Children’s Drawing, Self Expression, Identity and the Imagination

209Children’s Drawing, Self Expression, Identity and the ImaginationBryan Hawkins

“The whole race is a poet which writes down the eccentric propositions of its own fate.”Wallace Stevens

JADE 21.3 ©NSEAD 2002

Directions, Volume 18 Number1[1] suggests thatpostmodern theory is beginning to have a signif-icant effect upon educational practice. Atkinson[2] has directed attention towards the effects ofboth the construction of the subject and the realwithin art teaching. Much postmodern theorychallenges the unitary, pre-existing subject. Thispaper will argue that the persistence of an ideol-ogy of self-expression which asserts that allrepresentation is in connection with (should beread in relation to) a singular, pure, pre-existingself acts to limit our understandings of thecomplexity of children’s representations and is inconflict with many contemporary positions.

Research has centred on the development of‘out of school’ sketchbooks. Large sketchbookswere given out to nursery and reception childrenpaired with older siblings in primary education.

Possible drawing activities and interests werediscussed and children were left to develop thesketchbooks at home. Two weeks later (includinga half term holiday) the children were interviewedin relation to the drawings developed. The drawingshave been considered in relation to contemporaryapproaches to self and identity.

The conclusions of this paper revolve around thepossibilities of reading children’s drawing in relationto self and identity through the interaction of socialcontext, discursive practice and agency in a mannerwhich is suggested by Ricouer’s formulation of thesocial imaginary. Additionally, the substitution oftenacious notions of expression with concepts ofagency and contingency grounded in the charac-teristics of ‘citationality’, articulation and narrativeare suggested as a basis for developing the educa-tional potential of drawing.

Abstract


IntroductionRorty [3] employs the term ‘final vocabulary’ todescribe the realisation that the construction ofmeaning and the possibilities of re-thinking ourviews and opinions in relation to experience aresubject to limitations. For Rorty a ‘final vocabulary’is to be understood as ‘as far as we can go withlanguage’. The final vocabulary is also ‘non-nego-tiable’ and common sense. Final vocabularies are,argues Rorty, final in the sense that, ‘if doubt iscast on the worth of these words their user hasno noncircular argumentative recourse [4]’.

Self expression as a term and concept hasconstituted an essential wisdom and final vocab-ulary of art education precisely to the extent thatit’s meaning has been understood to have beenobvious, common sense, non-negotiable andfinal. Castoriadis in his essay The ImaginaryInstitution of Society defines a society’s orperiod’s imaginary as a primary or singular way ofconstituting the functionality within any system.Castoriadis defines this imaginary as, ‘the sourceof all meanings that are given as beyond alldiscussion and dispute [5]’.

Examples of such an imaginary focusing uponself expression and children’s drawing andconstructed within theory can be identified ineven the most recent publications. In her essay,Miro and Children’s Drawing, Vallier begins heranalysis of the creativity of the child with whatamounts to an example of both a final vocabularyand a definition of a social and historicallymodernist imaginary in relation to the role of selfexpression and children’s drawing. It is one exam-ple of a position that has been of the greatestsignificance and influence.

It is well known that drawing is a spontaneousactivity for the child – a game, an escape and at thesame time the discovery of a total freedom thatallows the expression of his desires as well as thedeliverance from his fears. Hence the importanceof drawing as a diagnostic tool for child psycholo-gists and its role in the general education ofchildren during their first years of school [6].

Vallier demonstrates both the centrality of self-expression taken as a belief in the unique innercharacteristics of the child and the view that selfis the source of all artistic activity in young chil-dren. She reflects a particular attitude towards theself (the child’s most profound and general senseof being in the world) and attaches this conceptto the identification of educational value in earlyyears of education. This position, I would argue,is circular in the sense that Rorty identifies withinhis definition of final vocabulary. In Vallier’s state-ment, the imaginary, the self and self-expressionrefer elliptically to each other. The self is thesource of self-expression. Or self-expression isevidence of the self.

Vallier’s statements, in other words, can stand as an example of the centrality persistence and importance of the idea of self-expression within arteducation understood as both final vocabulary and asa historic and cultural imaginary of great significance.

The Challenge of Postmodern Theory The emphasis upon an autonomous essentialself can be characterised as modernist and thereaction, questioning and anxiety in relation toidentity and self as postmodern. Post-modernanalysis radically reverses understandings of therelationship between self and language, Krausscharacteristically argues that:

the human subject is consistently to be viewed asa function of rather than an initiator of the signs he(she) uses; for the only way for the human subjectto enter the social system is seen to be as a mean-ing that is articulated by a structure that utterlyexceeds him (her) [my brackets], [7].

Krauss is arguing that the individual self takesmeaning only within language and the socialcontext within which language operates. In otherwords the idea of the self as the source of expres-sion is mistaken as the individual (human subject)is constructed within culture.

A review of the arts within this context suggeststhat art, drawing and the field of visual represen-

210Bryan Hawkins


tations need not be understood as so manyexpressions of self, they are rather thought of ascultural practices and systems which form therepertoire and determinants of identity. The self,as inner self projected outwards, is rejected for asense of identity imposed from outside. In termsof art as text we do not so much make art, artmakes us.

Writers such as Foucault have argued that theidea of the human self has changed acrosshistory and that this has been the product ofcultural factors. Within this view the individual isconstructed within the action of culture andhistorically we can trace significant shifts in howthe self and notions of identity are constructedwithin representation. The differences thenbetween a Cimabue, a Gauguin, a Francis Bacon,a Warhol and a Cindy Sherman are more than adifference of style. The difference is a differenceof the construction of meaning surrounding thenature of being itself. The difference in otherwords is profound and historically and culturallyof great significance. Writers such as Zizek [8] inrelation to cultural, theory, Kearney [9] in relationto the imagination and Atkinson [10] in relation toart education have argued that such changes arecharacteristic of a major shift in our approach toself, identity and being in the late twentieth andearly twenty first century.

Within this understanding the spontaneity andtotal freedom Vallier suggests are characteristicof children’s self-expression are questioned.Drawing becomes a social practice with rules andstructures that define the possibilities of any indi-vidual’s repertoire of articulation of being. Farfrom an escape from the social world drawing isan engagement with the social construction ofidentity rather than a free and unfettered act ofself-expression.

Barthes [11] suggests a reversal of themodernist emphasis on the author as the essen-tial source of texts. Under Barthes’s analysis theemphasis shifts from the author writing the textto the text writing the author in that the self isseen as a product of the texts which write the

individual into being. For Barthes the ‘death of theauthor’ became the ‘birth of the reader’, this againmarks a shift, a shift which privileges the (post-modern) cultural processes of decoding andunderstanding the significance of text over the(modernist) spontaneous (or consciously primi-tivist) production of text.

Barthes emphasises that it is only withinlanguage (taken to embrace a variety of forms ofrepresentation and to include the visual) that theself has any existence at all. The issue becomesrelated to the degree of agency that can beattached to discursive practice. What, if any, powerand choice can be constructed within the forma-tive structures, constraints and restrictions oflanguage and representation? The degree to whichthe subject may be considered as the author oftheir own destiny becomes the issue whichdefines the roles of individual imagination andagency. Self-expression is no longer understood as‘natural’ and ‘free’ and unlimited but rather struc-tured by social and linguistic considerations.

Hall argues, however, that a coherent workingmodel of identity without recourse to the auton-omy of the subject is not available to currentphilosophical enquiry. His answer to this defenseof the subject from within the postmodern consid-eration of the expressive subject is to move awayfrom the unchallenged notion of the subject’sautonomy and centrality whilst defining a place forthe active subject within the constraints and struc-tures of discourse. Hall states:

Since the decentering of the subject is not thedestruction of the subject and since the decen-tering of discursive practice cannot work withoutthe constitution of subjects, the theoretical workcannot be fully accomplished without compli-menting the account of discursive and disciplinaryregulation with an account of the practices ofsubjective self-constitution [12].

In this complex statement Hall seems to attemptto locate identity within a relationship betweendiscursive practice and agency understood as the

211Bryan Hawkins


individual’s active (and imaginative) manipulationof the possibilities provided by discourse.

Heath [13] has written of the process by whichself is connected with culture by an ongoing andfluid sense of connections and ‘chaining’ or‘suture’ of the subject into the ‘flow of discourse’as the main process which constitutes the humansubject and thus identity and self. Others such asButler [14] have stressed that, despite the socialconstruction of identity and self a sense of agencyand control attaches itself to the individual forwhom the practices of connection and chaininglink identity and self to the movement and contin-gency associated with active human processessuch as performance, transaction and narration.

Thus the acts of choice made within drawingbecome the possibilities of agency and suture.The sense of free play is transformed to be under-stood as socialisation into a complex linguisticframework and spontaneous activity becomesimagination not in the sense of the direct expres-sion of an inner essence or core but rather as thepossibility to ‘play’ and invent possibility withinlanguage. The actions of the expressive subjectare thus connected to language and metaphor.

Ricouer states in relation to the establishmentof a linguistic context for the imagination:

What new access is offered to the phenomena ofimagination by a theory of metaphor? What itoffers is, first of all, a new way of putting the prob-lem. Instead of approaching the problem through(individual) perception to images, the theory ofmetaphor invites us to relate imagination to acertain use of language, more precisely to see init an aspect of semantic innovation [15].

This semantic innovation relates specifically tothe opportunity for the individual to suggest ‘newworlds’ based not upon the isolated imaginationgrounded in the self but through engagementwith language.

The dynamic tension between agency, discur-sive practice and social context is the frame inwhich self and identity are constituted in contem-

porary theory. In relation to children’s drawing andself and identity drawing as a discursive practiceand the action of the imagination insert themselveswithin this frame with a particular importanceand force.

We may contrast this complexity to thecommonsense and educational practices whichconstitute a tradition of understanding self whichmark a largely invisible yet highly influential tradi-tion of exegesis in the reading of children’sdrawings. This tradition I would argue is not onlylimited it is also damaging to children in that itrepresents an ideology of identity, self and repre-sentation which is not only entirely inappropriateto the critical debate, practices and forms ofculture emerging in the early 21st century butwhich also limits the educational potential ofdrawing and art in the school setting as well asseverely under-rating the complexity and richnessof young children’s engagement with drawing.

The problem becomes to understand the roleof drawing within the construction of self andidentity and in relation to postmodern theory.Postmodern theory however decentres self butleaves the location of agency the imagination andexpression in doubt and active.

The research undertaken deliberately seeks toreplace the final vocabulary and modernist imag-inary of self-expression with a consideration ofpostmodern approaches to identity.

The Research and The DrawingsThe research centred on the development of ‘outof school’ sketchbooks. A primary school in EastLondon was used as the focus for research.Large sketchbooks were given out to nursery andreception children paired with older siblings in thesame school. A group of twenty children wereidentified representing ten paired groups.

Possible drawing activities and interests werediscussed and children were left to develop thesketchbooks at home. Collaborative work wasencouraged. Two weeks later (including a halfterm holiday) the children were interviewed inrelation to the drawings developed. A total of

212Bryan Hawkins


seven sketchbooks were returned and interviewswere recorded with all the children who hadreturned sketchbooks.

The drawings provide considerable evidenceof different kinds of interaction between the chil-dren and often with others including friends,family and extended family. The interviews havebeen of value in providing further information butas might be expected the dominant narrative issupplied by older children. For the purposes of thisresearch the interviews have been mainly used toidentify which children have produced the draw-ings in the sketchbooks. Throughout the analysisof the sketchbooks particular drawings and someevidence from interviews will be related to identi-fied emphases from within a consideration ofwhat Hall defines as, ‘the critique of the self-sustaining subject at the centre of post-Cartesianwestern metaphysics [16].’ These emphases willbe defined as site and context, suture and agencyand contingency and citationality.

Site and ContextThere are within the sketchbook numerous exam-ples of drawings which seem best understood asparticular interactive engagements by childrenwho are structuring and inventing drawing in rela-tion to a number of contexts which can be relatedto identity.

Drawing A is one such example it is the firstpage of one of the sketchbooks. It is remarkablefor the dense packing of its content. In other waysit is typical of many of the sketchbooks. Thesketchbooks, I will argue, are the focus of an inter-active engagement with a number of contextswithin which the identity of the children is calledinto being.

Each of these contexts represents a site forthe construction and negotiation of identity.

Drawing A has a text titled Welcome to T’sand M’s Gallery. Thus M as older sister introduces‘art’ and the role of artist in the context of her rela-tionship with her younger brother. Interestinglythe art context is frequently present within the

Left:

Drawing A

Right:

Drawing B

213Bryan Hawkins


sketchbooks. There are numerous artists signa-tures attached to drawings that most frequentlyrefer to flower paintings (the still life genre). Thisprevalent activity may well relate to the older chil-dren’s recent experience of art within the schooland there is evidence of older children socialisingyounger children into the still-life genre, as well asartists signatures and descriptions of pictures. InDrawing A, a flower is drawn and given the title‘flower’. Another is drawn elsewhere on thepage, again by M. In many sketchbooks suchapparent invitations to copy are taken up byyounger children. In Drawing A, T the youngerchild draws a flower towards the middle ofDrawing A following his sister’s lead and later inthe sketchbook, when his father draws a ciga-rette in its ashtray, T makes two increasinglysophisticated copies of the model.

These drawings by T can be considered asacts of identification through drawing. Thesketchbook is in this sense a location for complexinteractions in relation to family and social ritualand convention. These interactions are played outthrough drawing.

Additionally Drawing A contains evidence of Tand M involved in contexts that may be defined inrelation to patterns of power and authority experi-enced in school and to ideologies and conventionsof education. Numbers and letters are copied out,drawings are given written texts to describe them.Elsewhere in the sketchbooks drawings of olderchildren are copied by younger children, drawingtools such as stencils are introduced and super-vised. The assertion of a teacher – like relationbetween older and younger siblings is a repeatedcharacteristic in many of the sketchbooks.

Drawing A has a ‘limo’ (stretch limousine ),drawn by T and titled by M, which appears to beboth an exciting feature of the immediate envi-ronment of the school and an emblem of wealthand status within the children’s lived experience.Weddings for example are associated and madespecial by limo’s. The figure drawing entitled‘gangster’ extends this connection with contem-porary music videos (within which the limousine

is articulated as a symbol of wealth, sexual desir-ability and power) and contemporary visualimagery such as film.

Linking with media representations DrawingA also contains a drawing by T and labelled by Mas a Digimon cat. The connection with cartoonand animations is relevant both as a culturalcontext and in other drawings provides either astandard model of representation or a model ofrepresentation which forms the basis for play andinvention in other sketchbooks.

In Drawing A, a mosque is drawn and namedas such. Additionally a house is drawn in associ-ation with T (who lives in a flat) and his newscooter is drawn. It is an element which appearsagain within the sketchbook and is extended intodrawings of football and play.

The contexts of this sketchbook page can becategorised in a number of ways I suggest, artisticactivity, school and teaching, the local environ-ment, family interaction, media representationsand religion as an example of a categorisation. Thistaxonomy fits well with those sites of power andsocial influence in which identity is according toHall [17] negotiated. Furthermore the drawingsthemselves are texts within which the subject iscalled into being in relation to the social action ofpower and institution that the drawings de-lineate.In this the drawings need not be understood onlyin terms of the power of the text to define identity,in addition the children can be seen to expressagency and choice as they actively weave andsuture themselves into the meanings impliedwithin particular contexts. The selves that emergefrom drawing A are in this sense constituted withinthe language of drawing and the sites of powerand influence they represent but are neverthelessavailable to and acted upon by the agency (theimaginations and action) of individuals. Thus thechildren deal with opportunities for meaning andaction opened up by the drawing activities theyengage with. This meaning and action can be iden-tified in relation to a flow and passage ofengagement within pages of the sketchbooks anddeveloped across pages within the sketchbooks.

214Bryan Hawkins


Suture and AgencyThe sketchbooks abound with examples of chil-dren drawing themselves into relationship withsites of power and social meaning. These acts ofdrawing reflect both the power and pervasivequalities of particular contexts and paradoxicallythe potential of agency within these contexts asthey open to the possibilities of play, inventionand imagination defined as the ability to manipu-late the characteristics of ‘citationality’ (whatKrauss has defined as the ability of texts toconstantly evade and escape meaning and tosuggest new and unruly meanings).

Drawings C and D which occur on the samepage of a sketchbook provide one example of thisprocess. In this sketchbook R draws cars partic-ularly sports cars on other pages his youngersister T draws events from her life with a particu-lar emphasis on swimming pools and swimming.In Drawing C, R draws a Porsche and seeminglydelights in reproducing the Porsche insignia. Onthe same page in Drawing D, I reworks the modelof the car produced by R. A degree of copyingoccurs with some considerable degree ofsuccess. However in the hands of the youngerchild the Porsche car becomes a model thatopens to further possibility. Through this modelthe younger child draws a woman – perhaps hermother or herself – driving the sports car. Thedrawing of the car is augmented by a newelement a figure – and an energetic and expres-sive figure at that – and the meaning of thedrawing is extended through a visual dialogueoccurring between the two children.

The ability to draw this car, in other words, is adiscursive act, which we may understand interms of an induction into a visual discourse inrelation to cars (the Porsche like the Limo evokesa range of significance as commodity and symbolof power). The car also becomes in the hands ofthe young child the ‘vehicle’ for invention, playand possibility. This potential being a conse-quence of the drawing as a visual text and thechild’s ability to articulate the image in a new,personal, context.

The point here is not addressed to specificmeanings in the drawings but to the broader issueof appropriate and legitimate strategies for read-ing drawings. Thus ability in drawing deriving frominteraction itself opens possibility for furthermeaning which include the possibility of subver-sion. Such a potential is in fact opened up by boththe younger child’s socialisation into the drawingof the Porsche, through the relationship anddialogue with her brother and through semanticplay with the citationality inherent in the image.The play apparent in Drawing D should be consid-ered, I believe, as it is by Ricouer, as both semanticinnovation and imagination in action.

Negotiation and play are extended throughoutthe sketchbook. It is possible to identify (amusingbut significant) moments of the ongoing narrationof these two children’s senses of themselves(their identities) in which their personal discoursesand narratives marvellously and eccentrically inter-twine. One based on an interest in cars the otheron swimming and the swimming pool. Towardsthe end of the sketchbook a race track is drawn byR which has a lake or swimming pool added in thebackground by I. This superimposition is madewith subtlety, and without pictorial violence, as anaddition to the ‘background’ of the drawing. Theamusing normality of this event, in terms of siblingcompetitiveness and play, must not conceal thesophistication of the processes at work and theimportance of reading the drawings of these twochildren drawing in relationship to each other.

The switch is from the drawings as self-expression to the drawings as a contingent (ever-changing) narrating of identity under the conditionsof citationality (the unruliness of the image) andthrough social interaction I and R’s relationship.The drawings are not, in other words, effectivelyread as the isolated products of individualsinvolved primarily in acts of self-expression. Theswitch of is of great importance.

Contingency and CitationalityA look at another sketchbook will help to extendthese points. Drawings E, F, G and H reflect three

215Bryan Hawkins


children from the same family drawing. The simi-larities between the children’s approaches todrawing the human form are significant andpronounced. Drawing E is a drawing by S theyounger brother of L. L’s drawing F is entitledWeird FBI. Drawing G is a further drawing by Smade during a conversation about the sketch-books and in response to a request made by theresearcher to draw himself and following somediscussion about new shoes. An older sister else-where in the sketchbook repeats the ‘CK’ (CalvinKlein ) belt logo (used by S in Drawing F) in herown drawing entitled ‘Gran’ Drawing H.

It seems possible to argue that within thesedrawings we see evidence of the children nego-tiating the human form in relation to formalcharacteristics, which are adopted, adapted andbrought into connection with contexts beyondtheir relationships. We must, in order to do this,imagine a complex mapping of connection thatwould include more evidence than is available butthat would achieve a considerable degree ofcomplexity and detail. This map would illustratehow semantic play and innovation and connec-tion has occurred both within, and acrossdrawings E, F, G and H. It would also show andanalyse the sites and contexts of family relation-ships, the visual culture and broader culturalinfluences that are relevant to the drawings –fashion, advertising and ethnicity for example.Like Eco’s [18] imagined map of absolute detailthis map extends infinitely.

Drawings E, F, G and H, also however, reflectprocesses within which the difference betweenE and G defines a connection and differencewhich suggests drawing as an act of semanticinnovation as described by Ricouer [19]. In thisrespect the drawings take the visual linguisticstructures available, known and drawable and re-inscribe them to create new meanings whichthemselves open new possibilities. A complex,contingent, discursive and constantly evolvingflow and chaining of connections is thus identi-fied. This flow itself is identity.

A set of drawing conventions, a visual vocabu-lary and a visual syntax is thus adopted, adaptedbut also nuanced and re-shaped as the sense ofpossibility opened up by drawing is re-articulatedinto the stream of the children’s thought andaction. These processes of identifying and identi-fication represent the self as a contingent processformulated within drawing. Identity is to be under-stood as present and called into being throughdrawing rather than as existing elsewhere andpictured, expressed or represented by drawing.

Again it is not the specific interpretations andmeanings suggested by drawings E, F, G and Hwhich I am seeking to foreground as these them-selves cannot be conceived as themselvesanything other than contingent and fleeting andconjectural. Even if our imagined map of interac-tions were available it would itself become tiedinto the chaining and suturing of texts intodiscourse and narrative that is the result of all

216Bryan Hawkins


Opposite Left:

Drawing C

Opposite Right:

Drawing D

Top Left:

Drawing E

Top Right:

Drawing F

Bottom Left:

Drawing G

Bottom Right:

Drawing H

217Bryan Hawkins


narrations including this article – and beyond. A more significant outcome should, I believe,

be a structural change in our understanding ofdrawing and children drawing and the relation-ship between drawing and identity. Specificallythe result should be the rejection of self-expres-sion as the central dynamic (and final vocabulary)of children’s drawing, artistic production and therelationship between art and self. The alternativeis the consideration of drawing as a social act ofconnection and identification under the condi-tions of both structure (the giveness of drawingstructures and contexts) and freedom (imagina-tion as agency and semantic innovation and play)and occurring within the dialogic, social space oflanguage and drawing as language.

Importantly the imaginative play of children isclarified rather than overwritten or denied by anunderstanding of the social construction of iden-tity within visual texts. The child imagining bothappropriates and re-articulates the ideologies ofrepresentation ‘given’ by his social interaction andthe world. The citationality (unruliness) of thedrawings that constitute this structure have thepotential to be endlessly extended (confirmedand denied) as these visual texts become suturedinto a broader chaining of texts and interactions.

ConclusionThe research aimed to provide evidence fromwithin the sketchbooks that would support strate-gies for reading children’s drawings in relation toidentity other than those dependent upon self-expression. The sketchbooks have provided agreat number of drawings which can be read inrelation to concepts drawn from a post modernconsideration of identity. These readings challengethe dominance of self-expression within educa-tional thinking but do not deny the importance ofimagination and play. Rather the sketchbooks re-affirm imagination and play as activities both withinvisual language, and occurring through interactiveengagements in relation to particular sites andcontexts. The imagination of the individual child (assemantic innovation and play) thus exploits the

citationality of the image through which the dramaand action of suture and agency are played out.The sketchbooks, in other words, provide afocused example of processes that are moreusually obscured by the imaginaryand final vocab-ulary of self-expression which refuses to seechildren’s drawing from any other perspective thanthat of the imposed exile and isolation of selfdefined as a pre-existing interiority.

The richness provided by the children, thedrawings and the theory opens to new possibili-ties for research into drawing, and art and theidentity in early years of education. It might alsolead us to ask new questions about how wemight help each other as we strive to develop,sustain and enrich our senses of self and identityin the twenty first century.

We are all artists in Steven’s terms who mustdraw (write, act, dance, speak and compose) theeccentric propositions of our fate.

218Bryan Hawkins


References1. Directions (1999) Journal of Art and designEducation Vol. 18, No. 1.

2. Atkinson, D. (1999) ‘A Critical Reading of theNational Curriculum in the Light ofContemporary Theories of Subjectivity’. Journalof Art and Design Education, Vol. 18, No. 1.

3. Atkinson, D. (2001) ‘Assessment inEducational Practice: Forming PedagogisedIdentities in the Art Curriculum,’ in InternationalJournal of Art and Design Education. Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 96–108.

4. Rorty, R. (1995) ‘Ironists and Metaphysicians’,in Anderson.T (1995) The Truth About Truth,Tarcher Putnam.

5. Castoriadis, (1984) ‘The Imaginary Institutionof Society’ in Fekete.J (84) The StructuralAllegory, Manchester University Press

6. Vallier, D. (1998) ‘Miro and Children’sDrawing,’ in Fineberg. J (1998) DiscoveringChild Art, Princeton University Press.

7. Krauss. R. (1991) ‘Using Language to DoBusiness as Usual,’ in Bryson. N (ed) VisualTheory, Polity Press.

8. Zizek, S. (2000) The Ticklish Subject.London:Verso.

9. Kearney, R. (1994) The Wake of theImagination, London: Routledge.

10. Ibid.

11. Barthes, R. (1990) ‘The Death of the Author’pp 142–149 in Image, Music Text, London:Fontana Press.

12. Hall, S. (1996) ‘Who Needs Identity,’ in Hall,S. and duGay, P. (1996) Questions of CulturalIdentity. London: Sage.

13. Heath, S. (1981) Questions of Cinema,London: Macmillan.

14. Butler, J.(1993) Gender Trouble, London:Routledge

15. Ricouer, P. (1991) From Text to Action,Northwestern University Press.

16. Hall, S. and Du Gay, P. (1996) Questions ofCultural Identity, London: Sage Publications

17. Hall, S. (1996) Ibid.

18. Eco, U. (1994) ‘On the Impossibility ofDrawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1’, pp. 84–95 in How to Travel with a Salmonand Other Essays, Minerva.

19. Ibid.

219Bryan Hawkins

Documents

Children’s Drawing, Self Expression, Identity and the Imagination