Abstract
This chapter is about mapping, in a more-than-representational sense. We examine how space can be portrayed when studying infants’ experiences in early childhood education and care settings, first theoretically, and then by constructing schematic descriptions from video-records of an Australian family day care home by way of illustration. We ask: how are we to map relationships between babies and space? What kinds of maps open up anew the everyday worlds of early childhood settings? And from whose points of view can such mappings be undertaken? Our engagement with infants’ experiences has been catalysed by reading the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. In particular, we have been inspired by and appropriated their emphasis on the variety of heterogeneous and hybrid elements, human and non-human, animate and inanimate, that connect with and form assemblages (Deleuze G, Guattari F, A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (trans: Massumi B). Continuum, London, 1987) including ourselves as researchers researching and infants’ moment-to-moment lives (Bradley B et al, Contemp Issue Early Child 13(2):141–153, 2012). In considering what space might mean to babies, we have been helped by cultural geographer and non-representational theorist, Nigel Thrift (Theory Cult Soc 23(2-3):139–146, 2006; Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. Routledge, London/New York, 2008) who has also been influenced by Deleuze and Guattari. Thrift’s space is dynamic, porous, hybrid and complex. It takes no one singular form; rather it “comes in many guises: points, planes, parabolas; blots, blurs and blackouts” (Theory Cult Soc 23(2-3):139–146, 2006, p. 141). We call Thrift’s conceptualisation of space more-than-representational (Lorimer H, Prog Human Geogr 29(1):83–94, 2005), rather than non-representational, both to convey the impossibilities of pinning down the potential fluidities and porosities in infants’ worlds and to avoid unhelpful dualisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, E. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bower, T. G. R. (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman.
Bradley, B., Sumsion, J., Stratigos, T., & Elwick, S. (2012). Baby events: Assembling descriptions of infants in family day care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 141–153.
Braidotti, R. (2006). Affirmation versus vulnerability: On contemporary ethical debates. Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy, 10, 235–254.
Colebrook, C. (2002). Understanding Deleuze. Crows Nest, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Currier, D. (2003). Feminist technological futures. Feminist Theory, 4(3), 321–338. doi:10.1177/14647001030043005.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1984). Anti-Oedipus (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.). London/New York: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2004). Dialogues 11. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2006). Dialogues 11 (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). London/New York: Continuum.
Fox, N. J. (2002). Refracting ‘health’: Deleuze, Guattari and body-self. Health, 6(3), 347–363. doi:10.1177/136345930200600306.
Hickey-Moody, A. C. (2013). Deleuze’s children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(3), 272–286. doi:10.1080/00131857.2012.741523.
Hickey-Moody, A., & Malins, P. (2007). Introduction: Gilles Deluze and four movements in social thought. In A. Hickey-Moody & P. Malins (Eds.), Deleuzian encounters: Studies in contemporary social issues (pp. 1–124). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holland, E. (2005). Desire + social – production. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 65–66). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural geography: The busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 83–94.
Malins, P. (2004). Machinic assemblages: Deleuze, Guattari and an ethico-aesthetics of drug use. Janus Head, 7(1), 84–104.
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs [MCEEDYA]. (2011). Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011. Retrieved from http://www.acecqa.gov.au/storage/Education%20and%20Care%20Services%20National%20Regulations%20-%20d17%20-%2014-10-2011.pdf
Piaget, J. (1955). The construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ringrose, J. (2011). Beyond discourse? Using Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis to explore affective assemblages, heterosexually striated space, and lines of flight online and at school. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 598–618. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00601.x.
Slater, A. (2001). Visual perception. In G. Bremner & A. Fogel (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of infant development (pp. 5–34). Oxford: Blackwell.
Snyder, J. P. (1997). Flattening the earth: Two thousand years of map projections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sumsion, J., Harrison, L. J., Press, F., McLeod, S., Bradley, B., & Goodfellow, J. (2008–2011). What’s life like for babies and toddlers in childcare? Understanding the ‘lived experience’ of infants through an innovative mosaic methodology (LP 0883913). Australian Research Council Linkage Grant.
Tamboukou, M. (2008). Machinic assemblages: Women, art education and space. Discourse, 29(3), 359–375.
Thrift, N. (2006). Space. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 139–146. doi:10.1177/0263276406063780.
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London/New York: Routledge.
West-Pavlov, R. (2009). Space in theory: Kristeva, Foucault, Deleuze. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Winnicott, D. W. (1951). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In D. W. Winnicott (Ed.), Collected papers: Through paediatrics to psycho-analysis (pp. 229–242). London: Tavistock.
Zabrodska, K., & Ellwood, C. (2011). Subjectivity as a play of territorialization: Exploring affective attachments to place through collective biography. Human Affairs, 21, 184–195.
Acknowledgements
The Infants’ Lives in Childcare project on which this chapter is based was funded by the Australian Research Council LP0883913, Family Day Care Australia and KU Children’s Services. We wish to thank the participants in the project, especially Amanda, Charlie, Kaia, Angus and Bianca (pseudonyms). We acknowledge, too, fellow members of the project team: Linda Harrison, Sharynne McLeod, Frances Press, Joy Goodfellow, Sheena Elwick and Sandra Cheeseman.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 4.1: Charlie’s Nomadic Wandering Through the Family Day Care Home
Appendix 4.1: Charlie’s Nomadic Wandering Through the Family Day Care Home
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sumsion, J., Stratigos, T., Bradley, B. (2014). Babies in Space. In: Harrison, L., Sumsion, J. (eds) Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care. International perspectives on early childhood education and development, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8838-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8838-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8837-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8838-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)