Belonging in Preschool—An Existential and Political Concern for Children

Abstract

Preschool as a place of learning consists of various communities and belongings created in the intersection between children, teachers, and policy. The very essence of a good life in preschool is characterised by the sort of communities and the opportunities for belonging available to children. Being able to participate in various communities and to experience belonging is central to the wellbeing of every child in preschool. The aim of this study is to gain knowledge about processes of belonging in preschool peer communities. The following research questions guide the study: What categorisations, positionings, and identifications appear in the interactions between the children? What ethical and political value preferences are at stake? The study applies Nira Yuval-Davis’s theory about the politics of belonging and her analytical framework is used to interpret and understand data, including analytical concepts such as categorisation and social positioning, identifications, and ethical and political value systems. A case study has been used to explore processes of belonging in rich detail. Data consist of video observations of interactions between children in a Swedish Early Childhood Education (ECE) institution. Findings reveal how the children’s categorisations lead to various positions, identifications, and opportunities for belonging. We show how a grounded position is established, and how categorisations are used to justify exclusion. The study also illustrates various approaches used by the children to gain a sense of belonging in peer communities, here conceptualised as confrontation, adaptation, and defence. A conclusion is that children’s categorisations are deeply embedded in the social structures of preschool and that the work with belonging needs to be on every teacher’s agenda.

1. Introduction

Preschool as a place of learning consists of various communities and belongings created at the intersection between children, teachers, and policy. The very essence of a good life in preschool is characterised by the sort of communities and the opportunities for belonging available to children. Being able to participate in various communities and to experience belonging is central to the wellbeing of every child in preschool. The aim of this study is to gain knowledge about the processes of belonging in preschool peer communities. We regard belonging as both an existential and political concern for children which is about inclusion and exclusion intertwined with power. Power comes into play early in a child’s life (Johansson et al., 2024), and the concept of micropower (Foucault, 1997) contributes to our understanding of how power is exercised and manifested in everyday interactions between children in early childhood education (ECE). Micropower refers to the small, often invisible mechanisms of power that influence individuals’ everyday interactions (Foucault, 1997). Thus, it refers to how people communicate and interact with each other, but also to the maintenance of norms and rules in different social contexts. In this study, we focus on micropower in the form of social norms and value preferences that appear in child interactions, and how they use power to both maintain and transgress the boundaries of belonging in a peer community.

Yuval-Davis et al. (2019) described such relational processes as political; they are aimed at constructing a sense of belonging to collectivities. These political processes (Yuval-Davis et al., 2019) involve children’s negotiations of boundaries for who belongs and who does not. Such boundary constructions are intimately linked to contemporary political agendas, which in turn relate to different constructions of identity, belonging, and membership in the community.

In this study, we view belonging processes as political. The belief is that successfully gaining access to various communities and positions in preschool demands from children knowledge about various and useful approaches and strategies in belonging processes. This kind of knowledge serves to defend, negotiate, and distribute identifications, positions, and values. Children create and defend physical and psychological spaces and resources for their communities and play. Therefore, the processes of children’s belonging are viewed as political in character, including expressions of micropower (Foucault, 1997) when protecting and accessing various communities and positions.

2. Previous Research

Children’s belonging in an ECE context has been investigated from different points of view, and this literature summary focuses on the studies concerning children’s perspectives on and their participation in the processes of belonging. Erwin et al. (2024) argued that children’s voices have been missing in the research of belonging in early years. From research based on conversations with children, we know that belonging is strongly connected to having friends and opportunities to play (Einarsdottir et al., 2022). Through experiences of emotional bonding, stable friendships, and joint play children develop a sense of belonging (Koivula & Hännikäinen, 2016). We also know that children’s peer relationships are both complex and conflict loaded. To ascertain who belongs to the peer community and who does not, children categorise themselves and others. Moreover, they emphasise the importance of being part of the collective, which is expressed in terms of following the prevailing rules for how one should treat each other (Koivula & Hännikäinen, 2016; Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022). Children also mention places and materials in their educational environment as important for their sense of belonging, concretised by, for example, being recognised by name tags, photos, and portfolios (Juutinen, 2018; Moore & Lynch, 2018). Thus, the physical environment can be a relevant factor in inclusion and exclusion in play situations both inside and outside educational settings (Moore & Lynch, 2018).

Other studies are based on observations of the belonging processes that take place between children and focus on how children gain access to various communities (Einarsdottir & Ólafsdóttir, 2020; Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022; Emilson & Johansson, 2024; Johansson & Rosell, 2021; Juutinen et al., 2023; Ólafsdóttir & Einarsdóttir, 2021). In their study, Johansson and Rosell (2021) identified three kinds of peer communities based on closeness, conflict, and joy. Communities based on closeness appeared to be emotionally strong and stable over time and were characterised by deep friendships between the children. The boundaries of who belonged and under what conditions were clear and taken for granted. Communities based on conflicts were characterised by power struggles, physical contests, and strong emotions. The boundaries were unclear, and the communities were temporary. The characteristics of communities based on joy included openness, shared experiences, and equality between the children in terms of shared influence. There was room for both a collective and an individual sense of belonging. In their study, Emilson and Eek-Karlsson (2022) showed how language, gender, and age were used as positioning markers in the children’s negotiations about who is inside or outside the peer group. Communities based on such categories were intensely defended by the children, and a keen sense of belonging appeared, often at the expense of those who were excluded. When the children were instead gathered around a common play idea, the boundaries of who belonged became more open and negotiable. The traditional categories, such as class, gender, ethnicity, and age, were often transcended. However, these open boundaries also gave rise to power struggles and continuous positioning work (2022). The desire to be part of a group, a community, or a place is strong among the children (Kess & Puroila, 2023; Kyrönlampi et al., 2021). Boldermo (2020) argued that peer culture includes hierarchies and symbol systems. Based on empirical data, she describes belonging in ECE as fleeting moments of caring and sharing, shared joint experiences, and ongoing negotiations of mutual bonds, hierarchies, and group boundaries. Children who differ in some way have more difficulty in experiencing belonging (Kernan, 2010; Stratigos et al., 2014). Sadownik (2018) found how migrant children’s cultural capital was devalued since they lacked important cultural competences to participate in peer communities (see also Arvola et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Zachrisen, 2022; Egilsson et al., 2021; Eidsvåg, 2022; Guo & Dalli, 2016).

Emilson and Johansson (2024) studied everyday conflict situations between children in ECE to understand and illuminate these from the children’s perspective, and the conditions for belonging that emerge in these interactions. Shoing respect for each other’s projects, being like someone else, and (sometimes) transgressing norms are important conditions for the children. These conditions are expressed through the categories that the children ascribe to each other and relate to through the positions that follow and through the identifications, emotional expressions, and values that appear. The children expect their peers to adapt to social order, and they use sameness as a condition for participating in, or being excluded from, the community. Sometimes, courage is needed to break the rules to create the conditions for participation and belonging (Emilson & Johansson, 2024). It is also likely that societal structures impede on the opportunities for belonging available for the children in preschool (Arvola et al., 2017). The educators’ crucial role in supporting the children’s positive attitudes towards diversity and belonging has been highlighted in the research (Harvey & Myint, 2014; Nutbrown & Clough, 2009; Purdue et al., 2009; Stratigos et al., 2014; Terhart & von Dewitz, 2018; Tillett & Wong, 2018). Berge and Johansson (2021) showed how educators strove to create a common “we” in preschool that was based on the majority culture in society. Other communities in preschool, their borders, rules for inclusion, possible identifications, and central values were evaluated against the background of this taken-for-granted and hegemonic “we”. However, this could result in children and parents being categorised as being outside the community because of their cultural and religious values (Berge & Johansson, 2021).

To sum up, the research implies that children engage in ongoing processes of inclusion and exclusion by both defending and negotiating access to communities in ECE settings. Different types of societies require different resources, skills, and agency from children. For example, abilities are required to be able to both defend and negotiate boundaries and powerful positions within different communities. Moreover, children need to be familiar both with the language and values that dominate in society (Johansson et al., 2024; Juutinen et al., 2023).

This study differs from previous research since the point of departure is that belonging is both an existential and political question for children, and that children are constantly involved in different political and existential processes of inclusion and exclusion. Their constellations are based on their various interests, friendships, and power relations. Through a case study, we follow one child and further investigate the processes of belonging in peer communities, viewing these processes as ethical and political in character.

The following research questions guide this study:

• What categorisations, positionings, and identifications appear in the interactions between children?
• What ethical and political value preferences are at stake?

3. Theoretical Framework

In this study, we make use of Nira Yuval-Davis’s (2011) theory about the politics of belonging. Ontologically, this means viewing belonging as both a relational phenomenon and a political issue. In an ECE context, it is about seeing how children’s groupings always both produce and reproduce more or less visible boundaries that determine who belongs and who is outside the community. According to Yuval-Davis (2011), belonging is an ongoing process of inclusion in, and exclusion from, communities, which always has to do with power and inequality. In that sense, children’s processes of belonging can be understood as political issues that have to do with power and the maintenance of boundaries. As explained above, we also draw on Foucault’s concept of micropower to understand children’s communication and interaction in everyday ECE settings, as well as how they maintain and transgress norms and rules in different social contexts. The political dimension refers both to surrounding structures, such as policy documents of various kinds, and to the distribution of power between the interacting parties. It is about who has a voice and who is listened to (Johansson & Puroila, 2021). Thus, what happens at a micro level in educational settings therefore also has to do with societal political conditions. It makes belonging a complex and dynamic phenomenon formed in the relationship between individuals and between individuals and society (Puroila et al., 2021). An intersectional approach is, according to Yuval-Davis (2011), necessary when exploring belonging, based on the ontological idea that belonging, as a political phenomenon, is multilayered and situated in time and space. This means that situated knowledge constructs different perspectives on the world (2011), which in turn affects how people both influence and are influenced by various social, economic, and political projects (Stoetzler & Yuval-Davis, 2002).

To explore the politics of belonging, Yuval-Davis (2011) has developed an analytical tool that includes three interrelated analytical facets: social locations and positionings that concern an individual’s belonging to particular categories, such as sex, age group, ethnic group, social class, or nation; human identifications with and emotional attachments to various categories and groupings; and ethical and political value systems that accompany the ideologies, judgements, and power related to categories and identifications. The facets are interrelated and refer to a situated intersectional understanding in terms of where they are situated, and how they can be changed over time (Yuval-Davis, 2011).

We regard experiences of belonging as being both situated in time and space and multilayered, and of an existential and political character. Following Yuval-Davis’s (2011) theory, we show how situated knowledge constructs varying means of seeing the world and impacting on how children influence and become influenced by different social, economic, and political issues (Stoetzler & Yuval-Davis, 2002; Johansson et al., 2024). Our position here is that everyday practices in preschool, and children’s learning and opportunities for belonging are politically situated and structured yet also deeply existential. Everyday life in preschool is based on various communities and children’s existential striving to gain access to, defend, and develop various peer communities. In this struggle, power is important. Children’s opportunities and strategies for belonging are both hindered and supported by their social group and their educators via relational and structural power (Eidsvåg & Rosell, 2021).

4. Method

A case study has been used to explore in rich detail how children in ECE experience and communicate belonging. The case study format makes it possible to deeply analyse events (Patton, 1990) here in the form of interactions between children in ECE settings. Appropriate data in a case study should, according to Patton (1990), be characterised by depth, detail, context, and completeness, and so the purpose of this study demands a specific method. To deepen knowledge about the processes of children’s belonging through Yuval-Davis’s dimensions of categorisation, positioning, identification, and values, we need carefully conducted observations. From a huge dataset of video observations of interactions between children conducted by Johansson (2007), we decided upon a single case study design (Yin, 2009) with the focus on one child, given the name Noah. Focusing on one child provides opportunities to investigate the phenomenon from a perspective that is rarely possible to access, but which is well suited to illuminating applied theory and the dimensions of categorisation. According to Yin (2009), a strong and consistent theoretical connection can contribute to an analytical generalisation, which can compensate for the criticism directed towards the method regarding its validity outside the unique case. To strengthen validity, the results are illuminated with applied theory, namely, the politics of belonging.

4.1. The Case

The specific case of Noah (3:10), offers the opportunity to gain a detailed understanding of the complex aspects and dynamics of ongoing belonging processes in the ECE context he participates in (Cohen et al., 2018). These processes are often characterised by power struggles and negotiations about access to various communities. He is often labelled stupid by the others and runs the risk of being marginalised in the peer group. By following Noah in different peer communities in his preschool one can learn about recurring patterns for inclusion and exclusion and how one child addresses these. One can also learn how these processes recur and are situated in preschool in time and space. It is important to note that this focus towards conflicts of belonging based on images of one child may cause bias and a simplified picture of Noah. Our position is the contrary, that no child is a singular way of being, and we aimed for a wholistic and complex picture of the processes of belonging in the ECE setting.

The preschool was located in a small town, in an area characterised by mixed housing with houses and apartments. Most families were defined by two parents living together. The preschool had four departments, and some of the children in this study had siblings in other departments. Three preschool teachers worked in the department and two after-school teachers assisted with the activities for the six-year-old children. The child group consisted of 20 children between three and six years old who spent between five and eight hours a day at the school (Johansson, 2007).

4.1.1. The Observations

The original data used in this case study consist of 40 h of video recordings of children’s interactions in a Swedish preschool (Johansson, 2007). The study followed the actual international and national ethical guidelines and principals for research within human and social sciences (Swedish Research Council, 2004); for example, confidentiality, written and informed consent, rigorousness, safe storage of data, and assurance of the participants integrity.

Johansson conducted the observations over two semesters, following the children’s interactions on a regular basis, with the focus on ethics and gender and the point of departure being the children’s perspectives (Johansson, 2007). This reanalysis aims to deepen the understanding of the processes of belonging from the children’s perspectives, and in particular from Noah’s point of view. Following Noah, one can learn more about how children both defend and negotiate access to communities. Such knowledge is valuable for educators in work that supports children’s belonging processes. Young children participated in the study, which means that special considerations were placed on the researchers. Informed consent was obtained from all the parents and teachers involved in the study. Since the children participated, the parents were responsible for their consent. The researcher still needed to be sensitive and to respect the children’s reactions and integrity when following the interactions between the children. It has been significant for us to understand the phenomena of belonging as a relational issue rather than a question of a character or stereotype of the individual child. The complexity of the children’s interaction has therefore been important to bear in mind in all parts of the study.

4.1.2. The Analysis

In the analysis, we searched for interactions between the children in which inclusion and exclusion issues were at stake and in which Noah was involved. With reference to Yuval-Davis et al.’s (2019) intersectional theory, we analysed the categorisations, positions, and identifications at stake as well as the ethical and political values and norms of importance for the children. The interactions consisted of various conflicting ideas and strategies about who should be involved, why, and how. Initially the aim of the analysis was descriptive, aiming to become familiar with the data. Thereafter, we used the concepts developed by Yuval-Davis to identify groupings and identifications, and how the boundaries of the different communities were maintained and transgressed. We followed Noah to investigate the categorisations and positioning processes in which he was involved. What strategies and what criteria for inclusion/exclusion were used by Noah and the other children? What kind of identifications and positions were given to Noah, and what kind of identifications appeared to be important to him? Furthermore, we scrutinised the interactions to better understand the ethical and political values and norms of importance for Noah as well as the other children. From these analyses, we chose significant interactions to illuminate important findings based on the interrelated analytical facets by Yuval-Davis et al. (2019).

5. Findings

To gain knowledge about the processes of belonging in peer communities in preschool, we explored the processes Noah was involved in as a case study.

First, we present a generalised picture of Noah, based on the other children’s expressions and expectations.

5.1. The Generalised Picture of Noah

The children have strong expectations and tell compelling stories about Noah. They describe him as stupid, destructive, and someone who does not understand. The criteria for inclusion in the peer communities are often constructed to exclude Noah, and the positions he takes and/or is given are often also (but not always) negatively loaded. In general terms, we can say that the children categorise Noah as a troublemaker. The events below exemplify the taken-for-granted position assigned to Noah in the group:

The twins, Fredrik and Jonas (4:9) are talking with the researcher. Jonas describes a conflict between another child and Fredrik. “He, he started beating my brother”, says Jonas (indignant voice), and continues: “He’s the same as Noah”. Jonas emphasises the word Noah. … “He wants to be a baby”, continues Jonas.

When Jonas compares the person who hits Fredrik as “the same as” Noah, the meaning is clear to the children: the general idea is that Noah fights and wants to be a baby. In the next situation, something similar happens: Magnus (4:10), Noah (3:10), and Oskar (3:6) are playing inside the play screen. The play is intense, and the boys seem happy, eager, and loud. Noah’s voice is strong.

Anna (4:10) comes and looks through the doorway: “What has Noah done to you? Has he done anything to you?” she asks, looking at Magnus. Magnus looks at her. “Nothing”, he says. Anna continues: “But he has, but he has, I heard him”, she says.

When Anna hears Noah’s loud (but happy) voice, she assumes that he has harmed someone. Even if Magnus declares that Noah has not done any harm, Anna seems unconvinced, arguing that she heard Noah [fight], implying that he was fighting.

Our analyses show how similar expectations about Noah are often expressed among the children. They are partaking in an ongoing narrative about Noah as a troublemaker. The children use the term stupid when talking to and about Noah. Stupid refers to a person who is destructive and who uses violence. Noah is regarded as a person often involved in conflicts that he initiates. He is also categorised as a baby, someone who does not understand (in negative terms). The categories are relatively stable and reoccur over time, yet our findings also imply that Noah does not agree with the categorisations, positions, and identities he is assigned. The categories and positions that follow can, however, vary and, at times, Noah is described in more positive terms. We have also seen how Noah takes a position based on care and solidarity with peers, while using a complex set of approaches and actions. Still, he is mainly categorised as stupid, even if this identity is negotiable, as shown in next interaction.

In the following example, a conflict of rights arises between Noah (3:10), Linnea (3:4), and Kajsa (3:4). Noah often shares play communities with the girls, even if they often question his character. However, the girls do not always agree that Noah’s character is negative. Below, one learns that Noah and Linnea agree that he is not stupid, but Kajsa is of another opinion:

The children are playing behind the play screen. They have received new books in the bookcase. Linnea has collected some books. A conflict arises about who has the right to the books. Noah takes the books from Linnea. When Noah refuses to let go of the books, Kajsa shouts: “You’re stupid!” “No, he’s not stupid”, Linnea objects. Noah hands out the books to the girls. He is standing close to Linnea. “I am not stupid”, he repeats (in a pleading voice). “No, he’s not stupid”, answers Linnea.

Noah seeks support from Linnea about his identity, and she confirms his plea. She argues that, even if Noah is wrong in this discussion, he is not stupid. This plea for confirmation from the other children can often be heard from Noah.

In sum, these kinds of reoccurring categorisations both confirm and create agreements among the children about inclusion and exclusion, the positions, and the opportunities for belonging that follow. Noah is often ascribed an overall position as stupid, which often leads to his exclusion.

We now follow some processes of belonging in which Noah is involved. In the first interaction below, Noah is still categorised as stupid. He is described as a threat to the community and the ongoing project. The second interaction illustrates a shift—from Noah being categorised as stupid and excluded to being categorised as a beginner and included in the play community. The final example shows how Noah takes a position as a defender to protect a peer, while at the same time putting himself at risk.

5.2. Confrontation: A Threat Against the Community

The following example illustrates how Noah is characterised as a threat to the community. In the interaction between Per (6:1), Simon (4:7), William (4:5), and Jonas (4:8), a tower is being constructed. Per, one of the older children, initiates and runs the project. Important criteria for joining this community are respect and support for the building of the tower. The political issue concerns protecting and preventing damage to the construction project. The children describe their previous experience that this type of construction collapses easily. When Noah’s presence becomes clear to Per, the situation changes, and a confrontation arises:

Per looks at Noah standing next to him, and says firmly: “Damn you if you break this, Noah!” At the same moment, Noah stretches out his hand and pushes the tower. Part of the tower collapses. Noah holds his hand over his mouth and looks at the boys: “Noah!” they shout in unison. Again, Noah pushes the construction. The tower collapses. Again, Noah holds his hand over his mouth, as if he is afraid. Per quickly stands up and pushes Noah while shouting: “Noah!” Per’s voice is strong. Noah pushes Per, who sits down and looks dejected. “I will tell the teacher”, says William. “Yes, me too”, adds Jonas.

The children’s solidarity with Per is clear, and their distance to Noah and what he has done is equally clear. They condemn Noah’s action, but also Noah as a person. The narrative about Noah as stupid is repeated when Kajsa (3:2) enters the room:

“Has Noah ruined that?” Kajsa sounds somewhat condescendingly. “Yes, he teared it down”, says Per. “Aha”, says Kajsa. She sits down on the floor. “He’s CP [cerebral palsy]”, says Per. From the toilet, Noah’s upset howl is heard, protesting the categorisation. “Yeah”, says Jack while shaking his head. “He just fights and fights and fights and fights”. “He’s stupid”, says Kajsa.

As a result of Kajsa’s question about whether Noah destroyed the tower, the story about Noah as stupid and someone who fights all the time, is retold and reconfirmed. Noah’s sabotage appears to strengthen the sense of community among the boys. Their community is not open for Noah. The children are united, and they show care for each other. Collectively, they support and defend Per.

Previous experiences are important in these processes of belonging. The position that the children tend to give Noah is based on their categorisations of him. Noah seems to be aware of these expectations, even if he does not accept being categorised as stupid (CP).

The political issue for the children in the playing community is about protecting the project and preventing Noah from damaging the tower. The construction project is valuable for the children. To safeguard the tower and the community around the project, there is a need to exclude Noah. It is vital to maintain power over the project and stop Noah from destroying the tower. The children use psychological strategies to justify the aim of excluding Noah—his identity is questioned, and he is categorised in terms of cerebral palsy, which creates a position of both distance and difference, even if Noah does not accept this identity.

Noah’s intention in this interaction is not easy to interpret. From his perspective, the political issue is to use his power to damage the construction to gain access to the peer community. This kind of confrontation could be a way for Noah to make his voice heard and secure some sort of power over the event. At first, he appears to just have a look to find out what is going on between the children in the room. Standing in the doorway, he is immediately questioned by the others. He is neither invited as a partner into the community nor is he included in the project. Instead, he is regarded as a threat and prohibited from partaking. His immediate reaction in this situation is to destroy the tower, but this results in further confirmation of his categorisation as stupid. The strategy he employs—pushing the tower—meets with disapproval and harms the ethical agreement between the children that the building of the tower should be protected and supported. He remains excluded from the community. His voice is not considered, and he has no right to contribute to the construction of the tower.

The ethical values at stake refer to care, solidarity, and rights that appear to be important values for the children. For the boys, the ethical issue is about caring for a peer, but in this situation the care is not extended to Noah. Instead, Noah’s confrontational sabotage appears to strengthen the community among the boys. They show solidarity with and care for Per, who is the victim of the harmful actions. They defend Per’s right to the construction, and they tell the teacher. Noah is not included. Instead, he is regarded as someone who repeatedly violates what is valuable to the children—their ethical agreements and communities.

Against this background, Noah’s opportunities for belonging appear limited; his exclusion is legitimised, and thereby becomes politically correct.

5.3. Cracks in the Generalised Picture of Noah

The generalised picture of Noah is sometimes challenged. For some of the girls, Noah is characterised as a baby, thus implying that he is regarded as a person who does not understand and who therefore needs support. His position as a baby can mean he is less influential, which can be positive in a political way because it neutralises his influence. However, being positioned as a baby can sometimes lead to benefits, and Noah can be included and treated with special care and patience by the children (often the girls).

5.3.1. Adaptation: Shifting Categories from Stupid to a Beginner

The following interaction illustrates how categories may shift from Noah being categorised as stupid and excluded to him being categorised as a beginner and being included in the play community. The political issue is safeguarding and building the play activity in an authentic way. Behaving in line with the norms for the school game is both expected and something that can be viewed as politically correct. Negotiations and changed attitudes serve as fruitful tools for gaining access to the community.

The older girls are playing at going to school. Many children want to join, and the criteria for inclusion need to be specified. One criterion for being able to participate is that you can write like the older girls, but gender is also added as a criterion for participation. Only girls are allowed to join. The criteria are, however, negotiable.

Oskar stands in the doorway. Hanna, sitting nearby, says softly: “No, no, you can’t be here”. Nina watches her and says: “Shall we tell…?” “No boy!” Linnea shouts. Then she adds: “But only one is allowed to be in here”. Linnea waves her pen. “Just one”, she continues. “Only one boy is allowed to be in here”. “Yes”, the others agree, and Nina notes: “Oh it’s Oskar”. “Yes Oskar. He’s kind”, Karin says emphatically. Hanna pushes Oskar into the room. “Come, you can be here”, she says kindly. Linnea looks at Oskar. “…Noah, he is not kind”, she says. “Yeah”, Kajsa agrees, and Nina adds: “He’s not as kind as Oskar”. “He’s just stupid and fights”, says Linnea, waving her pen. “Yes”, say several voices. “He fights like this”, says Kajsa, hitting herself on the chest. “Yes, and on the head”, says Linnea and stands up.

The atmosphere in the room becomes more excited.

“There he is!” Kajsa shouts and points at Noah, who is passing in the hall. “There he is”. “Yes”, says Linnea. Noah says something, sounding upset: “Otherwise you will get slapped on the … [“slang for bottom”]”. The children laugh but soon return to drawing. /…/ Noah stands in the doorway and says: “Yes, I will be mad at you”. He sounds disappointed. “What do you want?” Hanna asks, but is interrupted by a discussion about rules with the other children. Noah leaves.

As play continues, the criteria for being part of the community changes. The gender criterion is renegotiated. In general, boys are not allowed to join, apart from Oskar, because he is categorised as kind. Gender, as a condition for the right to participate, appears mainly to apply to exclude Noah. The motives are both morally and politically based. According to the children, Noah is not kind. He fights and does not respect the value of other people’s well-being, which Oskar, on the other hand, does. The political strategy for inclusion aims to exclude Noah and to include Oskar. A person who is categorised as destructive is not given access to the community. This agreement is, however, negotiable when Noah adapts to the expected norms:

After a while, Noah brings a drawing and shows Hanna. “Wow nice! A whale. Can you draw a little more?” she says in a bright, instructive voice. Hanna follows Noah out into the hall but soon she comes back again. She sings a little. The school game continues.

Noah returns and stands in the doorway. He shows the drawing and says proudly: “Look!” “Oh, nice!” says Hanna admiringly. “Can I have it?” Noah gives her the drawing. Hanna turns to the others. She asks in a pleading voice: “Can he join please?” “Yes”, says Nina and continues: “He can join the school. He can be a beginner”. Hanna takes Noah by the hand, and he jumps into the room.

Political issues of importance in the school game appear to be for the creators of the play, to manifest their power to decide on the conditions of the game, who to invite, who will be heard, and why. For the children outside the game community, the political (and ethical) issue is the demand to show respect for the owner’s power and decisions. Perhaps, it is the fact that Noah now seems to respect the girls’ right to the school game that enables him to be given access. Noah shows that he accepts that he is not allowed to participate and remains in the hall. He does not try to harm anyone or enter the game. He expresses no threats. Instead, he sounds happy and gives a drawing to Hanna. This kind of communication can be regarded as a political strategy to gain access, which in this case also appears to be both powerful and effective. The children renegotiate the agreement for inclusion and an exception is also made for Noah. Hanna appeals to her peers, asking that Noah be allowed to join. Nina accepts, and Noah is assigned a position in the community and the school play. He is characterised as a beginner, which is a common role in school for a person who is new in this context and needs encouragement and guidance. This justifies Noah being given permission to participate in the play community. Being categorised and positioned as a beginner carries very little status, but Noah does not question this. Instead, he seems keen to change the generalised picture of him being stupid. He shows his good intentions with new strategies (being funny, generous, and adapting to the rules), aiming for inclusion in the community.

The values at stake concern care and rights. The right to play is absolute and is held by the older girls. The other children are to respect the criteria for the game, even if these can change according to the dilemmas that arise. The conditions for the changes are, however, up to the older girls to decide. They run the game, and they consider themselves to have the widest experience. A basis for the children’s actions is the value of care and the norm that you must not harm others. Noah, who is known not to respect this, is excluded and has no right to join. Since the younger children lack competence, some exceptions are needed. They may be allowed to join under certain conditions, for example, accepting a role as a beginner. The girls show care and sensitivity for the younger peers, and mutual agreements are outlined and renegotiated between the children. This can also be interpreted as a political question, empowering the girls and giving them a strong and unquestioned position. Their voices are to be heard, respected, and responded to. Moreover, the example above illustrates the girls’ position as taken for granted, while being a boy does not allow participation. Both exclusion and inclusion are based on gender-related expectations. However, renegotiations and departures from these conditions occur, as peers demonstrate their good moral intentions. The conditions for belonging that Noah can attain seem relatively open in this situation, even though the older children own the rights, and decide on a possible position for Noah and whether negotiations are possible.

5.3.2. Defending: Protecting a Peer’s Right

The process of belonging is infused with physical and psychological power. The children’s community in the interaction below is gathered around a struggle for rights. They have different opinions concerning who has the right to play with the toys. Even though he risks being harmed himself, Noah protects his peer Jack’s right to the toy. Tomas, however, defends his own right to the bat. Explicit power is important in the interaction between the boys.

Noah (4:1), Jack (4:10), and Oskar (3:7) are playing with some plastic bats that Oskar has brought to preschool. Tomas (6:4), one of the oldest children in the group, does not have a bat and he watches the other boys playing. Tomas expresses a desire to play with a bat, but the others make it clear that the bats are already occupied and not available. They defend their right to the toys:

Tomas points at the bat that Jack is playing with and asks firmly: “Can I have that bat?” Jack looks at him. “I have it”, he objects in a strong voice. Jack leans forward. “It is not yours”, shouts Tomas, pointing at Jack. “But I have it”, says Jack, quieter now. Again, Tomas points to the bat and turns to Oskar. “Oskar, can I have that?” “Yes”, says Oskar. Tomas reaches out to Jack, who covers the bat with his body. He moves to the wall. Tomas follows. He tries to take the bat away from Jack. “No, I want to! No!” Jack objects. He holds the bat with both hands, leans forward, then turns to the wall and cries loudly. Tomas continues to try to grab the bat.

Noah, sitting on a dolls cradle, stands up. “Hey, you!” he shouts and waves his bat at Tomas. “My older brother is very strong”, continues Noah. Tomas shakes Jack a little. He tries to grab the bat, but Jack holds it away. “I have it now”, Jack sobs. “My big brother, Tomas, my big brother is very strong”, says Noah in a loud voice, jumping up and down on the floor. Tomas twists Jack back and forth. Now he manages to get hold of the bat. Jack shouts in protest: “I had it!” He hits Tomas a couple of times. Tomas turns around and pushes Jack against the wall.

Tomas obtains permission from Oskar to play with the bat that Jack has. From Tomas’s perspective, it is the ownership that gives him the right to decide about the bat, while for Jack, it is the use of the toy that justifies his right. Tomas asserts his right and Jack defends his. Jack loses the bat despite being resilient, holding on to it, and objecting. The other boys become increasingly involved. Oskar looks tense (raised shoulders, sucks on his bat), but remains silent. Noah is active in supporting Jack. He screams loudly, waves his bat, and jumps on the floor. He extends his claims with threats of his strong big brother. Noah and Jack’s community is confirmed through their common defence of Jack’s right to the bat.

/…/ Then Noah takes a step forward and hits Tomas with his bat. Tomas in turn, hits Noah with the bat. “I had it. Not yours. I had it”, Jack sobs. “Oh”, says Tomas and continues: “no, this is not your bat”. His voice is dark. He holds out the bat to Jack. “I was allowed to borrow it”, cries Jack. Noah has left the room but soon returns with a large plastic dinosaur. He holds the dinosaur in a threatening gesture towards Tomas and then he throws the dinosaur at Tomas. “Uhhh!” shouts Tomas. He takes a few quick steps towards Noah, who shouts and quickly runs out of the room.

Tomas, Oskar, and Noah leave the room. The teacher talks with Jack. /…/ He has stopped crying but looks serious. He goes out into the hall. The bat is lying on the bench. Jack picks it up, looks at it, and puts it down again. Anna (4:5) and Noah enter the hall. Noah hands out his own bat and says kindly to Jack: “You can borrow it”. But Jack doesn’t accept it.

The children gather in a community to defend Jack’s right to the bat. The ethical values at stake concern care, solidarity, and rights. The value of care is communicated through blaming and punishing the one who offends, and through comforting the victim (Jack). Jack shows in various ways that he is offended, sad, and that he has been treated unfairly. Even though it is likely that Noah is afraid of his older and bigger peer, he defends Jack’s right to the bat and tries to protect him with the means he has. For Noah, it seems the moral imperative to challenge Tomas is stronger than his fear. At the end of the interaction, Noah again shows his care for his friend, offering his bat to Jack.

The political issue in this process is gaining and keeping control over the available resources. In this struggle, power is a tool and a goal. Noah uses both psychological and physical power to stop Tomas and protect Jack. The boys—Noah, Jack, and Tomas—raise their voices individually and loudly. Their arguments are probably heard by the others but not approved of or responded to. There is no negotiation, and no agreement is reached. Oskar observes but is not active in the conflict. Perhaps it is the fact that Tomas has a strong position—he is bigger, and he often asserts his rights in the peer group, which contributes to Oskar giving Tomas the right to play with the bat and that he takes a passive role in the conflict. Or perhaps Oskar thinks it fair to let Tomas play with the bat. We do not know Oskar’s reasons for his reactions, but it seems as though he feels pressured as the confrontation between the boys escalates.

In sum, in this situation Noah has the courage to act in defence of a friend, despite his position in the group of children and his given identity as a person who acts in morally reprehensible ways, who hurts others, and who is destructive. Noah overrides these expectations, and even though he uses power as a tool, this is done for the sake of supporting a peer. He positions himself as a defender and protects a peer in a vulnerable situation, which is totally different from the position of troublemaker which is often attributed to him.

6. Discussion

In this study, we have explored the processes of belonging in an early education setting. To closely analyse such processes, we employed case study methodology. By following one child in various interactions, we could identify how the children’s categorisations lead to various positions, identifications, and opportunities for belonging. This case study illustrates how a grounded position is established for Noah in which he is categorised as a person who is mean and destructive, who hurts others, and transgresses norms that are important for the children. We then show how these categories justify Noah’s exclusion. This study also highlights various approaches that the children use, including confrontation, adaptation, and defence, which are, to varying degrees, more or less successful in the processes of belonging. The findings spark a discussion about how to change Noah’s image so that he holds a more powerful position and is more included.

6.1. Categorisations—Important Means in Processes of Belonging

This study highlights how the categories serve as important means in ethical and political processes of belonging. The categories influence children’s defence of their communities, their construction of boundaries that determine who belongs and who does not, and the opportunities and justifications for inclusion and exclusion.

Certain categorisations appear to be well established among the children. The categories are taken for granted as truths and therefore are almost impossible to change. They categorise each other in terms of being stupid, kind, small, strong, weak, etc. Such categories are infused in the context of preschool and children’s previous experiences of how their peers usually behave. Children generalise their experiences of similar situations, how they are expected to act, what is possible to express, and how to express it. The positions that emerge are rooted in societal categorisations that are, for instance, related to gender and age. Emilson and Eek-Karlsson (2022) have shown how strongly rooted such categories are already in early childhood education. When such categories are used as criteria in belonging processes, the communities are characterised by strongly maintained borders; when not, these are more open and negotiable. The researchers concluded that peer communities with strong borders reproduce to a greater extent categories like gender and age, compared to communities that are based on other criteria (Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022; Johansson & Rosell, 2021). This study contributes to nuancing these findings, showing that the possibilities for influence and belonging vary according to participants, their agreements, and play context. Contexts can both encourage and retard opportunities for belonging among children (Emilson & Johansson, 2024). In this study, we have illustrated how such experiences lead to ways of relating to and interpreting the meaning of a current situation and a specific person like Noah.

6.2. Strategies and Approaches

Many taken-for-granted and negative expectations are placed on Noah. The children describe his behaviour and his character in various terms in which being stupid dominates. He is surrounded by expectations that he will use violence to achieve his goals. Being categorised in this way creates huge obstacles for him to join the various communities, and the categories justify his exclusion. Our analyses show that, in the everyday interplay between the children, Noah employs several strategies to gain access to the communities. We have identified three approaches that Noah and the other children use with varying degrees of success: confrontation, adaptation, and defence. Confronting peers is the least effective approach, as we illustrated in the example of the construction of the tower. Noah struggles to be involved and refuses to accept his given identity as stupid. These strategies appear to establish a grounded position where Noah is categorised as a person who is mean and destructive, who hurts others, and who transgresses the norms that are important for the children. Noah’s exclusion is thereby justified. This leads to the most significant finding from this study: preschool can be (is) a place where some children must constantly fight to be included. This study shows that the stable categorisations are almost impossible for children to change. Nevertheless, there are cracks in the general picture of Noah; cracks he sometimes creates himself. It seems that Noah is more successful in gaining access to the communities when he adapts to the norms and conforms to his marginalised position. For example, when he displays an open and friendly attitude, accepting and adapting to the rules of a school game, he accepts the marginal position he is offered—a beginner. These more adaptive attitudes can lead to positive results, and to Noah being included. When he acts as a defender and safeguards his peer’s right (Jack’s right to a toy), he places himself in a position where he has space to act, although it is risky. Showing courage like this allows for his inclusion, at least for the moment. The cracks in the generalised picture of Noah are, however, temporary, and the generalised picture does not really change fundamentally. The question is also to what and to whom should Noah adapt? Children are prepared to adapt to rules and actions they really do not like, but they conform because of their desire to be part of the community (Emilson & Johansson, 2024). There is a risk that Noah adapts to norms he does not approve of because of his existential desire to belong.

6.3. Ethical and Political Issues

What kind of values appear to be important for the children? The values that the children express and defend in the processes of belonging concern both care and rights. Justifications for Noah’s exclusion are often based on the value of care and not harming others. Caring actions, however, are more often directed towards their peers than towards Noah. He fights to be accepted and taken care of, but care is not a given value for him. However, Noah is not only a victim of the others’ categorisation; he can use power and courage to stand up for a friend.

Values of protection and ownership, for example, safeguarding the right to play, or assuring access to an area or a toy, refer to both political and ethical values about rights and respect. It is important to the children that they secure enough space so that they can express themselves and protect their projects. Political values are also about raising a voice, being listened to, and being fulfilled. In this peer group, Noah is permitted to raise his voice and to express his ideas and wishes, but his position gives him no right to claim that his voice and ideas should be taken into account.

Political and ethical issues expressed by the children concern questions about similarity and courage. The children use similarity as a condition for participation in or exclusion from a community. Diversity is an emphasised value in preschool curricula (National Agency for Education, 2018) and among educators (Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022; Puroila et al., 2021; Zachrisen, 2022). Similarity is also an important criterion in children’s belonging processes. It is valuable for children to be equal, and for others to perceive them as equal (Emilson & Johansson, 2024). So also for Noah, who protests the categories given that distinguish him from the others.

6.4. Study Limitations

Possible biases in this study relate to the theoretical positions, methods, and the researchers’ reflexiveness. These are, however, issues with all research. The theoretical position (politics of belonging) and the concepts used highlight belonging as a relational (intersectional) issue and cannot be reduced to the personal or psychological abilities of an individual.

The choice of a single case guides what it is possible to find. The aim of this study was to examine the qualities and complexities of belonging rather than to search for comparable quantities. We have already pointed to the study’s limitations due to its focus on the negative categorisations of one child. It has therefore been important for the researchers to constantly scrutinise their own interpretations of the data to not further transfer the negative image. The categorisations, positions, and expectations that might be ascribed to children need to be critically dissected and interpreted through a theoretical lens while acknowledging that the relational aspect of belonging is significant.

In this study, we reanalysed data that were collected several years ago. Because Noah appeared in the data as a child who constantly struggled to be included, we wanted to follow him to see what kind of interactions he was involved in and try to gain a deeper picture of belonging from his (but also the other children’s) perspective. The preschool was regarded as an “ordinary” Swedish preschool at that time. If we had collected data today, however, the conditions for belonging (findings) would probably be different. Yet the questions about identifications, if and where, belonging, and the possible positions would remain, because these are ongoing parts of a person’s life. Our theoretical concepts have been helpful in this respect. Only one of the researchers can be considered to have “been there”—doing the fieldwork, observing the children’s interactions. This can be both an advantage and a limitation that requires the researchers to balance familiarity and distance and critically examine their different interpretations.

Although the limitation of a case study is that its findings cannot be widely generalised, we argue that our findings may be related to and enrich other educational contexts. Our position is that belonging is both an existential and a political concern for children, teachers, and parents involved in various (educational) contexts and encounters, even though the expressions and conditions for belonging might differ according to time and space. In the many-faceted societies of today, questions about belonging are even more evident and complex. This study enhances our understanding of the complexity of belonging.

6.5. Implications: How to Change the Generalised Picture?

How then can the general picture of Noah be changed to a more fruitful one allowing for various experiences of belonging? There are many obstacles for him to overcome, and he often appears lonely in his struggle to be included. The generalised picture of Noah as stupid appears not to allow him much space or opportunity to change. What is then demanded from Noah and what kind of support does he need from his peers and teachers? Our suggestion here is that Noah and his peers need support from the teachers in telling another story about themselves in general, and about Noah in particular. Children need support to be involved in various communities that offer a variety of constructive positions and identifications based on ethical and political values of care and rights. The political issue for Noah is often about making his voice heard and showing his good intentions to gain power and to capture a position in the community. However, the other children’s politics are also about making their voices heard, as well as safeguarding their projects, play, and communities. These different perspectives often clash, and the children need help to reflect on them, to negotiate, and to find solutions.

The findings of this study place a huge responsibility on the teachers’ shoulders to see and to analyse the ongoing processes of belonging among the children, and to develop strategies to engage and to support all the children in fruitful interactions. No child should be left alone in such a struggle. In the analysis, we have used Nira Yuval-Davis’s analytical framework to illustrate the current politics of belonging between the children. An understanding of these concepts can also help educators to see, to identify, and to act on the ongoing narratives, to develop an alternative and inclusive narrative for all children. The challenge for teachers is to critically reflect on how values, exclusions, and belonging are manifested in various preschool communities, and to adhere to a pedagogy in which they and the children together scrutinise and address injustices and social structures that hinder the children’s belonging (Berge & Johansson, 2021; Souto-Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018). They also need to be able to recognise their own categorisations and the positionings of children, and to critically analyse these.

7. Conclusions

This study shows how hard it is to change a strong negative narrative, as in the case of Noah, even though some cracks in the picture give hope for change. The children’s categorisations seem to be deeply embedded in the social structures of preschool. This can result in preschool becoming a place where some children must constantly fight to be included. Such tendences must be counteracted. Even if the teachers are not visualised in this study, significant conclusions and implications for practice can be drawn. We suggest the following:

• The work with belonging needs to be on every teacher’s agenda—belonging is every child’s right, and it is therefore vital to address this in early childhood education.
• Teachers must:

  ○

  develop theoretical and practical knowledge about the ongoing processes and social structures impacting on belonging in peer communities;

  ○

  scrutinise the narratives told about children and analyse whether and how they are constructive for the children;

  ○

  acknowledge their own part in the categorisations, in (re)acting, in structuring, and in positioning;

  ○

  address the processes of belonging as intersectional. This means that categorisations, positions, and values are always interdependent. The processes of belonging are not an individual question about one child’s behaviour. Instead, it is a matter of intertwined relations, categorisations, positions, identifications, structures, and values.