-->
The teacher kisses the
child goodbye at the end of her shift. Blowing kisses, maybe... but
actively seeking out children to kiss them? My first reaction was
almost anger, but in hindsight was probably jealousy – could I –
a male teacher – safely kiss a child? Do I want to? How would such
a desire sit with my professionalism? The code of ethics and adult
initiated gratification?
So I pondered (and
observed my kissing colleagues) and have made the decision to NOT
kiss any children at my centre. Despite reading into the
repositioning of love and care into our professional paradigm, as a
male teacher, I think it's a bridge too far. I've also questioned the
depth of my feelings – do I really feel love to the point of
wanting to kiss? How I feel about my own children is vastly
different from the feelings I have for the tamariki at work. It's
hard to put into words, but the depth of my care for their well-being
does not in my opinion move into 'love'. I know that love and care
are words that have a lot of significance for early childhood
teachers when they talk about their work – for many it's a central
motivator for being in the profession: they love being with children.
At Carmen Dali's recent
lecture here at Victoria University in Wellington she talked of
re-conceptualising our ideas on love and care so they form the
foundations of teaching in ECEC. She recognised the danger that our
new professional discourse of teaching rather than mothering or
caring for children “could end up valuing the brain over the heart,
and knowledge above the care and love”. Was there a way to to
rehabilitate love and care in our discourse about what we do, in a
way that did not create a political bludgeon that detractors could
use to diminish us with?
Welcome Lisa Goldstein.
She suggests that the solution would be to develop an understanding
of caring that not only positions it as a 'feeling' word but as
rooted in theoretical framework which would overturn the historical
'hegemony of nice'. A way to do this would be to adopt a feminist
moral theory perspective as the theoretical framework to teaching.
The key principles would be the “unending obligation to meet the
other as one-caring”. In other words:
- with engrossment
- with full attention
- with receptivity to the other's perspective and situation
- in a state of 'feeling-with' the cared for, not through a sense of projection but by reception, and thus being able to see and feel with the other
- with motivational displacement: i.e. By giving primacy, even if momentarily, to the goals and needs of the other
Goldstein also argues
that it is possible to see the care-orientation to teaching as
complimentary to Vygotsky's model of cognitive development where the
zone of proximal development is a shared intellectual space created
by the adult and the child. She argues that this shared interpersonal
space where adult and child co-construct knowledge can be separate
into two parallel dimensions: the inter-psychological dimension and
the inter-relational dimension with the latter being an
affective/emotional/feeling space created when an adult and child
interact. She argues that eh very first thing that begins in any
teacher/learner type relationship is this inter-relational aspect.
Goldstein suggests that both adult and child are motivated to enter
into these learning relationships by the pleasure and satisfaction
they get form the interpersonal connection, and she calls this 'the
pedagogical power of caring'.
I know that all
learning grows from a secure emotional base – that's basic
Pikler/attachment theory 101 – but does this respect and care
evolve into love and from there the physical expressions of such
love?
This link to Vygotsky's
ZPD and the idea of intersubjective spaces excites me. It's a logical
link really: we gather in learning environments because they satisfy
us on so many levels. But the questions remain. Can this foundational
'love' translate into physical manifestations like kissing? Who holds
the power in such as act? Is this ethical?
Personally, I'll be
saving the kisses for my own kids.
References:
Dali, C. (2006).
Re-visioning love and care in early childhood: Constructing the
future of our profession. The First Years Nga Tau Tuatahi. NZ
Journal of Infant and Toddler Education. 8(1).
Goldstein, L. (1998).
More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: applying the ethic of care to
early childhood education. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education. 12(2)
2 comments:
hello. I just found your blog - how refreshing!
I share my experience on kissing / greetings: I (adult female) am not a "kisser", and on occasion have been repulsed and offended by being kissed in greeting or farewell by a stranger, especially in the workplace (engineering). So I shake. Always. Before anyone asks. Shaking is great. Subtle changes in the holding of the hand can convey so so much. You can change the tempo with a short and snappy or a long and energetic version, add extras like a double-handed shake or a pat on the shoulder, which can grow into a part hug, and even sometimes you can surprise yourself with a completely natural shake-pat-hug-kiss! The shake is so completely customisable for the relationship and mood of the participants.
I have tried this in a few different cultures (different workplaces / different countries), and even where there is a strong expectation for women to kiss on first introductions a shake is always warmly received.
Your profession and gender adds a level of complexity to the situation that I cannnot begin to imagine, but perhaps my humble suggestion may be of some help.
Don't underestimate the shake. I don't work in your environment, but I imagine a shake could become quite a sensation in that crowd.
Thanks for your comments Pilar :)
Like you, I rarely kiss - close friends only, and I certainly don't kiss the parents of the children in my care!
I do shake the hands of children occasionally - it really baffles them! I'm more fond of 'baby knuckles' which just cracks everybody up!
cyber shake: 'warm regards and much respect'
@ko
Post a Comment