Constructing and governing freedom – physical environments as a discursive practice in Swedish early childhood education

ABSTRACT

This article problematizes the ideals and norms surrounding the organization of environments for children. It investigates the understanding of the arrangement and organization of Early Childhood Education (ECE) environments, aiming to offer an alternative perspective on taken-for-granted assumptions about ideal environments for children. Using Foucault’s conceptualization of discourse and power, the article examines how discursive practices shape and reshape norms and ideals of what constitutes a ‘good’ physical environment in ECE. Based on 145 texts published between 1969 and 2021 in an influential Swedish preschool teacher journal, the study analyzes systematic discourses on preschool environments. Key findings concern the environment’s role in the governing of children. The discursive construction of ideal environments emphasizes a ‘toy-free’ setting with minimal framing and instruction, pointing to a discursive shift in the desired type of freedom for children: from the freedom to become a part of culture, to the freedom to change culture.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood education
• preschool
• environment
• material

Introduction

In Swedish early childhood education (ECE), the physical environment is considered crucial for children’s development and learning (Westberg 2021). The significance of a ‘good’ ECE environment is emphasized in governing documents, highlighting that a central task for preschool teachers is to organize and manage these environments (Skolverket 2018; Åström et al. 2022). Although Swedish ECE is integrated with general school system, there is no clear distinction between education, care, and play. Instead, all these activities are considered a part of education, with an emphasis on children’s learning through free play (Nilsson, Lecusay and Alnervik 2018; Sheridan and Williams 2018). For this to take place, the physical environment plays a vital role in guiding preschool activities.

The physical environments in ECE play a significant role in shaping children’s lives, particularly in a country such as Sweden were 85% of all children between 1-5 are enrolled in ECE (Skolverket 2022). The organization of ECE environments influences the types of actions that are possible, as well as educator’s perceptions of children (e.g. Eriksson Bergström 2013; Ekman Ladru and Gustafson 2020; Nordin-Hultman 2004; Nordtømme 2012; Odegaard 2021). The availability and arrangement of materials can determine whether a child is viewed as competent or incompetent, highlighting the environment’s possibilities and limits for children’s everyday lives (Nordin-Hultman 2004). The set up of spaces and material resources creates both opportunities and restrictions for children’s actions (Nordin-Hultman 2004; Nordtømme 2012). Additionally, it has been found that rules and regulations are often made explicit through the organization of the ECE environment (Eriksson Bergström 2013; Nordin-Hultman 2004). The organization of ECE environments thus extends beyond mere physical settings, as they reflect and produce assumptions about the nature of children and the educational outcomes they should achieve (e.g. Bollig and Millei 2018; Cliff and Millei 2013). However, environment and materials, as traditional elements of pedagogy, are often taken for granted, making them challenging to critically analyze (Eriksson Bergström 2013). Consequently, the regulation of children’s behavior by means of the environment can obscure the underlying power dynamics in ECE contexts, rendering them invisible (e.g. Eriksson Bergström 2013; Nordin-Hultman 2004).

This article makes use of key concepts drawn from Foucault’s conceptualization of discourse, power and the production of the subject to explore the relationship between discursive constructions of preschool environments and the shaping of children’s lives (e.g. Foucault 1972; 1982; 2017). The core of this examination involves questioning the logic for recognizing certain ways of organizing ECE environments as ideal. The study builds upon research that has explored how the organization and arrangement of space govern and shape attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Cliff and Millei 2013; Foucault 2017; Jobb 2019). The contribution of this article is an exploration of how the ECE environment is constructed in discourse, i.e. how environments are systematically talked and though about (Foucault 1972). The meaning of the concept of the ‘ECE environment’ in this article is thus an open question rather than something that can be assumed beforehand, as it targets speech about the organization of all physical structures and spaces, including furniture and material things (e.g. Eriksson Bergström 2013; Nordin-Hultman 2004).

The articles overall aim is to examine which types of environments and spatial arrangements are deemed ideal and to elucidate the objectives that govern the organization of the ECE environment. This in order to provide an alternative understanding of the ‘taken-for-granted’ by re-contextualizing discursive constructions of ideal environments that have become ‘naturalized’ (Beronius 1991; Foucault 1977).

Before further discussing the articles theoretical perspective, I want to provide a brief introduction to the history and background of Swedish ECE, focusing on aspects recognized as influential in shaping ECE environments. Given the cultural and historical similarities among ECE systems in the Nordic countries (Brembeck, Johansson, and Kampmann 2004), this overview includes research conducted on the entire Nordic ECE context, not just Sweden.

Perspectives on environment in the Swedish ECE context

In the beginning of the twentieth century, Swedish childcare consisted of nurseries and kindergartens locally organized through private initiatives, mainly as relief for poor families and single mothers. The government’s involvement was limited, and state funding was non-existent (Tallberg Broman 2009). The predominant discourse on childhood, during this period was influenced by Friedrich Fröbel’s natural romantic approach. Fröbel believed that materiality was essential for children’s education, leading him to develop educational resources known as play gifts (Nordtømme 2012), Fröbel further emphasized the significance of nature experiences for children's development, and nature remains a vital cultural symbol of a good childhood in the Swedish preschool context (Halldén 2009; Änggård 2011).

When the Swedish ECE started to expand in the 1970s, the government began to show increased interest in the preschool environment (Westberg 2021). The expansion was preceded by a nationwide government investigation of childcare, Barnstugeutredningen [Nursery school investigation] (SOU 1972, 26). The investigation was launched in 1968 and produced five reports through the years of 1972 and 1975. The nursery investigation paid attention to the preschool environment and offered recommendations on everything from floor area and interior design to what type of toys that were suitable. Following the nursery investigation, the first legislation for preschool was instated in 1975, the Preschool Act (Prop. 1975/76:92). The act entailed a planned expansion of preschool activities in all municipalities. A characteristic of the preschool expansion was its universal approach and aim to include all children in Swedish society (Westberg 2021). The theoretical framework of the nursery school investigation was based on Piaget’s and Erikson’s theories on children’s development (Persson and Tallberg Broman 2017; Westberg 2021), it was appointed with the task to break with the Fröbel-inspired tradition and give preschool a political foundation (Persson and Tallberg Broman 2017). The influence of Friedrich Fröbel’s natural romantic approach on Swedish preschool gradually became influenced by developmental psychology (Hultqvist 1990; Persson and Tallberg Broman 2017). Westberg (2021) suggests that the features of the 1970s preschool design, was based on a specific interpretation of Erikson and Piaget were children’s independence and social interaction was particularly stressed. According to Westberg (ibid) this came about through a specific interpretation of Piaget and Erikson’s theories on children’s development that emphasized certain aspects of developmental psychology that was easily combined with the contemporary political aims for preschool, that ‘mirrored the belief in the rational planning of society and the will to spend public funding that marked the comprehensive Swedish welfare state’ (Westberg 2021, 15).

ECE continues to be recognized as a crucial component of the Swedish welfare system, serving both as a support system for children and families and as means for shaping ‘Swedish values’ (Arnesen and Lundahl 2006; Westberg 2021). A core principle of Swedish preschool policies is to provide equal opportunities for all children, regardless of their background or economic conditions and in that spirit ECE is considered both a compensatory and complementary tool aimed at addressing socioeconomic inequalities (Arnesen and Lundahl 2006; Ivarson Jansson 2001; Hultqvist 1990). In material sense, the role of preschool as a complementary tool has involved both the idea that preschools should provide environments superior to those children might find at home, and the notion that childhood institutions should mirror home environments (Ivarson Jansson 2001). The concept of ‘the home’ as an ideal model for ECE settings has been a prominent theme over time (e.g. Tallberg Broman 2009; Ivarson Jansson 2001; Kjørholt and Os 2019). In the 1940s and 1950s, ECE aimed to complement home life rather than compete with maternal care, for example by incorporating furniture and items typically found in a ‘normal’ home (Ivarson Jansson 2001). While the resemblance between preschool environments and ‘the home’ remained significant during the 1960s and 1970s there was a shift in focus toward highlighting ECE’s role in providing children with professionally selected age-appropriate play environments and a richer and more versatile play materials (ibid).

In recent years, Swedish preschools have increasingly become organized with open floor planning, emphasizing flexibility and children’s freedom of choice (Kjørholt and Os 2019; Kjørholt and Seland 2012). This has been described as a shift from a ‘home-like’ environment to one resembling a ‘marketplace’ where children can freely select their activities (Kjørholt and Seland 2012). Researchers have discussed these changes both as an extension of the traditional Swedish nursery approach (Änggård 2011) and as a reflection of a neoliberal trend towards individualization and consumer culture (Kjørholt and Seland 2012). Additionally, there has been a rise in preschools with an outdoor focus, where most or all daily activities are conducted outdoors (e.g. Harju et al. 2021; Ekman Ladru and Gustafson 2020; Änggård 2011). Such outdoor preschools, connecting to the ECE tradition of viewing nature as beneficial for children, have been discussed in terms of a romanticized view of ‘the child in nature,’ which can be seen as a continuation of Fröbel's influence on Swedish ECE (Harju et al. 2021; Halldén 2009). These narratives about children and nature are deeply integrated and interwoven into the modern practices of organizing outdoor preschools in Swedish ECE contexts (Harju et al. 2021).

Power and discourse

To analyze the discourses on ECE environments this article employs key concepts drawn from Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of discourse, power, and the production of the subject (e.g. Beronius 1991; Foucault 1991; Foucault 2017). The definition of discourse is particularly important since it defines the articles trajectory of asking questions. The research questions are focused on how discursive practices construct regimes of truth and thereby functions as a technique for government. From this perspective discourses are viewed as extending beyond mere words and seen as systematic practices that shape the objects and meanings of which they speak (Foucault 1972). This process, of discursive practices, involves systematic and context-bound language that construct ‘truths’ about the world. Discursive practices are thus not merely a repetition of facts; rather, they are generative, creating conditions for what can be considered and expressed in specific times and contexts (Foucault 1991).

Foucault’s conceptualization of power and power relations is vital for analyzing how discourses on the ECE environment play a role in shaping children’s prerequisites. Even though Foucault never developed a theory specifically about space and geography, spatiality play a significant role in his ontology of power (Jobb 2019). Specifically, with regards to the interrelatedness between the organization of space and how people and things are governed (Jobb 2019; Foucault 2017). Scholars employing a Foucauldian approach have from this perspective studied ECE as a site of power. They have among other things highlighted how ECE environments are involved in the governing of children by enabling specific forms of power and by guiding children’s acts (e.g. Cliff and Millei 2013; Eriksson-Bergström 2013), as well as how discourses about the ‘ideal child’ influence and continually reshape the design of ECE environments (Hultqvist 1990; Westberg 2021).

The concept of governmentality and power is crucial for studying how discursive constructions of the ‘ideal’ and/or, the perceived to be ‘natural’ ECE environment are intertwined with presumptions about what the environment will produce concerning children and their education. From a Foucauldian perspective power is not an asset that one can possess; rather, it is inherently relational. The Foucauldian concept of power relations is commonly defined as ‘the conduct of conduct’ (Foucault 1982). The double use of the word conduct in this phrase signals that it refers to a type of governing that involves guiding, shaping or steering behavior. Or as Foucault (1982) expressed it, it is a mode of ‘action upon action’. This type of governing includes all kinds of processes that aim to shape actions in the present or the future, such as, acts, guidelines, or discourses (ibid). In this article, the research interest is directed at the power embedded in discourse and how discourses produce objects and subjects in certain ways by how they are shaped in discourse (Foucault 2017; Axelsson and Qvarsebo 2017). The analysis highlights how ideals are constructed and legitimized through discourse, by paying attention to the desired outcome of specifically arranged environments and how these ideals mirror the notion of an ‘ideal child.’ The aim is to provide an alternative understanding of the ‘taken-for-granted’ by re-contextualize the discursive practices that have become ‘naturalized’ (Beronius 1991; Foucault 1977). The analysis engages with both contemporary and historical texts. This approach is used to investigate current discursive practices from a historical and power-analytical perspective, providing insight into the production and implications of these practices by viewing them within a historical context (e.g. Axelsson and Qvarsebo 2017; Foucault 1977).

Empirical material

The primary empirical source for this study is the preschool teacher trade journal Förskolan (Preschool). This journal was selected due to its extensive reach and its foundation in the preschool teacher profession. Run by the largest teacher union in Sweden, Förskolan is currently distributed to over 60,000 people and is available online at https://www.vilarare.se/forskolan/. The journal was founded and originally published under the name Svenska Fröbelförbundets tidskrift [The Swedish Fröbel Association journal] in 1918 by Svenska Fröbel förbundet (Swedish Fröbel Association). The Fröbel Association started as a pedagogical organization but later developed into being a professional association, which in 1944 became a part of a larger union organization. In 1969 the journals name was changed to Förskolan [The Preschool]. The voices represented in the journal are from a wide range of different actors associated with ECE, including preschool teachers, pediatricians, psychologists, researchers, architects, and others connected to Swedish ECE. The journal contains articles on preschool work, news, research, debates, interviews, and letters to the editor. As such, it is an arena where the discourses on Swedish ECE are presented from a variety of perspectives.

The analysis covers the period from 1969 to 2021, beginning with the year the journal was first published under the name Förskolan. This year also marks the launch of the Barnstugeutredningen (Nursery school investigation), that has been instrumental in the development and expansion of Swedish ECE. The journal’s issues from 2002 to 2021 were searched digitally, using keywords such as: ‘environment,’ ‘design,’ ‘material,’ and ‘learning environment.’ For the issues published from 1969 to 2001, which were not available in a digital format allowing keyword searches, a manual search was conducted. Six years of publication was strategically sampled, focusing on key periods, including the nursery school investigation (1968–1975) and subsequent political changes such as the Preschool Act (Prop. 1975/76:92) and the 1991 government decision to provide preschool for all children. The sampled years were: 1969, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1991. All complete issues from these years were reviewed to identify texts related to the ECE environment. Ultimately, 145 texts were ultimately selected from the journal Förskolan for analysis.

The policy texts were selected based on their impact on Swedish preschool organization. There are two types of policies chosen, government investigation reports with the purpose to improve preschool, and national curricula. The policy texts include: (1) the first report from the nursery school investigation, ‘Förskolan del 1 [Preschool part 1]’ (SOU 1972, 26); (2) the Pedagogiska programmet för förskolan [Educational program for preschool] (Socialstyrelsen 1987, 3), a precursor to the preschool curriculum; (3) the first national curricula for preschool (Skolverket 1998); and (4) the latest revision of the preschool curricula (Skolverket 2018).

Analytical procedure

A Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis involves posing questions informed by the understanding of discourse and power that has been outlined above. More specifically, I have read the empirical material while asking questions such as the following: What is being represented as truth, an ideal, or a norm? Which issues are problematized, and which are not? How are children constructed and positioned? What behaviors and actions are desirable or prescribed by this discourse?

The analytical procedure is inherently complex, involving cycles of interpretation and reinterpretation. I have structured the procedure into three steps.

Initially, I read the empirical data, concentrating on how the discourse is constructed while keeping the above-mentioned questions in mind. I paid particular attention to expressions of desired outcomes and risks tied to the environment. I identified relevant passages, linking them to keywords describing the content. These keywords fall into three categories:

1. Type of environment: This category includes keywords that specify the type of environment that is addressed, such as, play environments, learning environments, nature, yard, or outdoors.

2. Aspects made important: This category describe what specific aspects within these environments that are discussed. Such as, types of material, furnishing, specific objects, arrangement, or organization.

3. Purpose and impact: This category includes keywords that describe why and how these environments are addressed, highlighting their assumed impact on children. Examples include equality, creativity, safety, health, and ‘limiting’.

During the initial reading, I employed an extensive range of keywords to ensure a comprehensive capture of potential insights. Using NVivo, a software tool for qualitative analysis, the excerpts were coded and organized into themes and hierarchies.

In the subsequent step, I revisited the quotations several times, focusing on deeper analysis, review, and organization of the quotes and keywords. Throughout this iterative process, themes and keywords were repeatedly reevaluated and adjusted. To ensure a thorough understanding of the discourse, the empirical material was read multiple times, each reading helping to strengthen the overall interpretation.

Finally, I conducted an overarching review and thematic development. The central patterns and regularities in the discourses were developed in relation to the research questions and related research. Reading the texts with the above-mentioned questions in mind I could outline two themes of dominant discourses pertaining to the ideal child and the ideal arrangement of ECE environments. These themes will be discussed in the empirical section that follows.

The discourse on environments for play

In the examined texts, the discourse of play operates as a fundamental and legitimizing form of knowledge for structuring ECE settings. Central to this discourse is the concern for optimizing types of environments conducive to enhancing the quality of children’s play. Throughout the analyzed period, the discourse frequently addresses the arrangement and selection of materials, emphasizing their critical role in shaping play activities. Embedded within this ongoing conversation is the principle that environmental settings and resources facilitate specific outcomes in play, a notion consistently evident across the texts studied. However, a noticeable transformation occurs in the discourse from 2000 onwards in form of shifting terminology and uses of material. A transformation that indicates shifting objectives for children’s environments.

In the Nordic tradition of early childhood education, a variety of non-manufactured materials are commonly used, including natural materials, junk, and various types of leftover or recycled items. This practice, which can be traced back to the very first ECE institutions, has become naturalized within the Nordic preschool context (Odegaard 2012). However, the terminology used to describe these materials has evolved, reflecting a transformation in the discourse on ECE environments. In the contemporary texts from Förskolan, these materials are often described as ‘open’ and referred to with terms like unstructured material, open-ended material, indefinable material, or unfinished material. However, in issues of the journal published before the 2000s, these materials were primarily referred to as junk or rubbish. For example, a 1969 issue contains the following quotes:

[we are] begging and asking to get a little ‘rubbish’ here and a little there for our children in the institutions. (Förskolan 1969a, 26)

… children should be allowed to use materials to create with as a complement to finished toys. (Förskolan, Förskolan 1969b, 144, 244)

In addition to the shift in terminology, there has been a change in how these materials are perceived. Texts published between 1969 to 1985 often refer to these materials as an addition to traditional toys, expanding the amount of creative material available and serving as a cost-efficient alternative to purchasing new materials and toys. Over time, financial considerations have become less prominent, and these unfinished materials are increasingly viewed as primary resources rather than supplementary ones.

The texts from the 2000s onwards increasingly address how environmental modifications can elevate the quality of play. These discussions elaborate on strategies to enhance not only individual children’s play but also collective play within preschool environments. The discourse includes numerous instances detailing the introduction of ‘unfinished’ or ‘open’ play materials as instrumental in these enhancements. The following quote demonstrates this shift towards a more targeted and systemic approach to manipulating preschool environments to achieve the desired outcomes.

… the educators threw away half of the plastic toys that were there. Instead, they have acquired more unfinished play materials that will stimulate and develop creativity and imagination. (Förskolan 2009a, 23)

The above is an example of a recurring narrative that entails educators removing all or some of the toys – and adding more ‘unfinished play materials’ to improve children’s play. This evolution in discourse reflects a strategic exercise of power, whereby the organization of space and selection of materials are governed to produce optimal scenarios for the development of play. A central theme in the discourse on play environments is the definition and dichotomization, of ready-made toys versus so called ‘unfinished materials.’ This dichotomy is further illustrated in the following quote, which highlights the perceived problem with ready-made toys.

With ready-made toys, there is often a clear idea of how they should be used, they are more limiting. A car or a doll is often used in a predetermined way; the recycled material can be anything. (Förskolan 2019a, 31)

In this excerpt, ready-made toys are seen as limiting because they have a predetermined area of usage whereas unfinished materials are considered open-ended, capable of becoming anything. Recycled materials, as examples of unfinished material, are viewed positively due to their lack of prescribed uses. The perceived advantage of these types of materials is their absence of a specific ‘message’ or template for usage, which aligns with educators’ views as described in research (Odegaard 2012). The evolving discussion about these materials indicates a shift in the discursive construction of play materials and their optimal use.

During the nursery school investigation (Barnstugeutredningen), 1969–1975, the discourse on play material was based on the belief that child development follows a fixed, universal order. A view reflected in the discourse about ECE material from this period:

Across the preschool age range, materials that allow children to progress from easy to more difficult are needed. The order of development is the same for all children, but the pace and step size may vary. (SOU 1972, 26, 199)

This view on child development as progressing in a specific order exemplifies the general discourse on child development during this period (Kjørholt and Os 2019). In both the journal Förskolan and the nursery school investigation report, the discourse on play material was closely linked to psychological and cognitive theories on development. This is illustrated in the following quote, where the researched material from this period includes guidelines for how and in what order materials should be introduced to children.

Water, sand, and clay are basic materials for children's activity during different stages of development. To start with, the child tries the different materials with different senses. With increasing age and with well-thought-out supplementary material, the child gets rich opportunities to scoop, pour out and measure. (Förskolan 1972a, 25)

This view on suitable materials for children, connects play development to biological age. Different types of play are acknowledged and therefore a variety of materials, however, these are linked to set stages of development. In the contemporary texts, 2000–2021, the logic of how play is assessed appears more binary and there is a difference in how play is linked to play environments. For example, there is a recurring assumption that children may either know or not know how to play:

… we have all worked with children who have not yet cracked the codes and who don’t really know how to play. There we have an important task. We risk missing those children in this thing we call free play. (Förskolan 2021)

In this quote, play competence is described as a matter of ‘cracking the code’ to engage in play. The associated risk is that children may miss out on ‘free play’. In contemporary discourse, play competence seems intrinsically connected to the freedom of play. The quote above is from an interview about ‘free play’ and the link made between ‘free play’ and indefinable materials is further described in the interview as follows:

I like indefinable materials, but some children need clarity and a template to become freer (Förskolan 2021).

This quote implies that while indefinable materials are viewed as ideal for play, ready-made toys are seen as aids for helping children become ‘freer’. The concept of ‘free play’ appears closely tied to children’s ability to play with materials lacking clarity or a template. However, some children are considered to need the clarity provided by toys to become freer. Thus, toys are considered to have a significant function for children who are perceived as unable to play, or unable to play well enough. In such cases, toys are seen as tools that provide extra support in play. What I want to highlight here is the discursive logic that links the choice of play materials with a specific assessment of play quality and play competence. The following quote is another example of this logic:

Not all children have the same strong imagination, some need a type of guidance, inspiration, or something to start from. Then a toy car can be a good guide, maybe it is possible to build something for the car. (Förskolan 2019a, 31)

Here, the toy car is described as a guide and source of inspiration. The primary aim of using the car is not for the child to play with it directly, but to inspire the child to ‘build something for the car.’ This suggests that play without toys is considered the ideal type of play. The implied risk is that children will miss out on ‘free play’. What is at stake is children’s freedom, the freedom of being able to play freely with materials that do not serve as templates for play. The desired ‘free play’ seems to be play based solely on the child’s imagination and creativity. In this discursive construction, a lack of imagination and creativity in children is framed as a problem that needs development (Sandberg and Vuorinen 2008). Ready-made toys are seen to have positive qualities for children perceived as lacking the ability to play ‘for real.’ They become tools to help children achieve the desirable type of play, namely free play. These examples demonstrate a shift in the view on play development, a view that is intrinsically linked with material aspects. While it remains a progressive valuation of play, the assessment is now based on how free the play appears, rather than on a generalized scale of child development. This shift raises questions about the nature of the desirable ‘free play’.

The links between free play and the framing of environments

Free play holds a prominent position in Swedish ECE, although its definition is often vague. Generally, it is understood in one of two ways: as play free from adult intervention, or as play characterized by ‘openness’ (Björklund and Palmér 2019). In the analyzed texts, free play encompasses both definitions, but there is a stronger emphasis on the notion of ‘openness’ in play, hence the focus on creativity and freedom from external input. The descriptions of free play in the journal often refer to materials lacking clarity or a template, suggesting that the ideal ECE environment provides freedom from predefined structures, norms, and classifications. Eriksson Bergström (2013) characterizes such preschool environments, which have a low degree of structure and classification, as environments with ‘weak framing’. This generates an ‘invisible pedagogy,’ where teachers’ expectations for children are obscured (ibid). Although a ‘weak framing’ of the environment appears to offer children complete freedom of choice, there are underlying expectations that children should learn to play in a particular way with specific types of material. Consequently, materials are strategically used to shape children’s behavior to conform to a particular idea of what freedom in play is – essentially, a specific discursive construction of ‘free play’ (e.g. Andersson 2022; Eriksson Bergström 2013; Foucault 1991).

Considering power relations, the discourse on environments for play, can be understood as an effort to shape children’s actions and behaviors towards a specific type of play (Foucault 1982). This construction of ‘free play’ is related to a conceptualization of children as autonomous and competent actors, an idea primarily drawn from childhood sociology and post structural frameworks that have been highly influential in Nordic preschool contexts (Brembeck, Johansson, and Kampmann 2004; Kjørholt and Seland 2012). However, this conceptualization of the child has also been linked to trends of individualization and entrepreneurial – oriented societal perspectives (Brunila and Siivonen 2016). It has been argued that organizing preschools to maximize children’s freedom of choice constructs children as consumers, as participation is constructed as individual freedom of choice (Kjørholt and Seland 2012). Kjørholt and Seland (2012) suggest that this construction of children’s participation reflects how market-oriented discourses expand into fields beyond the economic.

The emphasis on children’s independence and freedom is not new in the Swedish preschool context; it can be traced back to 19th–century discourses on the child (Brembeck, Johansson, and Kampmann 2004). The practice of using junk materials is evident throughout the analyzed period, aligning with ideals of ‘the child as nature’ (Halldén 2009), and the Nordic nursery tradition of using junk-materials (Kjørholt and Os 2019). However, the conceptualization of children’s freedom seems to have evolved, specifically regarding the relationship between children and adults (ibid). To further unpack the construction of freedom in relation to ECE environments, the next section discusses the connections between values education and the ideals surrounding ‘the good environment’.

The discourse on material as a tool for values education

Apart from the environment’s role in enhancing play, the choices and arrangements of materials are closely connected with values education in ECE. As previously mentioned, the Swedish preschool curriculum aims to educate children in line with democratic values, placing emphasis on children’s influence and participation in ECE activities:

Education must be carried out in democratic ways and lay the foundation for a growing interest and responsibility in children to actively participate in society and for sustainable development. (Skolverket 2018, 5)

Swedish preschools have traditionally addressed sustainability issues, but the concept of sustainability was formally introduced in the preschool curriculum only in the revised version published in 2018. The concept of sustainability in the preschool curriculum (Skolverket 2018) encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions. It is evident in the journal Förskolan that this concept has significantly influenced educational practices.

Sustainability education often focuses on children’s agency and participation, emphasizing the idea that children have the potential to change the world for the better (e.g. Caiman and Lundegård 2014; Ärlemalm-Hagsér 2014). In the journal Förskolan, this agency perspective on sustainability is prominently reflected through a focus on recycled materials. The purpose of using recycled materials is described as a way to educate children to take responsibility for the environment:

Recycling is part of the work on sustainable development, a step towards building optimism for the future. Children need to feel that they are useful, that what they learn and do has a meaning for themselves, others, and the environment – that they contribute to society and the world and can make a difference. (Förskolan 2016, 40)

Recycling, as discussed here, extends beyond the simply placing used packages in a recycling bin. It also includes the reuse of discarded materials in preschool activities such as play and creative projects. A distinctive aspect of sustainability education in Förskolan’s texts is its alignment previous discourses regarding the benefits of using ‘unfinished’ materials. These recycled materials are considered ‘good’ because they ‘lack a message’. In Odegaards (2012) study on the use of junk materials in preschool, such materials are described as a means to transcend the idea of purpose or representation. A similar logic is embedded in discussions about material choices in Förskolan. Recycled materials are valued for their ‘non-properties,’ as they are seen as beneficial due to their perceived lack of inherent ‘message’ or representation. This notion aligns with the discourse on play materials. However, within the context of values education, the use of recycled materials is framed with the expectation that these materials will promote certain values and positively influence children’s interactions with the world:

Recycling materials do not have a ready-made, locked-in message about what they should be used for, which sparks the imagination and promotes creativity. The material has (…) an inherent possibility, an agency, which affects or causes something to happen. The difference and diversity broaden children’s experiences. [The preschool teacher] further believes that recycling material is non-discriminatory in terms of age, culture, and gender. (Förskolan 2016, 40)

It is important to note here that while these materials are considered to lack specific messages about their use, they are also seen as having the potential to cause something to happen. Additionally, this perspective holds that the non-discriminatory nature of recycled materials – stemming from their lack of representational properties – supports their use in promoting equality. Thus, according to this viewpoint, choosing these types of materials serves both to encourage specific actions and to address inequality.

A notable practice in values education since the start of the twenty-first century, related to the discourse on modifying play materials, is the measure to inventory and modifying preschool materials to create gender-neutral environments (Edström 2014). This typically involves removing materials perceived as gender-coded and introducing materials considered neutral. In an article in Förskolan, the benefit of using natural materials is described as follows:

The [natural] material is not so gender coded but quite neutral. A stick is a stick. (Förskolan 2019b, 28)

This example highlights that ‘unfinished’ materials, such as natural materials, are considered beneficial because they are not gender coded. This approach appears as an aim to protect children from exposure to gender stereotypes. These efforts to create gender-neutral environments also involves rearranging and revaluing existing play settings. The following quote exemplifies how environments are ‘neutralized:’

In the small, half-abandoned ‘Elephant Room,’ there is a shabby home corner that was thrown here after the municipality’s gender pedagogue came to visit. All rooms have since been given gender-neutral names. The idea is that they should be decoded … (Förskolan 2011, 27)

This example shows how environments and materials are evaluated based on their gendered status and then ‘decoded’ by being given new names or by being rearranged. These efforts aim to create a neutral environment, reflecting a desire for settings that ‘lack message.’ The practice of using the environment and material to educate children about values manifests as an established method. However, there are competing perspectives within this discourse, which I interpret as indicative of the impact of this discourse. One example of a critical perspective argues that relying on modifying environments and materials for values education is insufficient when the goal is to achieve deeper, more meaningful change:

So, what is the solution then, a toy-free preschool with changeable rooms and only creative materials? If it was so simple that the potential for change was in the environment or the material. (Förskolan 2005, 49)

There is a risk that you just change the environment and then think that you have solved the problem. The premises are not an educator. (Förskolan 2009b, 29)

These statements are made by childhood scholars who caution against relying solely on the environment and materials as tools for promoting equality. Both researchers reference research on gender equality education in preschools, which has shown that while many preschools actively work towards equality, underlying hierarchies and norms are rarely addressed (e.g. Dolk 2009; Edström 2014). Additionally, it has been argued that trying to protect children from stereotypes is futile since children are already exposed to gender stereotypes (Sandström, Stier, and Sandberg 2013).

The ideal of shielding children from stereotypes by using ‘neutral’ or ‘non-discriminatory’ materials reflects a view of children as being detached from culture, as if they have not yet been influenced by hierarchies or social norms (Lancy 2012). Before further discussing this aspect, I want to illuminate the contemporary ideas on the use of the environment in education by contrasting them with examples of the discourse on materials during the 1960s–1980s.

Shifting discourses over time

In descriptions of ideal environment and materials for children from 1960s–1980s, there is a strong emphasis on specific and defined purposes for using certain materials:

Clay also exercises motor skills, plus the sense of form. Scribbling with crayons and pencils is good for fine motor skills. (Förskolan 1985, 7)

This quote exemplifies how materials were systematically chosen to develop certain skills. A similar approach is conveyed in descriptions of organized play environments, which detail the purpose of providing children with specific items:

The children should also have access to simple utility items used in daily life – pans, cleaning tools, telephone – to be able to relive everyday but for the child important episodes. (Förskolan 1972b, 18)

This excerpt illustrates the educational aim of having children relive everyday episodes using specific items, allowing them to process daily events in preparation for adulthood. In the 1970s, the ideal was to provide a well-structured environment where children could easily understand the activities available for them (Westberg 2021). In contrast to these concrete aims, the contemporary approach to ECE environment and materials appear as more experimental. Instead of selecting specific items for specific learning outcomes, there is an emphasis on using materials that lack predefined messages or purposes. This shift reflects a broader, more open-ended approach to educating children, recognizing them as creators of their own learning experiences:

We started from what the children requested, but also wanted to see how the children could develop in their play. What happens if we add sticks? Does it trigger something in the process that we haven’t anticipated? (Förskolan 2019b, 28)

This quote from 2019 exemplifies the contemporary logic: teachers follow the children’s requests and then introduce new materials to observe the outcomes. In this approach, the teacher’s primary role is to observe the children, focusing the educational qualities the children themselves reveal rather than directing their education. With the aid of specific materials, children are mobilized as agents from whom adults gain insight (Burman 2013). In similarity with previous examples, children’s freedom figures as the central ideal. This approach can be seen as an attempt to reverse the traditional power dynamic between adults and children, giving children more control over their learning experiences. However, in terms of power–relations, power is not something that can be handed over; it is produced within the relationship (Foucault 1982, 2017). Several issues merit consideration if freedom is the aim, such as the degree of knowledge children have about these setups and their possibilities to opt out (Burman 2013; Gulløv 2013).

These descriptions of how materials are added to facilitate children’s self-development can be viewed as an example of how children’s actions are regulated through the framing of the environment, or in this case, the ‘de-framing’ of the environment. In similarity to the discourse on play environments, this example suggests an environment with weak framing (Eriksson Bergström 2013). While the teachers’ aims are not absent, they are obscured. The introduction of sticks is expected to ‘trigger something,’ yet this ‘something’ is not explicitly articulated. It represents an action upon action, directed at influencing future behaviors and setting children’s actions in motion (Foucault 1982).

Based on several examples like those displayed here, there seems to have been a discursive shift regarding ideal ECE environments. Focus has shifted from educating children to integrate into society by organizing environments that encourage the practice of mundane tasks, to educating children apart from society by promoting environments that encourage freedom and independence from current conventions. In other words, there seems to be a recurring conceptualization of children as detached from adult society–viewing them as potential agents for change. This notion of children as detached from culture is not new; it shares similarities with a Nordic nursery tradition that embodies a romantic ideal of children and childhood as connected to nature (e.g. Kjørholt and Os 2019; Halldén 2009). The concept of children as detached from society also resonates with the ideas of early childhood pioneers as Friedrich Fröbel. Fröbel emphasized the importance of play and nature in children’s learning, advocating for environments that foster natural development and creativity (Hultqvist 1990). In a Fröbelian perspective, the child embodies the missing link between nature and culture (ibid). In contemporary discourses, the governing of children through environment and materials reflects these historical ideals. The emphasis on natural, open-ended materials and environments with weak framing (Eriksson Bergström 2013) seeks to cultivate creativity and self-directed learning. The significant shift in how discourses about ECE environment are translated into education pertains to visions of the ideal child and what children should become through education. This topic will be discussed in the concluding section.

Discussion

The result of this study indicates that the current ideal ECE environment is discursively constructed as a toy-free environment with weak framing. This construction contains both a desire to protect children from normative influences and a desire to promote children’s freedom. The discursive practices that shape the ‘good preschool environment’ are driven by ideals that combines safeguarding children from potentially corrupting cultural and societal inputs with an understanding of children as agents, by emphasizing their freedom to create something new. These notions reflect a view of the child as a ‘tabula rasa’ in a political and cultural sense – essentially, as not yet a cultural or political subject (Millei and Kallio 2018).

Positioning children’s agency within a fabricated preschool structure can be seen as an example of how childhood discourses tend to focus children’s agency to micro-social relations while isolating them from larger sociopolitical issues (Burman 2013; Fernando 2001; Kallio and Häkli 2011). While adults’ censorship of certain issues may be intended to keep children safe, assuming that children are unaffected by societal issues can conceal their perspectives on gendered, racialized, or classed positions, potentially leading to social exclusion (Duschinsky 2013; Garlen and Hembruff 2022). This detachment of children from political realities, also reflects a specific view of culture as a constraint that limits children’s freedom (Lancy 2012). Research has criticized this positioning of children’s agency in opposition to adult culture because it tends to highlight only children’s expressions of rebellion and resistance while ignoring children’s expressions that align with mainstream cultural norms and traditions (Gleason 2016). The differences between children and the rest of society are further emphasized by the non-commercial and naturalistic values that underpin these educational ideals (Gulløv 2013). Thus, the discursive construction of children’s freedom and agency shaped as resistance and detachment from society limits children’s possibilities to be acknowledged as agentive. The ideals attached to these discursive formations uphold a normative framework, where actual power relations are obscured by the apparent freedom of choice given to children (Burman 2013; Foucault 1991). This creates a paradox: children are considered free, even though they cannot opt out of ECE or influence adults’ perspectives on childhood (Gulløv 2013).

The main conclusion of this article is that the understanding of children’s independence and freedom in ECE has shifted. While there are similarities with how Swedish preschool design in the 1970s supported children’s independence and freedom of choice (Westberg 2021), this study highlights significant differences. The 1970s idea of children’s freedom was based on ideals of social cohesion, both within the preschool context and in relation to society (Westberg 2021). The educational aim for independence and autonomy was to foster solidarity, social interaction, and involvement in daily life (Westberg 2021). In contrast, contemporary approaches to organizing children’s freedom in preschool emphasize children’s individual freedom – an ideal of individual choice and creativity (Kjørholt and Seland 2012). This conceptualization of children’s freedom aligns more with older romantic ideals of children as connected to nature (e.g., Kjørholt and Os 2019; Halldén 2009) than with the 1970s ideal of social cohesion. It also reflects broader societal trends toward individualization (Kjørholt and Seland 2012). This analysis indicates a shift in the type of freedom children are encouraged to acquire, from the freedom to become a part of culture, to the freedom to change culture.

Based on these conclusions, I invite further research of the role of environment and materials in relation to the power dynamics in ECE, particularly regarding the tension between children’s freedom and the everyday practices in ECE.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).