Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Children’s Power Relations, Resistance, and Subject Positions

  • Marek Tesar
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_267


Children are governed by hegemonic and resistant discourses in any ideological setting. While children live in their ordinary, everyday life experiences, whether they are positive or negative, their lives demonstrate the complex nature of power relations in the ideological context of society. Two philosophers make strong contributions to discussions on power relations in early childhood: Foucault and Havel. In childhood studies, the work of both these theorists challenges the developmental ideas that are often associated with the singular child entity. Their engagement with complex power relations allows a reconceptualization of the child as a postmodern construct with multiple and fluid subject positions, that are temporally and locally produced within early childhood settings (Tesar 2015).

Who and What Is a Child?

This section introduces complexities and tensions inherent in biologizing childhoods and in the sociology of childhoods. Stainton-Rogers and Stainton-Rogers (1992...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Benda, V. (1991). The parallel ‘Polis’. In H. G. Skilling & P. Wilson (Eds.), Civic freedom in Central Europe: Voices from Czechoslovakia (pp. 35–41). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (1972–1977). Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  3. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Havel, V. (1985). The power of the powerless. In J. Keane (Ed.), The power of the powerless: Citizens against the state in central – eastern Europe (pp. 23–96). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  5. MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  6. Morss, J. R. (1996). The problem of development. In J. R. Morss (Ed.), Growing critical: Alternatives to developmental psychology (pp. 47–54). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Prout, A. (1999). Childhood bodies: Construction, agency and hybridity. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society (pp. 1–18). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Stainton-Rogers, R., & Stainton-Rogers, W. (1992). Stories of childhood: Shifting agendas of child concern. Exeter: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  9. Tesar, M. (2014). Reconceptualising the child: Power and resistance within early childhood settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(4), 360–367. doi:10.2304/ciec.2014.15.4.360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tesar, M. (2015). Power and subjectivities: Foucault and Havel on the complexities of early years classroom. In C. Rubie-Davies & J. Stephens (Eds.), The social psychology of the classroom international handbook (pp. 475–492). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand