Political geography in childhood

Beyond ‘voice’, beyond ‘agency’, beyond ‘politics’? Hybrid childhoods and some critical reflections on children's emotional geographies

“…Recently, Mitchell and Elwood (2012, 789) have urged caution about "heterogeneous and performative" renderings of politics (cf. Kallio and Häkli 2010), and especially those which, drawing upon nonrepresentational theories, seem to efface "holistic 12 analysis". Lacking attention to systemic forms of inequality, Mitchell and Elwood (2012, 793) argue that nonrepresentational children's geographies have become personal (for scholars), self-referential endeavours more caught up with the research process itself than "theories of dominance and subordination".…”

“…Vanderbeck 2008). Most notably, some recent critical debates have centred around the possible ways in which children's experiences maybe framed as 'political' (Skelton and Valentine 2003;Kallio and Häkli 2010).…”

Are There Politics in Childhood?

“…This sustains the perception of children's mundane lives as not determined by webs of power relations forming around matters of importance to children themselves. Yet, if we accept that children are active members of their communities and societies (beings), and not merely objects of top-down socialization processes (becomings), we should reverse our thinking concerning children's political lives (see Arneil, 2002;Skelton, 2007;Kallio & Häkli, 2010).…”

“…Although the field of children's geographies has extended notably in the past twenty years, scholars concerned with children's everyday environments have not shown explicit interest towards children's political agency or the political geographies that unfold in childhood(s) (Kallio & Häkli, 2010). This is somewhat surprising given that politics is increasingly understood in relational terms as 'struggle between friends and enemies' (Schmitt, 1976: 26); as a 'mode of acting that is put into practice by a specific kind of subject, deriving from a particular form of reason' (Rancière, 2001); as a 'force field, an intensity, not a substance' (Agamben, 2001, cited in Brown, 2002; as 'dimension of antagonism that is inherent in all human relations' (Mouffe, 2000: 101); '[purposive and oriented everyday] activities in which beings engage and in which they invest themselves' (Isin, 2005: 381), to mention just a few relational readings.…”

“…This sustains the perception of children's mundane lives as not determined by webs of power relations forming around matters of importance to children themselves. Yet, if we accept that children are active members of their communities and societies (beings), and not merely objects of top-down socialization processes (becomings), we should reverse our thinking concerning children's political lives (see Arneil, 2002;Skelton, 2007;Kallio & Häkli, 2010).In this paper we propose that power relations acknowledged and constituted by children themselves form the basis of their political lives. This is not to suggest that states, institutions, families, childhood professionals, policy makers, commercial forces, the media, close communities, and other actors who influence and effect children's daily lives would not play an important role in their politics -quite the contrary.…”