Monique P. Dalida “Where the sun doesn`t shine”: Early

Monique P. Dalida
“Where the sun doesn't shine”:
Early years practitioners’ perceptions and experiences
regarding childhood sexuality
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Erasmus
Mundus joint degree “Master in Early Childhood Education and Care”.
August, 2013
International Master of Early Childhood Education and Care.
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences,
Dublin Institute of Technology and University of Malta.
i
ABSTRACT
Monique P. Dalida
“Where the sun doesn't shine”:
Early years practitioners’ perceptions and experiences regarding childhood sexuality
By conducting semi-structured interviews with seven practitioners from varied early
years provision in Malta, the study gathered the participants’ perceptions and experiences
related to childhood sexuality. The practitioners’ taken-for-granted beliefs and familiar
practices were then problematized by drawing from Michel Foucault’s work. As it appears,
practitioners considered identifying gender, curiosity of genitalia, exploring gender roles, and
learning about pregnancy as normal sexual attributes of children, since they follow the childcentered, developmental, and other socio-cultural discourses. On the other hand, practitioners
silenced their past dealings with behaviors that were considered deviant to the norm (such as
masturbation and unusual actions that may indicate sexual abuse). Given these, the participants’
practices regarding childhood sexuality somehow exhibit normalization or conforming to
developmental norms, totalisation based on heteronormativity, and exclusion of unwanted
behaviors. It can be read from their statements that they have disciplined themselves according
to the judgment of the parents and the professional ethics created by prevalent discourses.
Though the dominant discourses presented in the study were found to be formidable, this does
not mean that they are undisputable and that practitioners are powerless to question them.
Certainly, towards the end of their interviews, practitioners were found to be critical and ready
for change. They acknowledged that alternative truths and images of childhood sexuality may
be dark and unpleasant; however the participants are willing to bring to light the actual sexual
behaviour of children. Therefore, this study encourages practitioners to critically reflect and
understand different possibilities when dealing with children in their early years.
International Masters in Early Childhood Education and Care
August, 2013
Keywords: practitioners, childhood sexuality, Michel Foucault, discourses, reflection,
ii
Declaration
I hereby certify that the material which is submitted in this thesis towards the
award of the Masters in Early Childhood Education and Care is entirely my own
work and has not been submitted for any academic assessment other than
partial fulfillment of the award named above.
Signature of candidate:
August 15, 2013
………………………………………….
Date
iii
Acknowledgements
I am extending my gratitude to those who have made this thesis possible. I would like to
say thank you to Dr. Duncan Mercieca, for being my supervisor and encouraging me to pursue
this research topic. Your introduction to Michel Foucault’s works has led me to a path full of
wonders and trials, but most of all possibilities in my profession. I also appreciate the guidance
and assistance of Prof. Valerie Sollars and the staff of the University of Malta. Indeed, it has
been a privilege to be a student in this institution, as well as in Dublin Institute of Technology,
and the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Science.
I am so grateful to be a part of the International Masters Early Childhood Education and
Care (IMEC) program. The invaluable knowledge and wonderful experiences this opportunity
has given me will be eternally treasured by me. I am humbled by the visiting scholars,
lecturers, and professors, who so generously shared their expertise. I am also sincerely grateful
to my fellow IMEC students who opened my world to different perspectives, and who also
became a support group along the way.
With fortune I have come to meet such amazing people, who have become my family
during these last two years. Certamente, un sentito “grazie” e’ rivolto alla famiglia Silipigni.
Grazie a loro, la stesura di questa tesi e’ stata resa meno stressante e forse anche piacevole.
Andrea, words fail me, but you did not. I had anticipated that this would be mentally straining,
but nobody had mentioned to me the amount of emotional strength and conviction necessary
for one to complete this kind of work. Thus, I thank you for your unwavering support and all
that you have done.
My utmost appreciation goes to my family and friends in the Philippines. Thank you for
always being there; despite the distance, all of you have given me words of encouragement
iv
when I needed them the most. My mother especially - it is because of her that I am reminded to
always strive for the best.
Most certainly, this study would be nothing without the contribution of the staff of the
preschools and the participants on which this study is based. I am moved by the openness of the
early years practitioners, for sharing their personal experiences and their deeply-held beliefs.
Certainly, I am inspired by their motivation to enhance their pedagogy and practice, because it
shows their passion for their profession.
Finally, I am grateful for your presence. As a reader, you are the end of this thesis and
the start of something new. It is through you that the words in this study are put into action, and
that the ideas are ignited. The fact that you may be interested about the topic of childhood
sexuality means that you are already open to creating new possibilities for children and
practitioners in the field of early childhood education and care.
Tusen takk. Go raibh maith agat. Grazzi. Grazie. Salamat!
v
Table of contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Declaration .......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Table of contents ................................................................................................................. v
I.
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
A.
Rationale of the study............................................................................................ 3
B.
Organization of the study ...................................................................................... 6
II.
Literature review ....................................................................................................... 8
A.
A Foucauldian lens on childhood sexuality .......................................................... 8
i.
Discourses ........................................................................................................ 10
ii.
Discursive practices ......................................................................................... 19
iii.
The subject ....................................................................................................... 24
iv.
Power ............................................................................................................... 27
B.
Criticism of Foucault ........................................................................................... 31
C.
Research aim and questions ................................................................................ 32
III.
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 34
A.
Sampling.............................................................................................................. 34
i.
ECEC in Malta................................................................................................. 35
ii.
Participants of the study .................................................................................. 36
B.
Data collection..................................................................................................... 36
i.
Semi-structured interview................................................................................ 36
ii.
Interview schedule ........................................................................................... 37
C.
Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 38
D.
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 39
E.
Ethics ................................................................................................................... 40
vi
IV.
Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 43
A.
The process of the study ...................................................................................... 43
B.
Childhood sexuality according to the practitioners’ experiences........................ 43
i.
Gender ............................................................................................................. 44
ii.
Role Playing .................................................................................................... 46
iii.
Genitalia........................................................................................................... 47
iv.
Pregnancy ........................................................................................................ 49
v.
Masturbation .................................................................................................... 51
vi.
Sexual abuse .................................................................................................... 55
C.
Practices regarding childhood sexuality.............................................................. 58
D.
The practitioner as a subject ................................................................................ 60
i.
Explicit discursive techniques ......................................................................... 61
ii.
Implicit disciplining techniques....................................................................... 65
E.
V.
Power relations in ECEC..................................................................................... 68
i.
Disciplinary power and bio-power on childhood sexuality ............................. 68
ii.
Resistance ........................................................................................................ 71
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 73
A.
Personal thoughts ................................................................................................ 75
B.
Implications for reflection ................................................................................... 75
References ......................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 85
A.
General description of participants ..................................................................... 85
B.
Information and consent letter............................................................................. 86
C.
Interview schedule............................................................................................... 89
1
I.
Introduction
One afternoon, two practitioners were having a light conversation about childhood
sexuality. Specifically, one practitioner asked the other if she had tried to talk about sexuality
with the children in her class.
Deborah: No. Not really, Again it's your basic body parts but not something to do
with sexuality.
Monique: Shoulders... legs. (emphasizes the distance that is being skipped and
laughs)
Deborah: (laughing) Whatever's in between is your business. Basically, where the
sun doesn't shine, we don't need to talk about (giggles).
(Deborah, Interview Transcript, April 14, 2013)
How often do you hear two practitioners engaged in a conversation about childhood
sexuality? I would guess, most probably, not that often. Hence, I must reveal that this is not a
regular conversation. Indeed, I am the Monique in this dialogue, and Deborah1 is one of the
Maltese participants that I have interviewed in order to collect the perceptions and experiences of
practitioners regarding childhood sexuality.
Nonetheless, Deborah’s statement is valid. Typically, when early years practitioners do
talk about body parts with children, a big chunk of that body is just left unmentioned or kept in
the shadows. Some of these body parts are mostly related to the sexuality of a person. This begs
the question, why do practitioners withhold information about sexuality to children? Is it simply
1
Deborah is an alias for the actual participant.
2
a topic that is not discussed in their culture? Is it because children are not interested in it? Are
children considered too young to understand such topic?
In the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (hereafter referred to as ECEC),
sexuality of children is overlooked at times, but most often seen as controversial and sensitive in
nature, for it is fraught with hegemonic images of children as innocent, naïve and asexual
(Robinson & Davies, 2008; Moran, 2001; Theilheimer & Cahill, 2001). More importantly, these
images have become naturalised truths, institutionalised norms, and taken-for-granted beliefs for
practitioners. Consequently, they perceive their role as individuals that protect, regulate and
normalize children’s behavior (Bhana, 2007; Blaise & Andrew, 2005; Kiragu, 2007). However,
in upholding images of children as innocent or asexual, practitioners may be exercising
exclusionary practices on actual children in the everyday early years setting. Thus, the purpose of
this study is to reveal how these discursive images of children come into play in the ECEC
through interviewing practitioners. Moreover, in utilising a post-structuralist perspective,
specifically based on Michel Foucault’s work, my aim is to challenge these naturalised truths and
incite reflection on the possible implications of the practitioner’s beliefs, perceptions, and
practices, regarding children’s sexuality.
In utilising Foucault’s concept of discourse, sexuality can be viewed as other than a fact
of life or as something natural. It can be seen as a historical construction whose meaning is
created by the apparently truthful claims of discourses, in order to gain control over individuals.
3
“At the crossroads of body and soul, of health and morality, of education and
training, children's sex became both a target and an instrument of power. A
specific ‘sexuality of children’ was constituted—precious, dangerous, constantly
in need of supervision.” (Foucault, 1996a, p.216)
In having a view of sexuality in this way, it invites one to reflect on how sanctioned
knowledge and discourses create images of children, and how it is then used to regulate their
behaviour. But more importantly, it also opens up the possibility to explore on how discourses
can create images of practitioners, and influence their roles and practices.
Though it might appear that the issue of sexuality is but a small matter during this time
wherein international and state policies are concerned with quality measurements and standards
for the early years, I hope to bring it in the forefront, in order for the sector to recognize the
complexities, difficulties, and shifting dynamics of teaching (Yelland & Kilderry, 2005). In
doing so, it may permit practitioners to ponder this subject, and somehow allow them to
reconceptualise the image of childhood sexuality that would be more relevant to their practice.
A. Rationale of the study
The topic of children’s sexuality has long intrigued me during my study and
professional work in the field of ECEC. This started when I was an undergraduate student in
the Philippines and underwent my placement at a preschool.
One afternoon, while the whole class was listening to a story being told by a teacher; a
five year old boy came near me, and wanted to sit on my lap. Being an eager future
4
practitioner, I saw this opportunity to bond with one of the children and so I welcomed him
onto my lap. A few moments later, the boy smiled and asked me if he could breastfeed as he
pulled down my shirt. Perplexed and frazzled, my initial reaction was to remove his hands and
move away from him. However, I did not manage to say anything because I was too surprised
by what happened.
From a Filipino cultural perspective, the topic of sexuality is considered to be taboo,
and thus, this type of situation is unheard of. Sexuality as part of people’s everyday lives is
shunned in the Catholic culture of the Philippines. This can be seen in how the government’s
initiatives to provide reproductive health education and access to natural and artificial family
planning methods to its citizens have been prevented by the Catholic Church, despite the fact
that the country has a critical problem with overpopulation and a growing rate of Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) cases.
Furthermore, the education that I received focused on particular theories regarding
children’s development that did not prepare me for the situation with the boy. Even though I
was familiar with the theory of Sigmund Freud, I still had the image of children as either
asexual or presexual, but most of all, as innocent. If they did act in a sexual manner, this should
be taken as abnormal, and may indicate a problematic behavior or sexual abuse. This was
exactly the case with this particular child. After I had narrated to the teacher what had
happened, she told me that the child had previously exhibited unusual behaviors and that he had
issues at home.
As I was listening to this teacher, her reasoning made sense to me because in my eyes
she had more knowledge, experience and authority than I. Consequently, I attempted to act
more appropriately and professionally in order to prevent that kind of situation from happening
5
again. I finished my degree without reflecting and revisiting that event. However, when I
started teaching and handling a group of children by myself, I was confronted by the same
feeling of helplessness and anxiety when children expressed their sexuality.
Aside from this, I was also increasingly becoming dissatisfied with my practice. As a
starting teacher, I felt that I had no voice to question the rules, demands and expectations of
parents, nor with that of the preschool administration. I felt that I was becoming a pawn, who
acts accordingly to the motives of others. I was someone who passes on to the younger
generation the knowledge that was passed on to me, by my own education. As well as being
someone that exerts the authority of outside forces in the everyday early years setting. This
prompted me to question the foundational knowledge of early childhood and the very nature of
my profession.
I began to seek new perspectives that recognize the ‘politics’ that are present in being
an early years practitioner. This is how I stumbled upon poststructuralist research and one of its
prominent writers, Michel Foucault.
Though it did not necessarily give me answers, using the poststructuralist perspective
provided me with ways to investigate the existing theories and discourses regarding early
childhood. In doing so, I was invited to reflect on how children’s actions are being governed
and controlled by adults. Furthermore, how seemingly neutral discourses actually construct
practitioners’ knowledge of children and control their practice.
When I was presented with a chance to study on a particular aspect of early childhood, I
knew I had to return to the event that started my journey to Foucault. I wanted to revisit the
situation with the boy, and see if other practitioners had experienced any similar scenarios
6
where children had expressed sexuality. Moreover, I wanted to find out how they reacted to
these particular scenarios, and what the rationale behind their actions was.
In hopes of doing a similar study in the Philippines and test the feasibility of the
research, I chose to conduct this study in Malta. Both countries have a population that
predominantly practices Roman Catholicism. Thus, it can be presumed that the practitioners
and I may have coinciding attitudes and practices regarding sexuality in the early years. I
believe that these similar religious backgrounds will permit me to understand the practitioners
better; thus leading me to understand what commonalities and differences we may have
regarding our perceptions and experiences.
B. Organization of the study
When discussing the perceptions and experiences of early years practitioners regarding
childhood sexuality using a Foucauldian perspective, it is essential to first introduce some
elements that were central to Michel Foucault’s works. Therefore, the chapter of the related
literature revolved around the concepts of discourse, discursive practices, the subject and
power. As I discussed these, a number of researches and studies regarding the early years and
childhood sexuality were mentioned. In doing so, I aim to show how Foucault’s work can be
used in the context of early childhood education and care. However, I have also presented some
shortcomings of using a Foucauldian perspective and of past researches that have dwelled on
sexuality of children. Consequently, I have designed my research aims and questions to
overcome these.
I later discuss in my methodology on how I used these Foucauldian elements as
conceptual and analytical frameworks. My sampling method and the participants of the study
7
would then be described. Furthermore, I have provided an explanation of how I conducted the
interviews and what type of questions I had asked practitioners in order to bring out their
perspectives and past experiences. Then, the process of coding their statements and analysis are
mentioned. I also reviewed the limitations that I encountered when performing a small-scale
qualitative research. Finally, I explore on how ethics can be exercised through reflexivity in the
research process.
I then present the results of my study and expanded on it using the same four elements
from the work of Foucault that I had previously explored in the chapter of relevant literature.
Highlighted in this part are the perceptions, experiences and practices of early years
practitioners regarding childhood sexuality, as well as what becomes the role of the practitioner
and how they participate in and challenge existing power relations in their practice.
Finally, in the conclusion of this study, are its implications and ways of inciting
reflection in the everyday dealings of early years practitioners with children.
When reading this study, readers may encounter terms and rationale that may be
unfamiliar, and even contradictory, to both their beliefs and knowledge. I do support this, and
encourage readers to make their own judgments and create their own meaning in what I
present. However, I do hope that readers may consider in depth these interpretations and the
use of Foucauldian perspective on childhood sexuality, as hopefully, they may draw on these
ideas and use them as points of reflection for their own pedagogical knowledge and practice.
8
II.
Literature review
In recent years, ECEC has become a priority for governments and policy makers,
consequently garnering attention and investment. In the process of upgrading quality in the
sector, certain areas that relate to academic achievement have been prioritized over other
considered arbitrary or controversial matters, such as sexuality (Epstein, O’Flynn & Telford
2000). The relationship of childhood to sexuality is considered to be laden with difficulties and
complexities. This has resulted to adults being reluctant to deal with this topic. Parents and
teachers often share that they feel they lack the adequate knowledge and training when dealing
with the sexuality of children and its related issues (Davies & Robinson, 2010; Kakavoulis,
1998; Koblinsky & Atkinson, 1982; Larsson & Svedin, 2002).
As I grapple with these findings, I find myself asking what adults consider as suitable
knowledge and the correct ways of dealing with childhood sexuality. Is there indeed a proper
way to address it? If so, what dictates it to be proper or improper? Most importantly, do
individuals working with children in ECEC have a say about these established set of beliefs,
truths and rules?
A. A Foucauldian lens on childhood sexuality
In seeking the answers to my questions, the work of Michel Foucault (1926-84)
captivated and resonated with me. At the center of his work are his genealogical narratives or
the analysis of modern institutions; such as asylums (Foucault, 1965), hospitals (Foucault 1973)
and prisons (Foucault, 1991), and the historical conditions of their creations. Moreover, he
explored on how these institutions are produced by discourses and, in turn, how they reproduce
9
truths regarding normative or universal models of humanity (Ball, 1990a; Usher & Edwards,
1994).
Thus for Foucault there is no objective truth, it is in fact a fiction that is dictated to us
by these institutions and the propagated knowledge within time and place (Mac Naughton,
2005). This proliferated knowledge is associated with certain power relations and general
politics of the society. Therefore, our considered ‘natural’ or ‘neutral’ truths are biased, for they
induce and extend on individuals these power relations. Therefore in his analysis, he offers us
ways to question these embedded truths or taken-for-granted beliefs present in our current
context. He did not fully focus on educational institutions per se, such as schools or ECEC, in
his investigations. Still, one may argue that these are part of modern establishments wherein
truths are invented and reinvented. Furthermore, they are sites where governance and discipline
are being practiced on individuals.
Using Foucault’s work as a guide gave my research much more relevance and
significance. Examining ECEC practitioners’ beliefs about childhood sexuality is also a way of
exploring how children and practitioners are being governed, and their knowledge and practices
are induced by existing power relations. However in my usage of Foucault’s writing, I am simply
offering ways to reflect on a topic that is seemingly disregarded and silenced in ECEC. I do not
aim to provide a definitive perspective or theory on childhood sexuality, nor will I be able to
articulate extensively about the implications and significance Foucault’s writings, due to the
limited space available. For this reason, I have chosen to focus on certain significant facets of his
work that are central to his perspective; ones that can also be related to the discussion of
sexuality of children (these facets being discourse, discursive practices, the subject and power).
10
i.
Discourses
In utilising the Foucauldian perspective, one rejects the modernist and positivist stance
of an objective truth and knowledge, that when developed, may help us grasp a divine essence
of all things. Foucault argued that the language and rationale we use to understand, instead of
corresponding to reality, are biased and shaped by power-driven, historically-specific
discourses.
In his work, he contends that certain discourses battle, intersect, overlap and become
more apparent than others throughout history. Therefore, when certain discourses dominate at a
specific point in time, they circumscribe our knowledge - but at the same time enable us to
create a subject out of a certain social object or practice. This subjection, he found, is most
apparent in institutions that have made human as subjects and their practices as target of social
control and administration (Foucault, 1982).
In the repertoire of discourses is a regime of truth (Foucault, 1980), whereby officially
sanctioned truths are created to interpret and deal with these social objects and their practices.
These legitimized truths are intended to establish normalcy and regulation. In doing so, they
diminish the integrity of alternative truths and marginalise diversity by reducing it to
abnormality. It is often hard to question these legitimized truths for they diguise themselves to
be neutral and objective (e.g. psychology, health sciences) and weave themselves into the very
fabric of modern institutions (e.g. hospitals, prisons and schools). In doing so, they confine the
individuals who are present in the institutions; the patients or clients, as wells as the
professionals. Such professionals, like the teacher, become a part of the suppression apparatus
of modern institutions (Foucault, 1996b). Their knowledge and interpretations of the social
11
object they work with, children for instance, consequently become grounded to these dominant
discursive truths.
Certain discourses have been argued to be underpinning the truths and beliefs regarding
childhood sexuality. Among the most prominent are the child-centered discourse and
developmental discourse (Hogan, 2012; Nichols, 2002; Robinson & Davies, 2008; Surtees,
2008; Tobin,2001) . The cultural context within which I have conducted this study should also
be taken into account; therefore certain socio-cultural discourses must be included. They may
also indicate the centre of gravity of practitioners’ perceptions, and how they have created
subjects out of children.
a. Child-centered discourse:
The child-centered discourse has become a cornerstone for any preschool institution and
a requirement for modern ECEC practitioners. It is urged by international policies and
organizations (Bennett, 2006; Mahon, 2010; Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2006) for it is in accordance with the rights of the child (United Nations, 1989)
and is thought to provide a greater impact on the child’s learning and development compared to
the traditional approach. An officially sanctioned truth of the child-centered discourse is that a
child is unique, having his or her own experiences, opinions and identity (The United Nations
Children's Fund, 2001). The child’s self-directed learning and activity must therefore be valued
and respected. Free play is one activity that should be encouraged because it is seen as a venue
for enrichment of emotional experience, creative thinking and experimentation with controlling
their real world (Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore, & Smith, 2012; Whitebread & Jameson,
12
2005).Thus in this discourse, the adult’s role is to cater for the needs of the child in order for
one to self-actualize and recognize one’s own unique attributes (Surtees, 2008).
1. The gendered child
The central assumption of the child-centered discourse is the possibility of the child’s
individual choice. That is a choice that is not determined by ‘external’ factors, since they stem
from the innate and authentic nature of the child. That is why it is thought to be grounded and
often associated with progressive liberal approaches (Chung & Walsh, 2000). However some
authors argue that this discourse is used instead to legitimize gender stereotypes and restrict
children’s freedom of expressing their sexuality (Hogan, 2012; Nichols, 2002).
When this discourse operates within sexuality, this constitutes the need to bring about
the individuality of the child which is often related to gender. Gender, as is frequently
interpreted, is a neutral site wherein a child biologically and naturally expresses one’s
uniqueness. That is why in the field of ECEC, practitioners assume it is largely unproblematic,
and are resistant to exploring it critically (Hogan, 2012). However, upon viewing gender as a
unique and natural aspect of a child’s identity, we tend to overlook the societal ideals,
expectations and stereotypes that come along with it, as well as the inequality it creates in our
interaction and perception of children. As Nichols (2002) found in interviewing Australian
middle-class parents that despite of their explicit subscription to gender equality and neutrality,
these parents have judged children who were girls to be more developmentally advanced and
literate than the ones who were boys. Nichols (2002) offers an explanation that they may be
doing this because their “apparently neutral frameworks” used to describe children are actually
rooted and perpetuated by gendered assumptions (p. 2).
13
Some researchers argue that rather than perceiving gender as an inherent personal
aspect, it should be considered as a performance of an individual based on society’s
construction of masculinity and femininity (Blaise, 2005, Hogan, 2012). In doing so, we can
see gender not as a static attribute, but as an ongoing process that is sustained by various
players; including the ECEC practitioner (Walkerdine, 1990). Martin (2011) provides the
example of free play, and portrays it as more of a gendered performance, where children may
or may not reinforce gender stereotypes. Hence, she encourages practitioners to use this as an
avenue to challenge and incite in children different ways of showing their masculinity and
femininity.
2. The uninterested child
Upon exploring teachers’ dialogues pertaining to matters of sexuality, Surtees (2008)
raises the issue on how the child-centered discourse has also created an illusion of choice of
children and licensed absences in teachers’ practice regarding sexuality.
The teachers in the study often believed that they catered to children’s interests, and so
if the children did not initiate a conversation about sexuality, then it was assumed that they
simply did not find the topic relevant to them. At the same time, the teachers explained that
they also made a choice to acknowledge or ignore the children’s interests; with the justification
that they do it for the children’s benefit. Thus, in this matter, teachers tend to take a reactive
role. Then again, this is not always the case, and teachers would often carry a proactive role
when it comes to academic skills; such as learning to read and write.
Avoiding a dialogue about sexuality then becomes justifiable for the teachers by
reasoning that they are following the child-centered discourse. However, is this practice really
14
done for the benefit of children? One can argue that this, in turn, may simply be an opportunity
for adults to dictate and control the well-being of children. What should be considered as
addressing to children’s needs, may not necessarily mean attending to their current wants, but
more so on adults prescribing their needs based on their age and development (Silin, 1995;
Walkerdine, 1990). Thus, in this situation, teachers may also be following the developmental
discourse; which Chung & Walsh (2000) consider as the bed-rock of the child-centered
discourse.
b. Developmental Discourse
The normative assumption that children develop progressively, passing through a series
of predetermined stages, is developmental psychology’s offered truth to ECEC (Woodhead,
1999). It is deeply entrenched within the field, that it has created a dominant paradigm which
shapes the current understanding of childhood development and processes (Grieshaber &
Cannella, 2001; Robinson & Davies, 2008; Ryan, Mindy & Genishi, 2001).
1. The presexual child
Among the most cited developmental theories related to childhood sexuality is Sigmund
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Tobin (2001) reviewed more than seven decades worth of
ECEC textbooks. He found that during Freud’s time, psychoanalytic theory was considered as a
scientific source of knowledge, which nursery school educators had to take into account. Freud
portrayed children as troubled and caught up in confusion over the functions and symbolism of
their bodies and associated symptoms. Therefore, adults were advised to take a matter-of-fact
15
approach on their sexual curiosity and appropriately address their symptoms or expressions
(such as masturbation).
As the shift of focus came to Erikson and Piaget’s theories during the 1960’s, Tobin
(2001) argues that there was a loss of attention to childhood sexuality. This is seen in how the
topics of sexual curiosity and masturbation became a far lesser occurrence in ECEC textbooks.
I contend that the reason for this may be that sexuality of children was positioned by Freud as
the main driving force of their development. However, with Erikson and Piaget’s theories,
children’s autonomy, self-actualization and their learning - initiated their development. Sexual
curiosity, expression and knowledge (but not necessarily their gender) was simply portrayed as
something that children gained as they developed.
By the end of 1980’s, childhood sexuality was brought up again in ECEC textbooks.
Tobin (2001) notes, however, that the new visage of childhood sexuality entered from the
perspective of the threat of sexual abuse, even more so on the dangers of early or premature
exposure to any sexual matter to children. This is why during those times (and also up till
today) adults perceived young children as immature or pre-sexual beings whose sexual
expression must be regulated and their sexual knowledge to be restricted (Blaise & Andrew,
2005; Robinson & Davies, 2008).
c. Socio-cultural discourse
Culture is a non-negligible force that influences our knowledge and actions as
individuals. During my research on childhood sexuality, I chose to focus on certain sociocultural discourses that may be present in Malta’s context. These are the discourses of the
Catholic Church on procreation and of sexual repression in Western culture (Foucault, 1978).
16
1. The Catholic child
The Catholic Church as an institution is arguably a strong influence in Malta. It is
considered to be the official religion of the country, and must be taught in all state schools as
part of compulsory education (Republic of Malta, 1964). Even with the secularization of
Europe, the currently elected state administration still acknowledges it to be a part of Malta’s
cultural heritage and the faith of the majority of people (Calleja, 2013). Thus, Catholic
doctrines and teachings are imprinted on Maltese identity and lifestyle. One of the Church
teachings that still holds strong in Malta is regarding procreation, as seen in the continuing
debate on the legislation of in vitro fertilization and abortion (Bencini, 2012). The stand of
Catholicism regarding procreation is withstanding, reiterating that it is the divine purpose of the
married couple, and thus must be fostered (Paul VI, 1968). In holding the sanctity of
procreation, the church also preaches to its followers of its idealism and importance. This
image of sex and its relation to sexuality may then be promulgated by adults to Maltese
children.
2. The confessing child
Another discourse that may have religious roots is in the discourse of sexual repression
in the Western culture, or as Michel Foucault discussed, the illusion of it (Foucault, 1978).
Since the dawn of the Middle Ages, it has been held that sexuality has been silenced
within the Western culture. However, Foucault argued that it was even something to be talked
about- just in a specific manner which is through the discursive operation of confession. Within
17
the techniques of confession, one hides their sexuality at a particular moment or situation.
Conversely, one is consequently required to reveal it at an appropriate place and time.
Throughout the Middle Ages, fleshly pleasures and sexual fantasies were confessed to
priests within churches, but as of the 18th century, confession as an apparatus came to the
contest of medical and familial power. Moreover, what needed to be confessed was mostly
related to the sexuality of the child, particularly the act of masturbating. Masturbation was seen
as a life-long pathology that threatened the very crux of society. Thus, in order to cure it, one
was obliged to confess it. First the technique of confession had to come from the child to
parents, and then, subsequently told to the doctor.
The family was seen as an important societal sector that was responsible for the life and
health of their child, including their sexual health. Within Christian societies, a double effect of
religion and current dominance of health sciences reinforced childhood sexuality as “something
to be examined, watched over, confessed and transformed into discourse” (Foucault, 1996a, p.
214).
The objective all along was not to forbid sexuality. It was to constitute it to something
else. To produce in us “tact and discretion” (Foucault, 1984, p. 301) about where we talk, how
we talk and what we talk about it.
Certain scholars agree with Foucault that the current view on childhood sexuality was
created to establish control over children (Casper & Moore, 2009; Sauerteig, 2012). As
Foucault argued, it was the parental role that had the most responsibility on the child’s body.
However, in our neo-liberal society, the position of educational institutions to equip young
people with knowledge is becoming increasingly important (Mahon, 2010). Hence, the spheres
of responsibilities regarding children’s sexual knowledge (belonging to parents and educational
18
institutions) are colliding. This may establish tensions, such as the parents insisting that sex
education is their duty and questioning the teachers’ competence (Goldman, 2008). On the
other hand, this collision can create uncertainties and anxieties on both parties, both not
knowing whose obligation it is to listen to the ‘confessing child’, and whose ‘burden’ is to react
to it accordingly (Stone, Ingham & Gibbins, 2013; Kiragu, 2007). Nonetheless, if childhood
sexuality is kept a private matter that only certain people may address, this makes it difficult for
both parents and educators to have honest discussions about issues related to it (Davies &
Robinson, 2010).
d. Hegemonic discourses regarding innocent children
As it appears, these discourses have different constructions of a child in terms of
sexuality. Nonetheless, at their core is a hegemonic image of ‘the innocent child’. With regard
to the ‘gendered child’, meanings behind their gendered expressions can be dismissed if they
are thought to be naturally occurring (Silin, 1995). Whereas the ‘uninterested’ and ‘presexual’
children are considered naïve, immature and too young to comprehend sexuality. Finally, the
‘Catholic’ and ‘confessing’ children are seen as individuals that acquire their sexuality from
socio-cultural influences. Though it may appear that this sanctioned truth of ‘innocent’ children
is objective, and is used as a way to protect and serve real, living children. This truth may also
operate as powerful mechanisms of social exclusion and regulation (Moran, 2001).
The truth of innocence normalizes and legitimizes certain behaviors and characteristics.
Other children who may be deviant to these can then be considered as abnormal, impure and
corrupt (Duschinsky, 2013). Moreover, it establishes a relationship wherein power is given to
adults as the so-called ‘guides’ and ‘protectors’ of children (Moran, 2001). Consequently, the
19
discourses mentioned earlier, more often than not, result in the adult protection of these
hegemonic images of ‘innocent’ children, rather than helping actual children live and flourish
(Jones, 2011).
ii.
Discursive practices
As Foucault argues in his genealogical narratives, the sovereign’s coercive and
oppressive methods to maintain status quo are gone. Replacing it is a carceral society which
governs its population in a more private, ubiquitous and effective way through its institutions
(Foucault, 1991).
It is within these modern institutions, such as schools, whereby discourses are utilized
to create dogmas on normality and abnormality. Consequently, practices and systems of limits,
exclusion, rejection, and refusal are set up (Foucault, 1996b). In doing so, institutions are able
to create docile bodies, or individuals who have desirable forms of thinking and acting, as well
as maneuver populations into becoming functional and productive members of the society.
a. Politics and childhood sexuality
The political substance of a discourse can be seen in how modern institutions regulate
and govern individuals (Mac Naughton, 2005). With relation to childhood sexuality, Robinson
(2012) gives a compelling argument that discourses regarding children’s sexuality are utilized
to cultivate ideal future citizens. The hegemonic image of childhood innocence is in fact an
embodiment of functional and governable adults. Children are purposely limited to access to
sexual knowledge since the ultimate consequence of acquiring it is perceived to be the
“formation of the promiscuous adult or then deviant adult citizens” (p.265).
20
b. Normalization to Exclusion
Withholding sexually related information has been reported in interviews with adults,
such as parents and teachers (Bhana, 2007; Davies & Robinson, 2010; Stone et al., 2012). In
their group discussions with parents in the United Kingdom, Stone et al. (2012) found that one
of the frequent reasons why parents are hesitant to talk with their children about sexuality is
because of the fear that they may corrupt them and stimulate abnormal behavior.
The definition of normal and abnormal sexual behavior of children is not often clear. As
Heiman, Leiblum, Esquilin and Pallitto (1998) learned, adults had different perceptions on
hypothetical scenarios wherein children behaved in a sexual manner. Adults’ perceptions of
normality and abnormality were in relation to their gender and professional role. Females and
professionals working with sexually abused children rated more abnormal scenarios, than males
and those who were participating in a human sexuality program. This may be because these
varied groups of adults follow different discourses. Sexual abuse experts and therapists may be
working with a more medical perspective wherein there are distinct boundaries of accepted
sexual behavior; whereas the group of adults involved in the human sexuality program may
have supported a more sociological perspective where the boundaries of normalcy were not so
clear. Nonetheless, there was still some behaviour emerging from hypothetical scenarios that
the majority of adults in the research viewed as divergent from the norm. These were the
behaviours of children that involved oral, vaginal or anal penetration.
In the context of ECEC, literature suggests that practitioners seem to be in agreement
with what constitutes as normal sexual behaviors of children and what practices they must use
21
correspondingly. These practices can be categorized according to discursive practices identified
by Gore (1998), which include normalization, surveillance, totalisation and exclusion.
Firstly, is normalisation where subjects are compared, invoked, required and made to
conform to a norm or a standard. In following a developmental discourse, an adult may
compare children’s sexual behaviour to developmental norms. As Flanagan (2010) points out
this has led some practitioners to view children as asexual, and deviance to this norm is
immediately labeled as a symptom of abuse by adults or children’s abusive behavior towards
others. As previously mentioned by Tobin (2001), by the late 1980s there was a growing
concern on managing the risk of sexually-abusive behavior. As a response to this, Ryan (1999)
reviewed the relevant literature in order to consolidate the developmentally expected sexual
behaviour of children, and separate it from the problematic ones. In doing so, a curriculum was
designed for professionals to ‘objectively’ evaluate children. Though it is important to take a
stance that opposes abuse, Flanagan (2010) reminds that one must not heavily rely on
developmental norms and should explore multiple stories that may be behind these behaviours.
The second discursive practice is surveillance, which entails a hierarchical structure of
observation, whereby individuals are closely supervised by higher authorities through reference
to particular truths, such as what Surtees (2005) discerned in how ECEC practitioners in New
Zealand monitor what children do with their bodies since they maintain the belief that the body
is precious. Consequently, their aim is to prevent unwanted behaviors (such as fondling) from
happening rather than responding or discussing it with the child.
Thirdly is the totalisation in which discursive truths are used to produce a will to
conform to the status quo. Overwhelmingly, studies are in agreement that heteronormativity has
been an institutionalized and privileged standard that regulates children in educational settings
22
(Blaise, 2009; Duke & McCarthy, 2009; Epstein et al., 2000; Gunn, 2011). It is this
presumption that individuals or children should act according to and be socialized as such,
based on the heterosexual matrix of male or female. As Epstein et al. (2000) argue, schools and
universities can be “sites of cultural struggle over meanings, they instead contribute to
maintaining and defending heterosexuality” in United Kingdom (p. 128). Early years settings
are also being criticized for upholding heteronormativity. In Duke and McCarthy’s (2009)
review of 31 articles about issues of gender and sexuality in ECEC, it suggested that these
programs often reinforce the homophobia, heterosexism, and sexism that can be seen in
contemporary American society. Though Gunn’s (2011) criticisms of the prevalence of
heteronomativity may not be as strong as Duke and McCarthy’s (2009), she still acknowledges
that this institutionalized standard has been dispersed by practitioners in complex ways in the
early years. One narrative that she shared was when practitioners were having a discussion
about a boy wearing a kilt and valorizing it by commenting that “boys and men wear kilts in
Scotland” (p.286). This justification of the boy’s dress preference as masculine makes it
possible for the teachers to acknowledge the boy’s gender performance and, at the same time,
preserve their notions of proper masculinity and assumed heterosexuality.
Finally. the exclusion or the establishment of boundaries of what should be considered
normal and abnormal. These boundaries label undesirable behaviour as pathology, and as a
result, persons of authority apply techniques to disregard, reject or prohibit it. By interviewing
Greek primary teachers, Gerouki (2009) managed to collect conceptions and attitudes towards
childhood sexual behaviors. Greek practitioners identified some sexually–charged behaviors as
simply unproblematic situations and a source of entertainment in many cases; other behaviors
that were considered problematic were ignored, because they felt inadequately equipped to
23
handle them. However, more often than not, these events are brought to a halt without giving
an explanation or having a discussion with the children involved, since it is expected of adults
to stop this undesirable behavior. As what can be seen here, Gerouki (2009) discusses that
children’s actions are being monitored and regulated by adults. More importantly, she provides
a valid point that it is not only children’s behaviour that is being policed according to discursive
truths; adults too regulate their behavior according to what is expected of them.
c. The panopticon
The panopticon is a nineteenth century model of a prison designed by Jeremy Bentham
to reform criminals into being obedient and willing subjects. It is a structure similar to a tower,
wherein guards have visual access to every single prisoner. When utilising surveillance, guards
are then able to police individuals, control their bodies and maximize their utility. However, in
being part of the panopticon, the actions of prison guards can be seen and discerned as well by
their charges or other guards. As Foucault sees it, modern societies operate similar to this
(Foucault, 1991).
Children grow accustomed to their actions being watched and judged by authorities
such as adults, and so they learn to self-regulate and discipline themselves. Conversely, as
Davies and Robinson (2010) and Tobin (2001) argue, parents and teachers also subsequently
feel the weight of the observing gaze too and know that they are similarly being scrutinized. In
a study conducted by Davies and Robinson (2010), some parents explained that they would not
impart to their children information regarding the topics that would transgress ‘appropriate
sexual knowledge’ for the fear of being called a ‘bad parent’ by other people. In the case of
teachers, Tobin (2001) explains that they prevent themselves from discussing sexuality,
24
because even though parents are not physically present to pass judgment, they may still know
about the teachers’ indiscretion when children share what happened in class.
As it appears, there is no central authority when it comes to childhood sexuality in
ECEC. There is just a system of panopticism and paranoia that regulates children’s behaviors
and instills in adults the ‘ethical’ substance of discourses; or how they internalize discursive
truths and decide to discipline themselves in return.
iii.
The subject
In Foucault’s earlier works, he dealt with the ways in which discourses and historical
conditions have produced specific and differentiated subjects, such as the criminal, and how
institutions have used technologies and practices into making them docile bodies and useful for
the motives of the state (Foucault, 1991). Later on in his final works, especially in his volumes
of History of Sexuality, he dwelled more on how we as individuals imbibe these discourses and
how we relate it to our own bodies, souls and conduct (Foucault 1978).
Foucault argues that as individuals in modern society, we have learned to analyse
ourselves based on discourses, and to take ‘care of ourselves’ according to what is considered
desirable or undesirable, what is normal or abnormal; by taking these as ‘ethical’ practices.
Moreover, we have identified ourselves as rational subjects who have a ‘will for knowledge’
(Foucault, 1976) and are thus in constant search for the truth. This is why we allow ourselves to
be subject to discourses and willingly engage in its practices to enlighten, transform, correct
and purify us.
For the identity of an individual working in modern institutions, discourses function
through them since they enforce discursive truths and practices onto others. Moreover,
25
discourses also operate within them by constructing their knowledge, informing their judgment,
and giving credibility to their practice. As Usher and Edwards (1994) explain, discourse
‘author-ises’ professionals on what they can think and speak about with their patients or clients.
Consequently, it is not only the patients or clients who are being created into docile bodies.
Practitioners too become targets of discursive truths and techniques. Their beliefs and ethical
standards may be regulated and dictated (Goodson & Dowbiggin, 1990).
With relation to practitioners in ECEC, their identities are negotiated within the
entrenched standard of heteronormativity. DeJean (2010) wrote an interesting article wherein he
narrated his experience as a homosexual professor, as well as his participant’s account of being a
lesbian pre-service early years practitioner. She portrays her struggle in the form of being in a
‘tug-of-war’, where she wants to be proud of her queer identity however she must also be
mindful of the authoritative belief in naturalized and normalized gender behaviors present in
ECEC. Clearly, her story highlights the continued need for more equitable discourses and
teaching spaces in both early childhood and teacher education.
Childhood innocence is another commanding truth that has been instilled in practitioners.
Accordingly, they have deemed it ethical to be ‘protectors’ of this innocence. Despite the
urgency to address the issue of HIV and AIDS epidemic in South Africa and Kenya, teachers
were reported to still be ambivalent when discussing sex with children. Bhana (2007) reported
that some practitioners choose to limit children’ access to sexual knowledge, as this is a way of
showing respect to children. Respect, as used by the practitioners in the study, makes it appear
that by denying children critical information which may prevent them from getting HIV and
AIDS, is culturally and ethically correct. Similarly, teachers in Kenya were resistant to teach
sexuality (Kiragu, 2007). Furthermore, they were even embarrassed to have conversations with
26
their pupils regarding issues of sexuality. As they explain, this embarrassment stems from being
a good Christian, hence they interpreted that avoiding a dialogue on sexuality is morally
justifiable.
Finally, Blaise and Andrew (2005) point out that adhering to developmentally appropriate
practices is considered to be an ethical standard with relation to addressing childhood sexuality.
These prevent ECEC practitioners from experimenting and deviating from these practices
because of the concern of being deemed as a ‘bad’ teacher, or worse, as ‘unprofessional’. Indeed,
practitioners learn to regulate their own teaching, and thus act on what is expected of them.
The image of a professional is fast becoming a reputable image for ECEC practitioners to
uphold. With the upgrading of quality in ECEC, one significant factor that countries are
recognizing is upgrading the skills and knowledge of its practitioners. In the case of Malta, the
very first Bachelor’s degree in ECEC is now being offered to experienced and potential
practitioners, who will be working with ages from one to seven years. One can say that this
degree will empower graduates in their work. However, one can also argue that through this,
practitioners’ knowledge and practice become objects of regulation of the state in order to ensure
high quality ECEC provision. Thus, practitioners may become technicians whose practice is a
prescribed, technical list of practices and outcomes (Ball,1990b). More importantly, they can
become professionals who learn to self-regulate according to the observing gaze of the state and
their clients, such as the parents.
Nonetheless, the position of the teacher in the panopticon structure of the educational
establishment must not be thought to be disempowered and eternally trapped within the
confinements of prevalent discourses. As discussed by Foucault, there is no unquestionable
authority who holds the power and exercises it alone in the model of the panopticon, (Foucault,
27
1996c). Power, as Foucault sees it, is more of a set of relations or a machine, where everybody
has a position in “which everyone is caught, those who exercise power as well as those who are
subjected to it. Obviously everyone in this machine occupies a different position; some are more
important than others and enable those who occupy them to produce effects of supremacy.”
(Foucault, 1996c, p. 234). Still, the fact that one is subjected to power, means that one is also
constituted as a medium of it. This implies that subjects have the position to resist and struggle,
for they too can change power relations.
iv.
Power
“Power invents, power creates, power produces. It produces
more than a law that forbids desire - it produces desire itself, power
induces and produces desire, power gives desire its objects, power indeed
is desirable. Power not only produces desire; to an e qual degree, and
this goes much farther, beyond the law that is imposed on the subject,
power produces the very form of the subject, it produces what makes up
the subject. The form the subject takes is precisely determined by power”
(Foucault, 1996d. p158)
Power is the central theme of Foucault’s work and what ties everything together. It is
what produces knowledge, but more importantly, it is also that which constrains us and allows us
to separate, privilege, and acknowledge certain discourses to be true - and others to be false. In
doing so, the discursive truths induce and extend power to individuals. This makes some to be
considered as authorities who are the more knowledgeable and must be abided by, and the rest to
28
be subordinates who must be governed. Nevertheless, all of them are still subjects to power and
power is exerted upon them; they exercise it and may even be consumed by it.
a. Disciplinary and bio-power
In Foucault’s earlier work, he accepted the traditional conception of power as being
essentially a legal mechanism which forbids, excludes and rejects. However, in Discipline and
Punish (Foucault, 1991), he asserts that power is not primarily used in terms of law, but in
terms of technology: tactics and strategies. These mechanisms are what he calls ‘disciplinary
power’.
Using disciplinary power, the sovereign no longer polices our actions through spectacle
- graphic and torturous bodily punishments, such as the public beheading when committing a
crime. Our society now utilizes surveillance and internal training to incite reformation instead.
In this way, power being exercised on us becomes hidden and highly more effective, for it no
longer simply targets our bodies but our conscience and our souls. Thus, if disciplinary
measures are done right, power is not imposed on us - but we willingly accept it. We then
become passive subjects that participate in discursive practices; such as normalization and etc.
As he was writing his genealogical narrative on History of Sexuality (1978), Foucault
found that this negative, repressive and interdicting nature of disciplinary power was not
enough to explain why we have ethics regarding our sexuality. Consequently, he labels a new
type of power which is ‘bio-power’, a “somatic power that is itself a network from which
sexuality is born as a historical and cultural phenomenon within which we both recognize and
lose ourselves.” (Foucault, 1996e, p. 209). Power then becomes positive and productive, by
conjuring up certain concepts like ethics and sexuality.
29
Sexuality, as referred by Foucault, is a historically constructed apparatus created to
regulate the biological body and control the population, in doing so it organizes power over
life. To regulate births, mortality, contraceptive practices, life expectancy and etc., bio-power
has allowed the production of knowledge out of the bodies of individuals; by their age, height,
weight, knowledge and sex among others. Then hiding this knowledge formation by deeming it
as an inherent aspect of the individual. This then allows individuals to be positioned in a variety
of subjects; ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘child’, ‘adult’, ‘student’, ‘teacher’ - with different ‘natural’
attributes.
Through this positioning, discourses secure an effective management of people.
However, this process is not entirely successful, for the very fact that we can be categorized in
multiple determinations provides possibilities of resistance to discourse. For example, in terms
of teaching about sexuality, teachers can be positioned as professionals who have proper
knowledge and act according to it. Instead, by acting ‘unprofessionally’ or being ‘bad’ teachers
they may begin to take risks and challenge dominant discourses, and
disrupt the power
relations they are a part of (Blaise & Andrew, 2005 ; Surtees, 2008).
b. Resistance
In order for change, Foucault encourages that we must first acknowledge that
everything is political. Even what we hold to be natural, such us our bodies and sex, is target to
power and regulation. Thus, it requires making the ‘cultural unconscious apparent’, and
untangling from the cultural gravity that holds us (Foucault, 1997a, p.73). To start questioning
our own confinement, what values are imposed on us, and what we hold to be moral or ethical.
30
In doing so, we may grasp the system of limits and exclusion we practice to others and to
ourselves, intentionally, or without realizing it.
However, one should remember that resistance is not exterior to power relations. For
Foucault, one can never be emancipated from the power relations one is in. Nonetheless, we
can alter and reinscribe power that would be more suitable to us. Furthermore, we can
challenge pervasive discourses and practices, by locating ourselves in alternative or
oppositional discourses.
Such an example is by using child-based knowledge or a postdevelopmental perspective
when addressing childhood sexuality. In her observations within a kindergarten classroom,
Blaise (2005, 2009) found that young children are taking an active part in constructing and
reconstructing their ideas of gender within the structure of the heterosexual matrix. When doing
gender performances such as girls playing with dolls, Blaise (2009) argues that this should not
be disregarded as a natural expression of girls being girls. More so, she encourages
practitioners to be curious of how children understand what it means to be a girl or a boy.
Therefore, practitioners may use proactive strategies to provoke children into raising new
questions regarding their understanding of femininity, masculinity, gender and their
surroundings.
Another alternative discourse can be based on the practitioners’ own reflection and
experiences. By having an action-research with early years practitioners, Taguchi (2008) as
well as the participants, were able to reflect on their taken-for-granted beliefs and familiar
practices, uncovering their biases based on children’s gender (among other things). This
realization then led them to re-conceptualize their pedagogical philosophy and practice. Vavrus
(2009) also recommends using teacher education whereby practitioners can construct their
31
identity based on their lived experiences with gender and sexuality, rather than the identity that
is imposed on them by the prevalent discourses.
B. Criticism of Foucault
Foucault’s concept of resistance and inescapable relations of power is what many regard
to be the most unsatisfactory element in his work. Wickham (2008) argues that this description
of power depicts a totalitarian ideology wherein individuals would be eternally and inevitably
governed. This way of reading Foucault can be seen in how some educational theorists have
portrayed social structures and schooling practices as absolute and oppressive (Wang, 2011).
By using Foucault, these theorists act as realists who teach us ways to cope, or liberators
revealing undisclosed practices. However, Foucault was neither a cynic, nor an emancipator.
As Wain (2004) points out, Foucault’s writings were not narratives of despair (for us to feel
hopeless) but neither that of hope (where, by using his analysis, one would be freed from the
confinements of governance). His narratives were of suspicion, to provide more possibilities to
question and reflect upon our societal mileux.
Rather than dwell on the “claustrophobic effects of power” (p. 105), Foucault’s idea of
subjectivity and the subject seems to be more interesting when used in an educational context,
especially in relation to teacher identity (Mayo, 2000). Through narrative accounts, one can not
only discuss the dominant power and discourses, but also highlight the agency of the subject.
This dual image of the subject is lacking in the research about ECEC practitioners’
perceptions and practices regarding childhood sexuality. In the majority of research I reviewed,
practioners were often portrayed as enforcers of authoritative truths, norms and standards.
Repeating and insisting this position of the practitioner can be counter-productive, for it may
32
sustain and reproduce the same practices and beliefs by discussing these through a ‘scientific’,
‘rational’ or ‘objective’ manner (Haywood, 2008).
Thus, as Haywood (2008) suggests, there is a need to conceptualise beliefs, practices,
and above all, power - outside familiar explanatory frameworks. Indeed, few have taken this
challenge, and have positioned practitioners or their participants as empowered agents that can
negotiate and challenge dominant discourses (Blaise, 2005, 2009; Taguchi, 2008; Vavrus;
2009). These studies have employed action-research and reciprocity in making their
participants voices heard. Though I am not able to include these methodological approaches in
my research, I will still adapt a view of participating practitioners as subjects who are not only
vehicles of dominant discourses. More importantly, as agents of change, willing to challenge
discourses and disrupt power relations.
C. Research aim and questions
In light of the above, this study utilised Foucauldian elements of discourse, discursive
practices, the subject and power - to view early childhood practitioners’ perceptions and
experience regarding childhood sexuality.
By making use of this perspective, it can be said that starting a conversation about
sexuality with practitioners working in ECEC institutions is not only a terrain for personal and
social enquiry, but may also be a platform where one can start exploring and interacting with
the pedagogy and discourses that are present within the culture; more so in professional field
itself (Sears, 1992). Thus in my study, practitioners’ statements will be viewed as not merely
their own unique and personal conceptions of the topic, neutral and free from any influence or
politics. Their statements are viewed as more profound and complex, and are closely analysed,
33
for they may reveal certain discourses that run through ECEC and, noticeably or clandestinely,
govern their actions with children. I also aim to show the productive functions of these truths,
how these allow practitioners to interpret their associations and experiences of childhood
sexuality. Conversely, I would like to propose an empowered role of the practitioner who is
engaged with these discourses, and deals with these certain sexually-related situations.
Upon reviewing literature regarding sexuality in ECEC, I found that the definition of
childhood sexuality is usually discussed in terms of gender. Sexual plays, genital curiosity and
so on, have seldom been viewed using a Foucauldian lens. For this reason, I have refrained
from using a strict definition of childhood sexuality. Instead, I asked my participants to offer
their own associations and definition of it. This not only shows their subjectivities, it also
allows multiple possibilities of definition, truths and meaning-making with regard to childhood
sexuality.
With these aims, the study will focus on these following questions:
1. In the early years setting, what are the associations and experiences practitioners
have in relation to children’s sexuality?
2. What are the practices practitioners use to address situations and/or issues
concerning children’s sexuality?
3. How do practitioners become subjects of discourses regarding childhood
sexuality?
4. What are the attitudes and opinions of early childhood practitioners on their role of
providing education on sexuality?
34
III.
Methodology
Studies on sexuality are commonly identified as sensitive in nature. For those who
choose to study this area, certain controversies and stigma may result to both the participants
and researchers (Poole, Giles & Moore, 2004). Thus, methodological sophistication and
cultural sensitivity is necessary to alleviate these challenges.
A. Sampling
In accordance with my aims, I employed a qualitative approach to sufficiently describe
and narrate the experiences and perceptions of early childhood practitioners regarding
sexuality. Qualitative research aims to convey the complexity of the topic by focusing more on
the depth rather than the breath of data. However this is only possible through limiting the
scope of the study and involving few participants (Denscombe, 2007). Hence, I decided to
gather seven practitioners working with early years children (aged five and below) through
non-probability, purposive sampling.
First and foremost, my intention in doing this was to attract participants that would be
interested in the topic, seeing as the topic is usually perceived as a sensitive one and that
participants may be asked to share their deeply-held beliefs. My second criterion was choosing
participants who were skilled communicators in English. Coming from a different cultural
background, I could only communicate with the Maltese participants through English. A certain
mastery of this language was needed for me to have a very clear understanding of what the
participants intended to say. Lastly, my third criterion was that the practitioners had to come
from varied early childhood settings in Malta. This was in order to see whether the ECEC
35
settings would provide different contexts to practitioners’ experiences, hence influencing their
beliefs and practice.
i.
ECEC in Malta
Malta has had some type of ECEC provision for almost a century, with some of its earlier
kindergartens being founded by various religious groups. Consequently, the participation rate of
children (within three to five years old) in an early years’ service is a staggering 93.5% (OECD,
2011). Currently, ECEC institutions in Malta can be categorized into church school, stateeducation, and independent private school.
As reported by Sollars, Attard, Borg and Craus (2006), church schools are among the
oldest ECEC provision in Malta. They work with children of kindergarten age up till four-year
old children, and design ‘pre-grade’ classes to prepare these children to enter formal education
within the same school system. State provision is free for all three to four-year olds, and aims to
provide relief for working mothers, as well as to offer educational opportunities for children
from lower socio-economic groups. Finally, are a number of small private ECEC providers that
also attend to children below three years. These have been created in response to parental
demand; for parents who are apprehensive about enrolling their children in a state school and yet
have failed to be drawn up in church schools. In the past, these ECEC provisions had their own
approaches. However, recently a national curriculum framework has been designed to regulate
their operation.
36
ii.
Participants of the study
I was able to interview seven practitioners from different ECEC provisions in Malta.
(Appendix A: General description of participants). The participants are all female with years of
experience ranging from one to almost three decades. Moreover, a majority of them have been
working for the same ECEC settings for long periods of time. One of the practitioners is standing
as a principal, while the rest have the position of kindergarten assistant. Most of these assistants
are enrolled at University of Malta, and are doing a degree on ECEC.
I will explain more about my participants, particularly with regard to their pedagogy, in
my results and discussion. I have chosen to give my participants aliases in order for their voices
to be distinct and personable, but at the same time safeguard anonymity and confidentiality.
B. Data collection
i.
Semi-structured interview
I have chosen to conduct 40–50 minute semi-structured interviews using an interview
schedule as a tool to gather a thorough understanding of ECEC practitioners. Semi-structured
interviews permit the researcher to probe on certain topics and thus gaining a more in-depth
account of participants’ experiences and perspectives. Also, it grants participants to direct the
flow of questions and answer in their own terms, which is appropriate when researching the
sensitive topic of sexuality. The flexibility of this method proved useful during the study since
it allowed me to react and adjust my questions according to the participants’ behaviors.
It was of utmost importance for the participants to be comfortable during the process of
the interview. Thus, I conducted the interviews at the time and location they preferred. With
their consent, I used an audio recorder and took notes of their behaviour throughout the
37
interviews to provide context and a richer description of data. These notes were then
incorporated when transcribing the interviews. Afterwards, a copy of the interview
transcription was electronically mailed to the participants so that they could amend it before the
analysis. Only two of the participants replied and edited their transcripts.
ii.
Interview schedule
The interview schedule underwent piloting. During this preliminary interview, I tested
whether the questions were well-defined and whether or not the participant could understand
them. This also allowed me to negotiate on the content of the questions based on the level of
comfort of the participant. Fortunately, I was able to keep my original questions. This is why I
included the pilot interview in my final data.
The interview schedule consisted of close-ended questions inquiring about participants’
personal, educational and professional backgrounds (Appendix B: Interview schedule).
However, the majority of the questions was open-ended, and encouraged the participants to
narrate and reflect. The questions first explore the participants’ initial associations and thoughts
on childhood sexuality. Then, participants were asked to share their experiences or encounters
wherein ‘a child or children expressed their sexuality’. If the participants could not recall any
past experiences, certain hypothetical scenarios were presented to them. The participants’
actions, opinions and attitudes regarding these scenarios were then explored. The questions also
inquired whether the practitioners felt empowered to deal with these types of scenarios, and
what their opinion was on the lack of dialogue regarding childhood sexuality. Finally, I asked
them on what they think about the current state of Malta in terms of issues in sexuality and
how, as early childhood practitioners, should they react to it.
38
I chose to do this line of questioning for the participants to be able to narrate past
scenarios, as well as to encourage them to critically reflect on their perceptions and practices
(Giugni, 2005, cited in Mac Naughton, 2005). I wanted the participants to narrate about their
experiences, for this reveals their dual position as promulgators of discourses in addition to
being subjects to it (Mayo, 2000). In recounting past events, practitioners could share stories of
how they have exercised discursive truths and practices to regulate children’s behaviors. As
they share these stories, they may then recognize how discourses also shape their
understandings and identities as ECEC practitioners.
While narrating, practitioners do not only dwell on the past, but at the same time they
can also reflect on these accounts in their current context. What they have felt in the past and
their rationale in dealing with their particular situations may be different and even contradictory
to what they may think in the present. In employing a postructural lens, such as Foucauldian, it
is accepted that humans’ way of seeking understanding is unstable, and our understandings and
perceptions have contextual specificity.
C. Data analysis
The participants’ statements were taken from their interview transcripts and coded into
themes. As recommended by Bazely (2009), the themes should be described, compared and
related to enrich coding. Thus to describe my results, I have decided to add a brief description
of the participants and some of my interview notes. In doing so, I felt that my analysis became
richer and I could also explore “why, at a given time, out of all the possible things that could be
said, only certain things were said” (Ball, 1990a, p. 3). These themes were then analysed by
identifying critical points in the perspectives of the practitioners, and then reviewing them
39
according to Foucault’s elements of discourse, discursive practices, the subject and power.
Finally, these were related to past literature on childhood sexuality.
Certainly, it is my voice as the researcher that is heard in the process of analysis. I must
acknowledge that my own values, opinions and beliefs are intertwined on the discussion of data
(Denscombe, 2007). I too am a subject of discourse and part of a power relation, one of which
is between participant and researcher. It is through my subjectivities and knowledge that
participants and their statements are described.
D. Limitations
There are a number of methodological limitations present in a small-scale qualitative
research. Firstly, the sample size is not enough to be representative of the population. However,
it is important to note that this kind of study is discovery-oriented and only aims to delve into a
relatively unexplored content area of sexuality in the early years. Thus, the findings for this
study are not necessarily intended to be generalizable.
In addition to this, I was not able to validate the information shared by the practitioners
regarding their attitudes and practices due to time constraints. Observation and daily logs would
have been greatly beneficial to confirm and triangulate the data I have acquired from the
interviews.
Lastly, the interpretation of the data is subject to my own biases and knowledge. For
example, I come from a different cultural background which means that I may have a different
understanding of the cultural codes on practitioners’ reported attitudes and practices. Though, I
have attempted to eliminate this limitation by consistently clarifying my understandings of the
participants’ statements during their interviews.
40
E. Ethics
Using the concept of ethics in my study seems awkward for the fact that I am using
Foucault’s work. Foucault problematized the very nature of ethics and portrayed it as a social
apparatus of governance.
I do not necessarily intend to exclude myself from research ethics in my usage of
Foucault. However, I do wish to exercise ethics through reflexive practice, rather than a ‘moral’
or ‘professional’ obligation. In doing so, it gives ethics more depth and can encompass not only
the cultural, institutional and professional rules. It also can include the particular realities of the
people involved in the research.
In terms of the ethics wherein I am conducting my study, I recognize that discussing
about childhood sexuality can incite stigma not only to participants, but also for those who hear
about this study. To prevent this, I designed my study and questions to abide by cultural codes
of Malta and the research ethics of the University of Malta. Furthermore, I sent my participants
the consent form and interview schedule before the interviews.
The consent form provides adequate information for participants to understand the
research and enlighten them with the risks and level of commitment it entails (Denscombe,
2009). Amongst the important information in the consent form is that the participants may
withdraw their consent at any point during the research. Furthermore, they will be given a
chance to review the transcript of their interview before analysis.
Lastly, although
confidentiality and anonymity will be safeguarded this will be done “without jeopardizing the
integrity of the data and the quality of the researcher’s analysis” (Denscombe, 2009, p. 66). For
41
example, if the age or the type of ECEC setting was seen to influence their opinion on
sexuality; then it is the researcher’s role to bring out this finding.
The interview schedule presents the majority of the questions that were asked in the
interview. Nevertheless, since I was conducting semi-structured interviews, I needed to ask
some impromptu questions. I could not avoid encountering some ‘sticky’ situations, though I
tried to prevent it. In order to solve these, I had to alter my way of questioning for some of the
participants. Such as what I did when one participant told me at the start of the interview that
she is a relatively conservative person and is not comfortable with talking about sexuality. I
decided to use more ‘politically-correct’ language by citing penis and vagina as just “genital
area”. This ‘in-the-moment’ ethics really intrigued me in this research and encouraged me to
reflect on my research approach and design, but even more so, on my position as a researcher.
Researcher positioning is taking up an ethical stance. (Flanagan, 2013). This entails
being aware of how your identity and position as a researcher has ultimately a bearing on the
participants and the study. First and foremost, I am a female, in my twenties, and who is of a
different nationality compared to my participants. I should be attentive to how my gender,
limited professional experience, and cultural background position me in my research, and how I
am positioned by the participants.
Indeed, my position as a researcher in this study already creates a power disparity
between the participating practitioners and I. Typically, the distribution of power in the
research situation “is weighted in favour of the researcher” (Poole et al., 2004, p.82). I only
employed interview as a data collection method, and this approach does not allow much
reciprocity. I was the one determining which questions to be asked and how the interviews
could be conducted. Participants may see their position as simply a source of information
42
which is subject to my judgment. Consequently, they may be reluctant to be completely honest
when giving their responses. Therefore, I must also accept that even though honesty is valued,
it must be calculated against the participants’ benefit.
However, the dynamics operating in a research relationship are complex and factors
such as my gender, the difference in years of experience and nationality may balance the power
disparity between the participants and I. The practitioners may place me as merely genuinely
interested in the topic and of their experiences and culture, which truly is my intention.
Another aspect of my research that I want to reflect on, although it comes after the
completion of the study, is how my findings will be represented. Malta is a small country,
where certain statements or outcomes of the study can circulate in a short quantity of time.
Therefore, it can be sensationalized or misinterpreted, and create damaging effects to the
participants and the children in their stories. This is why, I urge readers to view this study in a
larger context, more than the participants, the children, and me as a researcher. Though we are
having a dialogue about personal experiences and perceptions, I mean to explore and
investigate with the pervasive and dominant discourses that exist within the professional field
and culture.
As I have discussed in the methodology, there are certainly some complexities when
studying childhood sexuality. Still, it is a priority of mine to ensure the integrity of the study by
exercising ethics through reflection.
43
IV.
Results and discussion
A. The process of the study
Conducting a study on childhood sexuality in Malta has proven to be quite an
interesting endeavor. Although I expected that it would be challenging to gather participants, it
was fairly unproblematic, and I found seven practitioners who were very willing to share their
thoughts and experiences. Nevertheless, some practitioners were worried on whether or not
they could contribute to the study. Some reasoned that it is a topic they have not really
pondered on since it is considered a taboo in their Catholicised culture. Furthermore, it is a
subject matter that has not been directly addressed in their education and training.
At the start of the interviews, the participants noted that they have not reflected on this
aspect of childhood and its relevance to their profession. Certainly, this suggests that children’s
sexuality has become an overlooked and taken-for-granted concept in the professional field of
ECEC in Malta. Thus, this makes it highly important to take heed of this topic, and critically
reflect on what its actual implications are in the early years setting. By using the Foucauldian
elements of discourse, discursive practices, subject and power, we may then be able to uncover
the ‘naturalised’ truths that construct the knowledge, and govern the actions of practitioners
working with children. Moreover, we may explore how the identities of these practitioners are
created and supervised by seemingly unbiased discourses. Finally, we may discover the power
relations present within the ECEC institutions that practitioners participate in.
B. Childhood sexuality according to the practitioners’ experiences
In this part of my thesis, I will discuss the perceptions and experiences of ECEC
practitioners in relation to childhood sexuality. They are categorized based on the topics that
44
the participants brought up during the interviews, from the most commonly acknowledged
aspects of sexuality; such as gender, to what is usually considered as a more private matter;
such as probable cases of sexual abuse. Each category of childhood sexuality is grounded to a
single story by one of the practitioners, so that I could dissect the narratives better. Moreover,
this allowed me to familiarize myself with the practitioners and their perceptions, in a way that
brings out certain discourses which may be informing their knowledge of childhood sexuality.
i.
Gender
The most common aspect of children’s sexuality that the practitioners discussed was
gender. They elaborately talked on how the child identifies and expresses one’s gender. They
also spoke about their role in helping one realize this important facet of their identity.
“The first thing that comes to my mind is defining oneself, whether the child
knows if he's a boy or a girl.” (Jenny, Interview Transcript, May 05, 2013).
The excerpt above comes from Jenny, an ECEC practitioner in a church school. She has
been teaching in the same school for almost a decade, and has mostly taught three to four year
olds. However, she plans on having a change for the next school year, since she feels that
working with this age group can sometimes be demanding.
Jenny tells me that she touches on gender during the first term, when she tackles the
topic of ‘Myself’ with children. “Just to make them aware whether they know if they can
classify themselves as a boy or a girl. Sometimes, I meet children that they don't know.”
45
She sees discussing gender as significant, because it helps young children to understand
themselves better. Furthermore, it eases them into the gender-classified rules and routines of
the school setting. For instance, Jenny orients boys on which restroom is the appropriate one
for them to use. In another case, she encourages girls the ‘proper’ way of sitting when she sees
them playing with their skirts and exposing their undergarments.
Jenny sees gender as an integral part of a child’s identity. She believes that by making
children realize they are gendered is also a way of supporting their self-actualization. This
reflects a child-centered discourse, whereby the child’s uniqueness and well-being is prioritized
by the practitioner (Baker, 1998). However, the topic of discussing sexuality through gendered
expectations in school leads me to ask whether Jenny is truly catering to the individuality of
each child.
“Defining themselves”, as Jenny puts it, at first appears to be an internal revelation of
children, wherein they can freely choose on how to identify themselves and their gender.
However, when Jenny juxtaposes it to gendered school rules and rituals this statement conjures
up another meaning. Children can define themselves, but only by being ‘gendered children’,
namely, by acting and behaving based on the expectations and preexisting binary categories of
gender. Value is placed on producing children who become, and act recognizably, as either a
male or female. Moreover, when children are categorized based on their gender, it then makes
it more effective to govern their actions, and inculcate them to the rules and system of school.
Thus, it can be interpreted that by privileging gender and following the child-centered
discourse, Jenny is in a way, controlling, disciplining, and molding children’s actions based on
their gender and the school’s expectations.
46
ii.
Role Playing
While discussing gender, some practitioners brought up instances where children
shifted gender roles during play, specifically in the role-play area, where home-related or
arguably feminine-related items are present. The practitioners were casually speaking of these
occurrences.
“Once there was a boy who used to wear costume jewelry that he found in the
role play area. It was during my early years of teaching, I believe. I do have boys
who play in this area, they play with dolls and pushchairs... The episode only
occurred once.” (Elaine, Interview Transcript, May, 15, 2013)
Aside from being a grandmother, Elaine has been working for a state school for almost
three decades. Her class consists of five year olds whom she has been with for almost two
years. She personally requested to have this kind of arrangement because it helps her in
building deeper and trusting relations not only with the children, but with the parents as well.
Besides this, it also allows her to fully get to know the children she is working with.
Elaine believes in informing her pedagogy with knowledge of her students. She also
testifies to following the child-centered perspective on play, that it is a venue for enrichment of
emotional experience, creative thinking and experimentation (Lillard et. al, 2012; Whitebread
& Jameson, 2005). With regard to the anecdote she narrated, she explains that it is normal for
boys to play with dolls and pushchairs for they may just be testing and trying on feminine roles.
She sees children passing through phases to get to know themselves, and this is why she
47
wanted to mention and emphasize that these occurrences may happen, more importantly - they
may also happen just once.
What struck me regarding Elaine’s statement was this obvious justification of children
going through an experimentation phase. Other participants who shared similar stories were
also quick to point out that these were just child’s play, an imitation or a passing phase. It
seems to me that these statements are merely a façade or an evasion for how the situation is
really being judged- a peculiarity from the norm. The practitioners’ frameset for the normal
sexual behavior of children is still in the matrix of heterosexuality (Blaise, 2005; Gunn, 2011).
In Elaine’s case, I believe that the boys have been subject to the normalizing judgment the
moment they touched these considered feminine items. What makes their behaviour acceptable
for now is due to Elaine’s child-centered perspective on experimental play. The same thing
occurred with the practitioners in Gunn’s (2011) study, but rather than using the idea of cultural
masculinity, Elaine uses the child-centered perspective to acknowledge the dress preference of
the child, and at the same time, being able to retain her notions of masculinity and
heteronormativity. Nonetheless, the child-centered truth about play stops Elaine from really
questioning the situation and reflecting how she is judging these children.
iii.
Genitalia
Another common thread in the practitioners’ interviews is the children’s discovery of
their own genitalia. One of the narratives comes from Deborah who is a principal in an
independent play school. With her two decades of experience in the field, she has worked in
numerous types of ECEC provision in Malta and overseas. She believes that pedagogical
philosophy and knowledge of stages of development are fundamental to becoming an early
48
childhood educator. Thus, everything that transpires between teachers and children should
have meaning and rationale.
At the start of the interview, Deborah explains that children are not yet exposed to
expressing themselves sexually. It is only when they get older that they start becoming lucid
about their sexuality, and identify their feminine or masculine attributes. In spite of this belief,
Deborah unknowingly shares some of the encounters she had with young children expressing
their sexuality later on in the interview.
Monique: “Have you heard children talk about their genitalia? What do they call
them?”
Deborah: “Not really, no. (thinks again) It was funny last year, actually two
years ago, we had a boy and the parents used to come and tell me. It was
cute. The mother said to me 'So and so said to me, Mommy my willy is
hurting now and I need to take off my nappy or I need to go and see the
doctor because there's no more room in my underwear' with a serious
note... He's becoming aware of his growth and the changes.”
(Deborah, Interview Transcript, April 14, 2013)
Deborah’s conception of childhood sexuality follows the developmental discourse
where children grow in stages, and age predisposes their needs and abilities (Wooodhead,
1999). Her adherence to this discourse has created a belief of ‘presexual children’, or children
unaware of their sexuality, and made her somehow omit and overlook certain experiences she
had.
49
At first she considered the narrative of the young boy talking about his genitalia as
simply amusing, because she found it quite unusual to hear a child talk about this topic in a
‘matured’ manner. But after telling this story, she then realized that this narrative can also be
considered a product of learning and development, for the child could distinguish the change
and growth of his body. In a way, this scenario now had a higher value because it fitted to her
beliefs and the developmental discourse.
Like Deborah, other practitioners have also expressed that they seldom hear young
children talk about their genitalia. Then again, when children do inquire about or compare their
genitalia to other children, practitioners try to acknowledge these statements because they
consider it to be natural for young children to be curious about their bodies. However,
practitioners try to avoid a lengthy discussion about it and just give a simple response to their
inquiries.
‘Ok’ or ‘You’re just different.’ are what they deemed to be the most appropriate way of
dealing with children at this age, because providing a more detailed answer may be too
complicated for young children to comprehend. This may be the result of maintaining a
developmental discourse. Young children are thus regarded to be too immature to understand
such a topic. Furthermore, it dictates practitioners such as Deborah into not taking the
children’s curiosity of their genital area seriously.
iv.
Pregnancy
The topic of pregnancy was something that practitioners also associated with childhood
sexuality. They disclosed a number of stories wherein children were talking about the
50
pregnancies of their mothers and their close relatives, and the practitioners’ reaction was one of
amusement, or indifference to say the least, with these instances during the interviews.
One of these stories came from Elaine, that of a girl imitating her mother’s pregnancy
and delivery while playing doctors with her classmates.
“One time they were playing doctors and she lay down on two chairs and made
one boy wear a white shirt as if he was wearing a lab coat, he was the doctor. She
told him 'Now you have to get the medicine box'. She put her top up and showed
her tummy, 'Now you must examine my tummy', like the ultrasound. At that instant
I asked her, 'What are you doing?' and she replied ' 'Cause I've been to the
hospital with mummy and the doctor did this to her’. She had a baby sister only a
few weeks before this episode. She must have accompanied her mother on one of
the routine visits to hospital… Then she told him 'Now you have to get the saw
and take the baby out'. I realized that her mother must have had a caesarian.
When I related the story to her mother, the latter confirmed that she had told the
child that she had a caesarian and stiches…While role playing, this girl fed her
doll as if she was breastfeeding. She pulled her tracksuit top and remained with
the undervest one. She was pretending to be her mother feeding her baby sister.”
(Elaine, Interview Transcript, May, 15, 2013)
Besides this, Elaine mentions that other girls in class also started pretending to
breastfeed their dolls after seeing this girl. She merely allows them do this, since she considers
it natural for children to know about pregnancy and taking care of infants. In fact, she has gone
51
to formally tackling it when the learning assistant of the class became pregnant and children
started asking questions about her pregnancy. So she simply tried to answer their questions by
reading the children’s book, There is a house inside my Mummy by Giles Andreare.
In her statements, I can see that Elaine was quite confident to take on the role of
enlightening children with the topic of pregnancy, without even consulting parents. This
easiness in discussing pregnancy with relation to childhood sexuality was reported by other
practitioners as well. Pregnancy was regarded as a very common phenomenon in children’s
lives and thus practitioners accepted the task of teaching it. Nonetheless, it must be noted that
practitioners specifically mentioned pregnancy as a process in a mother’s body rather than a
product of a reproductive process between a man and a woman. This made me wonder why
practitioners would be so open to talk about pregnancy with children and limit it to a
procreative process in a mother’s body. I contend that this can be an impression of the truths
and beliefs of the Catholic Church in Malta
The Church preaches of the idealism and sanctity of procreation (Paul VI, 1968). With
the Catholic church being so open to talk about procreation, then it may also explain why the
Maltese ECEC practitioners found the topic to be naturally related to children’s concept of
sexuality. Furthermore, when children are curious about pregnancy, practitioners may take this
opportunity to introduce the image of the ‘Catholic child’ and indoctrinate them to the concept
of pregnancy that reflects the Catholic belief belonging to the prevalent culture.
v.
Masturbation
I would like to move from a topic that practitioners were so receptive and pleasant
towards, to other topics related to childhood sexuality, where the general tone of the interviews
52
became somewhat darker and more cautious. These topics are those of children physically
exploring their bodies (or masturbation and fondling), and reported cases of child abuse.
There was a stark difference when practitioners started disclosing stories of children
touching their genital area or masturbating, as compared to a more self-assured and open stance
when sharing stories of children talking about pregnancy. In this case, they were highly wary
and somewhat uneasy when they talked about children touching themselves. It was as if they
were revealing something that should not be talked about. All of them were careful to make
sure to protect the identity of the child, by assuring that their own identities would also be
safeguarded.
Marjorie was one of these practitioners who made sure that her story would not be
traceable to the child involved. Marjorie is a mother of two boys and has fifteen years of
experience as a practitioner in an independent play school. She describes herself as
conservative who abides to traditional values and beliefs. Due to this, Marjorie found it quite
difficult to open up during our dialogue of childhood sexuality. Even so, she managed to share
an experience of hers when she was dealing with a four year old boy who had consistently been
fondling himself during storytelling time.
“(exhales and smiles). Ehhhmmm…. Because every time in storytelling, I used to
tell them 'Children get your cushions. It's story time' and for this boy it meant
putting the cushion on his genital area and move the cushion up and down... I
used to tell him 'Listen, it's ok, it's fine but we do it at home where it's more
private. You know, like not here.' We talked with the parents once and again
(seems apologetic) it's because we're Maltese citizens, it's sometimes awkward to
53
talk about it.”(Marjorie, Interview Transcript, May 09, 2013)
Marjorie told me she was caught unaware in this situation, for she did not expect this to
happen in the public sphere of the school. Accordingly, she did what she honestly believed to
be the best thing to do; she stopped the actions of the child and explained to him that what he is
doing should only be done at home.
I felt her anxiety of not knowing what to do during that situation, also in revisiting and
talking about it. As she explains, this topic is not something that is openly talked about in their
culture. In this case, childhood masturbation then becomes an occurrence that is just kept
hidden. However, rendering sexual situations as overtly private matters obstructs honest
discussions from taking place (Davies & Robinson, 2010). Thus, situations like these seem
more problematic, especially for the people involved; the child and the teacher.
I found that the practitioners who bore these stories were anxious about dealing with the
acts of children masturbating, and even in sharing these stories. It was as if the practitioners had
no authority at all in this uncharted territory, and all that they could just do was to just stop the
child. For Marjorie, it was a very personal aspect of child’s sexuality that should be dealt with
at home. Hence, these types of stories are not talked about in the Maltese ECEC, and in a way,
the children’s voices in these situations are silenced.
I would like to explore why practitioners like Marjorie would conceal these stories.
More importantly, why would they separate the school and home environment by adamantly
penalizing it at school, but suggesting that it should be done at home. If I try to answer these
questions, using the code of morals or civility, then the answer would be plain and simple; it is
not acceptable behaviour in public. Public ridicule, as well as state law, will also prevent these
54
children from performing this behaviour in public when they eventually become adults.
However, if one tries to remove oneself from the cultural gravity (Foucault, 1997a), then one
can see that there are no real prohibitions to control how teachers should manage this behavior
in ECEC institutions. Thus, this line of thought that is stopping them from fully tackling this
behavior (by talking about it with the child and sharing about their encounters) is something
they impose on themselves.
In reading the statements practitioners made in this study, one can interpret that they are
repressing a certain aspect of the child’s sexuality. However, one can also argue that the fact
that they label certain behaviors (such as masturbation) to be an inappropriate sexualexpression at school means that the topic itself is not totally put into silence. In a way, it is only
being placed or confessed in another context, which is at home. This illusion of sexual
repression, especially in the western culture, is what Michel Foucault had discussed (Foucault,
1978)
Using Foucault’s concept of confession, it can be interpreted that the participant’s
wariness in speaking about the masturbation of children might exist because the practitioners
feel that they are not the right people who should confess about it. The person who must
confess it is the child and the people whom the act must be confessed to are the parents, and by
some means this is what they are doing. By separating the school and telling children that it
would be better done at home, they are in a way reinforcing the image of the ‘confessing child’,
who must perform or confess this behavior to one’s parents. In doing so, the practitioners
silence the voice of the child regarding this in the context of ECEC. Moreover, they do not take
accountability in this situation and try to reflect on what may be the possible consequences of
their practices and actions on the child’s well-being.
55
vi.
Sexual abuse
The final type of story that practitioners shared was of children’s expression of
sexuality that may be an indication of sexual abuse. Lucy, who has been working for almost
three decades in a state school, recounted a number of stories which she considered related to
this. She maintained a very serious tone, and was also lowering here voice as if she was saying
a secret while telling her stories. One story was of a girl showing her genitalia to her male
classmates.
“She started gathering the boys around her and pulling her pants down. She was
doing it frequently. Really frequently and I was getting really worried. And then
her mother came and she said that the boys were touching her and that she saw
blood. And I told her 'No, this isn't happening. She is pulling down her pants and
that's it.' The boys just watched and they will be shouting, 'Oh no, she’s pulling
down her pants!” (Lucy, Interview Transcript, May 13, 2013)
Lucy thought this situation to be highly unusual, for the girl’s behavior showed the
intent of malice. Not only did the girl expose herself, but she was also telling it differently to
her mother. Based on her experience, this uncharacteristic expression of sexuality can be
related to sexual abuse, and so Lucy wanted to find out whether this was the case.
“Once I was talking to her, I began talking about home, if she's a good girl at
home and she said her father sometimes beats her. If he takes her to the field then
56
he'll kill her. She mentioned her sister's boyfriend and that he washes her and that
he kisses her. But she shouldn't kiss him on the lips. That really got me worried
(whispers) and I reported it.” (Lucy, Interview Transcript, May 13, 2013)
Once it is reported, as Lucy explains to me, a case is kept confidential and she cannot
intervene. The practitioner then just becomes the narrator and messenger of the story to
authorities who have the position and capability to do anything about it, such as assistant heads
of the schools. For these probable sexual abuse cases, practitioners are prevented from really
tackling the child’s behavior directly, and confronting the child or the parents about it.
As with the stories of children masturbating, stories of children in probable sexual cases
should be told in a proper context. This time it should and must be divulged and confessed only
to appropriate authority. The other authorities must intervene and do what they deem to be the
appropriate procedure for the child. Even though the encounter initially transpired between the
child and teacher, the practitioner cannot do anything but keep themselves silent in the chain of
procedure of the rightful authorities. Now in this situation, it is not only the child’s voice that is
hushed, but also the teacher’s.
I do not think it is unwise for other authorities to intervene; certainly, they must if the
child’s safety is at risk. However, I would just like for early years practitioners, in general, to
acknowledge that this matter is not only for other authorities. They too are part of it for they
can see its effects when they work with these children. However, do they even give themselves
a chance to reflect on these instances and question the modus operandi, think for a moment to
talk with the child and ask what she or he might be feeling? Or do they even take in
57
consideration that child abuse is something they have to talk about regarding childhood
sexuality for it may be the dark and grave reality of some children?
During my interviews with practitioners regarding childhood sexuality, I came to
understand that certain perceptions on what they constitute as aspects of it and what related
experiences they may have had. As it appears, some aspects of sexuality were given more
attention and somehow have been privileged by ECEC practitioners, particularly those that deal
with the child’s actualization of one’s gender, shifting gender roles during play, and learning
about pregnancy. Teachers deemed these as common and natural occurrences in a child’s
sexuality. In doing so, they have molded children into the images of the ‘gendered child’,
‘presexual’ child and the ‘Catholic child’ which are created due to the influence of the
dominant discourses of child-centeredness, developmental psychology, and the Catholicism in
ECEC in Malta.
Overall, teachers held the view of children as innocent. Even though they reported
accounts where children were fondling with themselves or exhibiting sexual behaviors that may
be related to sexual abuse, practitioners managed to employ the image of the ‘confessing child’
in order to preserve their subscription to the hegemonic discourses of ‘innocent children’ in the
context of ECEC. Therefore, I would like to bring forth alternative images of children and these
are the ‘masturbating child’ and ‘abused child’, doing so may help practitioners recognize
actual realities of children that dominant discourses do not pertain to. As well as, to encourage
practitioners to reflect on the regulatory practices they are part of that exclude these images of
children.
58
C. Practices regarding childhood sexuality
Looking at how teachers employ the dominant images of childhood and their associated
discursive truths in their practices reveals the political aspect of discourses (Gore, 1998; Mac
Naughton, 2005).
Normalisation as discussed by Flanagan (2010) can be seen in some practitioners’
statements on how they generalise young children to be innocent, unaware of their sexuality or
their innability express it. When children act deviant to these behaviors, it was considered by
the participants in this study as unproblematic or difficult. In the situation where the young boy
talked about his growing penis, it was simply perceived by Deborah as amusing. Whereas,
children fondling with themselves or acting more sexual compared to the normative beliefs of
practitioners were treated as difficult scenarios that needed special practices. However, as
Flanagan (2010) reminds practitioners, they should explore other possibilities and stories
behind children’s actions when they do not act according to what is considered normal.
Totalisation becomes present too with how some practitioners socialize children into
acting based on the matrix of heterosexuality (Blaise, 2005; Gunn, 2011). Like other
practitioners in other studies (Hogan 2012), Jenny assumes gender as uncomplicated for it is
something biological and natural and so she employs practices that make children gendered.
However, in doing this Jenny may also be reinforcing gender stereotypes and inequalities. Thus
rather than viewing gender as biological and an innate aspect of a child, gender can be
perceived more as a performance of children wherein children are constructing and
reconstructing their understanding of masculinity and femininity (Blaise, 2005; Martin,2011).
So if boys do play with costume jewelry, like in Deborah’s account, practitioners may see this
as an avenue to explore children’s and their own understandings of gender rather than
59
dismissing these situations and not dwelling on the practitioner’s preconceived notions of
children.
Even though, heteronomativity was seen as underlying in some practices of the
participants in the study, these are far from the homophobic issues that Duke and McCarthy’s
(2009) gathered in their literature. The practitioners in this study may not be even aware that
they have a heteronormative standard because it is so entrenched in ECEC in Malta.
Finally, exclusion became apparent when children acted in what was considered to be
uncommon sexual behaviors. These involve fondling or masturbation and behaviors possibly
related to sexual abuse. It became clear that through the discursive apparatus of confession,
these possible aspects and realities of childhood sexuality were considered as familial matters
by the practitioners and thus are omitted in the everyday setting of ECEC.
In light of the above, it leads me to ask whether practitioners are aware of how they are
governing children’s actions and for whose benefit is it. Is it really solely for the benefit of the
children? In exercising discursive practices such as normalization, totalisation and exclusion,
do practitioners really aim to create docile bodies that would be useful to the motives of the
state? Furthermore, as a question raised by Robison (2012), do practitioners genuinely intend
for these children to just ultimately grow up as heterosexual, modest, decent adult citizens?
Maybe practitioners do not even give themselves the chance to reflect on the possible
meanings, implications and consequences of their actions on children with relation to sexuality
for they too have fallen in the trap of the panopticon (Foucault, 1991) and have become
subjects of the discourses they follow?
60
D. The practitioner as a subject
“Sometimes, I was asking myself ‘Am I doing the right thing or not? Who am I to
stop him doing something that he wants to do? Who am I?’” (Marjorie, Interview
Transcript, May 09, 2013)
When confronted with the young boy constantly fondling with himself, Marjorie had to
question her role as a practitioner. She told me that she needed to research more about this
topic, consult some of her colleagues and other professionals; such as a psychologist. These
individuals have given her the same advice, that this behavior is unnatural for a boy this age
and it should be stopped.
As it appears, when Marjorie encountered what she deemed to be an unusual situation,
she felt it necessary to gain further insight, knowledge and truth- not only of the situation but as
of her role in it. Therefore, she saw the truths that were offered by what she considered more
knowledgeable than herself as more credible, and their advice and support made her actions
and rationale more legitimate. In doing so, she has somehow allowed these truths to govern not
only her actions, but also the child’s behavior since she has enforced these truths in the early
years setting.
Certainly I found in this study that there are explicit discursive technologies and
techniques that govern the practitioners’ actions and practices regarding childhood sexuality. At
the same time, they too have imbibed the truths of the discourses mentioned before and are
implicitly disciplining themselves.
61
i.
Explicit discursive techniques
When I asked Francesca if she can talk about sexuality with the children in her class,
she responds that it is just not possible since her class of five-year olds have a strict curriculum
to follow.
“No, these things no. In the curriculum, because we have a strict curriculum and
we must go with it. So unless it's written, I don't discuss them... I've done body
parts like legs, arms, face. Those things, yes we've done them. But pregnancy and
stuff like this, no.” (Francesca, Interview Transcript, May 20, 2013)
In this case, the curriculum becomes a discursive technology that turns Francesca into a
technician who only teaches certain aspects of sexuality based on the outcomes and
prescription of the curriculum. It should be mentioned that Francesca is in her first year of
teaching and may not have the position yet to question and bend the curriculum. Still, even a
practitioner in a higher position such as Deborah, who is a principal, thinks that one must
follow the curriculum and focus more on academic and cognitive skills. “This is not a topic
that is appropriate by now. There are other things that the child should be exposed to.” She
makes it appear that discussing sexuality with children would not be worthwhile and would not
be beneficial for their development and learning.
Other explicit discursive techniques that practitioners feel that control their actions are
the surveillance and reaction of parents. Same as in the panopticon, practitioners are very
careful in how they deal with sexuality for the fear of the observing gaze and judgment of the
parents on their practice (Tobin, 2001).
62
Lucy, who appeared to be the most confident and open-minded of the participants, also
expressed hesitance in teaching sexuality with children because of their parents. Like the early
years practitioners in Tobin’s (2001) study, Lucy feared that her actions may be refracted when
children narrate it to their parents.
“I would be taking a risk (giggles) because the children would go and tell their
mothers and maybe there would be a fuss. It's the only reason I would be very
careful for how I would speak.” (Lucy, Interview Transcript, May 13, 2013)
Likewise, Jenny has more than five years of experience and is still worried of the
watchful eye of the parents especially when they are in the classroom. She even considers
changing that way she have dealt with some situations in the past if parents were present; such
as with boys playing with feminine clothes.
“For example, if I had parents in the classroom and while the children are
playing, I wouldn't be confident letting them…I wouldn't be that confident,
because most probably they would say she's letting him play with it. I can't be
sure but there's a big percentage that most parents wouldn't like it.” (Jenny,
Interview Transcript, May 05, 2013)
Definitely for the participants, the sexuality of children is a sensitive area and tackling it
would be a huge and complicated responsibility for an ECEC practitioner. It may create
tensions with parents that they may not necessarily need and want. According to Deborah, even
63
if practitioners had good intentions in talking about sexual matters with children, they might
just find themselves being wrongly accused by parents. Parents will just question their intent
and challenge their authority on how the children should be raised.
“I would say that is your business. Basically, I feel, whatever happens at home
happens at home... We tell them what we do here and encourage them to follow
up with what we do, but we don't instruct the parent how to be a parent or how to
parent their child. Especially when it comes to this.” (Deborah, Interview
Transcript, April 14, 2013)
The boundaries of educational institutions and the family regarding sexuality education
are becoming blurred. The fact that there is the probability for practitioners to discuss sexuality
in the early years proves this. However, I have found in this study that institutional risk
aversion, as well as the fear of overstepping into the responsibilities of the parents, prevents
practitioners from bringing up sexuality in ECEC. This is unfortunate because as reported in
the studies of Davies and Robinson (2010) and Stone et al. (2012), parents are also not as open
to discussing sexuality with their children at home for the fear of being judged by others.
Consequently, both parties may be apprehensive in having dialogues regarding sexuality with
children. Thus, it might be useful for practitioners to be open and truthful to the parents
regarding what they think about the sexuality and the behaviors of children and work together
to address these. In doing so, practitioners and parents may also learn to overcome their
anxieties and paranoia with this aspect of the children’s identity.
64
Be that as it may, some practitioners in this study commented that opening up the topic
related to sexuality in the early years is possible if they had a more trusting and open
relationship with parents. They would be more comfortable in narrating to parents about a
sexual expression of their child if they know the parents well and can gauge their reaction.
“If I feel confident with the parent, I would just openly say ' Yeah, little
Johnny...uhhhmm... was extra happy today... using his hands' and see their
reaction would be...you have to know the parent. If you have a parent who is more
reserve and very, you know (sharply inhales) close-minded, you would probably
think twice. They might take it the wrong way. So you have to be very very careful
on how it's said and done.” (Deborah Interview Transcript, April 14, 2013)
As reported by the practitioners, the majority of them would feel more confident in
dealing with situations regarding childhood sexuality if they know that parents would be
supporting them. Thus, other than the colleagues and other professionals, I found that parents
too can be considered authorities that may validate, dictate and police practitioners’ actions
when it comes to childhood sexuality.
I should also mention that all practitioners I have interviewed are women; some are
even mothers and grandmothers. This may explain why they do make a clear distinction on
what are the tasks of an ECEC practitioner and the responsibilities of parent.
65
ii.
Implicit disciplining techniques
When I asked the participants whether they felt that they were constrained to deal with
childhood sexuality as they saw fit, it was interesting to find out that most of them felt that
there were no direct prohibitions for them. Then they proceeded by explaining that this may not
always be the case, since other types of ECEC provisions might be more restrictive.
Some mentioned that it might be harder in state schools for they may have a rigid
curriculum, while most mentioned that church schools’ traditions, values and beliefs can be a
huge obstacle for such a provocative topic. However, in interviewing practitioners from
different ECEC provisions, I discovered that practitioners’ actions with regard to childhood
sexuality, for the most part, are controlled by themselves. They have learned to discipline
themselves according to their professional ‘ethics’ and by handling sexuality based on the
discourses that are prevalent in the ECEC of Malta.
“We know what we should teach (giggles). We know the boundaries as well and
(laughs) I'm not going to cross them. I have never even thought about it
(laughs).” (Jenny, Interview Transcript, May 05, 2013)
When I asked Jenny if she would consider teaching children about sexuality, she
suggested that she may read a children’s story about it or relate the topic of pregnancy to the
growth of other living things, like a seed. Jenny, as it appears, has imbibed and imposed on
herself limitations on teaching sexuality. Indeed, she has disciplined herself on what is
considered as appropriate to and not to teach to children. Similarly, all practitioners expressed
66
that there are certain boundaries in teaching sexuality. I could see in their statements how they
have imbibed certain discursive truths and made them their own ethics to follow.
Having a perspective that children are innocent and have a pure image of sexuality,
Jenny thinks that a highly detailed conversation about sexuality may just create
misconceptions.
“I don't underestimate children, but I think if you make them aware of something,
you'll be like... ehmm...it's like saying there's something wrong. (voice heightens)
There's nothing wrong in it and when you tackle it you make it sound wrong. So...
for example, healthy habits I'm all out about it; like choosing healthy food and
being active, those are ok, but sexuality as such- no.” (Jenny, Interview
Transcript, May 05, 2013)
It is quite interesting how she gives the topic of healthy habits and compares it to the
topic of sexuality. She certainly wants to promote healthy habits, so she is willing to discuss it.
In a way, she also assumes that children are capable of understanding her motives when talking
about this topic. However, with the topic of sexuality, she presupposes that children may
misunderstand her intentions and the topic itself. Consequently, this may ruin their pure and
untainted image of it. She also fails to recognize that sexuality may be a part of a child’s
healthy development.
In having this code of ethics with childhood sexuality, it has become a role for Jenny to
be a preserver of children’s purity. Indeed, this is a prevailing role for other practitioners
67
coming from different nations (Bhana, 2007; Kiragu, 2007), as well as the other participants in
this study from dealing with sexuality.
Roberta, a teacher of three year olds fear that discussing anything remotely related to
sexuality may tempt children and they may intentionally do something undesirable.
“Because if you try and explain - don’t do it because they are still young. It’s like
showing them a vase and you say don’t touch it. Because, I don’t know, if you
touch it you’ll break it. I think they’ll be tempted to experiment with it. They won’t
just ask questions to the parents, they’ll try to experiment. That’s what I think.”
(Roberta, Interview Transcript, April 15, 2013)
“Breaking the vase” appears to be another analogy to the biblical notion of giving the
fruit of knowledge to Adam and Eve. Roberta sees children as prone to experimentation; which
makes them appear to be pure and, at the same time, be deviant.
Other than this, Roberta also explains that due to children’s cognition, they may have
misconceptions if she discusses sexuality. She connects to it to her experiences with three year
olds who cannot engage in a conversation. They also have misinterpretations when she reads a
book during storytelling time. So she questions whether they could understand a complicated
topic such as sexuality.
“You need to explain and at such a tender age… I don’t know. I don’t think
they’ll understand, to be honest... So how would you know if they did get the
point? Some of them, they can’t really express themselves. They can’t even make
68
a sentence. The sentence structure is just words and bits of pieces. So how would
you assess that they understood?” (Roberta, April 15, 2013)
This statement shows how she has imbibed the developmental discourse by having
prejudgments on children’s capabilities and comprehension. Furthermore, by maintaining a
developmental discourse, Roberta touches on the role of practitioners to measure children’s
learning (Blaise & Andrew, 2005). This leads me to ask, is it justifiable to disregard sexuality,
or even any other topic that may be relevant to children, for the reason that it will be difficult to
measure a young child’s knowledge about it?
Indeed, the practitioners’ statements somehow testify to upholding the image of
technicians who follow what is expected of them. More importantly, it shows that they are
professionals who protect the innocence of children and rationally abide to available
discourses. They have learned to regulate and take discursive truths as their professional
‘ethics’ , and so this has prevented them from taking risks, fully achieving agency, and
realizing their power in their practice.
E. Power relations in ECEC
i.
Disciplinary power and bio-power on childhood sexuality
Disciplinary power (Foucault, 1991) could be read on how practitioners dealt with
children’s behaviors with sexuality. Different technologies that reinforce discursive truths were
employed to normalize children’s behaviors and exclude the trajectories from the norm (such as
children masturbating or involved in probable sexual cases). While bio-power (Foucault, 1978)
can be seen in how practitioners control what children can do with their own bodies, and more
69
so on what children can know and learn about it. Consequently, children have become docile
bodies in ECEC. However as Goodson and Dowbiggin (1990) argue it is not only clients, but
also the professionals working with them who become subject of power.
As I found in this study, the practitioners have also become targets of power exerted by
other authorities in the field of ECEC. One of which, that was numerously mentioned by the
practitioners, were the parents.
“In our position, we shouldn't bypass the parents. Definitely in this situation, you
have to work closely with the parents... You should show respect to the parents
and confidentiality as well. You will definitely lose their trust. And I think they
would be in their right mind if they take it up at you, as well.' Who are you to talk
to my child about this?" (Deborah, Interview Transcript, April 14, 2013)
Parents are considered to be clients or customers who practitioners must work with and
please. With such an intimate topic of their child’s identity, practitioners are hesitant that they
may overstep the parents’ authority of raising their children. Indeed, practitioners only get to
spend a short time (maximum of half a day) with the children and may be a snippet in the
child’s life, whereas parents would be a constant presence.
Another group that practitioners needed to consult was other professionals and their
colleagues. Marjorie did some research and asked for professional advice from a psychologist
to help her with her situation. She thought other professionals had more appropriate knowledge
and thus more expertise in this situation.
70
Some younger participants with just a number of years of experience would also think
of asking their colleagues and the assistant head of the school for advice. They held in high
regard the experience and seniority of these people and considered their advice as credible.
Thus, parents, specialized professionals and experienced colleagues, in a way, are higher in the
power relations with regard to childhood sexuality.
Nonetheless, most of the practitioners still believed that they too have an important part
in dealing with childhood sexuality, for the reason of their relationship with the child and the
information and perspective they have of him/her.
“But again you have to see the situation 'cause you cannot say that you have to
handle these type of situations like this. No! You have to see the background of the
family, you have to see even the child and know some sort of background. 'Cause
I believe, alright their sexual development is something private and individual
and so and so. But with regard to other behaviors, they behave a certain way
because... (thinks for a while)... of their background, upbringing. Everything plays
a role in their behavior, in their outcome, in their performance.” (Marjorie,
Interview Transcript, May 09, 2013)
Certainly, the majority of children are enrolled in an ECEC provision in Malta (OECD,
2012) which is why it is important to increase the quality of provision. There have been
national efforts such as accrediting practitioners as professionals by providing the very first
degree in ECEC in the country. Four of the practitioners I interviewed will be among the first to
obtain this degree. And as I am interviewing them, I could see that other than accepting the
71
power relations that are present in the field of ECEC, they too are beginning to realize their
position in it.
Indeed, they are beginning to see themselves more than technicians or
professionals, also as agents of change that can disrupt the existing power relations.
ii.
Resistance
Malta is in a flux of change. Issues regarding sexuality; such as same-sex relationships
and early media exposure to sex, are becoming more apparent in this predominantly Catholic
nation.
“It definitely changed, like people are becoming more open-minded, they're
becoming more tolerant. Even though I don't want to use the word tolerant but
yes, they are becoming... more open-minded…I think it's because of the media,
people are watching movies and becoming more educated. I think that's it. People
are being more open about themselves and I think that's changing things.”
(Francesca, Interview Transcript, May 20, 2013)
Nevertheless, practitioners disclosed that these are not being addressed in their settings
and there is still a lack of dialogue about sexuality. As one practitioner mentioned, if this
silence continues, “this topic will not change anyone's perceptions”, especially with how
children’s sexual behaviors are being judged and governed.
With the attention of the state on ECEC, it can be said that it is also changing the power
relations wherein the practitioners are placed.
Though their practice is becoming more
apparent in the observing gaze of the state, the state also has constituted in them a power and
72
authority to provide quality service to children. Therefore this may be the time to start
reflecting about their positions as teachers.
“Yes, because we are teachers and we have to keep up-to-date with what's going
around us. Yes, we touch their lives forever, these children.” (Marjorie, Interview
Transcript, May 09, 2013)
Moreover, they may begin by being suspicious of how their knowledge and practice
may be subject to policing and governance of discourses. As well as, inspect the motives of
discourses and whether the sanctioned truths are indeed used for the well-being of the children
they are handling. Some practitioners, towards the end of their interviews, began questioning
certain discourses. Such as the discourse of child-centered and catering to the holistic
development of the child, “If we try to cater for their holistic development then it (childhood
sexuality) should be part and parcel of what we cater for them in school”.
Challenging prevalent discourses and finding out alternative truths with regard to
children sexuality may prove to be a daunting task. According to one practitioner, she may face
some realities that may be dark, unpleasant and worrying in doing this.
“It's not nice but it's something we should know. Everybody should be aware of.
Especially signs and symptoms of abuse… It's not nice to know it but, you know,
to help the child- it's good to know it.” (Francesca, Interview Transcript, May 20,
2013)
73
Even so, the participants in this study said that they are willing to face this challenge.
For things are changing, not only in the context of ECEC but in the bigger world, and as a
practitioner explains “I think we should adapt to the society, because, or else we would hurt the
children.”
V.
Conclusion
Viewing practitioners’ perceptions and experiences through a Foucauldian perspective
has allowed me to explore on their associations, practices, roles and attitudes regarding
childhood sexuality and how these may be influenced by dominant discourses in ECEC in
Malta.
Practitioners willingly disclosed everyday accounts wherein children identified their
gender and genitalia, experimented with gender roles, and learned about pregnancy. These
aspects of sexuality were considered normal and natural for children to know. The reason may
be because teachers are drawing on familiar and naturalized images of childhood constructed
by dominant discourses; such as the child-centered, developmental and Catholic Church’s
beliefs on procreation. However, practitioners were found to be hesitant to narrate about their
past experiences with other sexually-charged behaviors; for instance masturbation and unusual
behaviors that may indicate sexual abuse. The reason may be is that these scenarios are deviant
to the hegemonic images of innocent children that have been normalized in ECEC.
Practices that regulate children’s behaviors can also be read in the statements of the
practitioners. The first is normalization, whereby children were expected to be innocent and
asexual. If they portrayed behavior that was inconsistent and deviant to this, it was either
treated with indifference and set aside or treated as a misbehavior that needed to be stopped,
74
particularly when children were seen fondling with themselves. Secondly, the heterosexual
matrix was used as a totalising standard that children’s actions and plays were judged on.
Gender was often seen by the practitioners in terms of binary categories of masculinity and
femininity. It is considered a neutral static aspect of a child’s identity that practitioners do not
critically explore on how it creates inequalities and biases in their perspectives on these
children. Thirdly is exclusion and this was evident in how practitioners just stopped children
from masturbating, without explaining why. Then, disregarding the occurrence and failing to
reflect on what are the possible consequences of their interactions with these children.
Certainly, the participants in the study have articulated that they have not reflected on
what are the significances of their taken-for-granted beliefs and familiar practices regarding
childhood sexuality on their role as an ECEC practitioner. As what appears in this study, the
absence of the topic of sexuality in the curriculum and the observing gaze of the parents in the
panopticon structure of an education institution have prevented the practitioners from having
discussions with the children regarding their sexuality. However, more importantly, I found
that the practitioners have disciplined themselves to be professionals who protect children’s
innocence and subscribe to developmental norms.
Throughout this paper, the images and practices regarding childhood sexuality that were
constructed by dominant discourses were found to be formidable. Practitioners testified to
subscribing and reproducing them in their everyday dealings with children in the Maltese
ECECs. However, this does not mean that these prevalent discourses are undisputable and
practitioners are powerless to question them. Indeed, practitioners in the study were found to be
critical and ready for change towards the end of their interviews. They acknowledged that
alternative truths and images of childhood sexuality may be dark and unpleasant, however they
75
are willing to uncover these issues by bring them to light – in order to properly address the
well-being of actual children.
A. Personal thoughts
This study has been tremendously rewarding for me as a researcher, for granting me a
chance to reflect on the intricacies of conducting a study with ECEC practitioners. However, I
must say, that I have benefitted far more from this study in being a practitioner. Throughout
this process of sharing stories, ideas and practices, I discovered a spectrum of perspectives that
I could use to evaluate my past experiences and future endeavors.
Going back to my past experience when I was a pre-service teacher, I would try to
explore different possibilities in handling that situation. I may also describe the boy’s behavior
other than abnormal or developmentally inappropriate. Maybe if I was presented the situation
again, I would have a conversation with the boy and explore his own understanding of his
actions. Also, I would have a dialogue with the teacher and talk about how this situation can
challenge officially sanctioned truths about children and how it may open spaces for us to take
risks in our teaching.
B. Implications for reflection
As for my future endeavors, I do think that as ECEC practitioners it is a routine part of
our professional practice to analyze children; however we are seldom accustomed to critically
analyzing our own thinking and practices. Thus in disclosing practitioner’s perceptions and
experiences regarding childhood sexuality, I have come to appreciate that overreliance on
76
discourses may serve to restrict the complexities of actual children and the possibilities in
teaching them.
Therefore in presenting taken-for-granted beliefs, naturalized truths and standards, as
well as familiar practices in ECEC, I invite other practitioners to check their assumptions on
children’s innocence, gender, behaviors and sexual development. I want to reiterate that this
study is not intended to give a definitive perspective on how young children express their
sexuality, but for practitioners to acknowledge the realities of children in their everyday early
years setting rather than being caught-up in the archetypal images of children created by
prevalent discourses.
Finally, in portraying practitioners as not merely vehicles of discourses but also as
agents of change, I do hope that some may view their profession differently. Rather than accept
the preexisting power relations, practitioners may realize that they are freer in their practice
than they believe themselves to be, even with regard to considered sensitive topics such as
childhood sexuality. In the end, this may encourage them to take risks and create different
possibilities in dealing with children in ECEC.
77
References
Ball, S.J. (1990a). Introducing Monsieur Foucault. In S.J. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and education:
Disciplines and knowledge. (p. 1-10). New York: Routledge.
Ball, S.J. (1990b). Management as moral technology: A Luddite analysis. In S.J. Ball (Ed.),
Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. (p. 153-166). New York:
Routledge.
Bazely, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. In Malaysian
Journal of Qualitative Research, 2. Retrieved from
http://www.qdatraining.eu/publications/Analysing_Qualitative_Data_More_than_identify
ing_themes_Bazeley_2009.pdf.
Bencini, A. (2012, August 19). Question of life, IVF and abortion. Times of Malta. Retrieved
from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120819/opinion/Question-of-life-IVF-andabortion.433415.
Bennett, J. (2006). New policy conclusions from starting strong II: An update on the OECD early
childhood policy reviews. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
14(2), 141-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930285209981.
Bhana, D. (2007). The price of innocence: teachers, gender, childhood sexuality, HIV and AIDS
in early schooling. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(4),431-444. doi:
10.1080/13603110701391394.
Blaise, M. (2005). A feminist post-structuralist study of children “doing’ gender in an urban
kindergarten classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 85–108.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.01.002.
Blaise, M. (2009). What a girl wants, what a girl needs: Responding to sex, gender, and sexuality
in the early childhood classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(4),
450-460.
Blaise, M., & Andrew, A. (2005). How ‘bad’ can it be? Troubling gender, sexuality and early
childhood teaching. In Yelland, N (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (p.
49-57). Maidenhead : Open University.
78
Calleja, C. (2013, February 12). Catholicism will stay in constitution- Muscat. Times of Malta.
Retrieved from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130212/local/Catholicism-will-stay-inConstitution-Muscat.457253/.
Casper, M, & Moore, L. (2009). Missing bodies: The politics of visibility. New York: New York
University.
Chung, S., & Walsh, D.J. (2000). Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 215-234.
Davies, C., & Robinson, K. (2010). Hatching babies and stork deliveries: Risk and regulation in
the construction of children’s sexual knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 11(3), 249-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.3.249.
DeJean, W. (2010). The tug of war: When queer and early childhood meet. Australasian Journal
of Early Childhood, 35(1), 10-14.
Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide, Buckingham: Open University.
Denscombe, M. (2009). Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice (2nd ed).
Maidenhead: Open University.
Duke, T., & McCarthy, K. (2009). Homophobia, sexism, and early childhood education: A
review of the literature. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(4), 385-403.
doi: 10.1080/10901020903320320.
Duschinsky, R. (2013). Childhood innocence: Essence, education, and performativity. Textual
Practice, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/0950236X.2012.751441.
Epstein, D., O'Flynn, S., & Telford, D. (2000). Chapter 4: "Othering" education: Sexualities,
silences, and schooling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 127-179. doi:
10.3102/0091732X025001127.
Flanagan, P. (2010). Making molehills into mountains: Adult responses to child sexuality and
behaviour . Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice, 1, 57–69. Retrieved from
www.dulwichcentre.com.au/explorations-2010-1-paul-flanagan.pdf.
Flanagan, P. (2013). Ethical beginnings: Reflexive questioning in designing child sexuality
research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1-8.doi:
10.1080/14733145.2013.779734.
79
Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of
Reason. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality Vol. 1: The will to knowledge. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, An Introduction. United States: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other
writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197.
Foucault, M. (1984). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In P.
Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1991/1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (Translated by
Sheridan, A.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1996a). The end of the monarchy of sex. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault Live:
Interviews, 1961- 84. (p. 214 – 225). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1996b). Rituals of exclusion. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Interviews,
1961- 84. (p. 63 – 72). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1996c). The eye of power. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Interviews, 196184. (p. 226– 240). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1996d). Schizo-culture: Infantile sexuality. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live:
Interviews, 1961- 84. (p. 154– 167). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1996e). Power affects the body. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Interviews,
1961- 84. (p. 207– 213). New York: Pantheon Books.
Gerouki, M. (2009). The sexual child - Investigating teachers’ experiences. Education and
Health, 27(4), 84-85.
Goldman, J. (2008). Responding to parental objections to school sexuality education: A
selection of 12 objections. Sex Education, 8 (4), 415–438.doi:
10.1080/14681810802433952.
80
Goodson, I., & and Dowbiggin, I. (1990). Docile bodies: Commonalities in the history of
psychiatry and schooling. In S.J. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and education: Disciplines and
knowledge. (p. 105-32). New York: Routledge.
Grieshaber, S., & Cannella G. S. (2001). From identity to identities: Increasing possibilities in
early childhood education. In Grieshaber, S. & Cannella G. S. (Eds.), Embracing
Identities in Early Childhood Education: Diversity and Possibilities (p. 3-22). New York:
Teacher’s College.
Grieshaber, S., & Ryan, S. (2006). Beyond certainties: Postmodern perspectives, research, and
the education of young children. In Spodek, B. & Saracho, O. (Eds.) .Handbook of
research on the education of young children (2nd ed) (p. 533- 553). Mahwah, N.J. :
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gunn, A. (2011). Even if you say it three ways, it still doesn’t mean it’s true: The pervasiveness
of heteronormativity in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Research,
9 (3), 280-290. doi: 10.1177/1476718X11398567.
Haywood, C. (2008). Genders and sexualities: Exploring the conceptual limits of contemporary
educational research. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(1), 1-14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620210802195905.
Heiman,M., Leiblum, S., Esquilin, S., & Pallitto, L. (1998). A comparative survey of beliefs
about “normal’ childhood sexual behaviors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22 (4), 289–304.
Hogan, V. (2012). Locating my teaching of gender in early childhood education teacher
education within the wider discourse of Feminist pedagogy and Post-structuralist theory.
Retrieved from http://www1.aare.edu.au/papers/2012/HOGAN%20V%20doc.pdf.
Jones, T. (2011). Saving rhetorical children: Sexuality education discourses from conservative to
post-modern. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 11(4), 369-387.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.595229.
Kakavoulis, A. (1998). Early childhood sexual development and sex education: A survey of
attitudes of nursery school teachers. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 6(2), 55-70. doi: 10.1080/13502939885208241.
Kiragu, S. (2007). Exploring sexuality education and the burdened teacher: A participatory
approach in a rural primary school in Kenya. Pastoral Care, 25(3), 5-15. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0122.2007.00411.x.
81
Koblinsky, S., & Atkinson, J. (1982). Parental plans for children's sex education. Family
Relations, 31(1), 29-3. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/584198 on April 2012.
Larsson, I., & Svedin, C. (2002). Teachers’ and parents’ reports on 3- to 6-year-oldchildren’s
sexual behavior—a comparison. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 247–266. doi:
10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00323-4.
Lillard, A., Lerner, M., Hopkins, E., Dore, R., Smith, E., & Palmquist, C. (2012). The Impact of
Pretend Play on Children's Development: A Review of the Evidence. Psychological
Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029321.
Mac Naughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural
ideas. New York: Routledge.
Mahon, R. (2010). After neo-liberalism? : The OECD, the World Bank and the child. Global
Social Policy, 10. Retrieved from http://gsp.sagepub.com/content/10/2/172.
Martin, B. (2011). Children at play: Learning gender in the early years. Staffordshire: Trentham.
Mayo, C. (2000).The uses of Foucault. Educational theory, 50, 103-17. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ejournals.um.edu.mt/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cda46e1c4d7b-4f41-96bb-c1337bbabb2a%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=123.
Moran, J. (2001). Childhood sexuality and education: The case of section 28. Sexualities, 4, 7389. doi: 10.1177/136346001004001004.
Nichols, S. (2002). Parents’ construction of their children as gendered, literate subjects: A
critical discourse analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2, 123-144. doi:
10.1177/14687984020022001.
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Starting strong II: Early
childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). OECD family database:
PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-schools. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/37864698.pdf.
Paul VI. (1968). Humanae Vitae. Retrieved from
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanaevitae_en.html.
82
Poole, H., Giles, D., & Moore, K. (2004) Researching sexuality and sexual issues: Implications
for the researcher?. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19(1), 79-86,
doi:10.1080/14681990410001640853.
Republic of Malta. (1964). Constitution of Malta act: Article 2. Retrieved from
http://president.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=10.
Ryan, G. (1999). Childhood sexuality: A decade of study. Part 1- Research and curriculum
development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(1), 33–48.
Ryan, S., Mindy, O., & Genishi, C. (2001). Miss Nelson is missing! In embracing identities in
early childhood education. In Grieshaber, S. & Cannella G. S. (Eds.), Embracing
Identities in Early Childhood Education: Diversity and Possibilities (p. 45-59). New
York: Teacher’s College.
Robinson, K. (2012). 'Difficult citizenship': The precarious relationships between childhood,
sexuality and access to knowledge. Sexualities, 15, 257-276.doi:
10.1177/1363460712436469.
Robinson, K., & Davies, C. (2008). Docile bodies and heteronormative moral subjects:
Constructing the child and sexual knowledge in schooling. Sexuality & Culture, 12,
221–239.doi: 10.1007/s12119-008-9037-7.
Sauerteig, L. (2012). Loss of innocence: Albert Moll, Sigmund Freud and the invention of
childhood sexuality around 1900. Medical History, 56 (2), 156-183. doi:
10.1017/mdh.2011.31.
Sears, J. T. (1992). Dilemmas and possibilities of sexuality education. In J. T. Sears (Ed.),
Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education. (p. 7-33).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Silin, J. G. (1995). Sex, death and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the
age of AIDS. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sollars, V., Attard, M., Borg, C., & Craus, B. (2006). Early childhood education and care: A
national policy. Floriana: Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment.
Surtees, N. (2005). Teacher talk about and around sexuality in early childhood education:
Deciphering an unwritten code. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6 (1), 19-29.
83
Surtees, N. (2008). Teachers following children? Heteronormative responses within a discourse
of child-centeredness and emergent curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood ,
33(3), 10–17.
Stone, N., Ingham, R., & Gibbins. K. (2013). ‘Where do babies come from?’ Barriers to early
sexuality communication between parents and young children. Sex Education: Sexuality,
Society and Learning, 13(2), 228-240, doi: 10.1080/14681811.2012.737776.
Taguchi, H. (2008). An ‘Ethics of resistance’ challenges taken-for-granted ideas in Swedish
early childhood education. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 270–282.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2008.12.006.
Theilheimer, R. & Cahill, B. (2001). A messy closet in the early childhood classroom. In
Grieshaber, S. ,& Cannella, G. (Eds.), Embracing Identities in Early Childhood
Education: Diversity and Possibilities (p. 45-59). New York: Teacher’s College.
Tobin, J. (2001). Childhood sexuality after Freud: The problem of sex in early childhood
education. In Winner, J., & Andersn, J. (Eds.). The Annual of Psychoanalysis Volume
23: Sigmund Freud and His Impact on the Modern World (p. 179-200). New Jersey: The
Analytic Press .
United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2001). Child-centered Development. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/dprk/ccd.pdf.
Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. New York: Routledge.
Vavrus, M. (2009). Sexuality, schooling, and teacher identity formation: A critical pedagogy for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 383–390. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.002.
Wain, K. (2004).The learning society in a postmodern world. New York: Peter Lang.
Walkerdine, V. (1990). School girl fictions. London: Verso Press.
Wang, C. (2011). Power/Knowledge for educational theory: Stephen Ball and the reception of
Foucault. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45, 142-56.
Whitebread, D. & Jameson, H. (2005). Play, storytelling and creative writing. In J. Moyles
(Ed.). The Excellence of Play. London: Open University Press.
84
Wickham, G. (2008). The social must be limited: Some problems with Foucault's approach to
modern positive power., Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 29–44.
doi:10.1177/1440783307085806 .
Woodhead, M. (1999). Reconstructing developmental psychology- Some first steps. Children &
Society, 13(1), 3-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.1999.tb00097.
\
Yelland, N., & Kilderry, A. (2005). Against the Tide: New ways in early childhood education.
In Yelland, N (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (p. 1-13). Maidenhead :
Open University Press.
85
Appendix
A. General description of participants
Alias
Sex
Age
Educational and Professional
Age
Type of
Background (Yrs. Of Experience)
Group
ECEC
2-3 y.o
Independent
3- 5 y.o
Independent
2-3 y.o
Independent
4 y.o
State
5 y.o
State
5-6 y.o
Church
4 y.o
Church
Taking B. Ed Honors ECEC in
Roberta
F
36
University of Malta;
Childcare Assistant (2 yrs)
Obtained a diploma in Early
Deborah
F
41
Childhood Honors program overseas;
Principal ( 19 yrs)
Obtained a diploma on ECEC from
Marjorie
F
34
Malta’s government;
Kindergarten Assistant (15 yrs)
Taking B. Ed Honors ECEC in
Lucy
F
54
University of Malta;
Kindergarten Assistant (29 yrs)
Elaine
F
Over
55
Taking B. Ed Honors ECEC in
University of Malta;
Kindergarten Assistant (25 yrs)
Obtained a Masters degree in
Francesca
F
26
Psychology overseas;
Primary years teacher ( 1 yr)
Taking B. Ed Honors ECEC in
Jenny
F
30
University of Malta;
Kindergarten Assistant (9 yrs)
86
B. Information and consent letter
Dear Participant,
I am Monique Dalida, a student following the International Masters in Early Childhood
Education and Care at the Faculty of Education, University of Malta. As part of my thesis, I am
conducting a qualitative study on the experiences and perceptions of practitioners regarding
sexuality in the early years setting.
Specifically my research questions explore the practitioners’ encounters, opinions and attitudes
concerning children’s sexuality.
To gather the data, I would like to interview you for
approximately an hour at a time and place which is mutually convenient. I’m doing this research
under the supervision of Dr. Duncan Mercieca. With your consent, the interview will be recorded
through writing detailed notes and an audio recorder.
My thesis will be read by my supervisor and examiners. It will also be published in University of
Malta. In accordance to the code of ethics, confidentiality and anonymity will be guaranteed
providing it does not jeopardize the integrity of the data and its analysis. The transcript of the
interview will also be made available to you before it is analyzed. You may withdraw your
consent whenever throughout the process of research.
If you have further questions, you can contact me through [email protected], mob. 999 16 439;
or my supervisor, Dr. Duncan Mercieca through [email protected].
Thank you
Kind Regards,
Monique Dalida
87
Researcher’s Name:
Monique Dalida
Faculty/School/Department:
Faculty of Education, University of Malta
Title of Study:
Experiences and perceptions of practitioners on sexuality in the early years
Please encircle your answer to the following questions:
1. Have you read the information sheet and fully informed about this study?
YES / NO
2. Have you had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study
and received satisfactory answers to all your questions ?
YES / NO
3. In your interview, do you approve on…

the researcher writing down detailed notes?
YES / NO

it being audio recorded?
YES / NO
4. Do you understand that you will be given a transcript of your
interview that you may amend by notifying the researcher?
YES / NO
5. Do you understand that you are free to withdraw from this study?

at any time

without giving a reason for withdrawing

without affecting your future relationship with University of Malta
YES / NO
6. Do you agree to take part in this study the results of which
are likely to be published?
YES / NO
7. Have you been informed that this consent form shall be kept
in the confidence of the researcher?
YES / NO
88
Signature: ___________________________________
Date: _________________
Name in Block Letters: _________________________________________________
Signature of Researcher: _______________________
Date: _________________
89
C. Interview schedule
Date:
Age:
Sex:
Occupation Title:
Years of experience as a teacher:
Educational and Professional background:
Name and type of school:
Age group handled:
Other relevant background info (ex. Mother/father, grandparent):
1. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about the sexuality of the
child?
2. If you were to define sexuality of a child, what would you say?
Can you give personal examples that support your definition?
3. Have you and what have you talked about children’s sexuality…
a. to colleagues
b. to parents
c. to children themselves
4. Can you think of an event, interaction or episode that you have experienced when a child
or children you were handling expressed their sexuality? If yes, skip to question 6. If no,
proceed to question 5.
5. I would like to ask for your opinion regarding a situation that I will present to you:
Present a situation and then proceed to question 6.The possible situations include:

A 5 year-old boy picking a pink dress for his costume in dramatic play.

While pretending as doctors, a girl/boy undresses and shows her body to girls/
boys.

Two children are kissing each other and say they want to make a baby. (Opposite
/ same sex)
6. Can you describe what happened?
a. In what context and setting?
90
b. Who were the people there?
c. What was the overall atmosphere? verbal and nonverbal interactions?
d. How did you feel during the situation?
e. What did you do in this situation?
f. Why did you choose to act or approach the situation in this way?
7. What might the effect of your action or approach be on yourself, the children and others?
8. Why do you think you came to be in this situation? Is there a possibility that your choices
as a teacher have led you and the children to be in this situation? Or for the situation to be
considered problematic?
9. What if you were to explain the situation to someone else (colleague, parent, child,
manager, etc.) What would you say? How would you say it?
10. Do you feel, as a teacher, you can act on your own regarding situations that deal with
childhood sexuality?
11. What is your opinion on what appears to be a lack of dialogue or silence regarding
childhood sexuality in the early years field?
12. Would you be interested to sign up if there was a class about sexuality of children in a
teacher training program?
13. What is your opinion at the current state of Malta (e.g families of same sex couple, issues
about sex and sexuality)? As a preschool teacher, do you think a preschool should take a
conservative stand or should it make changes and adapt to the current environment of
children?
14. Do you have any other thing you would like to share regarding this situation? Or any
opinion you have regarding children’s sexuality?
Thank you!