LEGO intermezzo: Exploring territories of playfulness in kindergarten

Abstract

This article feeds on new materialisms, especially the work of Barad, while re-turning and exploring child/LEGO/pedagogue/(re)searcher intra-actions in kindergarten and drawing attention to both human and non-human organisms as agentic forces that produce diffractions, affects and effects when they clash. The article places a special focus on one particular LEGO event that triggered multiple diffractions within and amongst human bodies and matter in kindergarten. The rhizomatic LEGO event here serves as data – data that might infect and allure human body-minds over and over again. While troubling prerational chaotic LEGO play and the valuing or devaluing of various forms of play in a pedagogical institution like kindergarten, the article aims to rethink sedimented practices in kindergarten. The discussion is fuelled by Nietzsche’s Dionysian philosophy, while arguing for the return of pure excitement, joy and silliness to fulfil children’s ‘need to play’. The article goes on to propose that while re-turning the LEGO event repeatedly, new ideas, theories and practices might emerge, releasing what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as ‘nomadic thinking’, characterized by movement, change and lines of flight, and suggesting human organisms becoming (with) LEGO – and (re)searchers becoming (with) data. The article emphasizes an ethico-onto-epistemological approach to (re)search while aiming to flatten the human/non-human hierarchy.

Prelude

In this article, I trouble prerational play in kindergarten, highlighting one particular LEGO event that triggered/triggers multiple diffractions within and amongst human bodies and matter in kindergarten. The rhizomatic LEGO event here serves as data – data which we stumbled (Brinkmann, 2014) upon during an action-research project in kindergarten where pedagogues and practitioners from both university and kindergarten played different but coequal roles as (re)searchers, exploring objects and affects. Further, I suggest that our data/the LEGO event holds the power to infect and allure human body-minds over and over again when clashing with other matter and meaning through time and space. Valuing or devaluing rational or prerational play in a pedagogical institution like kindergarten triggers the article’s main discussion – a discussion fuelled by Nietzsche’s Dionysian philosophy, arguing for the return of pure excitement, joy and silliness to fulfil children’s ‘need to play’.

New materialism, especially the work of Barad, forms the article’s theoretical framework as well as inspires my method for exploring the LEGO event’s diffraction patterns while re-turning my data over and over again to extract new/different knowledge. In my data analysis, I likewise appreciate what Deleuze and Guattari (2016) refer to as ‘nomadic thinking’, characterized by movement and becoming. Here, I focus attention on human bodies/war machines exploring or fighting over new territories – becoming (with) LEGO, or (re)searcher(s) becoming (with) data. Aiming to flatten the human/non-human hierarchy, I emphasize an ethico-onto-epistemological approach to (re)search. I seek fluxes of transformation, not universal knowledge, appreciating what Haraway (2016) refers to as ‘tentacular thinking’ and ‘curious practice’. Might LEGO be dangerous? Questions and wonderings vibrate through the article, like intra-active analytic tools clashing with human body-minds, forming diffraction patterns beyond here/now and there/then. So, let’s play.

Theoretical entanglements vibrating …

Inspired by posthuman theories and feminist/new materialisms, matter comes to matter (Barad, 2003, 2007; Christensen and Hauge, 2012; Haraway, 1991) in my (re)search. Thinking with Barad (2003, 2007, 2014), matter is not immutable or passive. Rather, matter constitutes vibrant and vital forces that are able to do things (Bennett, 2010). Hence, in addition to language, discourse and culture, matter/nature/objects/bodies themselves are agentic powerful forces that matter and produce effects. Elaborating further, ‘agency cannot be designated as an attribute of “subject” or “objects” (as they do not preexist as such)’ (Barad, 2003: 827). Rather, ‘agency is the enactment of iterative changes to particular practices through the dynamics of intra-activity’ (827). Hence, according to Barad, ‘matter comes to matter through the iterative intra-activity of the world in its becoming’ (823). Therefore, LEGO matters through intermingling with other matter and meaning – here creating the LEGO event, which I twist and turn in order to extract new knowledge.

Deleuze (1990) explains an ‘event’ as continuously becoming, meaning that the event is rhizomatic and part of an ever-changing ongoing process. Hence, when exploring the LEGO event/data, like an agential cut or snapshot of reality, I/we still need to consider its rhizomatic intermingling with the past, present and future (Barad, 2003, 2007; Cumming, 2015; Honan, 2007). So, the LEGO event becomes multiple and dynamic, transforming through history, producing affects (Massumi, 1995, 2015) and multiple effects over and over again. Or, as Barad (2014: 178) puts it, ‘agential cuts never sit still’. Agential cuts should be recognized as entangled matter/phenomena producing and pulsating through time and space. Barad (2014: 168) writes that ‘there is no absolute boundary between here-now and there-then’, releasing the idea that there is nothing that is new and there is nothing that is not new. Therefore, when re-turning (to) the LEGO event multiple times, we can see/read/feel what emerges through the entangled child/LEGO/pedagogue/kindergarten/(re)searcher assemblages in different, new or other ways, over and over again.

Every time human body-minds re-turn (to) the LEGO event/data, something else might be discovered, revealed or released. Following Barad (2014), the concept of ‘re-turning’ is about how we might explore and dig through our data over and over again to extract new knowledge from it. It is about challenging prevailing truth and recognizing that everything is not yet known. It is about discovering something that was maybe always there, hidden beneath the surface, but which we did not see before we explored it in new and different ways. It is like turning over the soil in your flowerbed, digging and piercing through it, breathing air into it. Then, new matter might rise to the surface, like ‘virtual potentialities’ (Deleuze, 2011). So, when re-turning (to) the LEGO event(s) repeatedly, new ideas, questions and theories might appear. Truth does not sit still.

I find Barad’s (2007, 2014) term ‘diffraction’ useful while analysing and re-turning (to) the LEGO event(s). The concept of ‘diffraction’ originates from physics and can be exemplified by how waves move, transcend, clash and collapse in, around, through and past obstacles in the ocean, for example. Barad (2014: 171) elaborates further: ‘Imagining light to behave as a fluid which upon encountering an obstacle breaks up and moves outwards in different directions’; she continues: ‘Grimaldi dubbed this phenomenon diffraction, citing the Latin verb diffringere – dis (apart) and frangere (break)’. With this in mind, the LEGO event referred to in my article will form the original wave that partly remains within the new wave after its transformation into a new wave, and so on, wave after wave. Furthermore, Barad (2014: 168) explains ‘re-turning’ as ‘a mode of intra-acting with diffraction’, and when re-turning or intra-acting with diffractions set off by the LEGO event(s), what happens is a mapping of interference, not of replication, reflection or reproduction. When analysing the LEGO event(s) and mapping where effects of difference appear (Haraway, 1992), phenomena like affects, emotions, sounds, movements, utterances, ideas and actions might be discovered as effects of these interferences.

… through and beyond play

Spariosu (1989) points out that since its birth in archaic and classical Hellenic thought, the concept of play has always been subject to the influences of various rational and prerational sets of values. He writes: ‘rational mentality represses its prerational counterpart, labeling it “savage”, “barbarian”, and “primitive”, precisely because prerational power presents itself in a naked, unashamed, and violent form’ (11). Øksnes (2011), referring to Spariosu (1989) and his book Dionysus Reborn, writes about two oppositional views of play: an Apollonian view, where play is considered positive and rational, and is associated with harmony and order, and a Dionysian view, which connects play to chaos, the prerational and the unpredictable. Øksnes (2011) goes on to suggest that most western philosophers throughout history have described and rationalized play from the notion of order, emphasizing play as a preparation for adult life – taming the wild child.

Thinking with Sutton-Smith (1997), most pedagogues have a need to link play with children’s development, rather than appreciating the mere pleasure and joy of play. As childhood becomes increasingly institutionalized in the western world, we need to discuss how kindergarten as a pedagogical institution might infect children’s play. Do we, as pedagogues, value some play forms over others? What kind of play is good, or bad? What kind of play might be encouraged or pushed? What kind of play or playfulness might be rejected and considered inappropriate?

Nietzsche’s (1993) Apollonian–Dionysian opposition, which merges in The Birth of Tragedy, inspires this article’s discussion about children’s prerational, chaotic LEGO play and its diffraction patterns. In conjunction with the Apollonian–Dionysian opposition, Deleuze (2013) makes the remark that ‘the true opposition is not the wholly dialectic one between Dionysus and Apollo but the deeper one between Dionysus and Socrates’ (13). Socrates, as a pure intellectual person with no sense of life as a mystery, slaughters tragedy. So, does this mean that Nietzsche is a ‘dialectician’? Deleuze writes: ‘Nietzsche emphasizes the fact that force has another force as its object. But it is important to see that forces enter into relations with other forces. Life struggles with another kind of life’ (8). He continues: ‘Pluralism sometimes appears to be dialectical – but it is its most ferocious enemy, its only profound enemy. This is why we must take seriously the resolutely anti-dialectical character of Nietzsche’s philosophy’ (8).

Nietzsche (1993) argues that the tragedy of Ancient Greece was the highest form of art due to its mixture of both Apollonian and Dionysian elements, allowing the spectator to experience the full spectrum of the human condition, and hence suggesting that art or play needs to embrace different actions and emotions to fulfil life. The term ‘Apollonian’ originates from Apollo, the Olympian god of the sun and light, music and poetry, healing and plagues, prophecy and knowledge, archery and agriculture, order and beauty. Apollo embodies the Hellenic ideals of harmony, moderation and reason – a perfect blend of physical superiority and moral virtue. Apollo is the divine incarnation of the principle of individuation – constructing the beautiful appearance, the dream or the plastic image (Deleuze, 2013; Nietzsche, 1993). Further, the term ‘Dionysian’ originates from Dionysus, the Olympian god of wine and dance, pleasure, festivity, madness and wild frenzy, theatre, fertility, intoxication, chaos and irrationality (Otto, 1991); he appeals to instincts and emotions, and shatters the plastic image of the individual while returning to primitive unity (Deleuze, 2013; Nietzsche, 1993). Deleuze (2013: 11) writes: ‘Dionysus is like the background on which Apollo embroiders beautiful appearances; but beneath Apollo Dionysus rumbles’.

(Re)searcher (re)searching …

Inspired by what Haraway (2016) refers to as ‘tentacular thinking’ and ‘curious practice’, I explore my data with curiosity and wonder, and awareness of the complex intermingling and ambiguity of data. As a (re)searcher (re)searching (Ottersland Myhre et al., 2017), I am bodily and mentally intertwined with (my) data. The data becomes part of me as a living, breathing human body-mind, while I become part of the data. As a (re)searcher, I cannot separate myself from data/praxis/text/theory/critique and so on, making myself visible and vulnerable through performance and presence. The ‘I’ cannot escape being in relation to other matter and meaning while entering the (re)search assemblages. Hence, when re-turning the LEGO event(s) over and over again, the (re)searcher and data make a mutual impact on each other, transforming/becoming (re)searcher/data over and over again.

Thinking with Deleuze and Guattari (2016), the ‘I’ becomes complex and multiple, like a voice without a subject (Mazzei, 2016) echoing through time and space. Like a leaky body-mind, the ‘I’ becomes intertwined and entangled in different and multiple assemblages. Hence, the ‘I’ never sits still; the ‘I’ always transforms through multiple and various encounters with other matter and meaning, continuously becoming. The world’s complexity does not set the scene for easy answers. Therefore, as a (re)searcher, I cannot pin down ‘the truth’ in my (re)search. No matter how tentacular and diverse (re)search strives to be, it always faces limitations. Something will always be out of reach, impossible to grasp at that particular moment.

When re-turning (Barad, 2014) the LEGO event(s), new ideas and questions will flourish – questions with immanent potentialities to move and initiate processes: this is what is interesting. Hence, the questions lingering through my article, as kinds of analytical tools or teasers, seek to affect human body-minds/you/me so that potentialities for actualization might be released (Deleuze, 1990, 2011). Thus, re-turning as a mode of intra-acting with diffractions (Barad, 2014) becomes a method for exploring my data/the LEGO event(s). It is, however, a method that does not sit still, but rather changes and transforms, while inviting various becomings in between and amongst agentic actors in kindergarten, and beyond. And even you (the reader) are invited to participate while intra-acting with the article’s paused performances, questions and ideas.

‘Staying with the trouble’ (Haraway, 2016) while exploring territories of play, I appreciate Deleuze and Guattari’s (2016) philosophy of the nomadic war machine and what might become. Deleuze and Guattari (2016: 443) write that ‘the life of the nomad is the intermezzo’, characterized by movement and change, and always in the middle or between points – struggling, fighting, breaking through, becoming – when ‘becoming’ one piece of an assemblage is drawn into the territory of another piece, changing its value as an element and bringing about a new unity. As an inextricable part of an assemblage, everything affects and is being affected by each other through the intermingling hodgepodges of human actions, objects, phenomena, theories, ideas and fantasies – continuously transforming.

… and appreciating an ethics of immanence

New materialisms argue for the co-implication of humans and non-human matter, where subjects are already part of the world in its becoming (Davies, 2018), meaning that both human and non-human matter infect and transform through multiple intra-actions in time and space. Barad (2007) writes: ‘To be entangled is not simply to be intertwined with another, as in the joining of separate entities, but to lack an independent, self-contained existence’ (ix). She elaborates further: ‘Practices of knowing and being are not isolable; they are mutually implicated. We don’t obtain knowledge by standing outside the world; we know because we are of the world. We are part of the world in its differential becoming’ (185). Barad goes on to suggest that ‘the becoming of the world is a deeply ethical matter’ (185). Therefore, what we need is ‘something like an ethico-onto-epistemology – an appreciation of the intertwining of ethics, knowing, and being – since each intra-action matters’ (185), meaning that what is made to matter in our intra-actions as part of the world in its differential becoming lies at the heart of Barad’s ethics (Davies, 2018). Further, thinking with Lenz Taguchi (2010: xvii), ‘we have to view ourselves in a constant and mutual state of responsibility for what happens in the multiple intra-actions … as we affect and are being affected by everything else’. As a (re)searcher, I then have to consider myself in a constant and mutual state of responsibility, intra-acting with other beings and other matter of which the world is made up. Thinking with Deleuze’s ontology, evaluative criteria for ethical judgements and practical actions are thus built into life’s processes of metamorphosis and change (Woodward, 2007).

Data intermingling …

Intra-acting with the LEGO event(s), I explore the capacity to affect and be affected, lingering with lines of force that flow between and among both human and non-human organisms. I am becoming with LEGO/I become LEGO – colourful, hard, edged, smooth, and so on. LEGO comes in different sizes, shapes and colours. There are small LEGO bricks for older children and big LEGO bricks (DUPLO) for younger children. There are different LEGO themes that appeal differently to different children. There are LEGO themes that express feelings or portray different professions, superheroes and more. Bright colours and multiple shapes invite eyes and hands to interact, preferably to build or construct something, as dominant LEGO discourses and pedagogical purposes emphasize. Hence, children are intended to practise their fine motor skills, to express patience and concentration, and to some extent imagination and collaboration skills. However, what if children do not play with LEGO in the way they are ‘supposed to’? What if they do not play ‘correctly’? What then?

LEGO/objects affect us in ways we might not notice if we are only tuned into humans. Thinking with Barad (2007), the children, assistants, pedagogues and (re)searchers are making themselves intelligible to LEGO/objects, as the LEGO/objects are making themselves intelligible as well to the children, assistants, pedagogues and (re)searchers. Hence, the children and adults, and even I, as a (re)searcher, are caught up in mutual entanglements with LEGO. LEGO becomes an agential force that sets off affects and effects through multiple encounters with other organisms in LEGO/human assemblages. Thinking with Spinoza, affect might be defined as the power ‘to affect and be affected’ (Massumi, 2015: ix). Massumi (2015: ix) elaborates: ‘One always affects and is affected in encounters; which is to say, through events’. Affect works as ‘a prepersonal intensity corresponding to the passage from one experimental state of the body to another and implying an augmentation or diminution in that body’s capacity to act’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016: xv). Therefore, while re-turning (Barad, 2014) the LEGO event(s) over and over again, affects and effects like new knowledge might emerge as we move back and forth through time and space at a different pace and in different directions.

Pause

Imagine you have a big box filled with colourful LEGO bricks in front of you. What is your first impulse? Are you at some point tempted to pour all the LEGO out onto the floor? And, if so, what will you do next?

Hold on to your thoughts and impulses.

… while stumbling across the LEGO event

When exploring the rhizomatic (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016) LEGO event(s), we need to re-turn (Barad, 2014) an observation made by one of the kindergarten teachers. He says: ‘The children like to pour all the LEGO in the box out on the floor. Then they run, excited, through the mess, kicking the LEGO bricks all over the place’. The observation produced wonder (MacLure, 2013b) and curiosity amongst and in between body-minds in the kindergarten. It triggered interest and made us stumble (Brinkmann, 2014). Brinkmann (2014) writes about qualitative analysis driven by astonishment, mystery and breakdowns in one’s understanding (abduction). The LEGO event serves as such a breakdown, producing wonder and curiosity. Thinking with MacLure (2013a: 660), ‘we are obliged to acknowledge that data have their ways of making themselves intelligible to us’. This can be seen, felt or appreciated on occasions when wonder is triggered and one becomes especially interested in a piece of data – such as the LEGO event, for example. The LEGO event kind of glows and affects or infects my/our body-minds (MacLure, 2013a). MacLure (2013b: 229) explains: ‘When I feel wonder, I have chosen something that has chosen me, and it is that mutual “affection” that constitutes “us” as, respectively, data and researcher’. Therefore, (re)searchers and data come into existence through each other.

When appreciating a Deleuze-Guattarian ontology that does not assume a subject–object binary, the concept of data itself requires rethinking – suggesting that data is not something that is waiting to be ‘collected’ by a human, existing independently of an interpretive frame (St Pierre, 2013). Rather, data emerges/transforms/evolves through encounters between and amongst agentic actors intermingling. Further, re-turning the data/LEGO event(s) multiple times, what comes ‘first/before’ and what comes ‘after/later’ intermingle. Therefore, the rhizomatic LEGO event(s) do not have clearly identifiable beginnings and ends (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016; Honan, 2007). LEGO event(s) work in the middle of life/history/time/space, connected and intertwined with other matter that affects through multiple encounters or events (Deleuze, 1990). Hence, the data/LEGO event re-turned and pierced in this article is multiple, intertwined and fused, continuously becoming through intra-actions that might make human body-minds stumble with curiosity and wonder.

Pause

Now let us re-turn (to) the imaginary LEGO box in front of us. Are our impulses in accordance with dominant LEGO discourses, which emphasize constructing or building something with LEGO? Or are our impulses out of line and in conflict with how to play ‘correctly’ with LEGO?

Yet again, what might these new imaginary human–LEGO intra-actions produce?

Which diffraction patterns and vibrations might be set in motion?

Becoming (with) LEGO … rumbling …

LEGO is composed of two Danish words – leg and godt, meaning ‘play well’ – and was coined in 1934 by Ole Kirk Christiansen in Billund, Denmark. LEGO might also be associated with the Latin verb lego which holds several definitions, one of which is to gather/collect/assemble. The LEGO cooperation embraces the lucky coincidence that the Danish LEGO term also has its Latin origin/twin and appreciate the translation ‘I collect’ and the fairly extended and free translation ‘I put together’ as a linguistic elaboration of the Danish LEGO-trademark. So, the LEGO trademark has immanent potentialities for various translations, change and transformation. LEGO as a concept and matter does not sit still – it is like an organic, self-organizing, desiring, always-becoming machine (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016). LEGO invites human bodies, fingers, eyes and brains to interact in multiple ways – launched by imitation, creativity, physical or intellectual impulses, and more. LEGO and humans release one another’s potentialities when colliding (in kindergarten), and multiple affects and effects come into existence.

Now let us re-turn (to) the prerational chaotic LEGO event (Barad, 2014; Deleuze, 1990; Spariosu, 1989). Digging and piercing through the data, several questions appear. Why do the children pour the LEGO out onto the floor and run through the mess, kicking the LEGO bricks all over the place? Does the children’s behaviour express pure joy and excitement? Or might their behaviour express anger or irritation at some level? Are the children trying to annoy the adults? Is this typical behaviour for children at the ages of one to three? What might be expected from boys and girls at this age? Does gender or age really matter? Further, is this LEGO event unique? Will similar LEGO events produce kind of ‘the same’? Why does LEGO produce this behaviour amongst the children? Do we (adults) support and facilitate this kind of ‘play’? The latter question may depend on whether we (adults) perceive the children–LEGO intra-actions as playful, fun or aggressive, maybe. Here our (adults’) actions will most likely match prevalent discourses about children’s play, while expressing greater tolerance for playful fun than aggressive behaviour. The LEGO event infects our adult body-minds in various ways. Whether we, as teachers, are annoyed by the children/LEGO intra-actions, thrilled or indifferent, we might correspondingly encourage, ignore or restrict the children’s actions.

LEGO works like a force that makes virtual potentialities come alive (Deleuze, 2011). In this case, pouring all the LEGO out onto the floor brings about ecstatic behaviour amongst the children. The scattering noises of masses of LEGO bricks hitting the floor, vibrant colours and various forms appeal to the children’s physical and emotional extrovert behaviour or play. Becoming (with) LEGO, the children jump and bounce around like the colourful, hard plastic LEGO bricks hitting the concrete floor, shouting and laughing. The loud children/LEGO/space intra-actions vibrating through and around the teachers in the kindergarten might release affects like discomfort, irritation and feelings of loss of control amongst the adults. While the prerational play poisons the adults’ minds and bodies, the LEGO box is rapidly cleared away and put in a hard-to-reach place, out of sight for the children. Furthermore, events like this might also produce adult scolding of the children’s wild behaviour or play, bringing about emotions such as anxiety, withdrawal, distress, anger, shame, discomfort and the like in and amongst the children. What defines good or bad behaviour or play? Who or what defines play? On the other hand, the children might just as easily ignore the adults’ disapproval and continue their playful Dionysian behaviour, as long as the physical circumstances permit it, or until they get bored.

Cutting and re-turning the LEGO event over again (Barad, 2014), new human body-mind potentialities are exposed. LEGO appeals to cognitive abilities, concentration and fine motor skills, keeping the body calm while fingers, hands, eyes and mind are at work building or constructing something. This kind of LEGO play is more in agreement with dominant LEGO discourses, and quiet LEGO construction play will probably produce different responses or actions in and amongst the assistants and pedagogues than the chaotic LEGO play. The adult body might sit down on the floor, hands and fingers putting LEGO bits and pieces together, building something together with the children, with everybody talking in calm voices, hands meeting hands, smiles being exchanged, all cooperating in harmony – human body-minds inviting imaginative play while LEGO transforms into spaceships, tractors, racing cars, aeroplanes, pirate ships, castles, hair salons, schools, hospitals, cows, firefighters, dragons, cats, superheroes, mums, teachers, doctors, babies and more.

Re-turning the LEGO event(s) once more, what would it look or feel like if the human adult body joined the children’s wild dance amongst the LEGO bricks scattered all over the floor? Would it scare, impress or please the children? What kind of affects and effects might be produced by such rumbling human/LEGO intra-actions compared to quiet LEGO construction play?

… beneath dangerous LEGO intermingling

Re-turning (Barad, 2014) the LEGO event over again, new questions spring to mind. Might LEGO be perceived as dangerous? Narratives of how young children and babies might choke on small LEGO parts form discourses and practices in kindergarten, making assistants and pedagogues extra aware of what is available for the youngest children to play with, clear all small LEGO bits and pieces away, and allow only DUPLO in the children’s (aged one to three) room. Hence, LEGO is potentially dangerous. Further, recently, a discussion of whether LEGO from the 1970s and 1980s contains toxic and carcinogenic substances has developed on social media. Hence, LEGO is potentially dangerous. Then there is the assumption, or fact maybe, that LEGO is dirty and full of pathogenic bacteria that could make children ill. Hence, LEGO is potentially dangerous because of oral intra-actions in between human mouths, hands and LEGO. Moreover, there is the dilemma of chaos, which might infect both children (not participating in the playful behaviour) and adults as Dionysian LEGO play progresses. Hence, LEGO is, if not dangerous, then at least messy, noisy and potentially distressing or annoying. Therefore, one might wonder why LEGO is still such a popular activity in kindergarten.

Pause

Now let us try to release immanent potentialities in our imaginative LEGO interventions.

What does LEGO tempt us to do? Which senses does LEGO appeal to?

What kind of interactions will we pursue?

Moving beyond boundaries …

Exploring new territories and virtual potentialities (Deleuze, 2011; Deleuze and Guattari, 2016) while intermingling with LEGO might challenge and transform prevailing discourses and practices amongst assistants and pedagogues in kindergarten – and maybe even in and amongst children’s body-minds. Hence, transcending dominant LEGO discourses with clear pedagogical intentions might hurt and confuse, and/or enlighten. Now, imagine LEGO scattered in a sandpit outside or floating in a bathtub. Diffractions (Barad, 2014) are set in motion, releasing questions and ideas that vibrate in, through and around human and non-human obstacles. Given these new surroundings, LEGO might rapidly transform into cars or boats in children’s/our minds, inviting human body-minds to engage in play. Is LEGO more tempting to play with in new surroundings? Or do humans get upset by LEGO bricks exceeding their territories, like nomad wanderers in sand and through oceans, recognizing the compelling need to wash the sandy LEGO or dry the wet LEGO bricks before putting them neatly back in the LEGO box? Is it allowed to bring LEGO outside? How did the LEGO get outside, and why?

Re-turning and piercing through (Barad, 2014) again, what might LEGO bricks wrapped in plasticine or painted by eager children’s hands produce? Do pedagogues and assistants appreciate these LEGO transformations and value the children’s actions? Or do adult body-minds feel the need to correct the children’s actions and ‘save’ the mistreated LEGO? And what if LEGO is transformed into money or food through playful human/object intra-actions? What if LEGO is put in a handbag or cooked on a stove, removed from its ‘natural’ habitat – the LEGO construction site – and placed in an imaginative supermarket or kitchen area in kindergarten? Do adult body-minds feel the need to tidy up the children’s mess, or do they engage in and encourage the children’s transcending play? Might adult body-minds even initiate such kinds of play? Or will they restrict it? What infects human actions and transformations? What infects human body-minds in general? Licking LEGO bricks – sticking out your tongue and tasting the smooth LEGO surface? What does it feel, taste and smell like? Is it sandy, dirty, wet or dry? Does it feel good? Are you allowed? Are you told not to do it? Which diffractions are set in motion? How might human body-minds be affected and infected when intermingling with LEGO exceeding boundaries and dangerous fusions?

What if LEGO bricks were hidden in a box and buried in the ground – in what ways could this infect human body-minds? Do adult humans feel an urgent need to analyse the children’s behaviour? Has someone recently died? Is there sorrow that needs to be cured? Or are the children simply treasure-hunting, inspired by exciting movies or stories about pirates hiding a treasure chest beneath the ground? What if all the LEGO bricks were thrown away, sorted by colour, shape and size, or put in a pocket? How does it feel, hiding LEGO in your pocket – exciting or uncomfortable? Do you have small or big pockets to hide the LEGO in? Do you get caught when trying to smuggle LEGO bricks home? Do you get embarrassed, repentant or angry maybe? Do you understand that it is not allowed? Why is it not allowed? Or is it allowed? There are so many rules to obey or ignore in kindergarten, influencing actions, fusions, values and ideas – rules transforming and transcending matter and meaning.

Furthermore, will LEGO at home, in a toyshop, at a doctor’s or dentist’s surgery, or in a hairdressing salon, for example, invite children’s play in the same way as LEGO might do in kindergarten? Will different LEGO/child/time/space assemblages invite different or new LEGO/child/adult intra-actions? Yet again, how might multimedia infect LEGO discourses/fantasies/practices in and amongst human body-minds? Exposure to LEGO in different and multiple ways might transform human body-minds into monsters, princesses, policemen, tigers, dragons, heroes, robots or the good fairy, maybe. Do we bring the monsters to bed with us? Are they cuddled or feared? Do they generate nightmares or affection? On the other hand, human body-minds might also transform LEGO into something new or different, transcending the traditional LEGO construction-play discourse and its boundaries. What might happen when human body-minds transform or challenge traditional LEGO play with colourful farmhouses, elves concurring with evil, Vikings sailing the seven seas, exploring scientists, fighting ninjas, roaring dinosaurs, barking dogs and more into something new and different? What might happen if we pour all the brightly coloured LEGO out onto the floor and run excitedly through the mess?

Re-turning (Barad, 2014) the LEGO event over and over again releases even more questions and wonderings. Does LEGO meet human body-minds’ expectations, needs and desires? Are LEGO consumers content with what is offered by the industry or do they crave more? Are children happy with the selection of LEGO offered and available in kindergarten or at home? Do children comply with rules, standards or ‘laws’ concerning LEGO? Or do they challenge the rules? LEGO manufacturers’ financial gains by meeting consumer ‘needs’ (before even they might recognize them themselves) are quite obvious. Accordingly, the LEGO industry offers a wide range of LEGO themes and adventures to attract children of different backgrounds, ages, gender and interests. LEGO might also attract parents and pedagogues, whereas one might suggest that LEGO’s embedded pedagogical potentials are to some extent essential.

LEGO portraying feelings like happiness, anger, joy, sadness or discontent might unfold children’s cognitive and linguistic knowledge of emotions. LEGO themes portraying different jobs or occupations invite the child to impersonate various professional roles. LEGO themes and adventures addressing historical events, different cultures, and nature and animal life might broaden children’s knowledge and respect for history, cultural differences and ecological conditions. LEGO portraying different ages, genders and family members might invite the child to explore their mother’s role for a while – or maybe they prefer being the baby or the father. Different roles and deeds are expressed, valued and challenged while interweaving LEGO assemblages (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016). Then, there are the aspects of concentration and fine motor skills – fingers putting differently shaped LEGO bits and pieces together with precision. However, if one does not get the LEGO bricks to fit together or perform as expected, failure might cause tantrums and anger. Hence, LEGO really might challenge our patience at times. LEGO as a force bears the power to release multiple affects, emotions and actions when intermingling with human bodies.

There is also an aesthetic dimension accompanying LEGO – appealing colours and themes setting the scene for radiant intermingling. Which colours attract you? Do colours make a difference? Do we associate different roles or genders with different colours? Which forces do colours carry? Do they constrain or expand children’s actions and imagination? Which diffractions are launched when boys or girls prefer playing with LEGO princesses in pink and purple dresses? Which diffractions are launched when girls or boys play rough with superhero LEGO or embrace the firefighter role? Have we yet exceeded our prejudice associated with gender, colours and roles? Or are we still lingering with ‘outdated’ habits and beliefs? Do we dare, wish or need to transcend borders and explore new and old territories (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016) in different ways to extend our wisdom about life and LEGO? Which traditions are passed on from parents, pedagogues or siblings to a child? What kinds of expectations circulate and, again, how does this influence our praxis? Do our LEGO experiences as a child make our human body-minds enclosed or open to LEGO’s virtual potentialities?

… and trespassing play

LEGO intra-actions are rhizomatic and ever-becoming, with immanent virtual potentialities waiting to be redeemed (Barad, 2003, 2007; Deleuze, 2011; Deleuze and Guattari, 2016). When re-turning play as a phenomenon and playfulness, new ideas and lines of flight appear, affect and disturb (Barad, 2003, 2007; Deleuze, 2011; Deleuze and Guattari, 2016). Play as a phenomenon is complex and debated amongst politicians, pedagogues and scientists, while children, on the other hand, usually say they play because it is fun – or they just say ‘because’ and shrug their shoulders. Multiple theories flourish, trying to decide what constitutes play. However, play as a phenomenon is difficult to fully grasp, define and categorize, although dedicated scientists and researchers throughout history have tried extremely hard to pin down play.

Sutton-Smith (1997) acknowledges the ambiguity of play, embracing the great diversity of play theories, play forms, play equipment and different players. Thinking with Barad’s term ‘diffraction’, play might crash, flow, disturb, captivate and catch objects and human body-minds by surprise, producing affects and effects through multiple encounters. Play turns infinite, timeless – present and virtual at the same time. Play is ambiguous and diverse – sometimes fun, scary, challenging, exciting or exhausting. Play thrives in the absence of stress, sorrow, hunger, fear, regulations and control. Play might be threatened, misunderstood, disliked, ignored or hated. Play heals, comforts, develops, includes and excludes. Play feeds on multiple encounters in between and amongst different actors through time and space, never pausing, always becoming – transforming. Like the Deleuzian rhizome, play spreads and grows in multiple directions. Like a living, breathing creature, play turns multiple and complex, nourished by imagination, outbursts, bodies and actions. Hence, despite interruptions, denials, limitations and regulations, play as a phenomenon always finds its way, concurring with or seducing friends and enemies – trespassing. Therefore, although different play theories and research might suggest various approaches to pin down play, play continuously escapes being caught, defined or categorized because of its complex simplicity and immanent potentialities swirling through time and space.

Re-turning (Barad, 2014) play as a phenomenon pierces our rational and prerational sets of values (Spariosu, 1989). The LEGO event’s immanent potentialities might embrace participation, encouragement and restrictions. Swarming flocks of human bodies, laughter and legs kicking LEGO bricks bear the potential for devaluing what might be considered as play or playfulness, putting the prerational LEGO–child intermingling at risk of being degraded to chaos and commotion. The ambiguity of play holds the ambiguity of actions. While rational play might be considered as a safe and secure arena for experimenting with emotions and learning experiences that promote the child’s development and welfare, prerational play, on the other hand, might not serve the same status. Mere fun and silliness, violence maybe, aggressiveness and chaos might not be regarded as proper pedagogical tools to promote children’s learning. Hence, we (teachers) might choose to control Dionysian playfulness while pushing rational play with the very best intentions. Still, as the dedicated teacher might recognize, violent and chaotic play might as well hold the potential of positive learning experiences that promote social competence, creativity, happiness and a growing self-esteem.

Pause

Have you noticed how children playing family shift between being in character and directing the play? Have you seen how play might turn into tears or beading boards might transform into flying butterflies?

Desire interrupting

Like transformative powers, LEGO infects play, theories and practices in kindergarten. Through entangled intra-relating (Barad, 2007), child/LEGO/adult/space/time comes into existence, iteratively reconfigured through each intra-action. Thinking with Barad (2007: ix), ‘existence is not an individual affair’, suggesting becoming LEGO/child/play/teacher/idea/praxis through fused encounters and in-betweens.

The LEGO event in kindergarten distorts and disturbs. It challenges bodily and mental urges within and in between children and assistants, pedagogues and (re)searchers, while transcending and blurring play and playful behaviour. The value of play is at stake here, as is the value of values that decode accepted or desired behaviour and play in the children’s room. Deleuze (2013) locates in Nietzsche the pure form of ‘critique’, the essence or core of critique, while questioning the value of values and morality. While intra-acting with trespassing LEGO/child assemblages in kindergarten, do we (adults) accordingly question our values, practices and beliefs? Do we strive for critical thinking beyond dominant discourses in kindergarten? Or do we prefer to confine ourselves to old habits, practices and beliefs? Further, do we rank LEGO construction play, which requires concentration, patience and fine motor skills, as superior to the more chaotic kicking, screaming, laughing LEGO play? On the other hand, do either of these LEGO/child/space intra-actions actually constitute ‘play’? Who or what defines play? Might we be devaluing what serves as children’s play? Yet again, do we rank play as superior to other actions? Thinking with Deleuze and Guattari (2016), concepts do not sit still; ‘play’ does not sit still. Like the rhizome, play evolves and transforms when lived and experienced – always becoming. Hence, play is not easy to pin down. But does it really matter?

Re-turning (to) Nietzsche’s idea of how Dionysian and Apollonian elements of life, art, play and more are entwined and tangled leaves me with a question concerning structure versus chaos in kindergarten. What might structure do? Will it keep the humans safe and in control? Will it ensure harmony and peace? Will it ensure joy and happiness? Will it restrain human actions? Will it reduce and manipulate human actions? Will it encourage play? Furthermore, what might chaos do? Will it embrace human impulses and needs? Will it trigger euphoria and joyfulness? Will it ensure delight and pleasure? Will it demolish or sabotage? Will it scare or crush? Will it encourage play? The LEGO structure/chaos assemblage(s) bring(s) about hodgepodges of forces that allure and confuse, or clarify – desire interrupting peace and order; child becoming (with) LEGO through fierce and savage bodily expressions; peace and order restored by telling the children to calm down while cleaning up the mess; child becoming (with) reprimand and limitations. All cannot be chaos; all cannot be order and structure. Which potentialities do we pursue in life and play? Which affects and effects do our actions produce?

Diffractions do not sit still. LEGO infects human body-minds beyond imagination, over and over again. LEGO invites hands and fingers to grip and hold while building or constructing something, eyes and attention attracted to colours and exciting LEGO themes; mouth and tongue tasting smooth surfaces, licking, biting, drooling; feet kicking LEGO; LEGO bricks bouncing on the floor with loud clicking sounds; noise and chaos triggering other/new forces to appear – joy, anger, desire, irritation, laughter, anxiety, worry and more; new and different practices emerging and pedagogues and assistants supporting/suppressing/controlling/encouraging LEGO–child intra-actions; virtual potentialities being released, exposed and explored – like trespassing flight lines or nomadic movements beyond or within boundaries (Deleuze and Guattari, 2016). Is LEGO dangerous?

Postlude

In this article, I have played with LEGO and play as phenomena, wanting to trouble the value of values in relation to prerational, chaotic LEGO play. I have been arguing for the return of pure excitement, joy and silliness to fulfil children’s ‘need to play’ in an increasingly institutionalized everyday life for children in the western world. Thinking with Nietzsche’s Dionysian philosophy, I claim that it is necessary to merge both rational and prerational play to fulfil life, allowing children to experience the full spectrum of human conditions. However, working in accordance with the Norwegian kindergarten framework plan, pedagogues and assistants might feel obliged to encourage actions, activities and play that hold the potential for ‘constructive’ learning and development. This redirects us to the dilemma of the value of values. Justified by the child’s best interests, teachers might make the mistake of devaluing prerational play because of the chaos and commotion it often produces. Like breathing, pulsating and struggling war machines, children’s affective outbursts might provoke adult actions, leading to more stringent practices. Therefore, we need to become children again; we need to become small human bodies bursting with energy and joy, bumping and clashing into LEGO in kindergarten – suggesting that becoming children/LEGO holds the potential for the re-evaluation and appreciation of children’s prerational playfulness.