Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article examines early childhood educational space as a technology of government through Michel Foucault's concept of heterotopia. Drawing on this concept, the analysis juxtaposes and interrogates different perspectives on space, thereby advancing its conceptualization as an object of critical inquiry. The analysis is based on nine contemporary research articles focusing on children and processes of subjectification in early childhood education. These studies are examined as empirical cases in which knowledge and power are produced, negotiated, and contested. The analysis shows that the preschool functions as a site of overlapping yet distinct spatial arrangements. Such a heterotopic configuration enables multiple—and at times contradictory—processes of subjectification, through which children are simultaneously constituted as autonomous agents and regulated learners. Thus, mobilizing the concept of heterotopia makes it possible to analyze constructions of space not merely as context but as a dynamic site that actively participates in the reproduction and transformation of power relations in early childhood education.

Keywords

early childhood education educational space governmentality heterotopia subjectification

Introduction

The creation of dedicated spaces for children has been a crucial step in the institutionalization and standardization of Western childhood (Bollig and Millei, 2018). A decisive moment in this process was the rise of compulsory schooling, which placed children in designated environments, segregated from broader society to shield them from perceived corrupting influences (Ariés, 1962[1996]; Qvarsebo, 2021). In parallel with this development, early childhood education (ECE) took shape as a site where children were both safeguarded and educated for the benefit of the nation's future (Rose, 1999a[1989]). Over time, ECE has emerged as a strategic site in the governance of childhood, where children's attitudes, emotions, and behaviors are shaped through expert knowledge, pedagogical instruction, and care—practices aimed not only at fostering individual development and well-being but also at optimizing the population (Rose, 1999a[1989]; Walkerdine, 2000). Within these practices, children are configured as future citizens, with ECE operating as a technology of government through which particular forms of conduct and subjectivity are produced.

A substantial body of research has shown that educational spaces are shaped by distinct rationalities and operate in diverse ways depending on underlying assumptions about space—and in doing so, structure the conditions of children’s everyday lives. Much of this research focuses on particular elements such as the use of nature, specific locales, or environmental design (e.g. Änggård, 2010; Cliff and Millei, 2011; Ekman Ladru and Gustafson, 2020; Ernst, 2014; Jobb, 2019; Maynard, 2007). Alongside this, scholars have explored childhood spaces as cultural and structural constructions produced by children themselves (Berkhuizen, 2020; Corsaro, 2018; Halldén, 2007; Qvortrup, 2008). Within a Foucauldian framework, this study employs the concept of heterotopia to examine how spatial configurations in ECE operate as active components in processes of subjectification. Heterotopia is understood here as multilayered spaces imbued with diverse values, characterizations, and hierarchies (Foucault, 1986[1967], 2017[1975])—it foregrounds ECE's spatial dimensions as dynamically constructed and continuously negotiated, embodying multiple power relations and pedagogical intentions. The analysis aims to explore how space and subjectification are constructed and interpreted within ECE scholarship, tracing how educational environments both shape and reflect broader sociocultural forces. In doing so, it highlights the analytical potential of heterotopia for exploring how spatial conceptualizations function within networks of power.

Heterotopia, governmentality, and the subject

We approach heterotopia as an analytical tool for examining how spatial arrangements intersect with power and processes of subjectification. This approach aligns with broader Foucauldian thought on the interplay of knowledge and power in the governing of subjects and subjectivities (Foucault, 1982, 2017[1975]). Power is understood not as a personal trait or property but as an assembly of strategies—an effect of dispositions, maneuvers, tactics, and techniques—within a network of relations that are in constant tension and activity (Foucault, 2017[1975]). In this view, the subject is both subject to external control and engaged in self-formation, self-work, and self-knowledge (Foucault, 1982).

Foucault introduced the concept of heterotopia in his 1967 lecture for the Cercle d´études architecturales (Circle of Architectural Studies) in Paris, later published as “Of Other Spaces” (Foucault, 1986[1967]). He describes heterotopia as a socio-cultural “other space” that embodies diverse and often conflicting meanings. Heterotopias are not separate from society; rather, they are to be viewed as emplacements—spaces embedded in culture—that can mirror, distort, or oppose the remaining space (Johnson, 2013). Their simultaneous connectedness and separation offer glimpses of alternate ways of ordering (Topinka, 2010). Johnson (2013) suggests that Foucault sought to unsettle conventional spaces, revealing the extraordinary within the ordinary to offer a critical perspective on space. The spatial disparity to which heterotopia alludes arises from relational configurations rather than from a closed system of absolute difference or otherness (Johnson, 2013). Heterotopias, then, are “spaces that provide an alternate space of ordering while paradoxically remaining both separate from and connected to all other spaces” (Topinka, 2010: 55). Heterotopia can thus be situated within Foucault's broader spatial framework (Johnson, 2013; Topinka, 2010).

Foucault's seminal work Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (2017[1975]) elucidates how the organization of space functions as a disciplinary technique, using spatial terminology such as limits, division, separation, and closure to investigate the boundaries of permissible actions and thoughts. His conception of space encompasses not only tangible physical spaces but also theoretical ones—such as values, characterizations, and hierarchies that are projected onto them—facilitating the organization and ordering of multiplicity. Within Foucault's broader framework of power and knowledge, heterotopia offers a way of observing tensions and conflicts between forces—not as sites of resistance, but as sites where power is reconfigured—its primary function being to render order comprehensible (Topinka, 2010).

In ECE research, heterotopia has been used sparingly, typically to frame children's constructions of place as forms of resistance. Examples include McNamee's study of video games as heterotopian “other spaces,” MacRae's (2011) application of the concept to children's art-making, and Adlerstein and Echeverría's (2021) analysis of children's place-making as citizenship. These studies largely equate heterotopia with Foucault's (1986[1967]) notion of “counter-sites,” which is only one of several functions that Foucault assigns to heterotopia. In contrast, Chang-Kredl and Wilkie (2016) adopt a broader reading, grounded in Foucault's (1986[1967]) account of how heterotopias organize reality, viewing educators’ memories of childhood as spaces that bridge past, present, and future. Our use of the concept follows this broader approach, emphasizing the multiplicity and interrelations of spatial meanings. By shifting focus from spaces of resistance alone to the diversity of spatial configurations, we argue that heterotopia gains greater utility as an analytical tool.

We situate heterotopia within the broader framework of governmentality and the analytics of government, which Foucault described as an inquiry into the conduct of conduct (Foucault, 1982). We use heterotopia as an analytic tool for examining the boundaries, categorizations, and spatial mappings at work in ECE research, illuminating the ways in which space is entangled with the organization of knowledge and power (Topinka, 2010). A governmentality perspective underscores the reciprocal interplay between space and subjectification, while also recognizing research itself as a productive force in configuring power relations. Our analysis does not seek to uncover hidden power dynamics in the reviewed research nor does it aim to challenge its original analyses or conclusions. Instead, it examines how contemporary discourses are embedded within research, understanding research as inherently entangled with knowledge and power. It acknowledges that all knowledge production—including this study—participates in making the world thinkable and governable, thereby influencing the governing of subjects and subjectivities to varying degrees. This perspective underscores the role of research in constructing realities that inform strategies for governing in both constraining and enabling ways (Foucault, 2010).

Data, methodology, and analytical process

The empirical material for this article consists of nine peer-reviewed ECE research articles that examine the interplay between ECE and subjectification. The selection was guided by the study's aim to explore how heterotopia can serve as an analytical tool for understanding the role of space in relation to power and subjectification. Rather than undertaking a comprehensive review, the selection process was conceptually driven, assembling a set of studies that could be reread through the perspective of heterotopia. Three inclusion criteria guided the selection: (a) articles had to be peer-reviewed, (b) focus on processes of children's subjectification, and (c) examine subjectification in close relation to ECE settings. Searches were conducted in 2023 in the ERIC and ERC databases. To capture a relevant dataset, search terms combined “child*” AND “subject*,” alongside “preschool,” “kindergarten,” or “early childhood education.” The initial searches generated approximately 200 articles, which were then reviewed for relevance to the conceptual and analytical aims of the study. Ultimately, nine articles were selected for their empirical richness and pertinence to the present study. The narrow inclusion criteria ensured relevance and enabled a detailed examination of each study, facilitating an in-depth investigation of the potential of heterotopia as an analytical concept.

In the analysis, heterotopia functions as an analytical tool for examining how categorizations and boundaries of space are described—conceptualizing ECE as comprising multiple spaces within a single overarching space. The focus is on how children's subjectivities are depicted, and on the variations in these descriptions in relation to spatial arrangements. The delineation of boundaries between spaces is particularly significant, as it reveals how space transforms—or is mobilized to transform—the conditions under which subjectivity is made possible. The analysis began with an examination of each article in isolation, followed by a collective consideration of their interrelations within a broader network of knowledge. Through this process, we identified three distinct yet interconnected spaces of alternative ordering—understood here as heterotopias—across the entire set of studies. These spaces are not limited to individual studies; rather, each of the examined studies articulates variations of similar boundary-making practices, and several depict more than one of the heterotopic spaces discussed in this analysis. ECE spaces are approached not as neutral locations but as nexuses of power relations shaped by values, cultures, and knowledge. Guided by the concept of heterotopia, the analysis engages with three questions: How are subjectification processes framed in ECE research? How can heterotopia illuminate differences among these views? How do spatial arrangements reorder power? Addressing these questions, the analysis identifies three configurations of space, each with unique rationalities that shape possibilities for subject formation. We have defined these as education-as-usual, play space, and creative space. The expression “education-as-usual” deliberately echoes the idiom “business as usual” to signal a discourse grounded in common-sense and taken-for-granted assumptions about education's form and purpose. This phrasing also resonates with similar terminology, such as “teaching-as-usual” and “practice-as-usual,” found in two of the reviewed studies, underscoring our analytical interest in how habitual or normalized practices shape what is possible within educational spaces. The article concludes with a discussion of how ECE, understood through the concept of heterotopia, functions as multiple sites through which power relations are reordered and reconfigured (see Foucault, 1986[1967]; Topinka, 2010).

Education-as-usual

In this first empirical section, we examine the construction of subjectification processes in relation to what is perceived as education-as-usual in ECE. The empirical material presented here consists of three scholarly studies focusing on the educational dimensions of ECE. These examples reflect a view of the preschool child as situated within a tension between the home/private and play spaces, on the one hand, and educational spaces on the other. In this framing, the home/private and play spaces are perceived as spaces of emancipation from education-as-usual.

The first example is drawn from Månsson's (2011) study of the subject positions available to children during their introduction to preschool. Månsson provides several illustrations of how children are regulated according to a system of institutional rules specific to the educational space, in contrast to spaces characterized as private and homelike. This distinction between spaces—central to our heterotopian reading—marks the boundary between settings governed by formalized pedagogical norms and those framed as more intimate and flexible in their ordering of conduct. This boundary is illustrated in the following excerpts:

Helen is allowed to have the pacifier when she arrives in the morning; this occurs in the hallway, in the handover situation, which is partly characterized by the home/private context, with its rules and routines of care. Later during the preschool day, she is not allowed to have the pacifier, except in specified situations, a rule that is part of the institutional system of rules.

…

[later during the preschool day] Teacher Karin explains that as Helen tends to walk around with her pacifier, they have decided to limit the area where the pacifier is allowed, which is why Helen is sitting in the pram. (Månsson, 2011: 15)

As these excerpts illustrate, rules are perceived as both spatially and temporally delimited, integrated into the broader preschool culture. The morning hallway is depicted as a transitional space, connected to the home/private domain with its own set of rules and routines, enabling forms of being not bound by the institutional structure. In contrast, the formal preschool day is described as occurring within the institutional structure, where restrictive rules—such as those governing the use of pacifiers—are enforced. These layered spaces highlight how the spatial and temporal boundaries between preschool spaces mediate varying opportunities for children's subjectification, suggesting that within education-as-usual, certain aspects of children's subjectivities are more constrained compared with preschool settings constructed as home/private spaces.

The second example is drawn from Millei and Petersen's (2015) study, which examines the discursive formation of “learner subjectivities” in preschool, particularly through the lens of the governing of behavior. The analysis focuses on a classroom observation in which a five-year-old boy is disciplined by being directed to sit in a “time-out” chair for failing to adhere to the classroom rules:

The teacher and the assistant react to the situation in familiar ways. Calum is

apprehended, physically but with an apology (I am sorry to do this…) and a “reasonable reason” (but you have to slow down), followed up by a positive reinforcement (good boy).

…The objective of the exercise is to get Calum to comply and join in in the stipulated learning activities.

…In their response, Calum is negated as a competent child (due to the lack of compliance and making “unreasonable” choices) and as someone who is further developing his competencies and subjectivities. (Millei and Petersen, 2015: 28)

The excerpts above illustrate a specific dynamic of control and subjectification within the classroom setting. The teacher's and assistant's reactions to the child's behavior follow a familiar institutional pattern of disciplinary practice, both physical and verbal. This process is understood as an effort to align the child's conduct with the rules of formal learning activities, thereby ensuring participation within the education-as-usual framework. It is also interpreted as negating the child's competence through the framing of non-compliance as a sign of incompetence and irrationality. This interpretation underscores the dual role of ECE in shaping and controlling children's subjectivities, highlighting the underlying power relations aimed at molding children into compliant participants in the educational system.

Despite their differing representations of the preschool context, both studies reveal notable parallels. They each show how children are governed by a network of rules embedded in the preschool environment, where disciplinary practices are closely tied to the structures of formal education and aimed at fostering compliance. In these settings, children are shaped and disciplined through activities that limit their agency, positioning them as subjects of regulation. Education-as-usual thus emerges as a discursively constructed site that restricts possibilities for children's self-governed subjectivity. This power dynamic, characteristic of education-as-usual, is further illustrated by the following excerpt:

Being “trapped” in these available discourses, the teacher is compelled to view a scenario and act on the above described terms and to understand her role to be one of “managing it” in order to maintain control of the classroom. The teaching-as-usual scripts lay out possible responses in circumscribed ways. (Millei and Petersen, 2015: 29)

As seen in this excerpt, the teacher is portrayed as embedded within a distinct educational culture that permeates the preschool environment. This culture is characterized by adherence to a normative conception of teaching, primarily focused on classroom management. The phrase “teaching-as-usual” used here highlights that this culture represents the typical state of affairs (Millei and Petersen, 2015)—that is, it is understood as the usual educational space.

The third example is drawn from Bath and Karlsson's (2016) study, which explores children's agency in ECE as a form of subjectivity linked to citizenship. The study demonstrates how children's engagement in citizenship during interactions with adults is often overlooked. Bath and Karlsson further argue that children primarily enact subjectivity through play, where the authors portray children's opportunities to articulate their perspectives and be recognized by adults as more substantial. The partition between teacher-led activities and play can be viewed as an instance of delineation of boundaries between spaces. This interpretation is illustrated by the following excerpts:

…in these examples, adults are involved but young children's agentic role in relation to adults is ignored.

…Furthermore, we have proposed that children enact this subjectivity through the “lifeform” of play. Rancière's view of democracy as a form of expression matches this well and also helps us to accentuate the anarchic nature of play. (Bath and Karlsson, 2016: 563)

Bath and Karlsson demonstrate that children's “agentic roles,” analyzed as forms of subjectivity, are perceived differently in relation to adults compared to during play with peers. When interacting with adults, children's agency is largely disregarded; during play, however, they are depicted as able to express the specific agentic form of subjectivity the authors set out to examine. The authors highlight the anarchic nature of play, characterizing it as a distinct “lifeform.” Drawing on the concept of heterotopia—as spaces that exist in contrast to or outside of dominant social structures—we interpret these descriptions as demarcating education-as-usual and play space as distinct, coexisting spatial configurations. This framing positions play as a heterotopic layer within the preschool space, implying that play holds intrinsic value and enables children to evade the processes of power embedded in education-as-usual.

The notions of education and subjectivity in these three studies suggest that children are regulated less by the personal desires of teachers than by a power/knowledge framework shaped by discursive assumptions and cultural norms projected onto educational spaces. The education-as-usual space is depicted as permeated by a restrictive culture and values that govern both teachers and children toward maintaining social order, thereby establishing it as the norm—a space that mirrors society. The studies also indicate that alternative subjectivities are possible, linked to the presence of private/home and play spaces as heterotopian layers within the preschool institution. These spaces are discursively constructed as opportunities for children to express their subjectivity in alternative ways, serving as departures from the normal institutional order. Central to this construction is a conceptualization of play as a space of freedom, a notion that will be explored in the following section.

Play space

Utopias are sites with no real place. They are sites that have a general relation of direct or inverted analogy with the real space of Society. They present society itself in a perfected form, or else society turned upside down, but in any case these utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces. (Foucault, 1986[1967]: 24)

This section examines the construction of space and subjectification processes in relation to play space, drawing on five studies focused on subjectification within play contexts. These studies share a view of play as offering children broader opportunities for subjectification compared to formal educational practices. Play is conceptualized as a network of interconnected practices, lacking a fixed location yet manifesting everywhere. This view underscores the fluidity and expansiveness of play as central to children's subjectification processes, highlighting its potential to empower children within educational spaces. In our analysis, drawing on Foucault (1986[1967]), this perspective on play can be framed as a utopia—a “placeless place” that is omnipresent across time, spaces, and activities. This is illustrated by Bath and Karlsson's study where play is presented as a space that offers the potential for liberation, as an “in-between space” spanning both adult-initiated activities and children's own initiatives:

children switch unceasingly between what is “real” and what is happening in the form of play. This means that play occurs in routines, in planned adult-initiated activities and as children's own intentions.

Recognizing children's play as a lifeform where different dimensions are present and where many things can happen at the same time provides practitioners with opportunities to engage with children in an in-between-as-democratic space. (Bath and Karlsson, 2016: 560)

In Bath and Karlsson's study, play is recognized as distinct from education-as-usual. First, play is contrasted with reality, as children are observed transitioning between what is considered “real” and the realm of play. Second, play is described by the authors as a unique “lifeform” in which multiple dimensions coexist. Third, play is conceptualized as an “in-between” space. Informed by the concept of heterotopia, our analysis positions play as an alternative organizational space (e.g. Topinka, 2010), operating differently from the “normal” or “usual” educational spaces while still maintaining connections to reality.

Another theme across these five articles is how children are perceived to articulate, negotiate, resist, and critique dominant societal discourses by using artifacts from media and popular culture. Within this framework, play emerges as a site of emancipation and escape from power discourses. This is particularly evident in McClure's (2013) study, which analyzes video recordings to explore how children experience subjectivities during play. McClure argues that children articulate complex subjectivities, assuming multiple roles in creating play, producing videos, and viewing themselves. Similarly, Saltmarsh's (2009) study demonstrates how children draw on popular culture and consumer goods in play, positioning themselves within peer hierarchies and negotiating gender subjectivity. For instance, Saltmarsh (2009) interprets a child's use of Spider-Man clothing as both an object of ownership and a resource for exploring diverse subjectivities. A similar analysis is conducted in Beecher's (2010) study, where children are understood to use symbols and artifacts from fairy tales to construct, critique, and reshape their understandings of gender. These symbols also serve as tools for accessing a broader range of subject positions and modes of action. For instance, Beecher (2010) interprets children's use of magic wands and swords as a way of asserting power, crossing gender boundaries, and expanding gender roles to open new possibilities for action:

…[in play] Gilly increased agency to critically achieve her desire and expand her gender positioning, supported by the boys. She tried critiquing possibilities for Cinderella’s magic and learned sword-fighting, reflecting hegemonic masculinities. (Beecher, 2010: 20).

In another example, Henward and MacGillivray (2014) argue that fiction can function as a means of challenging and escaping traditional expectations. Their study examines a preschool girl's engagement with horror media, showing how she blends elements from horror and popular culture with discourses from her own community to create new forms of meaning:

Using citationality, and poached characters and plot lines, she intertwines discourses which reflect structural expectations for traditional gender roles for girls. Her tale, far from unitary, also represents ideas that resist traditional expectations for women. She cobbles together these diametrically opposing perspectives in one tale, representing the varied and conflicting positions of gender available. (Henward and MacGillivray, 2014: 735)

All the above-discussed examples illustrate how play is understood to offer broader and more varied possibilities for subjectification. Within the space of play, children are seen as capable of both reflecting on and disrupting stereotypes. The concept of play space emerges as a utopia, enabling children to invert societal norms. Play is portrayed as a space that functions as a key to unlocking new discursive arenas within education. It is contrasted with reality, appearing as a distinct “other space,” different from education-as-usual where children are positioned as partially powerless and in need of empowerment. Like a utopia, play is understood to offer possibilities for escaping societal expectations (Foucault, 1986[1967]). The idea of play space as a utopia rests on two key aspects. First, it is conceived as a placeless and fundamentally unreal space (Foucault, 1986[1967]). Second, play is perceived as capable of representing society in multiple ways: as a direct analogy, in perfected form, inverted, or upside down (Foucault, 1986[1967]). According to the descriptions of play in the analyzed texts, actions deemed impossible yet desirable in real spaces are considered possible in play. This frames play as a specific heterotopic space, where the boundaries between reality and imagination are blurred, enabling a dynamic reconfiguration of social norms and power relations.

Our analysis complicates this view of play by interrogating its relationship to knowledge production and institutional order. Within this framework, play emerges as another heterotopic layer—an enacted utopia. It is a space that offers glimpses of an alternative order of power while remaining intrinsically connected to other spaces (Topinka, 2010). When understood as a “placeless place,” play has the potential to facilitate the exploration and enactment of diverse identities, roles, and social relations, becoming a medium through which children critically engage with the world around them. However, framing play as a utopia positions it outside the structures of societal order, complicating its role within the broader dynamics of power and governance. While play may serve as a mechanism for reconfiguring power relations by creating spaces in which children can negotiate and resist dominant societal discourses, it remains inseparably linked to all other spaces. Play spaces can act as sites for the contestation of homogeneous constructions of childhood, yet they can also reproduce normative, hierarchical, racist, and other exclusionary worldviews (Corsaro, 2018; Tullgren, 2003).

Creative space

Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality. (Foucault, 1986[1967]: 24)

In this section, we examine how creative spaces are constructed as counter-sites. Our analysis draws on two articles that explore creative activities as potential spaces for expanding children's opportunities to transgress norms (Knight, 2016; Lenz Taguchi et al., 2016). While there are similarities between how play spaces and creative activities are described, there are also important differences. Both are understood as spaces in which norm transgression is possible. However, while play is characterized as a placeless space, creative activities are described as simultaneously real and unreal. This reflects Foucault's (1986[1967]) example of the cinema as a heterotopia, where an “unreal” three-dimensional space is projected within a real one, suggesting that creative activities, though grounded in reality, are not constrained by the limitations of real spaces.

Lenz Taguchi et al. (2016) explore what they define as nonconventional dance practices and their potential to generate a transgressive counter-image of the child. In their account, the dance practice is intentionally designed as a form of counteraction that relies on spatial and temporal separation from ordinary preschool spaces:

To counteract these practices of normative dance-pedagogy, Gustafsson created a space of regular and exclusive time in a preschool in Stockholm. A specific spacious dance studio was arranged with large top-down windows and two open doors for the children to enter or exit at their own choice. (Lenz Taguchi et al., 2016: 708)

The authors aim to demonstrate how the activity is situated within a specific space and at a distinct and exclusive time. Interpreted through the lens of heterotopia, this account can be read as a demarcation of a space that is different—an enacted utopia designed to counteract and contest “real spaces” (Foucault, 1986[1967]). Additionally, this constructed “other space” is described as a distinctive discursive environment:

Its monstrosity relies on this capacity of continuous becoming, in a process of an imperceptible ‘self’-invention in interaction with a material, social, and discursive environment. (Lenz Taguchi et al., 2016: 706)

Here, the authors seek to elucidate the concept of “becoming-monstrous child,” which they describe as a process of play that transcends conventional norms and common sense. As indicated in the preceding excerpt, they argue that engagement with a specific discursive environment enables the emergence of an alternative mode of self-formation. Moreover, in another section, the authors explicitly differentiate this activity from traditional dance-pedagogical practices:

…it is not possible to recognize these events as a dance-pedagogical practices-as-usual. Nor do we acknowledge or recognize the moving feet of individual children as subjugated to specific norms of dancing. (Lenz Taguchi et al., 2016: 710)

The above excerpt illustrates the understanding of this constructed space as distinct from “dance-pedagogical practices-as-usual.” It is framed as a departure from education-as-usual, thereby enabling children to experience fewer normative constraints within this “other space.” Echoing previous examples of play space, the monstrous child and the dancing child emerge as manifestations of fleeting moments of liberation that disrupt the normative pedagogical routines of preschool.

Knight's (2016) article examines drawings of hybrid creatures created by the author and her daughter. These drawings are presented as a means of visualizing alternative subjectivities that stand in contrast to those prescribed by societal norms. Knight suggests that the hybrid drawings challenge conventional ideas and assumptions about what childhood is or could be:

The hybrids, as compositional becomings flow due to their affective encounterings with others, things, spaces that resist the mainstream images and influences. (Knight, 2016: 685)

As Knight illustrates in the above excerpt, the drawings are conceived as spaces that resist mainstream images, conventions, assumptions, and influences. Both Knight's and Lenz Taguchi et al.'s studies portray the process of transgressing norms as inherently open-ended. Their accounts of the diverse subjectivities—enabled within these alternative spaces—challenge and disrupt the processes of categorization and normalization that remains within the space of education-as-usual:

In (trans)forming, our ‘not-quite’ becoming these forms, entities, identities means we never quite arrived at a fixed end point: we could always have continued in our experimentations. (Knight, 2016: 688)

When we think about the Child in a process of individuation, this can make it imaginable for us to think about children's moving, dancing, bodies as never striving towards or taking on a complete or definite form or wholeness, but always being in a creative process of differing. (Lenz Taguchi et al., 2016: 707)

Both of the above excerpts illustrate how these creative spaces are conceived as possessing transformative potential, disrupting normative order, and highlighting the possibility of unfixed subjectivity—a continuous process of becoming. This can be interpreted as a counteraction to subjectification, in the sense of being subjected to someone else's authority. Creative spaces thus emerge as counter-sites—arenas mobilized to reorder and reconfigure power relations, enabling the transgression of norms. As Foucault (1986[1967]: 24) observes, these spaces function as “a simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live.”

Relating this section to the previous two reveals underlying similarities. The strategy of utilizing creative spaces as techniques for adults to disrupt processes of categorization and normalization can only be conceptualized if education-as-usual is understood to constrain children's subjectivity. Furthermore, the key element enabling norm transgression in creative spaces and play is their conception as “in-between-spaces,” set apart from education-as-usual. The education-as-usual space thus functions as a benchmark against which other spaces are both compared and dichotomized. When considered together, these spatial constructions can be viewed as alternative spaces of ordering, rendering knowledge legible within ECE contexts (Topinka, 2010).

Discussion

Through the concept of heterotopia, this article examines three distinct yet interrelated spatial constructions within ECE research: education-as-usual, play space, and creative spaces as counter-sites. Conceptualizing ECE as a heterotopia foregrounds its capacity for “juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible” (Foucault, 1986[1967]: 25). In the analyzed studies, education-as-usual is portrayed as positioning children within hierarchies shaped by societal norms and institutional rules. This space can be read as a reflection of “normal” society (Foucault, 1986[1967], 2017[1975]), serving as a benchmark against which other spaces are juxtaposed and dichotomized. Play spaces are conceptualized as sites where children can challenge, transform, and transgress norms, echoing the utopian function of revealing society in perfected or inverted forms. However, framing play as a free space for subjectivity faces two challenges. First, if positioned entirely outside societal order—as a utopia or “unreal” space—it risks detachment from concrete structures of power. In such framing, the actions and subjectivities expressed within play may remain symbolically significant but politically inconsequential (Topinka, 2010). Second, from a governmentality perspective, play cannot be understood as external to power. Even when offering possibilities for resistance, it operates within the same power relations that permeate all aspects of children's lives (Tullgren, 2003). Consequently, play spaces—while appearing to offer freedom—can also serve as sites where prevailing norms are reproduced and children's subjectivities are shaped through dominant discourses.

The third configuration—creative spaces conceptualized as counter-sites—is a deliberately constructed arena designed to afford children greater freedom and agency within ECE. In the analyzed material, the meaning of these spaces is shaped by how play space and education-as-usual are already defined— specifically through the processes by which children are made into particular kinds of subjects. As counter-sites, these spaces function as temporary reconfigurations of the institutional order, in which power relations can be negotiated and normative boundaries challenged. Yet their capacity to enable such transgression is contingent on the very spatial disparity that opposes them to education-as-usual, raising the question of whether they subvert or, ultimately, reaffirm the dominant order they resist.

These spatial configurations are interdependent, deriving meaning in relation to one another. They are grounded in knowledge production that valorizes children's freedom in play, while simultaneously constructing education-as-usual as a domain that constrains children's subjectivity. In this dynamic, heterotopia operates not simply as a descriptive label but as a practice of spatial ordering that reconfigures the relations between power and knowledge, enabling diverse processes of subjectification to coexist (Topinka, 2010). Examining these configurations as a field of power relations highlights how values and cultures are enacted differently depending on how space is conceived (Foucault, 1986[1967], 2017[1975]). In the studies analyzed, the inversion of societal norms associated with private/home and play spaces is portrayed as generating an alternative spatial order (Topinka, 2010), within which multiple and sometimes contradictory discourses on children's subjectivity coexist. This segmentation of ECE space produces a fractured understanding of subjectivity—oscillating between depictions of the child as constrained and subordinated, and as autonomous and liberated.

These practices are deeply embedded within a discourse of liberal freedom (Rose et al., 2006). From a governmentality perspective, freedom is not external to power but rather a constitutive condition for governing individuals as active, self-regulating subjects. This form of governance operates through the figure of the “free subject,” cultivating individuals furnished with techniques for self-understanding and self-mastery (Rose, 1999b). Governing through the discourse of freedom thus reconfigures educational aims. Rather than being limited to the transmission of knowledge or skills, it extends to the child's self-realization, self-actualization, and personal fulfillment—objectives that remain shaped by prevailing discourses of subjectification (see e.g. Cruikshank, 1999; Rose, 1999a[1989]; Simons and Masschelein, 2008).

When considered together, these spaces reflect dominant discourses on children and childhood—particularly those associating freedom and agency with child-initiated activities, and discipline and authority with teacher-led instruction. This framing sustains a dichotomy in which children's potential for subjectivity is perceived as expanded in play-based and child-initiated contexts while constrained within teacher-led settings (Jobb, 2019). All three heterotopian spaces discussed revolve around a dynamic interplay of relationships, both between teachers and children and among children themselves. Preschool spaces thus emerge as microcosms of societal norms and values—reflecting broader power structures while also functioning as arenas where such norms are not only enforced and challenged but also taken up, negotiated, and reproduced by children and educators alike. The dual nature of heterotopias—as spaces that both mirror and invert societal norms—provides a critical vantage point for examining how educational spaces can, at once, conform to and resist societal structures. Interactions within these settings are not reducible to the maintenance of order; rather, they entail ongoing navigation and negotiation of power relations. In this sense, preschool becomes a space where the subjectivities of both teachers and children are continually constructed, contested, and redefined, underscoring the central role of educational spaces in shaping the interplay of power and knowledge.

Concluding remarks

The concept of heterotopia has provided this study with an analytical vantage point for examining how space operates as a surface on which values, norms, and hierarchies are inscribed and projected (Foucault, 1986[1967]). This analysis has made visible how diverse spatial logics challenge coherence within preschool spaces, illuminating how spatial configurations not only order but also destabilize and temporarily shift power relations (Foucault, 1986[1967]; Topinka, 2010). Our analysis foregrounds the dynamic and generative entanglement of space and power, emphasizing the continual transformation of these relationships. This framing opens new avenues for examining how evolving conceptualizations of ECE spaces actively reassemble and redirect power relations and modes of governance. Crucially, our approach demonstrates how heterotopias can serve as an analytical resource for future research into the spatial politics of ECE. This article contributes to ECE research by advancing heterotopia as an analytical tool for examining the spatial ordering of power relations and processes of subjectification. By situating the concept within a governmentality framework, the study provides an analytical resource for future research on governance in educational contexts.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Elsa Andersson

Jonas Qvarsebo

Author biographies

Elsa Andersson is a Lecturer and a PhD candidate in Education at the Department of Education and Society, Malmö University, Sweden.

Jonas Qvarsebo is an Associate Professor in Educational Science at the Department of Education and Society, Malmö University, Sweden.

References

Adlerstein

Echeverría

(2021) Heterotopic place-making in learning environments: Children living as creative citizens. Magis: Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación 14(1): 1–36.

Änggård

(2010) Making use of “nature” in an outdoor preschool: Classroom, home and fairyland. Children, Youth and Environments 20(1): 4–25.

Ariés P (1962) Centuries of childhood. New York: Vintage.

Bath

Karlsson

(2016) The ignored citizen: Young children’s subjectivities in Swedish and English early childhood education settings. Childhood 23(4): 554–565.

Beecher

(2010) No, I won’t marry you! Critiquing gender in multiliteracies fairytale play. Journal of Childhood Studies 35(2): 15–24.

Berkhuizen

(2020) Playing bus in a bus: Children transforming spaces within a mobile preschool into resources in place-making fantasy play. International Journal of Play 9(2): 182–201.

Bollig

Millei

(2018) Spaces of early childhood: Spatial approaches in research on early childhood education and care. Journal of Pedagogy 9(1): 5–20.

Chang-Kredl

Wilkie

(2016) What is it like to be a child? Childhood subjectivity and teacher memories as heterotopia. Curriculum Inquiry 46(3): 308–320.

Cliff

Millei

(2011) Biopower and the “civilisation” of children’s bodies in a preschool bathroom: An Australian case study. International Social Science Journal 62(205–206): 351–362.

10.

Corsaro

(2018) The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11.

Cruikshank

(1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

12.

Ekman Ladru

Gustafson

(2020) Children’s collective embodiment—Mobility practices and materialities in mobile preschools. Population, Space and Place 26(3): Article e2322.

13.

Ernst

(2014) Early childhood educators’ use of natural outdoor settings as learning environments: An exploratory study of beliefs, practices, and barriers. Environmental Education Research 20(6): 735–752.

14.

Foucault

(1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777–795.

15.

Foucault

(1986) Of other spaces. Diacritics 16(1): 22–27. (Original work published 1967).

16.

Foucault

(2010) Säkerhet, territorium, befolkning [Security, Territory, Population]. Trans. West K. Hägersten: TankeKraft.

17.

Foucault

(2017). Övervakning och straff [Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison]. Trans. Bjurström CG. Lund: Arkiv förlag. (Original work published 1975).

18.

Halldén

(2007) Barns platser och platser för barn. Platsens betydelse i en analys av barndom [Children’s places and places for children. The meaning of place in an analysis of childhood]. In: Halldén

(ed.) Den moderna barndomen och barns vardagsliv [The modern childhood and children's everyday life]. Stockholm: Carlsson bokförlag, 81–96.

19.

Henward

MacGillivray

(2014) Bricoleurs in preschool: Girls poaching horror media and gendered discourses. Gender and Education 26(7): 726–742.

20.

Jobb

(2019) Power, space, and place in early childhood education. Canadian Journal of Sociology 44(3): 211–232.

21.

Johnson

(2013) The geographies of heterotopia. Geography Compass 7(11): 790–803.

22.

Knight

(2016) Curious hybrids: Creating “not-quite” beings to explore possible childhoods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(5): 680–693.

23.

Lenz Taguchi

Palmer

Gustafsson

(2016) Individuating “sparks” and “flickers” of “a life” in dance practices with preschoolers: The “monstrous child” of Colebrook’s queer vitalism. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(5): 705–716.

24.

MacRae

(2011) Making Payton’s rocket: Heterotopia and lines of flight. International Journal of Art and Design Education 30(1): 102–112.

25.

Månsson

(2011) Becoming a preschool child: Subjectification in toddlers during their introduction to preschool, from a gender perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood 43(1): 7–22.

26.

Maynard

(2007) Encounters with Forest School and Foucault: A risky business? Education 3–13 35(4): 379–391.

27.

McClure

(2013) The monster and lover♥ girl: Mapping complex relations in preschool children’s digital video productions. Studies in Art Education 55(1): 18–34.

28.

Millei

Petersen

(2015) Complicating “student behaviour”: Exploring the discursive constitution of “learner subjectivities.” Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 20(1): 20–34.

29.

Qvarsebo J (2021) The historical emergence of modern childhood. In: Fairchild N, Peters L, Perez MS, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Global Childhoods. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 130–141.

30.

Qvortrup

(2008) Childhood and politics. Educare (3): 6–19.

31.

Rose

(1999a) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association Books. (Original work published 1989).

32.

Rose

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

33.

Rose

O’Malley

Valverde

(2006) Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2): 83–104.

34.

Saltmarsh

(2009) Becoming economic subjects: Agency, consumption and popular culture in early childhood. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 30(1): 47–59.

35.

Simons

Masschelein

(2008) Our “will to learn” and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. In: Fejes

Nicoll

(eds) Foucault and Lifelong Learning: Governing the Subject. London: Routledge, 68–80.

36.

Topinka

(2010) Foucault, Borges, heterotopia: Producing knowledge in other spaces. Foucault Studies (9): 54–70.

37.

Tullgren

(2003) Den välreglerade friheten: att konstruera det lekande barnet [The well-regulated freedom: Constructing the playing child]. PhD Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.

38.

Walkerdine

(2000) Violent boys and precocious girls: Regulating childhood at the end of the millennium. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 1(1): 3–23.

Space and subjectification: Heterotopian space and governmentality in early childhood education research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Heterotopia, governmentality, and the subject

Data, methodology, and analytical process

Education-as-usual

Play space

Creative space

Discussion

Concluding remarks

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References