Children and Youth on the Front Line

Ethnography, Armed Conflict and Displacement

Jo Boyden, Joanna de Berry, Jo Boyden, Joanna de Berry

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN: 9781845450342, 9781571818836
• eBook ISBN: 9781782381891
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Emigration & Immigration
• Index: Social Sciences

War leads not just to widespread death but also to extensive displacement, overwhelming fear, and economic devastation. It weakens social ties, threatens household survival and undermines the family's capacity to care for its most vulnerable members. Every year it kills and maims countless numbers of young people, undermines thousands of others psychologically and deprives many of the economic, educational, health and social opportunities which most of us consider essential for children's effective growth and well being.

Based on detailed ethnographic description and on young people's own accounts, this volume provides insights into children's experiences as both survivors and perpetrators of violence. It focuses on girls who have been exposed to sexual exploitation and abuse, children who head households or are separated from their families, displaced children and young former combatants who are attempting to adjust to their changed circumstances following the cessation of conflict. In this sense, the volume bears witness to the grim effects of warfare and displacement on the young.

Nevertheless, despite the abundant evidence of suffering, it maintains that children are not the passive victims of conflict but engage actively with the conditions of war, an outlook that challenges orthodox research perspectives that rely heavily on medicalized notions of 'victim' and 'trauma.'

Part I

The Contexts of War

1

Separated Children

CARE AND SUPPORT IN CONTEXT

Gillian Mann

Introduction

It is currently estimated that approximately one in every three-hundred children around the world is displaced by war and political violence (Machel 2000). This amounts to at least twenty million children, approximately one million of whom have been separated from their families (Djeddah n.d.). In Rwanda alone, by the end of 1994, more than 100,000 children had become orphaned or had lost contact with their parents as a direct result of the war (Machel 1996). The numbers in other countries are equally high: it is estimated that by 1992 the war in Mozambique had left nearly 200,000 separated children, and in 1995, a UNICEF study found that 20 percent of Angolan children had been separated from their parents and relatives as a result of the country’s long-standing civil war (Garbarino et al. 1991). Moreover, recent UNHCR estimates indicate that at any one time, there may be up to 100,000 separated children in Western Europe alone (UNHCR 2001). Today large numbers of children around the world continue to be displaced from their families and communities as a result of armed conflict. Difficulties with definitions and with data collection have meant that the problem is probably larger than these statistics indicate.

In recent years these astonishing statistics have captured the attention of the international community. The plight of war-affected children, and separated children in particular, has become an issue of growing concern for governments and donor agencies worldwide. While the phenomenon of parent–child separation in times of crisis is not new (Ressler et al. 1988), in modern conflicts increasing numbers of children have become separated from their families (Petty and Jareg 1998; Rousseau et al. 1998). This situation may be due in part to the increasing impact of war on civilian populations and the heightening of associated risks, particularly for people in the developing world, where many communities have been terrorised by indiscriminate attacks, killing, abduction, rape, forced recruitment and other atrocities (Petty and Jareg 1998). Coupled with the devastation of subsistence agriculture and rural infrastructure, these threats have weakened the coping capacities of families and communities, thereby increasing the likelihood of parent–child separation.

Most people believe that family unity is essential for child survival in wartime. Without their parents or carers to protect them, children may be especially vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, abduction, hunger, malnutrition, disease and death. Recognition of these serious risks to children’s physical and psychological wellbeing has led academics, practitioners and policymakers to consider those children who live without their families to be among the most vulnerable groups of war-affected populations. Efforts to protect separated children have thus become a priority for intervening agencies.

Despite a significant body of theoretical work on the subject, not enough is known about the impact of family separation on children. What is known about separation tends to be general in nature, referring mostly to the vulnerability of children of different ages while failing to account for the differences in experience between boys and girls, and children in different cultural and family contexts. The purpose of this chapter is to identify some of the shortcomings of the existing literature on family separation and to argue that these shortcomings arise from a failure to consider the role of context in shaping the meaning of family separation for children. Consideration of social and cultural constructions of family and childhood, theories of child development, and the nature of childcare practices in different communities can provide crucial information about the particular circumstances of children’s lives and the cultural norms and values that have shaped their development. These contextual elements therefore play an important role in shaping the meaning children make of the various events in their life, including family separation.

Who are ‘Separated Children’?

‘Separated children’ is a generic term used to describe children who have come to live apart from their parents, usually as a result of war or natural disaster (Tolfree 1995). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) defines ‘separated children’ as those individuals ‘under 18 years of age who are separated from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver’ (UNHCR 2000).

In the context of war, the economic, instrumental and emotional roles of children are often disrupted and children can become separated from their parents in a number of different ways. These include becoming lost while fleeing from attacks on villages, trying to escape forced recruitment into military service, or simply searching for food. Parents may die while travelling or fleeing, they may be killed, or they may abandon children because they or the child are too weak to continue. Some parents leave their children at a hospital or camp, believing their chances of survival are better if left in the care of others. Others send their children away, in the hope that they will escape danger and reach asylum in a neighbouring country. Some children choose to leave their families in order to gain employment, to fight in the war, to reduce the financial burden on their parents, to seek safety or to escape abuse. Many separated children have not chosen to be apart from their parents; rather, war has made it unavoidable for them. In many cases, separation can be a wrenching and difficult experience for both the parents and the child.

Boys and girls of all ages become separated as a result of war and other emergencies. However, the literature says that significantly more boys become separated than do girls (Ashabranner and Ashabranner 1987; Baker 1982; Ressler et al. 1988). The reasons for this disparity are not entirely understood. It is nevertheless argued that in many cultures, boys are believed to be best able to look after and protect themselves, particularly in wartime. This belief may lead parents to make a conscious decision to send their sons away, or boys themselves may decide to leave in order to escape to safety or to pursue new opportunities. The predominance of separated boys may also reflect the social construction of gender roles in most cultures, where girls are more likely to remain with their parents in order to support them in their domestic and child rearing tasks.

While these reasons may be true, they do not on their own provide a satisfactory explanation for why more boys become separated than do girls. Evidence from other sources suggests that in many societies, families accord a higher value to male offspring. The growing body of research on child labour, for example, suggests that large numbers of girls live apart from their families in order to work in the sex trade and in domestic service, among other types of employment. The fact that more boys have been found to be separated than girls may reflect the reality that most research with separated children has taken place in the public sphere, and in most places, girls are more likely to be found in the private, domestic sphere of the household. Their existence may therefore not be readily apparent to researchers, programme designers and policy makers. Furthermore, large numbers of girls ‘disappear’ through trafficking and may not be accounted for in statistics or research. It is therefore worth questioning the assumption or apparent truth that a large majority of separated children are boys.

Understanding the Impact of Separation

Academic interest in the wellbeing of separated children began during the Second World War, when large numbers of children were evacuated from England and other war-affected countries of Western Europe in the early 1940s. At the time, psychologists such as Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham (1943) began to study the behaviour of evacuated children in order to understand the psychological consequences of physical separation from their mothers. They found convincing evidence that separation from mothers was more traumatic for children than was exposure to bombings and the death, destruction and injury associated with air raids. These findings asserted the critical role of mothers (and other family members) in the maintenance of children’s health and wellbeing and provided the basic framework within which parent–child separation has been understood by scholars to date, including the highly influential work of both John Bowlby (1973) and Mary Ainsworth (1967). Current understandings of the psychological needs of separated children, the consequences of separation for children and the factors for consideration in their care and placement have all been informed by these early studies.

Among both scholars and practitioners, it is widely believed that children who become separated from their families face profound physical and psychological risks. The literature argues that at all times, and particularly during situations of armed conflict and political violence, parental care provides children with an essential measure of physical protection and emotional security (Werner 1990). For children who are attempting to cope with chronic danger and stress, the love, care and affection parents provide is said to be integral to a child’s sense of personal security and thus to the development of individual resiliency (Werner). It is argued that for those children who cannot access these relationships, separation can have a devastating social and psychological impact (Garbarino and Kostelny 1996).

This view of the impact of family separation on children is firmly rooted in dominant understandings of child development, which argue that secure attachment relationships with adults are central to a child’s social and emotional development. The idea that the mother is the primary caregiver to her child is implicit in much of this research, as is the notion that the mother–child dyad is the most important relationship in a child’s life. That these attachments are strongest within the nuclear family is a tacit, yet clear view expressed in the majority of the literature. These assumptions may be true in certain contexts, but in many societies childcare is a social enterprise in which children have multiple caretakers and experience exclusive maternal care only in the first few months of life (Harkness and Super 1992; Leiderman and Leiderman 1977; Nsamenang 1992b; Weisner 1984). In this context, parenting can be seen as an aggregate of services, sometimes provided by one or two parents, and other times provided by a series of different people at different times in a child’s life. From this perspective, the term ‘maternal behaviour’ cannot be defined as ‘that which is done by the mother’ (Goldberg 1977).

Certainly no one would dispute the vital role that loving parents play in guaranteeing the survival and healthy development of their children. Parents who nurture their children, provide for them economically, and support them to develop into competent and confident individuals help to equip their children with the skills and attitudes needed to live happy and fulfilling lives. However, caring for children is a complex endeavour, and parenting goals and roles differ enormously across cultures and contexts. Parents protect and care for their children according to the norms and practices predominant in their specific communities and children rely on their parents for those things that they are accustomed to receiving from them.

Research into the risks and vulnerabilities of separated children of different ages has provided important insight into their needs and circumstances. However, there is a tendency in much of the literature to decontextualise the circumstances of children’s lives, in which local context and cultural norms regarding child rearing are considered to be of secondary importance to understanding the psychological wellbeing of the child. While research often appears to consider culture, on closer examination it is clear that culture is seen to be an independent variable that affects child development, like gender or age, but not a system of meanings that creates alternative pathways for social, emotional and cognitive development. Studies may indicate the socio-economic level and ethnicity of a child, describe the physical environment in which he or she has been raised, and briefly outline the kinship structure particular to the community, yet in the end the child described is a generic child. Little attention is paid, for example, to a child’s daily routine, childcare practices, child–child interaction, and the work that boys and girls are expected to do at different ages. Analysis of these and other measures is critical to understanding the immediate situational circumstances that provide the framework for how children learn to think, speak and behave (Weisner 1984).

The Role of Sibling Caregiving

Most separated children come from the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. For the majority of people in these regions, it is children who are responsible for performing the bulk of childcare tasks (Weisner 1987). The notion that children should have unlimited access to their mothers is often impossible, given the heavy domestic workloads and economic reality of most families in this context. The participation of older siblings and peers in the care of young children enables mothers to direct their energies elsewhere, either towards the family’s subsistence needs, or towards the care of a newborn child. In this way, sibling caregiving is an essential contribution to household livelihood in many communities and a contextual feature which influences children’s development.

For many families in this context, the care of infants and young children is an expected stage in the lives of most children and a daily activity (Harkness and Super 1992). From almost as early as they can remember, children begin to learn alongside their parents to care for their younger siblings and to provide them with emotional support and comfort. Usually the child caretaker is a young girl, but this varies according to culture and may also depend on the sibling composition of the family and the birth order of the child. As child caregivers come to understand the tasks that they are observing and practising, they are expected to take on increasing levels of responsibility for meeting the direct childcare needs of their younger siblings (Harkness and Super 1991; LeVine et al. 1994; Nsamenang 1992b; Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo 1991). From as early as 2 months of age, mothers may leave their infants in the care of an older child, first for a few moments and later for longer periods of time. This graduated process enables mothers to perform other domestic tasks. It also enables child caregivers to slowly develop a relationship, or ‘unhurried attachment bond’, with their infant sibling (Nsamenang 1992b). Mothers usually stop providing direct care at about the time of weaning, when responsibility is passed to the child caregiver and the multi-age sibling or peer group to which he or she belongs (Leiderman and Leiderman 1977). From this point on, mothers play a supervisory role, rather than an implementing role, in meeting their young child’s needs for direct care (Goldberg 1977; Nsamenang 1992b). For example, among highland East African groups, by the time a girl (or a boy in those households which lack older daughters) has reached the age of 6 or 7, she or he will be entrusted with an infant of 4 months or older for two or three hours at a time. Once a child caregiver has reached the age of 9 or 10, she will be responsible for performing a series of household chores, including caring for an infant all day, with the help of younger siblings, while her mother is away from the homestead (Harkness and Super 1992).

In many cases, mothers may employ a deliberate strategy for training their children to cope effectively for periods of time with minimal or no adult involvement. This training ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms
• Introduction
• Part I: The Contexts of War
• Part II: Vulnerability and Resilience among Adolescent Girls
• Part III: What is a Child?
• Part IV: Children’s Narratives
• Part V: Research Methodology and Methods
• Postscript
• Notes on Contributors
• Index