Early parenting and the urban experience: risk, community, play and embodiment in an East London neighbourhood.

Deborah TalbotLecturer in CriminologyDepartment of Social Policy and CriminologyFaculty of Social SciencesOpen UniversityMilton KeynesMK7 6AA

deborah.talbot@open.ac.uk

Early parenting and the urban experience: risk, community, play and embodiment in an East London neighbourhood.

This article will critically examine theories of risk - referred to in this article as 'pro-risk' - as applied toparenting cultures in the UK through a case study of early years parenting, based in Walhamstow, East London. Common to all of these theories is an assertion that children are over-parented - a product of economic, social and cultural changes such as the decline of community as well as theories of child-centred parenting.Through the close examination of two examples where risk and community were contested, the article will argue thatmissing from these theories is an understanding of the embodiments of early years parenting, which underpin the way that parents handle the tensions between risk and development. Further, that parents sought to militate against isolation and the decline of community through local parenting networks.

Keywords: parenting, risk, embodiment, play, parenting networks

Introduction

I was talking to a local expert on risky play, and he mentioned an issue that particularly exercised him...parents who put kneepads on their children. He seemed angry. "Why", I asked? He engaged in a lengthy explanation of the relationship between risk-taking and development, and how parents were restricting their children's ability to grow. I must have had a look of doubt on my face because he asked "wouldn't you feel the

2

need to say something if you saw that?" "No", I said, "Maybe they have a child who falls over a lot". I was recalling a friend of mine whose son walked at 8 months but consequently fell over a lot. I also thought about myown daughter, who developed an obsession with her knee after an injury that went on for several months. If I hadbeen slightly less lazy, or more organised, might I have bought kneepads? Possibly. I've probably already done worse.

One of the rules of parenting seemingly, in Walthamstow at least, was not to criticise other parents for their parenting abilities. I've noted that haunted look that arises on peoples face when you do, even if accidentally - the unspoken guilt reflex. I didn't say anything about my thoughts, being in the throws of it myself ("am I responsible for my child's obsession?"). I thought thoughabout the massive gulf of understanding between the subjectivities of mothering and expert ideological opinion (Edwards and Ribbens 1998); in particular, how mother's 'folklore' about their children's biological temperaments and indeed many aspects of their parenting (Ribbens 1998), are neglected in universalistic accounts of parenting practice (Hardyment 1995). This had particularly alerted my attention because I had myself a 'sensitive' or 'high needs' child (Kurcinka 2006), a condition of 'biological' temperament and something rarely understood by other parents until they have one. In retrospect, however, I had read one response (mine, asa mother) as emotional and the other (the expert) as rational, whereas I equally might have asked, had I not been in the guilt grip, "why are you so upset about kneepads?" As Rachael Cusk (2001) argues, attitudes to parenting are so personal, that assembling a universally valid perspective is fraught with difficulties. That doesn't make them any less interesting.

This article has emerged from that moment, and attempts to highlight some of the forgotten complexities of the parenting relationship, neglected by pro-risk theorists. In particular, it attempts to bring to the fore how children's embodiments - meaning in this article how

3

their biological and developmental worlds, situated in particular contexts, influences parenting practices and attitudes. This will be explored through two examples from a case study in Walthamstow, East London: firstly, what debates emerged when a local playground was redesigned to encourage 'risky' play, and secondly, how parents sought to overcome an absence of community - an assumption that underpins pro-risk theories - through parenting networks and how those networks were influencedby issues of embodiment.

Theories of risk, embodiment and the geography of parenting

Pro-risk theories of parenting veer between a critique ofsocio-cultural influences and a critique of parenting itself (Scott et al. 1998), with parents seemingly being viewed as absorbing parenting edicts in an uncritical way(Ribbens 1998). The rise in popularity of child-centred parenting, or ‘attachment parenting’ (Bowlby 1988) is viewed as over-deterministic and as having increased the workload of parents, creating an over-anxious guilt-ladenculture of parenting (Hardyment 1995, Furedi 2008) in which ‘moral panics abound’ (Hardyment 1995, p.298). Thisculture of ‘over-parenting’ is particularly damaging for women and has implications for equality, argues Warner (2006) and Asher (2011). Pro-risk theories also point to key economic, social and cultural changes however and arepart of a broader sociological perspective on risk and fear (for example Beck 1992, Rose 1999, Young 2007). The media is a key component that amplifies guilt and risks (Warner 2006) but more important, according to Furedi, isthe ‘breakdown of adult solidarity’ (2008, p.31), which has left parents mistrustful of others and on the look out for potential paedophiles. More broadly there is a lack of social and community support in which mothers in particular are prone to anxiety (Warner 2006). Parents donot abandon the search for community, however, but early research suggested that they interpreted this as a searchfor an idealised rural community (Valentine 1997a). The search for community and safety might also explain the confluence between the concepts of ‘urban villages’ and

4

‘nappy valleys’ with their copious cafes, bars, organic baby shops, yummy mummies and Bugaboos (a popular designer pushchair). However, the centrality of family life to urban villages has been underexplored in criticalaccounts of the concept (Fainstein 2000, Biddulph 2003, Bell and Jayne 2004) with one exception being Low’s account of gated communities in the States (Low 2003).

Over-parenting is also viewed as damaging for children asthere is seen to be a diminishing amount of unsupervised and unstructured play (Hardyment 1995, Furedi 2008, Valentine 2004, Guldburg 2009). Gill (2007) and Guldburg (2009) point out that over-parenting and the nature of permissible play in the contemporary UK leads to an absence of physical risk-taking and a loss of connection to the natural environment, restricting in turn the development of imaginative and fantasy-driven play and therefore adult creativity (Honoré 2009). Research has shown that children prefer less structured play, and openspaces to structured ones (Ward 1978, Sibley 1991, Jones 2000) and further research has found that children feel confident about their ability to negotiate danger, in contrast to their parents concerns (Valentine 1997b). This thinking has been reflected in various nursery and school experiments - such as Forest Schools - in which there has been a growing interest but is by no means universal (Honoré 2009). Gill (2007) adopts a different slant on the importance of risk, in that allowing children to roam freely allows them to develop a sense ofdanger and risk avoidance themselves: playground design needs to reflect this by eliminating fences and rubber flooring.

Hardyment, even writing in the early ‘90’s concluded thatthere had at that time been a rebalancing of the debate with the idea of ‘good enough parenting’ (p.300) rather than perfect parenting, with books that offer practical advice not exhortation. However, Warner (2009), writing as a consequence of personal encounters with the reality of childcare and told through the stories of her interviewees, points to a society that is still over-anxious, over-parented and risk-adverse, with deleterious

5

consequences for parents and children. Yet policy is drifting towards a more anti-regulatory approach in the UK with the election of the coalition, the consequences being that on the one hand New Labour’s emphasis on universal risk prevention in early childhood has been drawn back with cuts in spending on Sure Start Centres (Kraftl et al. 2012) and on the other 'government' has shown policy interest in rethinking the nature of play and risk (Gill 2011).

This article will argue that ‘pro-risk’ perspectives ignore some of the complexities of parenting, particularly within urban contexts. Firstly, there appears to be a focus on certain kinds of risk-avoidance over others; emphasing such behaviours in playgrounds whilst failing to distinguish between different kinds of risk. Some risks parents would like to avoid, such as poverty, social exclusion (Pain 2004) and violence. The urban environment offers risk-taking that is physical, emotional and imaginative (Jacobs 1961). Pro-risk theorists correlate physical risk-taking with the potential for creativity and free-thinking; yet the relationship has not been researched causally outside of anthropological studies of tribes (Liedloff 1975). Parents might well be taking risks, just not the ones pro-risk theorists have in mind.

Secondly, pro-risk theories imagine a ‘golden’ age of unsupervised play in comparison to today, which as Guldburg (2009) herself points out is difficult to sustain given the quality and breadth of children’s livesand experiences. Valentine (2004) observed that parent’s own accounts reflected the idea of a golden age of unsupervised play from their own childhoods (which might indicate a widely shared romantic version of the past andthat they were concerned with their children's freedom).

Thirdly, and importantly, the theories do not take account of how children's embodiments shape parental reactions; indeed the concept of embodiment has been underexplored in research on children and parenting (Colls & Hörschelmann 2009) despite the important

6

implications the concept has for notions of equality and in policy (Rossi 1977, Doucet 2009).

Lastly, theories concerned with parenting and risk-avoidance over-emphasise fear of strangers and community breakdown. Whilst again this analyses one tendency, thereare contrary ones. Research so far has suggested that there are manifold ways in which parents seek ‘community’, including online communities (Madge & O’Connor 2006, Gambles 2010) although there are ambiguities within these aspirations. Holloway (1998) studied the development of informal networks between mothers although these tended to be in the more affluent of the two areas she researched. Jupp’s (2012) research on Sure Start Children’s Centres employed Bowlby et al’s (2010) notion of ‘caringscape’ to illustrate the importance of parental friendship networks to these spaces. The Centres were a key part of developing and maintaining friendships; however there were also marked by forms of exclusion. This illustrates of course some ofthe dilemmas involved in the search for ‘community’.

Geography matters (Kraftl et al. 2012) in understanding the relationship between risk and parenting. Holloway’s (1998) research emphasized that the nature of such interrelationships – in her research friendships networksand how they influenced attitudes to parenting, and the kinds of childcare assistance available - amounted to a ‘moral geography’ (1998, p.51) of parenting. Situating research in time and space, rather than in universalisticaccounts of a cultural drift, allows for a more complicated understanding of the role of risk and community in the lives of parenting, and the subtle influences of children's embodiments in attitudes and patterns of networking.

Case study

Walthamstow is a traditionally white, working class area of the East End of London, with small pockets of affluence and deprivation. It has been increasingly home to a boosterist culture of arts and crafts, initially

7

centred around the 'Village'. The Village is an area in Central Walthamstow, one of four 11th Century village settlements in the area and the only one that remains. Itis home to more long-standing 'middle-class' amenities, housing a range of cafes, pubs, an antique shop and an artisan shop. It has a large health centre, a daily playgroup at the Toy Library, and a highly rated primary school. House prices are higher here, although they are also rapidly rising in the Lloyd Park area, particularly the Warner flats (an early experiment in social housing).

There have been increasing attempts however to disperse culture around the area, with an indoor market and independent cafes opening in Wood St, the Cotton Mill in Coppermill Lane, the multi-million pound renovation of the William Morris Gallery and Lloyd Park, and the makeover of local pubs. It has over the last five years been subject to a baby boom, the most visible cause beingincreasing numbers of the cultural and other middle-classes moving from Crouch End, Stoke Newington and otherrecognizable gentrified areas within London seeking to take advantage of cheap Victorian houses and purpose built flats. Bugaboos (see above) are increasing in number, yet consumption opportunities (cafes, baby shops,and so on) are as yet few, and there is pressure on childcare and primary school places. Online communities are proliferating in number.

The character of Walthamstow is still influenced by working-class respectability; its emphasis on crafts, self-education, community support and the legacy of William Morris that still inspires all reflect this. The only class position that emerged consistently in the research was a distinction between respectable and unrespectable, responsible and irresponsible, socially orientated and criminal, and comments about child neglectthe only criticism of parenting to consistently emerge (Young 2007). Ribbens (1998) notes that attempts have been made to map parenting attitudes and practices onto class; however she felt they did not convince. First, because the emotions of mothering cut across class. Second, that personal history is complicated; true for

8

Ribben's but also for this author, who has a professionalstatus that was neither inherited nor long-standing. Lastly, class does not convey a sense of superiority in parenting practice - sometimes the opposite. The subjectsof this research have equally complicated histories, and by no means all have a current (or past) professional status.

The research presented in this paper was an ethnographic study conducted over a period of, at the time of writing,two years and mainly in the Village and Lloyd Park areas of Walthamstow. The rationale for choosing these locations was convenience and illustrates the importance of embodiments; part of achieving access to places and people was that I would be going as a ‘mother’, but, witha child who would not tolerate prams, I had to find areasaccessible by foot or by bus. The research involved attending two to three playgroups per week, a similar number of trips to various play areas and parks, a seriesof in-depth conversations with many parents (mothers mainly but not exclusively), and in-depth coverage of some key debates occurring locally. This was recorded in field notes. The research was almost exclusively conducted amongst parents on the under 5s. I also was active in several online local Facebook groups concerned with parenting issues as well as setting up my own independent blogging and forum site. My own blogs were commentaries and observations informed by sociology and literature, rather than taking an overt political stance,but were nevertheless seen as slightly challenging by some local community activists.

There has been much discussion on the problems of ‘insider research’ particularly with regard to validity (Kvale 1995) and one can assume that this will continue particularly with emerging strategies of 'public engagement' in academia. However, pragmatic (Becker 1967)and postmodern traditions have challenged claims to objectivity and discussed the myriad of ways that partisanship can enhance research and scholarship, if those perspectives are made visible (Hammersley 2000). Further, questions have been asked about the removal of

9

self (biography, ideas and emotions) from participants inethnographic research and writing (Coffee 2002). This research is parent-centred, for the reasons outlined in the introduction to this article. This perspective has influenced the direction research has taken but the analysis of the data was coded to ensure consistent and repeated themes emerged.

Parenting and thinking/writing involve radically different subjectivities, as Cusk (2001) argues, one requiring a subjugated emotional immersion and the other detachment (Edwards and Ribbens 1998). I have sought to hold on to these contradictions. Much of the discourse issummarised in this article for the sake of brevity; whereI have conveyed observations, they are ones shared by thesubjects of this research. In this research I adopted thestance of 'overt insider' (Bulmer cited in Brewer 2000, p.98) and for ethical reasons individuals, groups and website names (excepting my own) have been given pseudonyms in this research. Areas and places have not because on the one hand they are easily identifiable and on the other are not made vulnerable by the research (Talbot 2007).

The examples I have outlined in this paper are, in my view, where theories of risk-avoidant parenting collided with the everyday realities of embodied parenting in an urban context. The first example explores debates about risky play in the building and operation of a playground in Lloyd Park. The second example concerns the struggle for community amongst parents and the contradictions thatoccur within this.

Risky play and park life

During the period of this research Lloyd Park underwent a£6.7 makeover funded by the National Lottery and Waltham Forest Council. Most of this money was channeled towards the renovation of the William Morris Gallery, but £1.6m went towards the park and its total redesign with a fairly small £150,000 dedicated to the playground.

10

The play area was designed in consultation between a local play expert – John Jameson – a resident who offeredhis services for free, parents from the Friends of Lloyd Park (FOLP) and Waltham Forest Council (WFC), with architects working up the final design. Its design was underpinned by the idea of risky play embedded in a natural environment. As FOLP put it in relation to the Lloyd Park play and wetland areas: ‘It is felt that children these days are not subject to sufficient risk and they no longer realise dangers and they need to learnwhat is dangerous at an early age.’ (Email 14th May 2012).There was no rubber flooring or fences around the playground. The equipment was sparse and consisted of a wooden climbing frame, various non-traditional swings, a sand pit and two slides. It catered for three different age groups and, whilst spatially separate, in practice there was more intermingling with toddlers using the skateboard park and older children using the water features. Large areas were covered by tarmac or planting.The playground challenged the notion that contemporary governance is anti-risk and indeed demonstrates the critical influence of ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘experts’ in influencing policy (Fleming 2004) and a reshaping of (at least) local governance towards the idea of physical risktaking. Influential in this also was the Lloyd Park Children’s Centre, who had advocated unsupervised and risky play for many years and is a good example of the influence of local systems of childcare described by Holloway’s (1998) research.

The new playground provoked a critical row amongst local parents, expressed mainly on the three networking sites noted in the methods section, and in particular the Facebook based Lloyd Park Group (LPG) and Walthamstow Parents Online (WPO). There were two phases to these debates, one which tackled the idea of risky-ness, the second where the resulting debate had seemingly politicised some local parenting networks. Contrary to the perception of a parenting culture obsessed by fear ofstrangers and paedophilia, not once were these issues mentioned.

11

In the case of the first phase, frequent discussions emerged in the locality that play ‘experts’ did not take account of differences between children in terms of personality and behaviours in removing fencing. Parents noted that some children were “bolters’ and were inclinedto run at great distance from their parents. This was also viewed as developmentally related. Jameson’s research and ideas applied to the over 5s, and parents questioned the idea that such ideas should influence a playground where day to day needs were dictated by toddlers. Second, parents noted that having two or more children compounded this problem. Far from offering opportunities for unsupervised play, some parents argued that in fact they would have to supervise children more closely. Contrary to the claims made by Furedi that society is culturally over-deterministic, parents in factseemed to be highlighting the need to take into account the embodiments of children.

Parents also noted that the new playground, with its large open spaces and a lack of fencing, meant that they could not use the time to rest and chat to other parents.Playgrounds and playgroups were felt to be social spaces that offered opportunities for social interaction, impossible if one was constantly chasing after children because of the absence of fencing. Some online comments and park-based discussions were critical of these views. It is interesting that in this instance it was those parents who advocated fences that were most interested inunsupervised play whereas pro-risk theories correlate thetwo.

As the playground opened the debate evolved further. The consultant advising on the design of the park was an enthusiastic advocate of nature – beaches, woods and so on – being a more stimulating play environment than “KFC”playgrounds - those packed with equipment. To ask how much equipment would be in a playground, he argued, was to “ask the wrong question” (FOLP meeting 2/12/12). Some parents questioned this approach however and as one put it “why do we need a playground that replicates nature inthe middle of a park?” This approach does raise

12

interesting questions about the relationship between rural and urban contexts and indeed about the perceived diminished value of urban contexts in providing stimulation for children (Jacobs 1961).

The second debate related to experience. While the park was closed for renovation a ‘natural play’ area in the form of carved logs was created in Aveling Fields, which proved popular. This also had no fencing although had soft grass underneath should children fall. In the year that this play area was in operation, there was a myriad of local conflicts about its use. Designed for children, it became a site for multiple use including dog walkers, drinkers and teenagers. While tolerated, parents did complain about broken bottles, cigarette butts and dangerous dogs off-lead. One parent witnessed a drug dealthere while children were playing nearby. The area was rarely policed and it took a sustained campaign for the Council to send a sweeper in to collect the broken glass and cigarette butts every morning. This reflected a localpreoccupation with problematised populations as noted earlier; however parents still used the area which seemedto suggest parents did not avoid perceived risks.

The final issue related to democracy. The row about the play area was also fuelled by the consultation process and implementation, which had been opaque. As outlined, it had been influenced in its early stages by a small group of people in consultation with the Council. However, neither residents nor Jameson were aware of whatthe final design was (28th June 2012). Although the Council claimed that parents were involved (Email 15th May2012) it was unclear who they were. Jameson said that he didn’t remember parents being present (although was a parent himself). Possibly because of the lack of information about the changes, the fact that the play area was closed for over a year, and the radical nature of the new designs, many local parents reacted strongly and negatively to the proposals.

Moreover some parents reacted against the fronting of ‘expert opinion’ illustrating critical interrogation of

13

expert opinion as opposed to passive acceptance (Ribbens 1998). For example, Jameson, who gave a talk on play hosted by FOLP (2nd December 2012), sought to defend the play area based on pro-risk approaches. It was however poorly attended and some parents claimed they didn’t go because they felt it would be a “lecture”. One blog post written by this author reviewing the meeting (5/12/12) attracted 443 views and 51 comments, high for online debate in this locality. Some parents on all the websitesdemonstrated considerable anger at being ‘patronised’ (particularly professional or formerly professional mothers) and argued that they did not avoid risk-taking, nor did they need lectures on how to play with their children. As one post said, in response to the proposed meeting, ‘can the big man explain how our children play? Because I am just a silly mummy who has no idea what she is doing, clearly Doing it All Wrong, please correct me!’(18/9/12 LPG).

As the playground had been opened for a number of months,problems with it began to emerge. Built on the site of the former Wathamstow Marshes, but with architects arguing that drainage in the playground was not needed, the frequent rain turned the playground into pools and mud, contributing to further reluctance by parents to attend, or, as one parent put it, “sometimes you can copewith the fact they will be covered in mud, sometimes not”. However it was also the case that the playground was often empty in the winter months and this was consistent with previous years, suggesting that although parents were concerned with usability not risk questions could be asked from a pro-risk perspective as to whether parents were avoiding experiences that benefitted their children (being outdoors in all weathers and the joys of mud).

The response of systems of governance – which consisted of Waltham Forest Council, FOLP, the media, and some ‘local activists’ - to an e-petition that demanded these problems be resolved was noteworthy. Holloway (1998) noted how Labour councils struggled with incoming professional classes and this pattern seems replicated

14

here. One council official argued that parents did not understand the ‘play value’ of the site (WPO 23/9/2012) and indeed Jameson’s talk was an attempt to explain to parents how to use the playground. A local activist and frequent critic of parents protesting against policy responded to online critical comments with a proposition that “The playground is for everyone - not just those of us well-resourced enough to make a lot of noise online” (WPO 19/12/12). The Chair of FOLP expressed the view that“we feel the parents’ views are not representative of everyone” and a Councillor added that "The council sharesin the disappointment of the Friends of Lloyd Park and other local people that such negative views are being expressed about what is a real asset to the local community” (Waltham Forest Guardian 20/12/12). One parentcritic replied, “So the Council and FOLP and other residents are also disappointed that some users are... disappointed.... in the play area? The expression "Diddums" springs to mind” (WFG 22/12/12). The discourse as it emerged pitted the ‘silent’ and ‘unrepresented’ majority against well-resourced and organised middle-class parents, but possibly also represented an unease about the intrusion of the ‘middle-classes’ into local politics in the context of massive cutbacks.

The debate about the playground suggests a much more sophisticated and ambiguous response than suggested by pro-risk theorists. Rejecting the idea that they were motivated by concerns about risk (although there were in itself some ambiguities here), themes of embodiment, sociability, balancing the needs of parent against child,experience of the locality and democratic representation were all evident. What is most interesting is what the debate evolved into. Reflecting Ribbons (1998) experienceof critical engagement with parenting theories rather than passive absorption, there have been recently more debates on risky play, which reflect a critical inculcation of some of the ideas, and more political activity aimed at improving the park, including applying for neighbourhood grants and fundraising.

Parenting networks

15

In Walthamstow, along with other boroughs in London, new or expectant parents found various ways to compensate forthe lack of community and, for many, the lack of nearby grandparents, extended family or even other siblings withwhich their child could interact. What drove the search for community amongst parents were their children’s embodiments (their developmental needs) and their own needs for social support, which extended in this case beyond friendship circles.

Parents worked particularly hard at establishing parentalnetworks, interacting with other parents in private, quasi-private and public spaces (Holloway 1998, Jupp 2012). Antenatal classes, run by the NCT, then form into parenting, particularly mum, groupings well into toddlerhood and sometimes beyond. In addition, playgrounds, playgroups and even nurseries (Jupp 2012) provided the basis for friendship networks. Cafes, particularly those known to be baby friendly, both offered spaces for friendship groups to meet (particularly those with young babies who are immobile) and could facilitate parental interactions. Public spaceslike parks were important spaces for social interaction, often led by the temperaments of their children. Some parents for example pointed out that “I’m quite reserved/shy, but my child is really friendly” and that as such they had been forced out of their isolationism. Finally parents interact on national and local online forums to exchange anxieties, information, and discussion.

Being a parent is particularly striking in cities becauseit counteracts the normal discomfort of association in urban settings (Jacobs 1961). In playgroups, play areas, parks and other child-centred areas it is relatively easyto strike up conversations and, when located within a small geographical area of the ‘urban village’, may lead to formally organized play dates and adult friendships. This section will explore three examples where parents sought association but where also there were tensions around exclusions (Jupp 2012). In examining the pursuit

16

of community gender was important, as parenting ‘communities’ tended mostly to be communities of mothers (Doucet 2009) and fathers still find it very difficult tobe included.

Playgroups

Playgroups in Walthamstow are inhabited by a narrow social group of mothers and fathers whose children are not in full-time or even part-time daycare. They are for the most part dominated by the under 3s, as once a child is over 3 the parents can take advantage of 15 hours freedaycare (the age being 2 for disadvantaged parents). As one parent said “I’ve done my last playgroup…my youngest is going to pre-school and I’m done with them” before adding a triumphant smile. Having said this, on top of playgroups exist a range of private classes (ballet, music time, and so on) that pre-schoolers go to if the parents have money (a typical class costs £5, compared to£1.50-£2.50 for a playgroup). Although as correctly observed by Holloway (1998) and Jupp (2012) playgroups can be socially tense affairs where parents resist interaction, being a known ‘face’ was important for more friendly and further contact.

Playgroups often express divisions of class/status, gender, ethnicity, age, geographical location and familiarity. Two of these will be explored here. In one playgroup in ‘The Village’ known as the Toy Library (a long-standing voluntary body with various sources of funding and not dependent on state funding), the majorityof parents (mostly mothers) that were regulars were also largely the more affluent; although it was trying to diversify because of funding sources and its own objectives of being a form of social support to families.The sessions were often dominated by small groups of mothers spatially occupying key areas of the playgroup talking to each other and not interacting with others or their children. When this became the function of the playgroup, parents who were present as individuals would often in a slightly embarrassed way skirt around the non-occupied parts of the play area, not talking to anyone

17

and playing closely with their children. On other days when there were fewer core groups but individual ‘regulars’ (the Friday session being a key example), interactions between parents were more fluid and productive. The playgroup was reported to be difficult to'break in' to and could be socially off-putting (one noting, for example that “I only go if I can meet a friend there”). Given the social composition of the attendees it would be easily to describe this the exclusivity of class. However, in my own experience (and I do not present as affluent) I would argue the overriding issue was familiarity; being a ‘regular’ was critical in terms of breaking into this group. Nevertheless, being known meant a range of issues relatedto status - professional occupation, a bright, well-dressed and engaged child, social confidence and an expression of attitudes around parenting, all seemed relevant. Other issues were also important. The spatial organization of this playgroup militated against sociability - one parent said for example that there wereso many places you could lose sight of your child (insideor outside, behind pillars) it was difficult to relax. Numbers were also a factor and it was a small space. The more busy the group the more difficult it was to interact, because of noise, which suggests that spatial organisation is also important in forming parenting networks.

Another playgroup, held at the Lloyd Park Children’s Centre (LPCC), attracted a far more diverse crowd of 'hard to reach' groups, recent migrants, and those that appeared to exemplify the more affluent (the latter two groups not mutually exclusive); in other words, largely the social composition of the Lloyd Park area. Differences between these groups were more pronounced here and expressed through distinct parenting practices: rough play and unsupervised children being the main expressed complaint of some more affluent parents although they were referring to (and blaming) the ethos of the Children's Centre more than other parents. In one example a parent stood around giggling while her child pushed and hit other children and stole their toys.

18

Another father claimed the brother of a toddler encouraged him to hit his daughter. Embodiments played a role in the group also. Most children between roughly 1 and 3 were sleeping in the early afternoon (when this group was scheduled) so attendance could be complicated. Finally most playgroups have as their aim (and indeed this is the basis around which they receive funding particularly Children's Centres) to reach "at risk" groups. However this playgroup had a rather unsubtle approach to this task, which was to speak to parents withclipboards (as opposed to more subtle questioning). Some parents mentioned this unfavourably (Jupp 2012) and the group compared in attendance poorly to a nearby School based playgroup, which was very non-interventionist in its approach (but which later closed). Significantly there was no regularity of attendance. The playgroup appeared to act as a springboard neither for friendships within the group nor outside it. However, the LPCC also held special sessions called ‘singalong’, a small group led by a play leader to sing nursery songs to younger tots. For a while, partly due to the charismatic qualities of the playgroup leader, it was very popular and friendships emerged from it albeit outside of the group and in the open setting of Lloyd Park. However the class was small, intimate and with regular attendees.

Playgrounds

There were a number of playgrounds in Walthamstow, some located in parks and some isolated in built up areas. Thetwo playgrounds closely observed in this research were socially contested areas, but in an unconventional way. One was a playground situated right next to a primary school with excellent Ofsted ratings on the borders between Lloyd Park and Central Walthamstow. The playground itself was spatially small and fenced, and wasfrequently inhabited by a group of full-time mothers of the professional classes (former media, public sector managers, freelance creative) who formed a network known colloquially as the ‘Green St mums’ and who also frequented en masse the Baptist church playgroup and the local Salvation Army playgroup. Their behaviour in this

19

small space, undoubtedly done without conscious thought, was to not talk to or engage with parents they did not know, or facilitate play between their children and thoseof unknown parents, thus effectively corralling the spaceand creating reported discomfort for other parents. Again, this could be discussed in terms of status and exclusion. However, when the nearby Lloyd Park closed forrefurbishment, parents were drawn into the play area froma wider geographical area. Some newer parents made concerted but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to penetrate the Green St mums, and this was a surprise to them. Ostensibly from the same class background, they were excluded because it was an already formed friendshipcircle, and the mums had two or more children (those assailing the group only had one). The geographical distance of newcomers made friendship inconvenient given that the Green St mums inhabited Central Walthamstow (thestreets enclosed by Forest Road, Hoe St, and Palmerston Rd) and the new mums were in the Lloyd Park area. In thisit can be shown that on the one hand long-standing friendship groups are important in understanding parentalnetworks and on the other that they are also based upon the embodied realities of parenting.

Though more open geographically, Lloyd Park playground, was similarly demarcated in space and time during the summer and early autumn at least. More affluent mothers were more evident in the playground on weekdays and less so during the busy and hectic weekends, where the social composition seemed more diverse. As noted elsewhere, the playground was often empty in the winter months. So here there were some patterns of exclusivity. However, the playground and indeed Lloyd Park in general (contradicting parents views outlined in the previous section) was noteworthy in its facilitation of social andfriendship networks (both in its old and new form), to the extent that, as one father noted “I can’t stand it anymore. I just want to go somewhere where we’re not known for a change”.

Social media

20

Social media, particularly Facebook, was an important part of establishing broader networks of parenting withinthe Walthamstow area. There were three critical social networking sites for parents: one, Parents in Walthamstow(Facebook closed group); two, the Lloyd Park Group (LPG -Facebook closed group); three, Walthamstow Parents Online(www.walthamstowparentsonline.ning.com, set up by this author). Other online groups operated in the Borough, butthey were not so parent dominated or had a very narrow neighbourhood focus or social function. The other key Facebook group was the 'Walthamstow Sell or Swap', a group similarly dominated by parents which acted as an informal economy where goods and services could be exchanged or bought. This group had a high level of activity, items were collected or delivered by hand, which could act as a springboard for diverse friendships.The networks were critical in three ways: firstly, as a means to facilitate face to face arrangements and sociability (offering classes to children, informal childcare); secondly, information sharing (doctors, schools, playgroups, trades and so forth); thirdly, they acted as a form of pre-politics, where key debates of importance to parents were discussed. They were socially diverse, despite claims noted earlier that online sites are dominated by the affluent.

Social media is relevant to parents because of issues of embodiment; they allowed parents to communicate in their ‘free times’ (for example naps, which vary from child to child). How parents communicate was not initially noticedby more formal political organisations. For example, a group called ‘Friends of Lloyd Park’, an initially independent body set up to resist and feed into Council plans for the parks regeneration, bemoaned the lack of parental involvement in their organization, yet held meetings at 7.30pm, a critical time for many parents (bedtime). At an AGM held in September 2012, they claimedthey did not know how to reach out to parents, yet ignored parental contributions to their own Facebook site.

21

However, the social networking sites each have central key contributor groups, all of whom know each other and who make up and in some ways impose their own ‘moral geographies’ (Holloway 1998). The Facebook site Parents in Walthamstow, for example, eschewed political debate infavour of information and personal networking, and had three administrators all of whom were friends. The other Facebook site LPG led an angry debate about park facilities. Walthamstow Parents Online emerged as more discursive and was used by parents to explore ideas, and debates between some community activists, Jameson and parents were enacted there. Most parents who were active online, however, used more than one site.

Gambles has argued that networks such as Mumsnet blur thepersonal and political to the extent that it tends to ‘(re)privatise parental responsibilities even while parenting remains such a public and political issue and concern’ (2010, p.39). However, the local online parenting networks in Walthamstow examined here did blendthe personal and political/online versus community activism in more contradictory ways and as such constituted ‘parents’ as a new, albeit ‘pre-political', public (Mahony et al. 2010).

Summary

Contrary to the claims of some pro-risk thinkers, parentsin this case study did not exhibit clear patterns of isolation, exclusion and fear of strangers. Parents, particularly mothers, in Walthamstow exhibited a strong motivation to overcome urban isolation because of their own and their children’s social needs. Various spaces andvoluntary movements like the NCT facilitated or hosted parent networks. Parents exhibited strong motivations to develop friendship circles including setting up Facebook and other online forums. While there were some observed patterns of exclusivity around status, as Jupp (2012) hasnoted in relation to Children’s Centres, factors such as the age of children, children’s temperament and choices, and residential location also played a part and these arecritical ways in which children’s embodiments matter.

22

Lastly regularity and familiarity was important. Pro-risktheories are right to highlight the sense of isolation and lack of community evident in developed societies but it is also important to highlight both how embodiments matter in framing patterns of association and also how parents struggle to overcome the absence of community.

Conclusion

It is important to take a nuanced view of pro-risk theories of parenting. They are sensational and engaging,yet potentially blame parents, invoking a guilt response that they claim to be polemicising against. They do speakto some patterns of parenting practice, and are not lacking in influence, as this research illustrates. However, they underestimate the ways in which parents approach problems in a complicated way (Ribbens 1998) andhow much behaviour is shaped by the embodiments of their children. This merits further exploration. Pro-risk theories emphasise patterns of isolation and the breakdown of community, but this is not balanced by observing the myriad of ways in which parents are both aware of this and seek to overcome it.

It is important also to highlight the importance of particular geographical spaces and how they space parenting subjectivities, illustrated by Holloway's (1998) research but more research is needed as influencesrange from the historical, the geographic and the social to the biological, and it is here that embodiment and itsrelationship to space becomes critical. Parental movements and thinking are shaped by the embodiments of their children, and that gives rise to certain subjectivities in relationship to social spaces. This hasimplications for how we view and conceptualise urban spaces, for example, how the urban village might be understood within the delimitations set by the needs of parenting.

Finally, as pro-risk ideas permeate some aspects of governmental thinking, it seems important to highlight the limited scope of these theories, and that more

23

research from a parent-centred perspective is needed. Much of the popular and sociological theorising around risk appears motivated by political and ideological ends.Rossi (1977) has pointed out that the left has in the past developed a hostile response to families, as underpinning a decline in community, society and a political sensibility towards conformity (see for exampleAries 1977) and this is a point noted more recently by Ribbens (1998) in relation to feminism. Risk and risk-avoidance contributes to further sense of disaggregation and this seems to underpin an interest in parenting. Child centred parenting from this perspective appears to assault the possibility of women’s equality and social progressiveness. However it seems important to be alive to the possibility that parenting - even concepts such asanxiety and risk - are rooted in bio-social (Rossi 1977) embodiments, and that parents themselves struggle in ambiguous and often sophisticated ways with the contradictions between the biological, the social and cultural.

References

Aitkin, S.C. (2010). ‘Mothers, communities and the scale of difference.’ Social & Cultural Geography. Vol 1(1). pp65-82.

Aries, P. (1977). The family and the city. Daedalus. Vol 106(2). Pp.227-235.

Asher, R. (2011). Shattered: modern motherhood and the illusion of equality. London. Harvill Secker.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.

Becker, H.S. (1967). ‘Whose side are we on?’. Social Problems. Vol 14. pp.239-47.

Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (eds). (2004). City of quarters: urban villages in the contemporary city. Aldershot. Ashgate.

24

Biddulph, M., Franklin, B. and Tait, M. (2003). ‘From conception to completion: a critical analysis of the urban village’. Town planning review. Vol 74(2). pp.165-93.

Bowlby J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. Routledge. London.

Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham. Open University Press.

Coffee, A. (2002). ‘Ethnography and Self: Reflections and Representations’ in May, T. Qualitative Research in Action. London. Sage Publications. pp. 313-331.

Colls, R. & Hörschelmann, K (2009). The Geographies of children’s and young people’s bodies. Children’s Geographies. Vol 7(1), pp.1-6.

Cusk, R. (2001). A life’s work: on becoming a mother. London. Fourth Estate.

Doucet, A. (2009). ‘Dad and baby in the First Year: Gendered Responsibilities and Embodiment’. The ANNULS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol 624. July. pp.78-98.

Edwards, R. and Ribbens, J. 'Living the Edges: Public Knowledge, Private Lives, Personal Experience' in Ribbens, J. and Edwards, R. (1998). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. London. Sage.pp.1-23.

Fainstein, S.S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review Vol 35. pp451-78.

Fleming, T. (2004). 'Supporting the Cultural Quarter? The Role of the Cultural Intermediary' in Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (eds). City of quarters: urban villages in the contemporary city. Aldershot. Ashgate. pp. 93-108.

Furedi, F. (2008). Paranoid parenting. London. Continuum.

25

Gambles, R. (2010). ‘Going public? Articulations of the personal and political on Mumsnet.com’ in Mahony, N., Newman, J. and Barnett, C. (2010). Rethinking the public: innovations in research, theory and politics. Bristol. Policy Press. pp. 29-42.

Gill, T. (2007). No fear: growing up in a risk adverse society. London. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Gill, T. (2011). Sewing the seeds: reconnecting children with nature. London. London Sustainable Development Commission.

Guldburg, H. (2009). Reclaiming childhood: freedom and play in an age of fear. London. Routledge.

Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in qualitative research: essays on partisanship and bias. London. Routledge.

Hardyment, C. (1995). Perfect parents: baby-care advice past and present. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Holloway, S. (1998). Local childcare cultures: Moral geographies of mothering and the social organization of pre-school education. Gender, place and culture. Vol 5(1). pp.29-53.

Honoré, C. (2008). Under pressure: putting the child back into childhood. London. Orion Books Ltd.

Jacobs, J. (1961/1991). The life and death of great American cities.New York. Vintage Books.

Jones, O. (2000). ‘Melting geography: purity, disorder, childhood and space’ in Hollway, S.L. and Valentine, G. (eds). Children’s geographies: play, living, learning. London. Routledge. pp29-48.

Jupp, E. (2012). ‘Parenting policy and the geographies of friendship: encounters in an English Sure Start Children’s Centre’ in Kraftl, P., Horton, J. and Tucker, F. Critical geographies of childhood and youth: contemporary policy and practice. Bristol. Policy Press. pp. 215-230.

26

Kraftl, P., Horton, J. and Tucker, F. (2012). ‘Editors introduction: critical geographies of childhood and youth’ in Kraftl, P., Horton, J. and Tucker, F. Critical geographies of childhood and youth: contemporary policy and practice. Bristol. Policy Press. pp. 1-26.

Kurcinka, M.S. (2006). Raising your spirited child. New York. Harper.

Kvale, S. (1996). Qualitative InterViews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London. Sage.

Liedloff, J. (2004). The Continuum Concept: In Search of HappinessLost. London. Penguin.

Low, S. (2003). Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London. Routledge.

Luzia, K. (2010). ‘Travelling in your own backyard: theunfamiliar places of parenting’. Social and cultural geography. Vol 10(1). pp.359-75.

Madge, C. and O.Collor, H. (2006). ‘Parenting gone wired: empowerment of new mothers in the internet’. Social and Cultural Geography. Vol 7(2). Pp.199-220.

Mahony, N., Newman, J. and Barnett, C. (2010). Rethinking thepublic: innovations in research, theory and politics. Bristol. Policy Press.

Pain, R. (2004). Introduction: Children at Risk. Children’s Geographies. Vol 2(1). pp. 65-7.

Raban, J. (1974). Soft City. London. Hamilton.

Ribbens, J. 'Hearing my feeling voice? An Autobiographical Discussion of Motherhood' in Ribbens, J.and Edwards, R. (1998). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. London. Sage. pp.24-38.

Rose, N. (1999). ‘Government and control’. British Journal of Criminology. Vol 40(2). pp.321-39.

27

Rossi, A.S. (1977). ‘A biological perspective on parenting’. Daedalus. Vol 106(2). pp.1-31.

Scott, S., Jackson, S. & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). ‘Swings and roundabouts: risk anxiety and the everyday worlds of children’. Sociology 11. www.ipce.info/library_2/files/swings.htm.

Sibley, D. (1991). “Children’s geographies: some problemsof representation’ Area 23(3) pp269-70.

Talbot, D. (2007). Regulating the night: race, culture and exclusion inthe night-time economy. Aldershot. Ashgate.

Valentine, G. (1997a). ‘A safe place to grow up? Parenting, perceptions of children’s safety and the ruralidyll’. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol 13(2). pp. 137-148.

Valentine, G. (1997b). ‘“Oh yes I can.” “Oh no you can’t”: children and parents’ understandings of kids’ competence to negotiate public space safely’. Antipode. Vol29(1). pp.65-89.

Valentine, G. (2004) Public Space and the Culture of Childhood. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Ward, C. (1978) The Child in the City. London. Architectural press.

Warner, J. (2006). Perfect Madness: motherhood in an age of anxiety. London. Vermillion.

Young, J. (2007). The vertigo of late modernity. London. Sage publications.

28