POST-COLONIAL LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN EDU32PLC Lecture 19: SOME CONCLUSIONS © La Trobe University, David Beagley 2006

Reference Nodelman, P. (1992) The Other: Orientalism, Colonialism, and Children’s Literature. Children’s Literature Association Quarterly 17 (1) Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books

The colonization of childhood Colonialism : Imperialism, control/authority over one culture/society by another. Implied superiority of colonial power, and consequent inferiority of colonised Orientalism : The definition by Europeans of a cultural group (e.g. Arabs & Asians) as non- European and, therefore, inferior Nodelman’s thesis – the language and assumptions in the discourse on child development and, therefore, children’s literature mirrors Said’s description of Orientalism

Consider : “Children are not the ones who write either the texts we identify as children’s literature or the criticisms of those texts.” (p.29) “… our attempting to speak for and about children in these ways will always confirm their difference from, and presumably, inferiority to, ourselves as thinkers and speakers.” (p.29) We define children as: Innocent Less developed Unable to reason as deeply Ideally passive and receptive to guidance Intuitive rather than rational, creative rather than practical Potentially able to reach our standards, but only on our terms

Consider : “… child psychology and children's literature are primarily for the benefit of adults. … we write books for children to provide them with values and with images of themselves we approve of or feel comfortable with.” (p.30) Childhood is a state of otherness that is inherently adult- centred – we encourage in children those values and behaviours that make children easier for us to handle. If a child steps outside those boundaries, we label them as deficient, abnormal, disobedient. Childhood is dangerous for adults – “childlike irrationality, lawlessness or carelessness is attractively lax, a temptation to be less responsible, less mature, less adult.” (p. 31) Therefore we must train it out of children for their, and our, good. We must not “go native”.

Consider : “We show children what we know about childhood in hopes that they will take our word for it and become like the fictional children we have invented – and, therefore, less threatening to us. … we provide young readers with a ‘realistic’ description of people and events that insist on the reality of one particular way of looking at the world and themselves – our way.” (p.32) So, how does this interpret: Changes of behaviour in Marty and Mei Ling, or Fang Fang ? Social consciousness in Deadly, Unna? or China Coin ? Moral judgements in Burnt Stick or Beat of the Drum ? Growth of personal awareness in Girragundji or Kim ?

Consider : “… those members of oppressed minorities who are most adamant about their own need for freedom from oppression are often among those who are most vociferous about controlling the image of the world presented in children’s literature, trying to ensure that all children adopt their own correct attitudes.” (p.33) How do we deal with the inherent contradiction in our beliefs that good children’s literature must treasure the wonder, creativity and spontaneity of childhood, but must also confirm adult ethical concerns?

Dealing with the contradiction Consider: The audience The author The issue The quality of the literature The capacity for misinterpretation The right of the child to choose