The events of 11 September 2001 and subsequent terrorist acts - the bombings in Bali and Madrid, the countless examples of destruction from Palestine, Israel, Iraq - have created a climate where violence and atrocity is a regular part of the daily news. These activities have tended to polarise emotional responses to terrorism and violence. What one individual sees as an unspeakable atrocity is another's jihad; what one sees as a just war, another believes to be brutality and repression.
Not everyone considered the attack on the twin towers a disaster, and the television images of celebrations in the streets in some parts of the world are a stark reminder of the divided world in which we live.
Furthermore, violence and aggression are often seen as intrinsic elements of the male psyche. The media present innumerable models of male behaviour in which strength and violence are inextricable linked.
Many practitioners have felt very confused in their own thinking. In those circumstances, it is difficult enough to articulate adult responses to the complex issues involved. It is even harder to consider events from the child's perspective.
It is all too easy to think that the extremes of terrorism we see reported from other places won't happen here in England, but we have already dealt with atrocities in Manchester, London and other cities in the past and it would appear that the chances of further violent acts are ever present and potentially imminent. If we can't sort out our own responses, feelings and emotions, then dealing with those of parents and children (as well, perhaps, as those of our colleagues) becomes even more problematic.
Most children adopt the views and imitate the attitudes of those closest to them. This unsophisticated acceptance means that the responses they display in the setting are derived from behaviour learnt at home - from adults and older siblings in the home, and from the television viewing and print material favoured by their own families.
These responses are inexperienced and it is sometimes difficult for the practitioner to deal with the challenges they present. But this we must do if we are to ensure that we nurture the whole child, understanding his or her individual perspectives as well as addressing collective needs.
McNaughton (2000: 181) asserts, 'Early childhood education is highly resistant to pedagogical innovation because it rests on the ethics of individualism.' How we encourage individual responses while at the same time encouraging shared values is a constant tension for those who work with children.
McNaughton goes on to suggest that we should 'move to an ethic of critical collectivism' if we are to see practice in relation to wider policies. In other words, this is not only an issue for the individual practitioner but something which is best approached through discussion with colleagues leading to the evolution of a common approach.
The next case study shows how one teacher was confronted with a post-11 September issue, posed by the play of two children.
Case study
Two children, Aisha and Harry, are setting out a town scene with wooden models, including houses, shops, a garage, cars and people. From a distance they look as if they are playing together collaboratively and amicably...
The teacher, Richard, wonders whether they are playing together or are engaged in parallel play, so he moves closer to listen. Aisha is setting up a domestic play scene, with the mother taking the children to the shops to buy various things, looking in the windows and talking about what they see.
Harry (standing beside her) is enacting a bomber ('the baddie') throwing bombs at a crowd of people standing by the bus stop. He then piles up the little wooden people on top of one another and brings a doctor and an ambulance to take them to the hospital. He stands the doctor on top of the pile of bodies to wait for the ambulance.
Neither child is impinging on the play of the other, or interrupting it.
Aisha describes her play in very domestic, familiar and sequential terms.
Harry talks in detail about the people at the bus stop and the man coming along with a bomb and throwing it at them. Richard asks Harry why he did that, and he says it is because they are 'baddies'.
When asked what was going to happen to them next, Harry said he had piled them up to go to the hospital and that there is the doctor standing on top of them waiting for the ambulance. The bomber had apparently gone away.
Support for thinking
Training to work with young children will prepare practitioners for thinking about children's gun and superhero play, but many will be unprepared for hearing young children talk about hand-grenades and introducing suicide into their play (Katch 2001: 2).
However much we've thought about it, the level of informed aggression in some children's play is disturbing and can offend many of our own personal values. Violence has always been a factor in the play of girls as well as boys, but practitioners report that the violent play of both genders seems now to be more extreme than hitherto. We have to consider how far this reflects our own limited understanding of the impact of conflict on children's development as a whole.
The violence children express can affect all our lives, and adults working within the early years need to learn how to address it. Help must be offered in a balanced way that neither over-emphasises nor ignores its effects. Some resolution of this may be available in exploration and discussion with colleagues both within and beyond the school, perhaps on a course at a local college or university (Erricker 1998).
Only by being informed in this way will practitioners be able to respond to children's experiences in order to ensure that:
* value is given to the well-being, security and sense of self worth of all children (Mollie 2001).
* a secure environment is provided in which the children can play and discuss their thoughts and actions.
* the source and motivation of children's play representations are understood by all staff.
* children understand that they are entitled to express and talk about their feelings and their awareness of things that concern them.
* children feel safe, supported and are confident that their opinions are considered.
* our reactions enhance and enrich rather than inhibit the play of children.
* children are empowered, not ignored.
* children are not failed.
* staff understand the basis of their play representations.
* children can exercise their entitlement to express their feelings and their developing awareness of societal issues.
* children feel safe and their opinions are considered.
* adults act as guardians of children's emotional development and emotional states.
Supporting practice
Richard took the opportunity to observe, reflect upon and evaluate (Broadhead 2004) the ways in which he addresses his own concerns about violence. He also:
* made a brief reference during talk-time to Aisha's and Harry's play, offering Harry an opportunity to talk with the wider group of children.
* thought carefully about his own reactions to Aisha's and Harry's play.
* planned to discuss Harry's play and his own feelings about it with colleagues at a staff meeting (Arnot et al 1999).
* made a note to remind himself and his immediate colleagues that it may be as well to observe Harry's play expressions over the next few weeks and, if relevant, to discuss anything necessary with his parents; for example, is Harry becoming obsessed with the violent images he apparently sees outside the nursery?
* explored further evidence of the ways in which observing violence can influence children's development (Edleson 1999), in order to be more fully informed about the most appropriate ways to deal with Harry and children showing similar behaviours.
(See www.ag.uiuc.edu/disaster/ teacher/floodbib.html and numerous other linked websites for additional information and practical suggestions for working with young children.) As a thinking practitioner, Richard also spent much time in identifying other incidents involving different children he had witnessed (and ignored) over the previous few weeks. He resolved to be more alert to potential violent acts being played out by children. He is keeping a notebook to jot down the particular incidents, but also to record his own immediate and later reactions to what he observes. For example, how much domination of play by boys such as Harry is really happening? Does this only happen when certain resources are made available? NW This is an edited version of Focus Four from Images of Violence by Sian Adams and Janet Moyles
