Social Habitus in Childhood

The concept of habitus is central to the work of Pierre Bourdieu (b. 1930–d. 2002) the French sociologist, anthropologist, and philosopher. As with all of his work, it is a concept that operates interchangeably with others (especially capital and field), to raise questions about the impact of social structures on the practices and dispositions of individuals across diverse cultural and social contexts. Habitus is central to Bourdieu’s theory of practice—how patterns of power and inequality are reproduced through the practices that are embedded in everyday life. It is the habitus—the dispositions, ways of “doing” and “being,” thinking, talking, dressing, walking—the full compendium of our preferences, tastes, and desires that reflects our orientation in the world. Habitus is not explicitly “taught”; however, it is deeply embodied—a form of “knowing” that derives from the totality of immersion within a given cultural and social context. It is this ‘knowing’ that filters expectations, setting unarticulated boundaries or possibilities for future actions depending on the habitus in play. This is the power and impact of the habitus, and, with respect to social class (middle-class habitus/working-class habitus), clear patterns of advantage accrue to those whose habitus is most valued and recognized, that of the elites and middle class in society. This is especially evident, for example, in the field of education, which Bourdieu argued, embodies the middle-class habitus to the detriment of those from the working classes, who inevitably exit the system with lower rates of success. While Bourdieu was especially focused on dynamics related to social class stratification, the concept of habitus has been used widely in sociological studies. As a concept it is very applicable to childhood studies, providing an important frame of reference to analyze how diverse social structures influence the dispositions of children across different contexts. Further, as an action-oriented concept it aligns with the emphasis within childhood studies on children’s agency, providing a mechanism to explore how such agency is both enabled and /or constrained by the contexts within which children find themselves. As early childhood education and care takes increasing precedence, the concept has also been extended for use in relation to early childhood education and care settings. Typically, the concept of habitus focuses on issues related to language, literacy, and social class dynamics that influence children’s capacities to engage with their learning and education. However its flexibility as a concept—exactly as Bourdieu intended—ensures that it has been drawn on to explore the realities of children’s lives in their families, communities, and schools, including studies of children’s ethnic, gendered, and class relations; academic achievement; parenting practices; and leisure activities.

Education ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Underwood ◽  
Gillian Parekh

Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding the links between disableism and other forms of discrimination and oppression is critical both for teaching for social justice broadly and for better understanding of how ability, capability, and critical disability theory and childhood studies are established through practices that begin in the early years.


2019 ◽  
pp. 123-133
Author(s):  
Michelle Jones ◽  
Brooke Richardson ◽  
Alana Powell

This paper takes the position that early childhood education students are an underutilized resource in strengthening the Canadian child care advocacy movement. The authors come to this topic as undergraduate and graduate students and a contract lecturer member in Ryerson’s early childhood studies program. Over the past year and a half, we have worked with our peers and colleagues to establish and lead the Ryerson Student Childcare Advocacy Association. Drawing on student movement and devaluation of care literature, this paper describes and explores our opportunities and experiences reconceptualizing the value of early childhood education and care that motivated us to become student leaders in the child care advocacy movement. Ultimately, we hope to both illustrate that students can and do make a meaningful difference in advocacy efforts and inspire and support postsecondary early childhood education programs to build the political capacity of students in the broader child care movement.


Author(s):  
Margarita León

The chapter first examines at a conceptual level the links between theories of social investment and childcare expansion. Although ‘the perfect match’ between the two is often taken for granted in the specialized literature as well as in policy papers, it is here argued that a more nuance approach that ‘unpacks’ this relationship is needed. The chapter will then look for elements of variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion. Despite an increase in spending over the last two decades in many European and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, wide variation still exists in the way in which ECEC develops. A trade-off is often observed between coverage and quality of provision. A crucial dividing line that determines, to a large extent, the quality of provision in ECEC is the increasing differentiation between preschool education for children aged 3 and above and childcare for younger children.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146394912110101
Author(s):  
Geraldine Mooney Simmie ◽  
Dawn Murphy

The last decade has revealed a global (re)configuring of the relationships between the state, society and educational settings in the direction of systems of performance management. In this article, the authors conduct a critical feminist inquiry into this changing relationship in relation to the professionalisation of early childhood education and care practitioners in Ireland, with a focus on dilemmatic contradictions between the policy reform ensemble and practitioners’ reported working conditions in a doctoral study. The critique draws from the politics of power and education, and gendered and classed subjectivities, and allows the authors to theorise early childhood education and care professionalisation in alternative emancipatory ways for democratic pedagogy rather than a limited performativity. The findings reveal the state (re)configured as a central command centre with an over-reliance on surveillance, alongside deficits of responsibility for public interest values in relation to the working conditions of early childhood education and care workers, who are mostly part-time ‘pink-collar’ women workers in precarious roles. The study has implications that go beyond Ireland for the professionalisation of early childhood education and care workers and meeting the early developmental needs of young children.


Author(s):  
Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter ◽  
Ole Johan Sando ◽  
Rasmus Kleppe

Children spend a large amount of time each day in early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions, and the ECEC play environments are important for children’s play opportunities. This includes children’s opportunities to engage in risky play. This study examined the relationship between the outdoor play environment and the occurrence of children’s risky play in ECEC institutions. Children (n = 80) were observed in two-minute sequences during periods of the day when they were free to choose what to do. The data consists of 935 randomly recorded two-minute videos, which were coded second by second for several categories of risky play as well as where and with what materials the play occurred. Results revealed that risky play (all categories in total) was positively associated with fixed equipment for functional play, nature and other fixed structures, while analysis of play materials showed that risky play was positively associated with wheeled toys. The results can support practitioners in developing their outdoor areas to provide varied and exciting play opportunities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document