Don't we care?: the ethics and emotional labour of early years professionalism

This paper argues that early childhood education and care (ECEC) has a legitimate aspiration to be a 'caring profession' like others such as nursing or social work, defined by a moral purpose. For example, practitioners often draw on an ethic of care as evidence of their professionalism. However, the discourse of professionalism in England completely excludes the ethical vocabulary of care. Nevertheless, it necessarily depends on gendered dispositions towards emotional labour, often promoted by training programmes as 'professional' demeanours. Taking control of the professionalisation agenda therefore requires practitioners to demonstrate a critical understanding of their practice as 'emotion work'. At the same time, reconceptualising practice within a political ethic of care may allow the workforce, and new trainees in particular, to champion 'caring' as a sustainable element of professional work, expressed not only in maternal, dyadic key-working but in advocacy for care as a social principle.

D. H. Lawrence and the publication of Look! We Have Come Through!

In 1917 D.H. Lawrence's whole outlook on the social and cultural environment of his country was embodied in his attitude towards the literary marketplace. The suppression of The Rainbow in 1915 and his opposition to the war contributed to his feeling of detachment from what he called ‘the bourgeois world, the world which controls press, publication and all’. Presenting new archival evidence, this article examines the publishing history of the poetry volume Look! We Have Come Through, issued by Chatto & Windus in 1917. Closer examination of the motives of the individual editors involved in the production of the volume reveals why Lawrence was required to make changes to his text but also why the firm were eager to publish a volume that was to have little commercial impact. Issued at a critical moment in Lawrence's relationship with the marketplace, and in the history of literary modernism, the episode shows how, in spite of general hostility to his work, there were forces in the mainstream publishing market that were keen to embrace modern literary forms and take risks with the work of authors whose subject-matter was challenging and potentially dangerous.