Justice for whom and according to whom? (Re)considering equity, inclusion and belonging in early care and education

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Pamela H. Epley, Mariana Souto-Manning
{"title":"Justice for whom and according to whom? (Re)considering equity, inclusion and belonging in early care and education","authors":"Pamela H. Epley, Mariana Souto-Manning","doi":"10.1177/14639491231180691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For this special issue of Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, we wondered what it would mean, and ultimately what it might yield, to invite scholars in the field of early care and education to engage critically in conceptualizations of justice—for example, restorative justice (Zehr, 2015) or transformative justice (Winn and Winn, 2021)—and to imagine, explore, and critically (re)consider equity, inclusion, and belonging in early childhood. Our interest in this special issue reflects current dominant conceptualizations of justice that seek to protect privileges and safeguard entitlements (National Museum of African American History and Culture, 2020) for White, heteronormative, cisgender, and ableist communities at the continued expense and harm of those who are intersectionally marginalized. Countering such dominant conceptualizations of (in)justice, we share the work of colleagues and peers who critically theorize justice and consider: “Justice for whom and according to whom?” (Souto-Manning, 2014). The matter of “Justice for whom and according to whom?” is highlighted in two of this issue’s articles—Soojin Oh Park’s “Transforming a cemetery into a garden of languages: A justice-oriented, family-centered framework for cultivating early bilingualism and emergent biliteracy” and Adam Davies’ “Maddening pre-service early childhood education and care through poetics: Dismantling epistemic injustice through mad autobiographical poetics.” In questioning the universalistic assumptions about early language and literacy development that dominate early childhood settings, Park explores counterstories of Asian American parents and the practices in which they engage to resist linguistic erasure and cultivate their children’s early bilingualism and biliteracy. Based on the stories of 10 Chinese and Korean immigrant, multiracial, and multilingual families, Park shares the vision of immigrant parents as gardeners—planters, pollinators, and pruners of bilingualism and biliteracy in their children, and challengers of monocultural and monolingual definitions of school readiness and success. Davies shares their own experiences, framed through the theoretical lens of mad studies (LeFrançois et al., 2013), which centralizes the voices and perspectives of people who experience psychiatric classification and violence, through autobiographical poetic writing. Davies challenges developmental and psychological perspectives of normative development and the role early childhood teacher training programs have in reproducing harmful ableist theories of learning and development that negatively impact intersectionally minoritized early childhood education faculty, teachers, and children and families. This special issue also seeks to enact a “sociology of potentiality” (Povinelli, 2011: 16), including works that move from ideologies, methodologies, and pedagogies of expectability (what is expected based on the history of the field and the concepts of equity, inclusion, and belonging) towards ideologies, methodologies, and pedagogies of potentiality (the visioning, cultivation, Editorial","PeriodicalId":46773,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231180691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For this special issue of Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, we wondered what it would mean, and ultimately what it might yield, to invite scholars in the field of early care and education to engage critically in conceptualizations of justice—for example, restorative justice (Zehr, 2015) or transformative justice (Winn and Winn, 2021)—and to imagine, explore, and critically (re)consider equity, inclusion, and belonging in early childhood. Our interest in this special issue reflects current dominant conceptualizations of justice that seek to protect privileges and safeguard entitlements (National Museum of African American History and Culture, 2020) for White, heteronormative, cisgender, and ableist communities at the continued expense and harm of those who are intersectionally marginalized. Countering such dominant conceptualizations of (in)justice, we share the work of colleagues and peers who critically theorize justice and consider: “Justice for whom and according to whom?” (Souto-Manning, 2014). The matter of “Justice for whom and according to whom?” is highlighted in two of this issue’s articles—Soojin Oh Park’s “Transforming a cemetery into a garden of languages: A justice-oriented, family-centered framework for cultivating early bilingualism and emergent biliteracy” and Adam Davies’ “Maddening pre-service early childhood education and care through poetics: Dismantling epistemic injustice through mad autobiographical poetics.” In questioning the universalistic assumptions about early language and literacy development that dominate early childhood settings, Park explores counterstories of Asian American parents and the practices in which they engage to resist linguistic erasure and cultivate their children’s early bilingualism and biliteracy. Based on the stories of 10 Chinese and Korean immigrant, multiracial, and multilingual families, Park shares the vision of immigrant parents as gardeners—planters, pollinators, and pruners of bilingualism and biliteracy in their children, and challengers of monocultural and monolingual definitions of school readiness and success. Davies shares their own experiences, framed through the theoretical lens of mad studies (LeFrançois et al., 2013), which centralizes the voices and perspectives of people who experience psychiatric classification and violence, through autobiographical poetic writing. Davies challenges developmental and psychological perspectives of normative development and the role early childhood teacher training programs have in reproducing harmful ableist theories of learning and development that negatively impact intersectionally minoritized early childhood education faculty, teachers, and children and families. This special issue also seeks to enact a “sociology of potentiality” (Povinelli, 2011: 16), including works that move from ideologies, methodologies, and pedagogies of expectability (what is expected based on the history of the field and the concepts of equity, inclusion, and belonging) towards ideologies, methodologies, and pedagogies of potentiality (the visioning, cultivation, Editorial
正义为谁,依据谁?(重新)考虑早期护理和教育中的公平、包容和归属感
对于本期《幼儿期当代问题》的特期,我们想知道邀请早期护理和教育领域的学者批判性地参与正义的概念化——例如,恢复性正义(Zehr, 2015)或变革性正义(Winn和Winn, 2021)——并想象、探索和批判性地(重新)考虑幼儿期的公平、包容和归属,这将意味着什么,以及最终可能产生什么。我们对这期特刊的兴趣反映了当前主流的正义概念,即寻求保护白人、异性恋者、顺性者和残疾主义者群体的特权和权利(国家非裔美国人历史文化博物馆,2020年),而这些群体却在不断牺牲和伤害那些被交叉边缘化的群体。为了反对这种占主导地位的正义概念,我们分享了同事和同行的工作,他们批判性地将正义理论化,并考虑:“为谁正义,根据谁正义?”(Souto-Manning, 2014)。“正义为谁,依据谁?”这期的两篇文章——朴秀珍的《将墓地转变为语言花园:以正义为导向、以家庭为中心的早期双语能力培养框架》和亚当·戴维斯的《通过诗学疯狂的职前幼儿教育和护理:通过疯狂的自传体诗学拆除认知上的不公正》——都强调了这一点。在质疑主导幼儿环境的早期语言和读写能力发展的普遍假设时,帕克探索了亚裔美国父母的反故事,以及他们参与抵制语言抹去和培养孩子早期双语能力和双语能力的做法。基于10个中国和韩国移民、多种族和多语言家庭的故事,Park分享了移民父母的愿景,他们是孩子双语和双语能力的园丁、种植者、传粉者和修剪者,也是对入学准备和成功的单一文化和单一语言定义的挑战者。戴维斯分享了他们自己的经历,通过疯狂研究的理论视角(lefranois et al., 2013),通过自传体诗歌写作,集中了经历精神病分类和暴力的人的声音和观点。戴维斯挑战了规范性发展的发展和心理学观点,以及幼儿教师培训项目在复制有害的学习和发展的能力主义理论方面的作用,这些理论对交叉少数民族的幼儿教育教师、教师、儿童和家庭产生了负面影响。本期特刊还试图制定“潜力社会学”(Povinelli, 2011: 16),包括从可预期性的意识形态、方法和教学法(基于该领域的历史和公平、包容和归属感的概念)转向潜力的意识形态、方法和教学法(愿景、培养、社论)的作品
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood (CIEC) is a peer-reviewed international research journal. The journal provides a forum for researchers and professionals who are exploring new and alternative perspectives in their work with young children (from birth to eight years of age) and their families. CIEC aims to present opportunities for scholars to highlight the ways in which the boundaries of early childhood studies and practice are expanding, and for readers to participate in the discussion of emerging issues, contradictions and possibilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信