6-8 pages Child and Youth care

Using Queer Theory to Rethink Gender Equity in Early Childhood Education Author(s): Mindy Blaise and Affrica Taylor Source: YC Young Children, Vol. 67, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 88-96, 98 Published by: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42731139 Accessed: 05-11-2017 03:47 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to YC Young Children

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

RESEARCH IN REVIEW

Mindy Blaise and Affrica Taylor

Using Queer Theory to Rethink Gender Equity in Early Childhood Education

Harry and Alan are busy in the home corner. Alan makes a campfire on the floor and cooks chops for breakfast while Harry fixes the sluggish sink. Then Harry moves the four small chairs outside and places them in neat forma- tion. He has made a car and the boys decide to go camping. Kathy and Ruth arrive and ask to come along. They are greeted with disdain. "Only boys go camping. Girls go shopping," accuses Alan. The girls complain and Harry suc- cumbs to their persistent protests but only if the girls agree to pack the car and then sit quietly in the back seat.

The girls gather handbags and mobile phones for the drive. The boys gather books and maps and a basket full of food and tools. In fact, the boys pack so much that there is only enough room left in the car for one of the girls. The girls express their disappointment. Neither one wants to be left behind.

Harry has a solution. "I know! We'll do Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo. And if you lose you'll have to stay at home and wait." So Harry organizes and performs the ritual of exclusion and Kathy is pro- nounced the loser. She is devastated

and begs the boys to reconsider. They eventually do and Kathy is given a squashy seat near the car boot [trunk].

The adventure begins. Harry drives the car while Alan reads the road map. Kathy and Ruth sit quietly in the back seat nursing the baskets of food and tools. Ruth gets the cell phone out and starts to make a call. "Don't use the

phone 'til we get there," demands Alan. "We haven't fixed it yet!"

(Taylor & Richardson 2005, 167)

What Is Queer Theory? Queer theory is a new theory

about gender. It is relevant to early childhood educators who wish to

find new ways of understanding

and challenging persistent gen- der stereotypes. The theory links

gender stereotypes to the norms

of heterosexuality. It is definitely

not a theory about gay and lesbian identity. Queer theory is "queer"

because it questions the assump- tion that there is any "normal"

expression of gender.

Typically, early childhood teachers respond to such familiar play scenarios based on how they understand gender and children's gender identity develop- ment. Some teachers consider such

gender play as a natural expression of the differences between girls and boys. Other teachers, noticing the gender stereotypes, might assume that the children are simply imitating the gender roles they see in their own families, in books, or in the media.

These two interpretations raise the familiar nature/nurture debate. Within the terms of this debate, gender as nature is understood to be biologically determined, fixed, and stable. From this naturalist view, Alan, Ruth, Kathy, and Harry can be seen to be simply following their biological instincts. On the other hand, from the gender as nurture per- spective, the children's gender behavior can be understood as the outcome of

their socialization. The nurture view

would see the children as having learned how to be girls and boys by watching and copying the behaviors of their par- ents or other significant role models.

Since the 1970s, teachers who believe gender is learned through socialization

Mindy Blaise, EdD, is an associate professor and co-director of the Centre for Childhood Research and Innovation, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong, SAR. A former kindergarten teacher, Mindy has worked at universities in the US, Australia, and Hong Kong. Her teaching and research interests include bringing together gender and sexuality studies with early childhood education, [email protected]. hk

Affrica Taylor, PhD, is an associate professor in the sociology of childhood and edu- cation at the University of Canberra, Australia. She convenes postgraduate teacher education programs and teaches in graduate early childhood and educational leadership programs in Canberra and in China. Affrica's research focuses on the reconceptualiza- tion of childhood and of nature, and she is working on a new early childhood pedagogy called Common Worlds, involving Australian indigenous and nonindigenous communi- ties. [email protected]

This Research in Review article was edited by journal research editor Sharon K. Ryan, PhD, associate professor of early childhood education at the Rutgers University Gradu- ate School of Education.

nae|c®i, 2,3

88 Young Children • January 201 2

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Young Children • January 201 2 89

Ü2 e a>

C/3

CQ C jU S ©

have tried various gender equity strat- egies to encourage children to resist gender-stereotyped behaviors. Such strategies include providing books, post- ers, and other materials that present images of women and men engaged in roles or activities not traditionally asso- ciated with their gender and encourag- ing girls to play with blocks and boys to play with dolls. Unfortunately, these strategies have not been particularly successful and, despite the long-term collective efforts of many teachers, children continue to reproduce gender stereotypes.

However, despite the lack of success

with gender equity strategies, not everyone accepts the alternative

conclusion that

stereotyped gen- der behavior must

therefore be a natu-

ral phenomenon. Researchers have

been using feminist and post-structural theories to analyze the ways in which gender stereotypes are constructed, how children make sense of gender and actively engage in negotiating their own gender identities, and how children's meaning making and engagement related

to gender are implicated within broader social power relations (for example, Alloway 1995; Mac Naughton 2000; Davies [1989] 2003).

Additional insights into the persis- tence of gender stereotypes in children's play have been gained from queer theory. Queer theory insists that gender iden- tity development is always linked to heterosexual norms. It argues that it is these heterosexual norms, not biologi- cal instinct or socialization, that have such a powerful influence on children's gender behavior. By emphasizing that

it is heterosexual

norms - not nature

or nurture - that

compel most chil- dren to conform

to gender stereo- types, queer theory also explains why commonly repeated stereotyp- ical gender behav- iors, such as "boys driving" and "girls sitting quietly in the back," appear so unremarkable

or "normal." Often

it is easier to iden-

tify this process of gender normalization when heterosexual norms are broken. For instance, it would not seem quite so unremarkable or normal if it were Kathy and Ruth who

What Is a Queer Eye? In this article, the term "queer

eye" suggests a new perspective, or new way of looking at gender,

informed by queer theory. This

new perspective does not assume that any kind of gender is normal.

Instead, a "queer eye" looks at the ways in which children's gender behavior both reflects and rein-

forces the norms of heterosexuality.

insisted on driving and Harry and Alan who sat obediently in the back seat; the "normal" heterosexual order would

be reversed, and in turn the children's gender roles would seem slightly odd, or not quite right.

For the remainder of this article, we offer a review of research that uses

queer theory to rethink gender in early childhood education. This review is con-

ducted in three steps. First, it explains how feminist post-structuralist theories have shifted the debate on early gender identity from either a nature-or-nurture framework to a more nuanced under-

standing of how children's gender is con- structed. Second, it shows how queer theory builds on feminist post-structural understandings of gender by linking the construction of children's gender identities with the powerful influence of heterosexual norms. Third, it explores how some researchers and teachers

are using a "queer eye," informed by queer theory, to rethink children's play and to critically reflect on and influ- ence professional practice. The article concludes with specific implications for practitioners.

Shifting the gender debate: Feminist

post-structuralist theory

Instead of asking whether or how much of children's play is hard-wired or learned, feminist post-structural theory takes seriously the role children play in their own gender development. Feminist post-structural theory offers the early childhood field the concepts

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

'35 c <U

c n

03 c M 5

of discourse, language, and power to throw new light on the complexities of children's gendered play. Within feminist post-structural theory, the term dis- course is used to refer to a specific body of ideas or beliefs that have become

established as "common sense" or

"true" by being repeatedly spoken about and enacted. Discourse gives meaning to all aspects of our worlds, including what we think it means to be feminine and

masculine.

Gender discourses are more than

ideas and beliefs about what it means

to be female or male. They also regulate our gender behaviors by establishing what society considers to be "normal" or "natural," and thereby determining what is desirable and rewarding what is acceptable. For example, in the vignette, Harry's and Alan's masculinity is consid- ered to be "normal" when they behave like "real" boys by fixing the sink or driving the car. Society considers these to be acceptable ways for boys to play; they comply with the discourse of domi- nant masculinity. In accordance with the discourse of subordinate femininity ; Kathy and Ruth agree to sit quietly in the back seat and are expected to go shopping. This kind of behavior is accepted as natural and normal

for girls. When their behaviors comply with the dominant

gender discourses, the girls and boys see themselves - and

are seen by children, teachers, parents, and society - as getting their gender "right." Motivated by a desire to get gender "right" and a sense of satis-

faction in succeeding, children repeat such predictable gendered behaviors to recon-

firm the "truths" of

the dominant gender discourses.

Feminist post-structuralist thinkers (for example, Davies [1989] 2003; Walk- erdine 1990; Alloway 1995; Weedon 1997) believe that all interactions shaped by gender discourses are imbued with power. They never assume that chil- dren innocently play out gender roles.

Instead, feminist post-structural theory views children as either taking advan- tage of or contesting (or sometimes doing both - complying and contesting) the power that prevailing gender dis- courses make available to them. Femi-

nist post-structuralists do not see power as something that individuals already possess. Instead, power operates

through discourses. Gender discourses

shape the different kinds of power avail- able to girls and boys (Walkerdine 1990).

The boys in the vignette are already positioned by the dominant and ste-

reotyped discourses of masculinity as competent handymen and natural leaders, so to feel powerful, they only have to "get it right" (by convinc- ingly fixing sinks, driving cars, reading maps, and giving orders to the girls).

The girls, on the other hand, are already positioned as subordinate by the ste- reotyped discourses at play, so to vie for the limited power available to them, they can either contest or comply. They do both. They contest the boys' decision that girls cannot go camping, but then,

having successfully gained a measure of power, they agree to sit obediently in the back seat and let the boys boss and drive them around. Their access to

power is limited and must be negotiated. In feminist post-structural terms,

power is considered relational because it circulates between individuals as they negotiate or struggle over the uneven amounts of power that the discourses make available to them. This perspec- tive also presumes that no one is ever completely powerless and that all indi- viduals, including young children, have some access to power and the ability to act in order to attain it. It is important to note that because everyone has some access to power and can contest the way they are positioned by discourses, dominant gender discourses are never entirely fixed or settled.

Moreover, the dominant gender discourse is rarely the only gender discourse in operation. Because chil- dren are exposed to competing gender discourses, there are different ways that they can emulate girl and boy behaviors. Competing discourses are evident when children challenge the "rules" of gender. For instance, when the girls protest Alan's declaration that girls only go shopping and cannot go camping, they draw on an alternative discourse of girls' rights. Using alternative discourses, chil- dren can negotiate for themselves what it means to be a girl or a boy, even if the negotiations are quite limited.

90 Young Children • January 201 2

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Expanding the gender debate: Queer theory

Queer theory is often mistaken as a theory about and for lesbians and gays. However, queer theory does not promote any kind of sexual identification and it is not "owned" by people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Queer theory is a framework that offers insights into how seemingly "natural" and "normal" gender, as constructed by dominant gender discourses, is regu- lated by being linked to seemingly "natu- ral" and "normal" discourse of sexuality : It presumes that we cannot think about gender without simultaneously thinking about sexuality. More specifically, the theory stresses that we behave in stereo- typical gendered ways within the frame- work of heterosexual norms. In other

words, dominant gender discourses and the dominant discourse of heterosexual-

ity are inseparable, and we must con- sider them together to fully appreciate the persistence of gender stereotypes (Butler [1990] 1999).

Queer theory raises some challenges for the study of gender in early child-

hood because it requires educators to think not only about children's behaviors as gendered but also as sexual. This perspective, in challenging the assump- tion that children are too young to understand sexuality, directs our atten- tion to the extent to which heterosexual

assumptions and behaviors are an every- day yet unacknowledged routine occur- rence in early education settings (Cahill &Theilheimer 1999; Robinson 2005). In other words, heterosexual discourses are everywhere in early childhood con- texts, and the gender discourses that children engage with are almost always heterosexual discourses. Early child- hood researchers are further expanding the gender debate by using queer theory to show how these heterosexual gen- der discourses are infused with power relations, how children strategically negotiate the discourses, and how chil- dren's negotiations of these discourses produce dynamics and patterns of inclu- sion and exclusion (Boldt 1996, 2011; Blaise 2005, 2009; Taylor & Richardson 2005; Skattebol 2006; Taylor 2007, 2008; DePalma & Atkinson 2008, 2009).

Developing a "queer eye"

If we simultaneously consider gender and sexuality, as queer theory invites us to do, we cannot help but see chil- dren's gender behaviors in a new way. When we apply queer theory to our investigations into young children's gender construction, we develop what is often referred to as a "queer eye." For instance, by casting a queer eye back on the vignette, we become aware of how the children behave in agree- ment with dominant gender discourses, negotiate the power relations of these discourses, and at the same time behave in accordance with the overarching discourse of heterosexuality. The occa- sion is not just a family outing but an unstated, assumed-to-be heterosexual family outing. These children are try- ing to get their "real girl" and "real boy" play right within the broader discourse of the "real" (or "natural" and "normal") heterosexual family. This "typical" fam- ily (also known as a nuclear family) is most often seen as White, middle class, and heterosexual, even though family formations in Western societies are

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

increasingly diverse. Families might be headed by single parents or lesbian or gay parents. They might include multiple generations, be blended, or be multira- cial. A family might have children who are adopted or are birth children or are a mix of the two categories (Jackson 2008).

In addition to trying to get their gen- der right, the children are also trying to get their hetero- sexuality right. For instance, Ruth's and

Kathy's (mostly) compliant feminin- ity conforms to heterosexual norms.

It "works with" or

complements Harry's and Alan's dominant

masculinity, which in turn relies on and

expects this kind of submissive feminin-

ity. It is this "tradi- tional" heterosexual

norm that narrows

the choices that

Ruth and Kathy can make if they want to play with the boys. To succeed, they must conform to the dominant heterosexual discourse that

positions girls, mothers, and girlfriends as passive, subordinate, and thus com- plementary to boys, fathers, and boy- friends. Not only does this prevent other play opportunities for the girls, but it also normalizes notions about masculin-

ity. This means the boys are also limited in how they are able to act as boys.

Heteronormativity, gender performativ- ity, and the heterosexual matrix, three

key concepts often used by queer theorists, are essential for developing a queer eye. These concepts offer teach- ers a sharpened appreciation of the powerful ways in which gender and het- erosexuality discourses work together to produce and reinforce gender stereo- types, but they also offer new ways of seeing how these same stereotypes can be challenged.

Heteronormativity and gender performativity

Heteronormativity, which combines the words heterosexual and normative , is a shorthand term that deliberately names the assumption that everyone is or should be heterosexual (Warner

1993). The concept of gender performa- tivity suggests that gender is a kind of performance, or a way of "acting out" gender. Although many children (like those in the vignette) still draw upon dominant heteronormative discourses

to "perform" or "act out" stereotypical gender performances, it is also possible for children to "perform" being a girl or

a boy in other ways. By drawing upon alternative gender discourses, children can choose a range of gender performances.

According to queer theory, gender is performed through the way we talk about ourselves as girls and boys or women and men, and by specific bodily practices and expressions - and their repetitions. Repeatedly perform- ing gender according to dominant hetero-

sexual norms makes us believe that

these expressions and practices are normal. When children's gender perfor- mances fall outside of the heteronorma-

tive framing, they risk being thought to be "abnormal." For example, in Blaise's (2005) observations of a show-and-tell session in a kindergarten classroom, 5-year-old Cheng was intrigued by makeup that a girl had brought to school. His classmates let him know

that his interest in this highly feminized item was "abnormal" by ignoring his questions about the makeup, dismissing him with disgusted body language, and laughing at him. Their gender perfor- mances show how they actively worked not only to determine what it means to be a boy but also how they reinforced heteronormativity. Their bodily perfor- mances reconfirmed the heteronorma-

tive assumption that wearing makeup is a female-only activity designed explicitly to attract males.

Despite the powerful influence of heteronormativity, it is possible for some children's gender performances to exceed the bounds of heteronormativity (Taylor & Richardson 2005; Taylor 2008). In Taylor and Richardson's (2005) eth- nographic study of preschoolers' play, 4-year-old Peter repeatedly dressed in a

pink wedding dress and played Princess Pony games with his friend Margie; and 4-year-old Reg, in playing the tradition- ally masculine game of cops and rob- bers with some other boys, regularly declared himself to be a policeman and a mother. Dressed in a blue dress and

policeman's hat, Reg always cradled a baby doll.

Although not so common, it is always possible for children such as Peter and Reg to generate new kinds of gender identities by performing girl or boy dif- ferently. By repeatedly performing gen- der, children make sense of and actively work toward determining what it means to be "girl" and/or "boy," including when their performances do not comply with gender stereotypes and actively contra- dict gender and heterosexual norms.

The heterosexual matrix

The third concept, heterosexual matrix , is a metaphor used to describe how stereotypical gender performances take place within the twin dualistic frameworks of gender (masculinity/ femininity) and sexuality (heterosexu- ality/homosexuality). It is this matrix that produces masculinity, femininity, and heterosexuality as the only logical options (Butler [1990] 1999). The stereo- typical notion of femaleness or maleness becomes meaningless in the absence of heterosexuality, because intrinsic to stereotypical concepts of "real male" as distinct from "real female" is the idea of

an opposite or complementary gender (Jackson 2006). For example, within the heterosexual matrix, we can see exactly how and why the boys in Cheng's class were able to belittle him for showing an interest in makeup. By making it obvious through their body language that they thought such an interest was "abnor- mal" for a "real" heterosexual boy, they simultaneously performed their own "boyness" in a way that reinforced the norms of the heterosexual matrix.

The heterosexual matrix concept allows us to see that it is not heterosexu-

ality in itself that is a problem. Instead, it is heteronormativity, or the assumption that everyone is or should be hetero- sexual, that has the potential to create problems for children such as Cheng, Reg, and Peter, who perform nonstereo- typical forms of gender. In other words, it is the heterosexual matrix and the

92 Young Children • January 201 2

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

heteronormative pressures it produces, rather than heterosexuality per se, that are limiting.

Bringing a queer eye to

studies of play

Studies that bring a queer eye to chil- dren's play draw on heteronormativity, gender performativity, and the hetero- sexual matrix to analyze how children actively negotiate their gender identities and the gender/sexuality power relations associated with them. Blaise's (2005) qualitative case study of gender in a US urban kindergarten shows how children build a sense of who they are, who they should be, and who they want to be as girls and boys through dominant hetero- sexualized discourses. In this classroom, several White middle-class girls were fascinated by makeup, seeing it as impor- tant for looking beautiful and attract- ing boys. When Liza, a girl who wrote several books about makeup, was asked why she thought girls liked to wear makeup, she responded, "Because they like the style" and want "to look beauti-

ful." Theresa, a classmate who often wrote and drew stories about the Disney mermaid character Ariel, explained a drawing: "She has lipstick and is show- ing off her stomach. She also has long hair - [pointing to hair] see? Oh, and Ariel also has fingernail polish on" (p. 72). Later, Theresa added that, like Ariel, she liked wearing red lipstick because it makes her pretty, explaining, "Well, Ariel also likes to - no, she needs to - wear lipstick because Prince Eric likes it ... a lot" (p. 72). Looking beautiful for boys was clearly something these girls desired and felt compelled to imitate.

These seemingly innocent conversa- tions and play about makeup are much more than "just playing." The girls were "redoing" a particular form of femininity that is deliberately constructed to sat- isfy the perceived needs and desires of boys. Their conversations illustrate the ways in which the heterosexual matrix shapes particular forms of gender. How- ever, it is important to note that these kinds of heterosexualized beauty dis- courses are not universal. Although Liza and Theresa might have understood that women wear makeup because of the

attention they receive from men, not all girls are empowered by the discourse of beauty. For instance, Connolly's (1998) ethnographic case study of gender and race in a multi-ethnic inner-city primary school in the UK shows the complex ways in which 5- and 6-year-old South Asian and Black girls negotiated White- culture-inspired beauty discourses. Connolly presents several case stud- ies of how South Asian and Black girls responded to exclusionary behaviors based on race. For example, some Black girls were able to gain status among their female peers because of their musical and athletic abilities rather than

White notions of beauty. Many other studies of children's play

provide evidence of the heterosexual matrix and its powerful gender stereotyp- ing effects. Several, observing many man- ifestations of children's romantic hetero-

sexual play, show that children as young as 3 are involved in girlfriend/boyfriend talk and play that reproduces heteronor- mative gender power relations (Blaise 2010). On a South African playground, Bhana (2005, 2007) found that 7-year-olds would permit friendships between girls

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

i I v

i" 1 1 OQ

'I E ©

and boys only within heterosexual girl- friend/boyfriend discourses. Moreover, Bhana observed that many "romantic" games were underpinned by sexual teasing and taunting, involving dares such as "show me the panties" (2005) and kiss and chase games. The majority of such studies conclude that children's

romantic play is based on traditional, heterosexualized gender stereotypes that reinforce female subordination to

males (Ingraham 1994). Romantic heterosexual play is any-

thing but cute or innocent. Instead, this kind of play persistently reinforces the heterosexual matrix, reproduces uneven gender power relations, regulates who can and cannot be friends, and limits the ways in which gender can be performed. Research such as Bhana's raises ques- tions about how many children take part in heterosexual girlfriend/boyfriend play in order to secure their sense of belong- ing within peer groups.

The concept of gender performativity helps us see that gender is never fixed or stable. Although the heterosexual matrix manages to regulate and shape most children's gendered behaviors, this same ordering of gender/hetero- sexuality remains inherently unstable (Butler 1993). When children perform their gender in more fluid and blurred ways, we can see that gender dichoto- mies are never finally settled and that there are different ways to be gendered, including using behaviors that move beyond stereotypical understandings of femininity and masculinity. For instance, in a two-year study of gendered play in an Australian early childhood center,

Nalin, a young Indian-Australian boy, was observed taking part in a spectrum of gender play (Taylor 2007). To gain the acceptance of the dominant White boys in the center, Nalin initially performed a macho identity based on Ninja Turtles and other popular superhero characters. Over time, with his reputation as a "real boy" well established, Nalin discarded his masculine superhero persona, along with turtle shell and cape props, and donned a red dress (complete with special powers). He eventually became a self-proclaimed girl superhero, finally identifying himself as "Kim Possible."

Not only do these studies about children's nonstereotyped gender play show how children can do gender in multiple ways, but they explain how some gender-bending performances, when repeated often enough, actually create new gender identities (Renold 2006) that fall outside of strict gender dichotomies. For instance, a number of studies make note of the effects of

"tomboy" identities, such as those of 7-year-old Jodie (Reay 2001), 8-year- old Zoe (Francis 1998), and 6-year-old Madison (Blaise 2005). The research- ers conclude that such girls perform tomboy because they experience the limitations of heterosexualized feminin-

ity, and boy-like behaviors enable them to feel more powerful. For instance, when asked why she played being a boy, Madison explained, "Because it's just better. I can be, um, be stronger and do more things. You get to do more stuff, be cool, and [shrugging] it's easier" (Blaise 2005, 151). However, as Renold (2006) reminds us, just because some girls

perform tomboy does not necessarily locate them outside of heterosexualized

gender discourses. What this means is that, on the one hand, girls like Madison might be choosing these tomboy gender positions because they provide access to more power and privilege. And yet, on the other hand, if being a tomboy is still within the heterosexual matrix, then the gender positions that tomboys take up are not overturning gender relations, because they are based on heterosexual gender norms. In this sense, gender equity is not promoted.

A queer eye can also be sensitive to the ways in which gender/sexuality discourses intersect with other powerful identity discourses, such as racial iden- tity discourses and identity discourses based on physical ability. For instance, Skattebol (2006) discusses how a 4-year- old Australian boy named Zac embodied hegemonic masculinity ; a type of mascu- linity associated with Whiteness, hetero- sexuality, authority, and physical tough- ness. These multiple layers of privilege and power made it possible for Zac to exclude others in his gender play. His repeated calls to his male peers not to play with girls show how the dominant culture's version of heterosexualized

masculinity can easily become a univer- sal norm. This kind of hegemonic mascu- line identity, fortified by association with other high-status aspects of identity (such as social class, age, English speak- ing, or ability), is highly problematic because it marginalizes all other cul- tural expressions of masculinity (such as playing quiet or nonphysical games or showing interest in feminized toys like dolls). Other studies in early child- hood document how dominant forms of

masculinity work to marginalize other gender identities (Davis & Mac Naugh- ton 2009). Gallas (1997) describes how a small but influential group of "bad boys" in her first- and second-grade classroom exerted their masculinity and Whiteness in powerful ways as they attempted to control the classroom environment

during sharing time. They did this by making up stories in which many of the girls (including Gallas) and some rival boys were targets of violence. Although Gallas established a rule that no longer allowed anyone to be killed or hurt in the stories, she says the boys still found ways to humiliate and threaten certain classmates.

Young Children* January 2012

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bringing a queer eye to

professional practice

As well as illuminating our under- standings of children's gendered behav- iors, a queer eye also can be used by early childhood educators to improve professional practice as we reflect on our own attitudes and beliefs about

gender, heterosexuality, and childhood innocence. With self-reflection, some teachers are inventing new developmen- tally appropriate practices that help them, as well as the children they work with, challenge gender stereotypes by questioning gender/sexuality norms.

Boldt (1996) was one of the first early childhood teachers to turn a queer eye on practice by questioning how her own gender and sexuality influenced hetero- normativity in her third-grade classroom. More recently, Boldt (2011) has reflected on the ineffectiveness of the gender equity strategies she used over the years as both teacher and mother. She has

come to realize that everyone experien- ces gender in both positive and negative ways and that we all have an emotional investment in the ways in which we express our gender, especially in our attempts to get it "right." Boldt con- cludes that since the workings of gender are both complicated and emotional, they must be explored by teachers and children in ways that support children's curiosity about gender and sexuality. She proposes that teachers can begin by sharing with children some of their own fears and interests in understanding gender.

Several other studies explore chil- dren's interest in and curiosity about heterosexual gender discourses and how adults can take proactive rather than reactive approaches to their curi- osity. Blaise (2009) provides examples of how a proactive approach might facilitate children's own reflections

on gender. After observing a group of 5- and 6-year-olds playing and sing- ing a popular song about "what a girl wants, what a girl needs," Blaise led a large group discussion about what the song meant to them. She found that the children knew a lot about the hetero-

sexualization of gender and were aware that dominant feminine and masculine

discourses produce certain kinds of girls and boys. Although the majority of the class assumed that all girls want, need, or have boyfriends, a girl named Elena

provided a different point of view. She said she was not interested in having a boyfriend and that her pretty aunt did not have a boyfriend either. The class could not believe this and wanted

to know more about her aunt. Elena

explained, "Well, she is smart, nice, and she has long hair . . . and she doesn't look anything like Christina Aguilera" (p. 455). The class inquired further, asking about the kinds of

clothes that Elena's

aunt wore and if she

ever wore bikinis.

When pressed about why her aunt did not have a boyfriend, Elena said, "Because she doesn't want

one. And I don't

think she needs one

either" (p. 455). Instead of shutting

down or ignoring children's sexual

knowledge and curi- osity, Blaise (2009) responded proac- tively by using group time for develop- mentally appropriate conversations with

children about their understandings of heterosexualized gender relations. This in turn allowed for a more complex understanding of femininity to emerge.

Laura is an early childhood teacher who uses queer strategies to provoke the 7- and 8-year olds in her class to reflect on gender. As a teacher researcher involved in a large UK action-research study called the No Outsiders project (see DePalma & Atkinson 2008, 2009), Laura designed her own strategies to probe the children's understandings of gender and sexuality norms. For instance, she questioned femininity and masculinity in the children's math work- sheets by drawing a person who looked like a conventional girl but was named James. This simple, deliberate act of linking a drawing of a girl with a boy's name sparked an interesting conversa- tion about whether boys could wear bows in their hair. Not only was this discussion developmentally appropriate, as it worked with children's understand-

ings of gender, but it was a proactive and strategic use of queer theory in professional practice.

Another way Laura provoked gender conversations was dressing up and performing as "Cindy," a different kind of Cinderella character. Much of the tradi-

tional fairy tale's plot remained the same, but the fairy godfather dressed Cindy in a sparkly wig, leather jacket, and boots and changed her pet bird into a motor- cycle. Off Cindy went to a party (rather than a ball), where she had a great time

and danced with a

girl. Rushing off at midnight, Cindy lost a boot, but her dance partner eventually found her, and they moved away, went to university together, and lived mostly hap- pily ever after. After retelling the modern- day Cinderella story, Laura gave the chil- dren an opportunity to ask Cindy ques- tions. Although she was initially uneasy about what the chil-

dren would ask, over time Laura became

more confident in

her ability to pro- voke heterosexualized gender discourses with her class in developmentally appro- priate ways (Cullen & Sandy 2009).

Several of the stories coming out of the No Outsiders project show how questioning gender with a queer eye illuminates teachers' experiences of prejudice, discrimination, homophobia, and heteronormativity. Teachers uncov- ered their own internalized prejudices and experienced the prejudices of oth- ers in the workplace. Laura was one of those teacher researchers who received

negative feedback from some colleagues for using queer theory to inform her classroom practices. They saw the work as irrelevant. Instead of dismissing the resulting tensions, Laura tried to engage her co-workers by explaining how her practices related to gender and sexuality equalities. In the end, she acknowledged her colleagues' resistance to questioning gender and sexual norms with children as yet another example of the powerful effects of heteronormativity (Cullen 2009).

Judy, another teacher researcher in the No Outsiders project, found queer theory useful for realizing her own

Young Children • January 201 2 95

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

unconscious participation in the het- erosexual matrix. When a boy scuffed a card on the floor with his feet and

pronounced the card "gay," Judy asked him what he meant by the word. She later realized that she failed to chal-

lenge Jimmy's use of the word. Judy's field notes and critical reflections using a queer eye show how a teacher locates heteronormativity in the classroom and how she can play a part in maintaining it. Naming and locating oneself within the processes of constructing gender norms is an important part of transform- ing taken-for-granted practices (Atkin- son & DePalma 2009). For some teach- ers, this self-reflective process might be difficult, but accepted professional practices that reinforce gender stereo- types and sexual inequalities will never change unless we are able and willing to recognize how we are sometimes also a part of heteronormativity.

Implications for practice

This review illustrates how some early childhood teachers and researchers

use queer theory to deepen their under- standings and responses to children's gender play and inform their profes- sional practice. We hope that by reading about this research and learning about queer theory, more early childhood teachers will be inspired to use a queer eye as a new way of working toward a more equitable world. We believe there are two main implications of this research. The first is that it is indeed

possible for early childhood teachers to develop their own queer eye in order to contribute to positive social change. The second implication is that in the process of developing their own queer eye, these teachers also will be able to help children develop theirs. This would be a clear move toward extending the strategies of an anti-bias approach (Der- man-Sparks & Edwards 2010) because it helps children develop the necessary skills to stand up against exclusions, such as children prohibited from playing a game because of their or their parents' gender and sexuality.

Early childhood educators can use a number of easily applied strategies that are inspired by the insights of queer theory. For example, a teacher can use a dress-up activity designed to develop

children's analytical skills (or queer eye). Ask children to sort clothes and accessories from the dramatic play area into girl, boy, and girl/boy piles. Then, pose interesting and thought-provoking questions:

• How did you decide to make these piles of dress-ups?

• What kinds of girls or boys can (or can't) you pretend to be with the things in these different piles?

• Why might some children not like to use those (girl, boy, girl/boy) dress-ups?

• What kinds of girls' and boys' dress-up play are the hardest, easiest, most excit- ing, and scariest to do? Why?

• Who in the class might like to try some different ways of being a girl or a boy?

To encourage children's further development of these analytical skills, ask children to try on different dress-up items and talk about their choices and

experiences. This activity can easily be modified by asking children to group their backpacks or lunchboxes accord- ing to gender (see Blaise 2005).

Teachers can also share their own

reflections and experiences of gender expectations and sexuality assumptions. For instance, when Laura challenged children's understandings of gender with the math worksheet, she could have extended the discussion by tell- ing of her childhood experiences with gender and sexuality assumptions. She might recall how she was often mistaken for a boy because she wore her hair short or how she felt when her class-

mates sometimes teased her for wanting to play soccer with the boys instead of sitting and talking during recess. Laura could also talk about how she has tried

not to let gender matter, but that it still does because her feelings still get hurt - not when people mistake her for a man

but because they sometimes make a big deal about how she looks or the kinds of

clothes she chooses to wear.

Some of these developmentally appro- priate discussions with 6-, 7-, and 8-year- olds might even include the expectations that family and friends have about hete- rosexuality and marriage. Such discus- sions, like when Elena explained that her aunt was pretty and smart yet chose not to have a boyfriend, could extend to the gender expectations and sexuality assump- tions that surround a myriad of everyday activities, like cooking, cleaning, working, shopping, teaching, playing games, and so on. By reflecting on these familiar ac- tivities, children can gradually develop a critical awareness of things they usually take for granted as natural and nor- mal. For instance, they could observe whether all the children help tidy up the classroom or whether the girls usually do most of this kind of work.

Finally, teachers can bring families into these discussions. Descriptions of gender and sexuality conversations, including children's questions and points of view, could be included in the daily class journal or weekly newsletter. The teacher might also highlight how such discussions made her uncomfort-

able - and why. Since parents are likely to feel more uncomfortable about these

issues than their children, they might appreciate a teacher's honest reflec- tions on what can sometimes be dif-

ficult but important discussions about gender, power, inclusion, and exclusion. Perhaps parents will appreciate them more if teachers attempt to include families in the process and are not just always told about it after the fact. For example, a teacher might write about her reaction to often hearing children say, "You're such a girl!" in a derogatory way. She could ask parents if they have heard similar kinds of remarks at home, whether they consider this kind of behavior problematic and why/why not, and how they might address it.

If readers feel reluctant to try out these suggestions, imagine rewriting the family outing in the vignette. Assume these same children have a teacher who

is not discouraged and defeated by their earlier tendencies to play very gender- stereotyped games. The teacher knows that gender power relations are ubiqui- tous, complex, and bound up with het-

(conťd on p. 98)

96 Young Children • January 201 2

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

erosexual norms. He understands that

the children, without any critical skills to help them question gender norms, will most likely try to get their gender "right" and avoid rejection or teasing from the other children. The teacher

knows that children's gender perfor- mances are limited to the discourses

they have had available to them. This teacher neither blames the children nor

gives up on them. Instead, he acts proac- tively and takes the time to consistently encourage them to question norms and to challenge the idea that there is only one right way for girls and boys to do gender. The teacher fosters an honest, questioning environment in which the children can critically reflect on the limiting effects of the gender/sexuality norms. He encourages them all to do their best to respect and explore the full spectrum of gender performances. As a result, the family outing scenario changes and goes like this:

Harry and Alan are busy in the home corner. Alan lights a fire and cooks breakfast for Harry's twin babies. He asks Harry to feed them quickly and put them to bed, because they have to get the car ready for a camping trip. Kathy and Ruth arrive and ask to come camping too. Alan is not keen on the idea. "Only boys go camp- ing. Girls go shopping," he says, expecting Harry to back him up. The girls laugh, pointing out that such notions about girls and boys are not only stupid but unfair. They look at Harry, who now holds his babies self- consciously. He agrees with the girls before they have the chance to ques- tion why it's OK for him to play with dolls but not for them to go camping.

Outnumbered, Alan gives in, but he tells the girls that they must help pack the car. They oblige, putting some food, books, tools, and a cell phone in a box in the back. Soon Alan, Kathy, and Ruth are ready to go. Only Harry's seat is empty. He is tucking his babies into bed in the home corner. "Hurry up," Alan calls out impatiently. "Leave them. Let's go." "Can't I bring them?" Harry asks tentatively. Alan frowns and glances back at Kathy and Ruth for a moment. "Oh, all right," he says reluctantly.

Harry squeezes the dolls' bed in beside the box of supplies and takes his seat. The adventure begins. Kathy drives and Alan reads the map. Harry turns to Ruth and asks, "Do you think

that babies care if they are girls or boys?" "No," says Ruth. "They only care if someone says they can't come camping."

References

Alloway, N. 1995. Foundation Stones: The Construction of Gender in Early Childhood. Melbourne, AU: Curriculum Corporation.

Atkinson, E., & R. DePalma. 2009. "Un-believing the Matrix: Queering Consensual Heteronor- m at i vity." Gender and Education 21 (1): 17-29.

Bhana, D. 2005. '"Show Me the Panties': Girls Play Games in the School Grounds." In Seven Going on Seventeen : Tween Studies in the Culture of Girlhood, eds. C. Mitchell & J. Reid- Walsh, 163-72. New York: Peter Lane.

Bhana, D. 2007. '"Emma and Dave Sitting on a Tree, KISSING': Boys, Girls, and the Hetero- sexual Matrix in a South African Primary School." International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood 5 (2): 83-96.

Blaise, M. 2005. Playing It Straight! Uncovering Gender Discourses in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Routledge.

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): 450-60. Blaise, M. 2010. "Kiss and Tell: Gendered Narra-

tives and Childhood Sexuality." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (Special Sexuali- ties Issue) 35 (1): 1-9.

Boldt, G.M. 1996. "Sexist and Heterosexist Re- sponses to Gender Bending in an Elementary Classroom." Curriculum Inquiry 26 (2): 113-31.

Boldt, G.M. 201 1. "One Hundred Hotdogs, or Per- forming Gender in the Elementary Classroom." In Perspectives on Gender in Early Childhood, ed. T. Jacobson, 77-93. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

Butler, J. (1990) 1999. Gender Trouble : Femi- nism and the Subversion of Identity. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter: Un the Dis-

cursive Limits of "Sex. " New York: Routledge. Cahill, B., &R. Theilheimer. 1999. "Stonewall

in the Housekeeping Area: Gay and Lesbian Issues in the Early Childhood Classroom." In Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling, eds. W.J. Letts IV & J. Sears, 39-48. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Connolly, P. 1998. Racism, Gendered Identities and Young Children: Social Relations in a Multi-ethnic, Inner-city Primary School. Lon- don: Routledge.

Cullen, F. 2009. "Seeking a Queer(ying) Peda- gogic Praxis: Adventures in the Classroom and Participatory Action Research." In Inter- rogating Heteronormativity in Primary Schools: The No Outsiders Project, eds. R. DePalma & E. Atkinson, 17-34. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham.

Cullen, F., & L. Sandy. 2009. "Lesbian Cinder- ella and Other Stories: Telling Tales and Researching Sexualities Equalities in Pri- mary School." Sex Education 9 (2): 141-54.

Davies, B. (1989) 2003. Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales: Preschool Children and Gen-

der. 2nd ed. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Davis, K., & G. Mac Naughton. 2009. "Masculin- ities, Mateship, and Young Boys: Defending Borders, Playing Footy, and Kissing Meg." In "Race" and Early Childhood Education: An

International Approach to Identity, Politics, and Pedagogy, eds. G. Mac Naughton & K. Davis, 85-97. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

DePalma, R., & E. Atkinson, eds. 2008. Invisible Boundaries: Addressing Sexualities Equality in Children's Worlds. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.

DePalma, R., & E. Atkinson, eds. 2009. Interro- gating Heteronormativity in Primary Schools: The No Outsiders Project. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.

Derman-Sparks, L., & J.O. Edwards. 2010. Anti- Bias Education for Young Children and Our- selves. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Francis, B. 1998. Power Plays: Primary School Children 's Constructions of Gender, Power, and Adult Work. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.

Gallas, K. 1997. "Sometimes I Can Be Anything": Power, Gender, and Identity in a Primary Class- room. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ingraham, C. 1994. The Heterosexual Imagi- nary: Feminist Sociology and Theories of Gender." Sociological Theory 12 (2): 203-19.

Jackson, S. 2006. Heterosexuality, Sexuality, and Gender: Rethinking the Intersections." In Intersections between Feminist and Queer Theory, eds. D. Richardson, J. McLaughlin, & M.E. Casey, 38-58. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson, S. 2008. "Families, Domesticity and Intimacy: Changing Relationships in Changing Times." In Introducing Gender and Women's Studies, 3rd ed., eds. D. Richardson & V. Rob- inson, 125-43. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mac Naughton, G. 2000. Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education. London: Paul Chapman.

Reay, D. 2001. "'Spice Girls,' 'Nice Girls,' 'Girlies,' and 'Tomboys': Gender Discourses, Girls' Cul- tures and Femininities in the Primary Class- room." Gender and Education 13 (2): 153-66.

Renold, E. 2006. "'They Won't Let Us Play . . . Unless You're Going Out with One of Them': Girls, Boys, and Butler's 'Heterosexual Matrix' in the Primary Years." British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (4): 489-509.

Robinson, K.H. 2005. "Childhood and Sexual- ity: Adult Constructions and Silenced Chil- dren." In Children Taken Seriously in Theory, Policy, and Practice, eds. J. Mason & T. Fat- tore, 66-76. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Skattebol, J. 2006. "Playing Boys: The Body, Identity, and Belonging in the Early Years." Gender and Education 18 (5): 507-22.

Taylor, A. 2007. "Playing with Difference: The Cultural Politics of Childhood Belonging." International Journal of Diversity in Organisa- tions, Communities, Nations 7 (3): 143-50.

Taylor, A. 2008. "Taking Account of Childhood Excess: Bringing the Elsewhere Home." In Conversations with Judith Butler , ed. B. Davies, 195-216. New York and London: Routledge.

Taylor, A., & C. Richardson. 2005. "Queer- ing Home Corner." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 6 (2): 163-74. http://dx.doi. org/1 0.2304/ciec.2005.6.2.6.

Walkerdine, V. 1990. Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso.

Warner, M. 1993. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Weedon, C. 1997. Feminist Practice and Post- structuralist Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Copyright © 2012 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints

online at www.naeyc.org/yc/permissions.

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Sun, 05 Nov 2017 03:47:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms