Play as participation in everyday life
While play may appear at times to follow and
of computing’ (Holloway and Valentine 2000b:
imitate wider cultural constructions, children
769). Several research studies suggest that chil-
will also invest and embellish it with their
dren’s peer networking offers the opportunity
own meanings. Katz’s (2004: 108) observations
for creating virtual spaces in which children
of Howa children’s pretend games notes they
can play with their identities and suspend
offer possibilities for ‘ways of imagining things
reality (Huffaker and Calvert 2005, Valkenburg
differently’ and to ‘understand the process and
et al. 2005). However, this is still connected to
possibilities of change’. The appropriation of
their ‘offline’ everyday worlds: online networks
space and time through play enables children to
are largely constructed around peer groups;
de-territorialise dominant spatial productions
computer networking becomes another way
and establish their own ‘child-friendly places’,
of maintaining everyday friendships (Hollo-
as sites of many possible futures. But when play
way and Valentine 2002). Studies of children’s
is over, the space reverts back to its previous
everyday use of computers suggest that they
condition until such time as further playful
offer another way in which children produce
intrusions occur.
clandestine spaces by creating and negotiating private space in the home, often under the guise
The relationship between dominant and clan-
of doing educational work.
destine production of space also extends into children’s virtual worlds and their online identi-
Such disruptions and clandestine uses of space
ties via new media technologies. In industrial-
represent the formation of children’s play
ised countries, children spend more time using
cultures that develop and fragment away from
the variety of media technology than in school
adult gaze, and in which children and young
or playing with friends. Buckingham (2007: 43)
people learn how to articulate their indi-
notes ‘growing numbers of children have access
viduality while at the same time fitting in with
to globally and locally-produced media mate-
peer group identities (Valentine 2000). Play is
rial’. A ‘commonsense’ production of virtual
important as a situated practice, one in which
space highlights the value of technology for
playful discourses are aligned and disconnected
education and future employability, matched
and where children can develop fluid subjectivi-
with concerns over children’s possible vulner-
ties that are responsive to the interactions of
ability by being online and the need to closely
the players and their play spaces. Playing offers
regulate children’s use of these technologies.
the potential to move beyond fixed and determined identities and patterns. Space becomes
Children are not ‘passive dupes’ in this produc-
the product of children’s active participation in
tion but are ‘interpreting and making sense of
establishing transformational relationships with
information technology within “local” cultures
others and the environment (Massey 1999).
31