Academic literature on the topic 'Picture-books=2015-02-22'

Numerical literacy is the ability needed to use number ideas and arithmetic skills in everyday situations as well as the ability to analyze quantitative data around children. This study aims to determine the effect of the intervention of singing favorite food songs on children's numerical literacy. Using a pretest-posttest experimental design with a control group, this study involved 20 children as research objects, consisting of 10 experimental class children and 10 control class children. The results of the study showed that singing activities with the theme of favorite food influenced the numerical literacy of kindergarten children. This singing activity attracts children's interest, thus showing a significant difference between the experimental class and the control class. Therefore, for further research, it is suggested that early childhood educators can always take advantage of artistic activities such as singing to attract children's interest in any learning. Keywords: early childhood, numerical literacy, singing activities References: Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J., & Levy, B. A. (2002). Relations among musical skills, phonological processing, and early reading ability in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00124-8 Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The ‘genesis’ of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760600879920 Batchelor, S., Keeble, S., & Gilmore, C. (2015). Magnitude Representations and Counting Skills in Preschool Children. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2–3), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2015.1016811 Dixon-Krauss, L., Januszka, C. M., & Chae, C.-H. (2010). Development of the Dialogic Reading Inventory of Parent-Child Book Reading. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.487412 Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 Goldstein, H. (2011). Knowing What to Teach Provides a Roadmap for Early Literacy Intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111429464 Haimson, J., Swain, D., & Winner, E. (2011). Do Mathematicians Have Above Average Musical Skill? Music Perception, 29(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.203 Harrison, C. S. (1996). Relationships between Grades in Music Theory for Nonmusic Majors and Selected Background Variables. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345446 Helmrich, B. H. (2010). Window of Opportunity? Adolescence, Music, and Algebra. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(4), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410366594 Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivation and Self-Regulation as Predictors of Achievement in Economically Disadvantaged Young Children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602061 Jones, M. R., & Bergee, M. (2008). Elements Associated with Success in the First-Year Music Theory and Aural-Skills Curriculum. Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 22. Kleemans, T., Peeters, M., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Child and home predictors of early numeracy skills in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004 Lessard, A., & Bolduc, J. (2011). Links between Musical Learning and Reading for First to Third Grade Students: A Literature Review. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(7). Lyons, I. M., & Ansari, D. (2015). Numerical Order Processing in Children: From Reversing the Distance-Effect to Predicting Arithmetic. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(4), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12094 Lyons, I. M., Price, G. R., Vaessen, A., Blomert, L., & Ansari, D. (2014). Numerical predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1–6. Developmental Science, 17(5), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12152 Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G. K., & Tziraki, N. (2013). Examining the effects of home literacy and numeracy environment on early reading and math acquisition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004 Mehr, S. A., Schachner, A., Katz, R. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Two Randomized Trials Provide No Consistent Evidence for Nonmusical Cognitive Benefits of Brief Preschool Music Enrichment. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e82007. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082007 Mol, S. E., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Sharing information books with kindergartners: The role of parents’ extra-textual talk and socioeconomic status. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.001 Mundy, E., & Gilmore, C. K. (2009). Children’s mapping between symbolic and nonsymbolic representations of number. Special Issue: Typical Development of Numerical Cognition, 103(4), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.003 Neuman, S. B., Kaefer, T., & Pinkham, A. M. (2018). A Double Dose of Disadvantage: Language Experiences for Low-Income Children in Home and School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000201 Pekrun, R. (2006). The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of mathematics and working memory: Moderating effects of working memory domain, type of mathematics skill, and sample characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000079 Protzko, J. (2017). Raising IQ among school-aged children: Five meta-analyses and a review of randomized controlled trials. Developmental Review, 46, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.05.001 Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numeracy: The value of including early literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004 Rauscher, F., Shaw, G., Levine, L., Wright, E., Dennis, W., & Newcomb, R. (1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children’s spatial–temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19(1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616412.1997.11740765 Rohwer, D. (2012). Predicting Undergraduate Music Education Majors’ Collegiate Achievement. Texas Music Education Research. Santos-Luiz, C. dos. (2007). The learning of music as a means to improve mathematical skills. Sarnecka, B. W., & Wright, C. E. (2013). The Idea of an Exact Number: Children’s Understanding of Cardinality and Equinumerosity. Cognitive Science, 37(8), 1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12043 Singh, N. (2016). Mathematics and Music. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 5(10). https://doi.org/DOI: 10.36106/ijsr Slusser, E. B., & Sarnecka, B. W. (2011). Find the picture of eight turtles: A link between children’s counting and their knowledge of number word semantics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.03.006 Taylor, S. V., & Leung, C. B. (2020). Multimodal Literacy and Social Interaction: Young Children’s Literacy Learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00974-0 Vaiouli, P., & Friesen, A. (2016). The Magic of Music: Engaging Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Early Literacy Activities With Their Peers. Childhood Education, 92(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1150745 Vaiouli, P., & Ogle, L. (2015). Music Strategies to Promote Engagement and Academic Growth of Young Children with ASD in the Inclusive Classroom. Young Exceptional Children, 18(2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250614523968 Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and Mathematics: Modest Support for the Oft-Claimed Relationship. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 149–166. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333641 Wagner, J. B., & Johnson, S. C. (2011). An association between understanding cardinality and analog magnitude representations in preschoolers. Cognition, 119(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.014 Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child Development and Emergent Literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06247.x Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36(2), 155–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90003-3

Early childhood emotional dysregulation is critical in recognizing and preventing psychological well-being disorders, laying the groundwork for developing healthy emotional behaviors early on. This study aims to determine the direct influence of smartphone addiction, executive function, and the mother-child relationship on emotional dysregulation in early childhood in West Sumatra. This research method is a quantitative survey. The data collection technique in this research uses a questionnaire design on 309 parents who were selected using a simple random sampling method. This data processing tool uses the SmartPLS software. The results of the study indicate that smartphone addiction has a significant impact on emotional dysregulation in early childhood, executive function has a positive and significant effect on emotional dysregulation in early childhood, and the mother-child relationship has a positive and significant influence on emotional dysregulation in early childhood. The findings of this research can offer valuable insights into improving the understanding of the factors that influence emotional dysregulation in early childhood and intervention strategies to address the issues that arise as a result. Keywords: smartphone addiction, executive function, mother-child relationship, emotional dysregulation, early childhood References: Aisyah, Salehudin, M., Yatun, S., Yani, Komariah, D. L., Aminda, N. E. R., Hidayati, P., & Latifah, N. (2021). Persepsi Orang Tua Dalam Pendidikan karakter Anak Usia Dini Pada Pembelajaran Online di Masa Pandemi Covid-19. PEDAGOGI: Jurnal Anak Usia Dini Dan Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 7(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30651/pedagogi.v7i1.6593 Allison, S. Z. (2023). Islamic Educational Provisions in South Korea and Indonesia : A Comparison. Journal of Islamic Education Students, 3, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.31958/jies.v3i1.8772 Anggraini, E. (2019). Mengatasi Kecanduan Gadget Pada Anak. Serayu Publishing. Annisa, N., Padilah, N., Rulita, R., & Yuniar, R. (2022). Dampak Gadget Terhadap Perkembangan Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 3(9), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.36418/japendi.v3i9.1159 Annisavitry, Y., & Budiani, M. S. (2006). Hubungan antara Kematangan Emosi dengan Agresivitas pada Remaja. 1–6. Anzani, R. W., & Intan Khairul Insan. (2020). Perkembangan sosial emosi pada anak usia prasekolah. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Dakwah, 02, 180–193. APJII. (2019). Pengguna Internet Indonesia Hampir Tembus 200 Juta di 2019. Asosiasi Pengguna Jasa Internet Indonesia (APJII). https://blog.apjii.or.id/index.php/2020/11/09/siaran-pers-pengguna-internet-indonesia-hampir-tembus-200-juta-di-2019-q2-2020/ Aryanti, Z. (2017). Kelekatan dalam perkembangan anak. Arbawiyah: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan. Ashari, L. F., & Anwar, F. (2022). Moral Problems and Mothers’ Efforts to Educate Children in Single Parent Families. Journal of Islamic Education Students (JIES), 2(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.31958/jies.v2i1.4367 Ayomi, A. T. R., Widyorini, E., & Roswita, M. Y. (2021). Hubungan Inteligensi dengan Fungsi Eksekutif pada Anak Gifted Relationship between Intelligence and Executive Function to Gifted Children. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Candrajiwa, 6(2), 136. Bachtiar, M. A., & Faletehan, A. F. (2021). Self-Healing sebagai Metode Pengendalian Emosi. Journal An-Nafs: Kajian Penelitian Psikologi, 6(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.33367/psi.v6i1.1327 Baptista, J., Osório, A., Martins, E. C., Verissimo, M., & Martins, C. (2016). Does social-behavioral adjustment mediate the relation between executive function and academic readiness? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 46, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.05.004 Bassett, H. H., Denham, S., Wyatt, T. M., & Warren-Khot, H. K. (2012). Refining the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment for Use in Preschool Classrooms. Infant and Child Development, 21(6), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1763 Bell, M. A., & Wolfe, C. D. (2004). Emotion and Cognition: An Intricately Bound Developmental Process. Child Development, 75(2), 366–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00679.x Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., Fitzgerald, H., Burns-Jager, K., & Carolan, M. T. (2012). Maternal Psychological Absence and Toddlers’ Social-Emotional Development: Interpretations From the Perspective of Boundary Ambiguity Theory. Family Process, 51(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01411.x Brock, R. L., & Kochanska, G. (2019). Anger in infancy and its implications: History of attachment in mother–child and father–child relationships as a moderator of risk. Development and Psychopathology, 31(04), 1353–1366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418000780 Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (2019). The Affect System structure: architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00031 Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2015). Emotion regulation and executive functioning in early development: Integrated mechanisms of control supporting adaptive functioning. In Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition. (pp. 37–57). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12059-003 Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally Sensitive Measures of Executive Function in Preschool Children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2802_3 Chang, F.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Chen, P.-H., Chiang, J.-T., Miao, N.-F., Chuang, H.-Y., & Liu, S. (2019). Children’s use of mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.048 Chiu, S.-I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-Efficacy and social self-Efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.024 Cholik, C. A. (2021). Perkembangan Teknologi Informasi Komunikasi / Ict Dalam Berbagai Bidang. Jurnal Fakultas Teknik, 14, 1–13. Chusna, P. A. (2017). Pengaruh Media Gadget pada Perkembangan Karakter Anak. 315–330. Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion Regulation as a Scientific Construct: Methodological Challenges and Directions for Child Development Research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x Denham, S. A., Ferrier, D. E., Howarth, G. Z., Herndon, K. J., Bassett, H. H., Denham, S. A., Ferrier, D. E., Howarth, G. Z., & Herndon, K. J. (2016). Key considerations in assessing young children ’ s emotional competence. Cambridge Journal of Education ISSN:, 3577(April). https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1146659 Eliasa, E. I. (2011). Pentingnya kelekatan orangtua dalam internal working model untuk pembentukan karakter anak (kajian berdasarkan teori kelekatan dari john bowlby). Yogyakarta: Inti Media Yogyakarta Bekerjasama Dengan Pusat Studi Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Evy Clara, A. A. D. W. (2020). Sosiologi Keluarga. In UNJ PRESS. Unj Press. Fatwikiningsih, N. (2016). Rehabilitasi Neuropsikologi Dalam Upaya Memperbaiki Defisit Executive Function (Fungsi Eksekutif) Klien Gangguan Mental. Journal An-Nafs: Kajian Penelitian Psikologi, 1(2), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.33367/psi.v1i2.296 Ferrier, D. E., Bassett, H. H., & Denham, S. A. (2014). Relations between executive function and emotionality in preschoolers: Exploring a transitive cognition–emotion linkage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00487 Ferrier, D. E., Karalus, S. P., Denham, S. A., Hideko, H., Ferrier, D. E., Karalus, S. P., Denham, S. A., & Bassett, H. H. (2018). Indirect effects of cognitive self-regulation on the relation between emotion knowledge and emotionality between emotion knowledge and emotionality. Early Child Development and Care, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1445730 Flannery, D. D., Gouma, S., Dhudasia, M. B., Mukhopadhyay, S., Pfeifer, M. R., Woodford, E. C., Triebwasser, J. E., Gerber, J. S., Morris, J. S., Weirick, M. E., McAllister, C. M., Bolton, M. J., Arevalo, C. P., Anderson, E. M., Goodwin, E. C., Hensley, S. E., & Puopolo, K. M. (2021). Assessment of Maternal and Neonatal Cord Blood SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Placental Transfer Ratios. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(6), 594. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0038 Gio, P. U. (2019). Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling(CB-SEM) dengan Disertai Perbandingan Hasil dengan Software LISREL dan Amos. In STATCAL (pp. 1–56). Statkomat. www.statcal.org Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). TEST REVIEW Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.6.3.235.3152 Goleman, D. (2015). Emotional Intelligence. PT. Main Library Gramedia. Groves, N. B., Wells, E. L., Soto, E. F., Marsh, C. L., Jaisle, E. M., Harvey, T. K., & Kofler, M. J. (2022). Executive Functioning and Emotion Regulation in Children with and without ADHD. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(6), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00883-0 Guswani, A. M. (2011). Perilaku agresi pada mahasiswa ditinjau dari kematangan emosi. I(2), 86–92. Hadi, S. (2011). Pembelajaran Sosial Emosional Sebagai Dasar Pendidikan Karakter Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Teknodik, 15(2), 227–240. Hadi, S. (2013). Pembelajaran Sosial Emosional Sebagai Dasar Pendidikan Karakter Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Teknodik, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.32550/teknodik.v0i0.104 Handayani, S., Sumarno, S., & Haryati, Y. (2017). UpayaMeningkatkan Kemampuan Kognitif Dalam Memperkenalkan Konsep Pengukuran Anak Usia Dini Melalui Metode Bermain Peran. Jurnal Karya Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Hapsari. (2016). Psikologi Perkembangan Anak. PT Index. Hasanah, M. (2017). Pengaruh Gadget terhadap Kesehatan Mental Anak. 2(2), 207–214. Hermawati, N. S., & Sugito, S. (2021). Peran Orang Tua dalam Menyediakan Home Literacy Environment (HLE) pada Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 6(3), 1367–1381. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v6i3.1706 Herndon, K. J., Bailey, C. S., Shewark, E. A., Denham, S. A., & Bassett, H. H. (2013). Preschoolers’ Emotion Expression and Regulation: Relations with School Adjustment. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 174(6), 642–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2012.759525 Holley, S. R., Ewing, S. T., Stiver, J. T., & Bloch, L. (2015). The Relationship Between Emotion Regulation , Executive Functioning , and Aggressive Behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515592619 Imron, R. I. (2017). Hubungan Penggunaan Gadget Dengan Perkembangan Sosial Dan Emosional Anak Prasekolah Di Kabupaten Lampung Selatan. XIII(2), 148–154. Islamiah, A. (2018). Dampak teknologi informasi terhadap perilaku keagamaan bagi remaja di menganti gresik. Skrispi, Universita(Surabaya), 48. Ita, E., & Fono, Y. M. (2021). Pendampingan Kesulitan Belajar Pada Smartphone Addiction Child di PAUD Terpadu Citra Bakti. Jurnal Abdimas Ilmiah Citra Bakti, 2(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.38048/jailcb.v2i2.377 Jahromi, L. B., & Stifter, C. A. (2008). Individual Differences in Preschoolers’ Self-Regulation and Theory of Mind. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54(1), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.0007 Joormann, J., & Quinn, M. E. (2014). Cognitive Processes And Emotion Regulation in Depression. Depression and Anxiety, 31(4), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22264 Jumrianti, F., Nugroho, S., & Arief, Y. (2022). Hubungan Antara Kecanduan Smartphone Dengan Psychological Well-being Pada Remaja. Journal of Islamic and Contemporary Psychology (JICOP), 2(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.25299/jicop.v2i1.10263 Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and Use of Mobile Media Devices by Young Children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2151 Katz, E. (2019). Coercive Control, Domestic Violence, and a Five-Factor Framework: Five Factors That Influence Closeness, Distance, and Strain in Mother–Child Relationships. Violence Against Women, 25(15), 1829–1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218824998 Khoshgoftar, M., Khodabakhshi-Koolaee, A., & Sheikhi, M. R. (2022). Analysis of the early mother-child relationship in schizophrenic patients. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 68(3), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764021991186 Kominfo. (2018). Indonesia Raksasa teknologi Digital Asia. Kominfo.Go.Id. https://www.kominfo.go.id/content/detail/6095/indonesia-raksasa-teknologi-digital-asia/0/sorotan_media Kujawa, A., Arfer, K. B., Finsaas, M. C., Kessel, E. M., Mumper, E., & Klein, D. N. (2020). Effects of Maternal Depression and Mother–Child Relationship Quality in Early Childhood on Neural Reactivity to Rejection and Peer Stress in Adolescence: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(4), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620902463 Kusdemawati, J. (2021). Dampak Attachment Ibu-Anak Bagi Perkembangan Dampak Attachment Ibu-Anak Bagi Perkembangan Psikososial Anak Di Masa Remaja Anak Di Masa Remaja. ROSYADA: Islamic Guidance and Counseling, 2(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.21154/rosyada.v2i2.3539 Kusramadhanty, M., Hastuti, D., & Herawati, T. (2019). Temperamen dan praktik pengasuhan orang tua menentukan perkembangan sosial emosi anak usia prasekolah. Persona:Jurnal Psikologi Indonesia, 8(2), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.30996/persona.v8i2.2794 Kusuma, T. C. (2015). Peningkatan Kemampuan Pengukuran Dalam Matematika Awal Melalui Metode Discovery Learning (Penelitian Tindakan Di Tk B Pertiwi I Kantor Gubernur Padang Tahun 2015). Jurnal Tumbuh Kembang, 4(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36706/jtk.v4i1.8242 Kwon, M., Lee, J.-Y., Won, W.-Y., Park, J.-W., Min, J.-A., Hahn, C., Gu, X., Choi, J.-H., & Kim, D.-J. (2013). Development and Validation of a Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS). PLoS ONE, 8(2), e56936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056936 Laible, D., Davis, A., Karahuta, E., & Van Norden, C. (2020). Does corporal punishment erode the quality of the mother–child interaction in early childhood? Social Development, 29(3), 674–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12427 Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young children’s screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001 Lintuuran, rifo mario warouw. (2015). Hubungan antara Kadar Seng dalam Serum dengan Fungsi Eksekutif pada Anak dengan Gangguan Pemusatan Perhatian dan Hiperaktivitas (GPPH) Correlation between Serum Zinc Level and Executive Function in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (A. 17(4), 285–291. Mansur, A. R. (2019). Tumbuh kembang anak usia prasekolah. In 1 (Ed.), Andalas University Pres. Martí, M., Bonillo, A., Jané, M. C., Fisher, E. M., & Duch, H. (2016). Cumulative Risk, the Mother–Child Relationship, and Social-Emotional Competence in Latino Head Start Children. Early Education and Development, 27(5), 590–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1106202 Martin, R. E., & Ochsner, K. N. (2016). The neuroscience of emotion regulation development : implications for education. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.006 Martins, E. C., Mărcuș, O., Leal, J., Visu-petra, L., Costa, E., Mărcuș, O., Leal, J., Visu-petra, L., & Martins, E. C. (2018). Assessing hot and cool executive functions in preschoolers : affective flexibility predicts emotion regulation a ff ective fl exibility predicts emotion regulation. Early Child Development and Care, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1545765 Mawarpury, M. (2020). Kecenderungan Adiksi Smartphone ditinjau dari jenis kelamin dan usia. 05, 24–37. Miller, J. G., Vrtička, P., Cui, X., Shrestha, S., Hosseini, S. M. H., Baker, J. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2019). Inter-brain synchrony in mother-child dyads during cooperation: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. Neuropsychologia, 124, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.12.021 Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2020). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 Mu’min, S. A. (2013). Teori Pengembangan Kognitif Jian Piaget. Jurnal AL-Ta’dib, 6(1), 89–99. Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and Why Parents Guide the Media Use of Young Children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3423–3435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4 Nisak, F. F., Munawaroh, H., & Abbas, S. (2022). The Effect of “ Kids Moderations ” Interactive Multimedia on Religious Moderation Attitudes in Early Childhood. Indonesian Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 1(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.31958/ijecer.v1i1.5811 Novitasari, W., & Khotimah, N. (2013). Dampak Penggunaan Gadget Terhadap Interksi Sosial Anak Usia 5-6 Tahun. 05(03), 182–186. Nurjannah, N. (2017). Mengembangkan Kecerdasan emosiaonal Anak Usia Dini Melalui Keteladanan. Hisbah: Jurnal Bimbingan Konseling Dan Dakwah Islam, 14(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.14421/hisbah.2017.141-05 Pangastuti, R. (2017). Fenomena Gadget dan Perkembangan Sosial bagi Anak Usia Dini. Ijiece, 2(2), 165–174. Park, C., & Park, Y. R. (2014). The Conceptual Model on Smart Phone Addiction among Early Childhood. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4(2), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.336 Peñacoba, C., & Catala, P. (2019). Associations Between Breastfeeding and Mother–Infant Relationships: A Systematic Review. Breastfeeding Medicine, 14(9), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2019.0106 Pérez-Salas, C. P., Ramos, C., Oliva, K., & Ortega, A. (2016). Bifactor modeling of the behavior rating inventory of executive function (BRIEF) in a Chilean sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 122(3), 757–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516650441 Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-teacher relationship scale: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Priyanti, N., & Jhoni Warmansyah. (2021). The Effect of Loose Parts Media on Early Childhood Naturalist Intelligence. JPUD - Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini, 15(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.21009/jpud.152.03 Putri, A. R. H., & Rahmasari, D. (2021). Disregulasi Emosi pada Perempuan Dewasa Awal yang Melakukan Self Injury. Character: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 1–16. Putri, C. I. H., & Primana, L. (2018). Gambaran Perilaku Disregulasi Emosi Anak Prasekolah Usia 3-4 Tahun. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan, 6(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.22219/jipt.v6i1.5113 Rachmat, I. F., Hartati, S., & Erdawati. (2021a). Pengaruh Kecanduan Gawai Terhadap Disregulasi Emosi Anak Usia Dini. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699. https://ojs3.umc.ac.id/index.php/JJB/article/view/1726 Rachmat, I. F., Hartati, S., & Erdawati, E. (2021b). Family Cohesion, Interpersonal Communication, and Smartphone Addiction: Does It Affect Children’s Emotional Dysregulation? Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 40(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v40i2.34214 Radliya, N. R., Apriliya, S., & Zakiyyah, T. R. (2017). Pengaruh Penggunaan Gawai Terhadap Perkembangan Sosial Emosional Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Paud Agapedia, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpa.v1i1.7148 Riggs, N. R., Jahromi, L. B., Razza, R. P., Dillworth-Bart, J. E., & Mueller, U. (2016). Executive function and the promotion of social–emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.002 Roberts, M. Z., Flagg, A. M., & Lin, B. (2022). Context matters: How smartphone (mis)use may disrupt early emotion regulation development. New Ideas in Psychology, 64, 100919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100919 Rubinsztein, D. C., Gestwicki, J. E., Murphy, L. O., & Klionsky, D. J. (2007). Potential therapeutic applications of autophagy. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 6(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2272 Safitri, N. D., Hasanah, U., & Masruroh, F. (2023). The Development of Thematic Board Educational Game Tools to Train The Literacy Skills of Children 5-6 Years Old. Indonesian Journal of Early Childhood Educational Research, 1(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.31958/ijecer.v1i2.8156 Salsabilafitri, N., & Izzati, I. (2022). Pelaksanaan Pengembangan Sosial Anak di Taman Kanak-kanak Pertiwi 1 Kantor Gubernur Padang. Jurnal Pendidikan AURA (Anak Usia Raudhatul Atfhal). https://doi.org/10.37216/aura.v3i1.591 Sandoval, J., & Echandia, A. (1994). Behavior assessment system for children. Journal of School Psychology, 32(4), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(94)90037-X Santrock, J. W. (2008). Psikologi Pendidikan (terjemahan). Kencana Prenada Media Group. Saraswati, S. W. E., Setiawan, D., & Hilyana, F. S. (2021). Dampak Penggunaan Smartphone pada Perilaku Anak Di Desa Muktiharjo Kabupaten Pati. WASIS : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 2(2), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.24176/wasis.v2i2.6432 Sari, I. P., Warmansyah, J., Yuningsih, R., & Sari, M. (2023). The Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education ( RME ) Learning Approach on the Ability to Recognize Number Concepts in Children Aged 4-5 Years. Journal of Islamic Education Students, 3, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.31958/jies.v3i1.8654 Schmeichel, B. J., & Tang, D. (2015). Individual Differences in Executive Functioning and Their Relationship to Emotional Processes and Responses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414555178 Setianingsih, Ardani, A. W., & Khayati, F. N. (2018). Dampak Penggunaan Gadget Pada Anak Usia Prasekolah Dapat Meningkatan Resiko Gangguan Pemusatan Perhatian Dan Hiperaktivitas. XVI(2), 191–205. Shaffer, A. (2017). Unique Contributions of Emotion Regulation and Executive Functions in Predicting the Quality of Parent – Child Interaction Behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 150–159. Shah, P. E., Weeks, H. M., Richards, B., & Kaciroti, N. (2018). Early childhood curiosity and kindergarten reading and math academic achievement. Pediatric Research, 84(3), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0039-3 Sirois, M.-S., Bernier, A., & Lemelin, J.-P. (2019). Child temperamental anger, mother–child interactions, and socio-emotional functioning at school entry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.10.005 Siskawati & Herawati. (2021). Efektivitas Media Loose Parts di PAUD Kelompok A Pada Masa Belajar Dari Rumah. Jurnal Pendidikan Luar Sekolah, 15(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.32832/jpls.v14i2.4629 Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., & Richardson, B. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.002 Smith-Etxeberria, K., & Eceiza, A. (2021). Mother-Child and Father-Child Relationships in Emerging Adults from Divorced and Non-Divorced Families. Social Sciences, 10(10), 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100382 Soetjiningsih. (2018). Seri Psikologi Perkembangan : Perkembangan Anak Sejak Pembuahan Sampai dengan Kanak-Kanak Akhir. Kencana. Solfiah, Y. S., Risma, D., Hukmi, & Kurnia, R. (2020). Early Childhood Disaster Management Media Through Picture Story Books. JPUD - Jurnal Pendidikan Usia Dini, 14(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.21009/141.10 Sucipto, & Huda, N. (2016). Pola Bermain Anak Usia Dini di Era Gadget Siswa PAUD Mutiara Bunda Sukodono Sidoarjo (pp. 274–347). Sundus. (2017). The Impact of using Gadgets on Children. Journal of Depression and Anxiety, 07(01). https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1044.1000296 Susanti, D., & Hasmira, M. S. P. (2023). Peran fungsi eksekutif otak pada perkembangan anak. 4(01), 22–32. Trinika, Y. (2015). Pengaruh Penggunaan Gadgetterhadap Perkembangan Psikososial Anak Usia Prasekolah (3- 6 Tahun) Di Tk Swasta Kristen Immanuel Tahun Ajaran 2014-2015. Turk, C. L., Heimberg, R. G., Luterek, J. A., Mennin, D. S., & Fresco, D. M. (2005). Emotion dysregulation in generalized anxiety disorder: A comparison with social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-1651-1 Ulfah, M. (2020). DIGITAL PARENTING: Bagaimana Orang Tua Melindungi Anak-anak dari Bahaya Digital? Edu Publisher. Ulya, L., Sucipto, S., & Fathurohman, I. (2021). Analisis Kecanduan Game Online Terhadap Kepribadian Sosial Anak. Jurnal Educatio FKIP UNMA, 7(3), 1112–1119. https://doi.org/10.31949/educatio.v7i3.1347 Unde, A. A., Fatimah, J. M., & Hasanuddin, U. (2023). Komunikasi orang tua pekerja dalam menjaga kesehatan mental anak. 4, 39–51. Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The Promotion of Self-Regulation as a Means of Enhancing School Readiness and Early Achievement in Children at Risk for School Failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x Ursache, A., Blair, C., Stifter, C., & Voegtline, K. (2013). Emotional reactivity and regulation in infancy interact to predict executive functioning in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027728 Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Linking Students’ Emotions and Academic Achievement: When and Why Emotions Matter. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00192.x Vgontzas, A. N., Lin, H.-M., Papaliaga, M., Calhoun, S., Vela-Bueno, A., Chrousos, G. P., & Bixler, E. O. (2008). Short sleep duration and obesity: the role of emotional stress and sleep disturbances. International Journal of Obesity, 32(5), 801–809. Wahyuni, A. S., Siahaan, F. B., Arfa, M., Alona, I., & Nerdy, N. (2019). The Relationship between the Duration of Playing Gadget and Mental Emotional State of Elementary School Students. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(1), 148–151. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.037 Warmansyah, J., Zulhendri, Z., & Amalina, A. (2021). The Effectiveness of Lore Traditional Games Towards The Ability to Recognize The Concept of Numbers on Early Childhood. Ta’dib, 24(2), 79. https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v24i2.2685 Wilson, D., & Gross, D. (2018). Parents ’ Executive Functioning and Involvement in Their Child ’ s Education : An. Journal of School Health, 88(4), 322–329. Wulandani, C., & Putri, M. A. (2022). Implementing Project-Based Steam Instructional Approach in Early Childhood Education in 5 . 0 Industrial Revolution Era. 1(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.31958/ijecer.v1i1.5819 Yan, J., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Feng, X. (2019). Trajectories of mother-child and father-child relationships across middle childhood and associations with depressive symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 31(04), 1381–1393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418000809 Yansyah, Y., Hamidah, J., & Ariani, L. (2021). Pengembangan Big Book Storytelling Dwibahasa untuk Meningkatkan Literasi Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 6(3), 1449–1460. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v6i3.1779 Yunianggraeni. (2019). Pengawasan Orang Tua Dalam Penggunaan Gadget Pada Anak Di Ra Yapsisumberjaya Lampung Barat. Skripsi, 561(3), S2–S3. Zaini, M., & Soenarto, S. (2019). Persepsi Orangtua Terhadap Hadirnya Era Teknologi Digital di Kalangan Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 3(1), 254. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v3i1.127 Zelazo, Z., Blair, P. D., B.W, C., & Illoughby, M. (2016). Executive Function: Implications for Education. NCER 2017-2000. National Center for Education Research, 1(2).

It all started with a tweet. On the afternoon of 2 June 2013, Professor Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and visiting instructor at New York University (NYU), tweeted out a message that would go on to generate a significant social media controversy. Addressing aspiring doctoral program applicants, Miller wrote:Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truthThe response to Miller’s tweet was swift and fiery. Social media users began engaging with him on Twitter, and in the early hours of the controversy Miller defended the tweet. When one critic described his message as “judgmental,” Miller replied that doing a dissertation is “about willpower/conscientiousness, not just smarts” (Trotter). The tweet above, now screen captured, was shared widely and debated by journalists, Fat Acceptance activists, and academic social media users. Within hours Miller had deleted the tweet and replaced it with two new ones:My sincere apologies to all for that idiotic, impulsive, and badly judged tweet. It does not reflect my true views, values, or standards andObviously my previous tweet does not represent the selection policies of any university, or my own selection criteriaHe then made his Twitter account private. The captured image, however, continued to spread. Across social media, users began to circulate a campaign that called for Miller to be formally disciplined (Trotter). There was also widespread talk about potential lawsuits from prospective students who were not selected for admission at UNM (Kirby). Indeed, the Fat Chick Sings blogger Jeanette DePatie offered her own advice to Miller: #findagoodlawyer.Soon after the controversy emerged a response appeared on UNM’s website in the form of a video statement by Professor Jane Ellen Smith, the Chair of the UNM Psychology Department. Smith reiterated that Miller’s statements did not reflect the “policies and admissions standards of UNM”. She also stated that Miller had defended his actions by claiming the tweet was part of a “research project” where he would deliberately send out provocative messages in order to measure the public response to them. This claim was met with incredulity by a number of bloggers and columnists, and was later determined to be incorrect in an Institutional Review Board inquiry at UNM, which concluded Miller’s tweets were “self-promotional” in nature. Following a formal investigation, the UNM committee found no evidence that Miller had discriminated against overweight students. It did however pass a motion of censure that included a number of restrictions, including prohibiting Miller from sitting on any graduate admission committee at UNM.The #truth about Fat PhDs?Readers may be wondering why Miller’s tweet continues to matter as I write this article in 2015. It is my belief that the tweet is important insofar as it affords an insight into the cultural scene that surrounds the fat body in higher education. The vigorous debate generated by Miller’s tweet offers researchers a diverse array of media texts that are available to help build a more comprehensive picture of fat embodiment within higher education.Looking at the tweet in the cold light of day it is difficult to imagine any logical links one might infer between a person’s carbohydrate consumption and their ability to excel in doctoral education. And there’s the rub. Of course Miller’s tweet does not represent a careful evaluation of the properties of doctoral willpower. In order to make sense of the tweet we need to understand the ways cultural assumptions about fatness operate. For decades now, researchers have documented the existence of anti-fat attitudes (Crandall & Martinez). Increasingly, scholars and Fat Acceptance activists have described a “thinness norm” that is reproduced across contemporary Western cultures, which discerns normatively slender bodies as “both healthy and beautiful” (Eller 220) and those whose bodies depart from this norm, as “socially acceptable targets for shaming and hate speech” (Eller 220). In order to be intelligible Miller’s tweet relies on a number of deeply entrenched cultural meanings attributed to fatness and fat people.The first is that body-size is primarily a matter of self-control. Although Critical Fat Studies researchers have argued for some time that body weight is determined by complex interactions between the biological and environmental, the belief that a large body size is caused by limited self-control remains prevalent. This in turn supports a host of cultural connotations, which tend to constitute fat people as “lazy, gluttonous, greedy, immoral, uncontrolled, stupid, ugly and lacking in willpower” (Farrell 4).In light of the above, Miller’s message ought to be read as a moral one. I have paraphrased its logic as such: if you [the fat doctoral student] lack the willpower to discipline your body into normatively desired slimness, you will also likely lack the strength of character required to discipline your body-mind into producing a doctoral dissertation. The sad irony here is that, if anything, the attitudes that might hamper fat students from pursuing a doctoral education would be those espoused in Miller’s own tweet. As Critical Fat Studies researchers have illuminated, the anti-fat attitudes the tweet reproduces generate challenging higher education climates for fat people to navigate (Pausé, Express Yourself 6).Indeed, while Miller’s tweet is one case that arose to media prominence, there is evidence that it sits inside a wider pattern of weight discrimination within higher education. For example, Caning and Mayer (“Obesity: Its Possible”, “Obesity: An Influence”) found that despite similar high school performances, ‘obese’ students were less likely to be accepted to elite universities, than their non-obese peers. In a more recent US-based study, Burmeister and colleagues found evidence of weight bias in graduate school admissions. In particular, they found that higher body mass index (BMI) applicants received fewer post-interview offers into psychology graduate programs than other students (920), and this relationship appeared to be stronger for female applicants (920). This picture is supported by a study by Swami and Monk, who examined weight bias against women in a hypothetical scenario about university acceptance. In this study, 198 volunteers in the UK were asked to identify the women they were most and least likely to select for a place at university. Swami and Monk found that participants were biased against fat women, a finding which the authors interpreted as evidence of broader public beliefs about body size and access to higher education.In my examination of the media scene surrounding the Miller case I observed that most commentators associated the tweet with a particular affective formation – shame. Miller’s actions were widely described as “fat-shaming” (Bennet-Smith; Ingeno; Martin; Trotter; Walsh) with Miller himself often referred to simply as the “fat-shaming professor” (King; ThinkTank). In this article I wish to consider the affective-political dimensions of Miller’s tweet, by focusing on one digital community’s response to it: Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs. In following this path I am building on the work of other researchers who have considered fat activisms and Web 2.0 (Pausé, Express Yourself); fat visual activism (Gurrieri); and the emotional politics of fat acceptance blogging (Kargbo; Bronstein).Imaging Alternatives: Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDsBy 3 June 2013 – just one day after Miller’s tweet was published – New Zealand-based academic Cat Pausé had created the Tumblr Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs. This was billed as a photo-blog about “being fatlicious in academia”. Writing on her Friend of Marilyn blog, Pausé explained the rationale behind the Tumblr:I decided that what I wanted to do was to highlight all the amazing fat individuals who are in graduate school, or have completed graduate school – to provide a visual repository … and to celebrate the amazing work being done by these rad fatties!Pausé sent out calls for participants on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook, and emailed a Fat Studies listserv. She asked submitters to send “a photo, along with their name, degree, and awarding institution” (Pausé Express Yourself, 6). Images were submitted thick and fast. Twenty-three were published in the first day of the project, and twenty in the second. At the time of writing, just over 150 images had been submitted, the most recent being November 2013.The Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs project ought to be understood as part the turn away from the textual toward the digital in fat activist movements (Kargbo). This has seen a growth in online communities that are interested in developing “counter-images in response to the fat body’s position as the abject, excluded Other of the socially acceptable body” (Kargbo 162). Examples include a multitude of Fatshion photo-blogs, Tumblrs like Exciting Fat People or the Stocky Bodies image library, which responds to the limited diversity of visual representations of fat people in the mainstream media (Gurrieri).For this article, I have read the images on the Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs Tumblr in order to gain an impression about the affective-political work accomplished by this collective of self-identified fat academic bodies. As I indicated earlier, much of the commentary following Miller’s tweet characterised it as an attempt to ‘shame’ fat doctoral students. As Elspeth Probyn has identified, shame frequently manifests itself on the body “most experiences of shame make you want to disappear, to hide away and to cover yourself” (Probyn 329). I suggest that the core work of the Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs Tumblr is to address the spectre of shame Miller’s tweet projects with visibility, rather than it’s opposite. This visibility also enables the project to proliferate a host of different ways of (feeling about) being fat and doctoral.The first image posted on the Tumblr is Pausé’s own. She is pictured smiling at the 2007 graduation ceremony where she received her own PhD, surrounded by fellow graduates in academic regalia. Her image is followed by many others, mostly white women, who attest to the academic attainments of fat individuals. My first impression as I scrolled through the Tumblr was to note that many of the images (51) referenced scenes of graduation, where subjects wore robes, caps or posed with higher degree certificates. Many more were the kinds of photographs that one might expect to be taken at an academic event. Together, these images attest to the viability of the living, breathing doctoral body - a particularly relevant response given Miller’s tweet. This work to legitimate the fat doctoral body was also accomplished through the submission of two historical photographs of Albert Einstein, a figure who is neither living nor breathing, but highly unlikely to be described as lacking academic ability or willpower.As I read through the Tumblr subsequent times, I noticed that many of the submitters offered images that challenge stereotypical representations of the fat body. As a number of writers have noted, fat people tend to be visually represented as “solitary, lonely figures whose expressions are downcast and dejected” (Gurrieri 202). That is if they aren’t already decapitated in the visual convention of the “headless fatty” used across news media (Kargbo 160). Like the Stocky Bodies project, the Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs Tumblr facilitated a more diverse and less pathologising representation of fat (doctoral) embodiment.Across the images there is little evidence of the downcast eyes of shame and dejection that Miller’s tweet seems to invite of aspiring fat doctoral candidates. Scrolling through the Tumblr one encounters images of fat people singing, swimming, creating art, playing sport, smoking, smiling, dressing up, and making music. A number of images (12) emphasise the social nature of fat doctoral life, by picturing multiple subjects at once, some holding hands, others posing with colleagues, loved ones, and a puppy. Another category of submissions took a playful stance vis-à-vis some representational conventions of imaging fatness. Where portrayals of the fat body from side or rear angles, or images of fat people eating and drinking typically code an affective scene of disgust (Gurrieri), a number of images on the Tumblr appear to reinscribe these scenes with new meaning. Viewers are offered pictures of smiling and contented fat graduates unashamed to eat and drink, or be represented from ‘unflattering’ angles.Furthermore, a number of images offered alternatives to the conventional representation of the fat subject as ugly and sexually unattractive by posing in glamorous shots bubbling with allure and desire. In one memorable picture, blogger and educator Virgie Tovar is snapped wearing a “sex instructor” badge and laughs while holding two sex toys.Reading across the images it becomes clear that the Tumblr offers a powerful response to the visual convention of representing the solitary, lonely fat person. Rather than presenting isolated fat doctoral students the act of holding the images together generates a sense of fat higher education community, as Kargbo notes:A single image posted online amidst vast Internet ephemera is just a fleeting document of a moment in a stranger’s life. But in the plural, as one scrolls through hundreds of images eager to hit the ‘next’ button for what will be a repetition of the same, the image takes on a new function: it becomes an insistent testament to the liveness of fat embodiment in the present. (164)Obesity Timebomb blogger Charlotte Cooper (2013) commented on the significance of the project: “It is pretty amazing to see the names and faces as I scroll through Fuck yeah! Fat PhDs. Many of us are friends and collaborators and the site represents a new community of power.”Concluding Thoughts: Fat Embodiment and Higher Education CulturesThis article has examined a cultural event that that saw the figure of the fat doctoral student rise to international media prominence in 2013. I have argued that while Miller’s tweet can be read as illustrative of the affective scene of shame that surrounds the fat body in higher education, the images offered by the Fuck Yeah! photo submitters work to re-negotiate implication in social discourses of abjection. Indeed, the images assert that alternative ways of feeling about being fat and doctoral remain viable. Fat students can be contented, ambivalent, sultry, pissed off, passionate and proud – and Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs provides submitters with a platform to perform a wide array of these affects. This is not to say that shame is shut out of the project, or the lives of submitters’ altogether. Instead, I am suggesting that the Tumblr generates a more open field of possibilities, providing “a space for re-imagining new forms of attachments and identifications.” (Kargbo 171). Critics might argue that this Tumblr is not particularly novel when set in the context of a range of fat photo-blogs that have sprung up across the Internet in recent years. I would argue, however, that when we consider the kinds of questions Fuck Yeah! Fat PhDs might ask of university cultures, and the prompts it offers to higher education researchers, the Tumblr can be seen to make an important contribution. I am in agreement with Kargbo (2013) when she argues that fat photo-blogs “have the potential to alter the conditions of visual reception and perception”. That is, through their “codes and conventions, styles of lighting and modes of address, photographs literally show us how to relate to another person” (Singer 602). When read together, the Fuck Yeah! images insist that a different kind of relationship to fat PhDs is possible, one that exceeds the shaming visible in Miller’s tweet. Ultimately then, the Tumblr is a call to take fat doctoral students seriously, not as problems in need of fixing, but as a diverse group of scholars who make important contributions to the academy and beyond.I would like to use the occasion of concluding this article to call for further conversations about fat embodiment and higher education cultures. The area is significantly under-researched, with higher education scholars largely failing to engage with the material and affective experiences of fat embodiment. Indeed, I would argue that if nothing else, this paper has demonstrated that public scenes of knowledge creation have done a much more comprehensive job of analysing the intersection of ‘fat + university’ than academic books and articles to date. While not offering an exhaustive sketch, I would like to gesture toward some areas that might contribute to a future research agenda. For example, researchers might begin to approach the experience of living, working and studying as a fat person in the contemporary university. Such research might examine whose body the university is imagined and designed for, as well as the campus climate experienced by fat individuals. Researchers might consider how body size could become a part of broader conversations about embodiment and privilege in higher education, alongside race, ability, gender identity, and other categories of social difference.Thinking about the intersection of ‘fat + university’ would also involve tracing possibilities. For example, what role do university campuses play as spaces of fat activism and solidarity? And, what is the contribution made by Critical Fat Studies as a newly established interdisciplinary field of inquiry?Taken together, I hope the questions I have raised in this article demonstrate that the intersection of ‘fat’ and higher education cultures represents a rich and valuable area that warrants further inquiry.ReferencesBennet-Smith, Meredith. “Geoffrey Miller, Visiting NYU Professor, Slammed for Fat-Shaming Obese PhD Candidates.” 6 Apr. 2013. The Huffington Post. ‹http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/geoffrey-miller-fat-shaming-nyu-phd_n_3385641.html›.Bronstein, Carolyn. “Fat Acceptance Blogging, Female Bodies and the Politics of Emotion.” Feral Feminisms 3 (2015): 106-118. Burmeister, Jacob, Allison Kiefner, Robert Carels, and Dara Mushner-Eizenman. “Weight Bias in Graduate School Admissions.” Obesity 21 (2013): 918-920.Canning, Helen, and Jean Mayer. “Obesity: Its Possible Effect on College Acceptance.” The New England Journal of Medicine 275 (1966): 1172-1174. Canning, Helen, and Jean Mayer. “Obesity: An Influence on High School Performance.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 20 (1967): 352-354. Cooper, Charlotte. “The Curious Case of Dr. Miller and His Tweet.” Obesity Timebomb 4 June 2013. ‹http://obesitytimebomb.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-curious-case-of-dr-miller-and-his.html›.Crandall, Christian, and Rebecca Martinez. “Culture, Ideology, and Antifat Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (1996): 1165-1176.DePatie, Jeanette. “Dear Dr. Terrible Your Bigotry Is Showing...” The Fat Chick Sings 2 June 2013. ‹http://fatchicksings.com/2013/06/02/dear-dr-terrible-your-bigotry-is-showing/›.Eller, G.M. “On Fat Oppression.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24 (2014): 219-245. Farrell, Amy. Fat Shame: Stigma and the Fat Body in American Culture. New York: NYU Press, 2011. Gurrieri, Lauren. “Stocky Bodies: Fat Visual Activism.” Fat Studies 2 (2013): 197-209. Ingeno, Lauren. “Fat-Shaming in Academe.” Inside Higher Ed 4 June 2013. Kargbo, Majida. “Toward a New Relationality: Digital Photography, Shame, and the Fat Subject.” Fat Studies 2 (2013): 160-172.King, Barbara. “The Fat-Shaming Professor: A Twitter-Fueled Firestorm.” Cosmos & Culture 13.7 (2013) Kirby, Marianne. “How Not to Twitter: Dr. Geoffrey Miller's 140 Fat-Hating Characters of Infamy.” XoJane 5 June 2013. ‹http://www.xojane.com/issues/professor-geoffrey-miller›.Martin, Adam. “NYU Professor Immediately Regrets Fat-Shaming Potential Students.” New York Magazine June 2013. ‹http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/nyu-professor-immediately-regrets-fat-shaming.html›.Pausé, Cat. “On That Tweet – Fat Discrimination in the Education Sector.” Friend of Marilyn 5 June 2013. ‹http://friendofmarilyn.com/2013/06/05/on-that-tweet-fat-discrimination-in-the-education-sector/›.Pausé, Cat. “Express Yourself: Fat Activism in the Web 2.0 Age.” The Politics of Size: Perspectives from the Fat-Acceptance Movement. Ed. Ragen Chastain. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2015. 1-8. Probyn, Elspeth. “Everyday Shame.” Cultural Studies 18.2-3 (2004): 328-349. Singer, T. Benjamin. “From the Medical Gaze to Sublime Mutations: The Ethics of (Re)viewing Non-Normative Body Images.” The Transgender Studies Reader. Eds. Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle. New York: Routledge, 2013. 601-620. Swami, Viren, and Rachael Monk. “Weight Bias against Women in a University Acceptance Scenario.” Journal of General Psychology 140.1 (2013): 45-56.Sword, Helen. “The Writer’s Diet.” ‹http://writersdiet.com/WT.php?home›.ThinkTank. “'Fat Shaming Professor' Gives RIDICULOUS Excuse – Check This Out (Update).” ThinkTank 8 July 2013. ‹https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ey9TkG18-o›.Trotter, J.K. “How Twitter Schooled an NYU Professor about Fat-Shaming.” The Atlantic Wire 2013. ‹http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/06/how-twitter-schooled-nyu-professor-about-fat-shaming/65833/›.Walsh, Michael. “NYU Visiting Professor Insults the Obese Ph.D.s with ‘Impulsive’ Tweet.” New York Daily News 2013.

IntroductionWhen a baby girl born in Britain was endowed with the topical name ‘Hashtag’, a social media post decried the naming, and a media storm followed. Before she was even home from hospital, headlines were at the ready: “Did a mother really just name her child Hashtag?” (Nye) and “Baby Hashtag: has the search for original names gone too far?” (Barkham). Trollers were also poised to react, offering: “The first name is REALLY dumb. And you're even dumber,” prompting a rejection of the baby’s name as well as her ostensibly ill-equipped parents (Facebook). Dubbed a “Public Figure” on her Facebook page, Hashtag Jameson accrued a particularly premature type of celebrity, where, with a handful of baby selfies, she declared via Twitter, and only hours after birth, that she was “already trending”.In this article, I consider the relationship between the infant child and the visual-digital economies in which it – as in the Hashtag hoax, above – performs. The infant child is brought into view with the very first sentence that frames John Berger’s Ways of Seeing. “Seeing comes before words”, he writes. “The child looks and recognizes before it can speak” (1). Berger’s reference to the seeing child positions it as an active agent in cultures and practices of visuality, but also uses an idea of the child to position vision as the primary communicative means by which we “establish our place in the surrounding world” and in which we are enveloped “before” speech (7). Here, I explore the intensified relationship between the visual culture of infancy and the economised digital movement of vision that it produces in one highly specific image-genre: the baby selfie. In doing so I aim to characterise the depictive nature of this format in terms of how it compositionally documents – to further borrow the language of Berger, who was then discussing oil paintings – “a way of seeing the world, which was ultimately determined by new attitudes to property and exchange” (87).The new sociology of childhood has been concerned with the construction of the child figure as it has interfaced with new cultural and political realities since the early 1980s (Prout). These include “phenomena such as the flexibilization of production … expanding networks of knowledge … and shifts in labour market participation, work and the global economy” (Prout 5). I suggest here that the baby selfie can be seen as an unprecedented social marker of these transformations, signalling a heightened degree of priceless sentiment within which the child – as an animator of amateur affects, viral tendencies and algorithmic logics – is given to operate. I focus on the compositional propensities of the baby selfie in order to characterise how it visually construes a particular kind of self that is intrinsically entangled with the conception of the image as a form of capital exchange. That is, I suggest that in its intense and yet paradoxical self-performativity the baby selfie depicts a way of seeing that is predicated on, but also troubles, the conceit of a commodified social relation. What Does the Baby Selfie Say?“Should babies really be taking selfies?” yells a headline warning against the perceived dangers of youth digital cultures (Cox). The 2014 story references a phone app built by father Matthew Pegula that uses front-facing cameras to “unintentionally teac[h] your baby to take selfies of themselves” by generating “rattling sounds, pictures of cute animals, and more to get the baby’s attention.” The article explains that “[w]hen the baby reaches out to touch the screen, the camera snaps their selfie and saves it to the device”. While Pegula’s Baby Selfie App is available for purchase on Google Play’s app store for $1.09, a similar device named New Born Fame, featuring “Facebook and Twitter symbols that are activated when the youngster reaches for them” and inclusions such as “a pair of shoes with an internal pedometer that tracks kicks and posts the activity online, a squeezable GPS tracker and a ‘selfie-ball’ that photographs the baby and uploads the shot whenever the ball rotates” (Peppers), artistically interrogated this relatively new category of “insta-infa-fame”.In their article “What Does the Selfie Say?”, Theresa M. Senft and Nancy K. Baym argue that the selfie exists as the hallmark genre of a new kind of self-reflexive image-making, one that is formally characterised by the “self-generated” nature of the photographic portraiture it depicts, which is in turn conceived for its transmissibility, occurring “primarily via social media” (1589). Popularised in part by new technologies (the camera phone, the smart phone, and then the front-facing phone camera) and in part by new digital platforms (“Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, Tumblr, WeChat, and Tinder”) (1589), Senft and Baym further explain that the selfie is simultaneously a photographic object which transmits human feeling, a practice of sending (as well as of depicting), and third, a monetized assemblage curated by nonhuman agents. It is this last factor which renders the objecthood of the selfie as it relates to the vernacular that it enacts as well as the practice of its making, political.Notions around the simultaneously constituting and yet virally distributed “self” of social media are not new. A now prominent literature around how the selfie graphically manifests and performs: intimate publics (Walsh and Baker), a normative or resistive image repertoire (Murray), and emotionalised, communicable affect (Bayer et al.), gives rise to a range of viewpoints that aim to characterise how the hyper self-reflexivity of the selfie depicts – visually as well as ontologically – the self as an agent of their own transmissibility (Holiday et al.). From these we understand that the selfie is distinct for its (i) self-representational image-format (it is an image made by the self, of the self, and thereby is identifiable for its capturing of the self in this very process of self-composition); ii) its methods of distribution (selfies are taken and distributed often instantaneously, and thereby are not only objects of, but active agents of, the reshaping of digitally communicative economies); iii) its idiomatic performance of a sociality and aesthetic of the amateur or vernacular (Abidin).The doubled glance both inwards and outwards that the selfie casts is further characterised for how it traces as well as points to a gestural self-awareness held within its compositional characteristics (Frosh). This moves us from a semiotic reading of the selfie to a reading of its “kineasthetic sociability” – that is, its embodied inception of new forms of autobiographical inscription which say “not only ‘see this, here, now,’ but also ‘see me showing you me’” (Frosh 1609-10). Here, the selfie is less a static object and more a gestural imprint of the communicative action in process: it is “simultaneously mediating (the outstretched arm executes the taking of the selfie) and mediated (the outstretched arm becomes a legible and iterable sign within selfies of, among other things, the selfieness of the image)” (Frosh 1611). In this sense, its compositional logic offers a tracing of this very enactive, embodied tendency, which bears more than an indexical relationship to the field that it marks – it depicts itself as a constituting part of that field.While these characteristics are broadly accepted as being true of selfies, the “selfieness” of a baby selfie might be seen to offer a paradoxical reframing of these depictive qualities. That is, if a selfie is a self-depiction of a process of self-depiction, the baby selfie most usually performs this self-reflexivity with recourse to an external agent who is either present in the image frame or who is occluded from it but nonetheless implied by the very nature of the image (a parent or the image-facilitator, or indeed, a baby app). The baby selfie’s scene of self-depiction, then, might be thought of as a kind of self-depiction-by-proxy. At the same time, the baby selfie asks us to invest in the belief that the picture was knowingly self-taken, and in doing so, models a kind of aspirational autonomy for the child/baby figure who is depicted. In this sense, the baby selfie, by its very nature, disrupts the accepted distinguishing format of the selfie: that the picture is both self-depicting and is self-composed. Instead, the baby selfie can be seen to gesturally reincorporate into its visual scene the very question of this structural im/possibility.Depicting the Viral ChildThe figure of the child has been considered by a range of theorists as the organising principle of modernity. Philippe Aries’ foundational work has argued that the modern discovery of childhood is reflected in the rise of the nuclear family and consequential shifts from sociability to privacy. Viviana Zelizer similarly positions the emergence of the economically “useless” but sentimentally “priceless” child against comprehensive social and industrial transformations taking place across the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that excluded the child as a labourer and instead situated it with the disciplinary regime of education. The hetero-normatively white child has since been shown to emblematise concepts of social futurity (Edelman) and myths of morality, humanity and the “ordering of time” (Pelligrini 98).Following Zelizer, the more recently ‘digitally’ visual cultures of childhood can be seen to spin the figure of the child around new socio-economic and discursive imperatives. Lisa Cartwright writes about photographs of waiting adoptee children, in which “children of poor countries become commodities and their images become advertisements in a global market” (83). Deborah Lupton similarly considers the coding of infant bodies in popular media for their “represent[ation] as helpless, vulnerable, uncontrolled, dirty and leaky in opposition to the idealised adult body that is powerful, self-regulated, autonomous, clean, its bodily boundaries sealed from the outside world” (349). More recently, children have been considered for how they either accidentally or volitionally interact with mediated technologies (Nansen) as well as for how they are increasingly digitally surveilled as the objects of a necessary – and increasingly normalised – parental “culture of care” (Leaver 2). These studies make clear that while children are increasingly positioned as the ‘viral’ agents of new kinds of visual markets, they are also infantilised as victims in need of unprecedented cyber-protection.In 1994 Douglas Rushkoff coined the term “media virus” to account for the rapid and uncontrollable ways that popular media texts performed to either coerce or awaken viewing publics. While Rushkoff’s medium of reference was television, Henry Jenkins et al. later reframed virality to instead encompass ideas of user-led agency by linking it with a logic of “stickiness” – evoking what he termed a “peanut butter” analogy to describe the “spreadable” (3) movement of ideas in more recent social media practices. Indeed, Liam French finds a strong parallel between the “phenomenal rise in user generated content” and the turn towards newer visual cultures within social media practices more broadly, noting that it is “ordinary people” (French’s term) who actively generate the very forms of visual cultural production that become key to communicatory circulation. The selfie, in this regard, becomes both a format and an icon of the new ways of seeing brought into perspective by social media practices.Given the political, social and industrial ecologies that constitute such image cultures, it is only recently that the “viral” child, as the next delineation of the sentimentally “priceless” child, has arrived into view. Here, the baby Hashtag hoax can be seen to critically narrate a specific cultural moment: one that is concerned with stabilising the figure of the child even as it constitutes the ground through which that figure also becomes undone. I refer to the way that Hashtag, as a figural baby, presents a tautological identity, where the digital grammar of # names the mechanism by which she would also search for herself. If Hashtag is emblematic of the algorithmic and affective assemblage of contemporary image-cultures of childhood – whose image-work shapes the new temporal dimensions of our watching and viewing practices – she also illustrates how the child has been become not only an object, but a medium of the economic logics of communicative capitalism. That is, the image-work of the baby selfie can be seen to point to the very question of autonomous agency that frames the figure of the child and in doing so, provides a disruptive counterpoint to the “peanut butter” logic of spreadable visual cultures of so-called “ordinary people” more broadly.It is this light that I ask (drawing on Senft and Baym): what does the baby selfie say about how we understand or construe the figure of the child? More specifically, I ask (via Berger) what culture of vision is brought into view by the rise of such visual cultures of the viral child? The “Gestural Gaze” of Digital Infant Agency Ellentv.com recently advertised a call for viewers to send in their favourite baby selfies: “If you've got a baby and a camera, it's time to take some selfies! Take a photo of you and your baby making the same face, and send it to us!” The legal disclaimer accompanying the callout additionally advised that “[b]y submitting Materials, … you … do not violate the right of privacy or publicity of, or constitute a defamation against, any person or entity; that the Materials will not infringe upon or violate the copyright or common law rights or any other rights of any person or entity” (Ellentv.com). From the outset, there appears within baby selfie culture a curious calibration of the agency of the child, who is at once a selfie-self-taker but who is also excluded from a legal right to privacy that concerns “any person or entity”. In this respect we might further ask – following Jacqueline Bhabha’s question “what sort of human is a child?” (1526) – what sort of human is a viral child, and how does the baby selfie depict this paradoxical configuration of infantile agency?While the formality of the baby selfie still demonstrates a range of configurations which often incorporate the figure of a parent and hence contradict the discreet self-composing parameters of the selfie, here I focus in closing on one specific baby selfie that I suggest is emblematic of an increasing prevalence of apparently “true” baby selfies which operate on a range of image-sharing platforms and meme sites. These baby selfies are distinguished by seeming to be (i) an image that is made by the self, of the self, and thereby is identified for its capturing of the self in this very process of self-composition; ii) an image that is construed for methods of often instantaneous distribution; iii) an image that puts forward an idiomatic performance of an amateur vernacular – or what Abidin has called “calibrated amateurism”.One compilation, “12 of the Cutest Baby Selfies You Will Ever See”, foregrounds the autonomy of the figure of the viral child as depicted by baby selfie culture, explaining that “These babies might be small, but they can do a lot more than just laugh, crawl, and play. It turns out they can also work their way around a camera and snap some amazing selfies. Talk about impressive!” (Campbell). While all the images in the selection depict the embodied gestural sociality of the selfie that Frosh characterises – that which is “simultaneously mediating (the outstretched arm executes the taking of the selfie) and mediated (the outstretched arm becomes a legible and iterable sign within selfies of … the selfieness of the image)” (1611) – one in particular is arresting for its striking interpellation of the “innocent” figure of the child with what I will extend via Frosh to call the inherent mediality of her gestural gaze. In this iconic baby selfie, the gestural gaze is witnessed in the way that the baby’s outstretched hand seems to be extending towards us, the viewer, but is rather (we think we know) extended towards the phone camera, in order to better see herself.The infant in the image is coded female, wearing a pink bonnet, dummy clip and dummy. The dummy is centred defiantly in the baby’s mouth and doubly defiantly in the centre of the image frame as an infantile ‘technology’ that seems to undercut the technology of the phone camera apparatus. The dummy imbues the image with an iconic sense of the baby’s innate “baby-ness” which seems to directly contradict the strength of her gaze, which also appears, in following the outwards arc of her selfie-taking arm, to reach beyond the image frame and address her viewer directly. It seems to say – to paraphrase Frosh – see me here, now, showing you me. The ambivalent origins of the image are also key to how it is read and distributed here. The image in question can be found on the media site Woman’s World, which offers an untraceable credit to Instagram for its original source. The image has also, since, spread itself, appearing across a range of other multilingual sites and feeds, depicting the child at the centre of its frame as somewhat entangled in a further labour of self-duplication. The baby selfie in circulation says not only “‘see this, here, now,’” and “‘see me showing you me’,” but ‘see all of this here, and again, here and again, here.’John Berger writes of two related image genres that connect histories of vernacular depiction to histories of the evolution of the publicity image as a medium and sign of capital exchange. Writing on oil painting, he notes how the materiality of the medium signified the “thingness” of its depiction: “if you buy a painting you also buy a look of the thing that it represents” (83). He finds, therein, an “analogy between possessing and a way of seeing which is incorporated in oil painting” (83) and which, as he later explains, becomes tied to “the tangibility, the texture, the lustre, the solidity of what it depicts” (88). The textural qualities of oil painting, which for Berger construe the “real” as that which can be materially conveyed or indexed as commodity, might be compared to the gestural residue that is contained within the selfie. While oil painting construed the materiality of things – and hence, the commodifiable nature of any particular relation – the selfie might be seen to depict the self in the process of its own self-labour: the material gesture of taking the image necessitates that the self becomes an agent who then becomes the immaterial self of transmission. The selfie is in this way a depiction of the self in a form of capital relation to itself.While the selfie – as a digital composition – is not materially “real” in the same way that oil painting is, the indexical nature of the arm that reaches out beyond the image frame to point to the inherent transmissibility – and hence capital value – of the image, might be. While the baby selfie imitates these capacities, I suggest here that it also traces a compositional logic that further complicates that which Frosh charts. This is because in the very moment that the spectator of the image is confronted with the baby selfie’s call to “see me showing you me” (1609-10), the spectator is also confronted with the figure of the infant as an autonomous agent capable of their own image-constitution. In essence, the baby selfie posits a question around the baby’s innate ability to knowingly generate its image-frame, even as that very image-frame is what casts the infant into the spreadable contexts within which it will then operate – or, indeed, become ‘knowable’.In its heightened self-referentiality but tenuously depicted sense of rhetorical agency, the baby selfie then faces us with what we think we know, or do not know, about the figure of the child. This central ambivalence inherent to the compositional makeup of the baby selfie in this way both depicts and disrupts the economics of circulation that are intrinsic to selfies more broadly, pointing to a decomposing of the parameters by which a selfie is interpreted and understood. Further, it enables us to question relationships between ways of seeing and ways of being – how does the baby selfie envision the figure of the chid? What sort of human does it become? While there are valid discussions to be had around the absence of “direct self-representational agency” (Leaver) and moral rights or wrongs of the parental management of children’s image-work in online spaces, the baby selfie also opens up questions around how we understand the very contours of infantile agency, how we perceive rhetorical knowingness, and what we mean to mean by the relentless circulation of this imagery of the viral child. Indeed, as Wendy S. Hesford writes, it can be helpful to shift an understanding of agency from being an “individual enterprise” to being understood as that which is “enabled and constrained by cultural discourses and material forces” that compel it into material circulation (156).Here, I am not aiming to foreclose debates about the role of infants (or children more broadly) living with and in digital cultures. Neither do I aim to cast judgement upon on those image practices which enfold child subjects within them. I rather aim to circumvent those important debates to find – following Berger – a trace of how the image cultures that co-constitute digital infancies operate to formulate as well as depict a new field of vision that is predicated upon a seemingly impossible but nonetheless compelling logic of the contradictory impulses of the viral child. That is, it challenges us to think more carefully about what we think we know about children as well as about how we come to know them.ReferencesAbidin, Crystal. “#familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism, and Justifying Young Digital Labor.” Social Media + Society (Apr.-June 2017): 1–15.Aries, Philippe. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Trans. Robert Baldick. New York: Vintage, 1962.Barkham, Patrick. “Baby Hashtag: Has the Search for Original Names Gone Too Far?” The Guardian 29 Nov. 2012 <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2012/nov/28/baby-hashtag-silliest-name-ever>.Bayer, Joseph B., et al. “Sharing the Small Moments: Ephemeral Social Interaction on Snapchat.” Information, Communication & Society 19.7 (2016): 956–977.Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books, 1972.Bhabha, Jacqueline. “The Child: What Sort of Human?” PMLA 121.5 (2006): 1526–1535.Cartwright, Lisa. “Photographs of Waiting Children: The Transnational Adoption Market.” Social Text 74 21.1 (2003): 83–109.Campbell, Nakeisha. “12 of the Cutest Baby Selfies You Will Ever See.” Woman’s World, 22 June 2016. <http://www.womansworld.com/posts/funny-baby-selfies-106002/photos/cute-baby-selfie-4-167875>.Cox, Lauren. “‘Baby Selfie’ Phone App – Should Babies Really Be Taking Selfies?” Hollywoodlife.com, 28 Feb. 2014. <http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/02/28/baby-selfie-smartphone-app-babies-take-selfies/>.Dean, Jodi. Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke UP, 2004.Ellentv.com. “Baby Selfies.” <http://www.ellentv.com/photos/baby-selfies/>.French, Liam. “Researching Social Media and Visual Culture.” Social Media in Social Research: Blogs on Blurring the Boundaries. Ed. Kandy Woodfield. London: Sage, 2014. Frosh, Paul. “The Gestural Image: The Selfie, Photography Theory, and Kinesthetic Sociability.” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1607–1628.Hesford, Wendy S. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham: Duke UP, 2011.Holiday, Steven, et al. “The Selfie Study: Archetypes and Motivations in Modern Self-Photography.” Visual Communication Quarterly 23.3 (2016): 175–187Jenkins, Henry, et al. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked World. New York: NYUP, 2013.Lever, Tama. “Intimate Surveillance: Normalizing Parental Monitoring and Mediation of Infants Online.” Social Media + Society (Apr.-June 2017): 1–10.Lupton, Deborah. “Precious, Pure, Uncivilised, Vulnerable: Infant Embodiment in Australian Popular Media.” Children & Society 28.5 (2014): 341–351.Murray, Derek Conrad. “Notes to Self: The Visual Culture of Selfies in the Age of Social Media.” Consumption Markets & Culture 18.6 (2015): 490–516Nansen, Bjorn. “Accidental, Assisted, Automated: An Emerging Repertoire of Infant Mobile Media Techniques.” M/C Journal 18.5 (2015). <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1026>.Nye, James. “Did a Mother Really Just Name Her Child Hashtag?” Daily Mail Australia, 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239599/Did-mother-really-just-child-Hashtag-Photo-baby-Twitter-inspired-sweeps-Internet.html>.Pelligrini, Ann. “What Do Children Learn at School?” Social Text 97 26.4 (2008): 97–105.Peppers, Margot. “Social Media for BABIES? The Dangling Mobile That Lets Newborns Post Selfies and Videos Online from the Crib.” Daily Mail Australia, 25 Oct. 2014. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2806761/Social-media-BABIES-dangling-mobile-lets-newborns-post-selfies-videos-online-crib.html>.Prout, Alan. “Taking a Step Away from Modernity: Reconsidering the New Sociology of Childhood.” Global Studies of Childhood 1.1 (2011): 4–14.Rushkoff, Douglas. Media Virus! New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.Senft, Theresa M., and Nancy K. Baym. “What Does the Selfie Say? Investigating a Global Phenomenon.” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1588–1606.Walsh, Michael James, and Stephanie Alice Baker. ‘The Selfie and the Transformation of the Public–Private Distinction.” Information, Communication & Society 20.8 (2017): 1185–1203.Zelizer, Viviana. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1994.