entirely fixed during the period of study, with boundaries becoming more or less permeable over time. It is also the case that children’s social groups define themselves oppositionally, and that this can lead to stronger apparent boundaries than is the case in practice. Both the girls’ and the ‘nice ‘normal people’ were explicitly looked down on by the girls’, and distanced ‘cool themselves from the girls’ in response, while the people’ joined in ‘cool ‘normal with the girls’ in treating the girls’ as low-status or ‘cool ‘nice ‘goody-goodies’ However, the people’ group, despite seeing themselves as clearly ‘neeks’. ‘normal distinct from the girls’, did frequently play with them. It must also be borne ‘nice in mind that the rigid boundaries frequently maintained within school might be absent elsewhere. For example, Lucy, one of the low status girls’ went ‘nice cycling at the weekend with Chelsea, who was (most of the time) a girl’, ‘cool their connection being that they were the only two girls in the class allowed out without an adult. It is not to us how girls originally came to be part of the groups to which they belonged when we arrived. The overwhelmingly middle-class intake of the school suggests that social class was not a factor, though habitus may have been (Sedano, 2012): the girls’ were notable in their comparatively high ‘cool interest in brand-name and designer clothing, and some had highlights in their hair (Pilcher, 2011), whereas the central trio in the people’ group were ‘normal high achievers. It is also the case that, in a setting in which ethnicity was played down so much that it was almost invisible, two of the girls’ group and one of ‘nice the intermediate-status best-friend pair were of ethnic minority origin (Melissa and Britney Turkish, Athena Chinese). It is therefore possible (though we have not evidence one way or the other) that ethnicity was a factor, although not an
entirely fixed during the period of study, with boundaries becoming more or less permeable over time. It is also the case that children’s social groups define themselves oppositionally, and that this can lead to stronger apparent boundaries than is the case in practice. Both the ‘nice girls’ and the ‘normal people’ were explicitly looked down on by the ‘cool girls’, and distanced themselves from the ‘cool girls’ in response, while the ‘normal people’ joined in with the ‘cool girls’ in treating the ‘nice girls’ as low-status ‘goody-goodies’ or ‘neeks’. However, the ‘normal people’ group, despite seeing themselves as clearly distinct from the ‘nice girls’, did frequently play with them. It must also be borne in mind that the rigid boundaries frequently maintained within school might be absent elsewhere. For example, Lucy, one of the low status ‘nice girls’ went cycling at the weekend with Chelsea, who was (most of the time) a ‘cool girl’, their connection being that they were the only two girls in the class allowed out without an adult. It is not to us how girls originally came to be part of the groups to which they belonged when we arrived. The overwhelmingly middle-class intake of the school suggests that social class was not a factor, though habitus may have been (Sedano, 2012): the ‘cool girls’ were notable in their comparatively high interest in brand-name and designer clothing, and some had highlights in their hair (Pilcher, 2011), whereas the central trio in the ‘normal people’ group were high achievers. It is also the case that, in a setting in which ethnicity was played down so much that it was almost invisible, two of the ‘nice girls’ group and one of the intermediate-status best-friend pair were of ethnic minority origin (Melissa and Britney Turkish, Athena Chinese). It is therefore possible (though we have not evidence one way or the other) that ethnicity was a factor, although not an
Being%20%E2%80%98nice%E2%80%99%20or%20being%20%E2%80%98normal%E2%80%99%20final.docx