Primary schoolboys’ embodied relationships in the classroom
Supporting, nudging, wrestling and grooming as haptic sociality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.22540Keywords:
touch, classroom interaction, affect, embodied interaction, haptic sociality, social relationships, open learning environment, video analysisAbstract
Interpersonal touch is crucial for establishing interpersonal bonds. Drawing on the framework of haptic sociality, this study explores the interactional emergence of embodied relationships among second-grade schoolboys as part of ongoing classroom activity. Focussing on forms of body-to-body behaviour that occur during classroom activities, we describe four different types of touch occurring between the boys – supporting, nudging, wrestling and grooming – and how they are collaboratively accomplished, how they change from one type to another, and how they are deployed as embodied negotiation withing a continuously unfolding embodied relationship. Complementing previous studies on embodied relationships among schoolgirls, our study focuses on the haptic social life of schoolboys.
References
Alderson, M. & Morrow, V. (2020). The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.
Benade, L. (2015). Teachers’ critical reflective practice in the context of twenty-first century learning. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2014.998159
Bojer, B. (2020). Unlocking learning spaces: An examination of the interplay between the design of learning spaces and pedagogical practices. Doctoral dissertation, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, Copenhagen.
Botero, M. (2016). Tactless scientists: Ignoring touch in the study of joint attention. Philosophical Psychology, 29(8), 1200–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1225293
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W. & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Candela, A. (1999). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10(2), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(99)80107-7
Cekaite, A. (2015). Coordination of talk and touch in adult–child directives: Touch and social control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025501
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Tactile organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.003
Cekaite, A. (2018). Intimate skin-to-skin touch in social encounters: Lamination of embodied intertwining. In D. Favareau (ed.), Co-operative Engagements of Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin (pp. 37–41). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Cekaite, A. & Kvist Holm, M. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301293
Corsaro, W. A. (2003). We’re Friends, Right? Inside Kids’ Culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Danby, S. & Baker, C. (1998). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood, 5(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568298005002004
Daniels, H., Tse, H. M., Stables, A. & Cox, S. (2017). Design as a social practice: The design of new build schools. Oxford Review of Education, 43(6), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1360176
de León, L. (2021). The soothing nursing niche: Affective touch, talk, and pragmatic responses to Mayan infants’ crying. Journal of Pragmatics, 185, 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.002
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.07.001
Evaldsson, A. C. (2002). Boys’ gossip telling: Staging identities and indexing (unacceptable) masculine behavior. Text & Talk, 22(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.008
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69, 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046962
Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organisation of Gatherings. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Micro-studies of the Public Order. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54, 787–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/413235
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 222–243). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996522.ch10
Goodwin, M. H. (2008). The embodiment of friendship, power and marginalization in a multi-ethnic, multi-class preadolescent US girls’ peer group. Girlhood Studies, 1(2), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2008.010205
Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J., Streeck & J. Scott (eds), Jordan Intercorporeality: Beyond the Body (pp. 73–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0004
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315207773
Goodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A. & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (eds), Emotion in Interaction (pp. 16–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0002
Guo, E., Katila, J. & Streeck, J. (2020). Touch and the fluctuation of agency and motor control in pediatric dentistry. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120249
Heinonen, P., Karvonen, U. & Tainio, L. (2020). Hand-on-shoulder touch as a resource for constructing a pedagogically relevant participation framework. Linguistics and Education, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100795
Hillewaert, S. (2016). Tactics and tactility: A sensory semiotics of handshakes in coastal Kenya. American Anthropologist, 118(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12517
Jakonen, T. & Niemi, K. (2020). Managing participation and turn-taking in children’s digital activities: Touch in blocking a peer’s hand. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120250
Jones, S. & Yarborough, E. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Commun. Monogr., 52, 19–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376094
Junttila, N. (2015). Kavereita nolla: Lasten ja nuorten yksinäisyys. Helsinki: Tammi.
Kääntä, L. & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2013). Manual guiding in peer group interaction: A resource for organizing a practical classroom task. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839094
Katila, J. (2018a). Tactile Intercorporeality in a Group of Mothers and their Children: A Micro Study of Practices for Intimacy and Participation. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Katila, J. (2018b). Touch between mother and child as affective practice: Reproducing affective inequalities in haptic negotiations of bodily borders and the interpersonal space. In T. Juvonen & M. Kolehmainen (eds), Affective Inequalities in Intimate Relationships (pp. 201–217). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315107318-14
Katila, J. (2022). Trajectories of love: Embodied negotiations over physical togetherness in romantic relationships. Retrieved from www.conversationanalysis.org/trajectories-of-love-embodied-negotiations-over-physical-togetherness-in-romantic-relationships/
Katila, J. & Philipsen, J. S. (2019). The intercorporeality of closing a curtain: Sharing similar past experiences in interaction. (2–3), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19030.kat
Kearney, R. (2021). Touch: Recovering Our Most Vital Sense. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/kear19952
Keewallik, L. (2020). When a dance hold becomes illegitimate. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (eds), Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language, and Body (pp. 124–149). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003026631-6
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behaviour in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knudsen, B. T. & C. Stage (2015). Introduction: Affective methodologies. In T. Knudsen & C. Stage (eds), Affective Methodologies: Developing Cultural Research Strategies for the Study of Affect (pp. 1–22). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137483195_1
Koole, T. (2007). Parallel activities in the classroom. Language and Education, 21(6), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.2167/le713.0
Ladd, G. W., Buhs, E. S. & Seid, M. (2000). Children’s initial sentiments about kindergarten: Is school liking an antecedent of early classroom participation and achievement? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 255–279.
Malinowski, B. (1936). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & & I. A. Richards (eds), The meaning of leaning (pp. 296–336). London: Kegan Paul.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Signs. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Montagu, A. (1971). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Columbia University Press.
Niemi, K. (2021). The best guess for the future? Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1816371
Niemi, K. & Katila, J. (2022). Embodied and affective negotiation over spatial and epistemic group territories among schoolchildren: (Re)producing moral orders in open learning environments. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.009
Paterson, M. (2005). Affecting touch: Towards a felt phenomenology of therapeutic touch. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi & M. Smith (eds), Emotional Geographies (pp. 161–176). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Peräkylä, A. I., Voutilainen, L., Stevanovic, M. A, Henttonen, P., Kahri, M., Kivioja, M., Koskinen, E., Sams, M. & Ravaja, N. (2021). Emotion, psychopsysiology and intersubjectivity. In Lindström, J. et al. (eds), Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction (pp. 303–327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Routarinne, S., Heinonen, P., Karvonen, U., Tainio, L. & Ahlholm, M. (2020). Touch in achieving a pedagogically relevant focus in classrooms. Social Interaction, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120281
Sparks, J. (1967). Allogrooming in primates: A review. In D. Morris. (ed.), Primate Ethology (pp. 148–175). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127392-4
Streeck, J. (2018). Times of rest: Temporalities of some communicative postures. In A. Deppermann & J. Streeck (eds), Time in Embodied Interaction Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources (pp. 325–350). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.10str
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suvilehto J. T, Glerean E., Dunbar R. I. M., Hari R. &, Nummenmaa L. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand. New York: William Morrow.
TENK (2019). The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland. Helsinki: TENK.
Tolonen, T. R. (1999). Hiljainen poika ja äänekäs tyttö?: ääni, sukupuoli ja sosiaalisuus koulussa. In T. Tolonen (ed.), Suomalainen koulu ja kulttuuri (pp. 52–77). Tampere: Vastapaino.
Wedelstaedt, U. V. & Meyer, C. (2017). Intercorporeality and interkinesthetic gestalts in handball. In C. Meyer & U. V. Wedelstaedt (eds), Moving Bodies in Interaction – Interacting Bodies in Motion: Intercorporeality, Interkinaesthesia, and Enaction in Sports (pp. 98–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.8.03vwe
Wells, A., Jackson, M. & Benade, L. (2018). Modern learning environments: Embodiment of a disjunctive encounter. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (eds), Transforming Education: Design, Technology, Government (pp. 3–17). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_1
West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, 23(1), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208326529
Wood, A. (2018). Selling new learning spaces flexibly anything for the 21st century. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (eds), Transforming Education: Design, Technology, Government (pp. 95–106). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_6
Yeoman, P. (2018). The material correspondence of learning. In R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (eds), Spaces of Teaching and Learning: Integrating Perspectives on Research and Practice. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7155-3_6
