Mathilde Lévêque
Professor of Literature - Children's Literature
Université Sorbonne Paris Nord
Member of the Pléiade Research Team
Translation of the French blog Colloque enfantiste – Le magasin des enfants (hypotheses.org), proofread and edited by Tanu Biswas, John Wall and Mathilde Lévêque
On October 3 and 4, 2024, I participated in an international conference on misopedia, organized at the University of Limoges by Cécile Kovacshazy, a fellow comparative literature scholar. I would like to share here my impressions and some ideas, particularly about what this conference brings to my reflection on childism.
This conference was a first in many respects, primarily because never before had an interdisciplinary scientific event taken place at a French university on this subject, which is new and innovative (and perhaps also unsettling, like many new things). The novelty for me was also participating in the first childist conference, and at the end of these two days, I felt the need to revisit a post I had written in 2022, when I first heard about "Childism" as a new concept, new paradigm, new critical theory.
Enfantisme, a possible French translation of the English term "childism," is a critical theory that emerged in the 2000s within the field of social sciences, particularly in "Childhood studies." In order to better understand it, a comparison is often made with feminism, anti-racism, or decolonialism: it is indeed about fighting against prejudices, stereotypes, and all forms of discrimination that children and adolescents suffer from. Childism, as a current of thought and research, places children and their experiences at the center of reflection, with the aim of transforming social structures and norms. In this movement, sometimes seen as part of radical research, childism is examined in relation to adultism, which refers to the domination exercised by adults over children and adolescents (all individuals classified as "minors"), precisely because they are children and adolescents, individuals deemed inferior due to their age. An example of a claim is the right to vote, a topic to which Clémentine Beauvais has just dedicated an essay. We also sometimes talk about ageism, even though the term is often used to refer to "old age" and (very) elderly people. Laelia Benoît, in a recent essay published by Seuil, proposes the term "infantisme" from a different perspective. Indeed, according to Laelia Benoît, the English term "Childism" carries an ambiguity, referring to the critical theory that challenges stereotypes as well as the entire set of stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminations associated with being a minor. This concerns the theory developed by the American psychoanalyst Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. Building on this approach, Laelia Benoît suggests, in light of infantilism, another French term, “infantisme,” to designate this phenomenon of discrimination (like the term “adultism,” “infantisme” is comparable to racism or sexism).
In October 2024, a conference on childism (enfantisme) and, moreover, a childist conference, was possible. Cécile Kovacshazy has achieved the feat of bringing together specialists from different fields, whether or not they hold an academic label, including researchers, activists, field workers, and artists. Interdisciplinarity is a convenient term that the university institution frequently uses, but which unfortunately often remains an ineffective, hollow, or disappointing approach. Such was not the case in this conference, as the dialogue and coherence were immediately remarkable, spanning philosophy, psychology, anthropology, social sciences, education sciences, literature, psychiatry, law, and even economics and management. It seems significant to me that the chosen subject precisely allows for dialogue between disciplines, as breaking down barriers is necessary, even essential and fundamental, for anyone interested in childism.
Childism indeed implies an awareness, a radical shift in perspective, a questioning that also entails – something that may sometimes be difficult to accept among academics – an intellectual discomfort that must be embraced, in order to ask questions that can only be answered by learning from others and listening to others. The proximity of childism to feminism, anti-racism, decolonialism, or anti-speciesism also implies this necessary openness. Another great satisfaction of this conference for me was meeting people whose work I had read but had never met, and getting to know other individuals, other works, and other ideas. A conference thus fully takes on its meaning.
I was more surprised – pleasantly – by the overall atmosphere of the conference: several people knew each other, particularly due to their involvement (the conference was organized in partnership with OVEO - The Observatory of Common Educational Violence), while others were more isolated – like me – but right from the start, I felt an extraordinary kindness in the exchanges. Conferences are often a place of domination, power, and career dynamics, where a form of academic violence can be exercised, even if concealed. But once again, it is the very subject of the conference that, in my opinion, allowed for the immediate creation of a safe space: studying and analyzing adult domination is only possible by eliminating, as much as possible, all other forms of domination. A question of coherence but, above all, of commitment. Another point of coherence is that very young children were also present at several moments of the conference – and everything went very well. I found it extraordinary to witness the dynamics of a group in action, to see its forms shift, and to observe its strength grow. A second edition of this conference is already planned for next year, in 2025.
In 2022, when I was writing my first post on childism, I wondered if, in my practice as a researcher, I was a childist. My response was then reserved. Since then, I have read and reflected, particularly on a problem that, in my opinion, arises in children's literature and research in this field. The study of children's literature, particularly from an academic perspective, has been built on the analysis of texts, images, and discourses, using tools borrowed from literary, semiotic, and historical studies, among others, in a process of legitimization. If children's literature has found its place in the academic field, and if this legitimization is, in my opinion, largely achieved, it also seems to me that it may have come at the expense of a deeper reflection on childhood, which, paradoxically, has been somewhat sidelined. Except for reception studies (which one might question as being somewhat childist), children and adolescents are rarely taken into account by researchers in children's literature.
What interests me is choosing the critical perspective of childism to better understand childhood and children in the books intended for them. Indeed, children's literature, by definition and from its origins, is based on a connection between learning and entertainment, and it is also asymmetrical, written, designed, distributed, prescribed, etc., by adults for children. These two fundamental characteristics lead, in my opinion, to processes of domination that, it seems to me, are hardly ever taken into account in research, or very rarely.
Preparing my presentation for this conference, just like writing a chapter for an upcoming book edited by Virginie Tellier and Pierre-Louis Fort (CY Paris University), has been an opportunity for me to untangle the very tangled threads of a reflection that began several years ago, to better identify its pitfalls, to open up other questions, and to also come to some sort of agreement with myself, as a researcher, as a teacher, and perhaps also as a person. I had already had the opportunity to express this for my habilitation to supervise research in 2020: working on children's literature must lead one to question childhood, but also, to some extent, one's own relationship to childhood and one's own childhood, as well as one's status as an adult in relation to children, whether real (whom we encounter in "real" life) or imaginary (whom we meet in fiction). In 2024, my position has therefore evolved significantly compared to the one expressed in 2022.
I would say today that, even if I am not an activist, I feel more legitimate in calling myself a childist researcher, who questions her research subjects differently and wonders how to create new modes of research, with and for children. At my university, for the first time, I am offering a research seminar for master's students on childism and children's literature: I will see where the students lead me, the experience is new for me as well, and on what we will produce collectively.
On October 3rd and 4th, thanks to this conference on childism, it is now also possible to define more clearly what a childist conference can be, namely:
to propose interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary and intersectional approaches
to create a safe space for individuals, both from a physical and an intellectual perspective (if we can indeed consider them separately) open research to field actors, activists, artists
invent new mixed communication modes, between scientific presentations and artistic performances
to accept the discomfort of being confronted with different viewpoints,
to be open to awareness, and not to remain entrenched in one's search or positions.
to plan vegetarian and vegan meals (childism is not only close to feminism but also to animalism and anti-speciesism)
welcoming young people – on this point, we should further reflect on the conditions of reception, in terms of space (a university lecture hall is not a particularly conducive environment) and timing (are the speaking times too long or too short, should we allocate more collective discussion time, or include more breaks?). In reality, reflecting on hosting young people can help create better working and exchange conditions for everyone, in order to mitigate the effects of age as much as possible, but also of class (in the broad sense, I think of those who presented themselves in discussions as "I am nothing" (!), implying that they do not have a university degree), not to mention the effects of ableism. Reflecting on a child-friendly welcome is undoubtedly one of the keys to genuine "inclusion."
If this conference is foundational due to the theme it addresses and the research that has been gathered, as well as the research that will emerge, I believe it is also foundational for the necessity, imposed by the theme, to reflect on decidedly child-centered research methods, and not just when working on childhood. Being a childist researcher also means learning to organize childist conferences, without necessarily establishing a connection between this perspective, which is as much a stance as it is a reflection and a commitment, and a specific theme. Of course, it is more convenient, at first, to organize child-centered conferences (or any other scientific event) related to childhood, but one could certainly envision childist conferences on other themes. This approach does not involve, it is important to be cautious, depriving children of themes that are their own, nor adopting an adultist position: the risk would indeed be to conceive a childist conference without any connection to childhood.
That is not my point: on the contrary, it is about not systematically linking a childist conference to a theme that is immediately associated with Childhood Studies (including children's literature) – which would imply that there are themes specific to childist conferences and others that are not. Instead of separating children and isolating them in spaces designated for them – which is already the case in our social organization – it would be appropriate to view children as potential participants in all types of scientific events, just like anyone else, reversing their marginalization by opening up research spaces that concern them, certainly, but also those that seem less directly related to them. Everything, indeed, in research concerns children, just as research concerns every individual, regardless of age.
Being a childist researcher also means considering profound transformations in one's research practices and in the ways of communicating with others, as the collective is equally essential: such an endeavor cannot be done alone. Yes, it is necessary to commit to it together, also because it is threatened, challenged, criticized, and disparaged. Challenging norms is not an easy task, in academia or elsewhere, but being a childist researcher implies participating in these upheavals and building new forms of research and perhaps also teaching, as transmission is equally crucial.
Acknowledgements:
A huge thank you to Cécile Kovacshazy for her invitation, for having the courage and determination to organize this conference, and thanks also to her students for their involvement in its organization, their availability, and their enthusiasm. Thank you finally to Tanu Biswas for giving me the idea to write this post and thank you to Cécile Boulaire for her careful proofreading of the French original.
Comments