘taking apart’ we learn how social relations work, whose interests they work for and how we might do them differently” (p. 158). That is, it is possible to examine discourses that govern what can be said, by who, to whom, when and where it can be said, and for what purposes it can be said (Weedon, 1997). Feminist poststructuralists understand identities to be created and re-created in interactions with others (MacNaughton, 2000). Feminist poststructuralism makes visible the power and gender relations that occur in families, something that is not possible within the child development paradigm.

Gender as Performative In her analysis of gender, feminism, and identity, Judith Butler (1990, 1993) drew on and extended a numbers of theorists’ views. Although Butler’s position has been heavily critiqued (e.g., Hood-Williams & Harrison, 1998; Nelson, 1999; Mills, 2000) and Connell (2000) has said that her work is unable to account for “work, child care, institutional life, violence, resistance (except as an individual choice) and material inequality” (p. 20), I want to keep the space around resistance and individual choice open as it offers possibilities for understanding gendered conflict in families. My purpose here is to set out Butler’s ideas about gender and performativity and indicate how they are used later in the analysis of parent and child conflict as it occurred in the four families. Butler explained that “doing gender” involves repetition: “Gender is the repeated stylisation of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being” (p. 33). I understand the highly rigid regulatory frame as the dominant discourses or norms of masculinity and femininity, which can change over time but appear to be naturally occurring. According to Nelson (1999), performativity means “resignification through performance that is regulated by dominant discourses” (p. 339). “Doing gender,” then, is about repeating, performing, or reiterating those dominant discourses at appropriate moments so that it appears to be a normal and natural part of everyday life. However, what Butler is saying is that there is no “real” or “true” sense of gender, only constructions of truth


that make gender look like it is normal and natural. Boldt’s (1997) explanation of the situation with children in her classroom is instructive here: “that my students experience, describe, and attempt to act out unified, consistent genders does not mean that such genders exist; rather, it indicates their participation in and reiteration of systems of power relations that produce us all as gendered subjects” (p. 194). This also means that in everyday life there are times when we perform gender according to gender norms and there are times when we do not, that is, we do not reiterate stereotypical performances. Although many of us engage on a daily basis in repeated stylizations of our bodies (such as women adopting warm, sensitive approaches to being mothers; boys playing rough and tumble games), we are taking on gender norms that are the effects of power–knowledge relations. Deviations from gender norms are immediately recognizable and usually the target of attention. This is especially so with young children, particularly in social settings such as families, schools, and kindergartens. Normal ways of “doing gender” are pervasive in “Western” societies and range from stereotypical toys provided for girls and boys who eat “Happy meals” from the hamburger chain MacDonald’s, to the overcrowding of the media with images of masculinity and femininity drawn from dominant discourses. Like the binary oppositions explored earlier, gender functions on a similar premise: an understanding of masculinity as aggression and strength is countered by femininity as timid and weak. Children learn quite early how they are supposed to “do gender” by providing the “right” answers and enacting the “right” postures. The data provide examples of the ways in which this happened in the four families.

Masculinities and the Heterosexual Matrix Connell (1995) understands everyday life as an “arena of gender politics” (p. 3). His work, as well as that of Davies (1996), has defined hegemonic masculinity as the dominant discourses of masculinity that are used to position men more powerfully than women and girls. Connell (1995) says that other discourses of masculinity exist (beside hegemonic masculinities), and that they are not homogeneous entities. His more recent work discusses multiple masculinities, hierarchy and hegemony in masculinities, the fact that masculinities change, and that the various versions of masculinity are themselves complex and contradictory (Connell, 2000). Lately, men’s bodies have also become a focus, particularly in regard to health, sport, recreation, and fatherhood. The definition of hegemonic masculinity as discourses that are used to position men more powerfully than women and girls indicates the close


connection between dominant or hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy. Generally speaking, patriarchy means “male control of the structures of society” (Wearing, 1996, p. 39). However, patriarchy as a concept has been criticized because it fails to take differences among women (such as class and ethnicity) into account (Walby, 1990). It also fails to take differences among men into account, as some men gain greater benefits from patriarchy than others. Critiques of patriarchy have resulted in some not using the term anymore. For example, those writing feminist poststructuralist analyses talk about “phallocentrism,” which “denotes the male control of language, symbols, definitions, discourses, sexuality, theory and logocentric thinking (the idea that truth has an origin)” (Wearing, 1996, p. 39). Wearing (1996) thinks that patriarchy is still useful as an umbrella term because it signals “male dominance at all levels of society” (p. 23). However, Wearing agrees that such recognition should acknowledge “the many and varied forms that such dominance can take in societies where “male” and “female” are neither stable nor unified” (p. 23). In his recent work Connell (2002) has turned the notion of patriarchy around, looking at the advantages to men rather than the cost to women of patriarchy. He calls this the “patriarchal dividend” (p. 142), which he defines as the “advantage to men as a group from maintaining an unequal gender order” (p. 142). Beside money, the patriarchal dividend has other advantages: “authority, respect, service, safety, housing, access to institutional power, and control over one’s life” (p. 142). Although some men benefit more than other men from the patriarchal dividend (and this difference is based on class), women who are married to wealthy men can also benefit. Connell (2002) notes that some groups of men can be excluded from the patriarchal dividend: “Thus gay men, broadly speaking, are excluded from the authority and respect attached to men who embody hegemonic forms of masculinity” (p. 142). Connell (2000) has suggested a four-fold model for the analysis of gender relations that includes • • • •

power relations the division of labor emotional relations symbolism.

For Connell (2000), power relations constitute patriarchy. Wearing (1996) has pointed out that institutions that support the capitalist economic system, such as education, the church, the legal system, and the media, also uphold the patriarchal nature of society. Connell’s (2000) second point, the division of labor, is explained as attending to the economic consequences of capitalist economies, where men accrue unequal shares (the


patriarchal dividend). According to Wearing (1996), economic power in Australian society is dependent on the relationship to the means of production, which continues to relegate women to the domestic sphere. Wearing also raises the issue that “class” interests are “being served by the definition of women as ‘natural’ nurturers and carers of children and that dominant males of the bourgeoisie, and the State have the power to define women as such” (p. 75). This is compounded by the ideology of motherhood that pervades all levels of Australian society and the way in which motherhood and femininity are entangled so that “a woman’s sense of femininity is entwined with the potential (or actuality) of motherhood” (Wearing, 1996, p. 85). Connell’s (2000) third point emphasizes that emotional relations should be consensual (not coercive) and that pleasure should be given and received equally (p. 25). Patriarchy at all levels of society makes this a challenge for men and women, given hegemonic ideas about masculinity (and its opposite, femininity) and the ways in which these dominant forms are displayed in the media and continue to be played out in institutions such as the church and the state. The final point by Connell (2000) is about the communicative symbolism of gender relations, where differences are often portrayed as oppositions or binaries and gender is presented strongly through “dress, makeup, body culture, gesture, tone of voice” (p. 26). Butler’s (1990) term, the heterosexual matrix, is a useful way of understanding how many of these material effects are entwined. The heterosexual matrix designates . . . that grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized . . . to characterize a hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality. (p. 151)

Along with notions of masculinities, the concept of the heterosexual matrix is useful for analyzing parent and child conflict in the context of the family. The prevailing family form, the nuclear family born of capitalism, is based on ideas of compulsory heterosexuality where the masculine is located as dominant and powerful (the wage earner) and opposite to the feminine (nurturer and carer of children). To work properly, the heterosexual matrix, comprising the bodies, genders, and desires associated with the masculine and feminine in the nuclear family, has become naturalized so that it appears as though there is a stable sex expressed through a stable gender. Investigating parent and child conflict in daily life shows how the conditions of the heterosexual matrix are both contested and sustained in complex ways.


Conclusions In this chapter I have explained Foucault’s theory of power–knowledge and maintained that the social relations that are lived in the four families are relations of power. Resistance, in combination with Foucault’s ideas about power–knowledge, is also important for analyzing parent and child conflict in daily domesticity. Feminist poststructuralism adds a gender dimension to the power–knowledge–resistance blend, as do Butler’s theories of gender as performativity and the concept of the heterosexual matrix. Along with patriarchy, masculinities and hegemonic masculinity add strength to an analysis of the workings of families, particularly those operating on the basis of the heterosexual matrix. Colonial/postcolonial theory is drawn on to understand the way in which children can be positioned as “Other” or opposite to adults, as primitive or naive, and as objects to be civilized and socialized. In later chapters I use combinations of these theories in an attempt to display the complexity of family lives and the ways that parent and child conflict was played out in the four families. For most of the past century, parent and child conflict has been investigated via psychology, and mostly developmental psychology. As a result, children, parents, and families have been regulated by dominant discourses of childrearing and parenting, and pathologized if they have failed to perform according to accepted norms. This chapter has focused on how parent and child conflict might be retheorized to understand the complexity of family lives in ways that move beyond the limitations of biological and dualistic theories. It aims to show the dynamic interactions and interrelationships that are involved in parent and child conflict that result from the interplay of power, gender, and multiple subjectivities. In the four families, it was very difficult to separate conflict, power, gender, and subjectivity. The question is, how do parents and children “do subjectivity and identities” in the various discursive contexts and processes that constitute their daily family lives? How are gender, age, physical size, sexuality, and class constituted and enacted by family members in relation to other people, other institutions, and institutional practices? In an attempt to come to terms with these questions, this chapter was designed to introduce the theory that will be used for analysis in later chapters. This analysis includes the following: • Exploring the gendered effects of parent and child conflict, and how family members made sense of it. • Investigating the creation and re-creation of gendered power relations between parents and children (boys and girls). • Examining how institutions and daily practices normalize and regulate parenting and childrearing.


• Considering the limitations placed on family members because of their gender, class, physical size, ethnicity, and ability. • Exploring the emotional costs and benefits for parents and children of their ways of being. • Identifying the ways of being masculine and feminine that are used in daily domesticity. • Examining the regimes of practice (truth) that are operating in the lives of the families. • Asking questions of the regimes of practice (truth) that are operating in families: “What is this truth? Who benefits form this truth? In whose interest is this truth? Who gains power through this truth? (MacNaughton, 2000, p. 175). • Interrogating understandings of childhood innocence (from parents and children) and how these understandings are used to perpetuate gendered practices. Although rules generated by parents and other influential adults such as teachers appear to have their origins in regimes of truth, they are neither “truths” as such, nor “finished products.” All rules invoked by adults are therefore open to interpretation. Part of this study involves demonstrating that children have a different understanding of the rule propositions of adults. That is, they occupy different subject positions from adults because the normalization (power–knowledge) process is incomplete. The positioning of children in alternative discourses from adults creates resistance to the power–knowledge–normalization synthesis. Following resistance to adult-generated rules, the process of normalization can produce conflict between parents and children.

CHAPTER

4

Researching with Families

This study was undertaken to investigate parent and child conflict from the perspectives of power, gender, and subjectivity in the context of daily family life. The methodological ways in which the research was undertaken with the families is discussed in this chapter, beginning with some brief details about the pilot study. This is followed by a discussion of how the families opened their lives to the scrutiny of a video camera that recorded intimate aspects of their daily domestic life. The chapter also considers how the families came to participate in the study, how entry to the homes was negotiated, as well as data collection methods and analysis techniques.

Locating the Terrain: The Pilot Study The research began with a pilot study as a preliminary exercise to model and check data collection methods (Janesick, 1998) and as a way of having parents identify issues concerning parent and child conflict. It was anticipated that the issues parents identified could be explored further, particularly those that were noted consistently. The pilot study consisted of unstructured interviews (Cannold, 2001; Morse, 1998; Silverman, 2000) with twenty mothers undertaken mostly in their homes, although three women were interviewed at their place of employment. The twenty respondents answered an advertisement in a free local suburban newspaper and interviews were arranged through a follow-up phone call. No males responded. Audiotaped interviews of approximately one to one and one half hours duration identified respondents’ views about situations that caused conflict between themselves and their children aged four or five

77


years. All children in the pilot study were attending a noncompulsory year of preschool education and were aged four or five. The pilot study interviews pointed to a core of events that consistently produced conflicts for many of the mothers, including bedtimes, tidying toys, clothes, and dressing, television viewing, food selection and consumption, and shopping (Grieshaber, 1993). All mothers wanted their children to behave in a variety of socially acceptable ways. However, all mothers stated that their children did not always do this and so there was potential for conflict to arise. In an effort to have children behave acceptably, most mothers admitted to using bribes and punishment as part of daily life. I used the observations and analyses from the pilot study to further investigate the relationship between expectations concerning compliance from young children and how these might become regimes of practice (truth) in the child development discourses of childrearing, parenting, and mothering. The conflict and contradictions evident in the pilot study data paved the way for probing how discourses of childrearing, parenting, and mothering are sites of daily struggle and resistance for young children and their parents. Analysis of the pilot study data indicated a need to observe and record the daily routines of families in which some conflict-producing situations occurred. On this basis, I decided to record family routines such as breakfast, the evening meal, bathtime, bedtime, getting ready for school, depositing and collecting children from school, and weekend activities. For the families, these routines represented potential conflict situations.

Selecting Families and Negotiating Access Involvement in this study would make great demands on participant families by asking them to allow a stranger to come into their homes for considerable periods of time to document large chunks of their lives. I thought the establishment of trustworthiness between researcher and participants would take some time to develop (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998; Punch, 1998), but was a secondary consideration given that I had identified the major task as negotiating access to a number of homes in order to undertake the project. I hoped that some degree of trustworthiness had been established at the pilot study interviews, making access a little less difficult than originally imagined. Consideration was given to several matters when selecting the families. These included the gender of the target child, position in the family of the target child, size of family, socioeconomic status, and the perceived willingness of the family to participate. The latter consideration was significant as

Researching with Families • 79

it was those families with whom I felt some degree of rapport had been developed during the pilot study interview who were approached initially. I selected four families from the original twenty respondents interviewed for the pilot study. These families were approached in writing and were given a brief idea of the amount of time to be spent with the family, the use of the video (Silverman, 2000) and audio recording devices (one VHS video camera was utilized to record daily domestic activity and one minicassette recorder was used to record parental self-reflections), and the types of routines that it was considered necessary to record. The families were asked to consider the request in light of the information given in the letter. A follow-up phone call several days later enabled each family some time to consider the request. I used the phone call to have each family indicate willingness or otherwise to participate in the project. One family declined and as a result another was approached. The mother who declined stated she would be uncomfortable and uneasy with a video camera in the house. Two families with boys and two families with girls were selected and all target children were the same age. Some consideration was given to diversity among the families in relation to socioeconomic status. By the time the recorded observation of daily family routines began, all four children were about to begin their first year of compulsory schooling. Between 25 and 35 hours was spent observing and recording in each family setting, resulting in approximately 114 hours total observation time. The time that elapsed from initial contact with each family for the pilot study interview to the conclusion of the data collection period was approximately twelve months. In each family setting the period of contact for data collection ranged from nine to seventeen weeks. This time span was considered sufficient to observe and record a wide range of activity. Following the pilot study interviews and the agreement of the families to participate in the project, I arranged visits with each family at a variety of routine times. Both audio and video equipment were taken to each session, which usually lasted between two and three hours. I visited each family a minimum of ten times, including the pilot study visit. One item of recording equipment was working most of the time during each visit, although interesting conversations did occur when the recording devices were not operating. This often happened as I was about to depart and was engaging in informal conversation with the parent(s) concerning the visit just completed and making arrangements for the next visit. I began to keep the small audio recorder in an accessible position so that comments could be recorded at short notice without drawing attention to the device, or interrupting the flow of conversation. Visiting patterns were different for


each family as I tried to blend in with routine family activities. Continued visits were made at a particular time if that time was found to bring the target child into conflict with either siblings or parents. For example, Amy tended to be very slow in the morning getting ready for school. This often created tension and sometimes conflict between Amy and her mother. For this reason, several early morning visits were made to Amy’s family to observe the routine. The decision regarding the overall length of time spent in each setting and the timing of visits to each setting was something that depended largely on the feedback I received from parents at the conclusion of each session. At the outset, I indicated that the approximate number of visits required for each family was five, but this was extended because of the positive response by parents and children to the visits. I made decisions about forthcoming sessions in consultation with parents at the conclusion of each visit, and usually plans were made for the next session only. For each family this worked effectively. Parents tended to be reluctant to plan too far ahead because of factors such as sickness and other unexpected events that often occur with young children. Originally I had hoped that visits could occur on a weekly basis for each family, and that familiarity and ease with the camera would gradually develop. However, weekly visits with each family were not always possible, although regular weekly visits (some more frequently than once per week) were made initially with each family. Again, this depended entirely on the family concerned.

Gathering Data This study involved a search for meanings embedded in contexts that are characterized by the complex interplay of a number of discourses. It centered on life lived in four families, the foci of which were interactions depicting conflict between the child aged five years in each family, his or her parents and siblings, and the self-reflection of parents. Four families played a participatory, intimate, and collaborative role over a period of several months while the data were being collected. Despite an attempt to maintain the “wholeness” as well as complexity of the natural setting, studying and analyzing every aspect of domestic practice and interaction are impossible. A fitting alternative was to focus on a selected aspect of family life, while at the same time attempting to retain a holistic perspective (Marcus, 1998). In following this course of action I had to make some concessions. Patton (1980, p. 136) acknowledged the necessity of trade-offs and compromises because of limited resources and time. Subsequently, the following aspects were selected for focused analysis:


• The interactions that occurred between parents and their children aged five years during times of conflict or noncompliance. • The interactions that occurred between parents, the target children, and their siblings during times of conflict or noncompliance. • The self-reflections of parents. Discussions about events that had caused conflict were often used (but not always) as the basis of parental self-reflection. Conflict events were helpful in assisting parents to reflect and reconstruct experience and the discussions were used as a basis for understanding the meanings those situations held for them. Parent and child conflict can occur between all possible combinations of parents and children (for example, between one parent and one child, among more than one child and one parent, or more than one parent). Parent and child conflict generally consisted of four components: argument/ disagreement, conflict, opposition, and silence. Argument and/or disagreement meant a discussion or debate in which reasons for and against something were stated and included verbal and nonverbal modes of communication. Conflict is about fighting, clashing, resisting, struggling, or engaging in an emotional disagreement and introduces the possibility of physical action in combination with verbal and nonverbal means. Opposition refers to the action of opposing the feelings or ideas of a group or individual and incorporates antagonism and resistance, but like argument/disagreement, does not include physical conflict. Both opposition and argument/disagreement can develop into physical conflict. Silence can be very powerful in parent and child conflict and is a way in which opposition and resistance can be expressed. Nonverbal modes of communication include facial and body gestures such as poking tongues and threatening to smack with a raised hand. Conflict is an indication that physical contact has been made, for example, in the form of restraining movements such as holding, or more overt movements such as slapping and kicking. For the purposes of data collection, the conflict ended when there was a resolution or when all forms of activity (including nonverbal communication) ceased. Video equipment was used to record everyday domestic interaction and from these data, episodes of parent and child conflict were extracted. Audio recordings contained conversations, parental self-reflections, and other aspects of life that could not easily be recorded using the video equipment. For example, I used the small tape recorder when accompanying parents and children into the classroom, as no permission had been sought to video record classroom activities. The video recorder was kept running continuously and when it was not, the audio tape recorder was used. I followed the target child and, where possible, the parent at the same time. As an aid to attaching meaning to the targeted episodes, other


relevant information from the parents was also collected using both the audio and video equipment.

Participant Observation A participant observation (Burgess, 1984) approach was used, where the researcher “participates as well as observes by developing relationships with informants” (p. 81). Atkinson and Hammersley (1998) refer to participant observation as a “mode of being-in-the-world characteristic of researchers” (p. 111). I discussed frequently with participants the nature of the research and regularly invited children and parents to ask questions about aspects that were of concern or interest to them. Because researchers are both “shaped by” and “shapers of our world” (Lather, 1991, p. 269), my intrusion immediately altered the research site to an unknown degree. Likewise, I was also subject to change in accordance with varying sites and different respondents. Participants too chose what they would reveal and what remained undisclosed (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). I wanted to be open and honest with participants about the purposes of the research (as is suggested by Lincoln & Guba, 1985) for a number of reasons. I felt I would be accepted more readily into participants’ homes if this were the case, and I also wanted parents to have the opportunity to engage in reflection. In addition, I believed that families needed to be made aware of their right to question the process and purposes of the research at any time. As the object was to observe everyday domestic events while causing as little disruption as possible, the development of a trusting relationship with the participants was vital. Burgess (1984) indicated that trusting relationships are evidenced by the researcher blending into the setting, thus enabling the observation of daily life as well as the collection of accounts from informants. One of the major advantages of participant observation is that the researcher is free to move wherever there is action relevant to the investigation (Ochsner, 2001; Roy, 1970). I found such a position beneficial when recording action and dialogue that occurred while transporting children to and from school, observing afterschool mathematics lessons, and recording events at BMX meetings. Although speaking about classrooms, I agree with LeCompte and Goetz (1984) that any observation inevitably involves a degree of participation, and with Oschner (2001) who points out the variations that can occur in the role of participant observer. However, physical participation was restricted to some degree because I was also responsible for operating the video and audio recording equipment. This is not to deny that my presence can be construed as participation. Burgess (1984) explained that the researcher cannot adopt and maintain one style throughout a project. Rather, several dispositions are adopted and developed throughout an investigation, depending on the nature of


the exchange taking place between researcher and participants (Olesen & Whittaker, 1968). This means that dispositions are continually “negotiated and renegotiated with different informants throughout a research project” (Burgess 1984, p. 85). Although participant observation was selected for this project, there were different phases associated with this practice over a period of time (Ochsner, 2001). The different phases were determined by the ease with which I was able to develop a trusting relationship with each family, and the duration between visits. One of the roles I adopted was limited participation with the children. This was due to the fact that operating the video camera required two hands and an awareness of what was happening that was not being filmed. This was not a major concern, as involvement with the children may have obstructed the everyday sequence of events to a far greater degree than the personal and technological intrusion. For this reason, there was little interaction with the children while the recording equipment was activated. I did, however, feel it necessary to develop some rapport with the children. Previous personal experience had shown that a genuine interest in the children could make parents more accepting of an adult in the role in which I was cast. Therefore, interaction with children often occurred before or after the recording sessions on an informal basis. Participating families knew that I worked at a university and came to know that I had previously worked as an early childhood educator. I wanted to avoid the possibility of being seen as “teacher” by family members, but to some extent this was not possible, especially as time passed and trusting relationships developed. The likelihood of conflict occurring influenced my decision about interacting fully with the children. As an experienced early childhood educator, I was aware that any disputes occurring among the children with whom I was conversing meant that I would probably feel compelled to deal with them. As the purpose of the investigation was to analyze the interactions that occurred in conflict situations with parents, siblings, and the target child, I felt that limited participation would be the most appropriate. Full participation with the children would have produced an even greater ongoing constraint to everyday domestic interaction and practice than did my intrusion and that of the recording equipment. Another reason for choosing this somewhat limited stance was that I needed to be free to move quickly if the target child moved, such as from the sandpit to inside the house. The degree of mobility required and the necessity to move quickly meant that while recording was in progress, conversations with children were avoided where possible. The children soon became used to my failure to initiate conversation while operating the video camera, and after the settling in period only occasionally asked about things when the video camera was operating. However, this varied with each child and family, as some children tended to use any available adult as a source of reference and


help whenever it was needed. On occasions such as the latter, assistance was rendered if it was felt to be necessary, for example, if the children’s safety was an issue. Other events also occurred in which it was impossible to maintain a lack of involvement. For instance, sometimes parents demanded to know from other children where a particular child was, as she or he was wanted for a misdemeanor. If the other children said they did not know, the parent often referred to me for information. As it was perceived to be important for research purposes to know where the children were, I found it difficult not to tell the parents the whereabouts of a child when such situations occurred (after all I was a guest in their house). Operating the video camera meant that it was necessary to scan the room constantly to keep track of where participants were. This sometimes resulted in eye contact with parents or children in moments of stress and pressure, with a noticeable difference often perceived when eye contact was actually made. Sometimes the difference was a slight hesitation on the part of the parent when she realized we had made eye contact; at other times eye contact lasted for a few seconds and interrupted the flow of words from the parent. It is difficult to determine whether these instances had any effect on the outcome of the situation at hand. On a very few occasions eye contact between an enraged parent and myself caused the parent to hesitate and possibly alter what was going to be said or done. Likewise, on a small number of occasions two parents (Toni and Eloise), when frustrated with children, altered their positions by making comments similar to “Oh good, that’s just what Sue wants to record, you not doing what you’re asked to!” Upon reflection, both parents indicated after making such comments that they saw it as a way of relieving temporary frustration and as an attempt to have the child comply with the request that had been made. Eye contact with children in moments of stress seemed to be less frequent than with parents. However, Bradley in particular would often grin at me if we made eye contact during these times. Again, it was difficult to determine the effect. Although I tried to avoid eye contact with both parents and children in moments of stress, it was not altogether possible. My role as a participant observer then was mixed. As a responsive adult when with children, it was difficult to remain restrained, especially in stressful situations such as those involving parents and children shouting at one another and when children demonstrated tantrum behavior. In some circumstances it was a traumatic experience to remain in the same house, as parents and children tried to sort out their differences.

Unstructured Interviews I also explored parental perceptions of self and beliefs about children, education, and families through a combination of self-reflection and unstruc-


tured interviews (Cannold, 2001). Unstructured interviews were used with parents to learn about childrearing practices, reasons for acting in particular ways in response to children, how decisions were made relating to discipline and other relevant matters, as well as personal beliefs about parenting. These conversations were mostly parental self-reflections but on occasion they were discussions that encompassed these topics. Parental self-reflections/conversations were audiotaped and my observations were used as a basis for introducing ideas for discussion and self-reflection. For example, to clarify the reason for a parent acting the way she had on a previous visit, I would refer to the incident in question and pose my understanding of the event. The parent would then respond with a confirmation or correction of my perceptions. Often this would develop into a discussion that would lead to the clarification of other events, beliefs, and values. As Morse (1998) says, the researcher can use “subsequent interviews to obtain more targeted information and fill gaps left by the earlier interviews” (p. 74). These interviews could be considered what Burgess (1984) called “conversation with a purpose” (p. 102). The relationship that can develop between researchers and participants in unstructured interviews can involve friendship, interest, understanding, and sympathy within the bounds of confidentiality (Burgess, 1984, p. 103). Unstructured interviews are characterized by features such as repeated face-toface encounters where informants tell their own stories in their own words (Morse, 1998; Taylor and Bogdan, 1998). According to Burgess (1984), an organizational framework for unstructured interviews is necessary and researchers must have some prior knowledge before individuals will be prepared to share details of their lives (p. 103). For the latter reason, parental reflections were not begun on the first visit. Instead I planned for a familiarization time, where family members and I could become accustomed to each other. This was followed by the introduction of parental reflection sessions. These sessions usually occurred after the second or third visit, depending on how the relationship with the family was developing. A flexible format was vital for these sessions (Cannold, 2001), and it was important that participants had opportunities to direct and control the conversation. During the parental self-reflection sessions I found that once a couple of key ideas were introduced, parents usually discussed most of the things on my mental list with very little direction. Because I did not want parents to see a list of topics that I thought should be discussed during these times, I made a mental note from my written notes (obtained while viewing the video or listening to the audiotapes from the previous session). As time progressed and I came to know the families well, I found it was not necessary to make written notes as I could remember significant events from the preceding visit. If there was a delay of several weeks between visits, sometimes notes were again necessary.


Parental self-reflection sessions also showed characteristics of what has been called in-depth interviewing. A high level of rapport can develop between researcher and participants simply because there is no specific information to be drawn from informants. Although parental reflection sessions were similar to in-depth interviews described by Taylor and Bogdan (1998), they were more than this. They were mostly times when the participant(s) (generally mothers, but sometimes mother and father) and I shared, on a seemingly equal footing, intimate knowledge particular to both our families and their daily operation. Because of the rapport that developed during the visits it was difficult not to become involved with the families. Oakley (1981) has argued that within the confines of traditional sociological interview techniques, becoming involved with informants is regarded as some form of “personal degeneracy” (p. 41). For me, a constant source of interest, surprise, and intrigue was the depth of feeling and intimate nature of information that participants were prepared to share so freely during these conversations/reflections. Finch (1984) has related a similar experience and drawn attention to the “unhelpful” nature of the patriarchal interviewing framework for conducting research with women. Both Oakley (1981) and Finch (1984) have indicated that it is difficult if not impossible to control the relationship between participants and researcher when using unstructured interviews, but at the same time acknowledge that the development of trust and confidence with participants is essential. Hence, to Oakely (1981), there is “no intimacy without reciprocity” (p. 49). I think participants kept welcoming me into their homes because of the relationships that developed and the fact that conflict between parents and children is portrayed in the parent advice literature as a concern. Relationships that developed were due in part to use of an unstructured interviewing framework, and partly because parents gained some personal satisfaction from the conversations/reflections, that is, because of the development of reciprocity between the participants and myself. Oakley (1981) has acknowledged that the development of reciprocity hinges on “being sensitive not only to those questions that are asked (by either party) but to those that are not asked” (p. 49). Parents were more likely to reveal intimate information if I did not ask too many questions. By listening actively, providing an appropriate amount of feedback, and demonstrated interest, parents (of their own volition) provided rich family histories and detailed accounts of familial relationships and problems encountered in daily domestic interaction and practice. In one family the teenage daughter was aware of the intimate nature of what her mother was revealing, and on several occasions cautioned her mother about discussing such matters with me. Despite this, the mother did not heed her daughter’s advice.


Lather’s (1986) understanding of reciprocity “implies give-and-take, a mutual negotiation of meaning and power” (p. 263). As I became aware of this, details of the family life I had experienced when growing up were revealed at appropriate times. This occurred mostly when events similar to those I had experienced as a child had also occurred in the participating family, or when I was asked. Emphasis was also placed on informally commenting about my own living routines. For example, discussions included the type of activities in which I was engaged while at work and during leisure times. Divulging information in a casual way such as this resulted in family members often making inquiries about my home and work life and particularly about my intentions for a family myself. These were ways in which I attempted to reduce the power inequities between those I was researching and myself. Although Oakley (1999) has said that “Power inequalities between researcher and researched are politically unacceptable” (p. 160), this is an area of great complexity and is not easily resolved, as Cannella (1997) has claimed that researchers using approaches informed by poststructuralist theory accept that the research process itself privileges the researcher. The give-and-take that Lather (1986, 1991) talked about also manifested itself in other ways. For example, I was invited to and attended family celebrations such as birthday parties and weekend outings and to see newly born pups. These informal visits were not recorded (at the request of some participants) and were undertaken on the basis of developing the greatest possible familiarity with the families. I was also invited to share meals with all families (and did so with all except one), and joined parents for coffee on a regular basis. My initial hesitation toward accepting such invitations was based on the powerful impact of years of reading sociological and educational psychology research that is dominated by patriarchal frameworks. I was afraid of slipping into the degeneracy brought about by involvement with participants (Oakley, 1981). Despite these fears and reservations, I followed my inclinations and attended what I wanted and what I felt was appropriate. In retrospect, I believe my actions enhanced reciprocity, that is, the mutual negotiation of meaning and power that Lather (1986, 1991) discussed. The parents (and in particular the women) considered my presence a good opportunity for sharing with another woman. This was something they enjoyed and were not used to as part of their daily routine. On a number of occasions remarks were made to the effect that there was no one else with whom these women could discuss the type of things that were revealed not only in the self-reflection sessions, but during the visit itself. For example, a comment by Rita reflected feelings that several parents had voiced: “I don’t talk about these things with anybody else—nobody else is


interested in knowing these things and you don’t want to go on about your own kids and problems all day.” Finch (1984) has recorded a similar experience and suggested three reasons that she thinks women so freely share such intimate information. The first is that women are “more used than men to accepting intrusions through questioning into the more private parts of their lives” (p. 74). For example, doctors, health care visitors, midwives, and others responsible for providing home care and maintenance services regularly make such intrusions. Second, the location of interviews in the homes of the women is conducive to the development of informal but intimate conversation and enables the interviewer to act as a friendly guest. Third, Finch (1984) says that the structural position of women, “in particular their consignment to the privatised, domestic sphere (Stacey, 1981), makes it particularly likely that they will welcome the opportunity to talk to a sympathetic listener” (p. 74). Mothers were keen to discuss their children’s behavior, indicating major events that had occurred since the last visit and how situations had been handled, and often giving reasons as to why the children had behaved the way they had. The video camera was inhibiting during parental self-reflections and parents (mothers) were more prone to discuss intimate feelings and details about relationships within and among family members when the video camera was switched off. Consequently, much valuable data were collected using the small audio cassette player, placed unobtrusively near where the discussion occurred (which was usually over coffee). Participants also tended to ask questions about other families involved in the study and, when answering, the similarities between family routine matters and the difficulties generally experienced by all families were mentioned. This was an attempt, as Woolgar (1988) stated, to play down the exoticism of the other and to “recognise that there are no grounds for assuming the activities of our subjects/objects to be essentially different from our own; such differences are accomplished through unreflexive observation and research” (p. 28). Attempts to reduce any perceived exoticism of the other participating families were based on emphasizing similarities such as the fact that all humans participate in daily living that requires the satisfaction of basic needs, the provision of comforts, and involvement in some form of social and/or work life.

Entering the Homes I thought that participants would feel uncomfortable initially with the intrusion of a nonfamily member, and that their actions would reflect this discomfort. Although some rapport had already been established through the pilot study interviews and several phone calls with the mothers in each


family, my invasion of the family home, accompanied by video and audio recording equipment, was somewhat different. Mothers had consented initially to the pilot study interview and later agreed over the telephone to participate further in the study. All fathers had consented to the involvement of the family in the study and were most cooperative, although some had much more involvement with their families than others. Consequently, more rapport was developed with some fathers than others. I accepted that my presence and that of the camera would alter life in each family to an unknown degree. The audio recorder was not considered to pose such a problem, as it was small and inconspicuous enough for people to forget that the ongoing conversation was being recorded. This made the video camera and my presence the major intrusions into daily domestic activity. During the first visit to each family an attempt was made to discuss with parents the feelings of uneasiness and discomfort likely to be experienced because of the intrusion. This was done both during and at the conclusion of the session. Parents were encouraged to ask questions and were reassured that as time progressed, they should feel more comfortable. Similar discussions were initiated at subsequent visits if it was felt they were warranted. The children showed particular interest in the camera, especially in the initial stages, and were keen to be filmed. They did things such as standing directly in front of the camera and waving in an attempt to ensure that they were captured on film. However, the children adapted quickly to both the camera and to me, giving the impression quite early that both were considered part of the environment. Parental response to the recording equipment and observer was mixed. For example, Peter’s mother indicated that the video camera would not pose a problem for their family as they had a video themselves and were used to recording family events. However, Allison’s mother did not feel at ease with the camera during any of the visits. This was discussed at length one day, with Tom (father) initiating the conversation and indicating how differently Rita (mother) acted with the children when the camera was absent. Rita agreed with this, saying that she could not really “be herself ” with the video recording everything that she said and did with the family. Both parents acknowledged that Rita shouted a lot at the children, with Rita herself indicating that she did not want to be seen constantly shouting on the video record. Although the topic had been discussed briefly on a prior occasion and Rita had indicated she behaved differently with the camera, this conversation was most revealing. Tom confirmed what had previously been suggested subtly and provided graphic details as to Rita’s normal behavior. In this family, Rita was particularly interested in obtaining copies of the videos following the conclusion of the study. Rita felt that the video record would be a significant memento of this particular point in the lives


of the children, and wished to use the opportunity to keep the videos for future reference. Perhaps Rita did not wish to appear as though she was constantly shouting at the children when the videos were to be kept for posterity. The other three families gradually became familiar with and more or less used to the video camera. From conversations with members of these families, it was apparent that they were less affected by the presence of the video camera as time progressed. The video recordings support this claim, as they show many incidents of what participating parents considered everyday family conflict. With each visit, the family members tended to relax more, and I was gradually accepted and treated as a special guest.

Data Analysis All audiotapes and videotapes were transcribed and both were difficult to transcribe because of noise from traffic outside the house, dogs barking, the television or radio being on, and because there were frequently several people speaking at once. Some people had quiet voices, but Bradley’s mother had a tendency to yell at the children, and her voice was prone to overriding other voices on the tapes. Recording in the car also caused problems because of the background noise of other traffic, the radio being turned on, and more than one person talking at the same time. Incidents of conflict presented an even greater difficulty, as voices were often raised and people spoke over each other. The difficulty experienced with transcribing the tapes reflects the complex, interwoven, and often chaotic nature of family life. Transcribing was slow and tedious and took an extremely long time. Transcription symbols were used and these can be found in the Appendix. Data from each family were collated for analysis. That is, for each family all audio and video transcripts and recordings were assembled and analysis began utilizing all data for each family. The audiotapes typically complemented or extended video recording sessions. This also enabled (on occasion) an identification and examination of inconsistencies, that is, a comparison and analysis between what parents said on the audiotape and the actions they demonstrated (on the video) in the course of domestic interaction and practice. It could be said that the video record provided a register of regimes of practice that were operating in daily domesticity and the audio record provided a diary of the regimes of truth that parents would like to be operating. Using the two records together had the added advantage of relating parental reflections to the video transcriptions. This process was used to analyze single events and ongoing situations in each family and culminated in an understanding of “how each family worked” in the course of daily domesticity. Once the preliminary analysis for each


family was completed, it was possible to draw out common themes and similarities, as well as differences. I used critical discourse analysis to read the data, bringing perspectives of power and gender (Gill, 1995; Luke, 1995; Garvey, 1997; MacNaughton, 1998, 2000) to show how they are discernible in everyday family domestic activity. Because discourse analysis is understood as “constructive and as a social practice” (Ochsner, 2001, p. 259), identifying incidents of parent and child conflict was the first step. The data were coded as incidents of conflict and coded further to indicate whether they related to sleeping, eating, and so on. That is, the coding scheme was also used as a way of understanding discourses as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak (Foucault, 1972, p. 49). Discursive practice is defined as a body of anonymous, historical rules, always determined in the time and space that have defined a given period, and for a given social, economic, geographical, or linguistic area, the conditions of operation of the enunciative function. (Foucault, 1972, p. 117)

The revised coding scheme allowed incidents of parent and child conflict to be identified as belonging to particular regimes of truth within discursive formations. Regimes of truth and practice operating in the families are identified in Table 1. Table 1 shows how adult rules such as “children are required to ask to leave the table after a meal” are located in a regime of truth about “eating.” Parents select subject positions from the regimes of truth that are available at any one time and then generate rules for their particular circumstances, according to the subject position adopted. Therefore the types of adult rules that come from the eating regime of truth indicate the subject positioning of that particular parent. For example, a current common assumption revealed in the pilot study was that “Too much junk food is not good for children.” In adopting a subject position in line with this regime of truth, adults may invoke rules in daily domesticity such as “One glass of cordial per day is enough” or “My children are not allowed to drink red cordial.” This then becomes the regime of practice that operates in that family. Table 1 shows the relationship among discourse, regimes of truth, subject positions, and adult rules (regimes of practice operating in particular families). This explanation enables an analysis of the links among regimes of truth and regimes of practice operating in the same discourse. Hence it is possible to examine common sense “truths” within the discourses of childrearing, parenting and mothering that relate to different facets of domestic interaction and practice. It also enables an investigation of the regimes of truth that are operating discursively about childrearing, parenting, and mothering and the regimes of practice that are played out in the

92 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict Table 1. Discourses and Regimes of Truth Discourse (e.g., the discourse of childhood, childrearing, parenting, motherhood) ↓ Regimes of Truth about ↓ discipline sleeping bathing/toileting speaking/interacting school shopping tidiness eating driving (e.g., from the eating regime of truth: “Too much junk food is not good for children.”) ↓ Parents Select Subject Positions (e.g., “I believe too much junk food is not good for children so I restrict the amount of junk food my children eat.”) ↓ Adult-Generated Rules (regimes of practice) [e.g., “My children are allowed only one glass of cordial (soda) per day.”]

families. Such an analysis would include rules relating to children’s involvement in daily procedures such as eating and sleeping routines. Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p. 107) have argued that discursive practices involve daily routines as well as the way in which the social relationships that accompany these daily routines are structured. Table 1 also enables an examination of the same regimes of practice that are operating in different discourses. For example, Walkerdine (1984a) and Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) have shown that similar regimes of truth and adult-generated rules (regimes of practice) operate in the discourse of childhood, the discourse of child psychology, and the discourse of childcentered pedagogy. Thus relations of complementarity or subordination may be established from one discourse to another (Foucault, 1972). Additionally, Table 1 provides a template for explaining how discourses can be analyzed in terms of the regimes of truth operating within them, as well as the regimes of practice that are operating in families.


Conclusions The analysis of resistance and struggle via incidents of conflict and noncompliance combined with parental self-reflection enables a reading of how positions for children are established and historically constituted, how the multiple positioning accorded to children is inherently contradictory, and how these multiple positions are sites of struggle and resistance for young children. By utilizing the results of this and other research, the analysis takes into account gender factors of both parents and children. Reconstructed actions and experiences revealed in the parental self-reflection process are aimed at making visible the personal, domestic, historic, economic, and social factors that shape daily family interaction and childrearing beliefs and attitudes (regimes of practice).

CHAPTER

5

Introducing the Families

This chapter explains how each family interacted and the stress and pressure under which each was operating. A narrative for each family is provided as background to show the discursive positioning of the parents. As well as being sites of complex relationships and interactions, families are political: Families are political in the sense that certain members review, judge, formulate codes of conduct, make decisions, and impose sanctions that evaluate and impact the actions, conditions, thoughts and feelings of other members. Such administration of power is characteristic of families everywhere and may occur whenever families interact. (Ochs & Tayler, 1992, p. 301)

According to Weedon (1997), social structures and processes are organized through institutions and practices such as the family. The family in turn . . . is located in and structured by a particular discursive field. . . . Discursive fields consist of competing ways of giving meaning to the world and of organising social institutions and processes. They offer the individual a range of modes of subjectivity. (p. 34)

The discursive positioning of parents is discussed to identify the ways in which they give meaning to the world through specific subject positions and particular routines and rituals in their daily lives. Meanings are always limited by the structure of social relations operating at a particular time and place and are represented through a variety of discourses. By identifying discourse forms, as well as rituals and practices in which family members engaged on a daily basis, it is possible to understand how discourse constitutes and organizes social relations in institutions such as the family. Rituals and practices such as eating, cleaning, and 95


mothering inscribe the family. The subject positions adopted by particular family members as part of their daily practices can be identified through the study of routines and practices. The following information about routines and practices was gathered mostly from parental self-reflection sessions, although some details were extracted from the video and pilot study audio records. A number of principal discourses (regimes of truth) were operating in each family. These are detailed here in the “mini” case studies of the parents. These discourses were not necessarily the same for each family, although there were some similarities among families. For example, education, competition, and achievement were highly valued in the Haines family (pseudonyms are used at all times), whereas money, tidiness, and conservation were three of the principal discourses that were important in the Gordon family. In the Anderson family, diet, the development of physical skills, and social abilities such as cooperation and consideration were key discourses, whereas in the Sullivan family, manners, diet, and physical appearance were important.

Rita and Tom Gordon (Allison’s Parents) Both Tom and Rita were born in Australia. Rita was engaged in full-time care of the three children, while Tom worked at night for a national freight company. Allison is the eldest of the three children, with two boys completing the family. In the pilot study interview, Rita told me that she wanted Tom to accept more responsibility in caring for the children: Like she’ll ((Allison)) stand there and she will tell me she is not going to do what I said she must do and he ((Tom)) will just sit there, and I’ll say to him, well couldn’t you for once turn round and tell her that she can’t do that? You know. If maybe he did it then she wouldn’t do it all the time, instead of just expecting me to chastise her all the time. And he always says, “Oh, oh, Allison, you mustn’t do that to your mother”, you know, really blasé sort of thing. (Rita; Pilot study interview record)

In this transcript, Rita indicated that it is her responsibility for disciplining Allison and that she would like Tom to be more supportive in this regard. In her view, Tom saw disciplining the children as Rita’s responsibility. Rita thought that she took most of the responsibility but wanted to share it more with Tom. Tom’s involvement with the children was an ongoing concern for Rita. During one of the later data collection sessions, she talked about how when Tom was with the children, he wanted to be away from them (Rita/V; 05/03/12). Rita explained how night shift work meant that Tom’s absence reduced significantly the amount of interaction he had with the children, a situa-

Introducing the Families • 97

tion which was complicated by the fact that it was necessary for Tom to sleep during the day. Furthermore, Rita explained that when at home, Tom was usually tired because he worked at night. This meant different domestic and leisure practices, which affected their social life: He doesn’t get to see anything, and he doesn’t feel like going out where I’ve seen the house all week, and all I want to do is get out. And he doesn’t. He thinks you know, I have not seen any, an ounce of TV or anything. All he wants to do is stay home. (Rita/A; 22/01/1)

If situations occurred in which Tom was too tired to go out and Rita wanted to go out with friends, it resulted in conflict: “we end up having a fight or something because he doesn’t want me to go out on my own, he wants us to be together or, you know” (Rita/A; 22/01/1). Tom hadn’t always worked at night. When he started with the company he was working the day shift, but was given the opportunity to change to the night shift after a length of time. Rita found domestic and childcare responsibilities more difficult when Tom worked at night: Yeah, well it’s like my throat’s been cut really because, you know when Tom was doing day shift, he was here all the time to you know, to do things, and he did a lot of the work and everything, you know, and helped me all the time. But now that he is doing night shift, it’s so hard and I can’t really, I can’t really ask him to do much. (Rita/A; 22/01/2)

Rita is constrained by her position, unable to ask Tom for additional relief from the constant pressure and demands of rearing three young children because he worked at night and needed to sleep during the day. The common sense assumptions revealed in the talk and practices of mothers (and wives) like Rita are about the power of the man and father as breadwinner. They reinforce and perpetuate the rituals of the nuclear family and how it functions. Rita could not bring herself to ask Tom for more support. Discursive practices associated with working men have produced male power as real and legitimate: “Females are allocated positions of weakness, complementary to and supportive of that power” (Davies, 1989, p. 109). Rita is positioned to ask Tom to take some of the caring and domestic responsibilities that are typically associated with mothering. At work here is the normalized assumption that such responsibilities belong to mothers and that any assistance from fathers must be requested. It also denotes that through the gendered practices of identity or person formation, Rita is positioned as more powerful than Tom in the organization and management of specific domestic and childrearing tasks. For example, because she is responsible for home and childcare duties, it is within Rita’s domain of practice to organize Tom to assist in the social practices of childcare and domesticity. This may be the very reason that Tom is unable to support


Rita in disciplining the children (he understands that this is Rita’s job). What appears to be happening is that Rita is constructing Tom as “father” in and through discourse. The success or otherwise of Rita’s attempts depends on Tom’s compliance or resistance, his masculinity, and what is brought to bear on this situation in relation to the heterosexual matrix. Other complications also arose because Tom worked at night. For example, it was difficult for Rita to maintain her previous level of involvement in organizations such as the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia. She told me: I’ve gotta get three kids, you know, that’s what Lucy said to me the other day, you never come to Nursing Mothers and bring the kids. I said, now that’s fine for you to say that, but you’re not the one that has to come home at eleven o’clock at night and put them to bed and then have to fight with Allison ((the next morning)) because she’s got to go to school ((pause)) and the meeting’s on Wednesday night now, so I said that’s alright for you, but you don’t have to come and try and get Ryan ready in the morning to go to kindy. (Rita/A; 19/02/17)

Rita’s comments here are an example of how the rituals and practices associated with the gendered positions inherent in family life demand that Rita curtail her own interests in order to care for the children and to enable Tom to participate in the practice of work at night. Despite drawbacks such as these, Tom continued to work at night because he received an appreciably higher wage than if he worked the day shift. Although Rita had to make some personal sacrifices, she did so because the family was in a much better financial position. This is another example of the discursive construction of women as complementary to and supportive of male power (Davies, 1989) and is an illustration of the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990) at work. For Rita, the economic benefits of night work outweighed the personal and family inconvenience associated with it: . . . like they’ve got a lot less money than us ((Tom’s sister and family)), she can just like, her hours have just been cut down to only three hours a day, so that’s a hundred dollars a week less, and she said, “Oh well, at least I’ll have more time at home with the kids and everything.” And I thought, oh well. If Tom came home and told me he was going to be a hundred dollars down a week, I’d be going off my brain! (Rita/V; 29/01/24–25) I said to Tom the other day if he lost his job or got put back on the day shift or something now, I’d have to go and get a job ’cos we just couldn’t live on, on a normal wage again. ’Cos we’ve just got; you know, you live within your means. The more money you get the more you spend. I don’t know what we’d do. I really don’t. I’m trying at the moment, you know to get rid of all the bills and stop spending money, ’cos I’m a great shopper, I love shopping, a shopaholic. (Rita/V; 05/03/11)


Disciplinary power is evident here. Tom (and the family) is regulated through the practice of work, because the family retained a more powerful financial position if Tom continued to work at night. The significantly higher wage for night work suggested economic utilization of the body, which is accompanied by the effect of a political “docility of bodily forces” (Smart, 1983, p. 85). The practices and discourses adopted by Rita and Tom pivoted around their relationship and reflected the binary oppositions of domesticity and work, and shopping and waged work. The reflexivity of their preferred subject positions (as these positions operated in relation to discourse) was defined in relation to their binary opposites of work and domesticity. Both persons were active and resistant (Tom resisted being with the children and Rita wanted him to be with them more; Rita resisted the curtailment of her activities due to Tom’s work at night but wanted the extra money), and this was reflected in the amount of “play” between the ways in which both operated within the limits of their respective positions as worker and carer. Both Rita and Tom were positioned in complementary and reflexive ways. From visits with the Gordon family, it was evident that the family’s activities were controlled to a large extent by money. They were living in rented accommodation while waiting to be allocated a house through the government housing scheme. The following excerpts give an indication of the importance of money in daily domestic life, how it affected daily family living, and the way in which it was discussed within the family: Rita

Tom Rita Rita Sue Rita Sue Rita Rita

We have six cents darling. ((pause)) It cost us $120.00 for him ((Tom)) to go to the dentist on Saturday ((pause)). He had a tooth taken out, one filling. Only one. Only one filling, a tooth taken out, but you had two needles (Rita and Tom/A; 19/02/4–5). (Excerpt 1) I have to go to Medibank this afternoon too, and get back some money. Oh, from the dentist? ((pause)) Yeah. Luckily we’re covered. Yeah. That was part of our bill money. I haven’t paid the bills yet, so . . . (Rita/A; 19/02/19) (Excerpt 2) Yeah, I’m trying to get everything ready for her ((for Allison to go to school for the first time)). Mum made all the uniforms and everything ((and I’m)) thinking oh great. And then, she’s so skinny, they all just ((pause)) you know, it looks like she’s in a tent dress. My sister-in-law said, “They’re great, they’re great”, and I said, “Oh, I couldn’t send her to school


Rita

looking like that”. If I’m going to spend this much money on fees, she might as well look decent as well, not going to school looking like a dag! (Rita/V; 22/01/6) (Excerpt 3) Have to get this, have to get one ((video camera)), Tom wants a camera ((pause)) but getting the MONEY! (Rita/V; 26/02/24) (Excerpt 4)

Excerpt 3 shows how Rita constructed schoolgirl childhood and Allison as part of that in the talk that occurred. The normalizing process has affected the ritual of school attire and attendance to the extent that Rita would not send Allison to school in the ill-fitting uniforms made by her grandmother. Rita’s view was that such uniforms would make Allison stand out as a “dag” or as “irregular” in comparison with other girls attending the same school. Despite the additional financial pressure, Rita purchased suitably fitting premade uniforms. Rita’s concern was to normalize her daughter’s school appearance in relation to existing practices. For the Gordon family, concern with financial matters spread into every facet of domestic life. The family shifted from another large city when Allison was a toddler and Rita was unaware that long waiting lists for kindergarten programs (for children three and four years of age) were common in the area to which they moved. Rita was also unaware that it was necessary to book children into a kindergarten program well before the child was due to begin. As a result, Allison did not attend kindergarten because the family could not afford the expense of a private kindergarten and other programs were fully booked: . . . A big waiting list or anything and I came down here and I never knew that you had to book them in and she ((Allison)) got to three and someone said, “Is she going to kindy soon?” And I said, “Well what have I got to do?” And they said, “Have you booked her in?” And I said “No.” So it was too late by then and we couldn’t afford a private one at that stage, you know. It wouldn’t be so bad now but at that stage. His ((Ryan)) kindy fees cost me half of what it is going to cost to send her ((Allison)) to school, so he only goes two days and she goes five days. (Rita/V; 22/01/10)

Daily living needs also reflected a concern with money. Sometimes in this family, children and adults existed without food items until there was money to purchase them: Allison . . . Mum, have you got some cordial for my lunch? Rita Yeah, I’ve already filled your drink bottle up. You’re lucky. Otherwise it would have just been cold water tomorrow kid, ‘cos I haven’t got any money to go shopping until Thursday


((this was Monday)). Well, you can have cold water Allison. The boys can have a bit of cordial each ‘cos you had cordial at school. (Rita/V; 29/01/12) A short time later Rita discovered more food stocks were depleted: The peanut paste’s nearly all out. Vegemite ((pause)) we’ve been really slack this week though. I paid all the bills and then to go down the coast I had nothing left. So I thought, well, I’ll just buy the bare necessities, so I only bought forty dollar’s worth. Like there’s enough here to survive on, but I mean ((pause)) there’s no luxuries. (Rita/V; 29/01/24)

During this particular week, Rita’s first priority was to pay the outstanding bills. As a treat Rita and Tom were spending a night at a nearby coastal resort and visiting a casino. They were staying with relations and leaving the children in the care of friends close to home. After paying outstanding accounts, the next priority with money was ensuring there was enough to spend for their night out. Buying food for the week was not a high priority and hence Rita bought essentials only, which meant they had to do without some items such as cordial. Allison’s attendance at a private church school meant financial sacrifice by the family, but Rita and Tom viewed this particular school as providing more for Allison than the public system could have: . . . ’cos all our friends think we’re big snobs for sending her. Most of ’em say, oh elitists, and say oh, how come Allison didn’t go to Accorn ((the local state school)), and I’ll say, we just wanted her to go to a private church school you know, and they’ll say, ohhh, right ((pause)) And they say well if you can afford it I suppose, and I say well we have to struggle to send her there but that’s what we want so, but I think it’s worth it really, to see the difference. (Rita/V; 13/02/5)

This transcript shows how Rita and Tom have adopted a particular perspective about the value of private, religious education, despite the financial burden it imposed. Tom and Rita have done this despite claims by others about it being a sign of superiority and snobbery. Thus there is evidence here of intersecting discourses about elites and education at work. When I asked about the cost of school fees, Rita explained that they managed to pay them by using the family subsidy provided by the government, and there was nothing more to pay: That covers everything. The only thing we have to buy is her uniform. We don’t have to worry about any books, any excursions, we don’t send money for swimming. We don’t have to send money for anything. The uniform is it. We don’t have to worry now until each term. We just have to pay the . . . money . . .

102 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict which is my . . . child endowment. Ryan’s kindy is dearer than her school. (Rita/V; 13/02/5–6).

Allison’s attendance at this particular school was dependent upon financial management of the family subsidy for children provided by the government. It seemed evident that without this government benefit for families, Allison would not be able to attend this school. Throughout the data collection period, both Rita and Tom made regular reference to what they termed Rita’s “normal” behavior with the children. Rita described her own position with comments such as the following: Rita Tom Sue Rita Tom Rita

You know I was thinking there before that you haven’t really seen us really scream or yell or anything yet. Not at all. Not at all? Yeah, you should go and ask some of my neighbours what I’m like the last couple of weeks! Don’t do that . . . I’ve been terrible the last couple of weeks. Screaming, oohh. I get out and I think, God the neighbours must think I’m going round the bloody twist. I’m waiting for one of them to come and say something and I’m going to say, well what would you rather, me screaming my head off or I’ll kill the kids? It’s either that or I’ll take a belt to ’em and I’ll kill ’em. If I can’t yell, that’s the only way I can let it out without hurting them, otherwise ((pause)) I can understand how mothers can go berserk and kill their kids. (Rita/V; 19/02/30; 32)

Here Rita broke the rules of the sensitive mother discourse. Earlier, I described how Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) identified sensitive mothers as those who could convert domestic duties into pedagogic tasks. Conversely, those who are unable to do this are mainly working-class mothers. Developmental psychology pathologizes these working-class mothers because they do not reflect the dominant sensitive mother discourse. Marion (1983) also denoted sensitive mothers as those who demonstrated sensitive patterns of adult behavior, cooperation, and supportiveness, whereas others (Cherry, 1985; Christie, 1987; Wyckoff & Unell, 1984) have argued that sensitive parenting rests on a rational approach. By way of explanation, Urwin (1984, p. 314) argued that desire is produced through power relations as they operate in certain social practices. Social practices that produce desire include the sensitive mother discourse: the sensitive mother discourse ensures that we desire to be those sensitive mothers but it also positions us to feel bad when we are not (Rose, 1985).


If Walkerdine and Lucey’s (1989) description were followed, the above and other transcripts position the Gordon family as working class. In the micropolitics of everyday life, common sense assumptions dictate that yelling and screaming at the kids are preferable to “killing” them. Rita worried about what the neighbors thought, and rejected as well as adopted the sensitive mother identity, albeit it fleetingly. The sensitive mother approach was evident by the lack of shouting when visitors were present. However, at many other times, Rita admitted that she yelled and screamed at the children. In the following excerpt, she justified her position by maintaining that her children weren’t “little angles”: Tom said the other night when you’d left, I’ll have to borrow that camera off Sue, he said, and I’ll do it when you don’t know about it, and then Sue’ll see the real true side of you. He said, you don’t scream! ((Rita laughs)). Should’ve heard me yes’day, I screamed me lungs out, the guy across the road was standin’ there like this ((demonstrated stance: hands on hips)); I was gunna yell out to him and say, yeah, haven’t your kids ever done anything bloody wrong? If your kids are little angels, well that’s great, mine aren’t. (Rita/V; 05/03/3)

Rita’s self-reflections indicated that whenever visitors or people other than immediate family were present, her discourse alignment changed. Rita was very aware of her alternate positioning: Yeah, see they’re being really good again today. They’re always good when you’re here. That’s what Tom said. He said, “Well, how come you don’t scream and yell when Sue’s here?” I said well, you tend not to scream and yell as much if someone’s here, I said, but the kids are a lot better behaved, they don’t do the things they would normally do. (Rita/V; 05/03/10)

Here Rita claimed that the children behaved more appropriately when a visitor was present in the home. Incidents of yelling and screaming, as well as adopting the sensitive mother identity are indicative of contradictory subjectivity, or the different ways in which Rita is positioned, depending on the circumstances. Despite the struggle for Rita in how she was positioned in various ways, the power of the sensitive mother discourse is revealed in the following: “But I honestly can’t scream and yell while you’re here. I just can’t do it! Same as when anyone’s here, I just can’t do it” (Rita/V; 05/03/18). Time showed that this was not always the case. Discourses on parenting have taught Rita not to scream and yell in the presence of visitors. The utilization of differing identities in the presence and absence of visitors showed how Rita is able to position herself according to different situations. Rita as ethical subject and Rita as irrational and insensitive mother are contradictory yet complementary identities because they depict the interplay of resistance, multiplicity, and active choice in relation to discourse. The struggle between the (irrational) yelling and screaming identity and the rational and sensitive mother hinged on


desire, which was predicated by the prevailing circumstances of whether visitors were present. In general then, the Rita and Tom were positioned in several discourses through a variety of practices. For example, Rita was constrained by the rational sensitive mother discourse but was able to mediate her own positioning through selected resistant and oppositional practices of identity and person formation. Likewise, in her relationship with Tom, the operation of binary opposites exemplified the relational, multiplicity, and reflexive nature of the constitution of subjects within discourse.

Toni and Nathan Anderson (Amy’s Parents) In this family Toni was the primary caregiver, looking after three girls (Amy, Emily, and Sarah) while Nathan was involved full time in his own professional practice. Both were Australian born although Nathan’s parents came to Australia from Italy when they were young. The children had a large selection of both indoor and outdoor toys and educational play equipment. Amy and Emily and a number of their friends frequently utilized this equipment. Amy’s participation in weekly gymnastics lessons reflected Toni’s positioning in the sensitive mother discourse, where the parents meet the child’s needs. Amy had expressed an interest in gymnastics and her interest was supported by Toni enrolling her in a program for children her age. Amy’s involvement in weekly swimming lessons appeared to be the result of Toni’s endorsement of common sense notions that all children living in this particular geographical location should be able to swim. In common with many other parents who held similar views, the provision of swimming lessons was seen to be a necessity because of geographical and climatic factors. The media periodically highlighted the fact that the capital city in which Amy’s family resided is the “child drowning capital of the world.” The baby of the family (Sarah) was approximately five months old at the time of data collection. Toni had explained that Sarah had a medical condition that resulted in her vomiting regularly and requiring special sleeping, feeding, and medication arrangements. Such preparations meant that Toni spent quite a deal of time caring for Sarah. The birth of the third child and the subsequent development of the medical condition meant that Toni was unable to spend a large proportion of her time with Amy and Emily, as she had done previously. The reduced amount of time Toni was able to spend with Emily and Amy resulted in situations of conflict: Both of them are bad-mouthing me at the moment because I never buy them any good toys and it’s boring at home, and I never spend enough time with them. I admit I have very little time to spend with them individually, but that’s

Introducing the Families • 105 just the way things are at the moment ((pause)) but there are things that they can do. It’s not as if they are babies, or two year olds or anything. They’ve got lots of things they can do with their bikes and things, and they are quite welcome to go and watch TV for half an hour if they are bored because there are programs they like on during the afternoon, but it’s “You don’t ever spend any time with me, you don’t ever do anything for me”. Isn’t it, Yam? ((nickname for Amy)), you don’t buy me any good toys. Poor under privileged child! (Toni/V; 22/03/9)

This transcript shows how reluctant Amy and Emily were to accept the reduced amount of time that Toni spent with them. This manifested itself in bids for attention through demanding more material possessions, more interesting home activities, and more of their mother’s time. Toni also stated that the large amount of time required to care for Sarah was part of the reason for Nathan’s involvement in daily domestic activities. I observed Nathan participate in domestic tasks such as making his lunch, organizing breakfast for the children, bathing the two older children, and washing dishes. Apparently the medical condition of the baby in part accounted for this, although Toni stated that Nathan was involved in a number of such practices before the birth of Sarah. Interaction between Toni and Amy produced conflict over a number of issues. Toni was also aware of how she and Nathan were different and that such differences had the potential to produce conflict situations. There was potential for tension between Toni and Nathan, and Toni and Amy. Toni explained: My conflict with Amy occurs when she gets what I call silly, or um, she just gets so worked up, she can’t help herself and that usually happens when Nathan’s home. . . . Yes, ‘cos he whips them into a frenzy over competitive things or chasing, or, or um, ((pause)) You know at half past seven, he’ll start a game of something, whereas if Amy doesn’t win she gets all upset or stroppy, or he’ll come home from martial arts at about ten to eight and I’ve just about got them to sleep and he’ll go into their room and of course he’s all hyped up from his um, martial arts and starts yaahhing on and tickling them and ((pause)). Yeah, and then he backs off to have tea or a shower and I have to start the calming process down, ‘cos I have very little trouble getting them to go to bed at a reasonable time, when it’s just me at home ((pause)). He thinks if he’s there they should be alive and awake, what he doesn’t, well he may realise, but Amy particularly is really tired now, she’s usually asleep before Emily at night. (Toni/A; 15/03/8–9)

Because this was Amy’s first year at school, Toni ensured Amy gained the sleep necessary for each school day without becoming overly tired. Norms of conduct associated with school attendance (especially in the first year) pressured parents (notably mothers) to organize the home routine so that children received an adequate amount of sleep. Toni and Nathan were different in this regard, with Toni organizing the daily routine to ensure Amy


was in bed early and Nathan sometimes disregarded the early bedtime ritual. There may also be a gender effect operating here that underlies the difference in subject positioning. For example, Toni, being the good mother (Rose, 1985), ensured that Amy received adequate sleep so that school performance was not impeded (cf. Walkerdine and Lucey, 1989), whereas Nathan wanted to play with Amy, irrespective of whether it interrupted her sleep or not. Toni told me on several occasions during the data collection period that Amy’s behavior changed in the early stages of data collection, because of the presence of the video camera. On one occasion I heard Nathan refer to the data collection process as “Amy’s T.V. show.” Toni also spoke to me about Amy’s tardiness in the routine preparation for school. As a result, Toni reminded Amy constantly to finish her breakfast, clean her teeth, get dressed, have her hair done, and put on her shoes. The following two excerpts show how Toni was aware of Amy’s different behavior and how Amy, in the course of daily tasks, changed because of the presence of the camera: Toni Sue Toni Amy Toni Sue Toni Amy

Did Amy put her nightie in the dirty clothes basket? . . . If she did, it’s the first time ever. Oh, she might have. Um. I think she did (Toni/V; 08/03/7–8). . . . I’m ready early, YEA! You certainly are. This is an unusual occurrence? A very unusual occurrence. She usually isn’t even dressed by this stage . . . Yea! I’m ready, I’m ready for work. I’m ready I’m ready for . . . (V; 08/03/15–16)

Similar behavior continued for the first three visits and the frequency of such events declined after that, supporting Henry’s (1971) notion that the strain of the observer is too great for family members to remain constantly on guard.

Nancy and Neil Haines (Peter’s Parents) Peter’s mother, Nancy, worked full time in a government department as a laboratory assistant, while his father, who was twenty-seven years older than his mother and retired, cared for Peter. Neil retired for health reasons some time ago and before retirement had a variety of manual jobs, but worked mainly as a truck driver. This is the second marriage for both. Peter


is a product of this marriage and an only child. Neil has three adult children from his first marriage and was heard to call Nancy the “breadwinner” on a number of occasions, although he had a part-time weekend job washing trucks. Despite working full time, Nancy assumed responsibility for most of the domestic activities around the house. Neil took a minor role in these activities, engaging in tasks such as making the porridge for breakfast during winter. At no time was Neil observed engaging in any other housework such as cooking, cleaning, or washing, although he did indicate that he could “knit, crochet, fancy work, cook a meal better than any woman” (Neil/A; 22/1/42) (see Appendix 1 for transcription details). At work here is a patriarchal discourse (Weedon, 1997) that repositions women and configures them as inferior at skills traditionally constructed as belonging to the domain of women. Despite the fact that he is a man and infrequently engaged in such activities, Neil still positioned himself as superior and thought of himself as more powerful than all women in relation to these skills. It is also likely that Butler’s (1990) notion of gender as performativity is at work here. If dominant forms of masculinity require that it is constantly demonstrated and performed, then this statement can be read as Neil participating in a “reiteration of systems of power relations that produce us all as gendered subjects” (Boldt, 1997, p. 194). It does not mean that this version of gender is natural, normal, or “true,” it simply means that Neil has chosen to perform or reiterate a version of gender (dominant masculinity). Butler (1990) has said “Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts” (p. 33) and in this case it appears to be a stylization of dominant masculinity. Neil still saw himself as “head of the house” even though he engaged in what he called his “Mr. Mum” role, and, as noted, sometimes referred to Nancy as the “breadwinner.” His self-appointed position as head of the house was bound tightly to the discourse of dominant masculinity and to the heterosexual matrix, enabling Neil to veto any decision: Regardless of what it is, I overrule any decision in this house. I try to keep in with her, but once I’ve made up my mind, and she’s set her mind one way or another, that’s it. I make the rule. Which I don’t do often. I’m the boss. Right? (Neil/; 13/5/8).

This is another example of Neil invoking a patriarchal discourse (Connell, 2000) to assert his status as head of the house in situations in which he wants to overrule Nancy and enforce his own decision. He did indicate he made some attempt to come to an agreement with Nancy, but in the end he’s the “boss” and he makes the “decision” because he’s a man. In this case, his patriarchal dividend (Connell, 2002) is retaining control of decision making.


Both parents valued a good education for Peter, although, as Neil admitted, Nancy was responsible for buying educational games and for purchasing the computer for Peter. It was also Nancy who detected what she called Peter’s interest in mathematics and so enrolled him in the Kumon mathematics program before he started school. Here Nancy shows she has been constructed as an educational consumer, wanting to provide what is educationally “best” for her child through the purchase of equipment and tuition. At the same time, Peter has also been positioned as a potential consumer of these same products and services. Because they wanted to provide opportunities to enhance Peter’s educational and personal development, Nancy and Neil involved Peter in a variety of activities outside the home. These activities included mathematics lessons, swimming lessons and competition, keyboard tuition, Japanese lessons, dance and violin classes, and BMX training and competition. Neil said that he did it because he was never provided with the opportunity himself: “You got to. I never had it ((pause)). Well what do you think a child’s got if he leaves school and doesn’t have the education?” (Neil/V; 13/5/16). Nancy acknowledged the power of social pressure: “The emphasis on education’s too great these days that you think . . . if you don’t give them a good grounding ((pause)) Pressure. Social pressure that’s what it is. The emphasis today is so much on what you’re going to do” (Nancy/V; 13/5/15). Neil also stated: “we want a little bit more for him, rather than leaving him the way he is” (Neil/A; 22/1/). By involving Peter in lots of activities, Nancy and Neil showed how they have been influenced by common sense assumptions that are directly related to social pressure (that is, everyone else does this, so we should too). But at the same time they want that “little bit more” for their child and this meant providing Peter with access to more than the average or normal child. Elkind (1987) has aligned such parental actions with the concept of the competent infant that emerged during the 1960s, and discussed how the cognitive development of young children became characterized by clichés from Bruner and Bloom, including [Bruner’s] totally unsubstantiated claim that “you can teach any child any subject matter at any age in an intellectually honest way” . . . Bloom’s ambiguous statement that a young child attains half of his or her intellectual ability by the age of 4. (p. 633)

These statements have become normalized to the extent that they now assume the status of common sense, reappearing in the talk and practices of parents like Nancy and Neil. In this way, they construct parental views about what it should mean to be a child. Peter’s life was highly organized to allow participation in the large variety of educational and sporting activities in which he was involved.


Valuing a good education also translated into the selection of a specific school for Peter that provided extracurricular activities and additional facilities. As his school, a variety of lessons, such as Japanese and other languages, keyboard skills, music, speech, and drama, are conducted before school begins. Although this was not the closest school to home, Peter’s parents had wanted him to attend a particular Catholic school on the other side of town because “it integrated Montessori children really well” (Nancy/A; 22/1/24). Peter had attended a Montessori preschool program and hence Nancy was interested in this particular aspect of the curriculum. Although the family is Catholic, Peter was not accepted at this particular school because they lived outside the parish. Peter was not enrolled in one of the local Catholic parish schools because these schools could not provide the educational challenge his parents felt Peter needed. Both Nancy and Neil believed these schools were unsuitable because of the large numbers of ethnic children in attendance: . . . we can send him to any of the Catholic schools around here but there’s nothing in it for him. There’s no um, oh, as far as English and that, there’s so many other children in there that all they’d be teaching was English, how to speak English you know. (Neil/A; 22/1/1) The local one down the road has an intake of twenty-one ((children)) but fifteen don’t speak English. They’ve only got six kids who speak English. (Nancy/A; 22/1/26)

Because Nancy and Neil wanted that little bit more for Peter, it was inappropriate for them to send him to any of the local Catholic parish schools, where (by implication), he would be learning to speak English and therefore not being challenged. By attributing their actions to enhance Peter’s personal and educational development (at such an early stage in life) to social pressure and the importance of future success, the significance of common sense assumptions becomes apparent. These common sense assumptions [in line with Bruner (in Elkind, 1987)] include the idea that children and even infants are never too young to begin classes to learn to swim, play a musical instrument, learn another language, or be taught prerequisite skills for reading. This is a particular discourse of parenting that has been common in popular media for some time. For example, an article by Langway, Jackson, Zabarsky, Shirley, and Whitmore (1983) in the magazine Newsweek referred to similar actions as “bringing up superbaby.” Both parents were aware that they reacted to particular aspects of Peter’s behavior in different ways. In the following excerpt, Nancy described the difference between how she reacted and how Neil would have reacted when Peter had a tantrum:

110 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict Neil’s different. He’d be going off his ‘nana. He wouldn’t stand for it. He’d be like a raving lunatic. I can’t understand the purpose of having to do that. Because I think you’re trying to teach them how to be rational and you’re trying to teach them to be calm, that hey, this sort of behavior doesn’t work. And if you go off the deep end you’re only showing them that you’re contradicting what you are saying. ((pause)) I giggle and go “ggrrrr”. Yes well, that was the way I was brought up. My mother was like that. She was a very calm sort of person. (Nancy/V; 24/2/10)

This transcript shows how much Nancy is aware of their differences. Nancy’s statement that her manner of disciplining Peter was similar to that of her own mother suggests the possibility of intergenerational links in childrearing practices through the availability of similar discourses, albeit at different points in time. Despite this, in another section of the transcript, Nancy indicated that her outward appearance of calmness did not necessarily reflect how she felt inside during conflicts (Nancy/V; 24/2/10). Nancy had adopted common sense understandings related to sensitive mothering, and her aim was to behave in a rational manner. Cherry (1985) has argued that effective parents express feelings in a rational manner and Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) discussed the power of rationality in mother– daughter relationships. However, as Nancy indicated, she was not always rational when Peter had a tantrum: I’m not saying that I’m like this all the time ((calm)), there are times when after a rotten day at work, and he’s being a real mongrel that I go in there and I go “ggrrrrr”, I do lose my cool, but I also tend to apologise when I do that too, later on. I say why I shouldn’t have done that, and you ((Peter)) should have tried to behave and that, so yeah. ((pause)) I try to qualify the behaviour because I’d hate to think that he ends up aggressive. I don’t want him to be like that. (Nancy/V; 24/2/10)

This transcript illustrates Nancy’s multiple and contradictory subjectivity. Her preferred rational identity does not always hold in the heat of the moment, but Nancy realigned herself with the rational position by later apologizing and justifying her behavior to Peter. This is an indication of the power of the discourses of rational, sensitive mothering (Cherry, 1985; Marion, 1983). Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) argued that the discourses of rational and sensitive mothering are aligned with the middle class and that these discourses pathologize working-class mothers. This transcript also acknowledges Nancy’s common sense and “natural” understandings concerning aggressive child behavior. Developmental psychology has identified aggressive children as problematic (e.g., Dumas & LaFreniere, 1993; Dumas, Serketich, & LaFreniere, 1995). Nancy is quite definite about not wanting to have her child categorized in this way, as it suggests the existence of something not altogether “normal.”


Neil had firm beliefs concerning childrearing methods with his first family and had adopted a significantly different position since Peter was born. He discussed his different positions and how hard it was for him to find the “happy medium” in regard to physical punishment: And when I say hiding, he ((Peter)) doesn’t get a hiding like I did, or like I gave my other ((older)) sons, right? I’ve belted them, and if I had my time over again possibly I’d do the same thing, you know. Ah, originally I was too hard, I’m going from one to the other but I think in those days, yes, I was too hard, but what I did, I stopped being hard and went the opposite. And then lost out completely. Because you can’t, I couldn’t find a happy medium. I’ve found the happy medium with Peter, you know. (Neil/A; 22/1/44)

Neil said that he employed punitive physical punishment because his father used similar disciplinary techniques and that he relied heavily on such strategies with his first family. He did this in an effort to cope with parent and child conflict: See you’d come home from work and the missus’d say hey, young Neil has played up today, he’s been a little monster. The dog down there has done something wrong, so you go and kick him in the guts for it bloody six to seven hours later, the dog doesn’t know what he got it for and nine times out of ten the kid doesn’t know what he got it for, you know? (Neil/V; 17/5/19)

These transcripts from Neil describe his move from one set of beliefs (identity) concerning disciplining children, to a second, and then finally a third. The intergenerational effect of childrearing practices is evident again, as Neil said he used punitive physical punishment methods with his first family because that was what his father used. However, with his second family (i.e., Peter), Neil admitted to having changed some of his practices and that it was difficult to find what he described as a happy medium. Here the predicament of adopting different identities in relation to disciplining children is evident. Neil was searching for what he called the happy medium, a process that saw him use physical punishment, then move to the opposite position by actively resisting physical punishment before adopting what he called a happy medium. Neil’s struggle among competing subject positions of how to discipline typifies the reflexive nature of multiple and contradictory subjectivity. In accounting for such a change, I draw attention to how common sense assumptions and truth claims about childrearing practices have changed significantly in the past fifty or so years. The above transcripts could be read to indicate that Neil has now been positioned by rationalist discourse, first, because his statement implies that an explanation or justification for punishment is required (to the child); and second, because of the suggestion that delayed punishment for a misdemeanor is meaningless to the


child. However, Neil threatened to use physical punishment with Peter on several occasions. It would seem therefore that once practices come into existence, they can resurface and may not necessarily be associated with the same belief systems. Although Neil was present at Peter’s birth, he disagreed with this idea initially because of his original positioning with his first family: I was there to see Peter born. Which I disagreed with at first. Yeah, I’m old fashioned, that’s woman’s work. I thought. ((pause)) There was no thought of ever being a dad staying home looking after the child, you know? (Neil/A; 22/1/4)

Over a period of time techniques of regulation have altered common sense assumptions and truth claims about the birth process, that is, about what is considered “normal” and “natural.” With his first family, fathers were informed once the child had been born. With Peter’s birth, common sense assumptions had changed and it was normal practice for fathers to be present at the birth. In the above transcript, Neil indicated the difficulty or conflict attached to changing subject positions, that is, an instance of the processes of contradictory and multiple subjectivity at work. Neil’s final position is almost diametrically opposite his original opinion. With his current family and retirement from work, the daily rituals and practices as father are significantly different from those of his first family. In sum then, for the Haines family, education and extra activities of an educational nature were valued, as was competition and achievement. Examples of multiple and contradictory subjectivity and how it affects daily domesticity have been provided, locating this family as different in several respects from the traditional nuclear family. These dissimilarities are the result of the age difference between Neil and Nancy, the fact that Nancy worked and Neil did not, and that both are in their second marriage.

Eloise Sullivan (Bradley’s Mother) Because of the type of employment in which he is engaged, Bradley’s father Trevor did not spend a great deal of time with the family. Trevor was in partnership in the food industry and usually left the house shortly after 7.00 a.m. to go to work and did not return until after 9.00 p.m. Often the children were still in bed when he left in the morning and had gone to bed by the time he arrived home in the evening. Usually Trevor had two days per week on which he did not work, but during the period of data collection he was not working only one day per week because of staffing problems in the business. Although he usually spent his day off (Sunday) at home, Trevor was frequently engaged in work such as gardening and small maintenance tasks around the house. Trevor was born in Greece and came


to Australia as a child. Eloise was born in the United Kingdom and also came to Australia as a young child. As Trevor worked such long hours, it was Bradley’s mother Eloise who spent the majority of time with the children. Despite visiting the family during the weekend, early in the morning, and late in the evening, I met Trevor for a short time (approximately five minutes) on only one occasion as he was on his way to work. Because of the relatively small amount of time Trevor spent with the family and the fact that he was never observed interacting with the children, the information about this family focuses on interactions between Bradley and Eloise and among Bradley and his siblings. Despite this, the influence of Trevor was apparent in the data collected in several different ways. At the time of data collection, Bradley did not engage in any recreational or leisure pursuits outside the home. Both Bradley’s older sister Angela and older brother James were supported in their particular interests outside the home. Eloise said that Bradley would have similar opportunities when he was older. Bradley had asked to learn the piano, however, Eloise stated that he was a too young to begin formal lessons. Eloise valued sporting and artistic pursuits for her children after they had been attending school for some time. This provides an interesting contrast to Peter’s parents, who opted to engage him in a large variety of educational and sporting activities at a very early age. Bradley and his elder brother James attended the local public primary school and Angela attended the local public high school. Eloise stated that she and Trevor had considered sending the boys to a local private school, but had made no decisions about it as yet. As there was no consideration given to Angela attending a private school; it appeared as though normalized assumptions relating specifically to gender were in place. The gender of the two youngest boy children held the potential to influence decisions made by Trevor and Eloise about their schooling. The children had a wide variety of toys and play equipment provided for their enjoyment and educational use at home. A large yard that included a swimming pool (with water slide) was used frequently by all children and a number of their friends. Each child had a relatively new bike and was encouraged to use the family computer that was purchased specifically for the children. The children also had a large variety of other games: a trampoline, building material (such as Lego), and electronic musical equipment including a keyboard and guitar. Eloise stated that the children were “lucky” to have the things that they did: They are lucky and they don’t realise it my children. Of course none of them ever do, they’re more or less born into it aren’t they? Like I mean Bradley, we’ve had the pool five years and he’s what, six months old when we got it. ((pause))

114 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict It’s been there, to him it’s nothing, you know, it’s no luxury or anything, I guess. You know. (Eloise/A; 23.01.20)

Such a large and expensive variety of toys indicated the effect of regulatory processes in which parents and children are targeted and shaped as consumers of specialist products (including recreational goods and educational toys) in order to provide the very best for their children. In this case it appears as though Eloise was positioned by both gratefulness and guilt, as she seemed to want the children to realize, understand, and appreciate how fortunate they are to have such a lot of good quality toys and equipment. Eloise was concerned about being able to spend as much time with the children as they requested and at the same time being able to complete the domestic tasks required of her: He ((Bradley)) keeps asking me to come and sit down with him, but I mean, this is where I keep on saying and I shouldn’t I guess. I keep on saying I haven’t got time mate, got too many things to do. And you do, you tend to get into that rut and it’s something I think I’m going to try and learn to get out of, because I don’t spend as much time sitting down with him as I should. But then you find you’d be doing your jobs at night. (Eloise/A; 18/01/5)

This excerpt provides an example of contradictory subjectivity, where competing subject positions made alignment with one position or the other difficult. On the one hand Eloise felt compelled to sit with Bradley when he requested it. This aligned her toward the sensitive mother discourse (Walkerdine and Lucey, 1989; Marion, 1983), where the mother meets the child’s needs. At the same time Bradley requested Eloise to sit with her, she knew that there were a number of domestic chores that required completion and if she sat/played with Bradley for too long, then it meant that she would have to work later at night to complete these tasks. Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) argued that middle-class mothers are able to make pedagogic tasks of domestic chores. In this instance, Eloise was positioned between two regulative discourses, and, concomitantly, between completing domestic duties that operate in competition with the “needs” of the child. As Eloise herself indicated, it is usually the domestic chores that take priority. Eloise thought that the situation might be different if Trevor were able to spend more time at home: “It’s different I suppose if you have got the man around who can share the load a little, but with Trevor not being here, he wishes he could, but he’s not” (Eloise/A; 18/01/6). Throughout the data collection period Eloise told me many times that she experienced behavior problems with her children. She made comments such as the following and then expanded in detail (omitted in these transcripts) about particular episodes:

Introducing the Families • 115 Yes, so um, but I have been having the usual fights with them, you know nothing’s new here . . . Um, even in front of our Japanese student which was only last night, not that it hurts me altogether, they’re being silly, but that’s pretty usual too at first. (Eloise/A; 26/02/6) (Excerpt 1) Yesterday, you wouldn’t believe what my children did to me yesterday . . . and I’d got up that many times to check on things they did because they were up to mischief, all afternoon they were up to mischief . . . (Eloise/A; 23/01/2). (Excerpt 2) Punching each other up in the pool was nothing new. (Eloise/A; 23/01/8). (Excerpt 3) So I was saying to my friend Libby, um, you wouldn’t believe what these children think of doing sometimes. (Eloise/A; 23/01/9) (Excerpt 4)

and: Eloise

What are you doing? She’s ((Angela)) hidden his ((Bradley’s)) pillow. You want to cause trouble Angela? Angela No. Eloise She wants them to be as naughty as they usually are. (Eloise/A; 23/01/18) (Excerpt 5) The above transcripts identify the type of behavior that concerned Eloise. This included fighting with her (Excerpt 1), punching (Excerpt 3), being mischievous (Excerpt 2), being naughty (Excerpt 5), and instigating actions that Eloise found unacceptable (Excerpt 4). According to Eloise, her children were violent, noncompliant, and disruptive, the opposite of the behavior lauded in rationalist, behaviorist, and ethological discourses of childrearing. The only difference was that the local site was the family, rather than that of the clinic, classroom, or textbook. In the first excerpt, Eloise acknowledged that she was embarrassed by what occurred in front of the Japanese exchange student. Although the student was staying in their home, Eloise hoped that the children would behave according to the conventional (discursive) norm, which is that children behave appropriately when a guest is present. Here Eloise constructed herself as ineffective because the children did not behave according to common sense assumptions. In the second excerpt, Eloise made clear her perception that ongoing surveillance of her children was required. Within developmental psychology, continued observation is part of the ritual attached to the social practice of motherhood. Accidents that occur during the course of play signal a failure on the part of the observer to complete the task appropriately (that is, ineffective mothering). To ensure that the children are playing according to socialized


norms of conduct and their continued safety, Eloise must periodically check and regulate their activities. Eloise was positioned through desire to want to be a “good mother” (Rose, 1985), and felt her mothering was unsuccessful when the children engaged in violent, noncompliant, and disobedient behavior. The desire to be a good mother made it even more difficult to cope emotionally when inappropriate child behavior was construed as personal failure and bad mothering: It breaks my heart, ‘cos I mean, the thing I wanted most of all were children that were well behaved, good mannered, and I tried my darndest, you know. And I just feel like I’m getting hit in the face all the time. The way Angela just spoke to me, you know. Oh, I don’t know. It makes me feel as if I should never have had children, sometimes just of late, you know. And they tell me things don’t get any better. What’ve I got to look forward to? (Eloise/A; 31/01/18)

Eloise stated that the difficulties with the children were partly because of marital problems between her and Trevor, particularly because of the way in which Trevor treated her: And I wouldn’t mind betting that a lot of our problems, my problems with my children is a lot because of Trevor’s reaction to a lot of things. You know they carry on and scream at me sometimes because they’ve seen Trevor doing it. (Eloise/A; 31/01/18) So that’s probably why I don’t respect him too well, and it shows, it’s telling on the kids ((pause)) I reckon that’s why there’s no respect amongst the kids, with me, you know. (Eloise/A; 31/01/21)

At times the children adopted the same powerful discourse position as Trevor, “carry[ing] on” and “scream[ing]” at Eloise, positioning her as less powerful by using strategies similar to their father. Part of the normalization process for which the dominant culture deems parents responsible is for children to learn the norms of conduct and behavior associated with a particular family and social group. Hetherington and Morris (1978) referred to this process as new members of society learning “the rules of the game” (p. 6). Eloise here is concerned about societal norms of conduct. What troubled her was the resistance and power plays in which her children engaged: resistance and refusal to observe the social contract of playing the game the way it should be played. A direct reference to this is made when Eloise talked about the way in which Angela spoke to her. Other incidents indicated that friction was caused by the different ways in which Eloise and Trevor were positioned. For example, Eloise stated that the shop ((Trevor’s business)) was kept extremely clean and run very efficiently, which was something Trevor would also like to implement at home:“Yes, well he runs, he tries to run this place ((the home)) pretty much like it too ((the


shop)) and I’ve said, Trevor, when you have got little kids you can’t have it spot on all the time” (Eloise/A; 18/01/32).“It’s, he’s obsessed with cleanliness, he’s obsessed with perfection, you can’t live that way” (Eloise/A; 18/01/29). What became clear was that Eloise understood herself as responsible for inside the house: this is her “domain of practice,” her part of the heterosexual matrix. To some extent she resisted Trevor’s (masculine) intervention into the traditional female power base of the home: she resisted his work practices crossing the home/work boundary and entering her domain. For Eloise, the nature of Trevor’s obsession with cleanliness in the home dominated the social relations, rituals, and practices of everyday life: No, because he forever picks on us, he does the same with me all the time. That’s one of our biggest problems, him and I. You know, he’s fastidious, whereas I’ll do things, to me, my way of doing it I feel as though I’m doing it right. ((pause)) And um, Angela sweeps the floor and he’ll say if she’s not sweeping it in the right direction . . . sometimes I’ve counted six times something he’s picked on me of a night time, when he’s come home. (Eloise/A; 18/01/29–30)

Eloise saw Trevor’s intervention into these aspects of domesticity as transgressing the discursive boundaries of home and work. Trevor’s authority, which comes from hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) and the patriarchal dividend (Connell, 2002), is so great that it ensures Eloise has little control over aspects of her domestic life. To Eloise, Trevor’s domain of practice was his work, whereas hers was inside the home. Conflicts arose because Trevor crossed the home/work boundary and moved into what Eloise considered her territory: he wasn’t adhering to the boundaries of the heterosexual matrix. Conflict that arose from different discourse positioning was also evident in the way both Trevor and Eloise saw Eloise’s duty in the home. The following two transcripts indicate how patriarchal norms of conduct construct and regulate the political relations of domestic activity: “He thinks I should just be doing housework, and that’s it” (Eloise/A; 31/01/17). He won’t face his responsibilities ((in the business)) and yet he won’t let me have any say in the money situation. If I ask for another two dollars he wants to know where my last two has gone. I just can’t believe it. (Eloise/A; 02/09/7)

Bradley’s parents were positioned differently here, with Eloise resisting the notion that she should be limited to completing housework and Trevor resisting any attempt by Eloise for a greater part in financial matters. Eloise is restricted by Trevor’s dominant masculinity and refusal to grant any semblance of decision making in relation to finances, ensuring that she remains dependent on him for access to money. The male–female dualism in the above examples reflects, in material practices, the idea that males are able to act as if they are powerful because they have been allocated such positions through patriarchy and hegemonic


masculinity (Davies, 1989, p. 109; Connell, 1995, 2000). Eloise resisted Trevor’s intervention into her domain of practice, not only through challenging his obsession with cleanliness but also through expressing desire for financial responsibility within the domestic sphere. In choosing to act as if he is powerful, the practices of person formation perpetuate the idea of power to the extent that Trevor consistently rejected the distinction between home and work. Trevor’s transgression of the home/work boundary therefore produced resistance from Eloise and discursive clashes between himself and Eloise.

Key Discourses of Parenting in Each Family As these short case studies have shown, there were different discourses operating in each family. The key discourses of parenting, which varied considerably among families, are shown in Table 2. Although the Anderson family selected a private church school for Amy, this was far more significant for the Gordon family where it was closely related to the discourse of money. The Haines family selected a public school for Peter, but did so because they attached substantial value to educational and personal development. The school chosen for Peter offered a wide range of before and after school tuition, which suited Nancy and Neil. Money had a considerable effect on the everyday lives of each of the four families. The type of home and associated facilities as well as the number and quality of toys and other equipment available in the Anderson and Sullivan homes indicated comfort. There was no reference made to money in the Anderson family, whereas Eloise Sullivan and Nancy Haines mentioned it briefly during the data collection period. In contrast, the discourse of money was a strong influence in the Gordon family, where a variety of money-related aspects were frequently discussed. Some of the issues that arose in the course of daily domesticity included shortage of particular types of food, restriction of spending, payment of bills, school, and kindergarten fees, and the consequences of Tom receiving a lower wage if he returned to day shift. In this family, money was closely connected to wastage and preservation, as the children were regularly reminded not to waste food and other consumable items. The Haines family valued the development of physical skills and, through this, the discourses of competition and achievement were significant. Toward the conclusion of the data-gathering period, Peter won the Australian BMX title for his age. Winning this event signified the way in which Peter and the daily life of his family was oriented around the importance of competition and winning. These are characteristics often associated with dominant masculinity. The focus on competition and wining was not evident in any of the other families. In comparison with Peter, Amy was positioned to develop independence in and responsibility for

Introducing the Families • 119 Table 2. Key Discourses of Parenting in Each Family Family Gordon

Discourses Tidy house Education Helping Conservation Fighting Money

Anderson

Education Independence Social skills

Physical skills Diet

Haines

Education Discipline Competition Skills

Achievement Sullivan

Manners Physical appearance Toys/games Diet Discipline Education Behavior

Key Words House always being tidied; “Clean up,”“Look at the mess you’ve made.” Parents selected private church school. “Can you get me . . . ,”“Help me clean up. . . .” No waste, especially of food items; “ . . . you’ll end up wasting them.” “I don’t want any fights over it”; “ . . . don’t have big fights like last time.” “I’ve just spent a fortune on . . .” ; “They are a treat”; “But getting the MONEY . . .” Private church school. Responsibility for self encouraged. Cooperation and consideration: “That’s not the way to treat people”; “It doesn’t give you the right to push and get violent.” Swimming and gymnastics lessons after school. “You take some fruit please”; “Remember to eat all the vegetables in your bowl”; “You know you can’t take chocolate to school.” Selected specific school because of what it offered. Education valued highly. “Play by the rules of the game.” The punishment must suit the crime. “He always had to be first.” Winning, being the “best.” Swimming, dancing, violin, mathematics, Japanese, keyboard, BMX training, and tuition before and after school. Success valued highly. “Are you going to tell the lady how many trophies you’ve got? . . . 216 trophies.” Emphasized through frequent reminders. Children must look healthy. Latest and best quality. Healthy food: “You’re going to eat and that’s it” (vegetables). Use of physical punishment (e.g., “smacking”). Considering private school for the boys. Importance of well-behaved children but they fight and misbehave.


everyday routine tasks in conjunction with considering and cooperating with others. These are features of “good girls,” or what has been called schoolgirl femininity (Kamler et al., 1994). Interestingly Allison was constituted to achieve similar ends, albeit through the position of “no fighting,” which could be indicative of a class difference. Eloise Sullivan and Rita Gordon used physical punishment (smacking) for misdemeanors. Neil Sullivan threatened use of a belt with Peter, but I did not observe him enact his threats. Diet and healthy eating habits were important to Eloise Sullivan and Toni Anderson, who used these discourses to position their children in particular ways. For example, in both these homes, a high quality of food was provided (such as leg ham instead luncheon sausage) and the use of salt, the amount of “junk” food consumed, and the proportion of fruit and vegetables eaten were constantly monitored. This, however, did provoke some resistance from the children in regard to fruit and vegetables. Nancy Haines also attempted to control the use of salt and limit the amount of “junk” food Peter ate, but found it difficult, as Neil liked to use a lot of salt and did so, flagrantly resisting her attempts at limiting Peter’s salt intake. Although all families required the use of manners, Bradley’s use of manners was related specifically to gender and his use of dominant masculinity. Table 2 shows the key discourses that were operating in each family. These were the discourses (regimes of truth) that were valued by the parents and provided the source of adult rules, norms of behavior, and practices in each of the families. For example, in the Haines family, participation in lots of activities and achievement in these were esteemed. Family life was organized around participation and competition and success was counted in terms of the number of trophies that had been won. In the Gordon family, tidiness was reiterated constantly and the children were required to engage continually in tidying “the mess.” Money and conservation of consumables were essential, to the extent that what came home from school in the lunch box was offered to the other children if Allison didn’t want it. In the Sullivan family, the physical appearance of children was important: they must look healthy and eat properly. The children’s behavior was a frequent concern for Eloise and she used physical punishment to discipline the children. Social skills and independence were important in the Anderson family and Amy engaged in some afterschool activities to develop her physical skills. Diet was a consideration and healthy eating was encouraged.

Discipline as a Regime of Practice The object of disciplinary power is to make bodies docile through techniques of training, control, and regulation. Foucault (1977) argued that discipline “creates out of the bodies it controls” (p. 167) a particular type of individuality that is “endowed” with cellular, organic, genetic, and combi-


natory (a combination of the previous three) characteristics. Cellular individuality refers to the spatial organization of bodies and the specific location of them at certain times (for example, sitting on a chair in a certain way at a table while eating meals), whereas organic individuality prescribes movements (such as chewing with your mouth shut). The blend of cellular and organic individuality produces a prescription of movements to be achieved within a site, such as the “correct” way to hold a knife and fork while eating. “Individuality,” as conceived by Foucault (1977), imposes exercises in a linear fashion and so the effect of training is more significant over a length of time. Discipline occurs through various techniques including hierarchical observation and normalizing judgment (Foucault, 1977). Foucault’s understanding of these aspects of discipline and disciplining bodies is used to show how power–knowledge relations are played out in the four families. In each family there were similar regimes of practice operating that related to the potential for producing parent and child conflict (e.g., eating, sleeping, tidiness). But the key discourses on parenting identified in the previous chapter demonstrated that each family is the site of different, intersecting principal discourses (e.g., competition, physical appearance, diet). Similarly, the regimes of practice and adult rules operating in each family revealed different circumstances: “At the heart of all disciplinary systems functions a small penal mechanism. It enjoys a kind of judicial privilege with its own laws, its specific offences, its particular forms of judgement” (Foucault, 1977, pp. 177–178). To a certain degree each family developed its own discursive grid of laws (adult rules) and its own particular forms of judgment. This is an example of governmentality, of how power and the practices of power are connected to the formation of parents and children in family life. These laws or rules also encompassed, by inference, what counted as an infraction. What constituted an infraction was, for the most part, common knowledge among family members because children were aware of the discursive positioning of their parents. Likewise, the types of judgment invoked on occasions of infringement were mostly common knowledge because children knew how their parents were positioned. This knowledge is the result of the processes of normalization. Having identified the key discourses that were operating in each family, the next four chapters examine how the children resisted and responded to these discourses in their own domestic contexts. These chapters consider the daily routines and the complexity of relationships as parents and children negotiated about food, school routines, tidiness, bedtime rituals, and sibling relationships. The analyses presented in these chapters are drawn from the multiple episodes observed in each family and are representative of the daily domestic talk and action that occurred in each family.

CHAPTER

6

Food to Go

In this chapter, the specific ways of discursively organizing families (hereafter, regimes of practice) are analyzed through investigating incidents of parent and child conflict to show how adult rules from each regime of practice were used in the course of daily domesticity. This reveals that regimes of practice are the very disciplinary techniques through which families and individuals in them are normalized. The pervasiveness of normalizing processes is exemplified by the way in which these processes, once established, exert such control over the body that persons become self-regulating. Discourses on parenting are ways in which parents give meaning to the world. Meanings are created through specific ways of organizing families that encompass the rituals and routines associated with each family. Various overlapping modes of subjectivity are available from which parents can select particular subject positions (such as the belief in smacking or not smacking a child). They do this by articulating and enforcing in talk and discipline a “regime” of practices that rationalizes their actions and their power. Disciplinary techniques operate through regimes of practice involved in domesticity, and the investigation of episodes of parent and child conflict and resistance demonstrates how power relations are played out on a daily basis. The regimes of practice that emerged from the data collection process were related to eating, tidiness, sleeping, school, and sibling relationships. In understanding the discourses on eating, the object of this chapter is to display the way in which the bodies of young children were targets of disciplinary practices. This discipline is exercised through regimes of practice in daily domestic routines and interaction. In this chapter I provide examples of resistance and contestation that occurred in relation to the rules for eating. This includes rules about table 123


manners operating in each family, the gendered nature of preparation, consumption, and cleaning associated with food, and the oppressive nature of the interactions between two boys and their mothers at mealtimes, which included being spoon-fed.

Timing of Food Consumption Food preparation and eating routines were integral parts of daily domesticity for all four families. The daily routine was punctuated by the preparation, eating, and cleaning associated with regular meals and snacks, which were interspersed at intervals throughout the day. The everyday activities for each family were ordered according to the designated eating timetable, imposing a daily rhythm of life through the constant regulation of the bodies of family members. Through this process of discipline, bodies are regulated: “Time penetrates the body and with it all the meticulous controls of power” (Foucault, 1977, p. 152). In all families breakfast was consumed on rising, the morning snack usually about mid-morning, and lunch around the middle of the day. When children attended school, these rituals were part of the school day. Mid-way through the afternoon another snack was offered (this occurred after school on school days), and the evening meal was eaten at a variety of times, depending on the family and the course of events occurring on that particular day. In all four families adult rules did not allow eating at times other than those designated. However, there are always exceptions to rules. The following transcript demonstrates what happened when Allison requested a snack close to the evening meal: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Allison Rita Allison Rita Allison Rita

Mum, can I please have a Nutella sandwich? No not now. Bread? No. Ohhh. It’s tea time soon ((evening meal)). No. You’ve had chips. That’ll do. (Allison/V; 05/03/14)

Here Rita invoked the rule that no food was to be eaten close to the evening meal, particularly as the children had consumed a snack after they came home from school. Shortly after this incident, Rita discovered Allison’s left over school lunch in her bag. The following transpired: 1 Rita 2 Allison

You didn’t eat your muesli bar today? ((a valued item)) I couldn’t.

Food to Go • 125

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Rita Allison Rita Allison Rita Ryan Rita Ryan Rita

Oh, well, Ryan, do want a cheese sandwich? No, I want it, oh, what else is there? A muesli bar. Yeah. Well let Ryan have the sandwich then. I want the muesli bar. No, Allison’s got the muesli bar . . . I don’t want this. ((cheese sandwich)) Hmm? Well give it to Karl then. (Allison/V; 05/03/15–16)

In the previous chapter, one of the key discourses on parenting identified for the Gordon family was that of conservation. For this family in these circumstances, consumption as opposed to wastage of food was more important than the previously invoked adult rule about not eating close to tea time. In the other three families, uneaten school sandwiches were disposed of by either the parent or child throwing them into the rubbish bin. In general then, the consumption of food was regulated at appropriate intervals throughout the day and eating was discouraged at times other than those designated for eating. The normalization of routine eating times has built the “truth” that three meals and two snack times per day are “natural” for young children. It operates on two sets of binary oppositions: between, for example, consumption and wastage, and “real” meals and snacks.

Eating Sites Each meal was consumed in a particular area of the house with furniture and other equipment specifically designed for eating. Snacks were frequently eaten in less formal circumstances such as on the patio or in a shaded area outside. Snack times were more variable in their location than meal times and could be eaten wherever the children were playing. Nevertheless, an actual space was selected in which the meal or snack was to be consumed. Children were required to remain in this area while consuming food to enable continued surveillance by the parent(s). These rules, as regulatives and imperatives, constructed a domestic regime of practice about eating in each family. Meals such as bar-b-ques were also eaten outdoors, as was lunch on occasion. Breakfast was never eaten outside by any of the families while data were being collected. In all families meals were eaten at a table. In some families children were assigned a particular place at which they always sat for meals and in other families children were able to choose their


position for each meal. Apart from the difference in adult rules in relation to actual seating positions, all members of the families were located in specific individual spaces for the meal and children were required to remain seated in their place at the table for the duration of the meal.

Food Preparation Rituals such as food preparation, setting the table, utilization of table manners, and cleaning afterward, characterized meal times. Adult rules in the Gordon and Anderson homes made preparation for the meal mandatory for Allison and Amy. At times these girls resisted the imperatives to help prepare for meals and at other times they did not. No boys in any of the families were required to participate in any meal preparation. In contrast to Amy and Allison, both Bradley and Peter were called to the table after the food was prepared and placed on the table. They then sat down to eat. The following transcript demonstrates how Allison was positioned by her mother’s discourse to complete preparation tasks for the forthcoming meal. She was continually constructed as helper while her mother was preparing lunch: 1

Rita

2 3 4

Allison Karl Allison

5

Rita

6 7

Allison Rita

Allison can you get a couple of little plastic plates out please? Yep. ( ) Mummy, I want mine on the big glass plate, mummy . . . OK, How about I cut yours into triangles too and put them all on a plate together? Then there will be no fights. You get what you’re given then. Allison, put that in the bin for me please. OK . . . Mum, the rubbish bin needs to be emptied . . . . . . Allison, can you put this in the fridge for me please? (Rita/V; 22/01/4)

In this short episode Rita positions Allison as helper three times. First, she is asked to get some plates (turn 1), second, she is required to put some rubbish in the bin (turn 5), and finally, Rita requested she put something in the refrigerator (turn 7). Like Amy, Allison responded immediately to her mother’s directions and knew exactly how to complete the necessary tasks. In fact the practices of person formation (regulation and normalization) utilized by Rita have been so successful that Allison has chosen to re-

Food to Go • 127

port additional information about a related domestic task, on this occasion, that the rubbish bin needed to be emptied (turn 6). Although Rita and Allison did at times resist helping with meal preparation, their resistance was nominal and quickly subsided as the following transcript from Amy’s family shows. 1 2 3 4 5

Toni Amy Toni Amy Toni

6 7

Amy Toni

Amy you can get some plates out please. OOhhhh noo ((drawn out response)) Alright don’t! I will. You help and tea gets on the table faster. If you don’t want to help the tea’s longer . . . I’m sitting here ((indicated her place at table)). You need milk, or juice, or whatever you want, then to wash your hands. (Toni/V; 22/03/11)

Here Amy resisted the routine practice of helping prepare for the evening meal but acquiesced after the comment from her mother: “Alright don’t!” (turn 3). This veiled threat produced immediate compliance from Amy, who indicated “I will” (turn 4). In the following turn Toni justified and provided reasons for Amy’s help in the preparations (turn 5), and ended with another threat, “If you don’t want to help. . . .” This direct threat appeared to have dispelled any further resistance as Toni was able to prescribe the procedure necessary for the meal (turn 7). All children were at times offered some choice by their mothers concerning what they wanted to eat at meals. However, the way in which girls were positioned to respond to such choice was different from both the boys. For example, Amy and Allison made decisions quite quickly and without much fuss. In comparison, both boys utilized hegemonic masculinity to position their mothers as the objects of their dominant masculinity when presented with these opportunities. The following transcript demonstrates how Peter managed to do this when his mother put more on his plate for the evening meal than what he had requested originally: 1 2

Nancy Peter

3

Nancy

4 5

Peter Nancy

Here frog ((Peter)). I DIDN’T SAY I WANTED PEAS, I SAID I WANTED SAUSAGES WITH POTATO! Oh well try the peas. Here. ((Nancy put some peas on Peter’s fork and put the fork near his mouth)) HOLY SHIT! You know what Mum doesn’t even listen! ((Peter reached for the salt and pepper)) You don’t need salt and pepper. (Nancy/V; 02/03/7)


A little earlier Peter had been asked what he wanted for the evening meal. When serving the meal Nancy had placed peas on the plate as well as the sausages and potato, which provoked Peter’s response. Nancy’s inclusion of the peas signified her belief that green vegetables were an essential part of the evening meal. On this occasion, Nancy added peas to what Peter had requested, which enabled Peter to position himself as subject and therefore more powerfully, so he was able to forcefully resist the inclusion of the peas (turn 2). Nancy ignored Peter’s seizure of power by putting some peas on his fork and encouraging him to eat them (turn 3). However, Peter saw Nancy’s encouragement to eat the peas as ignoring his initial request and later reminder (turn 2) that he wanted sausages and potato. Peter was incensed with what he took to be Nancy’s failure to listen to him, making his position clear by yelling the profanity “HOLY SHIT!” before telling his father that his mother didn’t listen to him (turn 4). Again, Nancy ignored this outburst, including the curse, by attempting to invoke another adult rule: she told Peter that he didn’t need salt and pepper (turn 5). Because of Nancy’s discursive positioning as mother, she almost set up the opportunity, or made the discursive space available for Peter to position her again as object of his more powerful discourse, simply by stating that he didn’t need salt and pepper. His father said nothing. Silence can be a way of condoning what is said and done. Peter was constructed as able to successfully challenge and therefore position himself as more powerful than his mother with little negative effect to him. In fact, his position of power was not threatened as Nancy responded only in terms of her discursive position as provider of green vegetables and arbiter of whether Peter could have salt and pepper. Neil’s silence condoned Peter’s successful challenge and made it acceptable for Peter to say these things to his mother in the presence of his father. Hence Peter, in the daily practice of eating, was able to position himself as dominant male through the use of hegemonic masculinity and was therefore able to regulate and oppress his mother. The boys in all families were recipients and consumers of food that was prepared and served by the females (mothers and sisters) in the house. All girls in all families (excluding babies) were required to help their mothers prepare for meals. Allison was also assigned to help her mother perform routine domestic tasks for her brothers: 1

Rita

2

Rita

Allison, can you get me a cloth please so I can wash Karl’s face and hands please? (Rita/V; 29/01/19) . . . (to Allison) Can you bring me Karl’s bib please so I can wipe it off? (Rita/V; 29/01/22)

Food to Go • 129

Here Allison is required to help her mother in cleaning and caring for her youngest brother. The long-term effect of discipline such as this can be that girls learn, like their mothers, to prepare food, serve it, and clean up for males. In these families, being male meant you sat at the table and waited for the females of the house to serve the prepared food. These rituals are examples of the operation of patriarchy and the heterosexual matrix, and the way in which women and girls are positioned in the nuclear family. Behavior at meals also showed significant gender effects.

Table Manners Each family had its own set of adult rules about table manners. Although there were distinct similarities in the rules among the families, resistance to the implementation of the rules was significant in all families. All children were reminded frequently about the table manners accepted in their family. Table 3 details some of the adult rules about table manners that were invoked. These adult rules were techniques of discipline through which children were controlled and regulated. In this study, parental use of table manners invoked ideas about colonialism and postcolonialism because of the extent of surveillance of table manners by parents and the regulation and training of children’s bodies that occurred in accordance with the rules about table manners. It is reminiscent of colonizers (parents) turning savages (the colonized children) into civilized beings through the use of control and structure (cf. Viruru & Cannella, 1999). Consistent with the postcolonial literature, resistance and sometimes conflict occurred when children refrained from adhering to the rules. That is, children resisted the disciplinary techniques of table manners applied by their parents that were aimed at regulating them and normalizing behaviors such as sitting properly while eating. The following examples show how this occurred. For young children, the correct use of eating utensils can be a challenge. By the time they are five years of age, most are able to handle knives and forks reasonably well. However, this does not necessarily mean that they like to use them: 1 2 3

Rita (M) Allison Rita

4

Allison

(to Allison) UH UH! Not with your fingers! I want to eat it with my fingers. Put it down! You know better than that. No! Ask for it to be cut up please. I don’t want it cut up.

130 • Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict Table 3. Adult Rules about Table Manners Family* Gordon Rita (M) Tom (F) Allison (D) Ryan (S) Karl (S) Anderson Toni (M) Nathan (F) Amy (D) Emily (D) Sarah (D)

Sullivan Eloise (M) Trevor (F) Angela (D) James (S) Bradley (S)

Haines Nancy (M) Neil (F) Peter (S)

Rules Speak with an empty mouth; close mouth when eating; keep hands and feet away from others; make as little mess as possible; behave at the table (no acting “silly”); no use of salt; eat with cutlery (no fingers, drinking from cereal bowl, or licking plate); ask to be excused from the table; no snacks close to the next meal; ask for required food and drinks; eat an appropriate amount in one mouthful. Sit at the table to eat; keep hands off food not about to be consumed; once the meal is finished there is nothing else to eat; some fruit is to be consumed each day; some vegetables are to be eaten for the evening meal; utensils are to be used to serve food; eat nicely, no playing with food; elbows off the table; children can get own drinks; parents put salt on food; no toys at the table; food dropped on the floor is to be picked up; parents decide how much chocolate, ice cream, etc., children can have. Manners are expected, children are reminded if they forget; spillages are not necessary; drinks (such as lemonade) not consumed appropriately are removed; chairs are to be sat on appropriately; youngest child only allowed to eat with fingers, although frequently told to eat properly; scraps to be put in the proper place; a portion of vegetables is to be eaten at the evening meal; youngest child fed by mother if an inappropriate amount of vegetables eaten; physical punishment (smacking) used during the meal if youngest child is not eating properly; all meals are to be eaten; eating the right foods is important for behavior (cordials, etc. make children “hypo”). Need to ask to use fingers to eat; if child chooses not to eat, still required to sit at the table; what is not eaten that night is eaten the next day; if child is not eating the meal, no chips, milk, or soft drink allowed; no talking with mouth full; what is requested must be eaten; what is on the plate must be eaten; knives stay out of mouths; tea time is the only time the family sits down together; child’s food preferences have some influence over what is eaten; mother feeds child if necessary; not too much food in the mouth at one time; speak nicely at the table; mouth is to be closed when chewing; sit appropriately at the table, with feet on the floor.

*M, mother; F, father; D, daughter; S, son. Children are listed in birth order.

Food to Go • 131

5

Rita

You know better than that . . . (Rita/V; 29/01/13)

A few minutes later: 6

Rita:

7 8

Allison Rita

(to Allison) You’re using your fingers. What’s a spoon for? Eating. ((began to use spoon)) Thank you. Yes. (Rita/V; 29/01/15)

Allison challenged the rule about eating with her fingers several times. In turns (2) and (4), she resisted by stating the exact opposite of what she had been told. When her mother told her not to eat with her fingers, Allison replied that she wanted to eat it with her fingers. However, a short time later, Rita made an indirect reference by asking, “What’s a spoon for?” (turn 6). This had the desired effect as Allison complied by using the spoon as requested. Rita’s surveillance meant that she attended to what Allison was doing and corrected her if her behavior infringed on the rules. In this way Rita constructed Allison to use the normalized procedure of eating with appropriate utensils, but at the same time has been positioned to supervise Allison’s movements to ensure that the meal is consumed in the accepted fashion. In the next excerpt Allison left the table without asking to be excused. The way in which the rule was invoked required Allison to position herself according to two additional procedures (turn 6): 1

Rita

2 3 4

Allison Allison Rita table)) Allison Rita

5 6

I’ll help you in a minute Karl. Hold on. Did you ask if you could be excused from the table Allison? No. Please can I leave the table? No. Sit back at the table and ask. ((Allison sat at Please, can I leave the table? Yes, you may. Finish your drink and bring it up here ((to the sink)) so I can wash it up. (Rita/V; 29/01/16)

The protocol of leaving the table is important in this episode. Rita knew that Allison wanted to leave the table, but made her do it properly by insisting that she return to the table, sit down, and then ask to leave (turn 4). This is an example of Rita, positioned as mother, regulating her female child to use the appropriate procedure to leave the table. However, she did not stop there. Rita required that Allison conform when she invoked the “no waste” rule (turn 6) and the position of daughters to help in clearing


items from the table after the meal (turn 6). Allison complied with her mother’s requests and showed little resistance, which probably indicated the effect of the duration of time. In the Anderson family, I observed Amy frequently resist eating vegetables. One of the rules in this family was that the children were required to eat a portion of vegetables at the evening meal (see Table 3). On the following occasion Amy’s resistance began when she saw what was placed on the table for the evening meal: 1 Amy 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

((serving herself some meat)) I’m not having any of those ((peas and carrots)). Toni (M) ((served Amy’s peas and carrots)) You bet Yam ((nickname)). That’s your quota. No, that’s your quota. Now do you want potato Amy? Amy Yes, that one. I would like that piece of meat. Toni That? Amy Yeah. Emily I don’t want ( ) Toni Right, you eat every other bit on there. ((to Amy)) Sit down! . . . Nathan (F) You love your vegies don’t you Amy? Amy Yeah, oh, wait a minute, no. Amy Can I have a crunchy bit? Nathan Yep, when you’ve finished what’s on your plate. Amy I’ve eaten a lot of peas and carrots. You’ve taken all the crunchy bits! Amy ((goes to take a crunchy piece)) Nathan Not until you’ve eaten those ((peas and carrots)). Amy Emily’s ((sister)) got some. Nathan She’s eaten all of hers ((peas and carrots)). Toni ((came in about five minutes later after feeding the baby and got her meal)) Toni Who’s eaten all their vegies? Emily Me. Amy Mum, I’ve only got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 peas left. Toni Not many. (Toni/V; 22/03/11–12)

In this excerpt, both parents enforced the rule about vegetables on a number of occasions (turns 2, 7, 11, 14, and 18), reminding Amy of what she was required to eat before she could have anything else that she wanted. Amy’s reluctance is apparent from the beginning of the transcript, where she indicated she was not going to eat any peas and carrots (turn 1). But

Food to Go • 133

her mother repeated the rule firmly (turns 2 and 7). Amy badly wanted another “crunchy” piece of pork crackling and tried to take one before finishing her peas and carrots (turns 10, 12 and 13), but she was reminded by her father that she had to eat the peas and carrots first. By the time Toni reentered the room approximately five minutes later and asked about who’d eaten their vegetables (turn 18), Amy had acquiesced and had only five peas left (turn 20). At the beginning of this transcript, Toni assigned Amy a certain portion of vegetables to eat. Nathan also invoked the rule of eating what was on the plate before any more food could be taken (turn 11). Thus Amy had to eat the vegetables before she could help herself to any more food because Amy’s parents required her to eat a portion of vegetables as part of each evening meal. For Amy, the overall effect was to position the child as one who ate nicely, sat down during the meal, ate the appropriate portion of vegetables, and used the correct utensils to do so. The constant monitoring and surveillance by her parents, as well as reminders about the rules, were the ways in which Amy was becoming normalized in the eating regime of practice. The behavior of Amy and Allison at meals consisted of low level resistance to adult rules, as shown in the above examples. Both girls were required to prepare, serve, and clean up after meals because they were girls, and neither engaged in behavior that was likely to bring them into ongoing conflict with their parents.

Family Narrative Activity In all four families, meal times did include positive family interaction and conversation. The following extract is used to show the type of interaction that occurred. It was more common in some families than others, which may be due to the effect of class. Nathan Anderson (Amy’s father) showed an active interest in the weekend activities in which the children participated, as well as their school and kindergarten activities, swimming, and gymnastic lessons. This interest was evident in discussions with Amy and Emily about their daily activities, which often occurred during the evening meal. These conversations reflected elements of what Ochs and Taylor (1992) have described as the “political construction of the family” (p. 301) through narrative activity. Ochs and Taylor (1992) showed that in Anglo two-parent, middle-class, English-speaking American families, mothers tended to introduce and therefore control dinner time conversation topics as well as the timing of their introduction. Nathan initiated and sustained a conversation with Amy in a manner similar to what Ochs and Taylor have described: 1 Nathan 2 Emily

What’re we going to do this weekend Emily? ((inaudible))


3 Nathan 4 Emily 5 Nathan 6 Nathan 7 Amy 8 Nathan 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Amy Nathan Amy Nathan Amy Nathan Amy Sue Emily Nathan

Who’s coming over on Saturday night? Elaine and Ben, and Ellie and Drew and Helen and (( )). That’s who’s coming over hey dad? Yes . . . What does mum do after you go to bed Emily? Wash the dishes, dry the dishes, turn the dishes over ((in sing song fashion)) . . . Amy had her choice the other night of watching tv or painting with daddy, didn’t you Yam? Yeah What did you do? Paint . . . So tomorrow’s Friday and then there’s the weekend. Yeah. Did you tell Sue where we went last weekend? Your house. No you didn’t. I can’t remember. We went and got some timber, didn’t we? Where did we go to after that? . . . (Nathan/V; 22/03/9)

In contrast to the Ochs and Taylor (1992) study, Amy’s father introduced a significant proportion of the discussion topics (as in the above example). This could have occurred because quite often Toni was attending to the baby and did not sit at the table until the other members of the family had almost completed their meals. Continued involvement with the family may have supported the Ochs and Taylor (1992) findings further, as Toni introduced particular topics for discussion on several occasions. In this family the absence of Toni at the evening meal could have caused Nathan to adopt the subject position that he did. Amy and Emily did on some occasions resist family narrative activity, but as can be seen in this excerpt, they were compliant on this occasion.

Boys’ Behavior at Meals Parental positioning revealed specific gender effects in relation to meal preparation, consumption, and cleaning. For instance, although Amy (as well as her younger sister) and Allison (not her younger brothers) were required to help prepare for the meal, Peter and Bradley were not. Eloise (Bradley’s mother) sustained her statement from the pilot study interview that Bradley had no responsibility in helping prepare meals. Bradley’s brother James was not required to help, although Eloise stated that their

Food to Go • 135

older sister Angela was expected to help with preparation and the cleaning process after the meal. In contrast to Amy and Allison, both Bradley and Peter were called to the table after the food was placed on the table. They then sat down to eat. Peter’s food was prepared by his mother and cut into bite-sized pieces before his plate was placed on the table ready for him to begin eating. His mother added anything additional (such as sauce) to Peter’s meal while she was serving it. Hence, Nancy’s position within domestic practice was to prepare, serve, and clean up after meals for the males, in addition to working full time. Likewise, Eloise, Toni, and Rita, as (full-time) mothers and wives, prepared and served meals. However, the children’s positioning within the practices of food preparation and consumption depended entirely upon their gender. There were marked differences between the behavior of the boys at the table and that of the girls. The following transcript demonstrates the difference in discourse positioning between Bradley’s mother (Eloise) and the mothers of the girls (Amy’s mother and Allison’s mother). Bradley’s behavior at the table was very different from the girls’, as were the ways in which the girls’ mothers regulated them (as per the previous examples in this chapter). In the following transcript, lunch was being prepared in Bradley’s family: 1 Eloise 2 Bradley 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

12 13 14 15 16

Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

Chicken or beef Bradley? ((playing)) Ah, ((pause)) brown, ((pause)) I want brown. Brown ones, that’s beef. Beef. Beef what mummy? Beef. Pardon? Beef tits. ((smirked)) PARDON! Beef please mummy. That’s better! I hope I didn’t hear what I thought I heard; I hope you didn’t say what I thought I heard. You sit at the table Bradley. I want a drink. Pardon? Please. Go and sit at the table please. (Eloise/V; 18/01/7–8)

By giving Bradley some choice in what he ate for lunch (turn 1), Eloise was also offering Bradley the opportunity for a more powerful position by


placing him as subject and herself as object within this particular framework. As subject, Bradley made a number of small bids for power by delaying his answer; identifying a color rather than the flavor (turn 2), and refusing to be regulated through the use of manners (turns 5 and 7). In maintaining his position as subject, Bradley was able to position his mother as woman and the powerless object of his own hegemonic masculinity with his retort “Beef tits” (turn 8). A significant feature of Bradley’s oppressive resistance is the way in which his mother has been constructed as different from him. For example, Davies (1989) has argued that because of the obligation of each child to be identifiable as male or female, boys must “at least in part position themselves as masculine through oppressive acts of domination and control of their environment and non-masculine others” (p. 89). In other words, it is legitimate at the age of five to use hegemonic masculinity to make lewd comments about parts of the female anatomy so that you can position your mother as powerless. Eloise attempted to regulate Bradley by letting him know that he hadn’t got the right answer by yelling “PARDON!” (turn 9). A similar technique was also used in her previous attempts to regulate Bradley. For example, Eloise implied the correct use of the word “please” was required by saying “Beef what mummy?” (turn 5), and the more direct request of “Pardon?” (turn 7) was made shortly after in another effort to have Bradley say “please.” In this way, Bradley’s opposition and domination are almost masked, papered over, as part of the ebb and flow of the discourse of table manners (turn 9). A similar evasion was noted by Walkerdine (1981), who argued in a classic piece that progressive early childhood educators do not confront such attacks. In the Walkerdine example, the female teacher dismissed Terry’s (boy child) accusation that Annie (girl child) was a “stupid cunt” (Walkderine, 1981, p. 15), along with other similar language and associated behavior from Terry and Sean as “quite normal for this age . . . just natural and should be left . . . coming out with that kind of expression is very natural” (p. 17). Classifying such repressive language and behavior as normal and natural for children aged three and four years had the effect of sanctioning it. It also legitimated the actions of these young boys in this instance and for any such behavior in the future in this classroom with this teacher. However, it came at great cost to the teacher and the girls who were involved in the play. As Walkerdine has said, calling Annie a ‘cunt’ . . . bring[s] the teacher down to size: she and a small girl are in discourse but the same thing—sex objects. The power of their discourse is one which renders all females typifications of the same qualities, in this case possessors of tits, bums and cunts. (p. 16)

Food to Go • 137

In her avoidance of confronting the “Beef tits” comment directly and her continued attempt to regulate Bradley through the use of table manners, Eloise defined him as object (turn 9). Because Bradley played the game and produced the required “Beef please mummy” (turn 10), Eloise constituted him as not having said what he did: “I hope I didn’t hear what I thought I heard . . .” (turn 11). Perhaps ignoring the “Beef tits” comment enabled Eloise to be successful in eliciting the use of “please” that she seemed to require in turn 9. This may have influenced her to continue to try and enhance her position through a further demand for him to say “please” (turn 14), and having him sit at the table (turns 12 and 16). Having Bradley comply and sit at the table would have positioned Eloise slightly more powerfully, but he did not obey immediately. He resisted sitting down and also refused to use the word “please.” Her position as mother, regulator of table manners, and possessor of “tits,” was not powerful enough to have him comply immediately. He did so on his terms, letting his mother know that he was still in a very powerful position, and enjoying it. Although Eloise’s attempts to regulate Bradley through the discourse of table manners were not successful (as turns 13 and 16 indicate), ignoring Bradley’s “Beef tits” comment signaled that Eloise knew he had crossed discursive boundaries. However, Eloise provided an escape for him (turn 11) in which the consequences of his domineering attack had little significance (“I hope I didn’t hear . . . ”). Bradley had a reprieve orchestrated by his mother, but again adopted the more powerful position of subject and attempted to regulate his mother by demanding a drink (turn 13), notably without the use of the requisite “please.” Adult-invoked rules about table manners are techniques of discipline through which persons are controlled and regulated (cf. Foucault, 1977). In one sense then, Bradley was resisting this form of regulation by refusing to play the game and provide the required manners such as “please.” Eloise, as the person directly responsible for the regulation of Bradley in this way, was the target of his resistance (Foucault, 1982). Because of the way in which boys are constituted (Davies, 1989), the risks of such an oppressive attack are not high, particularly if it is possible for Bradley to continually position himself as subject in the power relationship. It is likely that such oppressive patriarchal attacks will be seen (even by their mothers) as ways in which boys position themselves as masculine (Davies, 1989). This is exactly what happened in the above transcript: Bradley’s behavior was excused as possibly not even occurring, therefore constructing him as able to make such attacks as part of his masculinity. To some degree then, Bradley’s oppressive assault was sanctioned by the discursive object of the attack, that is, his mother.


Through such experiences, Bradley (in the example of “Beef tits”) and Peter (in the example of “holy shit”) learn that hegemonic masculinity is performed as required, and iterated, as Butler (1990) contended, as a stylized performance that is regulated by dominant discourses at appropriate moments so that it appears to be a normal and natural part of daily life. They also learned that the objects of their subjugation, their mothers, did not retaliate except in terms of their discursive positions as providers of food and regulators of the use of table manners. For these boys the iteration started early in their lives, and for Peter it was sanctioned by his father. Like Allison and Amy, Peter and Bradley were learning to perform gender according to the norms that operated in their families and that were condoned by the social contexts outside their families. As with preparation for the meal, there was also a significant gender difference in parental discourse positioning relating to the way in which food was consumed. For example, both Bradley and Peter were spoon-fed by their mothers (several times), whereas the two girls were expected to be completely independent in feeding themselves. The ability to position your mother so that she spoon-feeds you is a very powerful one and for this reason the spoon-feeding episodes of both boys were protracted in the extreme, fraught with consistent challenge and subversion of power through the use of threats, screaming, physical punishment, and the liberal use of profanities. These actions had the effect of making the spoon-feeding last as long as possible in order for the boys to maintain their positions of extreme power for as long as they could. Similar actions from the girls would not have been tolerated. Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) discussed spoon-feeding of older children (such as Peter and Bradley) as helpless behavior, as reluctance on the part of the child to grow up, and as fear of losing the mother. Being male and being spoon-fed by your mother at the age of five is a very powerful position as the following transcripts show. Those who are usually spoon-fed (babies and toddlers) hold quite powerful positions and receive a great deal of specialized attention. Although Peter and Bradley were able to adopt these positions of power, there was no space made available for either of the girls in their families to adopt such powerful positions. Both would have been vehemently denied such positions. In Peter’s family there was additional tension as Nancy and Neil disagreed about Peter being spoon-fed. The following transcript depicts the initial stages of conflict as well as the discursive positioning of both Peter’s parents: 1 Neil

Come on, eat it before it gets cold. Come on mate. Come on, hurry up and eat. We are running late. We’re running late.

Food to Go • 139

2 Nancy 3 Peter 4 Nancy 5 Neil 6 Peter 7 Neil 8 9 10 11 12

Peter Nancy Neil Nancy Neil

13 14 15 16

Peter Neil Peter Neil

17 Nancy 18 Peter

OK, I gave you a headstart, now I’m coming to eat mine. I feel sick. I feel sick. Usual on a Thursday. Do you want Mummy to help you? Enough sugar on it? ((shakes head for no)) ((added sugar)) Come on eat your breakfast now, or I will get mad. I will get mad Peter. Mum’s going to help me. ((feeds Peter with spoon)) You’re a naughty boy Peter. You really are a big boy. ((still feeding Peter)) ((to Nancy)) I wish you wouldn’t do that. Let him feed himself. NO! You’re a bloody baby, that’s what y’are. ((Neil leaves the table)) Go get my trophy! . . . ((to Peter)) No, if you can’t, ((unfinished sentence to Peter; then speaking to Nancy who is still feeding Peter)) come on, he’s just [ [Just let him be, he’s ok. If you don’t get my trophy right now, I ( ). (Nancy/V; 29/03/5–6)

In the opening of this transcript, Neil had emphasized that they were late and there was a need to hurry with breakfast. When Nancy came to the table, Peter’s response to his mother was that he felt sick (a position of helplessness), at which point both parents reacted immediately. Nancy offered to “help” Peter and Neil asked if he wanted more sugar. Neil put more sugar on the cereal but Peter did not begin to eat, resulting in a threat from Neil that he would “get mad” (turn 7). Peter indicated that Nancy was going to help him (turn 8), and on Peter’s cue, Nancy began to spoon-feed him (turn 9). This resulted in Peter being called “a naughty boy” (turn 10) by his father, and Neil admonishing Nancy for feeding Peter (turn 12). Peter was then called a “bloody baby” (turn 14) by his father. Nancy agreed that Peter was “really a big boy” (turn 11), and should therefore have been able to feed himself. Neil stood to leave the table, possibly indicating that he was not going to stay and be part of what was happening because he disagreed with Nancy spoon-feeding Peter. When Neil rose to leave, Peter was in such a powerful position that he was able to yell at his father and demand that his father bring his most recent trophy to him at the table (turn


15). Although this demand was denied (turn 16), Neil turned his attention to Nancy again, inferring that she stop feeding Peter (turn 16). She refused by indicating quietly that Peter would be “ok” (turn 17), and it appeared as though the situation was defusing. Peter made a last ditch effort to have his father get the trophy by threatening him, but did not yell this time (turn 18). Perhaps Peter knew that the conflict was in the process of abating, brought about because he had nearly finished his breakfast. The most salient point from this incident is Nancy’s offer to help Peter (turn 4) after he indicated that he was feeling sick. By offering help, Nancy affirmed Peter as sick (and therefore helpless) and provided him with an opportunity to adopt a dominant and powerful position. The family was already running late but the spoon-feeding enabled Peter to take his time, to continue to use hegemonic masculinity to regulate Nancy (through having her feed him), and to attempt to regulate Neil by demanding that he bring his trophy to the table. From Nancy’s perspective, spoon-feeding may have been the only way she could make certain that Peter ate breakfast, thereby ensuring that she had been a “good” mother. For her, it may have been worth the risk of being subservient to her son and ridiculed by her husband. However, as “breadwinner” in this family, she may have been calling on this discourse and the more powerful positioning it allowed her to keep feeding Peter, and maintain that “he’s ok” (turn 17). It is likely that Neil resisted the spoon-feeding because it placed Peter in a more powerful position than him, with his son able to demand that his father bring things to the table for him. Further, Neil was not successful in having Nancy stop spoon-feeding Peter, despite his admonishment of her. In this situation, being an only child also needs consideration, as Peter appeared to be aware that if he was able to be spoon-fed, he would have created an alliance between himself and his mother that was impenetrable (temporarily) by his father. This positioned his father as helpless in his attempt to stop Nancy spoon-feeding him. Neil did appeal to Peter to stop by telling him that he was a “naughty boy” (turn 10). A hint about what might transpire came when Peter ignored his father’s admonishment about not eating his cereal (turn 1), and indicated to his mother that he was feeling sick (turn 3). Neil then was positioned as ineffective in what happened between Nancy and Peter as his challenges to both Peter and Nancy were unsuccessful in stopping the spoon-feeding. The alliance between Peter and Nancy enabled Peter to attempt to regulate his father (turns 15 and 18). It also disempowered Neil’s attempts to stop Nancy from spoon-feeding Peter because as a pair, Peter and Nancy could ignore and therefore dismiss Neil’s talk and action. I observed Bradley being “force-fed” (his mother’s term) when he resisted eating the required portion of vegetables at the evening meal. For

Food to Go • 141

Peter, spoon-feeding occurred in both the absence and presence of his father, with the above example showing the politics of spoon-feeding when his father was present. It was not possible to observe Bradley’s father due to the long hours that he worked. The following example shows what occurred when Bradley’s mother “force-fed” him. The transcript begins toward the end of the meal, when Bradley had not eaten any of his vegetables. 1

Bradley

2

Eloise

3 4

Bradley Bradley

5

Bradley

6 7 8

Eloise Bradley Eloise

9 10 11 12

Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

13 Eloise 14 Bradley 15 Angela 16 Eloise

((slouched down in chair, almost under the table)) Bye, bye. ((grabbed Bradley’s arm to stop him slouching, lifted spoon to feed him again)) Sit up or I’ll smack! ((laughed and giggled)) ( ) ( ) ((talked with mouth full and pushed food so that it oozed out of his mouth and began to dribble down his chin)). Big wee hanging out. ((Eloise did not seem to hear or understand this as Bradley was laughing loudly and had food oozing from him his mouth)). Sit! Yeah, I’ll smack it! ((Bradley’s hand)) Your pants’ll fall down ((screamed with laughter)) . . . ((pushed Bradley on cheek with spoon several times, Bradley felt food in the spoon with his finger but did not eat)) EAT IT! ((put spoon on table)) ((laughed)) . . . ((picked up spoon of food)) Ready? How old are you? ((laughed hysterically and didn’t eat food)) . . . Excuse me, feet down. Feet down. SIT UP. SIT UP! . . . OPEN YOUR MOUTH! OOOHHHH!! ((laughed loudly, so did his brother James)) . . . You didn’t think it was going to be that bad, hey? ((to me)) I reckon there are children probably double times worse than what these are really. Quite honestly. Some mothers let them get away with it I s’pose entirely, and they just don’t eat anything. Leave the table and that’s it. But I can’t do that. I think that’s how you can ((unfinished sentence)) I mean my children are pretty hypo at the moment but I, I feel um, that they’d be worse so if they didn’t eat the right foods, ‘cos I do believe that the right foods must


17 18 19 20 21

Bradley Eloise Eloise Bradley Eloise

make a difference to their behavior. I mean you get it with um cordials and things, they reckon that makes them hypo, you know. ((picked up spoon ready to feed Bradley)). You ready? ((giggled and avoided spoon)) Come on, open up please . . . Come on. Come on. ((stood up over Bradley)) ((shook his head and leaned back away from Eloise)) ((held Bradley’s nose with her fingers and put food in his mouth)). (Eloise/V; 23/01/18–20)

Bradley had barely touched his vegetables before Eloise decided to feed him, despite a number of reminders to eat them throughout the meal. By leaving the vegetables in their original state, Bradley seemed to know that Eloise would feed him. In effect, Bradley positioned Eloise to feed him, knowing that she would not allow the vegetables to be left untouched (turn 16). In the end, Eloise went to extreme lengths by holding Bradley’s nose and inserting food into his mouth to ensure that he ate (swallowed) the appropriate portion of vegetables (turn 21). In this instance, it appears as though Bradley has “set up” the spoonfeeding situation by not touching his vegetables throughout the meal. Although this can be read as indicating some form of resistance, it is also symptomatic of a situation in which he almost “dares” his mother to spoon-feed him. Perhaps it is another opportunity for Bradley to practice hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995), a chance to reiterate or perform those stylized acts of gender at the right moment (Butler, 1990), and an occasion to position his mother as the one who is helpless, who is constructed as “Other.” Bradley managed most of this, apparently without Eloise noticing, as it was very difficult to hear his reference to a “Big wee hanging out” (turn 5) and her “pants falling down” (turn 7). Bradley’s attack is shrouded by his giggling and his mother’s yelling, concealed as part of the way in which Eloise is driven to spoon-feed him, to have him eat his vegetables, that is, the “right foods” (turn 6). Turns 5 and 7 demonstrate what it is to be masculine and how this is constructed in opposition to the idea of the feminine (Davies, 1989). It seems as though in Bradley’s understanding, a male–female sexual act necessitates a “big” (erect) “wee” (penis) “hanging out” (visible) (turn 5) and a female with her genital area uncovered (“Your pants’ll fall down”) (turn 7). This is another example of Bradley reducing his mother to nothing more than a sexual object, but he did not use any offensive colloquialisms to describe any parts of the anatomy. He chose words that he knew would be quite safe if heard—“wee” and a description of what was needed—

Food to Go • 143

“Your pants’ll fall down.” Hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995; Davies, 1996) suggests a masculine position of power over females through the exposed penis and a feminine position of powerlessness through the female having no control over her “pants falling down.” Bradley was positioned very powerfully as a boy child, seemingly in a position of helplessness (read power), knowing his mother would be compelled to spoon-feed him because he had not touched the vegetables on his plate. Once Bradley had positioned Eloise this way, he was able to continue as subject in the power relationship, maintaining his dominant position until the required amount of vegetables had been eaten. Eloise made no direct reference to the comments about the “big wee hanging out” and “your pants’ll fall down.” She continued with her task of spoon-feeding, which lasted approximately fifteen minutes. It is highly likely that she didn’t understand what Bradley had said, and thought that he was simply resisting her attempts to spoon-feed him. As the comments were made quickly in between his shrieking laughter, it was difficult to hear what was said. The comment by Bradley’s sister Angela to me in Turn 15: “You didn’t think it was going to be that bad, hey?” is instructive because it indicated the seriousness of the situation not so much because of the spoon-feeding, but because of Bradley’s antics that accompanied the spoon-feeding. In some ways it also affirmed what had been mentioned previously by both Eloise and Angela, that this situation of spoon-feeding was not uncommon. Nevertheless, such circumstances had the effect of constructing Bradley as able to resist, oppress, and control his mother, with few adverse consequences. In his efforts to prolong the spoon-feeding procedure and hence his powerful position of subordinating his mother, Bradley refused to comply with adult rules about table manners such as sitting up straight (turn 1), speaking with his mouth empty (turn 4), and putting his feet on the floor (turn 12). Additionally, Bradley would not open his mouth on a number of occasions to allow Eloise to insert the food (turns 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 21). These infractions seemed to be what Eloise was responding to, as well as Bradley’s initial resistance to eat his vegetables, rather than his comments about her “pants falling down” and the “big wee hanging out.” It appeared as though she was attempting to have him comply in terms of the discourse of table manners, that is, to normalize his behavior through appeals to the rules about table manners. Clearly, this was unsuccessful. Although she didn’t appear to have heard these two provocative comments, it is possible that Eloise ignored them, perhaps because it was too difficult to deal with their meaning. Eloise used forms of parent power that were available to her, threatening to smack (turns 2 and 6), shouting very loudly (turns 8, 12, and 13), pushing


the spoon against Bradley’s cheek (turn 8), and physically manipulating him by holding his nose and putting the food into his mouth (turn 21). These actions showed Eloise calling on her socially sanctioned position as mother, invoking her belief that her children should eat “the right foods,” but at the same time crossing the boundary of the sensitive mother by force-feeding her son. In positioning Bradley as “other,” as a baby needing to be spoon-fed, Eloise played his game and accepted Bradley’s dare to spoon-feed him. Bradley reversed the situation, positioning his mother as “other,” as the object of his subjugation, and managed to make the spoon-feeding, and hence his powerful position, last fifteen minutes. His position of power allowed him to do almost whatever he liked. His enjoyment of the situation was obvious by his continued giggling and hysterical laughter. He also had the chance to flaunt the eating rules by having food oozing from his mouth and over his chin. During this time his brother watched and shrieked with laughter with him, seemingly understanding what he was doing and saying, and his sister commented about how “bad” the situation was. The way in which Bradley was forced to eat his vegetables was entirely different from how Amy, another reluctant vegetable consumer, was regulated to eat hers. The earlier example of Amy showed that through repeated reminders, Amy ate the required portion of vegetables and was then allowed to choose other food that she wanted to eat. The contrast between Amy and Bradley is considerable. The behavior of the parents and the ways in which both children were regulated were completely different. Amy knew what the rules were and complied, finishing her meal in an acceptable amount of time. She resisted, but no conflict ensued. Bradley knew what the rules were and did not comply, daring his mother to spoon-feed him. He took an inordinate amount of time to eat what was required and managed to create and sustain a conflict situation (spoon-feeding) for at least fifteen minutes.

Conclusions Mealtimes provided an example of sites of resistance in all four families. They were punctuated with scenarios of challenge and struggle in which family members competed with each other. Gender was a significant factor in the conflict that occurred among family members. In all families, the rules about preparing, serving, eating, and cleaning after food was consumed were attempts by parents to regulate their children and normalize their behavior. The spoon-feeding transcripts show that for both Peter and Bradley, being fed by their mothers put them in positions of such great power that they could dictate and control others besides their mothers (for example, siblings and fathers). By using the power that came with being

Food to Go • 145

spoon-fed, both Peter and Bradley were able to experiment with traditional discursive positions and practices of hegemonic masculinity and patriarchal power, but as objects of an ethic of care. Girls helped prepare, serve, and clean up after meals, whereas both boys were served once they sat at the table. All children resisted adult rules about table manners to some degree and this was the extent of the resistance shown by Allison and Amy. Peter and Bradley, although in positions of supposed “helplessness,” used hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy to dictate to their mothers. In Peter’s case, this position was also used to attempt to control his father, perhaps in ways in which Peter had been regulated by his father in the past. Bradley’s mother acknowledged that she “force”-fed her son because it was important that her children were well fed and ate their vegetables. This seems to be an extraordinary length to which to go to ensure that your son eats his vegetables. Such is the normalizing power of the discourse of the “good” mother.

CHAPTER

7

School’s In

The four target children started school for the first time during the data collection process. For three of the families this was their first experience with schooling, which meant that routines and daily domestic practices were altered as families adapted to the changed circumstances. Modifying routines because of involvement in institutionalized schooling introduced the possibility of child resistance because children were exposed to particular discursive frameworks and techniques that they may not have encountered previously. These techniques are indicative of how discipline organizes space, the forms of activity that occur in those spaces, and the timing of such events: “Discipline is a political anatomy of detail” (Foucault, 1977, p. 139). The regime of practice about schooling involved preparation for school, car travel to and from school, and actual school attendance itself. Beginning school for the first time is a major event in a child’s life, as well as their parents’ lives. All parents began what they considered appropriate school routines from the first day, explaining that this was important because children would then know what was expected of them. All of the children had attended preschool in the previous year and because of this were positioned to some extent as part of the institution of schooling. This also meant that there were some ongoing similarities in the routine preparation for school and preschool. However, this did not preclude the occurrence of resistant acts by children. Despite the pervasiveness of the techniques of normalization, Foucault (1977) has indicated that the passage of time is a significant factor. In some instances, children were still resisting adult rules about school preparation months after they had been

147


invoked and in these circumstances other discourses appeared to be influencing the normalization process.

Getting Ready for School For some parents, discursive realignment or a change in daily domestic practices was necessary when the children began school. For instance, Rita found it more difficult than the other parents to alter her own routine to ensure the requirements necessary for school attendance were met: Rita

Gotta get into this routine ((making Allison’s lunch the night before)). Cos I’m not used to doing this every night and they don’t have tuckshop or anything, they have a soup day occasionally and you know, there’s only 200 kids, so you know. I got home last night and, oh from Tom’s work, that’s right and we picked up the kids and so I said I’m goin’ to bed now. Then I said ohh no, I haven’t made Allison a drink. I haven’t got her uniform ready; it was still in the washing machine. I said, God I’ve gotta go down and dry it so I chucked it in the dryer, ran up, no, I left it there then. I forgot about it then. Woke up this morning and said, ‘Get your uniform on Allison. Oh God, it’s still in the bloody dryer!’ I had to run downstairs and get it out and iron it. Run around, get teeth cleaned and everything else, hey Allison? (Rita/V; 29/01/23–24)

According to Foucault (1977), it was only a matter of time before the processes of normalization ensured that Rita organized these things before they were needed. The preschool Allison attended did not require children to wear uniforms or the preparation of lunch, as it was a sessional half-day program. Consequently, Rita had to adapt her routine to incorporate them. This is an example of how Rita was being regulated by the discourse of compulsory schooling and the domestic practices associated with it. Although Allison and Amy avoided elements of the school preparation tasks required of them, Bradley was involved in protracted and recurring opposition to school preparation. The were few incidents of Peter resisting preparation tasks necessary for school, probably because Nancy and Neil prepared most things for him. Allison and Amy were required to complete all preparation tasks themselves, with the exception of those that they could not yet manage, such as preparing their hair (both had long hair), tying shoe laces, and zipping their uniforms (zips were at the back). Both boys were dressed or helped significantly in the dressing

School’s In • 149

process by their parents, but completed tasks such as teeth cleaning and other bathroom procedures themselves. Peter managed to have his parents carry his school equipment to and from the car. Depending on the activity in which he was to be involved, the equipment needed for Peter’s mathematics, swimming, dancing, and violin lessons was also prepared and put in the car either by Neil or Nancy. Allison and Amy had to carry their equipment themselves and put it away upon returning home. Bradley resisted this element of the routine to some extent, by wanting Eloise to carry his school bag. According to her mother, Amy was “slow” in her preparation for school, resisting the procedure by taking a long time to complete tasks. Toni explained: Toni

. . . She usually sits in her room in her underpants for about ten or fifteen minutes and then decides she hasn’t been to the toilet, and goes to the toilet and then she’ll sit on the toilet for five minutes or so for no reason, just sitting in there singing and carrying on. Then she won’t be able to get the zip down on her uniform; she’ll wander around wondering how to get that undone. Um, I usually have to badger her, all the time. (Toni/V; 08/03/19)

Amy’s tardiness in preparing for school appeared closely aligned with her reluctance to actually enter the school grounds by herself, which is discussed more fully in the section “At School.” By continually delaying small parts of the routine preparation for school, Amy was ensured of her mother’s continued surveillance, intermittent attention, and requests to “hurry up” over an extended period of time. In this way, Amy was successful in diverting her mother’s attention from the baby, to focus on her. Amy’s general lack of enthusiasm toward preparing for school seemed to be a combination of her desire to control her mother, not wanting to leave her mother, and, to a lesser degree, the powerful position of helplessness. Urwin (1984) has demonstrated how the child’s “wish to control the mother is produced through relations of power” (p. 314). This means that through the operation of power relations in particular social practices (such as daily domestic interaction), desire is produced. The nature of Amy’s desire to control her mother was very different from that of Bradley and Peter as discussed in Chapter 6 in regard to food. Toni was aware that Amy’s reluctance in preparing for school, and actually walking into the school, subsided when Amy reached the classroom: “She hates getting ready to go and the actual going to school, but once she’s there she’s fine” (Toni/A; 15/03/7). Although Amy’s sluggish preparation for school was a nuisance for her mother, more significant attempts to have power over her


mother were made just prior to walking into the school grounds, and these are discussed in the section “Getting to School.” Amy and Allison did resist the discursive positions adopted by their mothers in relation to the routine preparation for school. However, their resistance was relatively short lived and confined to brief episodes. This is not to say that longer incidents did not occur, but that they occurred infrequently and involved resistance rather then conflict. In contrast to the girls and Peter, Bradley’s defiance of the routine preparation necessary for school was prolonged and somewhat volatile, and resulted in Eloise dressing him completely and preparing his equipment on several occasions. I observed the following episode, in which the length of time it took for Eloise to complete the dressing process was about fifteen minutes: 1 Eloise

2 Eloise 3 Bradley 4 Eloise 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

17 18 19 20

Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

21 Bradley 22 Eloise

((Bradley was in his pajamas and made no attempt to get dressed for school)). Listen, you’d better go up and get your clothes please. Your school clothes. GET DRESSED BRADLEY! BRADLEY! BRADLEY! ((watched James practice the organ)) . . . OK Bradley? Will you go and get your clothes on please? ((got clothes and put them on bench near Eloise)) Come here. Got no undies. WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE ARE THEY? I didn’t get any. You got some on? You should have ’em on. No. ((giggles)) Right, I’ll check! ((giggled)) COME ’ERE! Yes. ((continued giggling)) This is just gettin’ a bit past a joke. ((lifted Bradley onto kitchen bench)) ((giggled)) OW! Arms up. No. Sue’s here. ((still giggling)) Yeah, but she’s not going to see anything. Come on. Arms up. Come on! ( ) ((continued giggling)) ONE! ((began to count, signaling to Bradley that he needed to comply or risk being smacked; began to dress Bradley while he sat on the bench))


23 Eloise

24 James 25 Eloise

26 Bradley

27 Bradley 28 Eloise 29 Bradley

((to James who just finished his organ practice)) Yeah, that was very, very good. ((to Bradley)) Put your arm in. ((To James)) Look. Mum . . . Yes. Very good. ((to Bradley who had kicked her)) DON’T! ((smacked Bradley; Bradley giggled)). OOHH! BRADLEY! What’s he ((James)) playing? He’s playing a game. ((stood on floor; squealed loudly when Eloise tried to get his pajama pants off)) I’m going ((to play with James)). No you’re not. ((giggled)) . . .

Bradley, the youngest of three children, delayed and avoided getting dressed for school. His refusal to help himself (helplessness) throughout this transcript was part of his attempt to control and regulate his mother, perhaps in a similar way to how she controlled and regulated him. He did finally get his clothes for school (turn 5) but did not do so until Eloise had yelled loudly at him (turn 2) and had asked him once to get his clothes (turn 1), once to get dressed (turn 2), and once to dress himself (turn 4). Although he did get his clothes, he did not begin dressing himself. Instead he put the clothes on the bench near Eloise (turn 5): he complied by getting his clothes but also defied and challenged his mother because he did not begin to dress himself as asked. He placed the clothes on the bench near her, a deliberate act, testing her to see what she would do. A further provocation was issued immediately to his mother with the statement that he had “Got no undies” (turn 7). Bradley knew that he should have included them and he almost dared Eloise to check to see if this is the case, by saying he didn’t get any (turn 9) and telling Eloise that he had none on (turn 11), when he did. Bradley’s continual giggling (turns 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 29) and my presence (turn 19) were other tactics that Bradley used to regulate his mother so that she succumbed to dressing him. He achieved his goal of having her begin to dress him (turn 22), but only after his continued giggling and refusal to cooperate caused Eloise to lift him onto the bench (turn 16), where he knew that she would begin to dress him, and where he again was uncooperative by refusing to lift his arms (turn 19) so that Eloise could remove his pajama shirt. Bradley was successful in prolonging the entire process by making no attempt to help Eloise dress him—he was almost like a rag doll, flopping around and ensuring that he made it as difficult as possible for his mother. This, plus the constant giggling, screaming loudly when his mother tried to take off his pajama pants (turn 26), and


the skilful use of threats (turn 27), ensured that Bradley was in control of the situation. He was delaying their departure for school, regulating his mother to dress him, and taking as long as possible, and was in such a powerful position that he was able to issue threats that could delay the departure for school even more. The first smack (turn 25) was delivered when Eloise was talking to James about how well he had completed his organ practice and Bradley responded to her lack of attention to him by kicking his mother. This made it clear that Bradley wanted Eloise’s undivided attention and that she was not to speak to James, in particular to compliment him on how well he had completed his organ practice. His actions and language indicated that he thought his mother’s job was to dress him and not be distracted. The next section of the transcript demonstrates how the conflict escalated further: 30 Eloise 31 Bradley 32 Eloise

33 Bradley

34 Eloise 35 Bradley 36 Eloise 37 Bradley 38 Eloise 39 Eloise 40 Bradley 41 Eloise 42 Bradley 43 Bradley 44 Eloise 45 Bradley 46 Eloise 47 Bradley

Come on. Quick! ((still trying to get his pants off)) ((giggled)) Come here. Come on. Come on. Quick! You’ve moved over now where you can be seen ((by the video camera)) so you may as well hurry up. Pants off! ((squealed as Eloise lifted him to the floor so that she could get his pajama pants off)) Oh! Mum. Mum! You hurt my hand! Well, that’s your fault. You jolly well get dressed! MUM! See! Ohh! Dearie me. ((got Bradley’s school pants on; lifted him onto bench again)) MUM! I’ve done a day’s work by the time I’ve done this . . . Ohh, I don’t think they’re the right socks. Maybe they are the right socks? I wanted them to ( ) Mum, can I? No. Because you’ve been naughty. You might have done as you were told. ((screamed, whistled, sucked thumb, and held pillow while Eloise tried to put on his socks and shoes)) ((kicked cupboards with legs while Eloise tried to put on his socks)) Don’t kick the cupboards please Bradley. ((kept kicking cupboards)) ((smacked Bradley)) DON’T KICK THE CUPBOARDS I SAID! ((giggled))


48 49 50 51 52

Eloise Bradley Eloise Bradley Eloise

Shall I hit again? No. ((Eloise put one of Bradley’s shoes on)) Then it hurt then didn’t it? ((giggled)) No. ((put Bradley’s other shoe on and tied lace)) Don’t know, what do you do with your shoes during the day, mate. They’re full of sand. (Eloise/V; 28/02/14–18).

Bradley continued to oppose Eloise’s attempts to dress him by using a variety of diversionary tactics such as indicating Eloise had hurt him (turn 33), asking if he could do something (which was inaudible) (turn 40), and kicking the cupboards when Eloise was trying to put on his socks (turn 43). These attempts were again successful in extending the period of time taken for Eloise to dress Bradley. He made it very difficult for his mother to put on his shoes and socks by screaming, giggling, and whistling (turn 42). The second smack was delivered when Bradley refused Eloise’s request to stop kicking the cupboards (turn 46). His legs moving vigorously back and forth made it extremely difficult for Eloise to put on the socks and shoes. The delaying tactics, noncompliance, and aggressive intervention with what his mother was attempting to do ensured that Bradley was able to experience his position of immense power and control for as long as possible. Finally, as Bradley was completely dressed, the conflict declined and he was ready for school. Importantly for Eloise, Bradley met with her approval for how he should be dressed for school. As indicated in Chapters 5 and 6 (Table 3), it was essential for Eloise that her children were dressed properly and ate the correct food. This was her job as a “good” mother and she ensured through various means, such as dressing Bradley, that this was achieved. In summary, routine preparation for school resulted in high-level conflict for Bradley and his mother, minimal resistance from Allison, ongoing opposition from Amy, and almost no resistance from Peter, mainly because he had fewer responsibilities than the other children. Adult rules about preparation for school stem from normalized accounts of how children should look, what they should have in their lunch boxes, and the equipment required for the day. However, these normalized accounts of the final product, that is, the child who is ready for and presents at school, do not account for the complex interplay of aspects of domestic life such as conflicting discursive space between mother and child, and among siblings, which were encountered in the course of getting children ready to depart for school.

Traveling to and from School For all four children school attendance meant a trip by car to their respective schools, as all lived too far from the school to walk. All children were


involved to some extent in acts of confrontation and opposition while traveling. These acts of opposition were read as a realization by the children that they were again in positions of power when in the car, because the driver’s attention was centered on negotiating the traffic. For this reason, parents tended to use overt power techniques such as smacking to control children, or employed preventive strategies such as separating children by seating them in the back and front seats. Other adult rules included the type of behavior expected while traveling and safety rules enforceable by law, such as the wearing of seat belts, appropriate child restraints, and the location of young children in the back seat. The type of resistance and conflict produced in the car by Allison and Amy was notably different from the way in which they were positioned in the regimes of practice discussed so far. While their mothers were occupied with driving, both girls seized the opportunity to control and regulate siblings through overt displays of power. For example, Toni explained what happened when Amy and her sister Emily sat together: Toni

That will be the most interesting part of the morning, I’d say, with the three of them in the back ’cos I usually separate them and sit one in the front. . . . Well, the afternoon after school is worse ’cos they argue about who’s going to sit in the front or back. And then, if they both sit in the back for some reason they hit and pinch. . . . (Toni/V; 08/03/20)

By separating the children Toni was to some degree controlling the attacks they made on each other, if only for the duration of the trip. However, while driving and if they were both in the back, it was almost impossible for Toni to physically intervene, especially as the baby capsule was also located in the back seat. Rita collected Allison and her cousins Helen and Daniel from school each day, after Allison’s aunt drove them to school. With Allison’s brothers also in the car, all seats were taken. This meant that I was unable to travel with them on the journey home from school. Rita was more concerned than the other parents about the journey home, as Allison and Helen fought with each other and with the boys: Rita:

They never play up on her ((Helen’s mother who took the children to school)), but coming home in the car, they sort of ( ) and they really play up on the way home. Daniel doesn’t, but the two girls . . . the two girls squash in the front. Sometimes they are really good, but then other times they just


fight and carry on between themselves. . . . They never do ((fight)) when someone else is there. Oh, one day there they were terrible. They were carrying on like headless chooks. I said to them, look I’m going to stop this bloody car and belt the lot of yez, cos they were hitting each other, hitting each other and Daniel’d say leave me alone and stop it, and the girls’d hit him again, you know ’cos they were stirrin’ ’im up and then they’d hit these ones ((Karl and Ryan)), and the boys’d start hitting back and ooohhh. I said right, that’s it, I’m stopping this car and you’re going to all get a belting, and I’ll take you home and that’ll be it! I won’t pick you up anymore. And the next minute, got out of the car when we dropped ’em off, Helen and Daniel both said sorry Aunty Rita, I said it’s all right love, but when I’m driving I don’t like you fighting because it’s dangerous. I said, if I had an accident, your mother’d never forgive me if something happened to youse. So you know, I can’t have them fighting all the time. (Rita/V; 13/02/16–17) According to Rita, Allison and Helen regularly teased and hit the three boys, who sat in the back seat. Because Allison and Helen were seated in the front it was quite easy for them to turn around and hit the boys while they were seated in the back. The two younger boys (Allison’s brothers) were restrained by their child safety devices, and it would have been almost impossible for them to retaliate. Daniel was also restrained by his seat belt, but as he was older he was able to move and reciprocate to some extent. The girls harassed the boys when they knew they were in more powerful positions and could attack them physically, that is, when they were restricted by their child safety devices and there was little or no opportunity for the boys to hit back. Allison and Helen appeared to revel in their powerful positions, as they were not only in control of the boys, but also in a more powerful position than Rita, until she threatened them with a belting: “look I’m going to stop this bloody car and belt the lot of yez”; and with not picking them up from school anymore. The conflict subsided when they arrived at the destination and the regular discursive positions were adopted again. For example, Rita became the sensitive mother rationalizing about safety issues (“but when I’m driving I don’t like you fighting because it’s dangerous”), and Helen and Daniel adopted their less powerful positions as children (children as “other,” as in the postcolonial understanding) and apologized for the disturbance (“Helen and Daniel both said sorry Aunty Rita”). Although not a daily event, the recurrence of these attacks in the car sug-


gested that the girls’ continual desire for power over the boys and Rita was the motivating factor. It might also be that the enjoyment gained from having such power over the boys made the eventual clash of discursive positions with Rita worthwhile. Rita’s concern was to regulate and normalize the behavior in the car so that it was rational and therefore less likely to be a safety hazard. Bradley’s resistance during the journeys to and from school consisted predominantly of minor infringements of adult rules about safety in the car (for example, throwing things from the window of the car). However, there was a tendency for Bradley to fight with his sister Angela during the trips to and from school. The Haines family spent a great deal of time traveling to and from activities such as music, dancing, BMX, mathematics, and swimming lessons. Thus, there was plenty of time available for Peter to challenge parental power in the car, which he did regularly. The exchanges with Neil were quite short, whereas those with Nancy occurred mostly when Neil was not in the car. These conflicts between Nancy and Peter were lengthy, moved from one source of confrontation and opposition to another, and saw Peter invoke discourses of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) in oppressive ways with his mother on a number of occasions. Because Peter was an only child and sat in the front of the car, it was not difficult for each to touch the other physically, making smacking/hitting a possibility. Peter used a variety of strategies that included hitting, laughing, threatening, and the use of expletives in an effort to control and regulate Nancy, whereas Nancy attempted to regulate Peter through laughter, smacking, threats, and exercise of the sensitive mother approach, which incorporated use of middle-class regulatory mechanisms such as the words “sensible” and “silly” (Walkerdine and Lucey, 1989), and the phrase “a nice little boy.” The conflicts between Peter and his mother were based on continual bids for power and were in some sense like a competition in which the balance of power changed with each speaker’s turn, with each striving to control and regulate the other. The following short extract from a lengthy section of the transcript demonstrates the continual power plays by Nancy and Peter. They were returning from dancing lessons and Nancy had rewound the cassette so Peter could hear his favorite song again: 1

Nancy

2 3 4 5

Peter Nancy Peter Nancy

If you’re going to do it, do it properly ((sing the proper words)) WALK RIGHT IN PISS RIGHT DOWN!! Uhh, no, I’ll turn it off. ((laughed)) You be sensible.


5 6

Peter Nancy

Go on I don’t care! ((if Nancy turned it off)) Don’t be silly!

This episode was one of a long series of end-on conflicts that filled this particular half hour journey and is representative of Nancy and Peter’s conflict and the type of struggle that occurred. Nancy used techniques similar to the middle-class mothers described by Walkerdine and Lucey (1989), which are intended to suppress power and conflict (albeit with girls). They were also methods endorsed by sensitive mothering approaches. However, her consistent but unsuccessful use of these regulatory devices drove her to threaten many times (to stop the car, to smack, and to stop the music), and resulted in overt displays of power such as Peter being smacked. In the above excerpt from the longer transcript showing protracted conflict, Peter refused to “play the reasoning game” and persisted in thwarting Nancy’s rational approach until she was driven to use physical demonstrations of power (smacking). Peter made life difficult for his mother on many occasions while they were driving. Despite working full time, being the “breadwinner,” and Neil having retired, Nancy was responsible for driving Peter to many of his afterschool events. She prepared materials for Peter’s teacher at home because she was unable to help in the classroom (as many other mothers did), and noted on several occasions that this was because she wanted to be involved in some way and did not want to be seen as “one of those working mothers.” That is, she wanted to be seen as a “good” mother. Her desire to be a good mother and undertake “normal” duties such as helping in the classroom and taking her son to afterschool activities shows how the discourse of the “good” mother worked in daily practice.

At School Having arrived at school, Amy and Bradley were reluctant to actually go into the school grounds by themselves. For Amy, this was an ongoing situation that lasted about six months, whereas it remained problematic for Bradley for approximately one month. Since starting school, Amy had avoided walking into the school grounds by herself and frequently requested Toni to walk in with her. As noted previously, Amy’s tardiness in preparing for school consisted of fairly low key but consistent attempts to regulate her mother. Toni first mentioned Amy’s reluctance to walk into the school grounds alone fairly early in the data collection process. Toni stated that she usually walked in with Amy three or four times a week, expecting Amy to walk in by herself once or twice (Toni/V; 08/03/24–25). For Amy, the issue of walking into school assumed


much more significance than preparing for school, perhaps because separation from her mother was imminent. As Urwin (1984) has argued, “the mother becomes a focus for supporting the infant’s illusory control and omnipotence, to which separation is one amongst many possible threats” (p. 314). Amy’s youngest sister was born only a few months before she began school and because of a medical problem, required even more attention than babies usually received from their mothers. Despite the baby requiring extra attention, Amy’s attendance at school left her sister Emily and the baby at home together with her mother, but without her. This situation suggested the possibility of separation being a factor: Amy wanted to be at home with her mother and sisters and not at school. Almost half way through the year Amy still feared the final separation and so maintained her attempts to have her mother walk into school with her, thus delaying that final moment, but extending the length of time she was able to have her mother with her: Toni

Well she’s still, even though it’s really into second term, she’s still reluctant to walk into school by herself, she really likes all of us going in. As soon as we get there, she virtually ignores us and acts as if we don’t belong with her and just goes into the classroom and forgets about us. Um, but if I say in the car you can walk in by yourself today Amy, ’cos there’s no parks, or I’m in a hurry, or there’s something else that has to be done, she gets all upset and . . . whines a bit, she says, oh I want you to walk in with me, I don’t like walking in there by myself. Um, and I usually don’t give in [be]cause I like to try and get her to walk in by herself, say two mornings a week. And I’ll go in with her the other three . . . so I don’t know, she gets all upset if um, well she won’t come out by herself in the afternoon, some of the kids will walk to the gate to meet their mothers, but she won’t. I still have to go right . . . Usually in the afternoon I park on the road near the school’s front gate. . . . And the classroom is only 20 metres away from where I park the car, but she still is very reluctant. If we’re right on time, right on three o’clock we park right outside, Emily likes to go in by herself to collect Amy, but Amy doesn’t like that. . . . Last Thursday we did it, Amy forgot to bring her port out with her, I presume ’cos I wasn’t there to remind her, have you got that, and of course, then she got all teary because she had to go back to get her port. . . . Oh Emily was going to go with her, but she wanted me to go


back and get her port, but I wouldn’t cos Sarah was in the car asleep I think. I don’t know, I suppose it’s a gradual increase in confidence that we’re waiting for. (Toni/A; 15/05/1–2) Amy preferred the whole family to walk with her into school (“she really likes all of us going in”), and if she found she was to walk in by herself while on the way to school, Amy would frequently develop a tummy ache and say she was not going to school (“Well I’m not going in then”—from a later part of this section of transcript not reproduced here). Likewise, if there were no parking spaces available and the family could not walk in, Amy would become upset (“she gets all upset and . . . [says] I don’t like walking in there by myself ”). When school finished, Amy preferred Toni to go into the school ground to collect her: it was not good enough for Emily to collect Amy, it had to be her mother. Such actions are attempts to control and regulate her mother, resistance to the notion of growing up, and resistance to the threat of separation. Bradley also resisted school attendance to some extent. However, unlike Amy, Bradley’s behavior occurred for a few weeks only. Nevertheless, I read it in a similar way. As the youngest child, Bradley had much to lose from attending school for the whole day. For example, he no longer had his mother to himself for lengths of time without the older children’s presence, so separation and the potential of losing the opportunity to regulate his mother were significant factors. Bradley’s reiterated performances of helplessness that required coaxing to get him get out of bed in the morning and the regulation of his mother to feed and dress him add weight to this idea. They also suggest that he used dominant forms of masculinity (Connell, 1995) to position himself as more powerful than his mother, perhaps in a similar way to his father (see Chapter 5 for discussion by Eloise about how she was treated by her husband). However, Bradley’s attempts to control and regulate his mother were dealt with similarly by his mother whether inside the house or at school: Eloise

Um, he’s, the teachers have changed the rules now with regard to their classrooms. What’s happened is that um, in the first week or two they allowed mothers to take them right to the classroom. . . . Which is fair enough, which you expect to do, I suppose really in their first year. But now, which is about their what, third or fourth week into school, she has said now that the parents are to drop them off at the gate. Well, ever since I’ve had to drop them off at the gate, he hasn’t wanted to walk up. He doesn’t want me to come with him . . . but he also doesn’t want to go to school. . . . He’s starting, even


getting him out of bed this morning, it’s “I don’t want to go to school today” and he got dressed in normal clothes, you know he put his little . . . ((held up board shorts)) this type of thing on, you know, which he knows is not school clothes. . . . So he gets into his um, board shorts, you know, coloured shorts, so um I said you can get out of those Bradley, it’s school day today. [He said] “I don’t want to go to school” and I said well I’m sorry love, you’re going to school, it’s a school day, it’s the last day of the week, you have two days off tomorrow, you know. But anyway, he fiddle faddles around and they play up and do their usual thing, but anyway, I get them to school and he wouldn’t get out the car. . . . You know, so he’s really showing funny ways this week. And this morning, he wouldn’t walk into the school grounds, so I said right I’m walking in all the way up there and I’m going to speak to your teacher. He stood down near the gate and stayed there and I hid round the corner thinking, well he’ll make his way up here in a minute, and a little later James went down and says, “I’ll go and get Bradley,” and ah, anyway he came back up and said “he won’t come,” so I sort of peeked around and there he is still standing down near the tree. So I started approaching him and he started to come up to me, but in front of everybody else I smacked him on the back of the legs anyway, and I said don’t you ever do that, you’re to go to school and none of this performance walking into the school grounds, you know. But this is the first sign I’ve ever had of it. I mean, I had no trouble through preschool. He wants me to sit in class with him. (Eloise/A; 28/02/3) Despite using the overt power strategy of smacking on this occasion, Eloise succumbed to Bradley’s demands on several occasions after this episode by going into the classroom and sitting with him. What she was trying to do was to normalize Bradley’s entrance to school, to have him enter as the teachers required and as other children did.

Conclusions Preparation for school, traveling to and from school, and actually going into school posed different challenges for each family and each child. School activities showed significant gender differences between the behavior of the girls and that of the boys. What was evident was the consistency


between the behavior of Bradley and Peter as described in this chapter and their language and actions as discussed in the previous chapter about food. This consistency relates to the constant overt attacks and challenges to mother/woman power. Both these boys kept challenging, resisting, and subverting various routines and rituals through the use of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995; Davies, 1996). Their mothers, unlike the nursery school teacher in Walkerdine’s (1981) depiction of sex, power, and pedagogy, did not ignore their continual contestation. They dealt with their respective situations in different ways, but the cost of their engagement was high, as both were continually repositioned as objects of hegemonic masculinity. Both mothers appeared to want to normalize behaviors associated with school activities and rid themselves of the conflict produced and the associated energy it required. Like the boys, the girls’ patterns of behavior were constant in relation to food and school. Resistance was comparatively low level and resolved without the opposition associated with the behavior of the boys, although in Amy’s case opposition and avoidance in relation to some school matters were constant and enduring. However, there was one notable exception. One way of adopting more powerful positions for Allison and Amy occurred when they were confined to the car. This was particularly so for Allison, who used opportunities available to locate herself in positions of power and with her female cousin, attack her brothers and male cousin in the back seat of the car. Neither Allison nor Amy was observed to experience such powerful positions on many occasions.

CHAPTER

8

Tidy Houses and Bedtime Stories

Usually women have been responsible for tidiness and cleanliness of the dwelling, and as mothers, have been in charge of bedtime routines for children. Like the other regimes of practice, tidiness arose frequently in the course of daily domestic family interaction and practice, and for one family it was a fundamental part of their everyday existence. Bedtimes were an important part of daily family life but proved to be more contested in some families than others. Generally speaking, the discourses on tidiness and bedtimes were not as important as the eating regime. This was evidenced by significantly fewer episodes of parent and child conflict occurring about tidiness and bedtimes, and the smaller amount of time families devoted to tidying tasks compared with eating preparation and procedures. In this chapter I relate some of the stories about tidiness and bedtimes and the conflict these routines produced.

Tidy Houses A small amount of research about household tasks has been undertaken in developmental psychology and sociology, and articles sometimes appear in the popular press about children completing jobs. Recent examples provide advice about how to develop a work ethic in children and how to avoid conflict over tasks children are to complete (Phillips, 2000), understanding the gendered division of household labor (Cunningham, 2001; Gill, 1998; Wearing, 1996) and the opportunities household work provides for the development of cooperation, negotiation, conflict resolution, and social empathy in children (Goodnow & Bowes, 1994).

163


All four mothers (including Nancy, the full-time worker outside the house) positioned themselves as responsible for tidying tasks and implemented a variety of tidying practices as part of daily domesticity. Sometimes these routines involved the children and at other times parents (mostly mothers) completed the tasks independently. Adult rules related generally to house tidiness and included children being responsible for keeping their own possessions such as toys, clothes, and bedrooms tidy. Rather unsurprisingly, there were both similarities and differences in the rules invoked in each family. Discourses such as patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, and mothering ensure major responsibility for housework remains with mothers. Normalized assumptions concerning mothering have associated good mothering with a tidy house, although “sensitive” (middle-class) mothers were able to make tidying a pedagogic learning device, whereas working class mothers did not (Walkerdine & Lucey, 1989). The sensitive mother is also able to ignore (temporarily) an untidy house if mother and child are engaged in other learning activities. Hence a number of competing and contradictory discourse positions are available, but all have the status of common sense. I now consider some of these common sense “truths,” and the ways they affected daily domesticity, using examples from the Gordon and Haines families. Although Amy and Allison, and to a lesser extent Bradley, were responsible for various tidying tasks, Peter had very few duties in this regard. Two major issues emerged from the data and these form the basis of the analysis in this part of the chapter. The first involves Rita, who perpetually tidied the house. The second concerns Peter, who adopted a patriarchal discourse position in order to avoid tasks and have his mother complete them. Each is discussed in turn.

Clean Up This Mess! The key discourses on parenting were presented in Chapter 5. A key discourse of the Gordon family was tidiness and I observed the house was being tidied continually by Rita. The children were constructed as participants in this process. Like the working-class mothers in the Walkerdine and Lucey (1989) study, Rita made her power obvious during tidying procedures and did not make tidying the house a pedagogic task. Rita was also very aware of her discursive positioning and how it differed from other mothers, as well as the way in which her husband Tom was aligned: 1

Rita

See a lot of our friends, they don’t worry about the housework, they’ll sit down and play with the kids, well, I like to keep the house tidy. I just clean up the

Tidy Houses and Bedtime Stories • 165

2 3

Allison Rita

4

Allison

5

Rita

6

Rita

house and everything and I turn around and two seconds later it’s just a pigsty again. Like with her ((Allison)), I go off my brain when she just destroys her room. Don’t I? Yep. I get really angry with you because you don’t look after your room. Yep and I make it a pigsty meself. Ha ha ha. I’m really stupid aren’t I? ( ) ((pause)) A lot of the people that are quieter with their kids don’t worry about their house as much as I do too. I don’t like my house to be a pigsty and that’s what gets me when the house is a mess. ((picks up stuff from floor)) You see, they dump everything everywhere, they don’t care. I ‘spose that’s why I say I shouldn’t worry about the house so much and Tom’ll say no let it go, I’m not worried. But I can’t stand it, you know? Well, see if the house is a mess, I’m really edgy, you know and I get really cranky then. And I went down to have a rest yesterday, I said I’m really tired, and Tom said well go and have a sleep. The house was absolutely spotless and I went in to have a sleep and I come out and it just looked like a bomb had hit it and I went, I said, I just can’t understand this, I go to bed for a couple of hours and I don’t let them get into such a pigsty. And Tom just sits there and if they’re happy they’re happy, they can pull out everything and do what they like. (Rita/V; 05/03/19–20)

Here the immense power of the discourse of tidiness is evident. Rita has to keep the house tidy to the extent that it determines her emotional state. She is unhappy if the house is untidy, an enormous burden for some women. She talked about being “edgy” and “cranky” if the house was untidy, as well as getting “really angry” and “going off her brain when she [Allison] destroys her room.” Rita always cleaned the house if she knew someone was coming to visit. The way in which Rita was constructed by the discourse had a constitutive and normalizing effect on the other family members. Quite literally, it appeared that her moods and attitudes, positions and statements were indexes of how she perceived the home in terms of the binary opposition of tidiness and disorder. For example, through her dialogue Rita positioned


and constructed Allison to keep her own bedroom tidy, but at the same time was providing an account on a daily basis of what it is that mothers do: mothers clean and tidy the house repeatedly and become angry when children disrupt the fruits of their labor (but fathers don’t become angry). In some ways Rita’s demeanor is similar to the plot of the stories told by three working-class school girls in The Tidy House (Steedman, 1998), which is about the “getting and regretting of children” (p. 432). Once the children were born, The Tidy House was no longer tidy because of the presence of children. Because of her constant struggle to keep the house tidy, Rita’s anger at Allison’s resistance to keeping her room tidy is somewhat predictable. In addition, Rita viewed Tom as “not caring” about the tidiness of the house (or helping to keep it tidy). As a result of their differences, conflict arose between Tom and Rita. The very social order of the family was held together and reproduced in the discourse of tidiness. The children were reluctant participants in the process of tidying the house, but they were driven by Rita, who constituted them as cleaners as well as makers of mess. Allison, because she was a girl (and the eldest child), was constructed as instrumental in the tidiness of the house. Normalized truths dictate that girls must know how to make things “nice and tidy, there’s a good girl” (to coin a normalized phrase). However, the way in which this occurred in the Gordon family was not without some resistance from Allison: 1 Rita (M)

2 Allison 3 Rita 4 Allison 5 6 7 8

Rita Allison Rita Allison

9 Rita

10 Allison

((on veranda)) Come on, clean up all this mess please, because we’ve got to go out later. I want all of it cleaned up. Mum, I didn’t bring all these out. I don’t care. They’re your pencils and stop picking your nose. Start clearing up! What’s that doin’ down there? What’s that thing doin’ down there? We’re not going out yet. I just want them to clean it up. What’s that thing doing down there? ALLISON, CLEAN UP. Right! Mum, there’s a medicine box down there. ((Rita smacked Allison)) Hey, there’s a medicine box down there! There’s a medicine box down there! Yes, it’s only empty. Clean up. I’m sick of youse not doing what you’re told. Now, do it! Pick them up Ryan. Ryan, pick up the pencils. Karl. OHHHH! Yes, I’d run too if I was you! ((crying, sat down on veranda, coughed)) Ryan, you take the tea set in. I will do the pencils. I’ll do the pencils.


11 12 13 14 15

Ryan Allison Ryan Allison Rita

16 Allison 17 Rita

18 19 20 21

Allison Rita Allison Rita

22 Allison 23 Rita 24 Rita 25 26 27 28


29 30 31 32


33 Allison 34 Rita 35 36 37 38


39 Allison 40 Rita 41 Allison

() No, you do that ( ) ((ran inside crying)) Mum, I don’t want Ryan to do the pencils. Alright well don’t then. You do them all yourself. ((commotion going on inside including Tom, Rita, Ryan, and Karl)) Ryan can do the other ( ) Pick up that book, Ryan come on, clean up all this mess! HURRY UP! BEFORE I SMACK SOME BUMS REALLY HARD, Tom’s included! Ryan, don’t put the tea set on there. Allison[ [We don’t need it ( ) He can put it on there. There’s no difference. NOW, LEAVE IT ALONE! It’s not supposed to be there. It’s supposed to be in my room. Oh, Jesus! OHHHH! . . . . ( ) Yes, you can. I want all this picked up too. Get rid of it. No! I didn’t put any of it there. I don’t care who did it. I said you have to clean it up. Well I[ [because it’s your stuff and it has to go into your bedroom and you don’t like the boys going in there. So, clean it now. The boys went in and got ( ) I DON’T CARE! Oh, they[ ALLISON! I have just said I don’t care. You are picking ’em up. Right? I’m not picking every bit up . . . Listen to me! ((held Allison’s head firmly while looking her in the eyes)) You’re going to do it. Now do it! No! ((folded arms)) Hurry up! I ( ) ((folded arms, put head down, cried)) Ryan you take the pencils into Allison’s room and put them away please. I()... Oh look, don’t start! ((stood there, arms folded, crying))


42 Rita 43 Allison

((grabbed tea set plates and put them in Allison’s hands, pushed her in the door)) ((stormed off into her bedroom and closed the door; crying on floor in corner)). (Rita/V; 17/03/13–16)

One of the pertinent features of this episode is Rita’s continued overt display of power in response to Allison’s opposition. Rita used a variety of techniques, including smacking, shouting, holding, pushing, and threatening. Another noteworthy aspect is the continued surveillance to which the children were subjected during the tidying process. Their every move and utterance was noted by Rita and corrected where necessary, through specific supervision and direction. Rita’s constant observation ensured that everything was tidied to her satisfaction and that the particular child completed the specific tasks she had allocated to each. These normalizing rituals in effect defined what could be said and what could be done in relation to the tidying regime of practice operating in this family. For example, Tom was excluded from the tidying routine because of the discursive positioning he adopted, which was consistent with the common sense assumption that mothers (and not fathers) are responsible for keeping the house tidy. This fits well with the heterosexual matrix, where household tidiness is coupled with the idea of femininity as fixed, stable, and unchanging, and exonerated from masculinity. In this episode, Rita’s discursive positioning meant that the children were required to tidy the house when they were told to do so (turns 1, 5, and 9). This in itself created conflict because of a clash of discourse positions. For instance, Allison became distracted by a medicine box lying on the grass, which she mentioned to Rita three times (turns 4, 6, and 8), but which Rita ignored, focusing instead on having the children clean up. The fact that Allison was distracted resulted in Rita shouting at her (turn 7) and then smacking her (turn 8) because she was not obeying her mother. Once on task to Rita’s satisfaction, Allison tried to regulate Ryan by telling him what to tidy (turn 10), and where to put it (turn 18). Routine surveillance of the tidying task brought this to Rita’s attention and resulted in Rita overruling Allison and giving her specific instructions about where the tea set could be placed (turn 21), as well as the other things that needed tidying (turn 24). But Allison had to have the tea set put in its proper place, which was in her room (turn 22), and this was a significant aspect of her resistance. Rita delivered the ultimate act of power, control, and regulation when she directed Ryan (and not Allison) to put the pencils away (turn 38), placed the tea set (and not the pencils) in Allison’s hands, and physically pushed her in the door (turn 42). Initially, Rita had directed Ryan to pick up the pencils (turn 9). In response, Allison said twice that she would put the pencils away (turn 10).


But Allison was so preoccupied with the medicine box (turns 4, 6, and 8) that she was not cleaning up as asked. Rita became increasingly agitated when Allison and her brothers ignored her original requests (turns 1, 3, and 5) and later demands (7 and 9) to clean up the mess. Intent on having the children clean up, Rita became irritated when Allison told her that she didn’t want Ryan to do the pencils, and told Allison to do them all herself (turn 15). Soon after this and frustrated that the children were not cleaning up to her satisfaction, Rita put her mother power into action and threatened to “SMACK SOME BUMS REALLY HARD, Tom’s included!” (turn 17). Rita was positioned so powerfully by the discourse on tidying that she could threaten to smack not only the children’s “bums,” but also Tom’s. This was the only time that one of the mothers took on masculinity. Paradoxically, the operation of the heterosexual matrix as purveyor of fixed femininity (mother as responsible for tidiness of the house) seemed to make this possible. Rita could threaten Tom from the safety of the discourse on tidying but from very few, if any, other discourse positions. Notably, she did not yell as loudly when she said “Tom’s included!” as she did when threatening to smack the children’s “bums.” Thus there seemed to be limits to the discursive power of mother as house tidier: on this occasion it was possible to threaten Tom but less vehemently than the children. Following the threat to smack “bums,” Allison came into more conflict with her mother when she told Ryan not to put the tea set “on there” (turn 18). Rita overrode Allison again and told Ryan he could, then screamed at Allison (turn 21). When Allison said that the tea set was supposed to be in her bedroom (turn 22), Rita responded with an expletive and much frustration (Oh Jesus! OHHHH! . . . .) (turn 23). The next few turns show Allison’s resentment at being told that she had to clean up the toys because they were hers, and that it didn’t matter that the boys got them from her room: “I don’t care who did it. It’s your stuff and it has to go in your bedroom and you don’t like the boys going in there” (turn 28). Although Allison tried to argue with her mother (turns 25, 27, 29, and 31), Rita continued to tell Allison that she must put the toys away (turns 26 and 28). Rita resorted to shouting at Allison again (turns 30 and 32), but Allison thought the boys should put the toys away because they got them from her room. Her mother said she didn’t care and that Allison was responsible for “picking ‘em up” (turn 32). The argument continued, with Allison saying that she wasn’t picking all of them up, indicating that the boys should be responsible for putting some toys away (turn 33). At this point Rita used physical force. She held Allison’s head firmly with both hands, stared into her eyes, and told her she was “going to do it” (turn 34). Allison folded her arms and refused (turn 35). After two more unsuccessful attempts to argue with her mother (turns 37 and 39), Allison began to cry. Her mother took the tea set plates, put them into Allison’s hands, and pushed her in the door (turn 42). She ran to her room crying, and shut the door.


During this encounter Rita succeeded in having the house tidied to her requirements, and she directed much of her attention to Allison. Her mother insisted on, and got, a tidy house on her terms. However, Allison’s (girl) body and her emotions were being regulated in two ways. First, for some time Rita had been constructing Allison as domestic helper and, like her mother, equally responsible for certain tasks associated with eating (see Chapter 6) and tidying, which Allison completed competently. Second, in this instance, Allison was positioned as “Other,” a girl child who did not have access to the discursive resources her mother did, and which her mother made known to her through the use of shouting, holding, threatening, and pushing. Allison may have misread the situation from the start: she may have got her position wrong and not realized on this occasion she was constructed as “Other,” as subject to and object of mother power. In other words, she did not recognize her place as child. This was another lesson for Allison. She was required to learn when the discourse of tidying operated on her mother’s terms and when it didn’t; that is, when she was positioned as helper and when she was positioned as child as “Other.” The lesson about who got to put what away in this instance is instructive. As far as Rita was concerned, Allison wouldn’t allow the boys into her room, so that absolved them from tidying the toys and left the task to Allison. Allison tried to argue that because the boys got the toys from her room in the first place, that they should have to return them. However, Rita judged this argument as unworthy on this occasion. She was consumed with the idea of having the toys tidied on her terms and persisted with ensuring that Allison put the toys away because she wouldn’t allow the boys into her room. The tidiness regime of practice carried out in the Gordon household was quite different from the studies undertaken in developmental psychology and sociology. It was also dissimilar to the common sense assumptions about organizing children to complete household tasks as described by Phillips (2000). Further, there was not much connection between the tidying practices in Peter’s house and what has been described in the literature.

Tidying: A Mother’s Job? Peter was positioned as having little responsibility for tidying his toys, as things such as the computer and the electric car racing track remained in their positions in the lounge for the duration of the data collection visits. Whenever Peter played card or board games with his parents, the games were quickly packed away by Nancy (mostly) or Neil upon their completion, indicating that parents were accountable for such tasks. On the small number of occasions when Peter was required to complete an aspect of tidying, he often resisted by utilizing a patriarchal position to assign his mother as responsible for such tasks. The following episode occurred after


Peter and Nancy had been playing in the sandpit with Peter’s remote control cars. When Peter decided he had finished playing he left the sandpit. Before following him Nancy picked up the two cars Peter had been playing with, a towel, and Peter’s singlet, which he had removed and left on the side of the sandpit. He had a lot of sand on him but walked out of the sandpit and onto the path without stopping to brush it off. Just as Peter was about to enter the house, Nancy asked if he had remembered to dust the sand off: 1 2 3 4

Nancy Peter Nancy Peter

5 6 7 8

Nancy Peter Nancy Nancy

9 Peter 10 Nancy

Peter What ((frustration evident in his voice)). Did you think to dust the sand off you? ((shook head, kept going up the stairs and opened the screen door)) Might be an idea. ((You)) Dust it then! ((Come back)) Down the stairs. ((Peter was uncooperative. He sat down. Nancy took Peter’s shoes off and dusted the sand off his feet with a towel)) Better stand up and I’ll dust your arms. ((Stood up reluctantly. Went inside before Nancy finished)) So much for that ((rolled her eyes; made a clicking noise with her tongue; turned hands over so that palms were exposed; put shoes and singlet inside and put towel away)). (Nancy/V; 10/02/2)

When Nancy asked Peter if he had remembered to remove the sand before entering the house (turn 3), Peter’s response (turn 4) signified his positioning immediately. He failed to turn to look at Nancy, and did not slow his pace when walking up the stairs or opening the door. Nancy suggested that it “Might be an idea” (turn 5) to remove the sand. In reply, Peter left no doubt as to who was responsible for this task (turn 6): his mother could remove it if she wanted to, but he was not going to make any attempt to do so. He did come down a couple of stairs and waited while his mother dusted the sand, but left before she had finished. According to Davies (1989), what it is to be male is constructed in opposition to what it means to be female. For Peter, this meant being able to position Nancy through patriarchy as mother/ woman, and as responsible for completing domestic cleaning and tidying tasks: women’s work, and something that was not connected with masculinity. This is a very young age to have learned that jobs such as picking up your toys and removing sand before entering the house need to be undertaken by your mother. It suggests a strong association with understanding femininity


as a stable concept: such tasks are to be performed by women for boys and men. Because Peter was able to make Nancy the object of his dominant masculinity, she removed his shoes, dusted his feet and arms, and allowed him to move inside before the job had been completed. Nancy also collected Peter’s shoes, singlet, and towel, and took them inside the house. On this occasion, Nancy showed little opposition (turn 10) to being positioned by her five-year-old son as responsible for these jobs. In fact she seemed resigned to it (turn 10). In this situation Peter was able to regulate his mother’s behavior and talk, with very little resistance on her part. Her nonverbal facial gestures (rolled eyes; clicking noise made with tongue) and her hand movements (turned her hands over so that her palms were exposed) suggested that she was annoyed that Peter didn’t dust himself off and take his own belongings inside. However, she said nothing. Constant resistance and oppression from Peter and the operation of the heterosexual matrix may have positioned Nancy as resigned to being treated this way. Tidiness was significant in the Gordon and Haines families, primarily because Rita tidied the house perpetually, and Peter consistently framed his mother as responsible for tidying tasks. Although there were episodes of parent and child conflict that occurred in both the other families over the issue of tidiness, key points of this regime have been analyzed, and I have suggested how this particular discourse is a significant way in which the social order and regulation of the family is maintained. The examples provided here are evidence of the operation of the heterosexual matrix in regard to tidying, where girl and boy bodies and desires are being naturalized (Butler, 1990). Through such regimes of practice, the impression is built that there is a stable gender identity for masculinity and femininity “that is oppositionally defined through the practice of heterosexuality” (Butler, 1990, p. 151). The daily business of naturalizing bodies and desires in relation to tidying is aided by the availability of the discourses of hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy, ensuring that Allison and Peter continue to be positioned in similar ways in their families.

Bedtime Stories Bedtime routines and rituals were different for each of the four families. In the parental advice book Toddler Taming: The Guide to Your Child from One to Four, Australian paediatrician Dr. Christopher Green (1990) said that there is “no universal ‘right’ bedtime for all children. In my experience, 7.30 p.m. appears to be the accepted time that most toddlers should assume the horizontal” (p. 137). Dr. Green was saying that 7.30 p.m. is the time young children normally go to bed. Normalization of the appropriate


time for children to go to bed occurs through statements such as this, which have come to assume the status of common sense and immutable truths. These common sense truths also provide the grounds for training and correction, as they imply that a bedtime for young children much later than 7.30 p.m. is not normal. There are other aspects of the bedtime ritual and associated procedures that are also common sense and “known by everyone.” For example, children should complete routine prebedtime tasks and then go to bed to sleep for the whole night. This means that those children who do not adhere to such common sense expectations are seen as departing from the norm. For instance, children who consistently wake and cry during the night have been pathologized, as have parents who respond by taking the crying child into the parents’ bed (Green, 1990). I now analyze the regimes of sleep/ bedtime that were operating in each family and through this identify where there are gaps between what “should be,” according to the “experts,” and what “is” happening in these families. Although different rules about sleeping operated in each of the four families, the Gordon family was the only one where a “set” bedtime of 7.30 p.m. was enforced each night. The sensitive mother discourse operated in the Anderson home, where Amy was encouraged to go to bed at 7.30 p.m. because she had recently started school, but was required to be in bed by 8.30 p.m. (thereby regulating herself within a given time frame). Norms of conduct associated with school attendance meant that Allison and Amy’s parents (mothers) organized the home routine so that the children were adequately rested for school the following day. The data showed there was little resistance from Allison and Amy when going to bed, or when rising the next morning. Both girls remained in their beds for the whole night and were constructed to be independent in bedtime and waking routines. Both Peter and Bradley differed considerably from the girls in relation to sleeping habits and bedtime arrangements. In Bradley’s family, sometimes the evening meal was not completed until after 8.30 p.m. By the time Bradley was bathed and ready for bed it was often after 9.00 p.m. Eloise was conscious of how their evening meal was eaten later than was “normal” in many other families and how this meant the children went to bed later. Eloise stated that many people had said her children went to bed too late. She justified her action by saying that they were allowed to sleep later in the morning than many other children, thus making up the extra sleeping time. This is an example of friends and family members identifying an abnormality and attempting to regulate Eloise by having her comply with common sense assumptions about bedtimes. Eloise indicated that on some occasions the children were still up when Trevor came home from work and that they liked to stay up and talk to him


as they saw so little of him (Eloise/V; 09/02/4–5). However, this tended to cause difficulties with the established routine the following morning: Eloise

My kids didn’t get to bed till late, 11.30 last night. . . . They want to spend time with him ((Trevor)). . . . So that’s what happened last night, they were chatting to Trevor, I couldn’t get ’em out of bed this morning . . . (Eloise/V; 09/02/4–5)

Despite the fact that the children were comparatively late to bed, Eloise defended her position on the basis that it was important that they spent some time with their father. Trevor’s absence from the home was substantial and similar to what was documented by Steedman (1998) about the fathers of three working-class girls in the United Kingdom (aged eight): “Fathers were dismissed in a short list of variations. . . . They can be absences” (p. 439). The girls themselves commented about fathers: “comes in at eleven, goes out again” (Steedman, 1998, p. 439) and associated the “daily mystery of their absence and the unknown process that gets money, and brings it home” (p. 439). Consequently Eloise allowed her children to stay up late so that they could spend time with their father. Peter also had a later bedtime and usually went to bed around 10.30 p.m. On several occasions, Nancy and Neil talked about ensuring Peter went to bed earlier because he had recently started school. This required Nancy and Neil to change their nighttime routine and therefore adopt normalized conceptions of an earlier bedtime because of school attendance. Although daily routines were modified to some degree after Peter started school, participating in events such as BMX training two nights per week meant that the family did not arrive home until approximately 8.00 p.m. The evening meal was then prepared and eaten before Peter went to bed, making 9.00 p.m. the earliest bedtime that could be achieved on such occasions. This change resulted in some opposition from Peter. Peter engaged in a number of activities before going to bed, which included playing pool, watching television, swimming in the pool, completing activity books, and having stories read to him. An earlier bedtime following BMX training meant a reduction in the amount of time Peter could spend on these activities. In his resistance to the change, Peter attempted to negotiate with his parents about his prebedtime activities. In most cases this occurred through Peter demanding certain activities before the actual bedtime. If this was successful, he could stay up later. The following transcript (which includes an indication of the time), demonstrates the way in which Peter and his parents struggled to maintain their discur-


sive positions during one of these instances in which Peter was demanding what he wanted to do before bedtime. Section 1: 1 Peter 20:51

2 Nancy 3 Neil 4 Nancy

5 Neil 6 Peter 7 Nancy and Neil 8 Neil 9 Peter 10 Neil 11 Peter

I just think, after tea I have to go to bed ((bang)) without ((bang)) a story ((bang)), without ((bang)) a[ ((Peter banged his fork on the table to emphasize each word as he said it)) Uh, uh, uh[ ((the tone of her voice indicated Peter should be careful about what he did or said next)) Peter[ Uh, uh, Peter, Peter, stop, enough. ((tapped Peter’s fork with her hand as she said each word to reinforce what was said)) I’ll tell you the story about when you were a little baby, right? I don’t want to, I don’t want to even listen to it! [Good, don’t do it. You and your tommy rot, you can go to bed with a smacked bottom, and[ I don’t want that story; I don’t want anything except a game of pool. You are not playing pool tonight. You can play pool in the morning before you go to school. Then I won’t have nothing. I’ll just colour-in . . .

The transcript is interspersed with power plays by all three family members. To begin, Peter emphasized what he wanted to do after tea by banging his fork on the table (turn 1). Nancy responded by issuing a warning about his behavior (turn 2) and Neil also said his name (turn 3) as an attempt control what he was saying/going to say. Nancy continued to stress her point by tapping Peter’s fork when she spoke (turn 4) and then Neil offered to tell Peter a story (turn 5). Peter rejected this fervently (turn 6) and after being reprimanded by both his parents (turns 7 and 8) demanded a game of pool (turn 9). From when Peter rejected Neil’s offer of a story, there was a constant jockeying of positions between Peter and his father, based on Peter’s rejection and refusal of what his father said (turns 9 and 11), Neil’s attempt at setting limits (turn 10), and his use of threat (turn 8). Things continued in a similar fashion.


Section 2: 12 Nancy 13 Neil 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Peter Neil Peter Nancy Neil Nancy Neil

21 Nancy 22 Neil 23 Nancy 24 Neil 25 Nancy 26 Neil 27 Peter 20:53 28 Nancy

29 Peter 30 Nancy 31 Peter

Good. OK. Peter, eat your tea now! No more back answer, and go to bed when I say. Is that understood? Yes. ((smiling)) Yes what? ((irritably)) Yes, Mum. ((smiling)) Yes, Dad. ((smiling)) No. Just ignore him, Neil. He’s being very silly. You have got five minutes, mate. Very silly. You are going to bed at nine tonight. I mean it. Sue doesn’t think you are being funny, Peter. It’s very silly. Not at all funny tonight. Come on, Peter. Sit up properly at the table please. Feet underneath. Chew quietly. Feet underneath. Give me a hoy, Sue, if he is being naughty. ((Neil left the kitchen)) No. I’ll hoy you, don’t worry. I mean it, Peter. You’ll go to bed without[ Can I leave those Mummy, please? ((pleadingly)) Um, eat two more pieces. OK? ((Nancy fed him two mouthfuls)) Most probably taste nicer if you chewed it nicer. Mum, find a page please. Well, if you are going to colour-in, don’t ask Mummy for a story. Right? That one there. That one there with[ ((Nancy flicked through his colouring book)).

The jockeying of positions continued, with Neil calling on his masculinity as father to tell Peter to eat his tea (now!) (turn 13) and that he had to go to bed when his father said he did (turn 13). Although Peter agreed (turn 14), he did not get his answer quite right, which caused Neil to demand (somewhat irritably) the additional utterance that he required (turn 15). Peter was playing the game known by all three. He refused initially to say “Yes Dad” and “Yes Mum” (turn 14), and was required to answer correctly (turn 15). Peter rejected his father’s position of power (turn 13) by providing the wrong answer (turn 14), which was quickly corrected (turn 16) and caused Nancy to reenter the conversation by positioning Peter as “very silly”


(turns 17 and 19). Neil reiterated this comment about Peter being “very silly” (turn 20). In Chapter 7 it was noted that Nancy used the term “silly” and that it was characteristic of middle-class mothers who applied it as a regulatory device with their daughters (Walkerdine and Lucey, 1989). All four mothers in this study often used terms such as “silly,” “stupid,” and “sensible” as regulatory devices but they were rarely effective. The next part of the excerpt shows that Neil continued to set limits (turns 18 and 20), made another threat (turn 26), and both parents referred to eating rules to try and have Peter comply (turns 22, 23, 24, and 28). The ebb and flow between the position of masculinity adopted by Neil and that of femininity adopted by Nancy is obvious in this section of the transcript. Neil used imperatives and threats that are allied with masculinity (turns 13, 15, 20, and 26), which were countered by Nancy’s feminine and sensitive approach of ignoring Peter (turn 17), positioning his behavior as “very silly” (turns 17 and 19) and “not funny” (turn 21). Nancy also positioned herself to support Neil (turns 21 and 25), and invoked the rules of eating in an attempt to stem Peter’s oppositional behavior (turns 23, 28). As part of Nancy’s approach, she spoon-fed Peter (turn 28), but this did not occur until after Neil had left the room (turn 24). Neil’s departure was accompanied by an unfinished threat (turn 26). Given his position of dominant masculinity up until he left the kitchen, and how he felt about spoon-feeding (detailed in Chapter 6), it is likely that Neil would have disagreed with Nancy spoon-feeding Peter. After Neil left the kitchen, the conflict began to dissipate. This seems to have occurred because Peter positioned himself as vulnerable, undertaking to repair the situation by asking if he could leave the rest of the food on his plate. He chose his words very carefully: “Can I leave those Mummy, please?” (turn 27). Use of the term “mummy” as opposed to “mum,” which he had used earlier and almost in defiance (turn 16), as well as his tone of voice suggested Peter wanted to ally himself with his mother. This is reinforced in turn 29, when Peter asked his mother to find a page for him in his coloring book. However, Nancy was not completely compliant, stating that if Peter was going to color then he was not able to have a story (turn 30). This next section of the transcript shows that Peter’s opposition and resistance caused some disagreement between Nancy and Neil. Section 3: 32 Nancy 20:56 33 Neil

Don’t talk with your mouth full. You can finish eating your peas first . . . Is he finished? ((Neil spoke from the lounge room))


34 Nancy 20:59 35 Neil 36 Nancy 37 Neil 38 Peter 39 Neil 40 Nancy 41 Neil 42 Nancy 43 Neil 44 45 46 47

Nancy Nancy Neil Nancy

48 Peter 21:00 49 Nancy

21:07 50 Nancy 51 Neil 52 Peter 53 Nancy 54 Peter 55 Neil

He’s having a Milo and then he’ll clean his teeth in a minute. Cleaned your teeth Peter? Yes. ((Nancy answered)) Been to the toilet? ( ) ((in the bathroom)) Do a wee. ( ) He’s got two minutes. Why can’t he get in now? He’s got two minutes. ( ) ((argued with Nancy, but couldn’t hear what was said)) () ((to Sue)) See fight, domestic. Alright, you’ve got two minutes. That’s mother conceding, because I’m glad to sleep in, in the morning. We sleep in until seven instead of six. He still wakes up at the crack of dawn. ((returned to kitchen after talking with Neil)) Five minutes. Five minutes. Alright. ((Peter and Nancy, at kitchen table playing a game. Both were laughing; Peter was not closing his eyes when he took his turn as he should have been; Nancy playfully said he was cheating)). OK, you won. Give Mummy a kiss goodnight. Can we play it again? In the morning. Can I have a story? I’ll tell him a story. Say goodnight to Sue. (Nancy and Neil/V; 15/03/12–15)

Unlike Neil, Nancy did not threaten, reject, or refuse, but continued the sensitive mother discourse by invoking rules and setting limits (turns 42 and 49). Neil and Nancy argued over the limits that had been set (turns 41 and 43), with the result that Peter managed to get an extension of time (turn 48) from the previous limit (turn 46). Nancy wanted to allow Peter more time because they did not have to be at swimming at 6.00 a.m., and was able to convince Neil to sleep for another hour (turn 47). Having


gained more time and been able to engage in his preferred activities before bed, Peter’s position changed significantly (turns 52 and 54). He used requests (turns 52 and 54) rather than the demands (turn 9) and refusals (turns 6 and 11) that had been used at the beginning of the conversation. Neil also managed to tell Peter a story, something Peter rejected fervently earlier (turns 6 and 9). This excerpt is significant because it showed how much of the conflict occurred between Peter and Neil, with Neil making his masculine power visible through the use of overt threats. For the most part, Nancy was positioned as sensitive mother, attempting to control Peter’s resistance, oppression, and rejection through regulatory devices such as use of the term “silly” and invoking the discourse of using the correct table manners. In Section 2 of the excerpt, Neil did most of the controlling and regulating of Peter’s behavior (turns 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26), while Nancy reiterated Neil’s comments about not being funny (turn 21) and began to use table manners to regulate Peter’s behavior (turn 23). She then indicated that she would give Neil a “hoy” if Peter was being “naughty” (turn 25). Thus Neil constructed himself as responsible for controlling Peter’s behavior, and Nancy constructed herself an accessory through the sensitive mother discourse. Here masculinity and femininity have been oppositionally defined through the heterosexual nuclear family, with dominant masculinity and its accomplice nurturing femininity operating in tandem, balancing and supporting each other (Butler, 1990), and “othering” the child (Viruru & Cannella, 1999). After beginning the night in their respective beds, both Peter and Bradley often moved during the night. Peter shifted into his parents’ bed and woke there the next morning. Bradley lay on the floor next to his mother with his blanket and pillow. Amy and Allison did not sleep in their parents’ bed or attempt to do so, although often Allison’s younger brothers did. Eloise usually woke Bradley by gently coaxing him until he was awake and had started the morning bathroom routine. Usually Peter was woken gently by Neil who spent approximately five minutes lying on the bed with him, helping him to wake. In contrast, neither Allison nor Amy was woken gently or coaxed out of bed. Both girls, if not up already, were told that it was time to get up and were then responsible for getting out of bed and starting the morning routine themselves. The two girls were independent in their sleeping and waking routines. In contrast, the boys were able to either position their parents or their parents were positioned to “baby” them to a certain extent. These practices and rituals appeared to have been in place for some time. Bradley’s mother and Peter’s father gave each boy much more discursive space than Allison and Amy were allowed. For example, there were no recorded incidents of


resistance by girls about the sleeping regime of truth, whereas both boys transgressed regulatory boundaries in a number of ways that included the actual time they went to bed, resisting the time at which they were supposed to go to bed, leaving beds during the night, and being woken by parents in the morning. In addition, Bradley wet the bed most nights. The irony is that childcare manuals pathologize events such as these because they exist outside common sense truths about sleeping: children should sleep in their beds for the whole night and wetting the bed at the age of six is unusual.

Conclusions For tidying houses and bedtime rituals, there were again distinct gendered practices operating in the four families. These can be read as the intersection of a variety of discursive circumstances including Butler’s (1990) heterosexual matrix, where discourses of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995; Davies, 1996) and patriarchy (Wearing, 1996; Weedon, 1997) combined with discourses of femininity to normalize and naturalize tidying and bedtime routines and practices. Consequently, bedtimes and tidying had very different meanings for boys, girls, mothers, and fathers in the daily lives of these families.

CHAPTER

9

More Than Sibling Rivalry

In developmental psychology, much research attention has focused on the relationship between mother and child, or what has been called the archetypal mother–child dyad (Burman, 1994; Munn, 1991). This means that developmental psychology has treated mothers “as if they had no existence independent from the babies” (Burman, 1994, p. 43), and babies as if they interacted with only their mothers. Many parents (mothers) care simultaneously for more than one child, but because research in child development has concentrated on the mother–child dyad, mothers with more than one child have been neglected. This disregard of mothers with more than one child stems from two major theoretical perspectives on which motherhood has been based in developmental psychology: attachment theory and social identity theory (Munn, 1991). Munn (1991) contends that models used in developmental psychology need to be extended to account for the multiple dimensions of sibling relationships, as social identity theory and attachment theory do not give “adequate consideration to the processes involved in mothering two or more children” (p. 162). In developmental psychology, sibling relationships have been characterized as sibling rivalry, viewed through the single dimension of jealousy/ envy (Munn, 1991). It is only recently that there has been an interest in fathers and their relationships with children (e.g., Burdon, 1994; Parke, 1996), and among siblings themselves (Burman, 1994). Although influenced by evolutionary theory, studies by Dunn and Kendrick (1982) and Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, and Youngblade (1991) have provided alternative understandings of sibling relationships, showing that children are aware of others’ emotional states, that they are able to empathize, and that developmental advances can be made following the birth of a sibling. Such findings provide 181


a contrast to accounts from developmental psychology, which typically expect regression following the birth of a sibling (Burman, 1994). According to Munn (1991), one of the problems with developmental psychology is that it cannot account for the multiple dimensions of sibling relationships, the impact siblings have on each other, or their impact on the family itself. Sibling relationships are distinguished by notions of power and resistance that are much more complex than the sibling rivalry referred to in developmental psychology. As well as finding theories of motherhood limiting, Munn (1991) contested the ways in which developmental psychology has represented sibling relationships through the concepts of envy and jealousy, and rendered them as normal: Since current models of mothering assume mothers to be all-nurturant, and to have exclusive dyadic relationships with children, then it is inevitable that such models will ascribe jealousy to other family members in their relations with each other. Fathers are commonly held to feel envy towards their infants (a belief which prevents serious questions being addressed about the ways in which fathers negotiate entry into mother-infant dyads), and sibling rivalry has long been considered the most salient dimension of a developing relationship between brothers and sisters. (pp. 163–164)

The prevailing idea is that the envy and jealousy must be resolved, otherwise the welfare of the infant may be compromised (Schaffer, 1998). Recent popular literature (e.g., Hart, 2001) has acknowledged that jealousy isn’t necessarily the cause of all sibling rivalry, suggesting that boredom, competition, and frustration are also factors. Duffy (2002) has offered advice to parents about how to handle sibling fights, as has Cohen (2002), who claimed to offer new approaches to managing sibling rivalry: parents can “intervene in sibling rivalry in a natural and constructive way, stressing the importance of letting siblings settle their own conflicts” (p. 1). Natural and constructive ways include promoting win–win outcomes. Underlying assumptions of this approach include the ideas that sibling conflict should be resolved and that it is possible to achieve some form of consensus through win–win outcomes. Dissensus is not part of the equation. Recent research undertaken with siblings in developmental psychology has occurred in both laboratory settings (e.g., Ram & Ross, 2001) and home contexts (e.g., Kramer, Perozynski, & Chung, 1999; Perozynski, & Kramer, 1999). Perozynski and Kramer (1999) found that parents engaged in passive nonintervention most often, despite the fact that both mothers and fathers thought that child-centered and control strategies were more effective than passive nonintervention. Having more than one child meant that parents (mothers) were responsible for maintaining relationships with two or more children, as well as managing the relationships among those children (Munn, 1991, p. 169). Conflict among siblings in the four families was frequent, which was a finding similar to that of Munn (1991).

More Than Sibling Rivalry • 183

The Girls In Chapter 7, I discussed how Allison and her cousin Helen physically attacked their brothers in the car on the way home from school when the boys were least able to retaliate, and how Amy and her sister came into physical conflict if they sat together in the car. There were other instances when Allison was desirous of hurting her brothers, episodes in which she actually did, as well as cases in which she engaged in telling tales. Tale telling appeared to be an attempt by Allison to have her mother regulate the boys, but it did not always work. When it did, Allison was in effect regulating the mother who regulated her. Rita (Allison’s mother) was concerned because Ryan (Allison’s younger brother) was a particular target of Allison’s attacks: Rita

. . . but she’ll say, ‘Ryan get lost, I don’t want you near me’ and all of this. You know, she just really picks on Ryan. (Rita/V; 12/02/18)

In the following transcript Rita had threatened to give Ryan “a belting” and when she threatened again, Allison made her feelings clear: 1

Rita

2

Allison

Ryan, Ryan, if you don’t go and get your shoes in five seconds, I’m going to really smack your bum. GO! Yep. Smack it hard with a belt. Nup, smack him with a buckle. (Allison/V; 19/02/14)

Here Allison attempted to regulate her mother regarding the way in which Ryan was to be punished. Allison’s preferred method of smacking Ryan was first a belt, then a buckle. Either would have produced much pain and is indicative of her desire to control, regulate, and punish him. Although there is no empirical evidence, two possible reasons for this desire are considered. First, Allison has been positioned by her mother to prepare and serve food for her younger brothers, as well as to clean up after them (see Chapter 6). As she has been regulated in this way, Allison may also have been constructed previously to make decisions, or at least to give advice about the punishment necessary for her brothers’ infringements. Chapter 5 detailed a comment that Rita made about wanting her husband Tom to accept more responsibility for disciplining the children, so that it wasn’t all left to her. There is a possibility that Rita may have at times positioned Allison as some sort of substitute for Tom, as someone with whom she could discuss punishment. Further, as the eldest child and a girl, Allison may have offered advice previously about punishment for her brothers, in a similar way to the above example. Rita’s response was important in these situations as ignoring such comments from Allison


may act to condon them, as would a neutral or positive response. This would be likely to position Allison to offer her opinion in the future. Second, given the powerful positions Allison and Helen experienced in the car when they were able to physically attack their brothers without retaliation (see Chapter 6), Allison may be desirous of similar experiences in which she feels very powerful. Having an influence in the punishment (or thinking that you have) may be almost as good as meting it out, especially when there is no chance of reprisal from her brother. Amy and her sister Emily clashed frequently and it was evident that Amy was able to use certain techniques to control Emily and gain advantages in the situation at hand. These were partly the result of being two years older than Emily and slightly more experienced in life. However, Amy’s tactics were not always sanctioned by her mother and, consequently, Amy’s attempts to control Emily were sometimes made out of earshot of her mother. On other occasions, Toni intervened in order to ensure that Emily’s rights were protected and that Amy’s regulation of Emily was not violent. Toni’s intervention did not always occur before Amy had pushed or hit Emily, with the result that Toni regulated Amy following the event. The next excerpt (from a longer section of the transcript that details the entire incident) demonstrates how Toni achieved an “after the fact” regulation of Amy. Amy had pushed Emily off the scooter and argued with her mother, claiming that she had asked Emily to get off: 1 2 3 4 5

Toni Amy Toni Amy Toni

6 7

Amy Toni

Is that the way you like to be treated? ((shook head for no)) Then don’t do it to other people . . . Well she won’t get off. Well you don’t resort to violence. Wait until she’s finished. Well I know it’s my scooter. Amy we know it’s your scooter. No one is disputing that. It doesn’t give you the right to push and get violent. (Toni/V; 24/05/4).

In earlier parts of this transcript, Toni constructed family members as requiring different treatment in accordance with their position in the family and the particular circumstances of the situation (cf. Munn, 1991, p. 173), and the lesson was continued in the above excerpt. The adult rules on this occasion were able to be generalized to other people as they were common sense constructions of desirable characteristics of girls. For example, girls should wait until others are finished and then ask politely for a turn. However, it is significant that mothers who intervene in a fashion similar


to Toni in the above excerpt are “constructing and maintaining” frameworks for the sibling relationship and at the same time “actively contributing to the power relationship between their children” (Munn, 1991, p. 173). Even though Toni appeared to be teaching Amy that Emily’s circumstances were different from hers and that she should therefore be treated differently, this had the effect of potentially adding to the complexity of power relations that were operating between Amy and Emily. It also had implications for the relationship between Amy and her mother, and Emily and her mother. A similar effect was observed in the sibling conflict that occurred in families with more than one child. That is, intervention by the mother increased the complexity of the situation because it required management of the relationships among the siblings themselves, as well as organization of the relationships between the mother and each of the siblings involved in the conflict. A case in point is the episode in Chapter 8 about Rita, when Allison and Ryan were required to tidy the tea set and pencils. Rita actively intervened and contributed to the power relationship between Allison and Ryan by regulating Allison to put away the tea set and allowing Ryan to tidy away the pencils. A short time before Allison had been trying to position Ryan to put away the tea set, saying that she would do the pencils. Although there was much that had preceded this event, Rita’s action (as well as that by Toni in the example with Amy above) further exacerbated the tension between Allison and Ryan and between Allison and Rita. It is highly likely that Toni’s action had a similar, although less dramatic effect on the bond between Amy and Emily, and between Toni and Am, and Toni and Emily.

The Boys In the Sullivan family there was frequent conflict between Bradley and his older sister Angela. Both provoked each other. If James took sides, he always supported Bradley, which meant he was in conflict with Angela and potentially his mother. Although conflict occurred over a variety of things, it erupted on the following occasion after Angela and Bradley were playing and Angela took Bradley’s pillow: 1 Angela

2 Angela 3 Angela 4 Bradley

Mum, he’s pulling my shirt off me. ((Bradley was holding onto the back of her shirt at the bottom and was trying to lift it up to expose her back)) ((screamed and ran into family room with Bradley holding onto her shirt)) Mum, Mum, please tell him to stop! ((held onto Angela))


5 Bradley 6 Angela 7 Bradley 8 Angela

9 Bradley 10 11 12 13 14 15

Angela Bradley Angela Bradley Angela Bradley

16 Bradley 17 Angela 18 Bradley 19 20 21 22 23 24

Angela Eloise Angela Eloise Angela Bradley

25 26 27 28

Angela Eloise Angela Eloise

29 30 31 32 33

Bradley Angela Bradley Angela Bradley

34 Angela 35 Eloise

Here it comes, here it comes! ((still hanging onto Angela’s shirt)) I just might kick you! Take it off, take it off! ((her shirt)) There’s your pillow, go and get it. ((Angela threw Bradley’s pillow away in an effort to have him let go of her shirt)) ((screamed, let go of Angela’s shirt and ran to his pillow, screamed again)) I tricked you. ((by throwing the pillow)) I want go toilet. He’s wet his pants Mum! ((laughed)) I’m going[ Don’t wee on your pillow, get up and go to the toilet! I have, I have, I weed on my pillow. I pooped on my pillow ((laughed)). I didn’t even wee. ((snuck up behind Angela and lifted her shirt from behind)) MUM! ((went behind Angela and tried to lift her shirt again)) MUM! Angela will you turn that light on please. What light? That light. Why don’t you? ((approached Angela again and tried to lift her shirt)) M—U—M !! BRADLEY! BRAD-LEY!! M U M !! One, two! ((began to count, which was used as a threat to stop Bradley’s current actions. If Eloise reached five and Bradley had not desisted, Eloised smacked him)) Look at her back, you got pimples all over her back. I do not. You do so! You’ve got pimples all over your wee! OHHH!! MUM!! HE’S BEING RUDE!! ((laughed)) I’ve been in the shower with you, too . . . ((screamed laughing)) He’s going on about rude stuff. Would you like me to wash your mouth out, HEY??


36 Angela 37 Bradley

He’s showing off again. But I have been in the shower with her, hey? (Eloise/V; 23/01/7–10).

Eloise’s position in this transcript is consistent with other incidents discussed in Chapter 7. That is, as far as possible, Eloise ignored the way in which Bradley used hegemonic masculinity, this time to position Angela as a powerless female other. This is consistent with the research by Perozynski and Kramer (1999), which indicated that parents chose passive nonintervention in sibling conflict in preference to the use of child-centered and control strategies. On this occasion, Eloise was busy preparing the evening meal and ignored Angela’s screams and continued pleas to control Bradley (turns 1, 3, 17, 19, and 25). Angela constructed herself as unable to manage Bradley and as needing help: “Mum, mum, please tell him to stop!” (turn 3). He did keep hold of her shirt while she raced around the room trying to get him to let go (turn 2) so she could escape from his clutches. Eloise ignored the commotion for some time and appeared to be concentrating on the task of preparing the evening meal. Amidst it all and just after Bradley had tried to lift Angela’s shirt again (turn 18), Eloise asked Angela to turn on a light (turn 20) in a matter of fact voice that suggested nothing out of the ordinary was occurring. Perhaps this was used in an attempt to distract Bradley and Angela from their altercation by diverting Angela’s attention away from the situation. It didn’t work. Angela shrieked again (turn 25) when Bradley grabbed the bottom of her shirt and tried for the third time to lift it up (turn 24). Eloise screamed her first words of intervention (turn 26), showing that she was probably aware of what was happening but had not got involved. Angela kept yelling and Eloise started counting, signaling to Bradley that he had better stop what he was doing or he would be slapped by the time she reached the count of five. When Bradley knew he had Eloise’s attention, he delivered the next assault on Angela: “you got pimples all over her back” (turn 29). This escalated to a further attack on her genitalia “You’ve got pimples all over your wee!” (turn 31). Bradley used the description of “wee” because he knew that this did not transgress the discourse boundaries (see Chapter 6), but he also knew that reference to “pimples all over your wee” would indeed cross the boundary and that there would be a price to pay. The powerful position he gained may have made the risk worthwhile. After all, the worst he could expect was his mother yelling at him and a slap or two. Pimples are considered to be unsightly and repulsive, and Bradley used this understanding to construct Angela (as girl/woman) as distasteful through being covered with pimples on her back. It is even more distasteful to have pimples covering “your wee” and here Bradley constructed Angela as


contaminated and repugnant, and therefore a powerless object of his hegemonic masculinity. At the same time and through use of the discourse of patriarchy, Bradley constructed Angela as representative of all girls/women by using the term “wee.” A girl/woman in such an offensive state would be of no value as “Other” to male sexual desire; however, she remained the object of discursive power and male normalization, cut down to size and reduced to a pussy piece of female anatomy. He, on the other hand, was in control and reveling in it, regulating his sister and mother. On this occasion the risk for Bradley of such an oppressive patriarchal attack was not high. But it seemed that Angela must pay for taking his pillow, and for later tricking him by throwing his pillow away so that he would go and get it, and thus let go of her shirt (turn 10). Angela had been screaming for her mother’s attention and help since the beginning of the transcript, trying to bring the situation to her notice and get her mother on her side. For some time Eloise managed to ignore Bradley’s aggressive masculine act and the intense bodily action of Bradley (aged five) racing around the room, chasing his older sister (aged fifteen) and trying to lift her shirt. Eloise also seemed deaf to Bradley’s calls for Angela to “Take it off, take it off! [her shirt]” (turn 7). Even Bradley’s claim that he had urinated and “pooped” on his pillow (turn 15) did not attract Eloise’s attention. It was only after he finally had his mother’s attention (turns 26 and 28) that Bradley delivered the lines about the “pimples all over her back” (turn 29) and “pimples all over her wee” (turn 31), yet Eloise was not the first to respond to these degradations. Angela was (turns 32 and 34). Her defense was to call on her mother directly again, by screaming, naming her, and trying to get her support for Bradley’s violation (“OHHH!! MUM!! HE’S BEING RUDE”). When she did reply finally, Eloise’s position was to ask Bradley if he wanted his mouth washed out (turn 35). Although this was used as a threat, a choice was still implied: desist and everything will be fine; persist and your mouth may be washed out, or there will be a price to pay. Bradley deflected the seriousness of the situation by declaring that he had been in the shower with his sister (turns 33 and 37) (which may have been several years ago), seemingly as some form of justification of the accuracy of the claims he had made. Angela rationalized her hurt and humiliation as Bradley showing off (turn 36). By ignoring (mostly) Bradley’s oppressive and dominant acts toward both Angela and herself, Eloise in effect regulated Bradley to behave in this way. Ignoring has the same effect as sanctioning behavior. As masculine, and constructed as opposite to the idea of the feminine, Bradley successfully positioned females as submissive, powerless, and able to be subjugated and controlled through aggressive verbal and physical attacks. Although Eloise and Angela had few discursive resources at their disposal, they did have the advantage of age and size. Perhaps these resources could have been utilized more effectively than they were in this situation. But on many other occa-


sions, Bradley’s oppressive masculinity had been legitimated and condoned, both by his mother and by the absent presence of his father. How is it possible to learn to position yourself as powerful against oppressive hegemonic masculinity when patriarchy is a part of daily domesticity? I refer here to the situation Eloise discussed in Chapter 5, where she stated that her husband would not allow her to have any control over the financial situation in the family (she was given an amount of money for groceries and household expenses each week) and that he intervened in domestic activities such as telling her (and Angela) how to sweep the floor, and the direction in which to sweep. All parents are concerned about the management of sibling conflict, which is a legacy of developmental psychology and the theorizing of “experts.” Both popular books and magazines as well as textbooks pathologize mothers (and fathers) for ineffective management of sibling conflict. Effective outcomes include some form of consensus and a happy ending. Although the conflict situation might abate, as in the above example of Angela and Bradley, it does not necessarily mean that a resolution has been reached. Nor does it mean that the effects of the conflict (damaging or otherwise) have been dealt with. Attempting to sort out sibling conflict consumed a great deal of time for the parents in the three families. Parents also stated that they found the constant necessity to arbitrate about such conflicts very wearing, but this in itself was indicative of how parents have been constructed by developmental psychology and common sense assumptions as arbiters in sibling conflict. As was the case with Eloise, parents did intervene but often waited until there was no other choice. Although Peter was an only child, there were times when he was positioned in a manner similar to Amy, Allison, and Bradley. In the following transcript, Peter was unhappy about the way in which Neil responded to a girl at school who had hurt herself and was carried by Neil: 1 Neil

2 Peter 3 Neil 4 Peter 5 6 7 8 9

Nancy Neil Peter Neil Peter

She ripped her knees open, didn’t she? And what did Daddy do? Picked her up and carried her into school and nobody was there. You don’t even do it to me. I do so! DO NOT! You only carry me for one minute and then get me down. Hey, Mum? Yeah. Ohh! I carry you lots because I love you. OH BULL! You carried in her by[ But she hurt her knees, Peter. You don’t carry me, but you carried her right into school, you don’t carry me from the chair to that part. You only carry me[


10 11 12 13

Neil Peter Neil Peter

Yeah, but you are a big boy. You don’t even carry me any further and she’s six. Is she? But she was beautiful though, wasn’t she? But you don’t even carry me ( ). (Neil/V; 29/03/5)

Although Neil tried to rationalize with Peter about why he carried the child (turns 1 and 8), Peter rejected all explanations (turns 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13), and continually returned to Neil’s action of carrying her into school. Peter even tried to gather Nancy’s support (turn 5), but Nancy realized immediately that perhaps she shouldn’t have agreed with Peter. Neil’s appeal to the child’s feminine quality of beauty (turn 12), which might have occurred in an effort to change the focus of the discussion, had no effect on Peter’s hurt. Peter was not consoled, even when his father described him as a big boy (turn 10), as opposite to the hurt (weak) girl child. He was consumed with the idea that his father had carried someone else and not him. It didn’t seem to matter that his father had carried someone who was hurt. What was important was that his father hadn’t carried him. To Peter, being young, female, hurt, and beautiful was not a reason to be carried by his father. Despite Peter’s opposition and resistance, Neil was positioned as savior of the damsel in distress. In rescuing the beautiful girl child, Neil enacted dominant masculinity and was positioned as a strong, powerful protector, constituted in opposition to the beautiful, hurt, weak girl child who needed to be carried. The lesson for Peter then was that the strength of masculinity protects and cares for the hurt weak, feminine “other.” Hegemonic masculinity was being normalized and naturalized again, and masculinity and femininity were being enacted as if they were stable entities, reiterated again and again in habitual, accepted, and recognizable forms.

Conclusions Sibling conflict was an everyday part of life in the three families where there was more than one child. Parents found it exhausting and demanding, especially when it was not easily stopped or resolved. Some parents refrained from intervening for as long as they could, becoming involved when the conflict escalated or crossed discursive boundaries of what can be said and done to whom, when, and where. Older sisters “othered” their younger siblings by attempting to regulate them in ways that they themselves had been regulated by their parents, and younger brothers “othered” their older sisters through the use of hegemonic masculinity.

CHAPTER

10

Regimes of Practice as Normalizing Agents

This study has focused on the daily cycle of struggle and resistance between parents and their children, and the way in which techniques of normalization regulated and controlled their lives. As such, it presents a challenge to the political neutrality of the family, family life, and the normalization and regulation of persons, sites, and practices involved in daily domesticity. It also endorses parent and child conflict as a site of power relations that are continually contested, negotiated, and challenged. The discourse of developmental psychology provides a variety of explanations and treatment programs that purport to enable parents to cope effectively with parent and child conflict, thereby defining what will count as appropriate childrearing and successful socialization of children. Principles and programs of this nature specify and construct what it means to be a parent, and how parenting should “be done.” Many approaches locate the blame for conflict with the parent or the child. This is evidenced by the constant production of parenting manuals, in which specific instructions are provided to show parents preferred styles of managing parent and child conflict. Utilizing a range of theoretical perspectives I have argued that “the personal” is constituted by the discourses of psychology, and that parent and child conflict itself and how parents talk about and conceptualize that conflict are modern forms of regulation that psychology has been instrumental in constructing. Resistance consisted of opposing or contesting the socially established meanings (contained in dominant discourses from developmental psychology) of how to manage parent and child conflict. In 191


the four families, resistance occurred within the confines of adult-invoked rules, and these rules were located in regimes of practice such as eating and sleeping. Regimes of practice are themselves located within dominant discourses, such as the discourses of parenting, childrearing, and childhood. Within families, acts of resistance have the potential to produce parent and child conflict because of the contestation of, or resistance to, certain rules. To summarize, the major findings from this study were as follows: 1. Parent and child conflict was about relationships of power. 2. Regimes of practice operating in daily domesticity were techniques of discipline through which children were normalized. In this process they were constructed as “other” because the processes of normalization are about relationships of power. 3. A number of regimes of practice operating in each family were common to all four families. These included eating, tidiness, bedtimes, school, and sibling relationships. 4. Although similar regimes of practice were operating in each family, adult rules varied among families. 5. Resistance to and contestation of adult rules occurred in all families. 6. Resistance and opposition occurred because the normalization process of young children is incomplete. 7. The panoptic gaze (surveillance through observation) was the principal technique of discipline in families. 8. Parents constituted girls differently from boys in a number of regimes of practice, including preparation and consumption of food, bedtime and waking procedures, and school preparation. 9. Boys used hegemonic masculinity to position their mothers as opposite, that is, as powerless feminine objects. Mothers were complicit in this process because they had few discursive resources with which to resist, oppose, and reposition hegemonic masculinity. 10. The heterosexual matrix operated in the families to constitute and perpetuate femininity and masculinity oppositionally and hierarchically through compulsory heterosexuality. The conclusions drawn from this study of four families revolve around the power–knowledge–resistance combination and its relation to the operation of discourses and discursive practices of the nuclear family, the heterosexual matrix, and hegemonic masculinity, in conjunction with the construction of identity and subjectivity. Thus issues of power, control, and privilege were part of the social fabric of families, and specifically parent and child conflict. The data and analyses presented here provide a starting point for how it might be possible to think differently about parent and child conflict, and

Regimes of Practice as Normalizing Agents • 193

how it might be feasible to avoid measuring ourselves and others, and our actions and those of others, against the Anglo middle-class values and beliefs that dominate current conceptions of how to parent and raise children. In thinking differently about parent and child conflict, the data point to the pressure of the heterosexual matrix in all four families, the supremacy of hegemonic masculinity, and the lack of opportunities for girls to be positioned powerfully. These are serious concerns given that times have changed and the nuclear family continues to be reinvented in a variety of forms (for example, role reversals in which the mother is the wage earner and the father is the primary care giver), and the prevalence of singleparent families, which are often headed by women. Although the masculinity/femininity binary appeared rigid and impervious in these four families, in what follows I consider implications in terms of the major issues that emerged from the data analysis, and show ways in which the masculine/feminine binary is flexible and therefore open to potential change.

Processes of Regulation The regimes of practice identified in the analysis (sleeping and eating) are the major organizational routines and rituals of daily family life. As such they are techniques of discipline through which families are regulated (Foucault, 1977). Because young children are not yet entirely regulated by techniques of discipline, contestation and resistance to adult rules will continue until the normalization process is complete, or until alignment with a contrasting subject position takes place. Children are constructed as “other” in this conception. The child of developmental psychology is “othered” because he or she is not yet complete, not yet fully socialized, and still retains some primitive characteristics that require elimination through the process of socialization. Regimes of practice are constructed from available discourses, with discourses describing, enabling, and producing the possibility of certain behaviors and actions. The more powerful discourses have been adopted by parents and children as normal and natural parts of daily life. This has occurred through relentless but seemingly natural processes of regulation such as continuous surveillance and correction of bodies, desires, and social practices. In each family, the processes of regulation were aimed at socializing or normalizing children so that they would become productive and docile citizens. Rose (1989/1999) said that “childhood is the most intensely governed sector of personal existence” (p. 123). The ways in which children were regulated in regard to eating and meal time procedures are examples of the surveillance and subsequent detail of correction to which children’s bodies were subjected continually. However, intense regulation at the level of the family is just part of the picture and contributes to the mechanisms


of surveillance in society that are used to ensure the production of certain types of persons: In different ways, at different times, and by many different routes varying from one section of society to another, the health, welfare, and rearing of children have been linked in thought and practice to the destiny of the nation and the responsibilities of the state. The modern child has become the focus of innumerable projects that purport to safeguard it from physical, sexual, or moral danger, to ensure its ’normal’ development, to actively promote certain capacities of attributes such as intelligence, educability, and emotional stability. Throughout the nineteenth century and our own, anxieties concerning children have occasioned a panoply of programmes that have tried to conserve and shape children by moulding the petty details of the domestic, conjugal, and the sexual lives of their parents. (Rose, 1989/1999, p. 123)

The regulation of children has meant that they have become visible both within the family, and publicly (Rose, 1989/1999). In conjunction with other social institutions such as the school, the family has been accorded responsibilities for producing assets for the state in the form of productive citizens. Productive citizens are those who have been successfully socialized (normalized) and have learned to conform to the expectations of the culture in which they have grown up (Kostelnik et al., 2002), thus perpetuating the established social and moral order. The pathologization of children and parents who are positioned outside the domain of the most powerful discursive practices is one of the effects of regulation. The discourses of parenting, childrearing, and parent and child conflict operate in terms of binary opposites such as good/bad, normal/abnormal, and adequate/deficit. For example, “good” parents ensure their children are in bed by the normal bedtime of 7.30 p.m. so they will have adequate sleep. The most powerful discourses legitimate particular constructions of the child and simultaneously constitute and configure those persons who exist outside of these edicts in terms of a deficit or “lack.” In so doing they make the parents feel bad because they are not complying with what is normal and not providing their children with what is considered adequate.

Regulation of Children and Parents Regulation of children occurred through regimes of practice via subject positions and adult-invoked rules such as times for going to bed and responsibilities for helping to prepare meals. These rules and others cited here (Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9) are examples of disciplinary discourses operating through regimes of practice, which, according to Luke (1990), “in effect constitute and create truths about subjectivities” (p. 4). The ways in which children were regulated by their parents and siblings constituted and reinforced the stereotypical truths that have been created about the


subject positions of girl and boy children. This occurred in all regimes of practice and mostly through reference to the adult-created rules for each family. For instance, the regulation of girls to help prepare meals and boys to eat them is reflected in the normalized and common sense assumptions that construct girls/women as responsible for preparing and serving food, and boys/men as consuming it. Such practices were entrenched by the age of five or six years because despite resistance, these children had been positioned this way since birth (cf. Grieshaber, 1998). They have performed iterative acts of masculinity and femininity and seen them performed by their parents. They know what it means to be a mother and a father and what the daily lived experiences of discursive positioning are in their family. They know too what it means to cross those discursive boundaries and what the price will be. In the four families, the definition and maintenance of femininity and masculinity and their boundaries were a continual process of construction, production, challenge, and preservation, which occurred through normalized conceptions of what it meant to be female and male, mother and father, and daughter and son in the family context. Connell (2002) maintained that over one hundred years of “sex difference” research in psychology and the social sciences has concluded that “women and men are psychologically very similar, as groups” (p. 42; emphasis in original). These similarities between women and men have been given little credit and, according to Connell (2002), the reason lies in cultural background: “Dichotomous gender symbolism is very strong in Western culture” (p. 42). It’s not that gender difference was imagined in the four families. On the contrary, it was reiterated and re-created performatively in these families as if it were a stable entity, something concrete and material. The problem is one of how this happens, of “how we come to want what we want” (Walkerdine, 1984b, p. 182). That is, how did the parents come to want to regulate their children in the ways that they did, which were mostly according to the norms of developmental psychology, and explicitly gendered? Developmental psychology takes a sex role socialization approach to gender, which is problematic not only because of its dualism (see Chapter 2), but also because sex-role socialization theory does not conceptualize gender as relations of power. How is it that parents seemingly want to regulate their children according to the masculinity/femininity binary, ensuring that girls perform femininity and that boys enact masculinity? For Rose (1985), the production of desire, of how we want what we want, occurs through the operation of dominant discourses and the regulative functions of these discourses. For example, the practices associated with sensitive mothering are produced through parental (mother) desire on the basis that we want to be those sensitive mothers (parents), and are positioned to feel bad when we are not. Because developmental psychology


does not theorize about power in relation to sex-role socialization theory, it is possible that the desire to be a sensitive mother is so powerful that it has nullified the power relations involved in gender and rendered them invisible. This allows the relations between the powerful positions of masculinity and the less powerful positions of femininity to be constructed and reconstructed in the language and social dynamics of each family on a daily basis, making the heterosexual matrix and hegemonic masculinity integral parts of the dominant discourses of developmental psychology.

Childrearing Techniques Nearly half of the parents mentioned that a number of their own childrearing techniques were similar to those used by their parents. For Nancy, there was a simple and direct correlation between her own sensitive mother discourse and that of her mother. Rita talked about one particular similarity she had with her mother, which caused her some pain both as a child and now as a mother. As the eldest child in her family, Rita had been constructed to help the younger children and to take more responsibility for their care than she wanted. Although vowing not to do the same thing to her own eldest child, Rita found that once positioned as a mother, she constructed Allison exactly as she had been positioned herself: Rita

. . . And I always swore I’d never expect the oldest to be the best sort of thing. But I still do. (Rita/V; 22/01/22–23).

In a sense, Rita recognized her own entrapment: she knew she was constructing Allison as she herself had been, and that this was not her preferred position. She seemed to be searching for explanations and alternatives and was at a loss to understand why she was doing something that she did not want to do, and had declared she would not do. When Neil talked about how, with his first family, he used physical punishment in the same manner as his father, it was clear that there were some intergenerational links because he had done exactly what his father did. With his second family, Neil said he had changed his opinion and did not use physical punishment, but several parental reflection sessions revealed evidence of contradictory positioning. For example, on a number of occasions Neil was unsure that he had chosen the best method of dealing with conflicts between himself and Peter (reasoning and not physical punishment). He knew what worked and what didn’t, but became confused when the techniques that were usually successful resulted in failure. On these occasions, an identity dilemma presented itself, and Neil was faced with the decision of reverting to his former position of overt power or continuing to use the rationalist approach. Such dilemmas were not uncommon experiences for several of the parents. Despite the contradictory nature of the


identity(ies) dilemma, it appears that some discursive positions on childrearing and parenting may have intergenerational links. However, as evident in the case of Neil, those intergenerational links can be challenged and put aside when other options become available, but remain in the background for possible use. It seems from the explanations of Neil and Rita that to change childrearing techniques parents need to know about different options that are available, what the alternatives entail, and how to enact them. For Neil, Nancy provided another approach that he endorsed after seeing it in action, thinking about it, trying it himself, and discussing it with Nancy. He found that it worked to his satisfaction most of the time, but he did threaten to use physical punishment several times. Rita did not have the resources available that Neil did. She lamented the way she positioned Allison, but had no options from which to choose, thus perpetuating the way in which she had been constituted herself.

The Panoptic Gaze In all four families, the regulative and normative power of the panoptic gaze (surveillance through observation) was supreme: it was the principal technique of discipline in family life and worked through parents and other regulatory vehicles such as siblings. According to Foucault (1977), surveillance would continue until children were sufficiently normalized or selfregulating. The gaze extended to the most intimate and minute aspects of daily domesticity, including specific rules about eating. Procedures guiding the consumption of food required a great degree of precision on the child’s part, making posture and movement the object of continuous monitoring, direction, and correction (Foucault, 1977). Parents’ talk and actions were also regulated by the panoptic gaze, which can be applied by teachers, grandparents, members of the extended family, other parents, people in shopping centres, and also children. The relational nature of power established between parents and children created the opportunity for resistance in collusion with the panoptic gaze. A symbiotic relationship existed between the gaze and resistance: each was dependent upon the other. The gaze operated as a preventive measure because continued surveillance worked to discourage, detect, and correct acts of resistance and opposition in order to achieve successful normalization and regulation. Without the gaze, however, the notion of resistance becomes obsolete, as young children must be successfully socialized through the processes of normalization and regulation. Resistance thus owes its existence to the gaze, and the gaze to resistance. Each is redundant without the other because where there is power, there is also resistance. This means that the power–knowledge–resistance relationship is always accompanied by the gaze, whether in a preventive or corrective mode.


Children’s Resistance The way in which parents constituted girls and boys and responded to resistance from girls and boys was markedly different. Because of this, girls’ resistance tended to be relatively short lived. In contrast, acts of resistance by both boys were lengthy, animated, emotional, and highly tense. The relatively small amount of resistance by girls to adult rules such as bedtime routines is testimony to the success of the regulatory processes to which they have been subjected, and reinforces the idea that boys and girls are constructed differently. It also endorses the notion that girls are allowed little discursive space to resist discursive practices and therefore rarely experience being positioned powerfully, whereas discursive spaces are allowed, if not created, specifically for the resistance of boys. Significantly, girls and boys were also constructed differently by their parents when conflict was not a consideration. Both girls and boys resisted being regulated by their parents by challenging and opposing their directives, and by trying to reposition and regulate their parents through talk and action (or lack of action). In some cases this produced conflict. In other cases the children were successful in regulating and repositioning their parents and siblings. Similar techniques of resistance used by boys and girls were also used by their parents. These included resisting, opposing, challenging, negotiating, regulating through the use of rules, and repositioning. Both boys’ mothers created discursive space for their sons to effectively resist, challenge, and position them as the powerless objects of their hegemonic masculinity. No such spaces were provided for the two girls. As both mothers were complicit in creating discursive spaces for these young boys, the early years of life was a time when they learned how to mount challenges, successfully contest, and use hegemonic masculinity as ways of regulating their mothers. The ability of these boys to adopt hegemonic masculinity to dominate and control their mothers is bound to the logic of Western rationality and the heterosexual matrix, and the patriarchal relations of dominance contained within this logic. The discourses of Western rationality perpetuate the idea that man can control and dominate nature. For these two young boys, this mode of rationality was introduced through learning to control and dominate their mothers by the age of five. As discursive resources, their mothers relied on adult rules and used them to attempt to thwart the displays of hegemonic masculinity. However, invoking rules about table manners (see Chapter 6) or calling on clichés such as “Don’t be silly” were ineffectual in stopping the tirade of oppression from these boys. The demonstrations of hegemonic masculinity to which Eloise and Nancy were subjected by their sons showed that more effective resources were needed for dealing with these episodes. However, such episodes also


need to be understood in the context of the family and the heterosexual matrix. Even though Eloise shouted, yelled, and smacked Bradley, these shows of overt power were not enough to prevent such incidents from occurring, and they did not seem to have much effect in stopping them once the discursive conditions had been established that enabled them to occur. It was a similar situation for Nancy, and although she threatened Peter with smacking, she usually maintained the sensitive mother positioning and did not succumb to overt displays of power. In these two families, the performance of hegemonic masculinity by Bradley and Peter appeared to be closely connected to the ways in which the families operated according to the heterosexual matrix. Both fathers used dominant masculinity and seemed to expect the mothers to be constituted as opposite—passive, compliant, and deferential. Peter and Bradley had experienced this many times and were constituted in the context of the family to behave similarly. For Eloise and Nancy to have any viable options, the ways in which the heterosexual matrix operated in these two families needed to change. This is said more easily than done and depends entirely on the cooperation of the fathers. Given that masculinity is so powerful, it is unlikely that such power would be relinquished lightly. However, as the major wage earner, Nancy had an advantage because her position disrupted the heterosexual matrix. Possibilities for change emerge when the traditional balance of the heterosexual matrix is disturbed, but they must be accompanied by other discursive resources that also work to position mothers more powerfully. This may include the use of overt power strategies.

Parents’ Resistance There were significant gaps between what “should have been,” according to the discourse, and what “actually was,” and parents were very conscious of what they “should” have been doing. One way of seeing these gaps is resistance on the part of parents, as refusals to conform to the dominant discourse, but with justification. Another way to understand these gaps is as downright refusals on the part of parents to play according to the rules of the dominant discourses. Neil and Nancy were acutely aware that because of his school attendance, Peter should have been in bed hours earlier than he was, and Rita was very conscious of the fact that she should not shout at the children as much as she did. For these parents the desire to conform to the more powerful discursive practices through self-correction was high, but failure to achieve the preferred discourse position resulted in parents marginalizing themselves. This marginalization occurred through attempts to rationalize


their adopted discursive positions in comparison with those that were more powerful: these parents knew they were construed as outside the norm. Such rationalization led to the type of justification in which Eloise engaged when she talked about her children going to bed later and being able to sleep later, therefore gaining the same amount of sleep as what is considered normal. Rita rationalized her position by arguing that shouting at her children was better than “killing” them. Neil resisted the “Mr. Mom” role by engaging in very few domestic activities, allowing Nancy to complete them and using hegemonic masculinity when it suited him to override Nancy and Peter. Nancy resisted moving from the sensitive mother discourse. She may have wanted to, but she refused to adopt any other discursive positions and held steadfastly to the sensitive mother discourse. Like Rita, Eloise was not afraid to yell frequently and loudly at her children, or to smack Bradley in the school yard in front of other children when he would not go to his classroom. Tom, who worked the night shift, wanted to be away from his children when he was with them. Nathan rejected the masculine dictum of having his breakfast and lunch prepared by the wife of the nuclear family and completed these tasks himself. Eloise resented the patriarchal nature of her relationship with Trevor. She wanted more influence in domestic financial affairs but was denied. She opposed his other displays of hegemonic masculinity (such as how to sweep the floor) and performed conjugal favors on her terms only. These examples show how parents resisted some of the dominant discourses that were regulating their lives, and for Nancy, how she refused to budge from the way in which she was positioned by the sensitive mother discourse. They attest to the flexibility of the masculine/feminine binary and the ways in which some parents rejected aspects of that binary. As such, they suggest hope for the possibility of moving the borders of masculinity/femininity toward more elastic margins.

Gender Although the examples of daily life shared here indicate that parent and child conflict situations were gendered, gender was a category of meaning that could change with use and not something that was preestablished and therefore determined how the children and parents were going to speak and act. In other words, parents and children were not passive recipients of gender roles, but were able to manipulate the circumstances in which they found themselves to varying degrees. This ability was used more by Bradley and Peter than by Amy, Allison, and the mothers of the children. The social and cultural practices of gender identities that exist as binary opposites (girl/boy; weak/strong; talk quietly/yell; help prepare meals/eat


meals) made it very difficult for girls and boys and mothers and fathers to go against the dominant stereotypical ideas about gender order in the home. The operation of the heterosexual matrix ensured that girls were constructed as helping to prepare meals. This was a performance that the girls resisted at times, but realistically, there was little discursive choice for them in whether they helped to prepare food. These girls were soon reprimanded and required to comply if they resisted. Should the boys have chosen to help prepare meals (this was not observed), it would have been a genuine choice, simply because they were not required to help.

Border Crossing On the whole, there was very little “border crossing” observed in the rituals of daily life in the four families from the parents or the children. That is, most family members were positioned to enact the binaries associated with fixed understandings of femininity and masculinity. Davies (1989) and Orellana (1999) discussed how children cross gender borders in their play at preschool and at home. For Davies (1989), examples of “border crossing” were accompanied by persistent reminders from other children about what they needed to do to get their gender “right” and perform it correctly. Orellana (1999) noted that when children had opportunities to cross gender borders in play, they moved to the binary that was associated with the more powerful position and were more reluctant to adopt vulnerable positions. When chances arose for Amy and Allison to position themselves more powerfully in everyday life, they regulated their siblings and tried to reposition their mothers, but had little success at the latter. Despite this, there were comparatively few opportunities for them to experience any powerful positions. The tasks and positions associated with femininity are less desirable than those attached to masculinity. At risk here are the ways in which children value their own identities, and the denial of at least “half the range of human experiences, desires, and possibilities” (Orellana, 1999, p. 113). For Amy and Allison, very few opportunities were available linguistically and physically for them to be positioned powerfully. In many ways, moves by these girls to experience more powerful positions were thwarted by their mothers or fathers, who regulated them by constructing verbal positions for them on the margins and out of the way. The only times that Allison experienced more powerful positions verbally and physically occurred when she was traveling home from school in the front seat of the car and she and her cousin were able to physically attack the boys who were strapped into their car seats in the back of the car. However, these times were limited and resulted in Allison being admonished by her mother due


to safety concerns while driving. For Amy, a similar opportunity was removed when her mother separated Amy and her sister so that Amy did not have any chance physically (and therefore verbally) to position herself more powerfully than her sister. The lessons to be learned here include providing many opportunities for girls to experience powerful positions, both physically and verbally, in terms of femininity and masculinity. This does not mean allowing the girls to attack the boys while they are in the back seat. It might mean genuine opportunities for girls to not only feel powerful, but to experience powerful positions and have authentic choices in decisions on a regular basis. For this to be successful, it is necessary to “take account of desire and fantasy” (Walkerdine, 1984b, p. 182), to learn about what makes girls feel powerful, the positions they consider to be powerful, and how such possibilities could be realized. It is important that all children have opportunities to experience the full range of human experiences, desires, and possibilities, and not just those associated with one-half of the binary. Awareness raising is a first step in changing social practices. We live in a time of unrelenting change and many social practices associated with the binaries of masculinity and femininity are currently being reconfigured. As part of this process, both boys and girls can experience a wide range of emotions, desires, and positions associated with masculinity and femininity that include learning how to care for and nurture others, as well as feeling strong, powerful, and able to make decisions.

Opportunities The construction of girls and boys in relation to the eating regime of practice is a case in which the discursive options for both girls and boys were bound by constructions of what it meant to be a boy and what it meant to be a girl. For instance, both girls’ mothers engaged in gender category maintenance work when Allison and Amy resisted food preparation tasks. Put simply, girls “do” food preparation, serving, and cleaning tasks, whereas boys don’t. However, given the changes that have occurred recently in family forms and functioning, there are now more opportunities for boys to take part in domestic activities. The increase in sole parenting (including fathers who are sole parents) and role reversals (Aitken, 2000), as well as mothers who work outside the home (Gill, 1998), has meant that domestic tasks such as food preparation, washing, ironing, gardening, and cleaning are more likely to be undertaken by mothers, girl and boy children, and fathers (Gill, 1998). Opportunities are therefore available for both girls and boys to engage in a variety of household duties. But the difficulty of doing this along nongendered lines remains a challenge as it is hard to see through and critique


discourses of gender that are operating in and on families. For example, an Australian study (Gill, 1998) found that when mothers worked outside the home, girls engaged in twice as many household tasks as boys. All parents stated that household duties should not be based on gender, particularly for boys, as it was important that all children were able to be self-sufficient in cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry when they left the family home (Gill, 1998). However, daily practices showed that some mothers handed down specific cooking skills to daughters only, and that some fathers would chop wood and vacuum, but refused to clean the bathroom and toilet (pp. 309–310). Studies such as this are instructive because they illuminate changes that are occurring in the domestic sphere and the fluidity of masculinity and femininity, but at the same time they also point to the rigidity of the binaries of masculinity and femininity and the limitations of what has been achieved. They also validate the position of men engaging in domestic chores inside (and not just outside) the home, as well as the necessity for both girls and boys to be independent in certain household tasks. These examples indicate opportunities for girls and boys and mothers and fathers to experience some of the human encounters, desires, and possibilities that are usually associated with the other side of the masculine/feminine binary. According to Gill (1998), for children in families in which both parents work, there is a higher likelihood that they will have daily lived experiences of the boundaries of masculinity being extended in regard to the completion of household tasks by fathers. Although not a family in which both parents worked, Nancy was the major wage earner and Neil was responsible for childrearing, but in this family it did not make a difference to Neil completing household tasks. Nancy engaged in household tasks allied with femininity, and Neil, despite indicating that he could complete feminine domestic chores, was not observed to do so. Nancy lived the contradiction of being the wage earner, a powerful position aligned with masculinity, as well as sensitive mother and homemaker, positions that are coupled with femininity and less power. Daily life is replete with examples of the boundaries of masculinity and femininity being reworked by various players, where the binaries are adaptable in some ways and more inflexible in others. A further example of the flexibility of the femininity/masculinity binary comes from a study by Cunningham (2001), who found that parental behaviors early in children’s lives made a difference to how those children, thirty years later, engaged in household duties: “the extent to which fathers participate in a greater share of stereotypically female tasks when their sons are very young influences sons’ relative participation in those tasks 30 years later” (p. 195). This longitudinal evidence provides more support for


the notion of masculinity as malleable. Only one father, Nathan, was observed engaging in stereotypically female tasks inside the home. He prepared his own breakfast and lunch (see Chapter 5), and engaged the children in conversations with a purpose at the evening meal (see Chapter 6). The changing face of family life suggests that girls and boys and mothers and fathers must take on a variety of domestic tasks that cross traditional gender borders. The participation of men in stereotypical domestic tasks shows that there is some uncertainty attached to notions of hegemonic masculinity and that changes to traditional gendered household work can and do occur, albeit slowly. With changed family circumstances it is a little easier to broaden the household tasks in which girls and boys are required to engage. There are also good reasons for doing this whether both parents work or not, including the idea that all children should be independent and self-sufficient in domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and doing the laundry.

Multiple Subjectivity/Identities Identity is one element of subjectivity, in which persons have a variety of identities that together constitute subjectivity. Identity(ies) is socially constructed and assigned positions can provide some choice in subject positioning. Consequently, from the discursive positions available, persons adopt a range of identities that is contingent upon circumstances. For instance, young children are constructed as having a variety of identities that might include mommy’s helper, big brother, and helpless baby. They can position themselves in various ways depending on the context. The concept of multiple subjectivity also enables persons to occupy simultaneously more than one identity that might include daughter, mommy’s helper, and big sister. However, these identities do not always coexist harmoniously. That is, identities adopted can contradict each other in how the person is positioned. Contradictory subjectivity was particularly evident when, in episodes of conflict, Peter and Bradley used hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy to subjugate women, mothers, and sisters as objects of their oppression. At times in these episodes Peter was simultaneously a helpless boy child and patriarchal man. As a helpless boy child he was able to have his mother spoon-feed him. As a patriarchal man he was able to demand that his father do things for him, curse his mother, and position her as cleaner of domestic mess. Likewise, both girls showed evidence of contradictory subjectivity. For example, Allison and Amy were at times mother’s helper and resistant girl children. Contradictory subjectivity was evident in other situations. For example, in Nancy’s case, it was possible in certain circumstances for the power of


the discourse of the sensitive mother to overshadow and cause the withdrawal of other identities such as wife and wage earner. It is also possible that the sensitive mother position eclipsed emotion such as anger. As other identities come into play and as discursive circumstances change, it appears as though the multiple identities that constitute contradictory subjectivity frequently and relentlessly impact upon each other. For instance, the situation in which only one identity is apparent overtly from the discourse positioning belies the tension incurred in selecting appropriately from competing and contradictory identities. A case in point is when Nancy talked about how she portrayed a calm identity when Peter had a tantrum, but would have liked to put on a tantrum herself. Here Nancy indicated her frustration and anger with Peter but she would not desert the sensitive mother discourse. “Mom doing a tantrum” was a subject position that was not readily available discursively to Nancy because of how she positioned herself in the sensitive mother discourse. This contradiction, however, was a sign of struggle and hope, of shifting subjectivity, of something that opened the possibility of Nancy gaining more control over her discursive circumstances, possibly by having a tantrum and moving beyond (temporarily) the confines of the sensitive mother discourse. Perhaps it was the association of masculinity with anger and tantrums, contrasted with femininity as passive, nurturing, and caring, that held Nancy back. Or perhaps what Nancy was doing was performing femininity (Butler, 1990; Walkerdine, 1989) as it was supposed to be performed because she couldn’t risk the threat she posed to masculinity if she did have a tantrum. Was she too frightened to cross the femininity margin or was it desire (Rose, 1985) to be a passive, sensitive mother that held her back? Multiple and contradictory subjectivity poses challenges not only for femininity, but also for masculinity in contemporary society. Although gender boundaries are being pushed around by fathers who are primary caregivers, mothers who are “breadwinners” in nuclear family situations, and fathers who are sole supporting parents, the rigidity of masculinity and femininity in some situations is limiting. The inflexibility of the masculine has been acknowledged by Aitken (2000) in his charge that “Our enduring myths of social reproduction do not seem to support forms of masculinity that encompass a sense of self that is nurturing and domestically orientated” (p. 581). It is not just masculinity that is at fault here. The way in which femininity has been constructed in opposition to masculinity is a significant part of the issue and limits the legitimacy and discursive influence that new forms of masculinity and femininity can have. This includes the lack of authenticity attached to fathering full time as it is not considered to be “a daily emotional practice that is negotiated, contested and resisted differently in different spaces” (Aitken, 2000, p. 581). The result of this is that most full-time fathers “tend to see their role as ‘helping


out’ their partners rather than taking the main responsibility for child-care themselves” (p. 581). Neil, as full time carer of Peter, appeared to be positioned and to position himself similarly to the men in Aitken’s study: as helper. Nancy made many decisions about Peter. She bought the computer and educational games for him, she enrolled him in most of his activities (dancing, mathematics, swimming), and consulted a child psychologist about his poor appetite. Other examples show that Nancy had the final word about when Peter went to bed (see Chapter 8), did most of the driving to afterschool activities, and was the parent who talked with the teacher about Peter’s progress. Despite working full time, Nancy took major responsibility for Peter. This may have been because Neil already had a grown family and it was Nancy’s only opportunity to mother. Although Neil did not talk about full-time fatherhood as a position of helping, he drew on hegemonic masculinity and the heterosexual matrix to constitute him as powerful when necessary [as previously stated, he could “knit, crochet, fancy work, cook a meal better than any woman” (Neil/A; 22/01/42)]. Conversely, Nancy as full-time worker prepared most of the meals, did most of the house cleaning, and was keen for Peter’s teacher not to construct her as “one of those working mothers.” Nancy visited the classroom regularly to chat informally with the teacher, return materials that she had prepared at home for classroom activities, and to get her next set of tasks. Despite being a full-time wage earner, Nancy’s talk and actions indicated that she had not relinquished activities associated with the feminine and was somewhat reluctant to do so. Was her desire (Rose, 1985) to be a good mother so great that she went out of her way to show the teacher that she was not a distant (and errant) working mother? Is this traditional “balance” that is evident in the parenting of Nancy and Neil and their respective positions (disregarding Nancy’s wage earner status) part of the work of the heterosexual matrix? The idea that they worked to normalize the family unit because Nancy was the nontraditional wage earner and disrupted the ideal of the nuclear family cannot be discounted. The issues of power and control that are attached to mothering and fathering are central to understanding the social dynamics here. On the one hand, as the wage earner for the family, Nancy might have had access to the power that comes with this traditionally masculine position. On the other hand, she positioned herself with the feminine, as opposite to the wage earner, as mother and associated very much with domestic duties of caring, cooking, cleaning, and Peter’s afterschool activities. Overtly, this family provided an example of how the duties associated with family members are changing. However, closer investigation revealed Nancy stayed very close to the stereotypical activities connected with mothering and Neil was


comfortable with his position as head of the nuclear family. Nevertheless, the social circumstances that enabled Nancy to marry someone 27 years older than herself, for her to work, and for her to be able to mother in the way that she did signal significant social change. Still, the way in which individuals responded to these social circumstances in the family unit was in accordance with the binaries of femininity and masculinity. The examples utilized in this chapter indicate that the choice of discourses available to certain family members is very limited. Yet as has been demonstrated, there are discursive spaces in which opportunities for expanding the masculine/feminine binary are available and have been used to produce alternative conceptions of masculinity and femininity. However, some people have so few discursive resources that they can become trapped in those available and are unable to access other options. The discursive analysis undertaken in Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 demonstrated the sense of entrapment that can pervade family life. The normalizing and regulative discourses of parenting, combined with the heterosexual matrix limit the range of possibilities that is available. In some cases those with limited choices realized how they were positioned (e.g., Rita and how she constructed Allison as the eldest girl child) and in other situations it was questionable whether they did. Some families were restricted in their options because they had no access to discursive resources that may provide alternatives or are necessary to generate alternative practices. In conclusion, this analysis of parts of the daily lives of four families represents an attempt to understand some of the intricacies, puzzles, and exigencies of social and political life. It has tried to show how the bodies and language of children and parents in these families were regulated in relation to who could say what to whom, when, where, why, and how. The intimate connections between what Dean (1999) has called government and governmentality are evident as parents and children, governed through the rationalities and technologies of developmental psychology, attempt to ensure that the “normal parent” produces the “normal child.” The practices of person formation are sites of struggle, negotiation, and resistance in the daily lives of families, given that social relations that were lived in the four families were considered as relations of power. This analysis has questioned the “othering” of children in the adult/child binary, and also endeavored to offer some alternatives that may prompt the dissolution of parts of the masculinity/femininity binary and begin the process of reinscription of life in new ways, unfettered by binarist discourses.

Appendix

Transcript Notation The transcript notation is as follows . . . material deleted ( ) word(s) spoken but not audible (( )) transcriber’s description yes normal speaking voice yes raised speaking voice, or with emphasis YES loud speaking voice with emphasis YES extremely loud speaking voice with emphasis [ two speakers turns overlap at this point [[ more than two speakers turns overlap at this point = no interval between turns The full names of parents and children are used with the exception that names have been changed.

209

References

Adlam, D., Henriques, J., Rose, N., Salfield, A., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1977). Psychology, ideology and the human subject. Ideology and Consciousness, 1, 5–56. Aitken, S. C. (2000). Fathering and faltering: “Sorry, but you don’t have the necessary accoutrements.” Environment and Planning, 32, 581–598. Apple, M. (2001). Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. New York & London: RouutledgeFalmer. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1998). Key concepts in post-colonial studies. Routledge: London and New York. Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1998). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 110–136). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Baker, B. M. (2001). In perpetual motion: Theories of power, educational history, and the child. New York: Peter Lang. Balson, M. (1994). Becoming better parents (4th ed.). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Barnard, J. D., Christophersen, E. R., & Wolf, M. M. (1977). Teaching children appropriate shopping behaviour through parent training in the supermarket setting. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 10, 45–49. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, Pt. 2). Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. London: Macmillan. Blanchard, P. (1933). The child with difficulties of adjustment. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 858–881). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Boldt, G. (1997). Sexist and heterosexist responses to gender bending. In J. Tobin (Ed.), Making a place for pleasure in early childhood education (pp. 188–213). New Haven: Yale University Press. Bradley, B. S. (1989). Visions of infancy: A critical introduction to child psychology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Braun, D. (2001). Perspectives on parenting. In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 239–248). New York: Palgrave. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

211

212 • References Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (revised ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bretherton, I., Golby, B., & Cho, E. (1997). Attachment and the transmission of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 103–134). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Volume 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (pp. 389–462). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Burdon, B. E. (1994). Fathers in families. In F. Briggs (Ed.), Children and families: Australian perspectives. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London: Allen & Unwin. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. London: Routledge. Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang. Cannella. G. S. (2002). Global perspectives, cultural studies and the construction of a postmodern childhood series. In G. S. Cannella & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives, and education (pp. 3–18). New York: Peter Lang. Cannold, L. (2001). Interviewing adults. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 178–192). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Carrington, V. (2002). New Times: New Families. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Chapman, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1982). Young children’s compliance and non-compliance to parental discipline in a natural setting. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 5, 81–94. Charlesworth, R. (1998a). Developmentally appropriate practice is for everyone. Childhood Education, 74(5), 274–282. Charlesworth, R. (1998b). Response to Sally Lubeck’s “Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone?” Childhood Education, 74(5), 293–298. Cheal, D. (1996). New poverty: Families in postmodern society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Public and private families: An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill College. Cherry, C. (1985). Parents, please don’t sit on your kids: A parent’s guide to nonpunitive discipline. Belmont, CA: David Lake. Christie, M. (1987). Managing the normal behaviour of young children. Watson: Australian Early Childhood Association. Clark, H. B., Greene, B. F., MaCrae, J. W., McNess, M. P., Davis, J. L., & Risley, T. R. (1977). A parent advice package for family shopping trips: Development and evaluation. Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis, 10, 605–624. Cleverley, J., & Phillips, C. (1987). Visions of childhood. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Cohen, L. (2002). Some new approaches to managing sibling rivalry. Work and Family Life, 16(5), 1, 6. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cunningham, M. (2001). Parental influences on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 184–203. Dadds, M. R. (1987). Families and the origins of child behavior problems. Family Process, 26(3), 341–357. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

References • 213 Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Dau, E. (2001). Exploring families: The diversity and the issues. In E. Dau (Ed.), The anti-bias approach in early childhood (2nd ed., pp. 115–133). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education. Davies, B. (1989). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond gendered identities. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University. Davies, B. (1996). Power knowledge desire: Changing school organisation and management practices. Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications. Deater-Deckard, K., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children’s externalising behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1065–1072. Doherty, W. J. (1999). Postmodernism and family theory. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. K. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 205–217). New York: Plenum Press. Dreikurs, R., with Soltz, V. (1995). Happy children. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Duffy, R. (2002). Sibling fights. Child Care Information Exchange, 145, 72–74. Dumas, J. E., & LaFreniere, P. J. (1993). Mother-child relationships as sources of support or stress: A comparison of competent, average, aggressive, and anxious dyads. Child Development, 64, 1732–1754. Dumas, J. E., Serketich, W. J., & LaFreniere, P. J. (1995). “Balance of power”: A transactional analysis of control in mother-child dyads involving socially competent, aggressive, and anxious children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 104(1), 104–113. Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C. T., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young children’s understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and their antecedents. Child Development, 62, 1352–1366. Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy and understanding. New York: Academic Press. Eisenberg, A. R. (1992). Conflicts between mothers and their young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 21–44. Elkind, D. (1986). The child, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Young Children, 42(4), 6–11. Finch, J. (1984). It’s great to have someone to talk to: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In C. Bell & H. Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Policies, problems and practice (pp. 70–87). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Foley, P., Roche, J., & Tucker, S. (2001). Foreword: Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 1–6). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Forehand, R. L. (1977). Child compliance to parental requests: Behavioural analysis and treatment. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behaviour modification (Vol. 5, pp. 111–147). New York: Academic Press. Forehand, R., & Long, N. (1996). Parenting the strong-willed child: The clinically proven five-week program for parents of two-to-six-year-olds. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality 1: An introduction. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). Brighton: Harvester. Foucault, M. (1981). Questions of method: An interview with Michel Foucault. Ideology and Consciousness, 8, 3–14. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–789.

214 • References Frederickson, N. (1942). The effects of frustration on negativistic behaviour of young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 61, 203–226. Gandhi, L. (1998). Postcolonial theory: A critical introduction. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Gard, G. C., & Berry, K. K. (1986). Oppositional children: Taming tyrants. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(2), 148–158. Garvey, N. (1997). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender: A reader (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge. Gesell, A. (1950). The first five years of life: A guide to the study of the preschool child. London: Methuen. Gilbert, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity goes to school. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Gill, G. K. (1998). The strategic involvement of children in housework: An Australian case of twoincome families. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39(3), 301–314. Gill, R. (1995). Relativism, reflexivity and politics: Interrogating discourse analysis from a feminist perspective. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 165–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Giplin, D., & Maltz, P. (1980). The oppositional personality in childhood. Child Psychology and Human Development, 11, 79–86. Goodenough, F. (1929). The emotional behaviour of infants during mental tests. Journal of Juvenile Research, 13, 209–219. Goodnow, J. J., & Bowes, J. A. (1994). Men, women, and household work: A study of change. Sydney/New York: Oxford University Press. Gordon, A., & Browne, K. W. (1996). Guiding young children in a diverse society. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton. Green, C. (1984). Toddler taming. Sydney: Doubleday. Green, C. (1987). Toddler taming: A parent’s guide to surviving the first four years. Sydney: Doubleday. Green, C. (1988). Babies! A parent’s guide to surviving (and enjoying!) baby’s first year. Brookvale: Simon & Schuster. Green, C. (1990). Toddler taming: The guide to your child from one to four. Sydney: Doubleday. Gribben, T. (1979). Pyjamas don’t matter (or: what your baby really needs). Melbourne: Sun Books. Grieshaber, S. (1993). Parent and child conflict: A poststructuralist study of four families. Ph.D. thesis, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Australia. Grieshaber, S. (1997). Mealtime rituals: Power and resistance in the construction of family mealtime rules. British Journal of Sociology. 48(4), 648–666. Grieshaber, S. (1998). Constructing the gendered infant. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Gender in early childhood (pp. 16–35). London: Routledge. Grieshaber, S. (2001). Beating mom: How to win the power game. In J. A. Jipson & R. T. Johnson (Eds.), Resistance and representation: Rethinking childhood education (pp. 223–237). New York: Peter Lang. Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Introduction and overview. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. ix–xxiv). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognitions and child outcomes: An overview and implications for children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 259–282). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Harre, R. (1986). The step to social constructionism. In M. Richards & P. Light (Eds.), Children of social worlds: Development in a social context (pp. 287–296). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hart, S. (2001). Sibling flashpoints. Parenting, 15(1), 112–119. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

References • 215 Haswell, K., Hoch, E., & Wenar, C. (1982). Techniques for dealing with oppositonal behavior in preschool children. Young Children, 3, 13–19. Hatch, J. A. (1995). Studying childhood as a cultural invention: A rationale and framework. In J. A. Hatch (Ed.), Qualitative research in early childhood settings (pp. 117–133). Westport: Praeger. Hattwick, L. A. (1937). Sex differences in behaviour of nursery school children. Child Development, 8(4), 433–355. Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984a). Introduction to Section 1: From the individual to the social—a bridge too far. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject (pp. 11–25). London: Methuen. Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984b). Introduction to Section 2: Constructing the subject. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject (pp. 91–118). London: Methuen. Henry, J. (1971). Pathways to madness. New York: Random House. Hetherington, E. M., & Morris, W. N. (1978). The family and primary groups. In W. H. Holtzman (Ed.), Introductory psychology in depth: Developmental topics. New York: Harper & Row. Hetherington, E. M., & Parke, R. D. (1986). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint (3rd ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Moral internalization, parent power, and the nature of parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 228–239. Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conflict: Mothers as tacticians in the supermarket. Child Development, 54(1), 223–240. Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In W. H. J. Henriques, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject (pp. 227–263). London: Methuen. Hood-Williams, J., & Harrison, W. C. (1998). Trouble with gender. Sociological Review, 46(1), 73–94. Howe, J. (1999). Early childhood, family and society in Australia: A reassessment. Katoomba, Australia: Social Science Press. Hultqvist, K., & Dahlberg, G. (2001). Governing the child in the new millennium. In K. Hultqvist & G. Dahlberg (Eds.), Governing the child in the new millennium (pp. 1–14). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Ingleby, D. (1986). Development in social context. In M. Richards & P. Light (Eds.), Children of social worlds: Development in a social context (pp. 297–317). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorising Childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Jamrozik, A., & Sweeney, T. (1996). Children and society: The family, the state and social parenthood. South Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan Education Australia. Janesick, V. J. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kamler, B., Maclean, R., Reid, J., & Simpson, A. (1994). Shaping up nicely: The formation of schoolgirls and schoolboys in the first month of school. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training. Kincheloe, J. L. (2002). The complex politics of McDonald’s and the new childhood: Colonizing kidworld. In G. S. Cannella & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives, and education (pp. 75121–18). New York: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 260–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893–1958. New York: Routledge. Kliebard, H. M. (1992). Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and theory. New York: Routledge. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

216 • References Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L.. & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 43, 449–496. Kolar, V., & Soriano, G. (2000). Parenting in Australian families: A comparative study of Anglo, Torres Strait Islander, and Vietnamese communities (Australian Institute of Family Studies Research Report No. 5). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Kostelnik, M. J., Whiren, A. P., Soderman, A. K., Stein, L. C., & Gregory, K. (2002). Guiding children’s social development: Theory to practice (4th ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar. Kramer, L., Perozynski, L. A., & Chung, T. Y. (1999). Parental responses to sibling conflict: The effects of development and parent gender. Child Development, 70(6), 1401–1414. Kuczynski, L. (1982). Intensity and orientation of reasoning: Motivational determinants of children’s compliance to verbal rationales. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34(3), 357–370. Kuczynski, L. (1983). Reasoning, prohibitions, and motivations for compliance. Developmental Psychology, 19, 126–134. Kuczynski, L. (1984). Socialisation goals for mother-child interaction: Strategies for long-term and short-term compliance. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1061–1073. Kuczynski, L., Harach, L., & Bernardini, S.C. (1999). Psychology’s child meets sociology’s child: Agency, power and influence in parent-child relations. In C. Shehan (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Revisioning children as active agents of family life (pp. 21–52). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Kuczynski, L., & Hildebrandt, N. (1997). Models of conformity and resistance in socialization theory. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and the internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 227–256). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kunzynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children’s non-compliance strategies from toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26, 398–408. Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children’s non-compliance. Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 799–806. Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K. (1997). Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 23–50). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (W. Moore & P. Cammack, Trans.). London: Verso. Langway, L., Jackson, T. A., Zabarsky, M., Shirley, D., & Whitmore, J. (1983, March 28). Bringing up superbaby. Newsweek, 62–68. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257–277. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Leavitt, R. L. (1991). Power and resistance in infant-toddler day care centers. In S. Cahill (Ed.), Sociological studies in child development (Vol. 4, pp. 91–112). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Leavitt, R. L., & Power, M. B. (1997). Civilizing bodies: Children in day care. In J. Tobin (Ed.), Making a place for pleasure in early childhood education (pp. 39–75). New Haven: Yale University Press. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Levy, D. M. (1955). Oppositional syndromes and oppositional behaviour. In P. H. Hoch & J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of childhood (pp. 204–226). New York: Grune & Stratton. Levy, D. M., & Tulchin, S. H. (1925). The resistant behaviour of infants and children, II. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8, 209–224. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lingard, B., & Douglas, P. (1999). Men engaging feminisms: Pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. Lollis, S., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Beyond one hand clapping: Seeing bidirectionality in parentchild relations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(4), 441–461. Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/postcolonialism. Routledge: New York and London. Lubeck, S. (1998a). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283–292. Lubeck, S. (1998b). Is DAP for everyone? A response. Childhood Education, 74(5), 299–301.

References • 217 Luke, A. (1990). The body literate: Discursive inscription in early literacy training. Paper presented at the XII World Congress of Sociology, Madrid, Spain. Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3–48. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Lytton, H. (1980). Parent-child interaction: The socialization process observed in twin and singleton families. New York: Plenum Press. Lytton, H., & Zwirner, W. (1975). Compliance and its controlling stimuli observed in a natural setting. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 769–779. Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1982). Socialisation in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialisation, personality and social development (4th ed., Vol. IV, pp. 1–101). New York: John Wiley & Sons. MacDonald, K. (1997). The coherence of individual development: An evolutionary perspective on children’s internalization of parent values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internationalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 362–397). New York: John Wiley & Sons. MacNaughton, G. (1998). Improving our gender equity ‘tools’: A case for discourse analysis. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Gender in early childhood (pp. 149–174). Routledge: London and New York. MacNaughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Mallory, B., & New, R. (Eds.). (1994). Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press. Marcus, G. E. (1998). What comes (just) after “post”? The case of ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 383–406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Marion, M. (1983). Child compliance: A review of the literature with implications for family life education. Family Relations, 32, 545–555. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy & Society, 19(1), 1–31. Mills, C. (2000). Efficacy and vulnerability: Judith Butler on Reiteration and Resistance. Australian Feminist Studies, 15(32), 265–279. Morgan, P. (1995). Farewell to the family? London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Morse, J. M. (1998). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 56–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Munn, P. (1991). Mothering more than one child. In A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies (pp. 162–177). London: Sage Publications. Nelson, L. (1999). Bodies (and spaces) do matter: The limits of performativity. Gender Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 6(4), 331–353. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Oakley, A. (1999). People’s ways of knowing: Gender and methodology. In S. Hood, B. Mayall, & S. Oliver (Eds.), Critical issues in social research: Power and prejudice (pp. 154–170). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. O’Brien, P. (1999). New minds for new times: Education and the new work order. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett, & P. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding education: Contexts and agendas for the new millennium (pp. 106–115). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Prentice-Hall–SprintPrint. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Family narrative as political activity. Discourse and Society, 3(3), 301–340. Ochsner, M. B. (2001). Developing reciprocity in a multi-method small-scale research study. In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, & I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 254–263). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. O’Farrell, C. (1999). Postmodernism for the uninitiated. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett, & P. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding education: Contexts and agendas for the new millennium (pp. 11–17). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Prentice Hall–SprintPrint.

218 • References Olesen, L., & Whittaker, E. W. (1968). The silent dialogue: A study in the social psychology of professional socialization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Orellana, M. F. (1999). Language, play, and identity formation: Framing data analyses. In B. Kamler (Ed.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood (pp. 97–117). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Parke, R. D. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 463–552). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Patterson, G. R. (1980). Mothers: The unacknowledged victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 45(5, Serial 180), 1–64. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Catalina Publishing. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Perozynski, L., & Kramer, L. (1999). Parental beliefs about managing sibling conflict. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 489–499. Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Perspectives on learning (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Phillips, S. (2000). How to avoid chore wars. Family Life, Feb, 71–72. Phoenix, A., & Woollett, A. (1991). Introduction. In A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies (pp. 1–12). London: Sage Publications. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York: Viking. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Publications. Ram, A., & Ross, H. S. (2001). Problem solving, contention, and struggle: How siblings resolve a conflict of interests. Child Development, 72(6), 1710–1722. Reid, J. (1999). Little women/little men: Gender, violence and embodiment in an early childhood classroom. In B. Kamler (Ed.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood (pp. 167–190). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Reynolds, M. M. (1928). Negativism of preschool children. In Teachers’ College, Columbia University, Contributions to education, 288. New York: Teachers College Press. Riley, D. (1983). War in the nursery: Theories of the child and mother. London: Virago. Robb, M. (2001). The changing experience of childhood. In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 18–25). New York: Palgrave. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex: Psychology, politics, and society in England, 1969–1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rose, N. (1989/1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books. Roy, D. (1970). The study of southern union organising campaigns. In R. Habenstein (Ed.), Pathways to data (pp. 216–244). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Sanders, M. R., & Glynn, T. (1981). Training parents in behavioural self-management: An analysis of generalisation and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 14, 223–237. Sanders, M. R., & Hunter, A. C. (1984). An ecological analysis of children’s behaviour in supermarkets. Australian Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 425–427. Saunders, B. J., & Goddard, C. R. (1998). Why do we condone the “physical punishment” of children? Children Australia, 23(3), 23–28. Schaffer, H. R. (1991). The mutuality of parental control in early childhood. In M. Lewis & S. Feinman (Eds.), Social influences and socialization in infancy (pp. 165–184). New York: Plenum Press. Schaffer, H. R. (1998). Making decisions about children: Psychological questions and answers (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Shotter, J. (1974). The development of person powers. In M. P. M. Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silin, J. (1995). Sex, death, and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the age of AIDS. New York: Teachers College Press.

References • 219 Silva, E. B., & Smart, C. (1999). The ‘new’ practices and politics of family life. In E. Silva & C. Smart (Eds.), The ‘new’ family? (pp. 1–12). London: Sage Publications. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Simpson, A. (1999). I had it first! Children and power. In B. Kamler (Ed.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood (pp. 119–151). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Smart, B. (1983). Foucault, Marxism and critique. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Spock, B. (1946). The common sense book of baby and child care. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Stainton Rogers, W. (2001). Constructing childhood, constructing child concern. In P. Foley, J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.), Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 26–33). New York: Palgrave. Stannard, B., & McGuinness, J. (1989, November 7). Parenthood and why it’s impossible. The Bulletin, 50–61. Steedman, C. (1998). The tidy house. In H. Jenkins (Ed.), The children’s culture reader (pp. 431–453). New York: New York University Press. Tait, G. (2000). From the panopticon to the playground: Disciplinary practices. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett, & G. Tait (Eds.), Practising education: Social and cultural perspectives (pp. 7–17). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Prentice Hall–SprintPrint. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Toepfer, D., Rueter, J., & Maurer, C. (1972). Design and evaluation of an obedience training program for mothers of preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 194–198. Trickett, P. K., & Kuczynski, L. (1986). Children’s misbehaviours and parental discipline strategies in abusive and nonabusive families. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 115–123. Urwin, C. (1984). Power relations and the emergence of language. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 264–322). London: Methuen. Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. New York: Routledge. Venn, C. (1984). The subject of psychology. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 119–152). London: Methuen. Viruru, R., & Cannella, G. S. (1999, October). A postcolonial scrutiny of early childhood education. Paper presented at the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing Conference, Dayton, OH. Walby, S. (1990). Theorising patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell. Walkerdine, V. (1981). Sex power and pedagogy. Screen Education, 38, 14–21. Walkerdine, V. (1984a). Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy: The insertion of Piaget into early education. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity (pp. 153–202). London: Methuen. Walkerdine, V. (1984b). Someday my prince will come. In A. McRobbie & M. Nava (Eds.), Gender and generation (pp. 162–184). London: Macmillan. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London: Routledge. Walkerdine, V. (1989). Femininity as performance. Oxford Review of Education, 15 (3), 267–279. Walkerdine, V. (1992). Reasoning in a post-modern age. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Thinking, Townsville, Queensland. Walkerdine, V., & Lucey, H. (1989). Democracy in the kitchen: Regulating mothers and socialising daughters. London: Virago. Watson, J. B. (1928/1998). Against the threat of mother love. In H. Jenkins (Ed.), The children’s culture reader (pp. 470–476). New York: New York University Press. Watson, J. B. (1930/1998). After the family—what? In H. Jenkins (Ed.), The children’s culture reader (p. 469). New York: New York University Press. Wearing, B. (1996). Gender: The pain and pleasure of difference. Melbourne: Longman Australia. Weber, E. (1984). Ideas influencing early childhood education: A theoretical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Willis, S. (1991). A primer for daily life. London: Routledge.

220 • References Woolgar, S. (1988). Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 14–36). London: Sage Publications. Woollett, A., & Phoenix, A. (1991). Psychological views of mothering. In A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies (pp. 28–46). London: Sage Publications. Wyckoff, J., & Unell, B. C. (1984). Discipline without spanking or shouting: Practical solutions to the most common preschool behaviour problems. New York: Meadowbrooks. Wyness, M. G. (2000). Contesting childhood. London: Falmer Press.

Index

A Active listening, 86 Adult rules, resistance to, 192 Afternoon snack, 124 Age of Reason, 6, 7 Anger, eclipsed, 205 Anglo-European cultures, authoritarian parenting in, 34 Anglo middle-class values, 193 Anthropological child study, 27 Attention bids for, 105 seeker, 2 Authoritarianism, traditional, 31, 34 Authoritarian populists, 4 Autonomy, lack of, 46 B Baby boomer parents, 17 Bedtime stories, see Tidy houses and bedtime stories Bed wetter, 2 Behavior boys, at meals, 134 humiliating, 33 irrational, 37 management problem, children as, 5 modification techniques, 33 nagging, 33

noncompliant child, 40 supermarket, 38 theory, 31 Behaviorism basic concept of, 31 critics of, 35 loss of confidence in, 37 problem families and, 33 Behaviorist approaches, dehumanization inherent in, 35 Binet, Alfred, 30 Biological predispositions, 41 Biological reductionism, 45, 50, 52 Biology, influence of in developmental psychology, 53 Border crossing, examples of, 201 Bribes, 78 Bringing up superbaby, 109 Bronfenfrenner, Urie, 38 C Capitalism, nuclear family and, 12 Cartesian dualism, 7 Catholic schools, 109 Child(ren) advice industry, 2 behavior aggressive, 110 used to categorize, 32

221

222 • Index Child(ren) (continued) -centered education, 24 classification of, 5 conduct disorders, 38 detail of correction of, 193 development norms, established, 9 drowning, 104 language of, 207 major event in life of, 147 powerless position of in society, 68 problematic constructions of, 2 proper development of, 12 rapport with, 83 resistance in, 29 shopping trips with, 38 study movement, 26 decline of, 28 proponents of, 27 tidying of house by, 166 treatment of problematic, 51 violent, 115 ways of reasoning about, 28 Childhood in crisis, 14 education, dilemmas of early, 22 essential characteristics of, 14 loss of, 14 normalized accounts of, 16 version of past, 15 Childrearing books and manuals written about, 2 practices, intergenerational effect of, 111 preferred version of, 52 regimes of truth about appropriate, 64 techniques, 196 Chores, domestic, 114 Christian training, 3 Class specificity, 29 Cleanliness, obsession with, 117, 118 Cognitive strategies, 36 Colonialism endo-, 68 exo-, 68 /postcolonialism, 57, 66, 67 Common sense notions, 104, 108 Communication, nonverbal modes of, 81 Competition, 105, 118 Compliance joint social ventures of, 45 parental use of reasoning to gain, 37 willing, 65

Compulsory heterosexuality, 192 Confidentiality, 85 Contextual perspectives, 50 Contradictory subjectivity, 114, 204 Conversation with purpose, 85 Cultural symbols, children as, 10 Culture–epoch theory, 25, 26, 27 D DAP, see Developmentally appropriate practice Darwin, Charles, 22, 24, 51 Day-care settings, treatment of children in long, 4 Decision making, 107, 127 Defiant children, 5 Delaying tactics, school, 153 Descartes, 7 Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), 4, 8–9 Developmental psychology culturally specific research generated from, 49 influence of biology in, 53 research undertaken with siblings in, 182 use of surveillance techniques in, 66 Deviant child, 5 Difficult child, 5 Discipline, 147 power, 62, 63 as regime of practice, 120 techniques of, 63, 123 Discipline and Punish, 58 Discourse(s), 64 binarist, 207 boundaries, 187 colonial, 67 feminist poststructuralist, 70 parenting, 119, 120, 123 patriarchal, 107 political, 65 refusal to conform to dominant, 199 sensitive mother, 102, 200, 205 tidying, 170 Discursive practice, definition of, 91 Disobedient child, 2 Doing gender, 70 Domestic activity, political relations of, 117 Domestic interaction, use of video equipment to record everyday, 81

Index • 223 Domesticity, 99 patriarchy as part of, 189 regimes of practice in, 192 Domestic practices, change in, 148 Domestic tasks, participation of men in stereotypical, 204 Dominant discourses, historical perspective, 21 Dualism, 44, 45, 50 E Eating habits, healthy, 120 regime of practice, 133, 202 routines, 124 rules, 177 sites, 125 times, normalization of routine, 125 Ecological studies, 38 Education child-centered, 24 dilemmas of early childhood, 22 enhancement of, 108 religious, 101 valuing of, 109 Endo-colonialism, 68 Enlightenment, 6, 7 Envy, 182 Ethological theory, innate drives of, 41 Eugenics, 26 Evolution, concept of, 25 Exo-colonialism, 68 Experimental child study, 27 Extended families, 12 External control theories, 31 Extrinsic motivation, 37 F Families, introducing of, 95–121 discipline as regime of practice, 120–121 Eloise Sullivan, 112–118 key discourses of parenting in each family, 118–120 Nancy and Neil Haines, 106–112 Rita and Tom Gordon, 96–104 Toni and Nathan Anderson, 104–106 Families, researching with, 77–93 data analysis, 90–92 entering of homes, 88–90 gathering data, 80–82 participant observation, 82–84

pilot study, 77–78 selecting families and negotiating access, 78–80 unstructured interviews, 84–88 Family(ies) breadwinner, 140 challenge to political neutrality of, 191 extended, 12 life, sense of entrapment pervading, 207 members changing duties of, 206 immediate struggles among, 62 power plays by, 175 narrative activity, 133 normal, 11 normalized accounts of, 16 nuclear debate about, 12 masculinity and femininity in, 179 political construction of, 95, 133 problem, 33 rituals, 95 single-parent, 12, 13 social abilities, 96 sources of conflict in, 48 values, white middle-class, 13 working class, 103 Fathering, power and control, 206 Fathers, full-time, 205–206 Femininity margin, 205 positions of, 196 reworking boundaries of, 203 woman’s sense of, 73 Feminist poststructuralism, 57, 68 theories, 69 Financial matters, domestic life and, 100 Food consumption gender differences and, 138 procedures guiding, 197 preparation, 135 stocks, depleted, 101 wastage of, 125 Food to go, 123–145 boys’ behavior at meals, 134–144 eating sites, 125–126 family narrative activity, 133–134 food preparation, 126–129 table manners, 129–133

224 • Index Food to go (continued) timing of food consumption, 124–125 Force-feeding, 141, 145 Forgetting, example of, 55 Full-time fathers, 205–206 G Gender differences, food consumption and, 138 identity(ies) existence of as binary opposites, 200–201 heterosexuality and, 172 norms, deviations from, 71 as performativity, 57, 70 politics, 71 relations, model for analysis of, 72 Governmentality, 60, 61 Grand narratives, Western, 8 H Hall, G. Stanley, 26, 27, 51, 53 Head of household, 107 Headstart, 42 Healthy eating habits, 120 Hegemonic masculinity daily domesticity and, 189 definition of, 71 heterosexual matrix and, 199 housework and, 164 normalized, 190 oppressive, 156 performance of as required, 138 position of mothers and, 127, 192 subverting routines through use of, 161 suggestion of, 143 Western rationality and, 198 Helplessness, 145, 151 Heterosexuality, gender identity and, 172 Heterosexual matrix, 71, 169, 192 boundaries of, 117 designation of, 73 hegemonic masculinity and, 199 Hierarchical observation, 63, 121 Home environment, working-class mothers and, 13 Household duties, gender discourses and, 202–203 Humanist psychology development of, 35 emphasis of, 36

Humiliation, 188 I Identity, subjectivity and, 204 Inborn ideas, 22 Individuality, 121 Individualization, 63 Infant coddling, 29 Information, divulging of, 87 Internalization, 36 critiques of, 41 models of, 43 theories, problem of, 44 Interview(s) audiotaped, 77 pilot study, 79 consent of mothers to, 89 rapport established through, 88 unstructured, 84 Intimate feelings, discussion about, 88 Irrational behavior, 37 J Jealousy, 182 Junk food, 91, 120 Juridical model, 59 K Knowledge, power relations and, 58 L Liberalism, 60, 69 Locke, John, 22, 23, 51 Loss of childhood, 14 M Male–female dualism, 117 Manipulation, 44 Marital happiness, 29 Marxism, 8, 59, 69 Masculinity, see also Hegemonic masculinity domestic cleaning and, 171 reworking boundaries of, 203 McDonald’s Happy meals, 71 Meals, boys’ behavior at, 134 Meal times, rituals characterizing, 126 Mental age, normal, 30 Metanarratives, 8, 9 Middle class ideal, 1950s, 11

Index • 225 mother, 22 values, 9 Model economic, 59 gender relations, 72 juridical, 59 tabula rasa, 22 Modernist understanding, relationship among parents and children as, 1–19 children, 10–11 families, 11–12 family and childhood in crisis, 14–15 how psychological discourses become normalized practices in everyday life, 15–17 modernity, 6–8 mothering, 12–14 post modernity, 8–10 purposes of book, 17–19 Money, importance of in daily domestic life, 99, 100 Moral development cognitive approaches about, 40 theories about, 36 Mother(s) –child interaction, conflict and, 42 child’s attempt to regulate, 183 child’s wish to control, 149 middle-class, 22 -power operation, 43 rational, 103, 104 working-class, 13, 42, 102 Motherhood, ritual attached to social practice of, 115 Mothering, 12 housework and, 164 power and control, 206 unsuccessful, 116 Motivation extrinsic, 37 movement from external to internal, 36 theories, 41 Multiskilling, 8 N NAEYC, see National Association for the Education of Young Children National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), 4 Natural selection, 24

Negativism behavior characteristic of, 31 sex differences and, 30 Night work, economic benefits of, 98 Noncompliant children, 5, 40 Normal family, idea of in psychology, 11 Normalization, 16 Normalized practices, psychological discourses and, 15 Normalizing agents, regimes of practice as, 191–207 children’s resistance, 198–199 gender, 200–204 border crossing, 201–202 opportunities, 202–204 multiple subjectivity/identities, 204–207 parent’s resistance, 199–200 processes of regulation, 193–197 childrearing techniques, 196–197 panoptic gaze, 197 regulation of children and parents, 194–196 Normal mental age, 30 Nuclear family debate about, 12 masculinity and femininity in heterosexual, 179 modernist conception of, 10 Nursing Mothers Association of Australia, 98 O Observation continued, 115 hierarchical, 63, 121 participation and, 82 surveillance through, 197 Oppositional behavior, definition of, 30–31 Oppositional children, power struggles and, 33 Original sin, 3 Orphanages, 28 P Panoptic gaze, 192, 197 Parenthood, 1 Parenting sole, 202 techniques, inadequate, 39 Parents baby boomer, 17

226 • Index Parents (continued) children’s obedience to, 32 discursive positioning of, 95 resistance of, 199 self-reflection, 81, 85, 86, 93 suggestions, parental commands vs., 46 treatment of problematic, 51 Participation, observation and, 82 Passive nonintervention, sibling conflict and, 187 Patriarchy attacks, oppressive, 137 critiques of, 72 discourse, 107 family life and, 69 housework and, 164 as part of daily domesticity, 189 Pedagogy, child-centered, 92, 110 Performativity, gender as, 57, 70 Personal degeneracy, 86 Person formation, 104, 207 Physical conflict, 81 Physical punishment, 3, 111, 112 Piaget, 8, 10, 37, 53 Pilot study, 75 audio records, 96 interview(s), 79, 89 consent of mothers to, 89 rapport established through, 88 Postmodernity, 6, 8 Power bids for, 136 bilateral nature of, 49 coercive strategies, 47 disciplinary, 62, 63 juridical understanding of, 59 overt display of, 168 plays, family member, 175 theory of, 57 Power, relationships of, 57–75, 192 colonialism/postcolonialism, 66–68 feminist poststructuralism, 68–70 gender as performative, 70–71 masculinities and heterosexual matrix, 71–73 power–knowledge, 58–66 disciplinary power, 62–64 discourses, 64 government and governmentality, 60–61 power–knowledge–resistance, 61–62

subjectivity, 64–66 Preschool, 148 Printing press, invention of, 6 Prisons, surveillance techniques used in, 63 Private school, 113 Profanity, 128 Project Headstart, 42 Psychology developmental culturally specific research generated from, 49 influence of biology in, 53 research undertaken with siblings in, 182 use of surveillance techniques in, 66 dilemmas of, 22 humanist development of, 35 emphasis of, 36 idea of normal family in, 11 practices endorsed by, 16 sex difference research in, 195 Punishment, 78 dangers of, 11 influence in, 184 nonphysical, 34 physical, 3, 111, 112 Puritans, 3, 34, 51 R Radical humanism, 44 Rationalization, 200 Reasoning, parental use of, 37 Rebelliousness, lasting pattern of, 48 Recapitulation theory, 25, 67 Reciprocity, 87 Recording equipment, parental response to, 89 Regime(s) of practice, 75, see also Normalizing agents, regimes of practice as construction of, 193 disciplinary techniques and, 120, 123 eating, 133, 202 Regimes of truth, 64, 75, 91, 92 Regulation adult-invoked rules and, 194 after the fact, 184 processes of, 193 Relational perspectives, 45 Religious education, 101

Index • 227 Repressive language, sanctioning of, 136 Resistance oppressive, 136 sites of, 65 Ritual(s) association of with gendered positions, 98 bedtime, 173, 180 border crossing in, 201 examples of, 95–96 meal times, 126 Rousseau, Jacques, 22, 24, 27, 47, 51 S School(s), 147–161 attendance, 158, 159 beginning, 147 Catholic, 109 delaying tactics, 153 getting ready for school, 148–153 lunch, 124 performance, 106 private, 113 at school, 157–160 sluggish preparation for, 149 traveling to and from school, 153–157 uniforms, 148 Schooling, Western organizations of, 27 Screaming, 103 Self-reflection, parental, 81, 85, 86, 93 Self-regulation, child’s capacity for, 47 Sesame Street, Lockean assumptions of, 23 Sex role socialization, 195 Sexual object, mother as, 142 Shopping trips, parental reports of, 38 Sibling fights, 182 relationships, characteristics of, 181 rivalry, beyond, 181–190 boys, 185–190 girls, 183–185 Single-parent families, 12, 13 Sleeping routines, 179 rules about, 173 Smacking, 16, 154, 157, 160 Snobbery, sign of, 101 Social control and regulation, 21–55 contextual perspectives, 50–51 early studies of resistance in children, 29–31

external control theories, 31–36 behaviorism, 31–34 traditional authoritarianism, 34–36 influential ideas, 22–26 internalization approaches, 36–45 ecological discourse, 38–39 ethological discourse, 39–45 motivation and cognitive developmental discourses, 36–37 relational perspectives, 45–50 scientific study of child, 26–29 Socialization, 18 child behavior leading to normal, 32 definition of, 36 discourses, 54 early views of, 40 models of, 42 sex role, 195 Social practice, changing of, 202 Social pressure, 108 Social scaffolding, 47 Social structures, organization of, 95 Society demands of, 43 mechanisms of surveillance in, 193–194 powerless position of children in, 68 Sole parenting, increase in, 202 Spoon-feeding, 140, 142, 143, 177 Stepfamilies, 12 Stereotypes, 69, 71, 204 Subjectivity, 64 contradictory, 204 examples of, 112, 114 identity and, 204 Superbaby, bringing up, 109 Supermarket behavior, unacceptable, 38 Surveillance mechanisms of in society, 193–194 techniques, 63, 66 through observation, 197 tidying task, 168 T Table manners, adult rules about, 129, 130, 137 Tabula rasa model, 22 Temper outbursts, child’s, 2 Theory(ies) behavior, 31 colonial/postcolonial, value of, 67 culture–epoch, 25, 26, 27

228 • Index Theory(ies) (continued) ethological, innate drives of, 41 feminist, 69 moral development, theories about, 36 motivation, 41 power, 57 recapitulation, 25, 67 Thorndike, Edward, 28 Threat(s) overt, 179 unfinished, 177 Thumb sucking, 3 Tidy houses and bedtime stories, 163–180 bedtime stories, 172–180 tidy houses, 163–172 cleaning up mess, 164–170 mother’s job, 170–172 Time out strategies, 32 Toddler Training, 2 Toys, 71, 113, 114 Transcript notation, 209

Transfer of training, 23 Truth(s) discovery of, 17 regimes of, 64, 75, 91, 92 V Vegetables, resistance to eating, 132, 144 W Waking routines, 179 Western grand narratives, 8 Western rationalist thought, 54 Western rationality, hegemonic masculinity and, 198 Willing compliance, 65 Working class family, 103 mothers, 13, 102 Y Yale Clinic of Child Development, 50

Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict (Changing Images Challenging Issues in Early Childhood)

Early Childhood Qualitative Research (Changing Images of Early Childhood)

Rethinking Learning in Early Childhood Education

Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education

Teacher-Parent Collaboration: Early Childhood to Adolescent

Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education

Psychological Development and Early Childhood (Child Development)

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Child Development for Early Childhood Studies

Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education (Contesting Early Childhood)

Gender in Early Childhood

Leadership in Early Childhood

Equality in Early Childhood

The Early Childhood Curriculum (Early Childhood Education)

Challenging the Whole Child

Forming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play (Contesting Early Childhood)

Key Issues in Childhood and Youth Studies

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Second Edition (Issues in Clinical Child Psychology)

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

Simultaneous Treatment of Parent and Child

Parent Partnerships in the Early Years (Classmates)

Quantitative Development in Infancy and Early Childhood

Health and Well-being in Early Childhood

Rethinking Childhood (The Rutgers Series in Childhood Studies)

Shaping Early Childhood

Rethinking Experiences of Childhood Cancer

Early Childhood Studies

Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism (Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies)

Early Childhood Studies

Shaping Early Childhood

Rethinking Parent and Child Conflict (Changing Images Challenging Issues in Early Childhood)

Early Childhood Qualitative Research (Changing Images of Early Childhood)

Rethinking Learning in Early Childhood Education

Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education

Teacher-Parent Collaboration: Early Childhood to Adolescent

Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education

Psychological Development and Early Childhood (Child Development)

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Child Development for Early Childhood Studies

Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education (Contesting Early Childhood)

Gender in Early Childhood

Leadership in Early Childhood

Equality in Early Childhood

The Early Childhood Curriculum (Early Childhood Education)

Challenging the Whole Child

Forming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play (Contesting Early Childhood)

Key Issues in Childhood and Youth Studies

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Second Edition (Issues in Clinical Child Psychology)

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

Simultaneous Treatment of Parent and Child

Parent Partnerships in the Early Years (Classmates)

Quantitative Development in Infancy and Early Childhood

Health and Well-being in Early Childhood

Rethinking Childhood (The Rutgers Series in Childhood Studies)

Shaping Early Childhood

Rethinking Experiences of Childhood Cancer

Early Childhood Studies

Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism (Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies)

Early Childhood Studies

Shaping Early Childhood

Recommend Documents