childhood-2011-svahn-491-508

http://chd.sagepub.com/Childhood

http://chd.sagepub.com/content/18/4/491The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0907568211402859 2011 18: 491 originally published online 9 September 2011Childhood

Johanna Svahn and Ann-Carita Evaldssonof girls' everyday interactional practices

'You could just ignore me': Situating peer exclusion within the contingencies

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Norwegian Centre for Child Research

can be found at:ChildhoodAdditional services and information for

http://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://chd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://chd.sagepub.com/content/18/4/491.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 9, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 18, 2011Version of Record >>

at Stockholm University Library on December 5, 2014chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Stockholm University Library on December 5, 2014chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Childhood18(4) 491 508

The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0907568211402859

chd.sagepub.com

You could just ignore me: Situating peer exclusion within the contingencies of girls everyday interactional practices

Johanna Svahn and Ann-Carita EvaldssonUppsala University, Sweden

AbstractThe present article approaches the phenomenon of indirect bullying through detailed analysis of the interactional practices that a group of preadolescent girls make use of as they reconstruct the social organization of their peer group, the effect being that one girl is eventually excluded. The data are drawn from ethnography combined with video recordings of the girls peer group interactions in a Swedish elementary school, during one school year. The interactional data cover three different periods of the exclusion process. Overall, the study highlights how processes of social exclusion are situated within the flow of subtle and seemingly innocent actions that are embedded in ordinary everyday interactional peer group practices.

Keywordsethnography, indirect bullying, microanalysis, peer exclusion, peer group interaction, preadolescent girls

Recent research on school bullying has indicated that more covert and subtle interpersonal behaviours, which inflict serious emotional harm, are more prevalent among schoolchil-dren than is physical violence (Yoon et al., 2004). A particular form of indirect bullying or relational aggression involving interpersonally manipulative behaviours, and deliber-ate exclusion from a group or activity, has been found to be more prevalent among girls (Crick et al., 2002; MH Goodwin, 2002; Owens et al., 2000; Simmons, 2002). In contrast to direct physical aggression (i.e. hitting and kicking), which implies bodily damage and is more prevalent among boys, relational aggression refers to behaviors that harm others through damage (or the threat of damage) of relationships or feelings of acceptance, friendship or group inclusion (Crick et al., 1999: 12).

Corresponding author:Ann-Carita Evaldsson, Uppsala University, Box 2136, Uppsala SE - 750 02, Sweden.Email: [email protected]

402859 CHDXXX10.1177/0907568211402859Svahn and EvaldssonChildhood

Article

at Stockholm University Library on December 5, 2014chd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

492 Childhood 18(4)

Although several researchers have indicated the occurrence of more covert forms of bulling among schoolgirls, few studies to date have looked at how indirect bullying such as processes of peer exclusion is situated and organized in naturally occurring peer group interactions among preadolescent girls (but see Evaldsson, 2007; MH Goodwin, 2002, 2006). Most studies use quantitative methods (in particular peer nomination items and questionnaires) to explore the prevalence of relational aggression or indirect bullying among girls in school. Still, a few studies are based on qualitative investigations of the explanations given by girls of peer group exclusion (Owens et al., 2000; SunWolf and Leets, 2004). For example Owens et al. (2000) report findings from focus group interviews of teenage girls accounts of behaviours including talking about others and excluding peers from the group. Key explanations for these behaviours concerned a desire to create excite-ment and alleviate boredom in school. The girls also referred to a longing for group accep-tance, and having close and intimate relationships. The victims of indirect aggression were described as bringing it on themselves, or as being vulnerable with certain characteristics that predisposed them to victimization (see also Simmons, 2002). In addition, SunWolf and Leets (2004) collected over 600 adolescent narrative accounts of group rejection. The nar-rative accounts revealed five different strategies used for communicating rejection (ignor-ing, disqualifying, insulting, blaming and creating new rules). Ninety percent of the adolescents shared experiences of hurtful group rejections and schools were reported as the predominant context in which the rejections occurred. The findings from the qualitative investigations are important because they indicate the need for further explorations of the interactional processes through which children in different social groupings negotiate and maintain group boundaries. However, the very covert nature of processes of social exclu-sion has been argued to make it difficult to conduct traditional observation studies (Bjrkqvist et al., 1992). Here, we illuminate the development and subtle interactional details of a social exclusion process, taking place in a preadolescent girls peer group. The data are drawn from ethnography combined with video recordings of everyday interac-tional practices among girls in one peer group during one school year in a Swedish school setting. Overall, the study shows that ethnographically based work on childrens peer group practices integrated with methodologies for studying talk and conduct in interaction is criti-cal to understanding the multifaceted and often long-term process of indirect forms of bul-lying such as peer exclusion (see MH Goodwin, 2006).

Ethnographic work on childrens interactional peer group practices

Several scholars have demonstrated how childrens friendship alliances are the situated product of a number of interactive practices through which children, in interactions with peers, build their social world (MH Goodwin and Kyratzis, in press; see also Corsaro, 2005; Eder, 1985; Evaldsson, 2005; MH Goodwin, 2008). A major concern in childrens peer culture has been found to be to develop and maintain friendship relations (Corsaro, 2005). Once children share an activity and do things together they also try to protect their interactive space from the intrusion of other children. As Corsaro (2005: 124) notes, gaining access to ongoing activities and protecting interactional spaces are everyday interactional processes through which preschool children organize their


Svahn and Evaldsson 493

participation in play activities (see Corsaro; 1979, Cromdal, 2001; Danby and Baker, 1998; Evaldsson and Tellgren, 2009).

In her review, Kyratzis (2004) demonstrates that exclusion and power are central con-cerns of children as they negotiate social positions and accomplish the social organization of the peer group. Both direct and non-confrontational strategies for conflict management are very effective in processes of power and exclusion in girls peer groups (MH Goodwin, 1993, 2008; Griswold, 2007; Sheldon, 1990; Sheldon and Johnson, 1994). For example, Sheldon (1996) found that a group of white American middle-class preschool girls used non-confrontational strategies when managing conflicts and exclusion in pretend play. In addition, Evaldsson and Tellgren (2009) demonstrate in their ethnographic research in a preschool setting in Sweden how a group of girls creatively draw on cultural resources provided by the organization of the play activity (pretend characters, play-script, etc.) to build social hierarchies, strengthen alignments of power, claim authoritative stances and exclude others. In particular, the ethnographic work done by MH Goodwin (1990, 2006) has demonstrated how preadolescent girls inflict harm on and exert power over other girls (see also Evaldsson, 2007). Processes of social exclusion were quite evident among African American working-class girls who engaged in a gossipdispute activity in which they talked extensively about other girls behind their backs (MH Goodwin, 1990). The confrontation could not be resolved easily and often lasted for weeks, resulting in severe ostracism for the girl being accused. In her work among preadolescent girls of various ethnicities and social classes, MH Goodwin (2006, 2007) demonstrates that the girls relied on a range of embodied practices in their organization of hierarchies, peer align-ments and social exclusion. Explicit forms of aggression and social exclusion, in which the target was portrayed negatively in insults, bald imperatives and stories, were particu-larly articulated in the girls interactions with one marginal girl, who was explicitly named tagalong. These findings are important as they underscore that paying close attention to the ways in which girls organize their peer groups over time provides insights into the complex and often harmful processes of peer exclusion.

Before we examine the interactive practices and multiple resources the girls within the particular peer group in focus used to negotiate and maintain the boundaries of their peer group as they reorganized the group over time, we first present the ethnographic approach including the school setting and the girls friendship group in question.

Ethnographic approach school setting and the girls peer group

The method used here has been influenced by long-term ethnographic studies among preadolescent children combined with methodologies for studying talk-in-interaction (for an overview, see MH Goodwin and Kyratzis, in press). The data analysed draw on 1 year of ethnographic research conducted by the first author (J Svahn) among preadoles-cent children in a 5th grade class at a Swedish elementary school, located in a low-income multiethnic area. Everyday peer group interactions in two different friendship groups of preadolescent girls within this 5th grade class were documented (40 hours of video recordings and field notes) in order to detect the interactional practices the girls relied on as they organized their peer groups. The particular data for this article consist of video recordings of interaction which occurred in one of these peer groups.


494 Childhood 18(4)

At the beginning of the fieldwork, the peer group in question was organized around three 11-year-old girls, Linna, Paula and Natalie, who had all attended the same school class since the 1st grade. All of the girls were born in Sweden, but have different ethnic backgrounds. Linna is of Swedish ancestry, Paula is Chilean and Natalie is Kurdish. As also been reported in other school settings (Eder, 1995; Evaldsson, 2007; Thorne, 1993), age and not ethnicity was the most institutionalized grouping principle in the school setting studied here. The three girls had in common that they were newcomers to the particular 5th grade class, and to the school. Most of the time, they socialized with one another and did not participate in games with the other girls and boys in their school class during break. Although the three girls spent most of their time together while in school, both explicit and implicit references were often made to Linna and Paula as best friends; both by the two girls themselves and by the third girl, Natalie. A few months into the study, a fourth girl, Emma, attending the only other 5th grade class at the school, was gradually incorporated into the peer group. Like Linna, Emma was of Swedish ancestry.

Information on the research project, introducing its object of study as peer group interactions and bullying practices, was given out at a parentteacher meeting held for the school class in question. The empirical collection strategies, in the form of observa-tions and video documentation, were also presented, as well as the length of the field-work. Parental consent and that of the children themselves was given for all the students in the class to participate in the study.

Out of the class, peer group interactions in one particular friendship group of girls were later selected for closer observation. This selection was made due to processes of peer align-ments, social hierarchies and marginalization becoming particular apparent in the groups interactions in relation to one of the girls, Natalie, who was eventually excluded altogether from the group. Integrating video recordings with an ethnographically based study was cru-cial both to gaining acceptance and to identifying interactional practices among the preado-lescent girls in the particular peer group in focus. In observing the girls friendship group, one of the researchers spent considerable time with the girls to gain their acceptance, along-side approval to video document their interactions on a regular basis. A crucial factor for gaining such acceptance was to hang around with the girls in their everyday school life, not interfering in peer activities, and to avoid acting like the teachers did (see Evaldsson, 2007; MH Goodwin, 2006). The empirical data were collected on a daily basis during weekly periods throughout the school year. Most of the video documentation of the girls interac-tions took place during breaktime, often in spaces where few or no other adults were present. The documentation was conducted using a small hand-held camera, due to the girls con-stant circulation around the school area. For a large part of the fieldwork the girls took turns wearing wireless microphones attached to their collars. All in all, fieldwork combined with recordings provided opportunities to identify and record instances of talk and embodied practices performed at a fast pace in places outside the teachers supervision.

The various interactional resources used by the girls in their organization of peer align-ments, social hierarchies and peer exclusion were not apparent at first glance, but emerged on repeated viewing of the video recordings. The fact that video recordings made it possible to repeatedly view the girls peer group interaction was crucial to the analysis. One of the great advantages of video is that it can capture the nuances of a range of simultaneously deployed interactional resources (sequential and temporal organization of talk, bodily



orientation, gaze, etc.) among multiple participants at a level of detail not realistic for a researcher simply relying on participant observation (C Goodwin, 2000). By examining the interactional work the girls accomplished in the unfolding of their interaction, and by ana-lysing the sequential organization of how the participants organized their turns, we as ana-lysts can demonstrate the subtle procedures used for reorganizing participation and producing a taken-for-granted social order (Evaldsson, 2002, 2007; MH Goodwin 1990, 2007; Griswold, 2007; Kyratzis, 2007). One long-term effect of the girls reorganization of their peer group, transformed through a number of routinized interactional practices and embod-ied resources, was that one girl was eventually excluded from the girls friendship group.

In what follows, the different phases of the peer exclusion process are presented in three separate sections, covering empirical data from three different periods during which significant changes in the social organization of the girls friendship group took place. The purpose of examining data from temporally unfolding peer group activities is to illuminate the shifts and changes in the girls participation, including the organization of peer alignments, social hierarchies and processes of social exclusion over time.

First period: Establishing a social organization of two-plus-one

In this first section, we examine the interactional practices the three girls, Paula, Linna and Natalie, made use of as they organized their peer group, the effect being that Natalies participation status was occasionally transformed, from that of a ratified to that of a non-ratified participant (Goffman, 1963).

Poetic insult talk and bodily alignments

When we meet the three girls, Linna, Natalie and Paula, they are on their way to the library. As shown in the line drawings from the frame grabs, the girls are walking side by side with Linna in the middle, Natalie on her left side and Paula on her right. Some turns later, the girls reorganize their bodies as Linna puts her arm around Paulas shoulder, leans her body and walks along closely to Paula (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.


496 Childhood 18(4)

As will be further demonstrated, the bodily alignments between Linna and Paula are made visible in the midst of a verbal exchange (Excerpt 1 lines 2830), beginning with Linna approaching Natalie by playfully calling her chimpanzee. Natalie responds with you cobra, while Paula aligns herself with Linna through overlapping laughter (not shown in Excerpt 1). The collaborative staging of playful insults that follows the initial sequence is a routine activity that the girls engage in on and off (Evaldsson, 2005). As



will be shown, the verbal activity has the character of a joyful and poetic play produced in reference to sounds and word associations (Jefferson, 1996). The transcription format is a simplified version of the one used in conversation analysis (CA) (see Appendix).

What is being referred to at first in the girls poetic wordplay belongs to the shared category of animals (lines 15). The seemingly innocent character of the wordplay changes after some turns from animals into bodily appearance, as Linna questions Natalies contribution mysk osk -ox, on line 6. Linnas request for information about the propositional meaning of the Swedish word casts the exchange as playful, but with a critical reference to Natalies limited language proficiency in Swedish (Evaldsson, 2005). Natalies pronunciation of the word mysk osk -ox is also treated as an error by Natalie herself. If we look at Paulas prior repetition of Natalies mispronunciation of the word chimpanzee (champanzee on line 3), it can also be seen as a subtle way of denigrating Natalie for her pronunciation. The mispronunciation made available through Natalies contributions also provides a warrant for Paula to change the more official category of animals into bodily appearance. The topic shift may also have been selected based on the phonetic relationship between the mispronunciation osk (Swedish word oxe and Eng. ox) and the Swedish word tjock (Eng. fatty) (see Jefferson, 1996).

The topic then glides into a playful but derogatory reference to Natalies body size, but then youre one of those (line 11) fat guts (line 13). Linnas use of the words you are one of those attaches the negative personal description fat guts to the opponent, which in turn emphasizes Natalies body size as being different from those of the other two girls (Evaldsson, 2005; MH Goodwin, 1990). Natalies negative reaction no (line 14) together with Linnas opposition (line 15) and rejection of the derogatory descrip-tion (line 17) upgrades and moves the insulting from the playful to the real. As Eder (1995) demonstrates in her ethnographic work on insults among preadolescent boys, the recipient is expected to respond to an insult as if it were not true, otherwise the insults rapidly escalate to a more serious level (see also Evaldsson, 2005; MH Goodwin, 1990).

In what follows, Natalie delivers an insult that contrasts the description of her as fat with an ascription of Linna as thin. Simultaneously, she puts her fingers in front of Linnas face to demonstrate her thinness (lines 1820). In the escalation that follows, Natalie becomes the primary recipient of the insults coming from both the other two girls, who expand and build on each others contributions (lines 2123). When Natalie produces an insult in return, in which she negatively portrays and caricatures Paulas bodily demeanour and manner of walking (lines 2427), the effect is that the alignment between Linna and Paula is further strengthened. The reorganization of the girl group from two-plus-one is further manifested as Linna defends Paula and puts her arm around her shoulder in a protective gesture (see Figure 1 and Excerpt 1 line drawing lines 2830), which in turn affords a different type of participation of two-against-one with respect to the activity at hand (MH Goodwin, 2007: 370). As has been shown, the close friendship between Paula and Linna and their congruent alignments towards Natalies contributions are displayed through at least two modalities: bodily orientation and talk. Linnas protective arm around Paula serves as an additional defensive action towards Natalies derogatory characterization of Paula.

Soliciting others attention and repeated non-replies

The next excerpt describes a situation that takes place during the same period as the previous example, and conveys additional interactional resources, which the girls made


498 Childhood 18(4)

use of in conjunction with poetic insult talk and embodied alignments (see Excerpt 1) in the social organization of their friendship group. In what follows, Linna, Paula, Natalie and a fourth girl from their class, Felicia, are in the library searching for books during a lesson. Linna is sitting on one of the lower bookshelves in the centre of the room, look-ing for books to read, with Paula standing close to her on her left side. As shown in Excerpt 2, Natalie makes several attempts to enter into the other two girls interactional space through the use of multiple access strategies (Corsaro, 1985).

Initially, Natalie is circling around the two girls, searching for books in the book-shelves along the walls, while concurrently trying to solicit Linnas attention, look here is a lot (line 1). She then displays an orientation to the structuring of Linnas book searching activity by aligning with the format of her announcement here is a Pippi book (line 2). In what follows, Natalie repeats the book announcement twice (lines 4 and 6) and also summons Linna by using her first name three times (lines 4 and 6). Despite repeated summons, Natalie does not succeed in attracting Linnas attention. Instead the two girls, Linna and Paula, proceed with their own ongoing singing activity.



As a consequence, Natalie proceeds to more high-risk tactics (Cromdal, 2001). As shown in the line drawings in Excerpt 2, Natalie approaches the two girls and holds out her book in front of Linnas face. Thereby, she drastically disrupts and intrudes on Linnas ongoing singing activity. Natalies book blocks Linnas vision, and makes it impossible for her to see the lyrics she is singing. Because Linnas singing activity is consequently disrupted, ignoring Natalie is no longer an option. In response, Linna hits the book with her hand to get it out of the way (frame 3) and uses a bald imperative to direct her away (line 13), which she then immediately justifies Im singing (line 13). In so doing, Linna protects the girls interactional space from Natalies intrusive actions. Obviously, the rejection of Natalie is at that point no longer simply a protection of the girls own activity, but also a rejection of the way in which Natalie has interrupted it. The effect is that Natalie is cast as a non-ratified participant in the two girls shared singing activity. The fact that neither Linna, nor Paula, look at Natalie during the whole inci-dent, but fix their eyes on the book (see Excerpt 2, frames 13), also demonstrates how the two girls treat Natalie as a non-person (Goffman, 1963: 40; MH Goodwin, 2002).

As shown, the process of excluding Natalie from the book searching and singing activity is collaboratively constructed; both through the ways in which Natalie upgrades her attempts to solicit Linnas attention (circling around her and aligning with her actions, using sum-mons and intrusive acts) and through the other girls ignoring (non-replies, avoidance, no-gaze) and rejection (bald directive, justification, hitting) of her access strategies. Compared to the first example, in which all three of the girls participated in the wordplay (Excerpt 1), Natalie does not manage to access the other girls ongoing singing activity. However, as shown in the detailed analysis of the previous excerpt, Natalie is also treated as marginal to the wordplay activity and even criticized for the contributions she makes to the activity at hand. Although the three girls form a rather solid peer group in their school class, and spend most of their time together in school, they had differential access to the ongoing activities at hand. Whereas Linnas and Paulas bodily and verbal alignments strengthened their posi-tion as ratified participants, Natalies activities placed her as subordinate and in a peripheral position to the primary dyadic unit (cf. MH Goodwin, 2007: 372).

Period 2: Reorganizing the peer group

In this section, we describe the ways in which the girls reorganized their peer group due to the incorporation of the fourth girl, Emma, into the girls friendship group later in the year. Emma, who attended the other 5th grade class, was gradually incorporated into the girls friendship group. As will be demonstrated, Emma openly expressed her unwilling-ness to interact with Natalie, and the girls interactions often centred around who was to play with whom, and who should be included in their shared activities. As a conse-quence, the social organization of the peer group was gradually transformed into three-against-one. During this second period, Natalies marginal position was solidified through the ways in which Emma provided Paula and Linna with entitlement, and gave them permission to choose the participants in play.

Ritualizing inclusion and giving permission

Even though Emma spent time with the group of girls on a daily basis, she consistently refused to interact with Natalie. As a solution to this problem, elaborating on a


500 Childhood 18(4)

suggestion from Emma, the girls decided that Linna and Paula should choose whom of the other two girls they wanted to be with. If the choice fell on Natalie, Emma would not join the group that day, and if the choice fell on Emma, Natalie should not take part in the group. Most days Natalie was the one who was not chosen, and had to find other play-mates. The issue of choosing whom to play with was up for negotiation on a regular and daily basis. In what follows, Linna and Paula make an attempt to collectively resist choosing between being with Natalie or Emma.

Excerpt 3: Negotiating procedures for participation

All four girls are out on the playground, but Linna and Paula have walked off from the others and as soon as Emma or Natalie comes near them they run further away while yelling that they have to be alone as they have an important decision to make. More than half way through recess time, the girls finally join to discuss the decision-making. As Linna and Paula express their unwillingness to choose, Emma shows her disappointment. Be with Natalie then. But then we are making a decision that you have decided, Paula says. Then she adds, And that doesnt feel okay to us. Or to me at least. Linna backs her up, saying, No, we dont want to choose. But you were fine choosing yesterday, responds Emma. Yeah yesterday, but today we want to be with both of you. Then Natalie, who has been standing quietly next to them, joins the conversation, turning to Emma, Yeah, you could just ignore me. Emma quickly rejects this proposition, declaring, Yeah, but that wouldnt really be fair to you.

In suggesting that Linna and Paula should play with Natalie, Emma indirectly makes an attempt to dictate the rules of the activity of choosing whom to play with. Emmas suggestion also serves as an indirect threat, indicating that the two girls do not respect the stipulated con-ditions of the procedures they have previously agreed on, and as a consequence they will not have the option of being with her. Thereby Emma indirectly gives the two girls permission to choose whom they want to be with, and displays her subordination to the dominant girls, thus proactively legitimating power from below (Griswold, 2007: 295). However, in response, Linna and Paula display their unwillingness to go along with Emma giving them permission to choose whom they want to be with. In this way, the two girls display that even though they are not willing to choose whom of the two girls they would like to be with, they are the ones who are in control of the social organization of the girls friendship group. Natalies sugges-tion, that if the girls just ignore her then they all could play together, also demonstrates how Natalie collaborates in the construction of herself as a non-person (Goffman, 1963: 40) who will even accept acting as an invisible member of the group (MH Goodwin, 2002, 2007). Natalies suggestion also underscores that she is no longer a ratified participant in the group. The fact that Emma responds to Natalies suggestion by declaring that it would not be fair to Natalie demonstrates as well the two girls different participatory status in the friendship group. Although Emma is also an optional playmate and not yet a natural part of the group at this time, she is treated as a ratified participant by Linna and Paula, who expand on and reject her suggestions and decisions. In fact, Emmas reply, that it would not be fair to ignore Natalie could be understood as a way to authorize the others inclusion of herself along with the exclusion of Natalie. Here, we can claim that Emma insinuates that it is less morally unac-ceptable to exclude Natalie than it is to include her and treat her as a non-person.



Requesting information and asking for permission for social entry

The following example (Excerpt 4), which is drawn from a video recording, demon-strates in more detail how the girls participation status shifts in relation to the procedures for ritualized inclusion. In what follows, Linna, Paula and Emma are standing in the stairwell on their way to the playground, while Natalie stands on the lower staircase at some distance from the primary group. The three girls are fully engaged in pretend play involving police and thieves when Natalie approaches them and requests information about who Paula has appointed to be with.


502 Childhood 18(4)

By turning directly to Paula with her request for information (lines 5, 10, 12), Natalie displays her subordination and orientation to Paula as an authoritative decision-maker (Griswold, 2007: 302). Natalies repeated requests for information demonstrate that she respects the new procedures for inclusion, which in turn implies that Natalie herself does not possess the authoritative knowledge to decide who to play with. Moreover, Natalies repeated requests do not even warrant a response from Paula, who instead continues to play with the other two girls. As shown in the line drawing, the three girls walk up the stairs holding each other tightly by the arm, and turn their backs on Natalie, thereby efficiently protecting their ongoing activity. The girls bodily formations make visible a bodily unit of shared participation. In contrast, Natalie is spatially positioned at the mar-gins of the group she is making efforts to affiliate herself with (cf. MH Goodwin, 2007).

Interestingly, it is Emma, and not Paula, who finally responds to Natalies queries, but she has already chosen? (line 15). Through this response, Emma displays her close rela-tionship with Paula and that she herself possesses the authoritative knowledge about who Paula will play with. As an ally to Paula, Emma enjoys a higher social position in the group than Natalie, and is entitled to inform Natalie about Paulas decisions (lines 15, 2426, 37). By only providing bits of information to Natalie, in a step-by-step fashion, while she herself continues to play with the other girls, Emma displays her unwillingness to include Natalie and give up her own powerful position within the group. Emmas extended explanation in lines 2426, no shes with everyone (0.2) right now, could be interpreted as an invitation for Natalie to join the other girls play activity. However, as Emma immediately after her explanation turns to the other two girls and encourages them to proceed with the play activity, but come on, it rather has the opposite effect. The fact that Natalie, despite Emmas unwillingness to provide her with information, continues in her attempts to get Paulas attention (lines 34 and 36) demonstrates how the repeated requests serve as a resource to interrupt the girls ongoing activity. Natalie then takes on a different approach, by using a pretend name, Cornelia? (line 34), while summoning Paula. The pretend name can be seen as a resource for Natalie to infer the two girls shared inter-actional history. She then immediately continues to ask Paula whom she has chosen. The consequence is that Emma finally provides Natalie with an answer: Paula has picked you (line 37). Natalies response oh: how nice that you have picked me (line 38) is fol-lowed with a hug and a big smile on her face (see second line drawing, Excerpt 4).

As has been shown, Natalies status as a ratified participant in the shared activities is highly restricted by Emmas introduction of the procedures for ritualized inclusion. As a consequence, Natalie has to make repeated attempts (i.e. requests for information, asking for permission, summoning, soliciting the others attention) to become a ratified partici-pant in the girls shared activities. Paradoxically, her recurrent requests for information and permission for social entry make visible her marginal and powerless status. Moreover, the interactive display of a subordinate and marginal status is accomplished not only through verbal interactions, but also through bodily formations and positioning within the physical space of the girls interactions.

Period 3: Neglecting a shared interactional history

During the third period, which took place at the end of the year of fieldwork, Natalies participation status as a non-ratified participant was solidified through the other girls



bodily gestures, spatial arrangements and their neglect of the girls shared interactional history. In this section, we demonstrate how a social organization of three-against-one during this period was finally established, the effect being that Natalie was cast as a non-ratified participant, and eventually excluded from the girls friendship group.

Invoking and neglecting a shared history

In the following example, Natalie is with two other girls, Elena and Josefin, from her class. The girls are engaged in telling each other about their pets. Natalies former friends, the two girls Paula and Linna, are not participating in the story telling but are standing close by. In what follows, Natalie suddenly turns to Linna and requests information about the colour of her own hamster, Max (Excerpt 5a, lines 56)

As shown in the excerpt, the other two girls, Elena and Josefin, do not immediately affiliate with Natalies version. After a second-long pause following her assessments (line 4), Natalie herself instead tries to solicit support from Linna, you can ask Linna yourself, and asks her to provide further information about her hamster, what colour was Max (line 56). On hearing this, Paula immediately starts to laugh (line 7). Paulas laughter can be seen as a strong indicator that there is something unconventional about Natalies request for information. Also, Josefins question dont you remember that


504 Childhood 18(4)

yourself if it was your hamster (lines 10, 12) implies that it is a bit odd to solicit informa-tion about your own hamster. However, the others reactions do not prevent Natalie from continuing with her story.

As the girls pursue their talk on pet hamsters, Natalie continues to seek support from Linna and to solicit her affiliation (Excerpt 5b).

As Natalie pursues her line of conduct, seeking Linnas affiliation with her version, she uses the formulation do you remember (line 1). The formulation elicits the two girls shared interactional history and is an invitation to Linna to join Natalie in her story telling. However, Natalies attempts do not warrant any positive responses from Linna. As shown in the line drawings, Linna demonstrates with her headshake, and by looking



straight ahead, and not at Natalie (line 3), her unwillingness to recall any shared memo-ries. When Natalie continues to talk about her hamster Max (line 4), Linna yet again shakes her head, which emphasizes her previous negative reply (lines 56). Her minimal responses, in the form of headshakes and withdrawal of gaze, underscore that Linna does not align herself with the version being told. Moreover, she takes an active part in bodily disaligning herself from Natalie. When the other girl, Elena, begins to talk (line 9), Linna immediately looks at her, takes a step forward and leaves her position next to Natalie. In so doing, Linna not only displays her disinterest in Natalies story telling, but also casts Natalie as a non-ratified participant in the girls interaction. A social order built on asymmetrical relationships (MH Goodwin, 2008) is consequently solidified through the neglect of both Natalies present interactional contributions along with the girls shared interactional past. Although Natalie makes repeated attempts to elicit the girls shared interactional history, she is recurrently ignored and cast as an outsider in relation to the dyadic unit, with no rights to take part in the other two girls everyday activities.

Concluding discussion

In the present study, we have demonstrated how social exclusion is situated within the flow of intricate, subtle and seemingly innocent everyday peer group interactions (i.e. poetic wordplay, bodily alignments and disalignment, repeated summons and non-replies, ritualized forms of inclusion, repeated requests for entry, neglect of a shared interactional history). In this, our study fills a gap concerning research on the phenomenon of indirect bullying or relational aggression among girls by providing detailed information about how girls everyday peer group interactions taken across a range of activities may be con-sequential in the process of social exclusion (see also MH Goodwin, 2002, 2006).

Through the use of an ethnographic approach in which many hours were spent with the group of girls in focus, combined with video recordings in settings and situations away from adult supervision, we were able to detect and document evolvement of and changes in the social organization of the girls friendship group including processes of peer alignments, social hierarchies and social exclusion over time (for a similar discus-sion, see MH Goodwin, 2002: 718; see also Danby and Baker, 1998; Evaldsson, 2002, 2007). As we have demonstrated, the girls proficiency in aligning and disaligning with their own and others actions (talk and bodily organization) provided a rich resource base on which to establish different forms of participation and construct more enduring forms of social organization, in which one girl was recurrently cast as a non-ratified participant, and eventually excluded from the friendship group. Indeed, without close scrutiny of the interactional details, it would have been difficult to understand the subtle meaning of the girls everyday activities, such as poetic wordplay, repeated summons and non-replies, ritualized forms of inclusion, story telling and neglect of a shared history, which are often ambiguous and even provocative. The findings of this study support MH Goodwins (2002, 2006, 2007) ethnographic work, showing that girls rely on a range of embodied practices (gaze, bodily orientation, proximity) in their organization of peer alignments, social hierarchies and social exclusion. As shown, the dyadic friendship alliances between Linna and Paula were manifested through gestures of intimacy; such as Linna putting her arm around Paulas shoulder (Excerpt 1), the girls directing their gaze at each


506 Childhood 18(4)

other and through overlapping laughter, while recurrently commenting on Natalies actions (Excerpts 1, 2, 4), or simply by standing in close proximity to each other (Excerpts 1, 2, 4). In building up and strengthening their dyadic unit, the two girls at the same time ignored and distanced themselves from the third girl, Natalie (Excerpts 2,4), the long-term effect being that she was eventually excluded from the group.

One of the major difficulties when studying the phenomenon of more indirect forms of bullying is that peer exclusion is deeply embedded in ordinary and everyday interac-tional peer group practices, making it very difficult to discern for an outsider. Since social exclusion often occurs in groups of girls with a shared interactional history, it is even difficult for teachers and classmates to capture the meanings and functions of the often gradually and escalated processes of social exclusion. In the case of the girls peer group focused on here, the everyday interactional practices leading up to the social exclusion of one girl, Natalie, from the group, for the most part went unnoticed by the other children in the class group. As can be noted, the targeted girl, Natalie, is not merely an innocent victim of the offences, as is often argued (cf. Evaldsson, 2007). The subtle interactional process through which the targeted girl is constantly searching for belong-ing or acceptance in the particular friendship group produces a fertile context (Owens et al., 2000: 81) for the other girls to intensify and escalate interactional practices, result-ing in deliberate forms of social exclusion.

Overall our findings challenge a unitary and static view of the phenomenon of indirect bullying, indicating that we as analysts cannot simply rely on self-report methodology that has so far dominated the research on bullying. That is, further studies of more covert and interpersonal forms of bullying would be enriched by an acknowledgement of the com-plexities, dynamics, contradictions and changes inherent within in situ interactional prac-tices, as these are accomplished among girls in their everyday peer group interactions.

Appendix

The transcription format is a simplified version of the one used in conversation analysis (CA). The following conventions apply:

abrupt cut-off: prolonging of soundcolour stressed syllable or words[ ] simultaneous or overlapping speech= contiguous utterances(.) micro-pause((raise their hands)) description of non-speech activity.

The English translations are as close as possible to the Swedish verbatim records. All names of the girls in the peer group have been changed to secure the anonymity of the participants, and replaced with fictional names, which have an ethnic flavour.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant number 2005-2660).



References

Bjrkqvist K, sterman K and Kaukiainen A (1992) The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In: Bjrkqvist K and Niemela P (eds) Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Corsaro WA (1979) Were friends right?: Childrens use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language and Society 8: 315338.

Corsaro WA (1985) Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Corsaro WA (2005) The Sociology of Childhood, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Crick NR, Casas JF and Ku H (1999) Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in pre-

school. Developmental Psychology 35(2): 376385.Crick NR, Casas JF and Nelson DA (2002) Towards a more comprehensive understanding of peer

maltreatment: Studies of relational victimization. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11: 98101.

Cromdal J (2001) Can I be with? Negotiating play entry in a bilingual school. Journal of Pragmat-ics 33(4): 515543.

Danby S and Baker C (1998) How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood 5(2): 151175.Eder D (1985) The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociol-

ogy of Education 58(3): 154165.Eder D (1995) School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.Evaldsson A-C (2002) Boys gossip telling: Staging identities and indexing (unacceptable) mascu-

line behavior. Text 22(2): 199225.Evaldsson A-C (2005) Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in a multiethnic peer group.

Discourse and Society 16(6): 763786.Evaldsson A-C (2007) Accounting for friendship: Moral ordering and category membership in pre-

adolescent girls relational talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40(4): 377404.Evaldsson A-C and Tellgren B (2009) Dont enter Its dangerous: Negotiations for power and

exclusion in preschool girls play interactions. Educational and Child Psychology 25(2): 918.Goffman E (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings.

New York: Free Press.Goodwin C (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Prag-

matics 32(10): 14891522.Goodwin MH (1990) He Said-She Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children.

Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Goodwin MH (1993) Accomplishing social organization multi-modality in girls play: Patterns of

competition and cooperation in an African-American working class girls group. In: Hollis ST, Pershing L and Young MJ (eds) Feminist Theory and Folklore. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 149165.

Goodwin MH (2002) Building power asymmetries in girls interactions. Discourse and Society 13(6): 715730.

Goodwin MH (2006) The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status and Exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Goodwin MH (2007) Participation and embodied action in preadolescent girls assessment activ-ity. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40(4): 353375.

Goodwin MH (2008) The embodiment of friendship, power and marginalization in girls interac-tions. Girlhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1(2): 7294.

Goodwin MH and Kyratzis A (in press) Peer socialization. In: Duranti A, Ochs E and Schieffelin B (eds) The Handbook of Language Socialization.


508 Childhood 18(4)

Griswold O (2007) Achieving authority: Discursive practices in Russian girls pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40(4): 291319.

Jefferson G (1996) On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly 16(1): 1161.Kyratzis A (2004) Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and

peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 625649.Kyratzis A (2007) Using the social organizational affordances of pretend play in American pre-

school girls interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40(4): 321352.Owens L, Shute PT and Slee R (2000) Guess what I just heard: Indirect aggression among teenage

girls. Aggressive Behavior 26(1): 6783.Sheldon A (1990) Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes 13(1):

531.Sheldon A (1996) You can be the baby brother, but you arent born yet: Preschool girls negotia-

tion for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(1): 5780.

Sheldon A and Johnson D (1994) Preschool negotiators: Gender differences in double-voice dis-course as a conflict talk style in early childhood. In: Sheppard B, Lewicki R and Bies R (eds) Research on Negotiation in Organizations 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Simmons R (2002) Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. San Diego: Harcourt Books.

SunWolf and Leets L (2004) Being left out: Rejecting outsiders and communicating group bound-aries in childhood and adolescent peer groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research 32(3): 195223.

Thorne B (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Yoon JS, Barton E and Taiariol J (2004) Relational aggression in middle school: Educational implications of developmental research. Journal of Early Adolescence 24(3): 303318.


childhood-2011-svahn-491-508

Documents

girls peer group interactions

situating peer exclusion

group of preadolescent

comchildhood http

school bullying

contingencies of girls

exclusion process

group inclusion crick