Nicolopoulou Scales, & Weintraub - Gender Differences and Symbolic Imagination in the Stories of...

8/8/2019 Nicolopoulou Scales, & Weintraub - Gender Differences and Symbolic Imagination in the Stories of Four-Year-Olds

1/14

In: A. H. Dyson & C, Genishi (Eds.) (1994), The Needfor Story:Cuttural Diversity in Classroorn and Commanit! (pp' 102-123).Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers pf English.I Gender Dffferences andSymbolic lmaginationIn the Stories ofFour-Year-OldsAgeliki NicolopoulouSmith CollegeBarbara ScalesUniversity of California, Berkeleyfeff WeintraubWilliams CollegeAgelibi Nicalopotrlou, Barhara Scales, and, leff Weintraub turn ourattention to another source of dtfference in students' stories-gender. Thryportray the striking differences in tke narrstiae styles of four-year*ldboys sncl girls. Thex differences in symbolic imagination raise thought-prwoking questions about the warls in zol$ch young childrefi constructtluir social worlds-{tnd tlrc ut{tys in which teachers might further andexpand those worlds.ost scholars and practitioners in the field of education are, forunderstandable reasons, rnore interested in stories written forchildren, which thev read or which are told to them, than in

stories that childre n tlrcmselies compose and tell. But of course the twosubjects are not unrelated: when children tell stories, they reveal some-thing irnportant about wlro they are and how ttrey see the world. Bvgrasping the forms of s'yrnbolic imagination expressed in the storiesthat children tell, we can improve our understanding of how childrencomprehend and respond to the stories told fo them and what kind ofimpression these stories make on them. But part of what makes chil-dren'$ storytelliog so revealing, it is important to add, is that it pla,vsa vital role in their own efforts to make sense of the world and to findtheir place i,n it. As both Bruner (e.9., 1986,1990) and Paley (*.9., 1981,1984a, 1984b, 1988, 1990) have emphasizetl in different wavs, the sto-

Nicolopoulott, Scales, and Weintraub

ries children tell are themselvs cognitive tools, and children's use offantasy is a crucial element in their attempts to master reality-One philosopher has argued that, if we listen carefully to chil-dren, ft'e can see the ways in which they are little philosophers: theyponder the d.eepest metaphysical and ontologr.ut problems in theirown u/ay in an attempt to bring cognitive order to the universe (Mat-thews 1980). In a parallel fashion" this chapter will urge that we takechildren seriously as little artists. Th"y use stories and other forrns ofsyrnbolic expression in order to represent the wodd-to themselvesand each other-and therebv to make sense of it. Simultaneously, theyuse their stories as a way of expressing certain emotionally importantthernes that preoccupy them and of symbolically managing or resolv-ing these underlying themes. fn constmcting their stories, thev drawin various lvays on images and conceptual resources present in theirculture, but they do not just passively abrcrb thenr-and the messagesbetrind them. [t seems clear that, e!'en at the age of four, they are ableto appropriate them and to some degree to manipulate them for theirown symbolic ends. But once again, to see how they do it, we have tolisten to them carefully.The Study PlanThe present discussion is based on the analysis of a set of spontaneousstories told by a group of four-year-olds. The larger concern behindthis investigation is to explore the different ways in which chitdren usesymbolic conslructions to represent and organize reality-and, in thiscase, the ways in which these differences come to be strucfured bygender Our findings suggest that, even at this early d1e, the boys andgirls involved visualize and represent the world-and especially theworld of social relations-in striki*gly distinctive ways. Their differ-iog orientations are expressed in their active use and irnaginativeelaboration oi two distinclive and gender-related narrative styles thatpermeate tlris body of stories. Underlying these nalrative styles aredifferent forms of symbolic imagination, different emergi.g images ofsocial realiiY and different ways of coming to grips with that realitv.They represent, among other things, quite different approaches to thesymbolic management of order and disorder. In addition to broaden-ing our knowledge of narrative diversitv among young children, itseerns likelv that grasping these differences can help us understandtendencies toward the developmental emergence of different cognitiveand culfural styles in men and women.

103102


2/14

r04 Gender Differeilces nnct Syrrrbolic lnnginntiortThe Children and Their StoriesThe stories we have been analyzi.g were composcd by chilclren at-tending a half-day nursery school affiliated with the Child Study Cen-ter of the University of California, Berkeley. The group involved wasthe class of four-year-olds, of which one of the authors, Barbara Scales,is the head teacher. The class consisted of 28 children, 74 boys atrd 14girls. The family backgrounds of the children in this grouP were pri-marily middle to upper-middle class, mostly professional or academic.In most cases, both parents worked outside the holne. To prepare forsome of the discussion later on, we want to emphasize that the nurseryschool attempts strongly and deliberately to create an egalitarian andnonsexist atmosphere; and we have every reason to believe that mostof the children come from families which share this orientation.The stories were collected by using a variant of a storytellingand story-acting technique pioneered by Vivihn Paley. One optionalactivity in which any child in the school majt choose to participateevery duy is to dictate a story to the teacher |vho is supervising theinside area that day. The teacher records the story as the child tells it.At the end of each duy, all the stories dictated during that duy are readaloud to the entire group at "circle time" by the sarne teaclter. While'the story is being read, the child-author and other children, whom heor she cl',ooses, act out the story. This story-acting practice is aimed atfostering communication and the development of a common culturewithin the group of children by having them listen to and even activelyparticipate in each other's stories.- the analysis is based on the complete set of 582 stories collectedduring the entire academic year 1988-89, which included stories toldby all2A cnitdren. About 50 percent (347) of these stories were dictatedby girls and about 40 percent (235) by boys. (This corPus of stories isdrawn from the 'Child Study Center Archives of Children's Play Nar-ratives" at the Institute of Human Development of the Uuiversity ofCalifornia, Berkeley.)Interpretive Analysis: Narrative as Symbolic FormMaterial of this kind constitutes an especially rich source of data forresearch that explores the role of narratives in children's constructionof reality and personal identity. This is true above all because of theirvoluntary and spontaneous composition and because the children'sstorytelling activity is embedded in the ongoing framework of their

Nico/o poulou, Scnles, nncl Weintrnulr

everyday group life-irl the "real world" of their classroom mipi-cultttre. I;urthertnore, because of "circle tinte," tftese are stories tfiatchiltlrell tell not only to adults, but to other cftildren as well.Fronr a methodological standpoint, the question is what kild ofapproach can best take advanlog. of the possibilities offered by thismaterial. While a considerable hmount of work on children and narra-tives is being done rlow in the overlapping disciptines of psychologyand linguistics, studies that deal with children's own stori"i ur" decid-edly in the mitrority. Even in these cases, the stories are usually gener-ated under conditions that sharply limit their spontaneous character(often for well-considered methodological reasons, to be sure). Fur-thermore, for several decades the great bulk of this research has tendedto focus more or less exclusively on formal elements of the stories-most typically their narrative structure--and to neglect their symboliccontent (for some reviews, see Mandler 1983; Romaine 1985; Slobin1990; Stein and Glenn 1,982). We are necessarily speaking in broadterms here, and there are significant exceptions, but even when atten-tion is paid to the symbolic content, it is usually in an incidental andunsystematic way (e.9., Sutton-Smith 1981). On the other hand, someinvestigations derivi.g from a psychoanalytic perspective obviouslyfocus quite heavily on symbolic content (e.g., Bettelheim 7977; Pitcherand Prelinger 196il, but these analyses tend to neglect the formalelements of the stories and the cognitive styles they embody.HoweveL a rigid divorce between form and content in the analy-sis of children's narratives makes it difficult to capture precisely thosefeatures which render them important and emotionally engaging forchildreu. The child's story is fragmented into elements that, takJn inisolation, do not fully capture the point of telling and listening tostories. Studies of children's narrative competence, for example, areoften strangely abstracted from the uses to which children prt thiscomPetence and their purposes in doing so. Overcoming this fragmen-tation-reassembling the phenomenon of story as a living whole-re-quires an aPProach that can integrate the formal analysis of children'snarratives into a more comPrehensive interpretiae perspective. In par-ticular; it requires that we treat narrative form as a type of synrbolicform, whose function is to confer meaning on experienie, rathlr thanconceiving it only in terms of linguistic structure. As Bruner has co-gently put it, 'The central concern is not how narrative text is con-structed, but rather how it operates as an instrument of mind in theconstruction of reality" (7992, 233).

105


3/14

105 Gender Differences and Symbolic Imnginatiorr

Thus the interpretive framework we have developed to analyzethese stories attempts to capture both their form aud their content andto bring out the relationship between them. In working out our ap-proach, w have drawn on a range of sources, includi^g several of thecontributors to this volume. One especially useful source of guidancehas been the mode of cultural interpretation championed by Geertz,an anthropologist (".9., 1973), and the broader "interpretive tunr" inthe human sciences for which he has been a particularly influentialspokesman. The guiding insight of this perspective is that the interpre-tation of meaning is not only a key requirement for the stud y of humanlife, but is simultaneously a central condition of human thought andaction itself. Accordingly, our starting point is the premise that thechildren's stories are meaningful texts that, if analyzed carefully, cantell us a great deal about the ways that children grasp the world andsocial relationships. The crucial concern of an interpretive analysis istlrus to elucidate or decode the sfructures of nrcaning that the storiesembody and express-reconstructing not only the surface meanings ofthe stories, but also certain deeper patterns thert organize and informtlrem. When they are approached in this wdf, children's spontaneousstories, fls well as other expressions of their symbolic imagination, carloffer us an invaluable and privileged window into the nrind of thepreschooler.Gender-related Narrative Styles in Children's StoriesWhen we first set out to exarnine these stories, we did not ltave genderdifferences in mind, nor were we searching for different narrativestyles. They emerged in the course of the analysis, and indeed took usby surprise. It had been suggested that the us" of this storytelling andstory-acting practice seemed to generate greater cohesion and solidar-ity among the children, and it was this phenomenon of social cohesionwe wished to study. Our original intention was to trace the ways thatthemes were transmitted and elaborated within the group and becamepart of the children's common culture.But as we read systematically through the entire corpus of thestories, one profound complication in this picture became increasinglyapparent to us: nam ely, that the stories divided overwhehningly alonggender lines. Despite the fact that the stories were shared with theentire group every day, boys and girls told different kinds of stories.In fact, the kinds of stories boys and girls told differed systernaticallyand consistently not only in their characteristic subject matter, but also

Nicolopoulou, Scnles, and Weintrnubin the overall rtarrative structure and symbolic irnagination they em-ployed.

We discovered, in other words, that this body of stories is domi-trated by two highly distinctive narrative styles, divided to a strikingextetrt along gender lines, that contrast sharply (and subtly) in theircharacteristic modes of representing experience and in their underly-ing inrages of social relationshipr. In fact, these narrative styles ern-body two distinctive types of genuine aesthetic imagination(surprising as it may seem to assert this of four-year-olds), each withits own itrner logic and coherence. In particular; underlying and unify-ing many of the surface themes in the stories is a preoccupation withissues of order atrd disorder; here we are indebted to the theoreticallead provided by Douglas, another anthropologist (particularly inDougla s 1966). In general-to anticipate our overall conclusions-thegirls' stories show a strain towa rd order, while the boys' stories showa strain toward disorder, a dif.ference that is expressed in both the formand content of the stories.The subsequetrt discussion will flesh out what we mean inspeaking of a "strain toward order" and a "strain toward disord er,"fonnulations we have arrived at through a very flexible appropriationof some ideas in Dewey's Art as Experience (1958). But let us cautionimmediately against a possible nrisunderstanding: both styles involveways of bringing order to experience. As Douglas makes clea{, animage of disorder always implies a background image of order againstwhich it is cotrceived; and, furtherrnore, the disorder of the boys'stories itself represents a kind of order. The kuy point is that the stylesof the boys' and girls' stories represent two very different approachesto the symbolic management of order and disorder.In this chapter we call only sketch out some of the most charac-teristic features which define and distinguish these two narrativestyles and the cognitive and symbolic mpdes they embody. Althoughthe basic patterrts are rather clear once thgy have been mapped out, thesubtleties and nuances involved proddce a much richer and morecomplex picture than we can fully presetlt here. To complicate mattersfurther; individual children are often able to put their own uniquestarnp on the styles they employ. But here is a beginni^g.The Girls'Stories: A Strain toward OrderLet us first cltaracterize the girls' stories in terms of both form andcontent" The girls' stories, but not those of the boys, tend to have acoherent plot with a stable set of characters and a continuous plot line.

1CI7


4/14

108 Gender Differences nnd Synrbolic lnmginntiorr

One way in which the girls giae their stories this coherellce is bystructuring their content around stable sets of socinl relntionships, espe-cially (though not exclusively) fnnily relationships. In fact, the extetrtto which the girls' stories, but not those of the boys, revolve thenrati-cally around the family group is overwhelming. Not all the girls'stories contain an explicit depiction of family relationshiPt, but mostof them do. And while the girls also represent stable aud harmotriousrelationships in other ways, the portrayal of the family group is theirprototypical mode of doing so. Therefore, it can serve as a useful focusfor illustrating some of the most characteristic and pervasive featuresof their distinctive style. Thus the prototypical girl's story introducesa cast of characters who are carefully situated in a set of kirrshiprelationships. Here is an example:

Once upon a time there lyas a cat and a dog. An4 they lived ina warm snug house. And lhere was a mommy, a daddy, a sister,and anothei sister that lvas the big sister; and there was abrother that was the big brother, and there was a baby. And allthe kids played logether until it was dinner time. And then tl*yhad a lovely dinner of spaghetti and meatballs. (Martha,44)This story brings together almost all the elements that are typicalof the most distinctive form of girls' stories: it revolves around a fnnrily,it meticulously articulates their kinship relations, and it takes place in

the horne,wltich is both a specific physical setting for the story and alsothe center of order ("a warm and snug house"). Another importantelement that often gives the girls' stories their coherence and continu-ity is their depiction of the rhythmic, cyclical, and rePeated patterns ofeveryday domestic family life, which the girls like to recount:Once upon a time there's a mom, a dad, and there's a baby-ulda brother and a sister. The mother and father go to work and the::h? itrt i,3H H:mT ff rnl :i : :l'Jill:l

"["J;l]l:

n.il ::'#HT',:li,[ilffi;,|;lii,H';ffiip' a ..d then trreThus we often find that the family-after all its members have

been carefully enumerated-goes to the park and comes back home.Or the parents go to work (this often specifically includes the mother)and the kids go to school, but then they come back home. Or they comehome and have dinner and go to bed and wake up and have break-fast-and so on. (Boys' stories, on the other hand, very rarely depictcyclical or rhythmic action, whether in a family setting or in any othercontext.)

N icolopoulou, Scnles, nnrl WeintrntfuIn short, these examples show that girls' stories focus on stnblesctfirrgs and stnble relntiotrchips; they contain relatively little descriptionq:f action-particularly sudden or violent action. As we will r**, tleboys' stories are very different in these respects.In addition, girls' stories-again, unlike the boys'-often in-clude romantic or fairy-tale irnages of kings and queens, princes andprincesses, and so oll. But it is striking that they are assinrilated tothe fnnily ronlance, since they characteristically get married andhave babies. In additiou, when the girls talk aboui animals, they oftenbring them into the family by making them into pets. Here is anotfuerexarnple:Two queens atrd two-prlncesses lived in two houses. Once they::'$i.'*l:ffi JillJliJffi l',',1i"'l:,1.:ff li'n"i,,*oofi l'#came and wanted to nrarry the queens. Five ponies came anabeen their pets; two rabbits *ere the ponies' iriends, and theyIff:,.Sil:iTrl;,t, the two zebras are the princesses' pets. Th-eThis story also illustrates a tendency toward formal symmetry(two queens , ttuo kings, two princesses, two prince s, two zebras, and soon-marred, in this case, only by the five ponies) that is common inthe girls' stories but very rare in the boys'. And let us point out anotherimportatrt contrast: boys may occasionally mention families, but intlreir stories practically no one euer gets married. (There were just threeexceptions in the hundreds of stories we have.) But girls are fond ofmarriages and babies:Once upoll a time there was a princess named Beauty.And shehad two sisters and one dad and a mom. And then she went toa castle where a beast lived, and his name was Vincent. Andthen they get married. Then she has a baby. (Sonia,4-11)Thus the ideal world of the girls' stories tends to be centered,coherent, and firmly structured. Princes and princesses, brothers andsisters, even animals and beasts can all be enfolded harmoniouslywithin the most stable system of social relations, those of the familyunit. This is an orderly world. And, in fact, whenever order is dis-rupted or threatened, tire girls are typically quite careful to reestablishit before ending the story-most characteristicall y by absorbing anythreatening elements within the family unit:Once u-p_on a time there was a mom. The mom was playing with*xi*fi il i':l?: xtr t,ixl;

'll:::* ff xl l': [*i # f il;

x09


5/14

110 Gender Differences and Synfuolic lnmginatiort

It rode ilto water in the house. The parents came back lronre.The babies were gone. The dinosaur r6bbed the babies. The dadcame honre and Jaid, "Babies, we're home. It's your Birthd ay.l"Thel the dinosaur branged thenr home and they were friends.T6e babies blew out thelandles. They were two years old. Theend. (PollY, 4-3)The crucial point is that the girls' stories are not just orderly; they showa positive sfrailt toward order.The Boys, stories: A strain toward DisorderIn contrast, the four-year-old boys' stories show a straitr toward disor-der. Their stories ur"iut less likeiy than the girls' to have either a stablecast of characters or a well-articulated plot; nor do they develoP theirthemes in the steady and methodical manner of the girls' stories.Rather thal the centered stability of the girls'stories, the boys'storiesare marked by movement and disruption and often by agsociativechains of exu6erant imagery. One rnight say that, if the girls' storiesfocus on creating, maintaining, and elaborating structure, the boys'stories focus on generating action and excitemenU and the restlessenergy of their stories often overwhelms their capacily- to manage itcoheiently. Thus their stories are more likely than the girls' to verge onthe chaoiic and often seem to begin or end almost randomly. Thevigorous action that dominates the coutent is typically linked to an"*!ti.it emphasis on violence, conflict, and the disruption of order.Let us begin with content. The boys' favorite characters tend tobe big, powrfil, and often deliberately frightening; warriors of allsorts are particularly fancied, along with monsters atrd 5u89 or threat-ening animals. Bes-ides tl're monsters, their stories are full of bears,tigerl, dinosaurs, and so on-all of which are rather rare in the girls'st6ries. The animals that girls introduce into their stories tend to becute and nonthreatening ones such as butterflies or bunnies. Non-violent but scary elements such as ghosts and skeletotls are also com-mon i1 the boyi' stories. The impulse toward disorder that lies behindtheir preoccupation with physical violence also comes out in burstsof extiavagant, deliberately startling, and even grotesque imagery-If tlie explicit depiction of the family group is- a prototypical'feature of the girls' stories, the correspoltding nrotif in the boys' storiesis the explicit-and generally enthusiastic-depiction of active vio-lence. Foi example, liere is a story that no girl in the sample wouldhave told:

Nicolopoulou, Scnles, nnd WeintraubOrtce upon a tinre there was a Thiceratops, and a TyrannosaurusI{ex came. Ile bit Triceratops. But an Anatosaums duckbill waswatching another Anatosaurus eating plants. TyrannosaumsRex came and w4tched them. The duckbills run away. A No-dosaurus cante artd ate plants. A Voltursaurus came and theyfight. All of the dinosaurs fight. Tyrannosaurus fights Tricera-lt ff ;t 11,' * i'ftifr Hi t*x:,ffi il H? i u::u:fi:::x;friends and smile. iOohn, +-9)As with contentj so with form; As we noteci earlie,{, the boys'stories, in comparison with the girls', tend to be lacking in overallformal coherence, as well as stability and continuity of time and space.The typical boy's story consists, rather; of a string of dramatic andpowerful images and events, often juxtaposed in loose association. Thecharacters, r&ther than being firmly linked togethel, are often intro-duced sequentially into the story for the sake of action and thrillingeffect. The story just quoted is exceptional in having a clear resolution;in general, the boys are much less concerned than the girls to bringtheir plots to resolution. Instead, what marks the boys' stories is a

consisteut striving toward action, novelty, and excess. As the next storybrings out well, the boys often strive for escalati.g images:Once upon a time there was a bear that went to the forest. Thena big wolf opened up his mouth. Then a beam of light came intoa bunny's heart. Then he was a Van4tire bunny. And soon somemonsters came. A giant alligator carne. And crocodile came toget the alligator. A big egg was rolling around. It belonged to thealligator. A tiger ran and ran and ran after a bat. And he was safefrom the tiger. (Toby, 4-3)As these two stories illustrate, the setting is often vague oramorphous in the boys' stories; either it is not specified, or the actionseems to shift from one unrelated setting to another. Very few storiescenter oll an explicitly delineated setting, especially the home. Insofar

as the boys' stories have a plot, it is very frequently dominated byfighting and destruction. However, as we have noted, physical vio-letrce is not the only lneans by which disorder can be generated.Rule-breaking is another comnlolt theme in the boys' stories; and thestory just quoted brings out their fondness for startling and disruptiveimagery.In short, the world of these stories is a world of violence, disrup-tiotr, and disorder. What they express is a positiv e fascinntiotr withdisorder.

11,1


6/14

\12 Gender Differences anctr Synfualic InmghmtitttrNow let us ernphasize another point. Both the boys attd the girlsdraw irnages from popular culture (including matcrial tratrsnrittcd bytelevision, videos, and children's books), but wltat is interesting is thatthey do so selectiaely. They have already developed a differential sen-sitivity and preference for the elements presented to them by theircultural environment; they appropriate different eletnents arrd findways to weave them into distinctive imaginative styles. For example,whereas the girls are particularly fond of princes and princesses andother fairy-tale characters, the boys favor cartoon action heroes suchas Superman, He-Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and so on. Thenext itory brings together many of the characteristic elements of theboys' stories:Once upon a time a teenage ninja turtle with a Byn shot downa rock. Leonardo cuts that rock into half pieces. Leonardo hastwo swords. And the guy up high shoots the gun at Leonardo.A girl comes and has a gun in her pocket and shoots. She ridessomething very fast, and it runs and has two legs,and-it's-funny.A doggy-guy comes; he is a teenage ninja turtle, but he doesn'thave any InbU on his back. Doggy takes out his gull and shootsthe guy up high. His name is Cone-a-lest, and he shoots back at?:sfi ,ff i'ff ilfi*ll;l|ilil:Tio',?'ff :?,..3.",'P*fr iil*IIt roars and it doesn't see the lion or the guys dowu below andit left. The end. (lohn,4-8)

"Anything happened": a typical boy's touch. In short, while the girls'stories are structured so as to maintain or restore order-cognitive,symbolic, and social-the boys' stories revel in movement, unpre-dictability, and disorder.This brings us to another significant point. Given what we sawin the girls' stories, what is particularly striking about the boys' is theabsence of stable social relationships and their frequent teuuousnesswhen they are mentioned. The boys do sometimes identify charactersas friends. In fact, this is the relationship they mention most conlmonly,though still far less commonly than the girls dwell on family relation-shipJ. But at least at the age of foul they do not yet seem to havbdeveloped a very powerful image of male friendship. In their stories,friendsl',ip is often a vague or transitory relationship, and at all eventsit is no guarantee of stability or harmony. Here is an especially tellirrgillustration:

Once trpon a time there was a monster and there was apig; andthe monster wanted to kill the pig but the pig ran too lait andgot away. Then the pig went into the forept and saw a live

Nicolopoulou, Scnles, nnC We httrnuhclricke.rt.and they were friends. llut they were fightipg becausethe chicken was tlre grcatest, so the pig went to tlit pnii; but t6echickcrl c()uldtt't beiause' he was roited by the ptC a^d atetlhirn all up. (lraul, 4-B)

Summ aryThe storics tolcl by the boys are systematically different from tlose toldby.thegirls, and the opposition goes beyoni surface dissimilarities inattitudes or plot elenrents. The st,ories display two distinctive forms ofsymbolic imagination and involve quite distinctive ways of repre-senting society and social relationships. It is not too .rr.t.h to say itratthese four-year-olds ltave already developed two clistinct aestheticstyles. The style infornring the girls' storiei tends toward what mightbe called "socialist realism," wliile t]l:- style of the boys' can usefu"lly.be termed "picaresque surrealism." Whaf they involve, at the deepestlevel, are tyo sharply different approaches t-o the symbolic mar,ug"-ment of order and disorder.Some Illustrative Statistics and Their Interpretation:structures of Meaning and symbolic ReworkingNow that we have sketched out the basic patterns, let us offer somefigures to illustrate some of the points we have been rnaking. Summa-rized below is the frequelcy (technically, the mean proportiops) of twoof the most Pervasive and significant content themls tirat run througlthe stories: explicit depictions of the family group and of active vio-lettce.

113

Family groupActive violenceThis is a simple comParisort, but.it makes a strong point. The readerwill notice that the contrast between the boys' stiries and the girls'stories is so striking that it hardly seems to require much comrient.Obviously, the relative frequencies support th; argument we havebeen making.But, in facto in certain impg,rtant ways these figures actuallyunderstate tlte corttrast involved. When ** "nplore the dEeper patternsbehind these statistical comparisons, the real differences stand outeven more sharply.In the first place, the specific themes captured in these figuresare, in both cases, only the most conspicuous manifestations of l]rg",

Boys Girls747o 54Vo62Vo 18%


7/14

1'1,4 Gencler Differences nnd Synfuolic lnnginntiotr

symbolic orientations. These figures for depictions of the "fatnilygroupi, for example, are based ot a coding scheme that used fairlystringelt criteria, lf ^ore lenient criteria for family themes are used,the."the gap between the boys' and girls'-Percentlges increases; andthis holds even more strongtjr if we code for "stable and harmonioussocial relationships," rathJr than for the more specific category offamily situatiorls.For a story to be coded as depicting a "family gro,rp,'| for exam-ple, it required explicit mention of i family situation involvit,S at leasttwo forms of kinship relation-a mother, a father, and at least ollechild, or one parent with several children. If we add stories that mell-tion only orr" kinship relationship (such as brother-sister or mother-child), tire relative frequency for the boys' stories goes to 2O percentarrd for the girls'stories to 6b percent. Furthermore, mally 9t the girls'stories which do not explicifly construct an entire fanrily situationinclude one implicitly, ut"ta they are noticeably nlorg likely to do..sotha. the boys' sioriur. But even more inrportaut is the fact noted earlierthat the explicii portrayal of the family grolp is o1ly. lne of the waysthat the girl, "*pt, asiie stable and harmonious social relationships intheir stories. Oftel they dwell on relationships of this sort which verymuch resemble a famity situation, and these shade off into relatiotr-ships which seem to constitute, in this respect, the functional equiva-leni of a family situation. Here is an example of what we mean, andwe have chosen what we think is one of the less obvious examples:

Once upon a time there were three bees, three buttcrflics, andthree popies that were playilg near the oceal. They wetlthome and ate dinner. eitei dinner the butterflies, the bces,and the ponies went to bed. Wheu they. woke up tfte bees atrdi[::i:lt1:iiLil:$ ocearl' and the ponies we't i.to trreCorrespondin gly, we coded for "active violettce" when charac-ters in the stories ex[ticitly fought, hurt, killed, ate, or actively threat-ened each other, of when they were explicitly depicted produci^gphysical destruction. If the criieria are relaxed in various ways-forL"i*ple, if physical destruction is depicted without an explicit agerttbei.g specifie.l-then the boys' totals go up disProPortionately 69percent versus 20 percent). But again, physical violence is only one ofthe means that tlie boys use to generate disorder in their stories.Furthermore, the figures for the girls' stories mask the fact that theways they rrse violence in their sbories and the af t itude displayed to-

Nfco/o prrntlou, Scnles, nnd Weintrnub

ward it tend to be very different from the boys' approach. For example,girls mention violence rluickly rather than describi.g it in detail-often, using the passive voice-and their accounts tend to lack theenthusiasm characteristic of the boys' stories. ,This last point brings out the really crucial consideration, bothmethodologically and theoretically: the fcoding of specific themes orelements, though necessatf, will always,be inadequate by itself in thiskind of research because an interpretive fnalysis is indispensable everlto code intelligently. In many ways, in fact, the boys' and the girls'stories are so different in structure and intent that it is no simple matterto design uniform coding schemes which fully capture what is goingon in both of them. Ill particular, even if the same element appears oris nrentioned in a girl's story and a boy's story, its slgrificance is oftendifferent in the two cases because it is used differently and fits into adifferent qf rrr cture of nrcnning. Let us give an example" The followingboy's story is one of the 74 percent .which we coded as depicting afamily group:There was a dad and a rnom and two babies. They went to thepark and there was a nlonster and he ate the family up. After heate thc family the monster died because there was too muchfamily and he was fat. (Andrew, 44')It is obvious that, in this story, the family imagery is not used toestablish order and security, but rather to express the typical boy'sfascination with violence and disorder (and it is hard not to suspectsonte ironic intent). Here is a milder, but equally instructive examplefrom the same 14 percenU the family is associated with order and rules,but precisely in order to reject thern:3'H:T,*?,,:il"".:Til:^Ifi:?ffiJ:::L:iTlili'eJ.'ff|"Jyour room, brush your teeth, put on your pajamas, and go tobcd, turn off the light, and pull up the covers." They didn't doli3:.:i:H:: lfJ, .1:t1: xt' l#u Ii:"J trl::i Jifl"il ffi 'The methodological point is that thematic elements cannot betaken in isolation and simply aggregated; each element can be under-stood only in the context of the larger structure of nreaning withinwhich it is embedded. In other words, as we have just indicated, whatis required is an interpretive analysis that can elucidate these struc-tures of meanirrg and grasp how they give significance to the particu-lar elements. And when we undertake such an interpretive analysis,

115


8/14

u6 Gender Differences nnd Syrtrbolic Inmginntiorrt5e systematic differences between the boys' and the girls' stories arecvctl llrorc striking than lhc figurcs tlrctnsclvcs revcal.These contrasting structures of meaning are brotrght out csPc-cially vividly if we analyze what happens when a girl introduces atypical "boy;s" element or theme into her story, or vice versa. Irt each.ur*, these elements are modified to conform to the characteristicmodel of the gender-specific narrative style.We have already seen examples of how this is dotte. When apotentially, threatening or disruptive animal enters one of the girls'itories, it is characteiistically rendered nonthreatening. This is fre-quently done by identifying the animal as small or a "baby." Even theoccasional monster can be neutralized with the cautionary comnrentthat it is "a nice monster" or "ababy nlonster," Significantly, attinralscan be rendered nonthreatening by making thenr into "pets"-that is,by bringing them into the family and its framework of stable socialt"lotio*t ipr. [n boys' stories we also see this kind of symbolic rework-ing, but in the opposite direction. The classic boy's :nYnterpart to the"rrice monster" ib probably the "Vampire bunfrY," which apPeared in astory quoted earlier.- ttris process of symbolic reworking provides one of the mostconvincing indications that we are dealing with 1 genuine coutrastbetween t*o styles of aesthetic imagination-each constructing theworld in accord with a distinctive symbolic fnfentiort-ratlter thatr amere distribution of story traits. (Along similar lines, sPecial insightscan be gained from the analysis of "marginal stories"-111;1t is, storiesby botn Uoyr and girls that fit less sharply than most into one of thetwo gender-related narrative styles, and even incorporate some ten-sion between them. Space limitations preclude further discussion here,but it is worth noting that, once the main outlines of important narra-tive styles are identified, "marginal stories" should not be viewed asan embarrassment, but instead merit special attention as a k"y torefining the analysis.)Convergence and Divergence in the SymbolicManagement of Order and DisorderBefore closing, w would like to emphasize one additional poitrt,which in the Jpace available can only be asserted ratlter than demotr-strated, In this discussion, we have stressed the contrast, in boththemes and forrnal structurp, between the narrative styles informingthe boys' and the girls' stgries. But this is trot to suggest that the

Iir

Nico/o plulou , Scntrcs, mul Weintrmilt

PreocctlPatiotts expressed in these stories, and the underlyipg issuesthey adclress, hAve trothing in conllrlolt. On the contrary, what a closearralysis of thc storics rcvcals is that both boys aud girls are preoccrr-pied with issues of danger and disorder. Wliat is diiferent is the waythey deal with them. The girls deal with threatening or disruptiveelenrents by muffling or suppressing them: burying them under astructure of order, alluding to them indirectlyo or, as we have indicated,incorporating any disturbing or potentially unpredictable figures intothe structure of the family unit. In contrast, the boys deal with theseelements by dwelling on them explicitly, elaborating them, and inten-sifying their dange.6ur and thriiling ir,rru. As we"put it earlied, theboys' and girls' stories represent two very different appronches to thesymbolic marragement of order and disorder.The girls' approach is exenrplified by the crucial (and especiallyrevealing) fact that they are usually careful not to end their stories untilall potentially disruptive elements have been neutralized or re-solved-in particular, until the family has come back home or hasotherwise reestablished its grip on order. Tl're fundamental divergencein this respect between the symbolic imagination underlying the girls'stories and the boys' could not be illustrated more sharply than by thecontrast between the last two stories we will quote. Here is a girl'sstory:Once upon a tinre there was an old, old house" A family wasliving iu it. There was a baby, a motheq a father, and a sister.And all the kids played Candyland. And one doy when thefamily was out shopping, there was a fire on the street to theirhouse. When they ii*i back home and saw that their housewasn't there, they went to find another one. (Marth a, 4-51

The home is the locus of ordel so having it burn down is disturbing.The girl is uot going to end her story until she has the family findanother one. On the other hand, here is a boy's story about the home:Once upon a time tltere was a moose. His name was Moose-moose. And he lived in a person's house. And he knocked atelephone off the wall. And he broke the house. And he rippedup the skeleton and he knocked the table out. And he brokb-thewindows. Then he knocked down the house again. And then hedrew on his face. And he turned the lamp on, and he let thebirds out of the cage.Tlrc end. (llobby, 4-7)

The story ends with chaos triumphant: a classic boy's story. Butit is interesting to note that the house is always around to be destroyeda second time.

!x7


9/14

118 Gender Differences nnd Synrbolic lnmgirurt iorr

Some Lessons and lmplicationsThis analysis has, we hope, vindicated our suggestiort that we cnl'llearn a good deal by taking children seriously as little artists and byrecognizing the genuinely aesthetic inrpulse behind their storytellingactivity. The expressive imagination that animates their stories is aresource they employ for making experience intelligible and renderingit emotionally manageable and satisfying. Furthermore, utrderlyingthe different narrative styles that they use and elaborate are distinctiveways of visualizing reality, distinctive modes of ordering and inter-preting the world. Exploring and elucidating these distinctive visionscan deepen our understanding of the active role of children's symbolicimagination in their construction of reality and in the formation ofidentity, including gender identity. While the line of research on whichthis chapter is based needs to be further extended and refined, it isalready clear that the findings reported here have implicatious for awide range of issues in development and educatiott.' The most striking implication of these findings is sirnply theextent to which systematic gender differences in social and symbolicimagination have begun to crystallize even at the young age of fouryears. A range of work in a number of fields lends support to ourjudgment that the contrasting narrative styles we have identified arenot peculiar to our data and that they do, irrdeed, point to deeperdiffeiences in symbolic imagination and in cognitive and socioculturalstyles. While surprisingly little systematic study of gender differencesin children's spontaneous stories has been undertaken (the major ex-ception being the work of Paley), the distinctive gender-related pat-terns delineated in this study appear to be broadly consistent with anumber of other findings from research on gender differences iir chil-dren's play (".9., Black 1989; Paley 7984a,1984b; Sachs 1987) and in thenarrative and coltversational styles of children and adults (e.g., Good-win 1990; Goodwin and Goodwin 1987; Sheldotr 1990; Thrtnen 1990a,1990b). More tentatively, our findings would seem to have sonre bear-ing on the recent line of discussioll, associated above all with the workof Gilligan (e.g., 1,982; Gilligan and Attanucci, 1988), whiclr has arguedthat men and women follow somewhat different paths of nloral devel-opment and that wonlen's nloral irnagirration and moral reasoniug aremuch more likely to be anchored in a concenl with stable patterns ofsocial ties and obligations. Our results also appear to resonate, insuggestive ways, with certain patterns identified in Chodorow'sanalysis of the social fonnation of gender differences in ernotional andpersonality development (u.9., 7978, 1989).

Nicolo poulou, Scnlcs, and We hrtrnublJccause the subject of gender clifferences in development is socomplex aud contentious, a cautionary note is in order" The fact thatthe four-year-old boys and girls in this study already display suchdistinctive styles of representing and grasping reality, and that theyspontaueously reproduce and elaborate these differellces in a class-roonl setting devoted to building up a comlnon culture among them,

is a significant phenomerlorl that demands further consideration. Bythemselves, however, these findings do not tell us where these differ-ences corne from, nor do they necessarily suggest that such differencesare immutable. But they do bring out both how far and how deeplythe processes of gender differerrtiation have already developed in thefirst four years of life, and they underscore the complexity of thedynamics involved in the formation of gender identity.At the same time, these findings highlight the need to approachthe social formation of mind and personality in a way that does nottreat the child as a passive bystanller in this process. In constructingtheir stories, both tlre boys and the girls draw on images and otherelements that are presented to them by their cultural environment andthat shape their imagination and sensibility in profound and subtleways. But we also find that, when given the opportunity, they are able(and eager) to use these elements to put the world together in quitedistinctive ways.One larger inrplication of this striking fact is to remind us thatthe fornrative effect of culture is neither simple, unmediated, nor one-way. Quite practically, this means that the impact on children of thevarious cultural materials to which they are exposed-from TV showsto children's books to classroom curricula-will never be direct oruniform because, even at a very young oge, the children bring to thesen'raterials their own distinctive interpretive frameworks, underlyingconcerrrs, and nrodes of appropriation. Thus the projects of adults whotry to shape and advance children's development-from parents toteachers-encounter the multiple projects (themselves culturallyshaped) that the chilclrerl themselves are trying to pursue. The resultsof these encounters are neither simple nor easily predictable. Withouthaving sonte sense of the inner logic of the children's own projects,adults cannot take for granted what the effects of their interventionswill be.The situation on which our research is based may provide aninstructive exarnple. The patterns we have identified seem to emergefronr the complex arrd lllutually reinforcing interaction of two ongoingprocesses. First, the children's distinctive narrative styles express url-

1r9


10/14

120 Gender Differences anrl Syntbolic lnnginntiorr

derlying differences in their emerging cognitive modes atrd symbolicimaginition. Second, at the same time, the use of these different stylesis probably part of an effort by the boys and girls to mark themselvesoff from each other symbolically into different groups and to build upa sense of cohesion and shared identity within each subgroup. There-fore, the use of the storytelling and story-acting practice to build up acommon culture within the classroom may also, irouically, have pro-vided the children with a framework for the articulation of differenceswithin this common culture. There is some indicatiou-though at pre-sent this can only be tentatively suggested-that the narrative styles ofthe chitdren's stories, rather than becomi.g more similar; actually Po-larized in certain ways during the year, precisely as the boys and girlsbecame more familiar with each other's styles. (A dialectic of this kindwould be consistent with the pattern suggested by Davies [19891 in herstimulating analysis of the dynamics of preschool children's symbolicconstruction of gender identities)The lesson, once again, is the needfor studies to takl seriously the complexity of the relationship betweenculture and individual development.All these considerations lead back to the recognition, which is aunifying theme of this volume, that understanding narrative diversityis a matter of considerable practical significance for education. This isespecially true because children's narrative styles irrvolve not onlydiiferent ways of representing reality, bu t-simulta treously-d i fferentmodes of grisping and understanding it.The cognitive and syrnbolicmodes foi which these narrative styles serve as vehicles constituteimportant resources for children in leaming arrd development. But. atthe same time, these different tools for mastering reality carry withthem different emphases and sensitivities, different strengths andweaknesses.

This diversity can emerge along a number of axes. For example,studies such as those inspired by the work of Heath (e.8., 1983) andMichaels (e.g., 1981) have analyzed the different narrative stylesbrought to sihool by children from culturally distinct communitiesand liave showed the impact of these narrative styles on the children'sdifferent routes to literacy and to broader educational success (or lackthereof). The outcomes are crucially affected by the extent to whicheducational practice can recognize, develop, and build on their distinc-tive strengtlis (and also recognize and address their distinctive SaPsand weaktresses). But community of origin is certainly not the onlysource of narrative diversity within and between classrooms-as at-tested by the boys and girls discussed in this chaptel whose notable

Nico/o poulou, Scnles, ntd Wcirrtrnubdifferences emerged within a context of very sirnilar fanrily and socicl-cconolnic backgrounds. The results of our study underline the need toaddress the dinrertsiotr of gender in understandirg the sources, forms,and inrplications of llarrative diversity.

I lere agaiu, it is inrportant to add a note of complexity. Not onlydoes narrative diversity emerge along a number of axes, but under-standirrg it is not simply a matter of dividing children into sharplydemarcated subgroups. Children-like adults-need not be restrictedto a single narrative mode, but are likely to have a range available tothem for various purposes. One of the aims of education ought to beto help develop the range and richness of the narrative styles they canmaster and effectively employ. But if .we are to foster and encouragethis development in effective and educationally rewardi.g ways, it isimportant to recognize and appreciate the distinctive kinds of founda-tions on which it can build.ln the long rull, of course, mappillg out the emergence of genderdifferences unavoidably raises an even deeper question: Why do theyoccur? This is a big and difficult subject, which we can be excused fornot attempting to address here. But we will venture to say that, inorder to formulate intelligent questions about what causes genderdifferences in development, it is important to understand these differ-ences and their developmental emergence in depth. The type of analy-sis presented in this chapter can contribute to that goal. It may be thatappreciating and understanding the irnaginative gulf between boysand girls suggested by this research can help us think about ways ofstarting to bridge it.ReferencesBettellreint, B. (1977). TIrc ttses of enclwftnrcnt: Tlrc menning and inrltortance offniry talcs, New York: Vintage.Black, B. (1989). Interactive pretense: Social and symbolic skills in preschoolplay groups . Me rrill-Pnlnrcr Quarterly, 35,379-397.Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actunl nrinds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

. (1990). Acts of nrcnning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

. (1992). The narrative construction of reality. In H. Beilin and P. Pu-fall (Eds.), Pinget's theory: Prospects nnd possibilitias (229-24U.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Chodorow N. (1978).The rcproduction of nrctlrcring: Psyclrcnnnlysrs and the so-ciology of gendcr. Berkeley: University of California Press.

x2\


11/14

122 Gender Differences and Synfuolic lnllr.ginntiott

zation of mai6s and feniales. In Femiuisn ntul psychonnnlytic tlrcory.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press'Davies, B. (19g9). Frogs and snails and feninist .tales: Presclrcol children and $en-der. North Sydirey, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin'Dewey, I. (1958). Art as experience. New York: capricorn.Douglas, M. (1966r. Purity and danger. London: RoutledSu & Kegan Paul'Geertz, C. (l9Tg).The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Gilligan, c. (1gg2). ln a differe-n^t uoice: nsy.cptlgicat. tlrcary and uronrcn's deucl-opnrent Cambridg6, MA: Harvard University Press'Gilliga., C., and Attanucci, J. (198q1: TWo moral orientations: Gender differ-ences and similaritiei. Merrill-Palnrcr Quarterly, 34, 223-237 .Goodwin, M. H. (1gg0). Thctical uses of stories: Participation frameworkswithin girls' and boys' disputes. Discourse Proccsses, 13,33-71.Goodwin, M. H., and Coodwin, C. (1987). Children's a1gu.in8. In S. U.fhilips.i. St.ule, and C. Tanz (Eds.), Lnn.gunge,,gender,and sex in co,'t'parat'iai parspcctiae, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heatlr, s. B. (1gg3). ways witlt words: Inuguagc,-l!fc, nnd work in conunwtitiesand classroo,,rs. iambridge: Cambridge University Press.MandleL I. (1983). Representation. In J, H. {ryell and E. M. Markman(Eds.l, Cognitiie deaelopnrcnt, Vot. 3 of P. Mussen (Ed.), Hnndbook ofchild psycilotogy (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.Matthews, G. (1980). Philoso1thy nnd tlrc yottng child. cambridge, MA: FIar-vard UniversitY Press.Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children's narrativ_e styles hnd differen-paley, V. (19g1). Wnlly's storics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University I'ress.

Chicago Press._.(19s4b).BoysancIgirls:SupcrlrcroesintIrcdoIlcorllcr.Clricago:Urriver-sity of Chicago Press.Press.. (1990) . The boy wlrc worilcl be a heticop_tcr:.The.rtses of storytcllitrg fu thcclassroorl. Canibridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

pitclrer, E. G., and prelinger, E. (1963). Clildren tell stories: An analysis of fnn-tasy. New York: International Universities Press'

Romain, S. (1985). Children's narratives . Lirtguistics, 23, B3-104.Saclrs, I.OgB7). Preschool boys'anq girls'lnsYuge use in pretend play' Irr-S. U. Ft itipr, S. Steele, and C. Tanz (Ed;.), I-angunge, gender, nnd sex in

Nico/o poulou, Scnlas, nnd Weintraultcot,, yn rn t iue pe rspact iua (778-188). Cambridge: Cambridge Universi tyPrcss.shcldo.',f;r'li,jil;rrriif lglls: Gendercd talk in preschool disputes' Drs-

Slobin, D. I. (1990). The development from child speaker to native speaker.In J. W. Stigler, R. A" Shweder, and G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psycltol-ogy; Essays- o, I co,npnrat iue hu nmn d euelop me n t Q33-256). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Stein, N. L., and Glenn, C. G. (1982). An analysis of story comprehension inelementary school children. In R. O, Freedle (Ed.), New directions indiscourse processing (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sutton-Srnith, B. (1981). The folktorics of children, Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.Thrrnen, D. (1990a). You just don't understand: Wonten and men in conuersation,New York: Williarn Morrow.

. (1990b), Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involve-nrent in best friends' talk. Discoursc Processes, 73,73-90.

123


12/14

257

Ccntri butorsRudine Sims Bishop is a professor in the Department of Educational Theoryarrd Practice at The Ohio State University. She is the author of theNCTE publication Slmdow and Substance: Afro-Americnn Experience inContentparary Childref s Fictior and has a particular interest in multicul-tunal literature.Susan J, Britsch is an assistant professor of literacy and language educationin the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Purdue Univer-sity. Among her interests are child language socialization in familiesand communities, the interface between teaching style and issues ofdevelopmentally appropriate practice for children in specific commu-nities, and children's stories, both told and written.Jerome Bruner is a research professor of psycholo1y and senior researchfellow in law at New York University. He is the author of Actual Minds,Possible Worlds and Acts of Mennhrg. His research has included work in

curriculum theory, cognitive development, child language acquisition,and literary theory.Mingshui Cai is an assistant professotr of education at the University ofNorthern lowa. His major areas of research interest are reader re-sponse, multicultural literature, and children's literature. He is therecipient of the 1993 Virginia Hamilton Essay Award.Courlney B. Cazden is a professor in the Harvard Graduate School of Educa-tion. She is the aulhor of Class room Discourse: The l-anguage of Tbnchingnnd l*arning and Wrcle hnguage PIus: Essays otr Literacy itr the UnitedStntes and New Zenlnnd. Her research has included work in child lan-guage development, educational anthropology, and applied linguis-tics.Pam Gilbert is a senior lecturer in education at james Cook University ofNorth Queensland, Australia. She is the author of Writirtg, Schooling,and Deconstructiorr: From Voice to Tbxt irt the Classroon and Gender, Liter-acy, and the Classroont. Her research has focused on the teaching ofliterature and on gender issues in English education.Maxine Greene is William F. Russell Professor Emeritus in the Foundationsof Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. She is theauthor of bndscopes of l*arning and Tlrc Dialectic of Freedom and isparticularly interested in connections among philosophy, education,and the arts.Shirley Brice Fleath is a professor of English and linguistics at StanfordUniversity. She is the author of Ways uith Words: Innguage, Life, andWork in Comnrunities and Classrootns. Her research includes work in the


13/14

Cant ributors

ethnography of conrnrunication, clrikl languagc socinlizntiotr, thc' lris-tory aird politics of languagc policics and attitudcs, atrd ctlucntionalpracticcs fclr culturally diverse populations iu sclrtlol atrcl conrnluttity.Carol E. Heller is an assistant professor of cducation at tlrc Univcrsity ofIllinois at Chicago.She was formerly u research fcllow witlr the Teach-ing Tolerance project of the Southeru Poverty Law Ccnter in Mont'

gonrery, Alabama.Robert A. Mehler, after receiving a B.A. degree in tutorial studies at theUniversity of Chicsgo, was research assistant to Dr. Peggy Mf Uer fronr1988 to 1991. He is currently in prenredical training at the Univcrsityof lllinois at Chicago.P'ssvhxilff jlHi",l,;ffi r#,l':illT,l'l:*Tiljff iff :':ff rlr,ff n:Champaign. The author of Amy, Weydy, ond Bctlt: Itnrning Lallgrtng. c ilSouth Baltitnorc, she has a longstanding interest in language socializa-tion in children frorn diverse cultures.Ageliki Nicolopoulou is an assistant professor of educatiotr atrd clrild devel-opment at Smith College. She is co-editor, llolg.with Barbara Scales,of Plny nnd tlrc Socinl Context of Dauelopntent in Enrly Cnra nnd Educnliorr.Her interests include the role of play and fantasy in education attddevelopment.Vivian Gussin Paley is a teacher at the University of Chicago laboratorySchools. Anrong her books are Whitc Tt:nchar, Wnlly's Slorics, Boys ntulGirls,Tlrc Boy Wlrc Would Be n tlclicoqtlc'r, and Yon Cntr't Sny You Cnrt'tPlny, A classroom teacher for nrore than thirty-five years, she hascreated a continuing autobiographical study of young children itrschool.Barbara Scales is the head teacher at the lJarolcl E. Jones Clrild Study Center;University of California, Bcrkeley. Co-author of Lookirrg rll Clildrut'sPlny: ABridgcbctweenTlrcory md Prncticc and ntore recently Plny nt tlrcCenter of tltc Curriculurtr, she has a particular iuterest in the socialecology of the preschool and in childrcn's storytelling and dramatic

Play.Geneva Smitherman is University Distinguished Profcssor and dircctor ofthe African Arnerican Language and Literacy Program in the Dcpart-ment of English at Michigan State University. She is thc author of BlnckInngunge nnd Culturc: Sounds of Soul, Thlkin nnd Tbstifyin: Tlrc Lnlgrrngcof Blnck Anrcricn, and Rnp,Forty Acres, nnd tltc N-Word: A.Dictionnry ofBlnck Thlk. Her interests include the oral and writteu language of Afri-can Americans in classroom and community scttings and the politicsof language in and out of school.Sal Vascellaro is a member of the graduate faculty at the lJank Street Collegeof Education, where he teaches courses in early childhood curriculunr

Cotrtributorsand childrcll's literature. He is a doctoral student in the Departmentof llhilosophy and the Social Sciences at Teachers College, Colum-bia Universify, and is especially interested in the "storywriting" ofteachers. .

Ief.t Weintraub is a visiting associate professor of political science at WilliamsColle'ge. He is a soiial theorist and cultural sociologist who has alsotaught at l-larvard and the University of California, San Diego. Hispublications include the forthcoming Freedom and Community: Thc Re-publicnn Virtue Trndition atrd tlrc Sociology of Liberfy. His central interestsinclude thc rolc of culture in fornration of the self,

2592s8


14/14

NCTE Editorial Board: Hazel Davis, Keith Gilyard, l{onald Jobe, JoyceKinkead, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Charles Suhol Chair, ex officio, and Mi-clrael Spoon er, ex officio The Need for Story

Cultural Diversity in Classroomand Community

Edited byAnne Haas DysonUniversity of California, BerkeleyCelia GenishiTeachers College, Columbia University

National Council of Teachers of English1111 West Kenyon Road, Urbana, Iliinois 61801-1 096 ( f ?1 +)

Nicolopoulou Scales, & Weintraub - Gender Differences and Symbolic Imagination in the Stories of...

Documents

Transcript of Nicolopoulou Scales, & Weintraub - Gender Differences and Symbolic Imagination in the Stories of...