Familiar play: age-coded heteronormativity in Swedish early childhood education

ABSTRACT

Focusing on children’s play, the present article explores how 3- to 6-year-old children (re)produce, (re)negotiate and challenge heteronormativity in a Swedish Early Childhood Education setting. The article is based on ethnographic data, focusing on (re)production of heteronormativity in a particular kind of idealized, often feminine-coded and peer-group play with a low degree of teacher participation, labelled ‘Mum, Dad, Child play’ by the children. Our results show that children’s play is structured by certain themes, such as family and home, and certain gendered and/or age-coded positions, such as mother, father, child or baby. Age difference (child/adult) proves to be the cornerstone of the heteronormative family metaphor of the play, where the child/baby position is central. To describe the intersections of age, gender and sexuality in our analysis, we suggest the use of the concept of age-coded heteronormativity.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood education
• play
• heteronormativity
• age categorization
• Queer theory

Introduction

Drawing on an ethnographic study conducted in a Swedish preschool with children 3–6 years of age, the present article explores how children (re)produce, (re)negotiate and challenge heteronormativity in a Swedish Early Childhood Education (ECE) setting. The article focuses specifically on (re)productions of heteronormativity in a reoccurring kind of peer-group play the children call ‘Mum, Dad, Child play’ (MDC play; ‘mamma, pappa, barn’, in Swedish)¹ and on how not only gender and sexuality categorization, but also age categories are central in this play. This article builds on previous research relating to gender normativity in ECE and heteronormative domestic play – its contribution lies in the inclusion of age categories as a central part of how normalized heterosexuality are constituted in this context.

A common pattern in the field of ECE and sexuality is seen when preschool teachers repeatedly constitute heterosexuality as dominant and normative, thus supporting heteronormativity and positioning non-heterosexual sexuality as abnormal and excluded (Gunn 2008, 2011; Gunn et al. 2004; Janmohamed 2014; Surtees 2008; Surtees and Gunn 2010). Discourses on sexuality in relation to children in ECE are often surrounded by aversion as well as silence (Epstein 1997; Prout 2005; Robinson 2013; Thorne 1993) and maintain normative discourses in educational settings (Epstein, O'Flynn, and Telford 2003). Furthermore, through silence about non-normative sexualities ‘ … heterosexual sexuality is re-inscribed as normal and ascendant-accepted as part of children’s daily worlds even when sexuality is perceived as irrelevant’ (Surtees and Gunn 2010, 45). Epstein (1997) points out that, contrary to the notion that sexuality is absent from children's lives, it emerges in several ways, such as in children’s games and play, fairy tales, and popular culture.

Gender research has shown how children are active in (re)producing and ‘doing’ gender norms and categories that are interlaced with heterosexual normalization (Blaise 2005; Nordberg, Saar, and Hellman 2010; Renold 2005; Thorne 1993). When preschool children produce their gender in a normative way, they engage with heteronormative discourses (Blaise 2005, 2009, 2010; Taylor and Richardson 2005). These discourses have impacts on children’s play and may result in, for example, romantic heterosexual play and girlfriend/boyfriend talk (Blaise 2010).

Although studies have shown that children and adults in ECE settings often reproduce stereotypical norms in relation to gender, age and sexuality, it is important to acknowledge that it is sometimes possible for children to construct gender, age and sexuality in other ways, transcending the boundaries of heteronormativity. Taylor and Richardson (2005) show how children are able to transgress heteronormative and stereotypical gender boundaries in their preschool play. Accordingly, because children are exposed to different and competing discourses on gender and sexuality, new kinds of gender identities are possible to produce by performing gender differently, not necessarily complying with gender stereotypes and heterosexual norms (see also Taylor 2007).

In the present article, we argue that the normative and presumed construction of heterosexuality needs to be explored from a child perspective in the ECE setting – not only as a part of gender constructions but as a situated normalizing practice of its own that nonetheless interacts with age and gender norms. Acknowledging the (re)negotiations that children carry out, both in the play and about the play, helps us to understand how children deal with heteronormativity in their everyday life at preschool. However, there is still a need for studies focusing on the intersections between sexuality, gender and age, especially in relation to children’s active and situated negotiation of these norms, and their contribution to how heterosexuality is normalized and idealized in the ECE setting. We aim to take such an approach by analysing how norms and metaphors concerning age, gender and sexuality are (re)produced and (re)negotiated in children’s peer-group play.

Research context

The study was conducted in Sweden, a society where children spend a considerable portion of their childhood in ECE settings. The attendance of children in such institutions (often described as ‘natural’ or ‘ideal’ for children) cannot only be explained by the imperatives of the labour market, but also constitutes a social practice that is invested with moral and social meanings regarding modern childhood and socialization/civilization (Gilliam and Gullöv 2017). In Sweden, preschools are a separate, voluntary educational configuration provided for children between 1 and 5 years of age. More than 90% of all children in this age range attend preschools, and it is required by law that the municipalities in Sweden provide preschool education for all children (SFS 2010, 800).

The Swedish educational system contains strong discourses on equality and diversity – discourses expressed in both national and local policy documents as well as through everyday practices. The curriculum for preschool includes, for example, an obligation to ‘counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles’ (National Agency for Education 2011). However, as we will show in the present article, the preschool is an institutional and educational arena in which norms and categorizations are reproduced, negotiated and challenged (Blaise 2005; Davies 2003; Gunn 2008, 2011; Hellman, Heikkilä, and Sundhall 2014; Taylor 2007; Thorne 1993).

Theoretical framework

To explore how age, gender and sexuality are (re)produced and (re)negotiated in children’s peer-group play, we have used concepts from feminist queer theory as well as theories on age categories, childhood and play.

In line with Butler (1990, 1993), we argue that, through repetition, gender norms and heterosexual behaviour appear to be natural, desirable, unremarkable and, thus, intelligible. The term heteronormativity refers to the assumption that everyone is or should be heterosexual, consequently producing some ways of living and some subject positions as more intelligible and desirable (Butler 1990, 1993), thus linking sexuality to power and normalization (Foucault 1990). Heteronormativity directs bodies towards desirable futures (Ahmed 2006) and towards a linear life in which temporality and reproduction are central (Halberstam 2005). We also explore how age coding (Krekula 2009) becomes part of the heteronormative positions and metaphors in the play. Age coding is a categorization based on age, such as child and adult, that discursively, materially and performatively (re)produces the difference between age categories. The notion that gender categories are part of the heterosexual hegemony (Butler 1993) in the preschools has been discussed by other researchers (Blaise 2005; Davies 2003; Robinson 2005; Taylor 2007; Thorne 1993). In relation to the intersection of gender and sexuality, we add the intersection of age categories as a factor in our analysis of the heteronormative family metaphor of MDC play. We use the concept of age-coded heteronormativity to describe discourse and practice that (re)produce age, gender and sexuality norms.

Children’s play is a part of their peer culture and meaning-making (Corsaro 2003; James, Jenks, and Prout 1998). To analyse which themes and discourses are repeated in the play, we use Hamayon (2016) and describe the play as a ritualized process that humans, not only children, engage in different ways, for example in the context of religion, sports, and arts. Central to play is imitation; Hamayon takes the example of how rituals performed prior to hunting imitate the actual hunt, but also how the hunt then imitates the ritual. In this context, it means that when children’s play imitates heteronormative family structures, it also (re)produces heterosexuality as normal. According to Hamayon, the play has two fundamental features: one that gives structure and limitation, metaphors, and another that allows flexibility, margins or leeways. The metaphors make the play recognizable and constitute a common ground. Moreover, when play is repeated, it takes the form of a metaphor. The metaphor is not static, but exists in relation to the surrounding: ‘Metaphorical structuring arises from experience, and our real-life experience is in turn conditioned by metaphors’ (Hamayon 2016, 292). Leeway refers to the possibility for unexpected turns in the play, i.e. the elements of surprise and diversion. Through repeated readings of the field notes and interview transcripts, we identified reoccurring themes and positions in the play, which we refer to as the play metaphor, as well as inconsistencies, here presented as leeways. The second step in our analysis has been to identify how age, gender and sexuality categorizations and normalization occur in the play metaphor.

The following questions guided our analysis: Which play metaphors are repeated in MDC play? What subject positions are ascribed and how do children use them in their play? How do normalizations regarding sexuality, gender and age reoccur in children’s (re)production and (re)negotiations in MDC play?

Ethnographic fieldwork

The primary method used was participant observation over an extended period of time, an approach characteristic of research regarded as ‘ethnographic’ (Walford 2009). During data production, different approaches were taken; sometimes participation entailed very direct involvement in an activity with the children and teachers, and at other times their activity was observed at a greater distance. Decisions as to the levels of ‘participation’ were made in situ, in response to particular people and situations that could not be known a priori (Albon and Rosen 2014). Field notes were taken during or directly after the participant observations, and they constitute the main part of the data. Additionally, participants were interviewed; this included daily informal conversations with preschool teachers and young children as well as more formal, semi-structured interviews with three of the preschool teachers.

The data derived from ethnographic fieldwork in a preschool located in a middle-class area in one of the larger cities in Sweden. The ethnographic fieldwork was conducted during 1 year equally distributed between two preschool groups in the same preschool: The Spark, including children between 1 and 3 years of age, and The Firefly, including children between 3 and 6 years of age. The present article is based on data conducted on the Firefly exclusively. The group consisted of 24 children (12 girls and 12 boys; aged 3–6 years) and 4 teachers (women). Data production, data selection and initial analysis were carried out by first author Lena Sotevik. The article is based on a collective writing process in which the authors jointly read through the selected data (Gordon et al. 2006).

Ethical considerations

Teachers and parents received information about the aims and procedure of the study. Of the 24 children, the parents of one child declined participation, and the other parents gave their informed consent in writing. The children received verbal information on the first day of the field study and had the opportunity to ask questions about the research both on the first day and later on during the fieldwork. Obtaining consent from the children was seen as ‘ongoing, rather than as a one-off event’ (Morrow 2008, 54), i.e. children had the opportunity to say or show in a non-verbal way that they would prefer not to participate at any given moment. The researcher put the effort in being observant of children who were showing (rather than speaking)their disapproval by ignoring questions or withdrawing themselves (Skånfors 2013). When children verbally declined or seemed bothered by the presence of the researcher, they were not included in the field notes. The names of this preschool group, the children and preschool teachers are fictitious. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg (Reg. no.: 493-16).

Results and analysis

As mentioned previously, the situation chosen for this analysis is a kind of play the children called ‘Mom, Dad, Child play’ (MDC play). This is a form of reoccurring, idealized (Tullgren 2004) and often feminine-coded (Blaise 2005; Markström 2005) peer-group play (Löfdahl 2014) that, in the present context of the Firefly group, was marked by a low degree of teacher participation.

In the following sections, the empirical material will be analysed. Initially, we describe central play metaphors in MDC play as being directed towards a home environment and a specific family setting. After that, we discuss what is made intelligible in this metaphor and what is excluded. Further, we explore the meaning of the positions that are made possible in MDC play, for whom they are possible, and how they relate to each other. This is followed by analyses of how age, gender and sexuality are intertwined in the play and manifested as age-coded heteronormativity. Finally, in a concluding section, we describe and discuss the main results of the article.

Idealized family play

Before focusing on how children themselves performed play metaphors and play positions, we shortly describe the surrounding conditions, including the preschool’s physical environment and the teachers’ understandings concerning this kind of play.

MDC play took place both outdoors in the yard and indoors. Outside, MDC play was often located to one of the two playhouses or in the woods on the outskirts of the yard. Indoors the play took place in ‘the apartment’ – a room equipped with small furniture such as table, chairs and a stove as well as plastic food. This seems to be similar to what Taylor and Richardson (2005, 165) describe as ‘the child-sized home’, and the name ‘the apartment’ shows that this is an imitation of a space where one lives – a home. The preschool teachers, Hanna and Pernilla, stated that this play environment is common in Swedish preschools; Hanna said this is because ‘it encourages role play’, and Pernilla said play is facilitated because the homelike environment is something the children recognize: ‘It's something that's in everyone's everyday life. It's the same for everyone that you have these environments’. Tullgren (2004) states that MDC play is a desirable form of play given sufficient physical space and a form of play that preschool teachers encourage, which is notable in Hanna’s statement about how the preschool environment is designed to encourage ‘role play’.² The preschool teacher Fredrika said that this play environment was previously in a more secluded room, but that they moved it out to have better visibility and be nearby when conflicts arose between the children. Fredrika said that she thinks the new location is better because, before they moved the play environment, ‘there was no real play, they just climbed on the furniture’. Fredrika, using the term ‘no real play’, implies that not all forms of play are considered real play, or that some forms of play are attributed more value. The MDC play and other kinds of ‘role play’ seem to be idealized at the preschool, and the physical environment was formed to encourage this type of play.

A central result is that, among the children, MDC play seemed to be used synonymously with ‘family’. The example below is from an interview in which Olivia (6), Stella (5), Vilma (5), and Hampus (5) participated. In the conversation, the children describe the play as family orientated, and also talk about what a family is in the context of play:

Lena:

I have seen that you sometimes play ‘mum, dad, child’.

Group:

Aaa (yes).

Stella:

We do actually.

Lena:

Then I’m curious, what would you say that you do in that play?

Olivia:

You sort of play family.

Stella:

And you get to decide who you want to be.

Lena:

What is a family then?

Olivia:

Those who you live with.

Lena:

Who could be part of a family?

Stella:

A baby.

Vilma:

Big sister.

Olivia:

Mum, dad … and animals!

Hampus:

Big brother.

Stella:

Yes, big brother!

Olivia:

And children of course. Mum, dad, child [emphasized].

In the excerpt, Olivia describes the play as ‘sort of play family’, an activity that, on the one hand, seems to involve quite a lot of free choice, given Stella’s notion about being able to decide what one wants to be and Olivia’s notion about a family meaning the people you live with. This could be understood as flexibility in the play, what Hamayon (2016) refers to as the leeways, that is, opportunities for unexpected turns in the context of the play. On the other hand, there also seems to be quite fixed metaphors in the play, shown in the consensual speech used by these children. The children agree that this play is focused on the family, and they point out positions that are possible and needed in the family. Olivia says that a child is necessary – ‘children of course’ – to play ‘mum, dad, child’, referring to what the children at this preschool called this kind of play and, thus, showing that age and generational order are central to (re)producing a family in the play, a conclusion we will return to later on in the article. Constantly repeated is the notion that a family is most intelligible when it includes a mum, a dad and child(ren), thus making the heteronormative discourse central to the family metaphor of the play.

The situated impossibility of multiple mothers

In the following, we analyse how the children negotiate who gets to be the mother, under the premise that there can only be one mother in the family. As we will show later on, the father position was not as present in MDC play as the mother position was. Consequently, at this preschool, we did not observe the children using the same argument concerning the father position.

When initiating or entering the play, the children at this preschool talked about which positions were available and which one they desired. It is clear that the roles in the play are constituted in relation to each other and that the children actively participate in this process. As the following example shows, when there is already a mother in the play or more than one child wants to take that position, a limit is revealed as to what is made possible within MDC play. Three of the oldest children (5–6 years old) at The Firefly play in and around the playhouse on the yard: Stella proposes to the other children that they play ‘mum, dad, child’ and a discussion arises concerning who will have what position in the play: ‘I'm the mother’ Ida says quickly. ‘No, I am the mum’ exclaims Stella. ‘No, you can be big sister’ says Ida. A discussion arises between Ida and Stella. It seems that the children agree that there can only be one mum, even though it is the position they both wish to occupy in this play episode.

A similar situation occurs when Ida (5), Stella (5) and Manja (3) play:

‘I was your mum’, Stella says to Manja. ‘No, Ida is my mum’, Manja says. Ida agrees, ‘I'm mum, you can be big sister’. ‘I'm 10 years old’, Stella says. ‘And I'm 11 years old’, Ida says. ‘11 years and a mum?’, Stella replies. ‘Okay, Stella, you can be mum. Can I be a hamster? No, a mouse!’, Ida says.

Ida proposes the same solution to Stella as in the example on the yard – that she can be a big sister. This time as well it seems that Stella accepts this, and she decides she's 10 years old. Ida then says she's 11 years old, which Stella questions. Being a mother seems to imply a certain expected age in the play. Ida changes her mind and would rather be an animal in the play, then handing over the position of mother to Stella. These examples show that MDC play does not presume that all the roles presented in the name of this form of play have to be occupied. There is often, but invariably, a mother in the play, but there is never more than one mother, thus excluding the possibility of same-sex parents in the play. In Blaise's (2005) ethnography from an Early Childhood Classroom where the children are 5 years old, there is an example of how two girls, both of whom want to be in the play, negotiate the position of mum. One of the girls tells the other one that there can only be one mom because ‘That's how a family is!’ (Blaise 2005, 167). These kinds of statements, actively excluding the possibility of two mothers in the family, were not observed at The Firefly. Instead, because it is never formulated as a possibility in the play, it seems to be absent from the discourse on this form of play.

Speaking of leeways

In contrast to the discourse observed inside the play metaphor, which only makes room for one mother, both the children and preschool teachers, in field conversations and interviews, talk about the possibility of having two mothers or fathers. As shown in the observations of the children’s play, there were reoccurring arguments among the children about who gets to be the mother. When preschool teacher Pernilla was asked what conflicts among the children she experienced in relation to MDC play, she said: ‘That both of them want to, and have trouble figuring there could, be two mothers’. According to preschool teacher Hanna, the teachers should actually attempt to encourage the children to try different positions and constellations in the play. In a conversation with Ida and Allan, both 5 years old, Lena asked them if there has to be a mother and a father in the MDC play³:

Lena:

Does there have to be a mum?

Ida:

No.

Lena:

Does there have to be a dad?

Ida:

No.

Allan:

Yes, it’s important to have a parent.

Ida:

Yeah, there has to be a mum or a dad. There could also be two mums. Or two dads … 

Allan:

[interrupts] But mum and dad is also fine.

Ida:

… and two mums and two dads you could have. But then there will be a lot of extra things. Extra beds. But there has to be a mum or otherwise there will be no child there.

Lena:

Does there have to be a child in the play?

Allan:

Yes

Ida:

Yes, otherwise it wouldn’t be mum, dad, child.

Ida and Allan are actively involved in this (re)negotiation concerning the shape of a family. Ida expresses strongly that family does not have to be just mum and dad, presenting other possibilities such as two mothers, two fathers or two mothers and two fathers. Allan doesn’t oppose her, but may interpret the questions slightly differently, therefore pointing out that parents are important. When Ida talks about the possibility of a child having two mums and two dads, she talks about the extra things, for example, beds, that this type of family will need. It seems as though having four parents instead of two is perceived as having two extra parents in addition to what is expected, relating the idea that the two-parent family is the norm and the four-parent family a break from that norm. Ida also argues that there has to be a mother in the play in order to have a child in the family, exposing some ambivalence regarding the possibility of having two fathers represent the parents in the MDC play. If the mother seems needed in this kind of play, the child position seems even more necessary. Without the child there cannot be a play called mum, dad, child, Ida claims, showing how central the child is to the family discourse and the heteronormative metaphor of the play.

In the talk about this form of play, there is a discourse of more possibilities, in contrast to the discourse of the heteronormative family that arises when children practice MDC play. This shows that the practice of MDC play has certain metaphors that do not necessarily represent the whole ECE setting. To be recognized as MDC play it seems as though certain significant factors are included and the child engaging in this kind of play expects certain things, locations and positions. Both teachers and children state that family is the central theme for MDC play, and for a family to be recognized and intelligible as such inside the play metaphor, heterosexuality seems to be expected. This is not because the children do not know about other families, they do, but because heterosexual families are normalized and recognizable – therefore familiar. Even though we did not observe same-sex parents as an option in the actual play, the children’s knowledge and acceptance of the possibility opens up leeways (Hamayon 2016) that are in contrast to the heteronormative family metaphor.

In the following sections, we will explore the meaning of the positions that are made possible in MDC play, for whom they are possible, and how they relate to each other.

Mothers and fathers as gendered and age-coded positions in play

A general pattern in the studied ECE setting was that boys and girls often played together. However, in certain situations, gender norms seemed to gain importance among the children, a pattern also described by other researchers (Davies 2003; Paechter 2007). MDC play appeared to be a situation in which gender mattered for who got to participate and how that participation was regulated by norms. As previous research has shown, MDC play is feminine coded in preschool settings (Blaise 2005; Markström 2005), and this pattern is observed in our data as well. Children who participated in MDC play were almost only girls, or put differently: when a playgroup consisted only of girls, MDC was a regular form of play. Gender also has importance for which position the children take in the play. Most available roles for girls appeared to be the feminine-coded positions of the mother, big sister, little sister and the gender-neutral position of children or babies. Several girls said that mum was their preferred position, as it was linked to influence. For example, in a conversation with three girls at The Firefly, Vilma says that she likes to be the mum because the mum gets to decide, and Stella agrees:

Lena:

What is good then about being the mum in the play?

Stella:

It’s sort of … 

Vilma:

You get to decide!

Stella:

Decide and stuff.

When Lena asks why the position of the mother is one of great influence, Olivia and Stella add that both (parents) get to decide over the children:

Lena:

Why is it the mother who gets to decide?

Olivia:

Or both sort of decide.

Stella:

Both decide over the children.

The children point out that, as an adult and/or parent, one gets to decide over children, and among adults, the mother seemed to have particular influence. The mother – as a position with power in this specific play – was affirmed by the preschool teachers, several of whom described ‘mum’ as the most coveted position. On the other hand, the position of ‘dad’ was described by the teachers as a less attractive position. Pernilla, one of the teachers, provides an example of this:

Lena:

Which role do you think the children prefer? Are there some that are more coveted or have higher status?

Pernilla:

Mum, I suppose. But also big sister, the older one I think, who gives care.

Lena:

And the other way around, are there some roles that are less popular?

Pernilla:

Probably dad then (laugh).

Pernilla states that the mother as well as ‘big sister’ occupy a position in the play that ‘gives care’, meaning that these positions are most involved in caring for the home and the family. The positions ‘mother’ and ‘big sister’ are both gendered as female- and age-coded, referring to an adult or the older child in the family. In this context, ‘giving care’ is connected to responsibility, influence and caregiving, linking the female gender stereotype with power in MDC play. The father position is described as less popular by Pernilla, and is not a position she mentions when talking about the ones who ‘give care’. In a conversation with Vilma and Hampus, both 5 years old, they describe the position ‘dad’ as cool, competent and connected to work in public spaces. Hampus is one of the boys who did participate in MDC play.

Lena:

Hampus, which role do you like the most in mum, dad, child?

Hampus:

Dad.

Lena:

And why is that?

Hampus:

Then you’re, like, good at things.

Vilma:

Yes, and then you work with cool stuff, tattoos. Maybe a workman and like that.

Hampus:

Or racing, that’s also cool!

These statements about the father refer to him working and being ‘cool’ outside the home. Connecting Hampus’ and Vilma’s discussion on the position ‘dad’ to Pernilla’s notions concerning the position ‘mum’ in the earlier quotation, it seems as though these positions are comprehended quite differently. As previously discussed, the home is the central location of MDC play and, here, the father is placed outside the home, making him less dominant in this play and, perhaps, therefore, sometimes less preferred. Positioning the mum at the centre of MDC play (and family), i.e. as present, and the dad in the periphery, i.e. as absent, constructs a familiar gender duality that is in accordance with a stereotypical and heteronormative play metaphor of the family. It is also clear that there is a connection between the gender of the child and the positions she/he prefers in the play, and what possibilities and limitations that position entails.

In the following, we will further develop our discussion of how age coding is central to the heteronormative family metaphor in the MDC play, suggesting the use of the concept of age-coded heteronormativity to describe how heteronormativity in the ECE setting, and this specific form of play, is also constituted in relation to age categories.

Children at the centre of age-coded heteronormativity

In every constellation of MDC play observed at the Firefly, there was always at least one child, baby or ‘little sister’. ‘The baby’ is often a non-gendered position in the play, but on the other hand, it is clearly an age-specific position that is performed in relation to age-coded (Krekula 2009) norms, such as the child/baby being less competent and having lower decision impact during the play. In contrast to the mother position, described as ‘taking care of’, the child position instead involves being taken care of. In the play, the child or baby was often put to bed, given food and hugged as well as fostered or disciplined by the positions that were age-coded as adults or older siblings. Even if the child position could be described as in some ways less powerful than the adult positions, the child was often at the centre of the play and very important to the play metaphor. As previously discussed, the children pointed out that the child position was necessary to the family in the MDC play, and such statements were supported by the fact that the child/baby position was always present in the play, unlike mothers who could be, and fathers who often were, absent from the play.

In the example below, both age positions and gender positions are intertwined with how the heteronormative family takes place. Meja (4), Joline (4), Viola (4), Stella (5) and Elton (5) play by the edge of the forest grove. Stella says they are playing mum, dad, child and that she is mum. Viola is the baby, Meja big sister, Joline and Elton are children.

‘Where's Mum? Viola says. ‘I’ll collect firewood’, Stella says. She has sticks in her hands that she has picked up from the lawn. ‘Now we go and light the fire’, Stella says. ‘Here was the fire’, Elton says. ‘No’, Stella replies, placing her sticks a bit from Elton. ‘I lit the fire. The mum and dad have to light the fire’, Stella says. ‘Who is the dad?’, Elton asks. ‘No one’, Stella replies. ‘Now the big flames are burning, everyone is warmed by the fire. We were moving, now we're taking all the stuff. Everyone should help, is that understood? Now we all go together’, Stella says.

Stella, the mum, is both in charge of directing the play episode and makes the decisions in the play. When Stella says that only mum and dad may light the fire, she probably means that only the adults get to do that. The adults in the family – mum and dad – are the ones who decide and have exclusive access to things, in this case, the fire. In Stella's statements, the mother and father appear to be part of an age-coded heteronormativity, as adults and part of the nuclear family. However, the father, though included in the dialogue, is not among the characters; he is discursively present but at the same time absent, thus emphasizing a heteronormative gender order.

Gender and age categorization are a central part of the MDC play and heteronormative family metaphor. Gender has a great impact on which position the child is able to take or is assigned. The child’s age does not impact on their play position in the same way, although it is more common for the older girls to have the position of mother. On the other hand, the age difference between the play positions is necessary, most commonly between parent and child, and sometimes between older and younger sibling. Gender difference is not required in that respect, as the play positions could be the only mother and ‘little sister’ or a gender-neutral ‘baby’.

In conclusion, we can observe that age-coded heteronormativity is (re)produced in the observed MDC play. Age differences seem to be a cornerstone in the construction of the family in this form of play. It is possible to only represent one gender category in MDC play, but it seems crucial to have more than one age category. The heteronormative family metaphor in MDC play is (re)produced not only by sexuality and gender norms but also by age-coded positions.

Conclusions

In the present article, we have shown that age-categories and age-coded positions were a central part of heteronormativity in children’s play. The MDC play episodes observed in this preschool, like many other kinds of play and games, are performed according to metaphors that give the play structure and predictability (Hamayon 2016). In this case, the play is structured as a strong family metaphor in which a heteronormative discourse is dominant. The family that is made intelligible in this play metaphor is equated with the familiar constellation of mum, dad and child(ren). The children do not only repeat the family that is familiar to them, they also normalize the familiar family through their repetition and (re)production of heteronormativity. Positions in the play are gendered, age-coded and played out through a heteronormative family metaphor that becomes visible in the children’s negotiations around play positions, where having two mothers or two fathers is not made an option.

In field conversations, talking to the researcher about the play, the children talk about the possibility of same-sex parents, showing that they already have knowledge that transgresses the normative family picture. We chose to recognize this discourse as a possible leeway that has not yet taken shape in the play practice at this preschool. Moreover, preschool teachers acknowledge that they should encourage the children to play in less heteronormative ways. This shows that the normative pattern does not repeat itself because of lack of knowledge or ignorance of other possibilities. Both children and adults seem to have knowledge about a variety of family constellations and in conversations, they position same-sex parents as a possibility. It seems as though knowledge alone is not enough to change the repetition of normative play. This suggests researchers, policy makers and practitioners need to be more observant on what children are doing and how they create meaning and engage with norms and normativity. Being observant on children's positioning may hence enable practitioners to present and offer children more and various, not only heteronormative, subject positions. In this case, exploring how children (re)produce and (re)negotiate heteronormativity we found that age difference was the most central part of how children performed and manifested the MDC play. We therefore suggest that not only gender, but also age categories have a great impact on, and are important to, how heteronormativity (re)produces itself in the ECE setting. The child is at the centre of the heteronormative family metaphor of the MDC play, being the one position that is non-exchangeable. It seems as though, in this case, the child makes the family, which may indicate that heteronormativity does not only relate to adults’ sexual and gendered positions, but also to generational order. We argue that children’s play is an arena for negotiation about age, gender, and sexuality norms, suggesting that age-coded heteronormativity is (re)produced in the ECE setting. Adding the concept of age coding (Krekula 2009) to the concept of heteronormativity, which already consists of normalizations of sexuality and gender (Butler 1990, 1993), may describe how heteronormativity in the ECE setting, and in this specific form of play, is also constituted in relation to age categories.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Also known as ‘home corner play’ or ‘domestic play’ (Taylor and Richardson 2005); here we have chosen to use the expression used by the children in the study.

2 Corsaro (2003) defines ‘role play’ as socio-dramatic play ‘in which children take on or embody roles that exist in society (like mothers, fathers, or various occupational roles)’ (91). According to Corsaro, children do not only imitate adults in their role play, but also challenge and elaborate these roles.

3 The topic of the conversation was to talk about MDC play, and questions were directed at the logic of the play. However, it is not possible to know at all times whether Ida and Allan are still talking about the MDC play here or about family in general.