Sichere Räume. Eine Heterotopie pädagogischer Institutionen.

Autor/inn/en	Bittner, Martin; Wittfeld, Meike
Titel	Sichere Räume. Eine Heterotopie pädagogischer Institutionen.
Quelle	Aus: Glaser, Edith (Hrsg.); Koller, Hans-Christoph (Hrsg.); Thole, Werner (Hrsg.); Krumme, Salome (Hrsg.): Räume für Bildung - Räume der Bildung. Beiträge zum 25. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft. Opladen; Berlin; Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich (2018) S. [377]-385Verfügbarkeit
Reihe	Schriften der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaften
Sprache	deutsch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Sammelwerksbeitrag
ISBN	978-3-8474-2054-5
Schlagwörter	Vertrauen; Jugend; Ethnografie; Deutschland; Jugend; Jugendwohnheim; Kind; Ländlicher Raum; Raum; Risiko; Sicherheit; Sozialpädagogik; Vertrauen; Wohngemeinschaft; Sexueller Missbrauch; Kinderschutz; Sozialpädagoge; Bildungseinrichtung; Ganztagsschule; Kinderschutz; Kind; Ganztagsschule; Ländlicher Raum; Wohngemeinschaft; Sexueller Missbrauch; Sozialpädagogik; Sozialpädagoge; Fallbeispiel; Raum; Risiko; Sicherheit; Bildungseinrichtung; Jugendwohnheim; Jugendlicher; Deutschland
Abstract	The article is based on a collaborative research project working on institutional constellations of risk for sexual violence in family-like contexts (Original German title: "Institutionelle Risikokonstellationen sexueller Gewalt in familialisierten pädagogischen Kontexten"). Public awareness for sexual violence in pedagogical institutions in Germany was triggered by several news reports in 2010. Among others, numerous cases in Catholic and progressive educational boarding schools were pointed out. Against the background of the broad discussion on sexual violence, we present research findings from pedagogical institutions focussing on corporeality and intimacy within pedagogical situations. The pedagogical situations under investigation were observed in an all-day school and in a residential youth care home. The public discourse on safety in pedagogical settings and the introduction of new laws demanded pedagogical institutions to position themselves regarding the risk for sexual violence. The fact that institutions are confronted with the demand for (more) safe spaces implies the general assumption that by means of particular practices these institutions are able to create them. The assumption that practices of corporeality, intimacy and emotionality constitute a safe space within institutions is the starting point of this article. Starting from observation of everyday life in these pedagogic institutions, the presented ethnographic descriptions focus on practices which constitute safe spaces. In this way, we examine to what extent the pedagogical institutions constitute safe spaces for their clients. Our findings shot that safe spaces can only be constituted alternatively or parallel to the spatial and institutional ordering. We use the Foucauldian concept of heterotopia in order to analyse and describe these safe spaces. This concept gives us the chance to specify the nature safe spaces. The concept of heterotopia answers the practical and theoretical demand for safety but also the research dilemma that sexual violence against children cannot be researched directly. Hence we observed those places that we expect to be at risk for sexual violence, i.e. spaces where physical intimacy and emotionality frequently occur, and describe how practices of intimacy and corporality constitute pedagogical relationships. We conclude that comprehensive safety is an illusion or utopia and pedagogical institutions always include spaces of risk for sexual violence. (DIPF/Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2018/3