In the theory and the practice of parenting, the concept of learning has become omnipresent, and childrearing is reframed as a task that requires particular know-how and technique (e.g., Furedi, 2002; Ramaekers & Suissa, 2012). Parent becomes a verb – ‘to’ parent – and ‘knowledge’ about parenting (gained from experience, books, parenting classes, and so on) is portrayed as a resource that adults can and should access in order to fulfill their duty. Various authors (e.g., Biesta, 2006; Dalhberg, 2003; Gillies, 2011) develop the similar critique, i.e. parenting is conceptualized as a goal-oriented process which is a narrow conception of what it means to raise children. The authors develop this critique on the level of the discourse, mainly focusing on how the discourse of parenting is increasingly framed in terms of duties, skills, knowledge, and so on. Our study is consistent with this critique, but we focus explicitly on the ‘practical’ level, i.e. how the emphasis on learning influences the concrete daily lives of family members. More specifically, our study focuses on the concrete language used by parents and children. In order to engage in the discussion about the current (changing) condition of the family, the main research interest of this study is to open up  the language of ‘parenting’ by focusing in detail on one particular dimension, namely (verbal and non-verbal) parent-child interaction. Predominantly, the importance of parental communication is defined in a functional way, tackling issues such as what parenting techniques are associated with positive child outcomes, and how to maintain meaningful relationships with your child/teenager (Segrin & Flora, 2011). Our framework, however, adopts a perspective on parental communication that is in line with what Latour calls regimes of enunciation (Latour, 2010). Law, religion, science and politics are understood by Latour as particular regimes of enunciation – each has a particular regime of speech, a particular way of speaking. Indeed, what does it mean to talk politically or religiously? Latour wants to define the particular regimes of enunciation in order to identify “the times, places, topics and people who do actually ‘knit’ politics” (Latour, 2003, p. 145). The main research question we want to raise is whether a pedagogical regime of enunciation exists in the family and if so, to what extent is this regime affected by the contemporary learning discourse? The purpose of this study, then, is to map how a regime of enunciation of a family (a ‘traditional’ pedagogical institution) looks like through the following research questions: (1) what kind of interaction (verbal, non-verbal) takes shape within family? (2) How can this interaction inform us about the current (changing) condition of the family?

Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Colorado: Paradigm. Dahlberg, G. (2003). Pedagogy as a loci of an ethics of an encounter. In M. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education. Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 261 – 286). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Furedi, F. (2002). Paranoid parenting. Abandon your anxieties and be a good parent. London: Allen Lane. Gillies, V. (2011). From function to competence: Engaging with the new politics of family. Sociological Research Online, 16(4), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/11.html Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street Phenomenology: The Go-Along as Ethnographic Research Tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 449-479. Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143 – 164. Latour, B. (2010). The making of law. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ramaekers, S. & Suissa, J. (2012). The claims of parenting: Reasons, responsibility and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Segrin, C., & Flora, F. (Eds.) (2011). Family communication. New York: Routledge.