Performativity,propriety and productivity: The unintended consequences of investing in the Early Years

Abstract

This paper examines notions of childhood development in a significant Australian policy document. Using Fairclough’s approaches to discourse analysis as guides, Foucault’s understanding of regimes of truth and discourses as systems of power relations and Nikolas Rose’s concept of ‘responsibilisation’, the paper argues that discourses of healthy childhood development as represented in this document produce definitions of ‘proper’ child development and thus, place certain children and families outside this idea. Proper development is understood through Nikolas Rose’s concept of ‘responsibilisation’ where the recognition of ‘at risk’ or ‘improper’ groups, and notions of productivity, are addressed through understandings of performativity while highlighting consequences for children and families.

Keywords

Responsibilisation propriety discourse performatvity productivity habitus

Introduction

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is the highest forum for intergovernmental discussion and policy reform in Australia (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2013). The purpose of COAG is to develop policy reform in areas that are important nationally and require coordination across all levels of government (COAG, 2013). Recently COAG released, Investing in the Early Years – A National Early Childhood Development Strategy (COAG, 2009) (hereafter, Strategy Document) and this is one of their latest policy documents relating to the early years. The Strategy Document is an influential policy document that sets the direction for childhood development services and practice in Australia from now until 2020. The direction of early childhood development and family support programs outlined within the Strategy Document is shaped by research conducted internationally, including the United States and United Kingdom (COAG, 2009: 8–9). The Strategy Document has relevance internationally and it can work as a guide to understand how childhood development is characterised in the west, as a response to recent research concerning childhood development and family support.

The vision of early childhood development as outlined within the Strategy Document suggests that, ‘by 2020 all children will have the best start in life to create a better future for themselves and for the nation’ (COAG, 2009: 13). This vision is maintained by a set of policy objectives, which work towards, ‘…greater social inclusion; improved outcomes for the majority of children specifically Indigenous children and the most disadvantaged; and increased productivity and international competitiveness’ (COAG, 2009: 13). Within the document, positive early childhood development outcomes include ‘… improved health, cognitive and social development leading to improved transition to school and improved educational, employment, health and wellbeing outcomes’ (COAG, 2009: 4). A set of ‘key elements’ (COAG, 2009: 16) are recognised as important for an ‘effective childhood development system’ (COAG, 2009: 16) that meets early childhood development goals, and includes, ‘support for children, parents, carers and communities; responsive early childhood development services; governance and funding; quality and regulation; knowledge management and innovation; workforce and leadership development; and infrastructure’ (COAG, 2009: 16). Thus, the Strategy document presents a very strong vision for the care education and development of children in the early years and of the necessary conditions for optimising such notions.

The paper uses this information and its intentions beginning with a discussion of how early childhood education and care (ECEC) is understood in the west, and specifically highlights the idea of proper citizenry in ECEC. In the first section, Early Childhood Development Investment and Outcomes, the authors introduce the discourse analysis, which will be undertaken within the paper and describe the aims and goals of the Strategy Document. In the second section, Searching for ‘Better’, Tyler’s 1993 work is used as an example to highlight that policy may have unintended consequences for groups it aims to serve. Additionally, the work of Foucault (1980) is used to exemplify how systems of power and governance may be used to encourage self-regulation and certain behaviours. The following three sections, section three, the Strategy Document, Childhood Development and Outcomes: Alignment of National and Individual Goals, section four, Interventions, Surveillance and Technologies of Governance, and section five, the ‘ Paradox of Progress’ apply the concepts about governance and citizenry presented by Rose (1990, 2000), Bourdieu (1984), and Ball (2003, 2004) to the Strategy Document. An inconsistency in the Strategy Document, the paradox of progress is highlighted, and unintended consequences of the Strategy Document are presented. In the conclusion, the main points from the article are summarised. Additionally, potential implications of inconsistent policy documents with understandings of childhood development that focus on productivity are suggested.

Early childhood development investment and outcomes

ECEC is currently burgeoning as a reform agenda in Australia. Such reform has in part been prompted by research from international authors such as Heckman (2006), who have linked future economic prosperity with investment in the early years. This policy reform and investment also brings with it the inference that children and families must meet certain expectations and be encouraged to perform as ‘proper’ citizens in order that the results from such economic investment are realised. The idea of ‘proper citizenry’ is produced as a consequence of particular discourses that work to inform the community as to whether children and families both contribute and adhere to ideas of propriety and thus, whether they are worthy of such investment. These discourses of propriety tend to focus around the idea that children must develop properly in order to be included in particular categories of successful performance as citizens.

A plethora of discursive and non-discursive practices have contributed to Australian government understandings of healthy childhood development, at-risk groups, and productivity. An important aspect of discourse analysis involves having a comprehensive understanding of these discursive and non-discursive practices (Fairclough, 1992). Given that there is ‘…no set procedure for doing a discourse analysis’ (Fairclough, 1992: 225) the authors use aspects of discourse analysis approaches discussed by Fairclough (1992, 2002) as guides. Fairclough (2002) provides a five-step analytical framework for conducting critical discourse analysis and the analysis of the Strategy Document undertaken in this paper has involved working through the first two steps of this process. Following the first step, identifying ‘…a social problem which has a semiotic aspect’ (Fairclough, 2002: 125), ‘childhood development’ is focused on as a problematic that has impact on children and families. Furthermore and aligning with the second step, ‘[i]dentifying obstacles to it being tackled…’ (Fairclough, 2002: 125), concepts relating to childhood development in the Strategy Document, specifically ‘healthy’, ‘at-risk’ and ‘productivity’ are identified and their relationship to childhood development in the Strategy Document analysed. Additionally, the authors have utilised the approach described by Fairclough (1992), and developed a ‘mental model’ to understand the perspectives of childhood development outlined within the Strategy Document. Specifically, the authors read extensively around critical understandings of childhood development and education.

Ideas and theories from a variety of authors become tools throughout the analysis to identify discourses presented within the Strategy Document. The concepts and ideas presented are defined throughout the article, whenever referenced. For clarity, a brief description of the theories and authors referenced follows. The authors initially use Foucault (1980) and applications of his work as guides to identify the discourses from the Strategy Document. Specifically Foucault’s (1980) understanding of regimes of truth and discourses as systems of power relations are highlighted and used to suggest that policy documents become an avenue to produce understandings of truth and normalise behaviours. Additionally, Rose’s (1990) notion of responsibilisation is described. Responsibilisation is referenced in respect to the understanding within the Strategy Document that individual and national goals are aligned. Popkewitz’s (2003) ideas around responsibilisation, community and education in the United States are also used in relation to the individual and national goals within the Strategy Document. Bourdieu’s (1984, 2001) work is referenced multiple times, first highlighting that social engagement is a game within society where individuals require resources to play successfully. Additionally, Bourdieu’s (2001) concept of habitus is referenced, and used to exemplify potential consequences of the Strategy Document. Ball’s (2003, 2004, 2012) work around productivity and performativity and its organising effects is also used to highlight how the Strategy Document may be contributing to notions of performativity. Ball’s (2003, 2004, 2012) work is also used to exemplify the potential consequences of this productivity and performativity in the Strategy Document.

The authors take the view that the notion of ‘childhood development’ is a problematic and contested idea. This notion will be addressed through an analysis of policy discourses about healthy childhood development within the Strategy Document. This will involve undertaking a discursive analysis of the terms affiliated with childhood development within the Strategy Document including ‘healthy’, ‘at-risk’ and ‘productivity’. Such analysis requires an identification of inconsistencies surrounding childhood development within the Strategy Document, particularly in relation to the paradox of progress (COAG, 2009; Stanley; 2003; Stanley et al., 2005).

By examining the discourses in this Strategy Document and by referring to other relevant documents and literature, the authors use critical social theory to develop an understanding of the consequences of the inferences in this policy document for children and families. There is also an alignment with the work of Bowe et al. (1992) by considering the idea that all policy includes certain assumptions, omissions and contradictions, which work to produce both intended and unintended consequences for the individuals at which the policy is directed.

There is an argument that the Strategy Document equates healthy childhood development with a set of outcomes including attainment of education, employment and future productivity and, in doing so, creates the idea of proper childhood development. Reforms within the Strategy Document can be recognised as a form of intervention on groups who are ‘at-risk’ of improper development, specifically, groups who are not able to function productively and support their own and the nation’s economic goals. This perspective validates certain traits and marginalises others, producing judgements about what represents ‘the right thing’.

Although none of these suggestions appear unreasonable and, in fact, look very attractive, it is the idea that there might be judgement about child development that prompts some concern. Terms such as ‘best’, ‘better’ and ‘effective’ suggest that there are ways to measure such notions and that development goals are set to according to these determined measures. It is how such measures are determined and how particular understandings are categorised, which should be open to investigation. Moreover, the idea that policy can be implemented in ways that categorise what is best or better can also prove to be problematic.

Searching for ‘Better’

In most cases, the main focus of most policy reform tends to be in the search for something better and the Strategy Document is no exception. The purpose of the Strategy Document as outlined in the Executive Summary reads that by ‘…2020 all children have the best start in life to create a better future for themselves and for the nation’ (COAG, 2009: 4). In and of itself, the idea of searching for something better appears to be a reasonable one. However, it is not the sentiment in the document but the consequences these sentiments produce, which tend to be problematic. Thus, when focussing on policy that is seeking to produce better outcomes, it is important that a precise examination of the consequences is considered. Such an examination is not meant to situate policy as right or wrong. Rather, this work intends to understand policy reform as always problematic and so needing to be opened up for scrutiny (Bowe et al., 1992).

An example of such issues has been highlighted by the seminal work of Deborah Tyler (1993). While not focussing specifically on policy, Tyler highlights the consequences of scrutinising children and families in the search for better outcomes. Tyler uses a historical analysis of child development literature to demonstrate how a certain type of citizen can be produced and examines the mechanisms used to work towards such an outcome. Tyler argues that child development literature has gradually promoted the virtues of the kindergarten as a mechanism for directing children toward rationality, autonomy and self-regulation. Additionally, Tyler highlights how kindergarten became a tool to develop individuals’ capacity to meet national objectives. Tyler’s (1993) work is relevant here because it helps in the development of an understanding of how discourses work to produce better behaviour and self-regulation. Specifically, it is useful to highlight the work of Tyler, as the Strategy Document’s ability to encourage individuals to behave in a socially desirable manner congruent with national goals, is discussed throughout the argument of this paper. When discussing kindergartens ability to influence children’s behaviour, Tyler (1993) states:

Alongside rationality, the better child would move steadily toward total independence by taking every opportunity to exercise greater control and autonomy. For the child to be moving towards independence also meant taking responsibility for one’s self and one’s actions, and discovering that the desire to do something was not sufficient reason for doing it. But the child who was forced into obedience would never discover ‘inner discipline’ and would come only to resent the rules, and not regulate the self. The child was capable of self-regulation, and to realise its full potential must develop this capacity. (Tyler, 1993: 44)

Tyler’s argument is that the organisation of space in the kindergarten worked in ways to increase surveillance of children and maintain the capacity for self-regulation. She suggests that certain non-coercive techniques were used to achieve this and that these became part of the practices within these kindergarten organisations.

Tyler’s (1993) work centres on the establishment and function of the Lady Gowrie Child Centres in Australia, which were built as model kindergartens during World War Two. These centres implemented practice, which aimed to produce children as tools to meet national goals. According to Tyler (1993),

The Lady Gowrie Centres were ‘special purpose’ structures in that their function was the training of two to six year olds as one part of a range of strategies aimed at shaping and maximising the capacities of the population to meet national goals. (Tyler, 1993: 45)

Tyler also argues that Lady Gowrie centres were ‘special purpose’ in that they were used to promote particular socially acceptable behaviours in the child of a type that child psychologists held as important. These centres, which were examples of excellence in early childhood education and care, were used as observation centres for both staff and prospective students. The children in these centres became objects of surveillance by being subjected to the normalising gaze, as the object of observation and evaluation by outside organisations (Macfarlane, 2006). This ensured the constitution of a certain type of child, whose behaviour was regulated by the organisation of space, the values of the teacher and the image of the child as hope for the future (Macfarlane, 2006).

The Lady Gowrie centres continue to operate today and still hold reputations as quality early childhood education and care centres within the early childhood community. The surveillance, normalisation and individualisation of young children are examples of how non-coercive techniques can be used to create a certain type of citizen (Rose, 1999, 2000). Tyler’s (1993) work acts as an example of how populations can be governed by normalising particular behaviours, thereby creating a regime of truth producing what is or is not unruly behaviour in any given situation (Foucault, 1980). If individuals or groups of individuals are continually subjected to techniques of surveillance, then unruly behaviour is made more visible (Macfarlane, 2006).

Tyler’s (1993) work is an example of how discourses function to produce self-regulation and socially desirable behaviour. As Foucault (1980) attests, discourses are systems of language use and, at the same time, systems of power relations. This means that discourse works to produce understandings of propriety, which work as technologies of governance to encourage individuals to self-regulate to meet normalised understandings of ‘proper’ behaviour. What is significant about this work is that it makes it possible to see that policy works in a similar way in its search for something better. Policy produces particular understandings of truth by normalising certain behaviours. It is with such ideas in mind that the examination of the Strategy Document proceeds.

Strategy Document, childhood development and outcomes: alignment of national and individual goals

It is important to highlight that recent research has critically analysed and identified problematics in Australian early years policy. Millei (2008) explored the concept of citizenship in Australian early years policy and characterised early years policy in Australia as one which regards children as ‘citizens’ who are invited to ‘participate’ in decision making. Additionally, Millei (2008) suggests that policies with this perspective of childhood may, or may not encourage inclusive, equitable service and practice. Using Foucault’s interpretation of power and Rose’s (1999) concept of governmentality, Millei (2008) problematises citizenship and participation in Australian early years policy and describes how citizenship and participation are recognised as technologies of government that can be used to regulate individuals. It is also suggested that while early years policy in Australia aims to empower children they may also be ‘…regulat[ing] children by limiting their freedom’ (p.50).

The Strategy Document links early childhood development goals with Australia’s economic goals. In doing so, the Strategy Document lines up ‘advanced liberal’ technologies of government concerning the early years, technologies that have already been identified as ones that align childhood development with a nation’s macro-economic goals (see for example, Millei, 2008). The Strategy Document proposes a set of guidelines, procedures and goals to ensure ‘… that by 2020 all children have the best start in life to create a better future for themselves and for the nation’ (COAG, 2009: 4). The Executive Summary and Chapter 1: The Case for Change, provide the rationale for the early years policy direction as described within the Strategy Document. These sections clarify that development during the early years is crucial to the future of an individual’s life (Mustard, 2001), and is determined through a combination of genetics and experiences throughout childhood (COAG, 2009). Additionally a benchmark for a ‘better future’ is described, and is aligned with a set of outcomes which can be categorised as ‘healthy’ and attributed to proper childhood development. The document states ‘… improved health, cognitive and social development [lead] to improved transition to school and improved educational, employment, health and wellbeing outcomes’ (COAG, 2009: 4). It is suggested that investing towards these outcomes is ‘cost-effective’ and works towards the individuals’ and nation’s economic goals, and further ensures competitiveness in the global economy (COAG, 2009: 6).

The inference in these statements is that both individual and national goals are aligned. Such an idea espouses the notion that there is harmony between the goals of the nation and the goals of the individual. This idea is vital to notions of propriety, as policy reform that seeks to provide the ‘best start in life’ requires that individuals behave in ways that affirm this understanding. This means that individuals must self-regulate to align with ideas that produce this policy’s idea of a best start. In short, individuals should become ‘responsibilised’.

Borrowing from Nikolas Rose (2000: 1395), the term responsibilisation ‘asserts our belief in a common purpose’. This term has become the means by which particular values, beliefs and ethics are promoted to the population as desirable qualities (Macfarlane, 2006). Rose argues/asserts that because people need a ‘framework of belief’, this method of governance (Rose, 2000) promotes mutual responsibility and reciprocal obligation as crucial to civil societies. Consequently, the civic-minded citizen self regulates and becomes responsibilised, that is, comes to understand this process as the proper way to function (Rose, 2000). Moreover, the focus on a belief in a common purpose produces responsibilised communities, which include autonomised individuals who derive guidelines and techniques from these communities to enable them to ‘enact their freedom’ (Rose, 2000: 1399). It is through this process that individuals are subjected to technologies of government (Rose, 1999), thereby becoming agents in particular and desirable ways.

Particular understandings of best and better are at play here. What individuals must do is follow these particular understandings and exist in harmony with them in order for their best start in life to be achieved. In terms of child development and progress, this means that children must develop properly according to normalised understandings and that parents must do all that they can to enable this proper development.

Thomas Popkewitz (2003) builds on Rose’s notion of ‘responsibilisation’ in his work. He asserts that, in the USA, the notion of a community is central to the notion of progress of both schooling and nation. As Popkewitz (2003) understands it, ‘The metaphor of community is evoked in the US reforms of site-based management, home–school collaboration and curriculum discussions of the classroom as a ‘community of learning’ (Popkewitz, 2003: 50).

Popkewitz (2003) argues the importance of the notion of community in bringing together ‘multiple salvation themes of progress’, coming as it does with a ‘universal value of goodness’ (p.50). This allows the possibility of re-locating ‘community’ within a field of practices that join the ‘life-long learner’ with what he conceptualises as ‘the pedagogicalisation of the parent’ (Popkewitz, 2003: 50). The main idea then is the usefulness of developing ‘partnerships’ between the school and the home, which become characterised as friends not enemies of diversity (Macfarlane, 2006). However, Popkewitz indicates that while new emphasis is placed on diversity and equity, difference continues to be maintained by producing new sets of distinctions and differences that exclude particular categories of families, placing them outside what normally indicates success.

Categorising ‘at risk’ groups

The idea that healthy childhood development is affiliated with individuals and communities that are responsibilised and contribute to the economic goals of the nation seems reasonable. However, problems occur when parents are unable to contribute to this idea of progress for a variety of reasons. Placing emphasis on economic productivity of individuals to further a nation’s goals blames the individual and disregards historical circumstances, which have perpetuated social inequalities. According to Bourdieu (1984, 2001), individuals engage in social and systemic practice like players in a game and will try to adhere to the rules of the game. Moreover, Bourdieu (1984, 2001) states that for individuals to participate successfully in the game of social engagement, they must possess particular forms of capital, namely economic, social and cultural capital. Such a view highlights the fact that if these rules of the game are beyond the reach of particular individuals, for example, when individuals are part of disadvantaged families, then the economic, cultural or social contexts of these families might well prevent them from being able to reach normalised understandings of proper development. It is unlikely that the social and systemic conditions which produce these inequalities will be scrutinised appropriately. Therefore, the individual families will be held accountable regardless of context. The imbalances in the systems that hamper this process, such as unequal access to wealth and resources, will not necessarily be addressed.

This emphasis on economic productivity also situates families and children outside of healthy development, and has various effects on those labelled at-risk. As clarified by Macfarlane (2010), in this instance the consequences of labelling children and families at risk produces them as cases for intervention and works to further differentiate them as their development is no longer congruent with policy ideals. Such notions are demonstrated in the Strategy Document. In Section 1.2 Why do we need a National Strategy?, here the Strategy Document identifies groups that are at risk and singles them out for intervention. Through the exemplification of ‘…jobless families, [some] Indigenous children, and children involved in the protection system or out-of-home care’ (COAG, 2009: 10) as ‘high-risk’ or ‘areas of concern’ (COAG, 2009: 10), the Strategy Document supports the ideas presented by Bourdieu (1984) and outlines groups currently excluded from successful performance. Furthermore, the Strategy Document is explicit in its identification of Indigenous children as a group for concern. The ‘at-risk’ status of Indigenous children is illustrated through the use of a table ranking Indigenous and non-Indigenous children against children from other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations across a variety of health and wellbeing indicators including, literacy and numeracy levels, mental health, teenage pregnancy and birth rate. Children are considered at-risk and excluded from success when their families find their ‘roles and responsibilities’ (COAG, 2009: 7) as outlined within the Strategy Document unattainable. Families are regarded as at-risk and excluded from success when they do not meet a particular requirements, and are unable to, ‘… provide a nurturing home environment and to access the services and supports to best meet a child’s developmental needs…’ (COAG, 2009: 7). Thus, the performance of both parents and children is held up for scrutiny and judged according to particular understandings of propriety. Parents are situated as cases for intervention and are therefore excluded from successful categories. The consequences of such exclusion are that families who are already under pressure come under further pressure, making successful performance more difficult to attain.

Interventions, surveillance and technologies of governance

In policy documents such as the Strategy Document, outcomes can only be achieved through the implementation of a set of reforms concerning childhood education, care, wellbeing and health. In Chapter 1: The Case for Change, these reforms are highlighted as necessary to ensure that both families and children are supported to allow for positive outcomes for children, and current and future workforce participation (COAG, 2009). The proposed benefits are said to move beyond families and children and result in ‘… [enhanced] human capital and capability, increased productivity, greater social inclusion and reduced public expenditure in health, welfare and crime related to disadvantage over the life course’ (COAG, 2009: 6). The Strategy Document also states that if these outcomes are not met, and reforms ineffective, children will have ‘poor’ development, which impacts the nation through, ‘…increased social inequality, reduced productivity and high costs associated with entrenched intergenerational disadvantage’ (COAG, 2009: 6).

In Australia, statements like those from the Strategy Document referenced in the paragraph above, indicate a strong focus on performativity (Ball, 2003, 2004; Macfarlane, 2010), which is having very real organising effects for children and families (Macfarlane, 2010). These organising effects are produced by what is believed to be true about success and propriety. Policies such as the Strategy Document can either intentionally or unintentionally contribute to particular notions of performativity via the rhetoric used and also via the understandings that rhetoric produces. The analysis undertaken demonstrates that adherence to imperative discourses, even at a micro level, can produce multiple effects that can be highly problematic (Macfarlane, 2010). As Rose (1990), states, childhood is the most governed of all categories and thus, as children and, by association, their families, engage in and become objects of hyper-surveillance and techniques of governmentality, then the importance of ‘being included as proper’ becomes inextricably linked to their performance as ethically responsibilised citizens. Viewed in this way, the desire to perform according to notions of propriety causes parents and children to adhere to imperative discourses and thus, move from ‘domination to domination’ (Foucault, 1984: 85) in order to be included.

The Strategy Document claims that the inclusion of children, and, by affiliation, their parents along the road to proper development will be facilitated by a set of ‘reform opportunities’ (COAG, 2009: 5). These reform opportunities can be seen as mechanisms of surveillance and tools of government as many of them: focus and intervene with groups at-risk (Rose, 1990); target both children and families; and include but are not limited to, the ‘National Family Support Program, National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education, National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health’, and a national set of ‘standards’ and a ‘rating system’ for childhood education and care (COAG, 2009: 5). Furthermore, these reforms support the stated link between ‘responsibilisation’ and ‘pedagogicalisation’ (Popkewitz, 2003). By including education and a national set of educational standards within reforms, education becomes a means to encourage children to reach the level of responsibilisation and proper development, and to be economically competitive in a globalised world.

The knowledge and importance of childhood development evident within the Strategy Document is valid and the paper does not dispute the importance of development during the early years on the future of a child’s health and wellbeing. However, the affiliation of healthy child development with individual productivity and national economic goals in a global economy is problematic. As O’Leary (2010) suggests, sometimes such interventions contain elements of social control ‘…creating traps within the prevailing social conditions’ (p.10). Although such interventions can be viewed as a way to offer hope to disadvantaged communities, when linked with economic productivity, they can also be viewed as a means of controlling unruly sections of the community (Popkewitz, 2008). In Popkewitz’s (2008: 4) terms, such interventions:

…[entail] comparative installations that differentiate and divide those who are enlightened and civilized from those who do not have those qualities – the backward, the savage and the barbarian of the 19th century and the at risk and delinquent child of the present. The universal and inclusive practices of … reforms that speak about inclusion locate difference and incomplete elements, points and directions in the process of inclusion and exclusion. …[R]eforms…are to provide an inclusive society where ‘all children learn’ and there is ‘no child left behind’. The gesture is to make all children the same and on equal footing… [where] …hope overlaps with fears of the child whose characteristics are a threat to moral unity.

Thus, children and families who do not meet normalised understandings of healthy or proper development are excluded from categories that signify successful performance as ethical citizens.

The ‘paradox of progress’

The ‘paradox of progress’ is a term used to describe the paradox that as the nation’s wealth increases, social inequality also increases (Stanley, 2003; Stanley et al., 2005). An example in Australia is the increase in health disparities between those with and without wealth, including birth weight and infant mortality, despite overall economic growth of the country (Stanley, 2003; Stanley et al., 2005). The Strategy Document, which regards early childhood development and childhood health and wellbeing as mechanisms to ensure a productive workforce, proves the paradox of progress. That the wealthiest nations, nations with high gross domestic product (GDP), have higher social inequalities than those who are less wealthy (Stanley, 2003), highlights how economic progress is not necessarily a means to ensuring health and wellbeing and a reduction in social inequalities across the nation. While the Strategy Document may intend to support child and family health and wellbeing, it may well have the opposite unintended effect resulting in greater social inequalities.

A part of the problem resides in productivity measures, and what is regarded as the ‘wealth’ or ‘growth’ of the nation. The wealth of a nation is generally understood from a nation’s GDP and economic growth regarded as increases in GDP (Constanza et al., 2009) after adjusting for inflation. Its use as a measure is meant to present the value of goods and services produced within a country and not to be a measure of the country’s wellbeing (Constanza et al., 2009). With this understanding, encouraging an increase in productivity through sound early childhood development will result in just that, an increase in productivity but not necessarily a reduction of inequalities or wellbeing for current and future generations.

Encouraging this increase in productivity also leads to issues around performativity (Ball, 2012), which produces its own consequences. Such consequences are highlighted by Ball (2012) who argues that neoliberalism uses performativity as a policy technology, where performance and productivity at all levels ‘must be constantly audited so it can be enhanced’ (p.12). Ball (2003) attests, that performativity:

[I]s a technology, a culture and mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays a means of incentive, control, attrition and change – based on rewards and sanctions (both material and symbolic). The performances (of individual subjects or organisations)…encapsulate or represent the worth, quality or value of an individual or organisation within a field of judgement. The issue of who controls the field of judgement is crucial. (Ball, 2003: 216)

The notion of performativity as applied to the Strategy Document highlights the parameters of what healthy development looks like, stating that all families need to reach this normalised understanding of development so that the nation can prosper. Performativity works to produce an understanding of the necessary levels of citizenry to which individuals should strive. There is an inference that a certain level of performativity from parents and children is necessary so that proper child development can occur, leading to successful citizenry for both the families and for the Australian community.

However, such levels of performativity have their own consequences for the children and families who seek to reach these suggested levels. Meadmore and McWilliam (2001) point to the consequences of performativity stating that:

…as a practice and as a fabrication [it] can contribute to the deterioration of …communities who invest in its truth claims… To pretend that outcomes will necessarily be equitable if everyone lifts their game in terms of performance is to deny the diversity of Australian education. (Meadmore and McWilliam, 2001: 42)

The issue of performativity is an important one in terms of developing an understanding of the position of families who do not have the necessary capital to attain particular levels of performance. If parents want to be viewed as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, then they must perform well when caring for their children. Parents, particularly mothers, tend to view parenting as a rewarding and highly responsible undertaking (Jenks, 1996a). To exist as improper infers failure at one of the most important responsibilities in life. An individual who abuses or neglects a child is viewed, in western societies, as particularly deviant. Improper parents, while not being categorised in the same way as abusers, are nonetheless determined to be failures in significant terms (Macfarlane, 2006). As Jenks (1996a, 1996b) states, the present postmodern conceptualisation of childhood as ‘nostalgia’ (1996a: 15) heightens emotions that exist in relation to the care of children, acting to position them as ‘vulnerable’ and at risk (McWilliam, 2003). Thus, parents who exploit this vulnerability by not performing properly in particular parenting roles are situated problematically (Macfarlane, 2006).

Another consequence of the focus on performativity is the possibility of ‘parent fatigue’. Macfarlane (2006) coined this term to describe what happens for parents who are constantly trying to reach particular levels of performance when engaging in the child’s schooling. The anxiety that might result in such a process can be very debilitating and can lead to parents trying too hard, sometimes for little result.

Parent fatigue may best be understood by examining the concept in terms of the work of Bourdieu (1984, 2001). Bourdieu’s concept of habitus contributes to the development of an understanding of how parents undertake their role in social and systemic practice. This concept can also assist in explaining the existence of parent fatigue. As habitus is the unconscious internalisation of particular dispositions, schemas, know-how and competence that determines how individuals engage in social practice (Bourdieu, 1984), the production of an individual’s habitus can be impacted on by particular prominent discursively produced regimes of truth. An individual’s performance in games of social practice is determined by the particular regimes of truth that produce propriety in terms of such practice. Consequently, high levels of performativity can signify the characteristics that contribute to individual’s understanding or comprehension of their categorisation as a proper and interested parent who performs ‘successfully’. Thus, parent fatigue becomes a more likely possibility, when an individual internalises the propriety of such high level performance as an important determinant of ‘success’ in the parenting game (Macfarlane, 2006).

What can be learned then is that policy documents like the Strategy Document examined in this paper, seek to assist in the provision of better outcomes for children and families, which leads to better outcomes for the community as a whole. However, what is often misrecognised in such a process is that the search for better requires high levels of performance from children and parents when these notions of better are linked to economic prosperity. The assumptions, omissions and contradictions, which are always a part of such policy reform (Bowe et al., 1992), work to produce particular understandings of responsibilised citizens who join wholeheartedly in the search for better for the economic good of the nation. Failure to join in this idea of progress for whatever reason, leads to parents and children being viewed as improper and refuses them admittance to the categories of ethical citizen. Such a process is particularly problematic for groups already considered at risk, as it adds to their exclusion from successful categories of performance in social practice. Moreover with these groups, performativity may be a continuous cycle, where their performativity in health statistics has resulted in an at-risk and ‘cause for intervention’ label and if failing to progress or perform in the future, an amplification of this at-risk and ‘cause for intervention’ categorisation.

Conclusion

This paper has highlighted how childhood development and at-risk groups are understood in their relation to the concepts of economic growth and individual and national productivity in the Strategy Document. The paper conducted a Foucauldian discourse analysis and has drawn upon concepts from Ball (2003, 2004, 2012), Rose (1990, 2000), Popkewitz (2003) and Bourdieu (1984, 2001) to analyse aspects of the Strategy Document. Through this analysis it is argued that the Strategy Document attributes healthy and proper childhood development with economic productivity and national goals, and in doing so, may be working towards the responsibilisation (Popkewitz, 2003; Rose, 2000) of individuals and consequences (Rose, 1990) for at-risk groups who are unable to adhere to responsibilisation and performance standards. Drawing from Ball (2012), Macfarlane (2006), and Meadmore and McWilliam (2001), the paper also acknowledged the consequences of performativity when aligned with productivity for children and their families.

The representation of proper child development as understood within the Strategy Document has the potential to further encourage social inequalities and health disparities it aims to remedy, when the ‘paradox of progress’ is understood as a contributing factor. Inconsistencies surrounding current policy aims and directions and consequences resulting from current understandings of childhood development and its link to individual and national productivity, are important for further policy development, which should not work to subjugate children and families.

The direction of early childhood development and family support programs outlined within the Strategy Document are shaped by research conducted internationally. The ideas presented within the Strategy Document are informed by studies and notions of childhood development from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada and the Strategy Document can be understood as a response to the best practices for childhood development within the mentioned countries. It is important to consider the Strategy Document and ideas about child development inherent within the Strategy Document when addressing western and ‘advanced liberal’ understandings of childhood development. It is clear that policy and practice concerning early childhood development between countries are related to one another. Critical readings of policy documents from the international community can support critical interpretations of policy documents in different disciplines and areas. Specifically, critical readings of policy documents that treat notions of childhood and healthy development as problematic, can be useful to inform other critical readings.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Kym Macfarlane has worked in the early childhood sector for since 1977. She has experience as an early childhood teacher and in higher education in the field of Child and Family Studies in Human Services. She has extensive experience in working and researching practice issues with children and families from birth to eight years. Her PhD research entitled ‘An analysis of parent engagement in schooling in contemporary Queensland’ particularly relates to the notion of community engagement in schooling and the issues for parents that result from this engagement in the contemporary contexts.

Ali Lakhani is an Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate with the Griffith University School of Human Services and Social Work. His research interests include integrated practice and universal services in early childhood education and care and using the arts for health promotion and education with young people. His current research investigates the complex relationship between popular music and adolescent sexual health and how popular music can be used as a tool for sexual health education.

References

Ball

(2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Educational Policy 18(2): 215–228. DOI: 10.1080/0268093022000043065.

Ball

(2004) Performativity, privatisation and the post-welfare state. Finnish Journal of Education 35(1): 6–20.

Ball

(2012). The making of a neoliberal academic. Research in Secondary Teacher Education 2(1): 29–31.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu

(2001) The forms of capital. In: Granovetter

Swedberg

(eds) The Sociology of Economic Life (2nd ed). Oxford: Westview Press.

Bowe

Ball

Gold

(1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge.

Constanza

Hart

Posner

. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress. Available at: http://dr.archives.pdx.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/psu/8349/Costanza_BeyondGDP.pdf?sequence=1

Council of Australian Governments [COAG] (2009) Investing in the Early Years – A National Early Childhood Development Strategy. Available at: http://www.coag.gov.au/node/205

COAG. (2013). About COAG. Available at: http://www.coag.gov.au/about_coag

10.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

11.

Fairclough

(2002) Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

12.

Foucault

(1980) Truth and power. In: Gordon

(ed) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–77. New York: Pantheon Books.

13.

Foucault

(1984) Polemics, politics and problematisations. In: Rabinow

(ed.) Michel Foucault, Ethics: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 (vol. 1). London: Penguin Press.

14.

Heckman

(2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312(5782), 900–902. DOI: 10.1126/science.1128898.

15.

Jenks

(1996a) The postmodern child: In: Brannen

O’Brien

(eds) Children in Families: Research and Policy. London: Falmer Press.

16.

Jenks

(1996b) Childhood. London: Routledge.

17.

Macfarlane

(2006) An analysis of parental engagement in contemporary Queensland schooling. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

18.

Macfarlane

(2010) Social inclusion policy: Producing justice or retribution? Journal of Social Inclusion 1(2): 133–150.

19.

McWilliam

(2003) The vulnerable child as a pedagogical subject of risk management. Journal of Curriculum Theorising 19(2): 35–44.

20.

Meadmore

McWilliam

(2001) The corporate curriculum: Schools as sites of new knowledge production. Australian Educational Researcher 28(1): 31–45. DOI: 10.1007/BF03219743.

21.

Millei

(2008) Problematizing the concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘participation’ in early years discourses: Are they so empowering? International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood 6(2): 41–56.

22.

Mustard

(2001) Early childhood development and the brain – The base for health, learning and behaviour through life. In: Young

(ed.) Investing in Our Children’s Future: From Early Child Development to Human Development. Washington, District of Columbia: World Bank.

23.

O’Leary

(2010) Hope, social intervention and the future. In: Robb

O’Leary

Mackinnon

. (eds) Hope: The Everyday and Imaginary Life of Young People on the Margins. South Australia, Australia: Wakefield Press.

24.

Popkewitz

(2003) Governing the child and pedagogicalization of the parent. In: Bloch

Holmlund

Moqvist

. (eds) Governing Children, Families and Education: Restructuring the Welfare State. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Popkewitz

(2008) Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science, Education and Making Society by Making the Child. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Rose

(1990) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. New York: Routledge.

27.

Rose

(1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

28.

Rose

(2000) Community, citizenship and the third way. American Behavioural Scientist 43(9): 1395–1411.

29.

Stanley

(2003) The real brain drain: Why putting children first is so important for Australia. Newsletter of the Australian Cerebral Palsy Association 8(2). Available at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/29187980/The-Real-Brain-Drain—Why-putting-children-first-is-so-important

30.

Stanley

Richardson

Prior

(2005) Children of the Lucky Country? Sydney, Australia: Macmillan.

31.

Tyler

(1993) Making better children. In: Meredyth

Tyler

(ed.) Child and Citizen: Genealogies of Schooling and Subjectivity. Brisbane, Queensland: Institute for Cultural and Policy Studies, Griffith University.