‘Do you want this?’ Exploring newcomer migrant girls’ peer reception in Norwegian day care: Experiences with social exclusion through the exchange of self-made artefacts

Abstract

This article approaches newcomer migrant girls’ experiences with social competition and relational aggression. This the authors do through a detailed analysis of the interactional practices that a group of preschool-aged girls make use of as they socially exclude one of two newcomer migrant girls from participating in a sharing activity involving self-made artefacts. The data is drawn from ethnography combined with video recordings of natural and situated activities of the girls’ interactions in a Norwegian day-care institution over the course of nine months. Combining structural and social-constructivist perspectives, the authors discuss how a day-care group is a social field comprising multiple subfields characterized by agents struggling over position and power. Overall, this article addresses another side of the generally accepted positive view of day care for migrant children, revealing how relational aggression might be embedded within seemingly harmless activities and set in everyday child-governed activities. Finally, the authors reflect on implications for pedagogical practices and make suggestions for future research.

‘Do you want this?’

This article is based on an ethnographic study in a Norwegian day-care setting and explores newcomer migrant girls’ social exclusion. The vignette presented below serves as an introductory glimpse of the context of the lives of two newly arrived migrant girls – Aisha and Bahja:

It is 10.00 a.m. one autumn morning at Kongsvingen day-care centre. In the play area of the Fox group, the children are engaged in self-chosen and child-governed activities. Among them are the two newcomer migrant four-year-old girls, Aisha and Bahja. At the moment, five of the early arrived boys are playing ‘cops and robbers’, while six of the girls, including Aisha, are engaged in what appears to be their routinely based princess role play. Some of the other children are drawing, while some are building with Lego. Then Bahja walks into the play area. Seemingly unmoved by the turmoil and excitement of the ongoing activities around her, she walks towards a small round table where one of the researchers, Kris, is seated by himself. Sitting down at the table, Bahja looks towards the girls playing princesses, then averts her eyes from them, reaches out for a sheet of white paper and starts scribbling what appears to be Arabic-styled calligraphy. After a few moments, Kris asks Bahja if she is interested in joining the girls. Bahja gives no noticeable response. Being unsure whether or not Bahja has understood the question, Kris repeats it. Bahja stops writing, looks up at him and says: ‘I want to play with Fox, but Fox doesn’t want to play with me!’

Even though day care is generally acknowledged for its significance and positive benefits for children, minor attention has been given to how migrant children experience day care. There is a lack of research about the social struggles of newcomer migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee children’s reception in day care. ¹ In Norway, the general discourse on day care for migrant children is centred on two main concerns – namely, majority-language acquisition and overall integration into mainstream society (Justisdepartementet, 2011; Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2009, 2010, 2011; Lidén et al., 2011; Seeberg, 2009). A significant body of research exists, generally conducted within the disciplines of clinical psychology and psychiatrics (Archambault, 2011), focusing on children’s trauma, stress-related symptoms and diagnosis (Crowley, 2009; Lustig et al., 2004; Thomas and Lau, 2002). ‘Trauma research’ underlines ‘the traditional vision of a vulnerable child, lacking competence and in constant need of adult support’ (Archambault, 2011: 16). Focusing on common symptoms of trauma, such research tends to concentrate on children’s past, giving little recognition of the social dimensions of their situated lives in their new host country’s early childhood settings.

Even though there are few studies about migrant children’s experiences in day care, research surrounding migrant children’s daily experiences in school is characterized by daily face-to-face sociocultural contests. These contests can be both positive and negative, manifested through verbal and non-verbal communication. However, it has been estimated that as many as 40% of migrant children experience forms of bullying, discrimination and/or social exclusion from peers in their educational settings (Almqvist and Broberg, 1999). Negative contests can impair children’s feelings of self-worth (Almqvist and Broberg, 1999; Chinga-Ramirez, 2015; Fazel et al., 2012; Helmen Borge, 2010). Overall, there seems to be a general acceptance of migrant children, yet there are signs of hostility and prejudice to be found beneath the surface (Connolly, 1998; Devine et al., 2008).

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we aim to offer a more nuanced discussion surrounding migrant children’s everyday experiences with social exclusion in day care. More specifically, our approach is to use, amongst others, concepts which are normally associated with Pierre Bourdieu, exploring how a day-care group is a social field comprising multiple subfields (Bourdieu, 1993; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991). Each subfield, although influenced by the main field, will have its doxa, or rules and expectancies, defined by the children’s conduct and functioning. Having their own hierarchy and power relations, the social structure of a field is determined by the agents’ negotiated positions within the field (Alanen et al., 2015). Social competition is a universal characteristic of a field (Bourdieu, 1993). Through social competition, agents engage across the varied fields in the acquisition, control and contestation of power (Wacquant, 2013). An expression of such power struggle is relational aggression, a non-physical yet equally hostile form of violence, causing impairment of self-worth by damaging relations (Crick and Gropeter, 1995; Crick et al., 2004; Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011).

Second, understanding that self-made artefacts play a significant role in early childhood education, adult-guided as well as child-led crafts take place regularly, resulting in a wide variety of artefacts being made, such as drawings, paintings or Perler beads. Some of these artefacts are taken home; others are used to document the children’s activities. Some also end up in the children’s own drawer in the day-care centre. Our purpose is to show a different side to the use of self-made artefacts. More specifically, using a positioning theoretical lens (Davies and Harré, 1999; Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999a, 1999b), we investigate how children’s negotiations of position unfold through the exchange of such artefacts, their contextual value and meaning depending on the children’s status as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ in the field.

Drawing on a small sample size of qualitative data gathered from a nine-month ethnographic field study conducted by the first author in a day-care institution in central Norway, referred to as Kongsvingen, we combine the above-mentioned concepts to discuss the nuances and dynamics of how migrant children’s experiences with social exclusion, competition and relational aggression in day care are a result of ‘the contributions made by both children and adults and by childhood and adulthood’ (Mayall, 2015: 13), exploring intersections between agency and structure topics.

Returning to the opening vignette, like the majority of children entering a new day-care group, the migrant girls, Bahja and Aisha, seemed to enter day care with combined feelings of concern, optimism and expectation. Based on a narrative made from a single video observation, we analyse an episode involving Aisha, Bahja, Thea and Anna. The episode took place later the same day as the opening vignette in the cloakroom and during the period of child-governed activity. We used such a small data sample for explanatory purposes. It allows for an in-depth analysis of social competition and of how social exclusion was manifested through acts of relational aggression. The significance of self-made artefacts became apparent as Thea brought her drawer, containing a range of artefacts, into the cloakroom. In-depth analysis is conducted to understand the symbolic value of the artefacts, their acceptance and rejection, and the responses to children who are migrants, negotiating their position in a social field.

The article is structured as follows. The background section presents the ethnographic location and the participants. In the literature review, we offer a brief overview of research surrounding relational aggression and related themes. The theoretical framework presents structural views combined with social-constructivist perspectives used for exploring how relational aggression aimed at migrant children in day care might be propelled by aspects occurring on an individual and institutional level. Next, the article’s methodology is presented. In the findings and analysis section, we first present the focal narrative and then move to its analysis and interpretation. This is followed by a discussion of the findings and implications for pedagogical practices.

Background

In this section, we present Kongsvingen day-care institution and some of its main purposes. Kongsvingen is a public day-care institution which is run by the municipality. It consists of four groups. Two groups are so-called ‘regular’ groups, while the other two are ‘introductory’ groups. The children who come to the introductory groups are members of families who have recently arrived in Norway as refugees or asylum-seekers. The overall pedagogical aim of the introductory groups is to support children with refugee experiences in their overall integration into mainstream society, providing a one-year introduction to the Norwegian culture and the national language. Following this year, the children are either internally transferred to one of the regular groups, start attending another day-care institution or enter school. Although the introductory groups in Kongsvingen are located within a local day-care institution, the segregated nature of introductory groups has been debated. The critique has been that socializing with majority peers would be beneficial for migrant children’s establishment of a social network and majority-language development to promote their overall and long-term integration (Lauritsen, 2012, 2015; Lidén et al., 2011; Seeberg, 2009).

Returning to the migrant girls from the opening vignette, Bahja, accompanied by her parents and siblings, arrived in Norway after having fled the Middle East. Aisha, also accompanied by her parents, had fled from the Horn of Africa. Both girls initially entered Kongsvingen day care in the autumn of 2013. Their first encounter with the day-care centre was with the introductory Badger group. With a reduced child ratio and an increased practitioner ratio (four practitioners), the Badger group had only eight members (aged two to five) and was gender-balanced. Since the girls would be starting school the following year and the practitioners acknowledged that establishing a social network with majority-language-speaking peers would promote their overall integration, Aisha and Bahja were transferred to the Fox group after only three months’ participation in the Badger group. The majority of the girls there were the same age as Aisha and Bahja.

Having participated in the Fox group over the course of several years, the girls in Fox, commonly referred to by the practitioners as the ‘Girl club’, understood their relationships to be close and meaningful, sharing an interest in singing, dancing and role play. Even though the practitioners and parents assumed that Bahja and Aisha would be included, the reality proved more challenging. Language was an issue, but not the main one. Entering the Fox group, Bahja and Aisha encountered multiple social fields; they soon became entangled in competition and had to struggle for position. In particular, we provide a case example exploring the significance that self-made artefacts seemed to play in the social mechanisms between Aisha and Bahja and the girl peer group.

Literature review

In this section, we provide an overview of related research investigating various forms of aggression and related themes.

Twelve percent of children in Norwegian day care may experience bullying and social exclusion (Bratterud et al., 2012). Children as young as two-and-a-half years of age – the majority girls – are presumed to be involved in relational aggressive acts, yet few have recognized such hostile behaviour as aggression (Crick et al., 2004). Aggression, harassment and bullying among girls in day care seem primarily to be carried out through the subtle division of themes, structures, and roles and positions in play (Löfdal and Hägglund, 2006). Others have revealed how girls draw on the cultural resources provided by the organization of their play to build and strengthen existing social hierarchies (Kalkman et al., 2015; Skånfors, 2010), using their cultural resources to push ‘outsiders’ into subordinate positions or exclude them completely (Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009). Combining direct and non-confrontational strategies girls can be highly successful in conflict management, accomplishing power negotiations and achieving social exclusion by signalling rejection, without great risk of being caught (Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011). Having their own discursive rules and beliefs, these are based not only on internal language and ideas, but also on social processes and practices. When excluding discourses define the group’s knowledge and belief system, such as who is included and who should be excluded, it is inevitable that excluding discourses will not reach into the very hearts of the agents who shape the group and make up its identity (Connolly, 1998).

Theoretical framework

In this section, we present our theoretical framework, combining structural with social-constructivist perspectives.

Aiming to develop knowledge surrounding migrant children’s commonplace experiences with social inclusion/exclusion entering day care, and exploring how day care comprises multiple social fields, each characterized by competition, struggle for position and relational aggression, we bring together two theoretical frameworks. Our intention is to combine structural views inspired by Bourdieu and elements from positioning theory. It is assumed that this will provide a fruitful basis for discussing the agency–structure topic in relation to how newcomer migrant children as social agents enter a dynamic social structure, and how they must negotiate their own and others’ positions, sometimes taking a position or being positioned.

Ritzer (2011) sees the agency–structure topic as being concerned with habitus and field, and Bourdieu (1993) perceives agents’ social actions and interactions as a result of their habitus. Habitus describes agents’ social background and dispositions for praxis, as it generates adjusted perceptions and practices to particular contexts and situations. Field, on the other hand, refers to all the social arenas that agents occupy (Wilken, 2008), where their social struggles and negotiations take place (Mayall, 2015). The field of power (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991) is understood as a meta-field, a political framework standing autonomously yet highly influential for the sustainment of the other fields. The field of power has been defined for the purposes of this article as the political conditions provided by the practitioners determining children’s experienced autonomy in day care. The structure of the field itself is determined by the positions which the agents connected to that field occupy. Social competition among agents, according to Bourdieu (1993), is a universal characteristic of a field. Although influenced by the political conditions that the field of power creates, fields have their own evolving and particular logic, struggles and capital (Bourdieu, 1993; James et al., 1998). As social universes, fields will contain their own hierarchy and relations of power, having their own respective sets of moral rules and expectations surrounding conduct and functioning – or doxa (Bourdieu, 1993; Knight, 2015; Wilken, 2008). Children’s symbolic capital is based on their accumulated recognition from others and on ‘a dialectic of knowledge’ (Bourdieu, 1993: 7), being able to differentiate ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ behaviour, and to respond in an expected manner.

Bourdieu (1993) regards habitus as a person’s unconscious orientation to social practice, based on cultural reproduction and creating dispositions that shape and determine their strategy on how to act and interact in a field. However, while recognizing agency, Bourdieu’s perception of habitus would see children as positioned by the outcomes of cultural reproduction, failing to recognize what children choose to do in their interactions with peers (James et al., 1998). This is our rationale for combining the structural approach with positioning theory.

Positioning theory is based on the principle that not all of the agents involved in a social episode have equal access to particular rights and duties, making them unable to perform particular kinds of meaningful actions with other agents (Harré, 2012). Agents’ rights and duties determine who can use a certain discursive action. Based on their position, agents have access to a cluster of short-term and disputable rights accompanied by obligations and duties. Positioning theory thus gives credit to the processes in which agents are not positioned, but negotiate position through discursive actions (Davies and Harré, 1999; Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999a, 1999b; Van Langenhove and Harré, 1999).

In order to understand how children engage in their positioning work, we need to recognize how they can create storylines in their negotiations for position and power by drawing on particular knowledge of social structures and the positions that the children occupy within these. Storylines are any intentional discursive practices in which positions are negotiated by actively producing and maintaining one or several social or psychological realities (Davies and Harré, 1999). Through storylining, children co-create a number of subject positions which, under normal circumstances, are usually taken up, positioning themselves and being positioned by others (Davies and Harré, 1999). The moral implications of such positioning work are, however, that single agents can become positioned as insiders or outsiders, leading to their recognition as being valuable or not valuable for a particular field.

Redirecting attention to Bourdieu’s analysis of the field of cultural production (art and literature), he recognized how large-scale productions and restricted productions had their value determined by the demand from agents within or outside the field. The former have little value for those in the field of cultural production, but the latter are seen as exclusive productions aimed at producers (Bourdieu, 1993). In our case, restricted productions are represented by the self-made artefacts. The storylines which accompany restricted productions can be understood as symbolic productions aimed at preserving the interests of the field members. Hence, restricted productions create a distinct form of communication that segregates one field from another, creating hierarchy (Bourdieu, 1996).

Struggles between competing visions and positions within fields are propelled by processes of change (Bourdieu, 1993). Generally, agentic struggles will follow the field’s doxa, which implicitly defines agents’ moral conduct and accepted behaviour within their struggles. However, if and when the struggles involve other fields, and the agents are required to defend their subjective or collective interests from ‘outsiders’, then it is assumed that the field’s doxa might be broken. This might be an indication of why ethnic-majority peers use brief and subtle forms of non-physical aggression, subjugating migrant children not through physical harm, but through impairment of their self-worth (Almqvist and Broberg, 1999; Fazel et al., 2012). Those brief, commonplace, verbal and behavioural, intentional or unintentional acts of hostility have been described as microaggressions (Wing Sue et al., 2007). Relational aggression, a form of microaggression, has been said to be salient among girls and aims to inflict damage on relations through ‘small drops’ over a sustained period of time (Crick and Gropeter, 1995; Crick et al., 2004; Eriksen and Lyng, 2015). Relational aggression has a highly symbolic aspect to it and, as with any symbolic production, its struggle is centred on agents’ interests and capital (Bourdieu, 1996). However, when relational aggression becomes a symbolic system, and its political function is used to legitimize subjugation, it runs the danger of becoming accepted as something salient among particular groups or individuals, being natural or inevitable. This is assumed to be symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1996; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991).

This bricolage of concepts is expected to allow for a more nuanced discussion surrounding migrant children’s daily experiences with social inclusion/exclusion when entering day care, as it goes beyond the general debate on migrants’ social segregation and ethnic boundaries in educational environments.

Methodology

This article is based on qualitative empirical data from ethnographic fieldwork at Kongsvingen day-care centre, located in a municipality in central Norway. Kongsvingen was chosen because this particular day-care institution has a long-standing history, experience and competence with migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking families. The fieldwork primarily concerned two groups (the Badger group and the Fox group) from September 2013 to July 2014. Extensive fieldwork over the course of the year enabled the first author to gain an inside view of how the children’s daily lives in the day-care setting unfolded.

Recognizing any possible experiences surrounding loss of identity, social exclusion, sense of loneliness and perhaps even discrimination, we developed a framework for listening to be sensitive, especially to migrant children’s possible past and present experiences with loneliness and exclusion. Inspired by the Mosaic approach (Clark, 2005; Clark and Moss, 2009), the ethnography consisted in participatory observation as well as participatory methods, including the use of digital cameras and audio equipment, tours and arts-based activities. Listening to children’s views and opinions, expressed verbally and non-verbally (using images, artistic expressions, gestures, gazes, talk and posture), became an ethical issue of openness to alternate forms of communication (Kjørholt et al., 2005). In addition, the participatory methods were supplemented with open handheld video recordings, allowing for detailed documentation of the nuances of the participants’ social and situated daily interactions (Goodwin, 2006). Field notes were written throughout the whole ethnographic period, and informal conversations were conducted with the practitioners. In this article, a single video observation of a self-chosen, child-governed instance is central. However, the combination of methods, or more precisely the data constructed, has enabled both reflection and reflexivity surrounding the authors’ particular understandings of how migrant children and their childhood in day care can be and were understood. The rationale for focusing on self-chosen, child-governed instances is based on the fact that such instances can provide valuable insights into how migrant children’s integration and social inclusion are negotiated within autonomously child-organized everyday social realities.

One particular video observation has been selected for analytical purposes, illustrating how social competition can develop into a site for social exclusion, using aggressive conduct to signal rejection to those considered outside the field who are trying to negotiate their way in. The observation has been transcribed using timelines, interpreting the participants’ verbal utterances and bodily actions separately (Flewitt et al., 2009). Based on our transcription, a narrative has been created, which is understood to be a subjective interpretation of the most important, interconnecting central characters and events (Tobin, 2012).

Findings and analysis

In the following, we first present the narrative from the cloakroom, showing how the exchange of self-made artefacts unfolds among the girls. We then move on to analyse and interpret the narrative.

In the cloakroom of the Fox group are Aisha (four years old), Anna (four years old) and Thea (four years old). No adults, apart from Kris, observing, are present. Having fetched it from the main playroom, Thea has placed her drawer containing all her drawings and other self-made artefacts on a low bench. Sitting on a chair, Aisha observes Thea. Browsing through its contents, Thea takes from her drawer a yellow booklet. Inspecting it, she readdresses her attention, asking: ‘Aisha, do you want this?’ Holding out the booklet so Aisha can take it, Anna moves in and positions herself in front of Thea. In her left hand, Anna holds an artefact made of plastic Perler beads. In her right, she holds a drawing of pink hearts. ‘Which one do you want, Aisha?’ Rolling slightly backwards on her chair, Aisha observes Anna for a few seconds then points at the drawing with hearts. Handing the drawing over to Aisha, Anna slightly tilts her head and says: ‘You can take it with you’. Inspecting the drawing, Aisha gives no further verbal response. Turning around, Thea walks back to the bench.

Walking into the cloakroom, carrying a drawer in her arms, is Bahja (four years old). Displaying a broad smile, she shouts out loud: ‘Look what I got!’ The other girls look in her direction. Placing the drawer beside Thea’s, Anna comes nearer. Anna glances at the contents of Bahja’s drawer, but immediately turns around without uttering a word and walks away, with Thea following her. Observing their withdrawal, Bahja paces after them, shouting ‘Anna, Anna!’ In her pursuit of Anna, she pushes aside Thea and Aisha. Standing in front of Anna, Bahja puts out her arm, opens her hand and reveals what seems to be a small artefact. ‘Here, [Anna,] you can take this!’ Inspecting the artefact, Anna makes an upper-bodily alignment, leaning backwards while simultaneously raising her left hand so it slightly touches her left shoulder. Then, tilting her head somewhat to the right and squinting her eyes, she says: ‘No, sorry, I cannot take this with me’. Turning her back on Bahja, she slowly walks away, casually swaying her upper body, her left hand under her chin and both eyes staring upwards to the ceiling. Observing Anna, Bahja remains where she is standing. Thea and Aisha follow Anna and, standing in front of Anna’s spot in the cloakroom, they ignore Bahja’s repeating of her action [the action of offering various self-made artefacts to Anna] – exactly 13 times over the course of 4.41 minutes.

Two processes in which self-made artefacts are involved can be identified in the narrative. First, there is a process involving Aisha, Thea and Anna, where the self-made artefacts are a booklet and an artefact made of plastic Perler beads. Second, there is a process involving Bahja and Anna, and a small artefact that Bahja has made and kept in her drawer. While the two processes are related, we find it relevant to make a distinction between them in order to fully understand their significance in how children’s negotiations of position and their social struggles can unfold through the exchange of such artefacts. While the exchange of self-made artefacts works as a site for social struggle, the struggles differ for the two girls due to their position and status in the girl peer group at the time of observation.

Exchange of artefacts involving Aisha, Thea and Anna

In the first narrative, we read how, initially, Aisha, Anna and Thea are located alone, apart from Kris observing, in the cloakroom of the Fox group. Through the negotiation practices that follow, it becomes apparent that the cloakroom is a social arena in which field negotiations take place (Mayall, 2015; Wilken, 2008). Having placed her drawer containing self-made artefacts in the cloakroom, Thea takes up a yellow booklet from the drawer. ‘Inspecting it, she readdresses her attention, asking: “Aisha, do you want this?”’ Analyzing Thea’s actions it is possible to identify how she carefully chooses what to give away and to whom. Her decisions and actions make it apparent that Thea opens her negotiation by creating a storyline, using the gesture of giving a self-made artefact to signal to Aisha ‘I am a friend’, meanwhile making available to Aisha the position ‘you are a friend’ to take up. However, as Thea creates this position in her storyline for Aisha to take up, Anna suddenly moves in, positioning herself in front of Thea: ‘In her left hand, Anna holds an artefact made of plastic Perler beads. In her right, she holds a drawing of pink hearts. “Which one do you want, Aisha?”’ Anna’s action seems to reflect an attempt to create a counter-storyline, using her symbolic capital to her advantage to strengthen her own position within the existing social hierarchy (Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009). Anna, like Thea, is signalling to Aisha that she sees Aisha as being a friend. Aisha, in turn, appears to have become the subject of social competition. Löfdal and Hägglund (2006) illustrate the dilemma she faces. They reveal how power relations are central in children’s negotiations. Influencing conditions of daily life, making an effort to create a predictable social order, power relations decide who will be included and who has the power to include.

Anna, having negotiated a powerful position within the girls’ club, had much influence over the organization of their daily activities and routines. Generally, Anna was left unchallenged, and the members seemed, at least on the surface, to be satisfied with this arrangement. Anna’s power was strengthened by her friendship with another central and leading figure within the girls’ club: Meriem (four years old). Their relationship ensured that Anna enjoyed status as someone with high symbolic capital based on strong, accumulated recognition by her peers (Bourdieu, 1993). Thea had a considerably weaker position and symbolic capital, causing her generally to join the other girls in their activities. Aisha, being new to the group, was still making a great effort to find her place in it. However, although challenged by the majority language, Aisha was quite popular among the other girls. Her popularity could be ascribed to her willingness to adapt to their interests, making her a peer who understood the value of ‘relational closeness and [avoided] relationship-threatening types of criticism’ (Goodwin, 2002: 716).

Anna’s obstruction could likewise indicate that Thea, a lower-positioned agent within the field, had breached the field’s doxa surrounding expected conduct and functioning. Standing in front of Aisha, Anna asked, ‘Which one do you want, Aisha?’, forcing Aisha to make a choice between the two. Observing both Thea and Anna, Aisha

roll[s] slightly backwards on her chair … then points at the drawing with hearts. Handing the drawing over to Aisha, Anna slightly tilts her head and says: ‘You can take it with you’. Inspecting the drawing, Aisha gives no further verbal response. Turning around, Thea walks back to the bench.

Selecting Anna’s drawing over Thea’s booklet, Aisha’s choice is interpreted as being a rejection of Thea’s storyline – declining to take up the part as a friend within it. Davies and Harré (1999: 38; italics author; our emphasis) underscore, however, that ‘by giving people [or making available] parts in a story, whether explicit or implicit, a speaker makes available a subject position which the other speaker in the normal course of events would take up’. Aisha’s situation was, however, in comparison to the other girls, far from normal. Anna may have used her power to influence, if not pressure Aisha into making her choice. The agentic struggle seems to be concluded with Thea withdrawing without any further protest, indicating that she – willingly or unwillingly – accepts her loss. However, as Thea withdraws, Bahja arrives on the scene.

Exchange of artefacts involving Bahja and Anna

Walking into the cloakroom, carrying a drawer in her arms, is Bahja (four years old). Displaying a broad smile, she shouts out loud: ‘Look what I got!’ The other girls look in her direction. Placing the drawer beside Thea’s, Anna comes nearer. Anna glances at the contents of Bahja’s drawer, but immediately turns around without uttering a word and walks away, with Thea following her.

Bahja’s entrance, and her calling out for the attention of her peers, seems to indicate that she is attempting to negotiate her access into the field. As she places her drawer beside Thea’s, however, the situation develops quite differently from before. Anna, redirecting her attention to Bahja, seems rather indifferent about both Bahja and the contents of her drawer, glancing at its contents and walking away. Thea follows her, despite having lost a similar struggle only seconds earlier. Following Davies and Harré (1999), Thea’s action could indicate that she understood that, having lost the negotiation, she had to conform to Anna’s story if she desired to continue as a participant within the conversation, or field. Thea’s compliance with Anna seems to illustrate a desire to continue as an active participant, and thus avoid any relationship-threatening type of criticism (Goodwin, 2002) of Anna.

‘Observing their withdrawal, Bahja paces after them, shouting “Anna, Anna!” In her pursuit of Anna, she pushes aside Thea and Aisha.’ Through her actions, Bahja makes noticeable her centre of attention (Kalkman et al., 2015) – that is, Anna. She makes her interests public:

Standing in front of Anna, Bahja puts out her arm, opens her hand and reveals what seems to be a small artefact. ‘Here, [Anna,] you can take this!’ Inspecting the artefact, Anna makes an upper-bodily alignment, leaning backwards while simultaneously raising her left hand so it slightly touches her left shoulder. Then, tilting her head somewhat to the right and squinting her eyes, she says: ‘No, sorry, I cannot take this with me’. Turning her back on Bahja, she slowly walks away, casually swaying her upper body, her left hand under her chin and both eyes staring upwards to the ceiling.

‘Politely’ rejecting Bahja’s offering of a self-made artefact, Anna makes apparent that she is declining the part in Bahja’s storyline. However, Anna’s combination of verbal and non-verbal communication raises considerable doubt about its meaning and intentions. It seems to indicate that she has the authoritative knowledge (Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011) to decide what field-specific capital is, and who will be allowed to participate in the field itself. Anna’s intentions seem to revolve around damaging any possible perceptions of friendship or feelings of inclusion (Crick and Gropeter, 1995) that Bahja might have, resorting to relational aggression to undermine the girl’s self-worth (Almqvist and Broberg, 1999; Fazel et al., 2012). Backing up this thought, Davies and Harré (1999) observe that, habitually, when a subject position within a storyline is made available, the other speaker, under normal circumstances, would take this up. Is Anna’s refusal of the self-made artefact a symbolic gesture, indicating Bahja’s status as an outsider holding little or no recognized symbolic or other form of capital?

Using the cultural resources from the day-care setting, Bahja attempts to negotiate her position, yet Anna’s rejection of her artefact seems to push her into a subordinate position, if not exclude her completely. Using the concepts of restricted and large-scale productions (Bourdieu, 1993), we can illustrate the subtleness in Anna’s effort. Coming from agents in the field, Thea’s and Anna’s self-made artefacts can be understood as being restricted productions – productions that are aimed at producers. As the symbolic value of cultural productions depends on the negotiated and occupied positions of the agents within a specific field, Anna’s rejection of Bahja’s self-made artefact could indicate that the other girls see Bahja as an outsider. Her self-made artefact could thus be understood as a large-scale production, having little symbolic value within the field of restricted productions.

Combining direct and non-confrontational strategies – a polite decline reinforced by bodily alignment, tilting her head, squinting her eyes, slowly walking away – it seems that Anna is highly successful in her situated and contextual conflict management. Accomplishing her power negotiations, she seems to achieve, as Svahn and Evaldsson (2011) indicate, social exclusion by signalling rejection without running much risk of being caught.

Observing Anna, Bahja remains where she is standing. Thea and Aisha follow Anna and, standing in front of Anna’s spot in the cloakroom, they ignore Bahja repeating her action – exactly 13 times over the course of 4.41 minutes.

The continuous rejection which Bahja experienced over the course of several minutes was not a single event. Eventually, Bahja seemed to accept Anna’s efforts to manipulate perceptions of reality, understanding these to be the truth, as illustrated in the opening narrative when she states: ‘I want to play with Fox, but Fox doesn’t want to play with me!’

Discussion of findings

To recap, the purpose of this article is to develop knowledge surrounding particular social mechanisms that might influence migrant children’s everyday experiences with social exclusion in day care. This has been done by exploring how day care comprises multiple social fields, each characterized by competition, struggle for position and relational aggression. Analysing the exchange of self-made artefacts, we have revealed how this was a field, or site, of social struggle and how power relations are central to children’s negotiations. In the following sections, we discuss the findings in light of relevant research and provide some reflections on the implications for pedagogical practice.

Through our analysis, we have revealed how, at first, the exchange of artefacts was a site for agentic struggle and social competition surrounding power and capital. Through a positioning lens, we have identified how storylines were created, making particular subject positions for the participants to take up (Harré and Van Langenhove, 1999a, 1999b). Thea and Anna each created a storyline for their own purposes. Within their storylines, they seemed to follow the doxa, or the field’s unwritten rules and expectations defined by children’s conduct and functioning. By offering Aisha self-made artefacts, Thea and Anna made available a particular subject position for Aisha to take up. Nevertheless, Anna, unlike Thea, was observed as having a high symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1993). Her accumulated recognition indicated that she could differentiate between ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ behaviour and conduct, but equally was able to influence how others would differentiate between these. Being in such a powerful position, Anna’s symbolic capital ensured that she was able to manipulate reality so that it appeared to be truthful. Being able to wield authoritative knowledge (Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011), Anna decided who could be included within the field and who should be excluded from the field. Such thought indicates that Anna used her power to influence, if not pressure, Aisha to make her choice. Simultaneously, Aisha could have chosen Anna’s drawing to signal that she was, like the other girls, willing to adapt herself to Anna’s interests. Harré and Van Langenhove (1999a, 1999b) underscore that when a person, such as Anna, is positioned as powerful, and this is acknowledged by others, she can then use her power to order and demand obedience. Making no relationship-threatening types of criticism (Goodwin, 2002), it seemed that Thea and Aisha obeyed, accepting the outcome of the negotiation. From the girls’ interactions, we have identified that struggle surrounding hierarchy, power and position was characterized by social competition. The subtleness indicated nonetheless that some perceptions of friendship and feelings of inclusion were involved, respecting the field’s doxa (Bourdieu, 1993). However, when Bahja entered the field, the character of the girls’ talk and interaction seemed to shift from competition to aggression.

Entering the cloakroom, Bahja called out for attention from her peers. Placing her drawer beside Thea’s, Bahja makes noticeable that she wants ‘to play the game’ (Bourdieu, 1993: 8). In her repeated offering to Anna of a self-made artefact and ignoring of the other girls, it appears that she too seems to be aware of Anna’s power to define. In her storyline, Bahja offers Anna a subject position. However, as the episode unfolds, issues arise indicating that Anna, making an authoritative stance (Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009), does not recognize Bahja as having the right type of habitus or symbolic capital to participate within the field. Declining the part in Bahja’s storyline, she relies on relational aggressive conduct, using indirect and non-physical violence to communicate rejection (Crick and Gropeter, 1995).

The subtleness of relational aggression is illustrated by Anna’s manipulation of the cultural resources provided by their play (Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009; Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011). By denying Bahja’s gesture, Anna manipulates the symbolic capital of Bahja’s self-made artefact; she uses this against her and thereby confirms her position as an ‘outsider’. Simultaneously, by rejecting the artefact, Anna confirms her own position within the social hierarchy, strengthens the alignment of power, and claims once more her authoritative knowledge with the power to exclude. Although Bahja repeats her actions, it seems that she, on some level, accepts the subject position made available to her by Anna. Standing on the outside looking in, Bahja does not counter her subordination; rather, it seems that she, like Thea, is making a great effort not to make any relationship-threatening type of criticism (Goodwin, 2002).

Implications for practice

In this section, we present some thoughts and reflections on the pedagogical implications for practice with migrant children in day-care settings.

Arguing that practitioners are those who represent and occupy the field of power (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991), they have the political power to outline and govern children’s experienced autonomy in day care. As a consequence, questions need to be addressed surrounding how some children have an extended possibility to resort to relational aggression, manipulating the perceptions of both peers and adults, and making their take on reality become understood as true and objective. Having established that day care has aspects other than those that are beneficial for newcomer migrant children – promoting their language acquisition and overall integration into mainstream society (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2011; Lauritsen, 2012; Lidén et al., 2011; Seeberg, 2009) – we have focused our attention on how migrant children’s struggles can be related to social competition. We have done this by revealing how migrant children’s contextual and situated status as an insider or outsider to a field can lead to their subjugation, experienced through acts of relational aggression. Emphasizing that exclusion and power are central in children’s concerns when negotiating position (Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011), we have identified that – intentional or unintentional – microaggressive behavioural/verbal remarks or comments that indicate a position as an outsider can easily push children into feeling stigmatized (Wing Sue et al., 2007). If or when migrant children are confronted with such an aggressive assault over a longer period of time, it will be most likely inevitable for them to experience an undermining of their self-worth (Almqvist and Broberg, 1999; Fazel et al., 2012; Helmen Borge, 2010).

Having established that migrant children’s experiences differ as a result of their position and status within a peer group, questions need to be addressed regarding the role of the practitioners in sustaining relational aggressive behaviour, as this was a known challenge. Over the course of nine months, a number of informal conversations with the practitioners has provided an insight into how, even though being aware of girls’ aggressive conduct, the practitioners generally felt that they were powerless to do anything about it. Why did they feel this way? Could it be that they, unconsciously, were contributing to the establishment of a symbolic system that used its political function to legitimize subjugation? Generally, relational aggression is said to be salient among girls (Crick and Gropeter, 1995; Eriksen and Lyng, 2015; Svahn and Evaldsson, 2011). Could it be that the practitioners – explicitly or implicitly – accepted relational aggression as something natural or inevitable for girls in day care? Using a Bourdieusian lens, we have come to understand that such an assumed, unconscious recognition, or tolerance, of relational aggression among girls could lead to practitioners, at some level, justifying relational aggressive conduct. When children experience that they are ‘allowed’ to use relational aggression, could this, then, become understood by both adults and children as inevitable within girls’ social organizing? If relational aggression becomes accepted at an institutional level, this could become an indication of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1996; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991).

It seems that these children, often the oldest in the day-care setting, are more privileged by practitioners. As a result of their high symbolic capital, they enjoy an extended autonomy, being able to move relatively freely in the setting. Such autonomy ensures that negotiations for power and position can be done in cherished ‘adult-free zones’, such as cloakrooms, bathrooms, side rooms or particular areas of the playground. Without running the risk of getting caught, privileged children can enjoy a high degree of power. Within these positions, children can become highly influential, deconstructing, manipulating and reconstructing social reality, as they have the means to influence children’s and adults’ perceptions of relations and self-worth.

Practitioners should become more sensitive to recognizing how relational aggression is manifested in the subtleties of children’s social existence in day care. If practitioners choose to focus on assumed symptoms of trauma, concentrating on migrant children’s past, they are in danger of explaining all observed ‘abnormal’ behaviour and conduct as related to trauma, giving little to no recognition of the social dimensions of struggle, competition and relational aggression that can occur within their situated lives in day care. Being challenged by the majority language, migrant children can experience difficulties in explaining the social conditions they face. On the other hand, if they can explain using the majority language, ‘telling adults’ can lead to a further developing of their social exclusion. More research is therefore needed with regard to the dynamics and nuances occurring when migrant children enter well-established majority-language-speaking peer groups. It is suggested that this research focus on the contextual and situated social challenges that prohibit social inclusion in local peer communities. Finally, the pedagogical implications are that practitioners should become more reflexive with respect to how a look, comment or gesture from them might be interpreted as justifying relational aggressive conduct towards migrant children. Practitioners should thus take a reciprocal stance, investigating their individual and collective attitudes, their assessments of migrant children’s needs, and the social conditions they create for listening to migrant children’s daily experiences.

Conclusions

This article is based on an ethnographic study in a Norwegian day-care setting and has explored newcomer migrant children’s social exclusion. Using a small sample size, we have presented and analysed a glimpse of some of the daily context and situations that migrant children may experience when entering day care. Acknowledging that language is, indeed, important for migrant children’s inclusion, our analytical framework has enabled us to identify some of the social dynamics and nuances surrounding young children’s socialization within contemporary globalization by revealing some of the social struggles that migrant children can experience as a result of both children and childhood and adults and adulthood.