Revolutionary Love: Early Childhood Education as Counter-Culture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments, please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. The paper presents a critical analysis of the concept of ‘love’ in early childhood education services. It argues that ‘love’ is frequently positioned as an individual construct which is undermined by neo-liberal ideas and related pressures on educators. Instead, the paper aims to present an alternative evolutionary model of ‘community’ love and caring and in doing so, provides a hope that the care work of educators can be valued.
The paper is persuasive in its critique of current approaches to care and love. It is well written and well supported throughout, drawing on an increasing body of contemporary work that examines concepts of care and love in EC contexts. For this reason, I believe it will make an important contribution to the special issue. However, I do have two main comments that I feel could be addressed to strengthen the paper.
- The anthropological concept of care is introduced from line 65 to line 109. The discussion then returns to the pressure of neoliberalism, bringing in issues related to quality, school readiness, maternalism and so on. This moves the paper away from the argument that was being developed earlier. What is needed is a stronger view of what this evolutionary, collective form of love and care would look like in the ECEC context. There is a glimpse of this at the very end of the paper, but I do feel that there is an opportunity to bring this out more strongly.
- The special issue is titled ‘Care as a foundational organizing principle of social sustainability in early childhood education’. The paper would therefore be strengthened by being more explicit about the concept of social sustainability, and how the critique presented in this manuscript can contribute towards this debate.
I hope that these comments are useful in assisting the author to revise and strengthen this paper. Below are some minor issue that need addressing.
Line 14 – is there a word missing in ‘the colours have chosen are so lovely’?
Lines 49-52 – this statement, in particular the comment about novice practitioners, reads like a rather subjective judgement, and requires either moderation or support from the literature
Line 104 – typographical error in punctuation
line.107 – the sentence is unclear. ‘The principles of the evolved developmental nest tally with many …’ Many what? Please clarify.
line.119 – 120 : at the expense of care and an earlier introduction for formal learning’ Does the author mean ‘a shift towards education and an earlier introduction of formal learning, at the expense of care’?
line.147 – the quote provided in lines 147 – 148 was expressed in the context of a lack of visibility and attention to of infants and toddlers in the Australian curriculum. I am not convinced it can be used to support the statements about lack of organisational trust of the demands of ‘school readiness’. I advise that this quote is removed as it does not add any weight to the above arguments.
Line 187 – typographical error ‘told offer’
Line 202 – the use of the term ‘cultural forgetting’ requires some explanation and clarification.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments, please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
