To love or not to love,that is the question: Examining the intersection of love,care,and education

Abstract

This colloquium discusses the intersection of love, care, and education in the field of early childhood education and care. While the name of the field reflects the belief that both care and education are seen as legitimate elements of the field’s professional discourse, love is still unspoken, undefined, and taken for granted. The author argues that love is professional yet very personal, involving the feelings and strong emotional connection that exist in a complex relationship in professional early childhood classrooms. This colloquium urges us to realize and legitimatize both love and care in the field of early childhood education and care, rather than conflating love and care.

We can just focus on care, rather than love.

Following a panel presentation entitled “Questioning notions of quality and equity in infant toddler care: Relationships, ‘differences,’ and enactments of professional love,” the audience and presenters engaged in interesting and thought-provoking conversations around the topic of love (Fincham et al., 2018). It was argued that it might be better to stay away from this topic since, when we talk about love, it is like going backwards as it is not professional. There was also a comment related to inappropriate love between a teacher and their students. I was very intrigued by various comments shared at the conference. I could not help but reflect on the discourses of love and care in the field of early childhood education today. This colloquium is my own reflection on, if not struggle with, the intersection of love, care, and education.

The field of early childhood education and care has finally come to acknowledge that there should be no distinction or division between care and education. Historically, caring has frequently been undervalued (Gooch and Powell, 2016), and education has been perceived as at a higher level or superior to caring (Van Laere et al., 2012). Despite the fact that education is still prioritized ahead of care (Rouse and Hadley, 2018) in the name of the field, the name— early childhood education and care—reflects the belief that both care and education are seen as legitimate elements of the field’s professional discourse (White and Gradovski, 2018). At the same time, I wonder whether the name of the field might highlight and reinforce the care–education dichotomy or separation unintentionally. Nonetheless, the name of the field highlights the fact that both care and education are required. But what about love? The discourse of love is still unspoken, undefined, and taken for granted (Aslanian, 2015; Cousins, 2017; Goldstein, 1998; White and Gradovski, 2018).

The discourse of love is complex and problematic for several reasons. First, love is frequently connected with nurturing and motherhood, reinforcing women’s role as natural carers and thus undermining and seriously compromising the professional side of teaching (Aslanian, 2015; White and Gradovski, 2018). This is especially the case in the female-dominated early childhood field. Furthermore, scientific discourses of child development and psychology came to dominate the field in the early 1900s (Ailwood, 2008; Aslanian, 2015; Goldstein, 1998). The “seen” came to be valued over the “unseen,” and “observable” and “scientific” modes of knowing came to be privileged ahead of “inward modes of knowing.” As the field was influenced by behaviorism, discussions around love became unintelligible and dislocated. Third, love and care are also silenced in the neo-liberal context, which promotes scientific, results-oriented outcomes, productivity, accountability measures, and professionalism (Connell, 2013; Cousins, 2017; Osgood, 2010; Rouse and Hadley, 2018). Finally, we are in a sad, crisis-ridden situation in which love can be viewed as a threat to our young children’s well-being in the context of child maltreatment and sexual abuse (Aslanian, 2018; Page, 2018). The topic of love has long been considered “taboo” in the field (Page, 2011), and the notion of love has frequently been hidden behind constructs such as warm relationships, responsiveness, care, emotions, and nurturing.

Nonetheless, the literature notes the importance of love in the field of early childhood education and care. For example, research shows that love affects the development of young children’s brains and personality development, as well as their well-being (Gerhardt, 2004); children need to feel loved (Manning-Morton, 2006); teachers express love in their talk and feel love for children (Campbell-Barr et al., 2015; Dalli, 2002; Goldstein, 1997); and parents want their children to be loved (Page, 2011). There has been a recent movement towards acknowledging love as an essential part of early childhood practice. Goldstein (1998: 152) proposes the concept of a “teacherly love” that is born from a commitment grounded in personal practice and “rooted . . . on a deliberate decision to love students.” “Teacherly love,” according to Goldstein, is distinct from other kinds of love mostly in that it is circumscribed in time and space by the structure of schooling. Page (2011) also introduces the notion of “professional love,” explaining that teachers are able to decenter and form a close professional attachment relationship with young children. Grounded in Bakhtin’s theory, White (2016) argues that love is conceptualized within a dialogic pedagogy and is relational and unique with every child. These advocates for love highlight the need to pay attention to the affective dimension of our work—the feelings that exist in the soul (Noddings, 1992).

Let us face it—the concept of love is subjective, elusive, and indefinable. The field of early childhood education and care struggles to describe the concept of love because it is contrary to the dominating scientific and results-oriented neo-liberal discourse. Most importantly, “the scientific concept lacks insight into the ethical dimension” (Aslanian, 2018: 179). Love comprises highly personal feelings of affection. Love exists only within specific relationships with other people (Cousins, 2017; Dalli, 2006), and involves intersubjectivity and emotionality (White and Gradovski, 2018). Thus, it is impossible to measure and does not fit into neo-liberal discourse (Aslanian, 2018). Love is not a pre-existing definable phenomenon. It is not just about an “act,” but the feelings and strong emotional connection that exist in a complex relationship (Recchia et al., 2018).

Love, therefore, is professional yet very personal. Love happens in professional early childhood classrooms and is deeply embedded in daily professional caregiving practices (Recchia et al., 2018). Young children deserve pedagogical caring and love to develop respectful and reciprocal relationships in an educational setting (Shin, 2015). At the same time, love can be derived from inward experience through reciprocal interactions and can vary in terms of intensity and depth (Cousins, 2017; Recchia et al., 2018). Love is such a marginalized, imperfect scientific discourse, and I wonder whether everything I feel when I engage with young children in the classroom should be measured and scientifically determined. I believe that it is better to recognize and admit that love exists in both the professional and personal realm, and that some aspects cannot be clearly described, defined, or analyzed. Were the complex nature of love and the inward mode of knowing valued, rather than the current hegemony of intellectual capacities, love would not be perceived as conflicting with professionalism. Love should be practiced. Young children should be educated, cared for, and loved. Rather than conflating love and care, both love and care should be realized and legitimatized in the field of early childhood education and care.