Children’s Play Territories
Hideouts and Play Domains as Protective
Spaces in Childcare Play Culture•
Nils Falk Hansen

In this article, the author deploys Erving Goffman’s concept of territories ofthe self as an analytical tool to understand the challenges and opportunities a childcare setting presents for children engaged in social fantasy play.
He uses this concept to unpack the unique institutional play habitat of achildcare facility and shows how Goffman’s territories form a constant concern for children in their engagements, orientations, and creative projects
in social fantasy play. Through an in-depth analysis of emblematic play inan ethnographically inspired observational study, the author illustrates how
the need for play domains and social alliances in childcare helps create both
the demanding obstacles and inspirational possibilities of children’s social
fantasy play. Key words: early childhood education and care (ECEC); peergroup; play territories; social fantasy play; symbolic interaction

Introduction

Children’s social fantasy play is often portrayed as an egalitarianart of co-creation and collaboration (Schousboe 2013). Children’s co-creative
construction of open-ended play dramas and play narratives involves shared
make-believe scenarios and enactments of reciprocal roles (Winther-Lindqvist
2013; Connolly and Doyle 1984). To form a play group with peers, open thegate to the magical kingdom of imagination, and pursue the alluring “what if ”
question, children must be able to compromise, set their differences aside, andwork together in an atmosphere of mutual inspiration and open responsiveness(Gillespie 2006; Connolly and Doyle 1984). This positive view of play appears
consistent with a child’s own experiences. The excitement of spending time withfriends and playing together topped the list when Danish scholars recently asked
children to name the key attractions of childcare life (Koch and Jørgensen 2018).
196

American Journal of Play, volume 15, number 2 © 2023 by The Strong
Contact Nils Falk Hansen at nifh@edu.au.dk

Children’s Play Territories

However, when we consider children’s social fantasy play a consensual
partnership of creative collaboration, we easily overlook the ongoing construction of social and geographical boundaries as an essential dynamic of children’splay. For Schousboe (2013), social fantasy play is a shared project among a groupof children simultaneously operating in three interdependent spheres of reality:
imagination (the fictional fantasy play universe), staging (the negotiation ofmutual roles and organizational planning), and reality (the physical locations,material resources, social surroundings, and real-life relationships of play participants). This view of social fantasy play calls for a heightened awareness ofthe social demands and environmental conditions of children’s play habitats
by foregrounding social fantasy play as a multilayered and multidimensional
activity of meaning beyond the fictional realm of make believe. In fact, as many
empirical studies have shown, children’s practices of sharing, including, andforming cooperative play communities, especially so in a childcare setting, areinseparable from—and deeply intertwined with—their struggles to close off, control, and protect interactive spaces and play alliances against outsiders (Corsaro
2018; Cromdal 2001; Evaldsson and Karlsson 2020; Meire 2013; Sheldon 1996).
The immaterial world of children’s social aspirations and commitments to eachother—as well as the material world of physical objects, spaces, and places—areconstitutive parts of the dynamics of social fantasy play. An investigative lookat the ongoing formation and transformation of social and spatial play domains
in children’s shared practices of fantasy play opens a gateway to the explorationof the complex demands of their institutional play habitats by shedding lighton the principal challenges of organizing social fantasy play in a contemporary
childcare setting.
Building on Schousboe’s model of social fantasy play, I argue the themeof territoriality is inherent in social fantasy play in childcare spaces, and I
introduce the term “play territories”—applying Canadian sociologist Erving
Goffman’s ([1971] 2010) “territories of the self ”—to label and analyze theterritorial implications of children’s organization of social fantasy play in achildcare setting. Using empirical data from a qualitative field study of Danish
children’s play, I offer new perspectives on play in a contemporary childcare
environment, specifically, children’s construction, negotiation, and protectionof social, material, and spatial boundaries and play domains during social
fantasy play.
At its core, Goffman’s idea of territories of the self holds that physicalproximity to social others requires actors to be aware of mutual social bound-

197

198

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

aries, social roles, and social relationships. The dominant feature of social
encounters in any public, semipublic, or even domestic context is the integrityof the self, which is based on the ability to sustain territorial claims. In Goffman’s terminology, the “claim” represents the entitlement to possess, control,use, or dispose of a particular good, or desired object, or state in regard towhich a claim is made: “At the center of social organization is the concept ofclaims, and around this center, properly, the student must consider the vicissitudes of maintaining them” (Goffman ([1971] 2010, 28). In this system, a“claimant” is the person who makes the claim or on whose behalf the claim
is made.
All territorial claims lie vulnerable to violation. Agents are persons involvedin claims: the claimant and counterclaimant, the person responsible for the
impediment or the act, substance, means, or agency by which the claim is being
challenged. Whether the act of entering into the intimate space of others represents a positive confirmation of a mutual social connection or a territorialindiscretion becomes a matter of ongoing interpretation by the coparticipants inany social encounter. Territorial claims thus serve as social, material, spatial, andembodied domains of the self. At the practical level of face-to-face interaction,
sensibility to the territories of others enables the coherent and smooth operationof organized social activity. Yet, in a more profound sense, the question of territoriality is key to all aspects of human social interaction because it symbolizes
the ritual recognition or disregard of social self and social position. For Goffman,territories of the self mean that physical proximity to social others requires actors
to be aware of mutual social boundaries, social roles, and social relationships.
According to Goffman, the risk of territorial dispute and conflict increases
in social terrains in which ambiguous social guidelines apply or the code of
conduct places contradictory demands on the participants. Hence, the foundation of social life lies in the clear formal and informal rules that regulate social
interaction. These rules are culturally varied and complex, but one of Goffman’smore important points holds that basic similarities exist across different social
environments. Using his categorization of these similarities, he constructs a kindof taxonomy of prototypical territories and territorial violations that provides
a conceptual framework for the microstudy of the interaction order of adultsocial life, a framework which offers an analytical tool for analyzing children’s
play territories.
Goffman ([1971] 2010) distinguishes between three primary types of territories. “Fixed territories” represent geographically delimited domains or prop-

Children’s Play Territories

erties to which a person can claim a legitimate ownership. For adults a car, ahouse, or a private office might serve as examples. The second type of territories
Goffman categorizes as “situational territories.” These temporary properties
can be occupied only for a limited period and are protected from intrusion byothers only as long as a person or a group of persons physically occupies them.
Examples might be seats on the subway or chairs in medical office waiting rooms.
Finally, Goffman introduces what he calls “egocentric territories.” This categoryof territories consists of artifacts carried around by a person. Examples might
be wallets, glasses, briefcases, and phones.
In addition to the three primary types of territories, Goffman presents awide variety of subcategories of situational territories and territorial offenses,
also called modalities of violation. Goffman also uses the term “markers” torefer to any form of visual sign announcing to potential intruders that a territory is already in the temporary possession of another claimant. In this article,
I introduce the subtypes of territories, violations, and markers that have specificrelevance to my own investigation.
		

Literature Review
There are compelling reasons to launch such an investigation in the current
landscape of early childhood education and care (ECEC) for a curious researcher
with an interest in children’s play and the conditions of children’s everyday institutional life in general. First, we live an era of increasing childhood institutionalization, and children in many western countries spend a growing number ofhours each day in professional childcare from an ever younger age (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development 2017). Although the pedagogical traditions and goals of different systems of ECEC vary greatly, at least one
solemn commitment to all children unites adult stakeholders in different countries from the level of national policy down to the level of pedagogical practice:namely, the acknowledgment and recognition of children’s right to play (United
Nations 1989).
Against this backdrop, the institutional play habitats that childcare facilities
and preschools provide for children’s spontaneous and self-organized play callfor a closer look. To anchor the significance of boundaries and demarcations
in children’s play, I focus on three major themes from previous studies aboutchildren’s enforcement of spatial and social boundaries in social fantasy play:

199

200

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYprotection of material resources and interactive space; protection of privacy andautonomy; and protection of friendships and social alliances.
Protection of Material Resources and Interactive SpaceIn Denmark (and other countries), the play spaces, toys, and play arrangement
features of many preschool and childcare environments carry the status of sharedproperty. According to Corsaro (2018), “In preschools, . . . all the toys and educational materials are communally owned. Thus, use of the toys and materials
depends on negotiations for their temporary possession” (132). Pedagogically,
this egalitarian principle of distribution generally serves the higher purpose of
inspiring children to acquire social competencies and an awareness of the needsof others (Winther-Lindqvist 2017). Studies confirm that conflict can be beneficial to children’s social and cognitive development (Church, Mashford-Scott,and Cohrssen 2018). In reality, however, sharing toys and space is challenging
for children in a densely populated childcare play environment. In such a facility,
popular toys represent valuable assets in short supply.
Thus, a substantial body of research has identified object-oriented conflicts concerning the distribution of resources as a predominant source of
discord among preschool children (Chen et al. 2001; Corsaro and Rizzo 1990;
Killen and Turiel 1991; Myrtil et al. 2020). In the study conducted by Chenand her associates in naturalistic classroom settings during free playtime, 322
out 400 target child observations identified conflict events. This indicates thatchildcare facilities to some extent expose children to ambiguous and conflicting demands because the need to protect the limited resources of play spaces
and play props co-exists with a moral obligation to adhere to the virtues ofsharing and inclusion that are reflected in the core values of most childcare
institutions. The substantial potential for conflict in children’s negotiations of
temporary ownership rights over props and play spaces documented by suchresearch suggests that protecting valuable material resources and play domains
is indeed a very significant challenge for children’s institutional play habitats.
In terms of pedagogical support, regulating for and intervening in children’s
play-related conflicts, the general approach—at least in the Danish childcare
influenced by the child-centered, social traditions of Scandinavian ECEC—isto allow children to resolve their own differences through dialogue (WintherLindqvist 2017). In instances of disagreements or play space disputes between
the children, the pedagogues view themselves as predominantly conflict mediators offering guidance to the children based on the basic principle that everyone

Children’s Play Territories

must share toys, props, and space in an inclusive and sociable manner. Although
this approach serves as a general professional guideline for adult involvement inchildren’s conflicts, research has shown that many children’s disputes over toys
and play space in institutional environments unfold under the pedagogical radar.
In a recent mixed-method study using head-mounted cameras worn bypreschool children, American and Chinese scholars found that teachers intervened in less than half the 115 recorded peer conflicts between children (Myrtil
et al. 2020). This finding suggests that negotiations regarding rights to use toys
and administer control over play spaces involves what Corsaro (2018), inspired
by Goffman (1961), labels an institutional underlife. Although the pedagogicalcode of conduct dictates that the refusal to share toys and the exclusion of otherchildren from play are not acceptable behaviors, they in fact often occur, andthe environmental conditions and spatial limitations of childcare facilities create
an urgent need for the children to develop strategies to protect play domains,social alliances, and play props.
Protection of Privacy and Autonomy
As pointed out by Wolfe and Rivlin (1987), one of the defining features of modern institutions is that their inhabitants are to some extent deprived of the privilege of privacy. From a still younger age, children in many parts of the world, andespecially in Denmark, spend a considerable part of their daily life in childcare(Kampmann 2004; Bergström 2013). From early morning to late afternoon, thechildren engage in play, consume meals, participate in educational activities,
daydream, go to the toilet, form friendships, make enemies, share secrets, resolve
differences, endure solitude, rebel against authority, and adjust to institutional
order in the constant intimate presence of a large group of peers supervised bypedagogues.
A number of empirical studies have confirmed that maintaining andprotecting personal space indeed offers a significant challenge for children in
densely populated childcare and preschool environments (Corsaro 2018; Lowry
1993). In contrast to the back alleys and front yards, dirt roads, and woodlands
that formed the play habitats for former generations of children (Gray 2011), theconfined space of a contemporary childcare unit does not afford many opportunities to maintain physical distance and avoid unwanted intrusions of personal
space. Thus, the immediate physical presence of other children and the constant
exposure to the attentive eyes of professional grown-ups becomes a basic condition of the institutional environment that children must manage in inventive

201

202

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYways to sustain any level of privacy, autonomy, and self-determination (Colwell
et al. 2016; Lynch 2017).
In a study of children’s hidden places, Skånfors, Löfdahl, and Häaglund(2009) demonstrate how the construction of “withdrawal spaces” becomes a
strategy for children to make themselves inaccessible to other children andhide from pedagogues. Meire (2013) specifically identifies the construction ofhideouts and dens as key elements in children’s establishment of autonomous
play domains in which they can find peace and exercise temporary control overautonomous space. The attraction of hideouts and dens is that they constituteeasily detectable, geographically delimited, and clearly outlined play domains
and, furthermore, that they are well suited to serve as scenarios for children’s peer
cultural practices of inclusion, exclusion, and rivalry (Meire 2013; Corsaro 2018;
Hart 1979). For children, hideouts and dens not only provide temporary sanctuaries of privacy, their spatial and social borders also carry symbolic meaning
in their peer culture as tokens of friendship and social commitments (Bateman
2012; Corson et al. 2014; Kylin 2003).
Protection of Friendships and Social Alliances
According to Winther-Lindqvist (2010), fantasy play establishes an arena forchildren to form social identities and negotiate their changing social positionsin the peer group (e.g., Goodwin 2006). At the heart of children’s search forfriendship and play alliances, they look for answers to questions deeply rooted
in their experiences of who they are and what they contribute to a social worldof meaning shared with peers (Winther-Lindqvist 2013). Corsaro (2018) specifically points to the establishment of play spaces as one of the significant peer
cultural rituals through which small children honor social commitments andconfirm positive relationships in the peer group: “Friendship means producing
shared activity together in a specific area and protecting that play from the intrusion of others” (169). Social and spatial boundaries thus represent both tools ofdivision and symbols of unification in children’s peer culture, defined by Corsaro(2018) as “a stable set of activities or routines, artifacts, values, and concernsthat children produce and share in interaction with peers” (128). Negotiating
the borders of play domains is a source of conflict among children in childcare
settings (Cederborg 2020; Singer and Haanikainen 2002). The ongoing negotiations of spatial and social demarcation lines in play are of great symbolic andpractical significance for the children because these lines separate insiders fromoutsiders and members from nonmembers of established play communities andChildren’s Play Territories

friend groups (Cobb-More, Danby, and Farrell 2009).
To gain access to ongoing play, children develop access strategies often
based on indirect and nonverbal access attempts, rather than open requests
to join ongoing play (Corsaro 1979; Cromdal 2001; Tellgren 2004). Children’s
protection of interactive spaces, use of access strategies, and engagements interritorial border negotiations thus reflect both the social dynamics of the peergroup and the social aspirations of the individual child, expressed through thepractice of social play. Extensive research about various childcare and preschool
environments in different countries suggests that children’s defense of their playdomains against outsiders often has more to do with the protection of important
relationships than with deliberate attempts to exclude other children (Corsaro
2018; Goodwin 2006; Skånfors, Löfdahl, and Häaglund 2009; Svahn and Evaldsson 2011).

Methods
The empirical material presented in this article stems from an ethnographically inspired field study (Spradley 1979) conducted between 2019 and 2020
in two public Danish childcare facilities, both located in suburban areas about
twenty-five kilometers from Denmark’s capital Copenhagen. The study focusedon a target group of four-year-old children because classical developmental playtheories broadly recognize this age as a particularly creative and dynamic period
in a child’s play life, a period in which all forms of imaginative role play andfantasy play flourishes (Singer and Singer 1990). Three separate units of the twochildcare facilities were specifically selected to participate in the study because
the majority of children assigned to these units were around four years of age at
the time. On the outside playground where the children from the different units
spent several hours each day, they intermingled. In all, approximately eighty-fivechildren and fifteen pedagogues participated in the study.
One focal point of the study was to gain new understandings of the conditions and demands made by the institutional environment of the childcare
facility as a social fantasy play habitat for children. Schousboe’s (2013) model ofsocial fantasy play and Winther-Lindqvist’s (2013) research on children’s social
identities place questions such as “who is in” and “who is out” at the heart ofchildren’s self-organized fantasy play. The exploratory ethnographical approach
implies that the researcher remains open, curious, and adaptive to the insights

203

204

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

from immersion in the living culture and lived experiences of people in reallife settings (Mukherji and Albon 2018). The study aimed to use the participant
observation approach (Duveen and Lloyd 1993) to reach a deeper understanding of the entanglements between peer cultural norms, institutional order, andspatial and social environments that constitute the conditions of children’s social
fantasy play in childcare.
The empirical material of the study consists of approximately 250 hoursof participant observations monitoring the day-by-day interactions of children and pedagogues mainly inside the childcare rooms and outside on theplayground. As a curious outsider entering into a peer cultural child worldof precious relationships and vulnerable social commitments, my primary
ethical concern was loyalty to my informants. I visited the childcare facilities prior to the start of my observations to explain to the children who I was
and why I would be observing their play. I documented my observations byhand on the spot in a field notebook, and I subsequently transcribed all handwritten field notes to a computer immediately after each visit. The children andI agreed that they could ask me to stop observing if they felt uncomfortableor disturbed by me. I also attained written and informed consent from all thechildren’s parents as well as all pedagogues and assistants working in the units
where I made my observations.
The low-tech data collection method of the study gave me freedom of
movement and the ability to follow the children around the unit or playgroundfreely without having to worry about camera angles or zoom lenses. I furthermore avoided the risk of cameras or other technical equipment attracting
attention from the children and creating unwanted distractions. To study thegenesis of play over time, I generally followed particular play trajectories, even
if some of the individual participants changed. I made this choice to explore
in detail how the ongoing flow of thematic transformations and social reorganizations of the children’s social fantasy play interweaved with their efforts tomanage the spatial and social conditions of their institutional environment.
Throughout the project, I tried to be sensitive and respectful of all the different
engagements and personal stakes that my informants invested in their lives
with each other.
As pointed out by Rasmussen (2011), loyalty in research expands beyond
the privilege of anonymity, the duty of confidentiality, and the legal obligation
to obtain written and informed consent. Inspired by Deleuze´s ([1968] 1994)
distinction between morals and ethics, I was particularly attentive to the risk ofChildren’s Play Territories

letting my own moral judgments and sympathies guide my empirical observations and analytical interpretations. If the moralist evaluates the life of others, theethical researcher ideally avoids evaluating the life of informants while seeking
a deeper understanding of “what it is that is going on,” to use one of Goffman’s
famous key phrases. Thus, throughout the scientific process of collecting, interpreting, and presenting my empirical material, I have been keenly aware thatthe play encounters I share with other scholars represent something alreadymeaningful and important to all the children involved.
The theme of territoriality remains in all recorded play episodes. In somecases, territorial boundaries emerge as dominant conflicts in the children’s play—for instance, when three boys argue over the ownership of valuable building
blocks essential for the construction of their LEGO skyscrapers or when a groupof girls share the burdens of imaginary pregnancy in a hideout open exclusively
for the selected few carrying giant pillow babies around under their shirts. Other
times the territorial orientations of the play surface in ongoing verbal clarifications and agreements about mutual affiliations in social fantasy play without
necessarily causing discord.
I carefully considered how to present the principal findings about multifarious functions and meanings of the children’s play territories in a way that
captured both the wide general trends across the empirical material and therich and nuanced interactive dynamics of social fantasy play as a multilayered
activity with inherent territorial implications. A systematic presentation of themain thematic variations and play territorial subtypes identified in the material
would provide the reader with an overview of the principal findings. However,such an analytical approach might fail to capture the dynamics of the social
fantasy play in all its rich territorial complexity or to bring sufficient substance,
depth, and context to the analysis. In fact, a single social fantasy play episodewill often display a broad range of strategies to protect play territorial domains
as well as gestures of openness and the acceptance of newcomers.
To meet this challenge, I have selected a single, in-depth, fantasy play episode to serve as a clear and specific illustration of the main findings in the material at large. This approach was inspired by a phenomenological methodology
in which a single example embodies general empirical findings and reflects anddeepens the theoretical concepts of the analysis (Van Manen and Van Manen
2021). The selected play trajectory is exemplary in its detailed depiction of the
dynamic interplay between the spatial, social, and material conditions of thechildcare setting, the children’s individual and collective projects in their play,

205

206

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYand the ongoing formation and negotiation of play territories across the threespheres of reality present in social fantasy play (Schousboe 2013). The carefully
chosen play example illustrates the multifarious ways that the theme of playterritorial boundaries interweave with children’s organization and absorption
in social fantasy play in imagination, reality, and staging.

Analysis: The Family Drama of Mum, Dad,and Little Sweetie
Four-year-olds Mary and Sally belonged to the group of oldest girls in the unit.
While Mary was very popular among the other girls, Sally had to work hard tomaintain a fragile position in the peer group. During the last weeks of the observation period, Sally initiated an intense rivalry with Mary, openly challenging
her position as the social center figure and creative driving force in social fantasy
play among the children in the unit. I recount some of the telling interactions
with and among the children, then I follow with my analysis of their play.
Prologue
It is early afternoon. Some of the children participate in activities at
the high tables with the two pedagogues, others are playing in small
groups scattered around the floor of the unit.
For a while, I have watched Mary constantly relocating from place
to place in her search for a peaceful spot to play with her Barbies. Sally
persistently follows Mary around the floor insisting that she must handover a glittering Barbie dress, which Sally claims that she had first.
Seeking temporary refuge from Sally, Mary takes cover behind asmall room divider. She sits down with her Barbies, and after a while,
she seems to be completely engrossed in her own imaginary fantasy
play universe. Sally stays close by, attentively watching Mary in silence.
Mary proceeds to construct a hideout by closing off a quiet cornerof the unit with a large mattress arranged on the side, so it forms aprovisional security fence around her. She builds a roof of blankets
and adjusts them carefully several times to make sure that it is notpossible to peek in from the outside.

Children’s Play Territories

In a childcare setting, a Barbie dress cannot simply be regarded as “possessional territory” belonging to one identifiable and legitimate owner. Matters are far more complicated. Although both children and pedagogues broadly
accepted the ground rule of “first to the mill” based on the prototype of territorial
demarcation Goffman ([1971] 2010) called “the turn,” no exact timeframe wasin place to determine the beginning or determination of a temporary ownershipof a toy. This lack of clarity made persistent counterclaims to goods like toys
and play arrangements a potentially effective strategy for Sally in her attempts
to move in on Mary’s territorial domain.
Mary’s construction of a mattress fortress illustrated the immense difficulties of maintaining territorial integrity in an institutional play environment ofsituational territory. The common ownership of toys and space provided Sally
with a multitude of opportunities to pose an unpredictable territorial threat
without directly invading the “use space” that Mary occupied. In her position in
the middle of the open floor of the unit, Mary was vulnerable to a variety of territorial violations and bereft of the proper tools to create an effective play territory
defense line. In terms of territorial offenses, Sally’s physical presence in Mary’s
intimate vicinity and watchful observations from the sideline prevented Mary
from maintaining a desired physical distance from others and left her exposed topenetrative and intrusive looks (Goffman ([1971] 2010). Finally, Sally’s persistentverbal counterclaims challenging the legitimacy of Mary’s temporary claim to
the Barbie doll dress constituted what Goffman defines as invasive sound interference and direct addressing by words in unpleasant and intrusive manners.
For Mary the marked territory of the hideout provided her with a temporary protection from the discomforts of these immediate territorial violations.
The mattress walls and blanket roof of the hideout created a shield of protection
from Sally’s curious eyes that enabled Mary to sustain an informational preservein which she avoided involuntarily revealing details about her play and being
the target of Sally’s scrutiny. The hideout enabled Mary to construct a fortified
conversational reserve, which is Goffman’s term for the type of territory thatallows individuals to administer control over who can approach them and join
their activities.
The Sound of a Doorbell Sets Events in Motion
While she is outside her hideout to gather more clothes for her Barbies, Mary catches the sight of Casper (four years old), who has just

207

208

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYentered the unit. Mary rushes over to greet him and invites him toplay with her inside her hideout.
Meanwhile, the arrival of Casper has also caught the interestof Sally, sitting close by still playing with her Barbies. Sally watches
Casper attentively as he agrees to take on the role as the Dad in Mary’s
Barbie doll household and disappears into the hideout along with her.
Sally moves closer to the hideout so she can overhear Mary giving
Casper play instructions inside.
Mary: Look, this one was the sister, I was Elsa, and you were this one
Casper.
Sally stands up in front of the entrance of the hideout and pretends
to ring an imaginary doorbell.
Sally: DING DONG.

For a moment, everything is completely quiet inside the hideout.
Then the sound of whispering voices breaks the silence.

Mary: Shhhhhhh, Casper, be quiet. We can´t hear anything.

Sally tries to peek inside the hideout through a crack in the roof.
Then she continues to ring the doorbell repeatedly.

Sally: DING DONG, DIIIIIIING DOOOOONG.

Mary appears at the entrance of the hideout.
Mary (hostile voice): You are disturbing us all the time.
She climbs outside and readjust the blankets to prevent Sally
from peeking through the roof. Then she returns inside and instructs
Casper to ignore the doorbell.

Following Casper’s arrival, Sally embarked on a discrete reconnaissance
operation using the access strategy Corsaro (2018) calls “encirclement” to gather
information about what happened inside the hideout. She then applied a creative
variant of the access strategy Corsaro (2018) identifies as “disruptive behavior.”
Thus, by inventing an imaginary doorbell and ringing it, she transforms herself
from an unwelcome intruder to a polite houseguest honoring the rituals ofsocial convention by announcing to the owners of the property that she would
like to pop in for a visit.
This maneuver shows that the tricky part of selecting an effective accessstrategy is not merely to break down a territorial barrier to play but rather topresent a self-definition that corresponds with the developing fantasy play scenario. This adaptability is of vital importance for an outsider attempting to gain

Children’s Play Territories

access to a hideout, because a hideout carries the temporary status of a fixed
territory. The hideout combines a broad range of complementary types of territorial claims, potentially serving simultaneously as visual markers of a personal
space, a use space, informational preserve, and a conversational preserve (Goffman ([1971] 2010), depending on the shifting strategical needs of the claimants.
So, rather than committing a direct territorial violation, Sally presented
the inhabitants of the hideout with a form of open invitation to fantasy play byoffering a surprising dramaturgical turning point (Who is at the door?). Mary
turned down the invitation by ignoring the doorbell, indicating that at least
one of the inhabitants of the hideout perceived Sally’s creative access strategy
as a disruptive intrusion based on the type of territorial violations Goffman([1971] 2010) calls “sound interference” and “inappropriate addressing.” As theowner and primary claimant of the hideout, Mary, in accordance with the peer
cultural conventions, reserved the right to grant and deny entrance to aspiring
members. On this ground, an uninvited guest hammering on an imaginary
doorbell potentially constituted a territorial violation of an established playdomain spatially outlined and clearly marked to function as a fixed territory
reserved for her and Casper.
Calling in the Cavalry
Sally rings the doorbell again, this time stronger and more persistently. No one answers and she slams her fist into the mattress. Then
she runs over to the big table where Helen, one of the pedagogues, issupervising an activity with a group of children.
Sally (tears running down her face): They don’t want to play with me.
She hides her face in Helen’s lap. Helen comforts her and asks her
why she is so upset. Choked with tears, Sally explains that Mary will
not allow her inside the hideout to play with her and Casper.
Helen calls Mary and Casper over to the table. Sally looks up from
Helen’s lap and follows Mary closely with her eyes, as Mary approaches
the table. Casper stays inside the hideout.
Helen: Look Mary, Sally would really like to play with you and Casper.
Mary: But we want to play on our own.
Sally throws herself onto Helen’s lap and burst into tears again.
Helen tries to calm her down and encourages both of the girls to workout their differences and play together as friends.

209

210

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYAs soon as Helen turns her attention back to the children at thetable, Mary rushes back to the hideout and blocks the entrance behind
her, so no one can enter or look inside.
In light of the rejection of her initial access strategy, the hopeful counterclaimant changed her approach. To substantiate her territorial impediment andincrease her chances of attaining the desired membership to the hideout, sherelied on the unpredictable resource of adult assistance and turned to the pedagogue Helen for active support. By arguing that the other two kids did not want
to play with her, Sally increased her chances of mobilizing pedagogical support.
Thus, the institutional norm that it is not acceptable behavior to exclude othersfrom play provided her with an opportunity to recruit Helen as an “agent,” whichis the Goffmanian ([1971] 2010) term for a potential ally respectively representing the claimant or counterclaimant in such matters. Sally’s recruitment of Helen
failed and once again, she had to turn to a new access strategy.
Adversaries Joining Forces: The Art of Buildinga Family while Fighting for Territory
Casper steps outside the hideout. He sits down and starts fiddling witha pink Barbie convertible. Sally, now observing the hideout attentively
from her discrete position over at the table, grabs her Barbie doll,jumps to the floor and moves closer. She sits down a few steps awayfrom Casper and starts dressing the Barbie pretending to ignore him.
Casper does not seem to notice her. He makes engine sounds anddrives the convertible around in small circles.
Sally: Casper, you frustrate me. I do not bother to talk to you at all.
Casper does not respond. He is examining the chassis of the convertible. Sally waves her Barbie doll in front of Casper’s face.
Sally: Casper, who wants to play with my Barbie?
Mary (reappears at the entrance of the hideout): No one, we don’t,right Casper!
Sally (takes a step towards Mary): My dad will be so mad at you!
Casper stops playing with the convertible and looks up at the two
girls.
Casper (to Sally): My dad can throw you in the trash. My dad canthrow you all the way up to the moon.

Children’s Play Territories

Sally: My dad can throw you all the way up to North Pole-land.
Casper: Well, my dad can fart in your face.
Sally and Casper simultaneously burst into laughter. Mary watches
them attentively from the entrance of the hideout in silence. Then she
starts laughing too.
Mary: Sally, which Barbie would you like to be?
She widens the entrance so Sally can see all the Barbie dolls inside
the hideout.
Mary instructs Sally and Casper that Mom and Dad are going tohave a new baby. Sally immediately insists on playing the role of Little
Sweetie, Mom and Dad’s adorable newborn baby. Mary reluctantly
accepts the suggestion, and the two girls start to expand the hideout
together so it can house a whole family.
Surrounded on all sides by the situational territory of shared space, a hideout is notoriously vulnerable to territorial encroachments even if it is to someextent respected as fixed territory in the children’s peer culture. Sally took advantage of these environmental conditions and tested the strength of the exclusive
conversational preserve symbolically shared between Mary and Casper by theirmembership in the hideout. She approached Casper as soon as he stepped outside and engaged him in a playfully hostile dialogue. This turn of events showedthat the integrity of the protected use space and conversational preserve provided
by the hideout was not sustainable for Mary unless she was prepared for a directconfrontation with Sally.
Faced by a persistent, resourceful, and creative counterclaimant scouting
relentlessly for a window of opportunity to advance into her play territory, Marychanged her territorial strategy and allowed Sally inside the hideout. Casper’s
loyalty and territorial orientation remained unclear. By inviting Sally to join thehideout and enter the play group, Mary changed the rules of engagement andtriggered a transformation of the order and social dynamics of the territorial
power struggle between the two girls. Thus, her suggestion that Mom and Dad
are about to have a baby and her acceptance of Sally’s adaption of the role ofLittle Sweetie paved the way for a relocation of the territorial dispute into therealm of a fantasy play universe.
The two girls co-created a family play narrative molded over the cultural
norms, functions, and social roles of modern family life, and the pretend worldof symbolic play was about to become a new frontline in Sally and Mary’s inten-

211

212

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYsifying territorial battle. The following description and analysis illustrate theexpansion of the territorial dispute from its origin in the world of physical objects
and spaces to the fictional household of Mom, Dad, and Little Sweetie.
Devoted Husband and Loving Dad:
The Divided Attention of a Modern Family Man
Mary (reaches for Sally’s hand): Come on Little Sweetie, did you forgetthat we were going to the Big Water today?
Little Sweetie responds with excitement and the two girls set out
hand in hand on a joint trip to the “Big Water” (a small space in the
middle of the floor of the unit). Little Sweetie is moving forward on
her knees and has difficulties keeping up with her mom’s rapid pace.
As they reach the Big Water, Little Sweetie throws herself into thewaves and starts splashing and singing while she swims around andcalls for her dad.
Mary (Mom): Listen, Little Sweetie. Mom and Dad needed to watch
TV by themselves. They were very tired from work. Would you
like to swim by yourself?
Sally (in a high-pitched baby voice): I want my dad. I want my dad.
Mary shushes Little Sweetie and waves goodbye to her as she
returns to join Casper (Dad) now sitting in front of a TV made fromtoy magnets. Sally starts moaning as if she is in pain.
Mary: What is wrong Little Sweetie, are you ill?
Mom starts to comfort Little Sweetie as her moans of pain intensifies. Casper detaches himself from the TV and starts to assist Maryin her efforts to find the source of Little Sweetie’s pain. They start
to examine Little Sweetie thoroughly while her moaning continues.
Casper suggests that they feed Little Sweetie some pizza, because she
might be hungry.
Little Sweetie struggles to get up and then she suddenly falls dramatically to the floor where she lies completely still with her eyes
closed as if she has fainted. Casper tries to bring Little Sweetie back tolife by feeding her a slice of plastic-pizza. It does not have the desired
effect.
As in all other aspects of social interaction, the settlement of play territoryChildren’s Play Territories

demarcations between the children relied on their ability to perform roles in
adaptive and socially meaningful ways, no matter if these role performances
entailed acts of hostility and deception or of solidarity and affection. In fact,
such differences are primarily a matter of perception in the eyes of a Goffmanianinterpreter. Likewise, what constitutes a personal space, a use space, a stall, ora conversational preserve in a spatially confined childcare facility is a matter of
constant reinterpretation and negotiation expressed through children’s collective practices of social fantasy play. Thus, while attempting to outmaneuver eachother in an intensifying territorial feud, the two girls were mutually obligatedpartners in the development of a shared family role play universe.
Mary (shakes Sally gently): Look Little Sweetie, would you like toswim in the Big Water again to make you better?
Little Sweetie does not respond.
Mary: (shakes her harder): Look, the Big Water, you can swim all by
yourself!
Sally (crying): Want my dad.
She reaches out for Casper and repeats that she wants her dad.
Mary: There is no dad. Now there was a big crocodile out in the Big
Water.
Little Sweetie stays on the floor moaning and crying for her dad.
Mary tries to pull Little Sweetie up on her feet.
Mary (irritated): Come on, now Little Sweetie went for a swim, andthen the crocodile came.
At the word crocodile, Casper jumps to his feet, ready to takeaction.
Casper: I can beat him. I can beat the crocodile.
Little Sweetie jumps into the water and starts screaming for help.
Without hesitation, Casper throws himself into the Big Water andlaunches a brave attack on the (imaginary) crocodile with a series ofwild punches, karate kicks and grunts.
In the middle of Casper’s epic fight with the vicious reptile, his
mom arrives to pick him up. A little while later, Helen (pedagogue)
asks the two girls to collect all the blankets and pillows and clean up
after themselves.
Neither the girl’s exchanges of claims and counterclaims nor their encroach-

213

214

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYments on each other’s territorial domains were arbitrary. They were completely
consistent with the developing storyline, loyal to the characters the girls wereimpersonating, and kept in line with the culturally established norms dictating
the roles and responsibilities of the different members of a contemporary family.
Even if the underlying aim of their co-creation of an imaginary family of Dads,
Moms, Little Sweeties, Big Waters, and ferocious crocodiles was to outmaneuver
each other in a fierce competition for the good of Casper’s attention and devotion, the two girls nevertheless demonstrated a high level of mutual adaptiveness,
responsiveness, and collaboration throughout the play episode. They remainedtrue to the family play frame and invented characters, play themes, and turnsof events that corresponded with this specific role and fantasy play universe.
They used their intimate knowledge of the cultural norms that guide the levelof physical intimacy between family members in real life to disguise territorial
intrusions as natural signs of affection.
It is not correct to interpret the dynamics of the interaction between thetwo girls simply in terms of conflict, disagreement, and antagonism. Nor is itcorrect to interpret the presented play trajectory as a celebration of imaginative
co-creation and cooperation. The personal stakes for both girls were high, andregardless of whether the actual good for which they fought was a committed
relationship with the absentminded Casper, a dominant position in the social
hierarchy of their peer group, or something else entirely, one thing was certain:
The two girls could not escape each other’s immediate physical company andhad to work out their differences in the confined space of an institutional environment in which territorial boundaries were blurry, fragile, and negotiable.
As suggested by Winther-Lindqvist (2010), the most popular girl was likely to
uphold the director’s position in a social fantasy play and to enact the role ofMom (Mary). The two girls, in their opposing roles as Mom and Little Sweetie,
illustrated that no social hierarchies are static and that it is essential to masterthe delicate art of breaking down, negotiating, and enforcing territorial boundaries for children engaging in social fantasy play and forming friendships in achildcare setting.

Discussion
Sally and Mary’s inventive use of role transformations and dramaturgical turning
points to pursue their opposing territorial agendas while taking on reciprocal

Children’s Play Territories

roles in a shared fantasy play scenario indicates a high level of adaptability tothe play’s environmental conditions in childcare. The two girls relied on a broad
range of sophisticated access strategies and complementary role performances
to drive the play narrative in a direction that served their respective territorial
agendas and needs. The obvious question is whether all children have equal
opportunities to become skillful masters of the complex territorial landscapeof a self-organized childcare play environment.
One of the cornerstones of the current national curriculum for Danish
ECEC is the imperative that “children’s spontaneous and self-organized playshould be acknowledged and respected and should be allowed plenty of spacein everyday activities” (Ministry of Children and Education 2020, 18). On thesurface, Danish childcare indeed provides a rich and fertile environment for children’s spontaneous and self-organized play because it allows them a high degreeof self-determination and unscheduled playtime with peers of the same age ininstitutional settings offering accessible play arrangements and toys (WintherLindqvist 2017).
However, through the territorial lens of Goffman’s microsociology, theambiguous and sometimes decidedly conflicting demands of children’s institutional play habitats become visible in surprising ways. Thus, as Goffman ([1971]2010) demonstrates in his microstudies on social interaction and public order,
the integrity of a social self relates intimately to an individual’s ability to maintaina minimum of control over fixed, egocentric, and situational territory. In thisregard, the social terrain of a childcare unit confronts its inhabitants with someof the same distinctive challenges that make grown-up co-mingling tricky inpublic parking lots and cramped subway cars during rush hour. Large crowds ofpeople gathered in confined spaces, where valuable goods are in short supply andclaims to situational territory rely on personal initiative, potentially heightens
the risk of social tension.
At the same time, the territorial conditions and demands of childcare also
place children in position to discover the benefits of compromising by making
room for others and avoiding open conflict. These challenges are pivotal tomost forms of social interaction in adult life, not to mention a driving force inthe co-creative activity of social fantasy play. In fact, the intimate presence ofsocial others, even if they potentially cause disruptions and provoke territorial
power struggles, provides children in childcare with unique chances to engage
in a rich social life with each other. Thus, the process of negotiating territorial
demarcations in play proves extremely valuable for children because it forces

215

216

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYthem to seek compromises, expand their social horizons, and engage together
in creative play projects that open doorways to the realm of social fantasy play.
Nevertheless, situational territory in a play habitat that provides some children
with opportunities for engagements in social fantasy play for others may bedifficult to decode and navigate.
From a traditional pedagogical standpoint in Danish and Scandinavian
ECEC, entrusting children with a responsibility to engage in self-organized
play, share space and props, and learn to resolve conflicts peacefully is part of alarger project of democratic formation and recognition of children’s active social
agency (Winther-Lindqvist 2017). On one hand, research shows that children’s
immersion in play with peers in childcare is a valuable training ground for theacquisition of social norms and competencies (Winther-Lindqvist and Svinth2019). On the other hand, this does not necessarily indicate that children’s selforganized play in childcare naturally evolves in the direction of inclusion, harmony, and equal opportunities if we delegate the responsibility to organize play,resolve differences, and share resources in a peaceful manner to the children
themselves. In fact, existing research suggests that children’s self-organized playproduces community and friendship as well as marginalization and social exclusion (Scrafton and Whitington 2015; Schousboe 2013; Winther-Lindqvist and
Svinth 2019). Reumano and his associates (Reumano et al. 2014) find that freeand self-organized childcare play environments tend to foster self-reinforcing
fantasy play communities among some children, while other children fall outsidethese synergistic creative circles and have fewer opportunities to gain entrance
and become positively involved in play.
My study underlines that a dichotomous distinction between prosocial andantisocial behavior fails to capture the complex dynamics of children’s social
fantasy play. The empirical data generally reflects that children must navigate
a territorial landscape of high complexity in their play. The ability to interpret
unwritten peer cultural rules and avoid committing open transgressions againstthem are vital skills to navigate this complexity. For instance, a ratified coplayer,
a trusted friend, or a leader of the peer group is often allowed to enter what
Goffman ([1971] 2010) called personal space—that is, the immediate space surrounding a child—while, instead, a child without such friendly affiliations or oflower status in a peer group likely gets received with hostility. Thus, successful
entrance into and influential participation in play in a childcare setting, social
fantasy play in particular, requires of the children resourcefulness, dexterity,
cultural knowledge, and refined communication skills.

Children’s Play Territories

The children enforce, negotiate, challenge, and mark out territorial lines
and territorial claims for play with a multitude of different agendas and purposes.
In general, the empirical research significantly finds that although the establishment of territorial domains in children’s play frequently causes conflict (particularly when physical space is limited), play territories also unite the children
in shared fantasy play projects and mark important social and organizational
connections. These create new relationships and allow fantasy play communities
to be born. A remarkable social flexibility, adaptability, and willingness to workout solutions and find common ground exists among children.

Conclusion
Although it is a paramount pedagogical project to inspire children to embrace
the virtues of inclusion and sharing, the children themselves must address otherurgent problems and concerns. Their primary objectives are to form functional
play groups, immerse themselves in stimulating fantasy play, protect valuable
material resources, invest in personal relationships, and gain control over theirown lives in the midst of crowded childcare facilities. From their point of view,
sharing toys, sharing space, and embracing a social etiquette based on theprinciple that everyone should play together as friends can sometimes directly
contradict their immediate needs and aspirations in social fantasy play. Thus,navigating the challenging habitat of a childcare play environment not only
requires openness, collaboration, and willingness to share from children, it canalso demand efficient strategies to outmaneuver opponents and barricade theentrance to a hideout. These findings highlight that sustaining play territorial
integrity and reaching influential positions in social fantasy play is an endeavorof high complexity for children in childcare. Beyond other decisive factors suchas age, gender, and status in the peer group, my study reveals that a rich anddiverse reservoir of creative skills, resources, and negotiation tactics enables children to manage the territorial implications of organizing and gaining entrance
to social fantasy play in a childcare setting.
Pedagogical involvement in these vital matters is often limited to encouraging children to resolve territorial discords in their play with diplomacy and awillingness to share and include each other. Pedagogues intervene in physicalconfrontations between the children and mediate to the best of their ability

217

218

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

if children call for their assistance. A growing body of international research
addresses the value of pedagogues taking on an actively supporting role in children’s play (Devi, Fleer, and Li 2018; Fleer 2015; Hakkarainen and Bredikyte2018). Winther-Lindqvist and Svinth (2019), in their review of children’s childcare play, find that play supported by adults has a strong potential to decreasechildren’s conflict level and promote increased participation and social inclusionin play.
However, my observations indicate that children mainly manage theformation of territorial borderlines in play according to the premises of theirown peer cultural rules and social hierarchies. This is a potential source ofsocial marginalization. Some children need guidance, inspiration, and creative
solutions from capable and engaged pedagogical sparring partners to find away into social fantasy play. The multifarious meanings and functions of playterritories in children’s social fantasy play testify to the need for an expansionof our knowledge about how to support children’s self-organized play in waysthat opens gateways to positive participation for children of all ages, genders,
cultural backgrounds, status in the peer group, and levels of play experienceand skill.
While the territorial indiscretions of an inconsiderate fellow traveler on
the subway is forgotten once he or she disappears into the crowd, children inchildcare must work out their differences and handle their territorial disputes inplay on the premise of an intimately shared institutional everyday life. By understanding the territorial conditions and implications of a childcare play habitat,
I argue, we can better support children’s social fantasy play and provide themwith fertile, rich, and inspiring institutional play environments in the future.

References
Bateman, Amanda. 2011. “Huts and Heartache: The Affordance of Playground Hutsfor Legal Debate in Early Childhood Social Organization.” Journal of Pragmatics
43:3111–21.
Bergström, Sofia Eriksson. 2013. Rum, barn och pedagoger: Om möjligheter och begränsningar i förskolans fysiske miljö. [Space, Children, and Preschool Teachers: About

Children’s Play Territories

Possibilities and Limitations in the Preschool’s Physical Environment].
Cederborg, Ann-Christin. 2020. “Young Children’s Play: A Matter of Advanced Strategies among Peers.” Early Child Development and Care 190:778–90.
Chen, Dora W., Greta G. Fein, Melanie Killen, and Tam Hak-Ping. 2001. “Peer Conflicts of Preschool Children: Issues, Resolution, Incidence, and Age-Related Patterns.” Early Education and Development 12:523–44.
Church, Amalia, Angie Mashford-Scott, and Caroline Cohrssen. 2018. “SupportingChildren to Resolve Disputes.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 16:92–103.
Cobb-More, Charlotte, Susan Danby, and Ann Farrell. 2009. “Young Children as Rule
Makers.” Journal of Pragmatics 41:1477–92.
Colwell, Malinda J., Kristi Gaines, Michelle Pearson, Kimberly Corson, Holly D. Wright,
and Brandon J. Logan. 2016. “Space, Place, and Privacy: Preschool Children’s
Secret Hiding Places.” Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 44:412–21.
Connolly, Jennifer A., and Anna-Beth Doyle. 1984. “Relation of Social Fantasy Playto Social Competence in Preschoolers.” Developmental Psychology 20:797–806.
Corsaro, William A. 1979. “‘We’re Friends, Right?’: Children’s Use of Access Rituals ina Nursery School.” Language in Society 8:315–36.
———. 2018. The Sociology of Childhood.
Corsaro, William, and Thomas Rizzo. 1990. “Disputes in the Peer Culture of Americanand Italian Nursery School Children,” in Conflict Talk: Sociological Investigationsof Arguments in Conversation, edited by Allen Grimshaw, 21–66.
Corson, Kimberly, Malinda J. Colwell, Nancy J. Bell, and Elizabeth Trejos-Castillo. 2014.
“Wrapped Up in Covers: Preschoolers’ Secrets and Secret Hiding Places.” Early
Child Development and Care 184:1769–86.
Cromdal, Jakob. 2001. “Can I be with?: Negotiating Play Entry in a Bilingual School.”
Journal of Pragmatics 33:515–43.
Deleuze, Gilles. (1968) 1994. Difference and Repetition.
Devi, Anamika, Marilyn Fleer, and Liang Li. 2018. “‘We Set Up a Small World’: Preschool
Teachers’ Involvement in Children’s Imaginative Play.” International Journal of
Early Years Education 26:295–311.
Duveen, Gerard, and Barbara Lloyd. 1993. “An Ethnographic Approach to Social Representations,” in Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, edited by Glynis
Marie Breakwell and David V. Carter, 90–109.
Evaldsson, Ann-Carita, and Magnus Karlsson. 2020. “Protecting Interactional Spaces:
Collusive Alignments and Territorial Arrangements of Two-Against-One in Girls’
Play Participation.” Journal of Pragmatics 155:163–76.
Fleer, Marilyn. 2015. “Pedagogical Positioning in Play: Teachers Being Inside and Outside of Children’s Imaginary Play.” Early Child Development and Care 185:1801–14.
Gillespie, Alex. 2006. “Games and the Development of Perspective Taking.” Human
Development 49:87–92.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients andOther Inmates.
———. (1971) 2010. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order.

219

220

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY———.1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status,and Exclusion.
Gray, Peter. 2011. “The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children
and Adolescents.” American Journal of Play 3:443–63.
Hakkarainen, Pentti, and Milda Bredikyte. 2018. “The Adult as a Mediator of Development
in Children’s Play,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Play, edited by Peter K. Smithand Jaipaulk Roopnarine, 457–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108131384.025.
Hart, Roger. 1979. Children’s Experience of Place: A Developmental Study.
Kampmann, Jan. 2004. “Societalization of Childhood: New Opportunities? New
Demands?” in Beyond the Competent Child: Exploring Contemporary Childhoodsin the Nordic Welfare Societies, edited by Helene Brembeck, Jan Kampmann, andBarbro Johannson, 127–52.
Killen, Melanie, and Elliot Turiel. 1991. “Conflict Resolution in Preschool Social Interactions.” Early Education and Development 2:240–55.
Koch, Anette Boye, and Hanne Hede Jørgensen. 2018. “Pædagogers arbejde med børneperspektiver: “‘Det er vigtigt at få lavet de drejninger, som børnene har lyst til.’”[“Educator’s Work with Children’s Perspectives: ‘It is Important to Get the Turns
that the Children Want to Do.’”] Tidsskrift for Social Pædagogik 21:110–21.
Kylin, Maria. 2003. “Children’s Dens.” Children, Youth, and Environments 13:30–55.
Lowry, Pat. 1993. “Privacy in the Preschool Environment: Gender Differences in Reaction to Crowding.” Children´s Environments 10:130–39.
Lynch, Lisa. 2017. “A Space Apart: Enabling the Creation of a Withdrawal Space in the
Preschool.” SAGE Open 7:1–14.
Meire, Johan. 2013. “Building Dens with Fences and Gates: Ritualized Inclusion andExclusion in Children’s Peer Cultures.” Kind & Samenleving. https://k-s.be/medialibrary/purl/nl/0527661/Building%20dens%20with%20fences%20and%20gates.pdf.
Ministry of Children and Education. 2020. “The Strengthened Pedagogical Curriculum: Framework and Content.” Strengthened Pedagogical Curriculum (emu.dk).
Mukherji, Penny, and Deborah Albon. 2018. Research Methods in Early Childhood: An
Introductory Guide.
Myrtil, Maureen J., Tzu-Jung Lin, Jing Chen, Kelly M. Purtell, Laura Justice, Jessica
Logan, and Allie Hamilton. 2021. “Pros and (Con)flict: Using Head-Mounted
Cameras to Identify Teachers’ Roles in Intervening in Conflict among PreschoolChildren.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 55:230–41.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. Starting
Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en.
Rasmussen, Kim. 2011. “Børns deltagelse og børneforskerens etiske dilemmaer.” [“Children’s Participation and the Child Researcher’s Ethical Dilemmas”] Nordiske
Udkast 39:8–23.
Reunamo, Jyriki, Hoi-Chun Lee, Li-Chen Wang, Inkeri Ruokonen, Teemu Nikkola, andSanna Malmstrom. 2014. “Children’s Creativity in Day Care.” Early Child Develop-

Children’s Play Territories

ment and Care 184:617–32.
Schousboe, Ivy. 2013. “The Structure of Fantasy Play and its Implications for Good andEvil Games,” in Children´s Play and Development: Cultural-Historical Perspectives,
International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 8,edited by Ivy Schousboe and Ditte A. Winther-Lindqvist, 13–28.
Scrafton, Eleanor, and Victoria Whitington. 2015. “The Accessibility of Socio-Dramatic
Play to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Australian Preschoolers.” European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23:213–28.
Sheldon, Amy. 1996. “You Can Be the Baby Brother, But You Aren’t Born Yet: Preschool
Girls’s Negotiating for Power and Access in Pretend Play.” Research on Language
and Social Interaction 29:57–80.
Singer, Dorothy G. and Jerome L. Singer. 1990. The House of Make-Believe: Children´sPlay and the Developing Imagination.
Singer, Elly, and Maritta Hannikainen. 2002. “The Teacher’s Role in Territorial Conflictsof 2-to-3-Year-Old Children.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17:5–18.
Skånfors, Lovisa, Annica Löfdahl, and Solveig Häaglund. 2009. “Hidden Spaces in the
Preschool: Withdrawal Strategies in Preschool Children’s Peer Cultures.” Journalof Early Childhood Research 7:94–109.
Svahn, Johanna, and Ann-Carita Evaldsson. 2011. “‘You Could Just Ignore Me’: Situating
Peer Exclusion within the Contingencies of Girls’ Everyday Interactional Practices.”
Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research 18:491–508.
Spradley, James. 1979. Participant Observation.
Tellgren, Britt. 2004. “Förskolan som mötesplats. Barns strategier för tilträden och uteslutningar i lek och samtal.” [“Pre-school as a Meeting Place: Children’s Access
Strategies and Exclusion in Play and Conversation”] Pedagogiska Universitet.
United Nations. 1989. Convention of Rights of the Child, article 31. https://www.ohchr.
org/sites/default/files/crc.pdf.
Van Manen, Michael, and Max Van Manen. 2021. Classic Writings for a Phenomenology of Practice.
Winther-Lindqvist, Ditte. 2009. “Symbolic Group Play and Social Identity,” in Symbolic
Transformation: The Mind in Movement through Culture and Society, edited by
Brady Wagoner, 249–69.
———. 2010. “Game Playing: Negotiating Rules and Identities.” American Journal ofPlay 2:60–85.
———. 2013.” Playing with Social Identities: Play in the Everyday Life of a Peer Group in
Day Care,” in Children´s Play and Development: Cultural-Historical Perspectives.
International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 8,edited by Ivy Schousboe and Ditte Winther-Lindqvist, 29–54.
———. 2017. “The Role of Play in Danish Child Care,” in Nordic Social PedagogicalApproach to Early Years, edited by Charlotte Ringsmose and Grete Kragh-Müller,
95–114.
Winther-Lindqvist, Ditte, and Lone Svinth. 2019. Leg i daginstitutioner. [Play in Day
Care Centers] Pædagogisk Indblik 03 [Pedagogical Insights 03]: 1–39.

221

222

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Wolfe, Maxine, and Leanne G. Rivlin. 1987. “The Institutions in Children’s Lives,” inSpaces for Children, edited by Carol Simon Weinstein and Thomas G. David,
89–114.