entirely fixed during the period of study, with boundaries becoming more or less permeable over time. It is also the case that children’s social groups define themselves oppositionally, and that this can lead to stronger apparent boundaries than is the case in practice. Both the ‘nice girls’ and the ‘normal people’ were explicitly looked down on by the ‘cool girls’, and distanced themselves from the ‘cool girls’ in response, while the ‘normal people’ joined in with the ‘cool girls’ in treating the ‘nice girls’ as low-status ‘goody-goodies’ or ‘neeks’. However, the ‘normal people’ group, despite seeing themselves as clearly distinct from the ‘nice girls’, did frequently play with them. It must also be borne in mind that the rigid boundaries frequently maintained within school might be absent elsewhere. For example, Lucy, one of the low status ‘nice girls’ went cycling at the weekend with Chelsea, who was (most of the time) a ‘cool girl’, their connection being that they were the only two girls in the class allowed out without an adult. It is not to us how girls originally came to be part of the groups to which they belonged when we arrived. The overwhelmingly middle-class intake of the school suggests that social class was not a factor, though habitus may have been (Sedano, 2012): the ‘cool girls’ were notable in their comparatively high interest in brand-name and designer clothing, and some had highlights in their hair (Pilcher, 2011), whereas the central trio in the ‘normal people’ group were high achievers. It is also the case that, in a setting in which ethnicity was played down so much that it was almost invisible, two of the ‘nice girls’ group and one of the intermediate-status best-friend pair were of ethnic minority origin (Melissa and Britney Turkish, Athena Chinese). It is therefore possible (though we have not evidence one way or the other) that ethnicity was a factor, although not an
In groups the children choose three rules and then envoys go around the other groups and negotiate the rules they’ve chosen….When Lucy comes to our group with the rules, Holly reads them out and starts changing them…Lucy doesn’t seem to notice how quickly her role was usurped by Holly. (field notes) This non-engagement in the constant jostling for status extended to a lack of interest in the activities of children for whom it was of paramount importance. The ‘nice girls’ were notable in that they were the group in the class who were least bothered about the competitive and exclusive antics of the ‘cool girls’. It was unclear whether this lack of interest in the intrigues of the ‘cool group’ was related to their continued involvement in playground games. Certainly they were less likely to see what was going on in the ‘cool girls’ corner if they were racing around rather than sitting watching, but it is also possible that their lack of investment in these power struggles left them free to play. Unlike the rest of the class, they did not get involved in discussions of who fancied whom (Renold, 2005), and appeared generally to be uninterested in sex-related activities. The other children certainly regarded them as non-sexual, but this may simply reflect their low status; sexual attractiveness and an interest in liaisons were markers of ‘coolness’, so to ascribe them to this group would have undercut their subordination. While they were aware of what the ‘cool group’ did, and occasionally watched their disputes from a distance, the ‘nice girls’ did not join in with these arguments at all. This lack of interest was reciprocal: the ‘cool girls’ generally ignored the ‘nice girls’. This was in stark contrast to the dominant boys’ treatment of the lowest status boys. High status boys spent a good deal of energy
friends both to enhance her own power and as a source of vicious amusement. Mia’s lack of loyalty to those outside the ‘cool girls’ group meant that the other children did not usually defend her. Indeed, it sometimes appeared that she was used as a ‘stand-in’ for others whom one did not dare to challenge. For example, when everyone laughed at Titanic when he fell over while running, he shouted ‘shut up Mia’ rather than confronting the rest of the class. Similarly, in conversation, lower status children might move from speaking critically about the powerful Kelly, to discussing how much they disliked Mia, a much safer target. Overall, Mia’s strong investment in ‘cool girl’ discourse and constant striving to be part of the ‘cool girls’ group put her in the most problematic position of all the girls in the class. It left her open to exclusion from all sides, because her tendency to take all secrets and disputes to Kelly made her distrusted by the other children (Sedano, 2012). Allowing herself to do more powerful girls’ ‘dirty work’ in bullying or setting up others at Kelly’s request meant that she was frequently blamed for causing trouble, while, her relative lack of power meant that other children, even the ‘nice girls’, felt that they could condemn or reject her with impunity. Her public failure, in the face of public striving, to be accepted by the ‘cool girls’ clique gave her a pariah status which left her open to ridicule from all sides. While, unlike the ‘nice girls’, she could at times openly resist and fight back, particularly against the boys, her constant desire to please Kelly, in the face of Kelly’s frequent rejection, made her school life frequently miserable, if occasionally exciting. Taken all together, her experiences suggest that, for a girl, being a ‘wannabe’, on the extreme fringes of