Caregiving children in sub-Saharan Africa

African children's care, work and contribution to their household are not new. There are numerous anthropological studies in Africa that highlight the competence and active role children play in sustaining their household and how this is an important part of their socialisation (Katz, Reference Katz1996; Kenyatta, Reference Kenyatta1979; Porter, Reference Porter1996; Raum, Reference Raum1940) and livelihood in contexts of poverty and disease (Abebe and Aase, Reference Abebe and Aase2007; Abebe and Kjørholt, Reference Abebe and Kjørholt2009; Abebe and Skovdal, Reference Abebe and Skovdal2010).

The literature available on caregiving children in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains limited but is steadily expanding. Research on caregiving children in SSA was spearheaded by Robson and colleagues, who have usefully mapped out the circumstances of caregiving children, including the problems they are facing, such as disruption of schooling, loss of friends and isolation, the difficulties of looking after an ailing person and the wider household and the trauma as a result of caring and bereavement (cf. Robson, Reference Robson2000, Reference Robson2001, Reference Robson2004; Robson and Ansell, Reference Robson, Ansell, Holloway and Valentine2000; Robson et al., Reference Robson, Ansell, Huber, Gould and Blerk2006). In addition to identifying the problems faced by caregiving children, they have also outlined the potential benefits of young caregiving, including learning new skills, developing close and loving relationships with the person they care for and growing up as a mature and responsible person (Robson et al., Reference Robson, Ansell, Huber, Gould and Blerk2006). Careful about viewing children as non-competent as common Anglophone understandings of childhood represent them, but seeing them as active and competent as their social environments allow (Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, Reference Hutchby and Moran-Ellis1998), Robson and Ansell (Reference Robson, Ansell, Holloway and Valentine2000: 191) in their earlier work questioned the appropriateness of using the term ‘young carers’ in Zimbabwe, arguing that such a term ‘is perhaps to pathologise the work in which they engage’.

However, since the foundation was laid by Robson and colleagues, a number of studies have focused on the psychosocial distress experienced by caregiving children (cf. Bauman et al., Reference Bauman, Foster, Silver, Berman, Gamble and Muchaneta2006, Reference Bauman, Johnson Silver, Berman, Gamble and Shifren2009; BBC News, 2009; Cluver et al., Reference Cluver, Gardner and Operario2009; Donald and Clacherty, Reference Donald and Clacherty2005; Martin, Reference Martin2006; Shifren, Reference Shifren2009). Whilst there is no doubt that a minority of caregiving children suffer from mental ill health, it can be argued that the focus on children's poor mental health, rather than representing children's experience, reflects common Anglophone constructions of childhood as a period of innocence and psychological fragility in the absence of adult protection (Skovdal, Reference Skovdal, Evers, Notermans and van Ommering2010b; Summerfield, Reference Summerfield2000, Reference Summerfield and Rosen2004). Other scholars have moved beyond the vulnerability of caregiving children and focused on the protective factors and agentic capabilities of children within their local context. This field of research explores how these children, in contexts of poverty and disease, interact with their social context in order to cope with very difficult circumstances and build resilience (Evans, Reference Evans2005; Evans and Becker, Reference Evans and Becker2009; Skovdal, Reference Skovdal, Evers, Notermans and van Ommering2010b, in press; Skovdal and Ogutu, Reference Skovdal and Ogutu2009; Skovdal et al., Reference Skovdal, Ogutu, Aoro and Campbell2009).

While it is unhelpful to see children as either victims or social agents, as this binary distinction shadows the plurality of experiences and childhoods (Abebe and Kjørholt, Reference Abebe and Kjørholt2009; Kesby et al., Reference Kesby, Gwanzura-Ottemoller and Chizororo2006), this distinction helps locate this study within the literature. Becker (Reference Becker2007), in his commentary about global perspectives on young caregiving, argues that:

It is this direction that this paper seeks to facilitate by exploring the pathways through which caregiving children in Kenya cope with difficult circumstances. To make our findings relevant to the international literature on caregiving children, we seek to identify the underlying processes that can facilitate caregiving children's resilience. In this effort, we are drawing on a theoretical framework that highlights the association between local understandings of childhood, identity and recognition to resilience.

Identity and recognition

In an effort to move away from common understandings of caregiving children, which reflect what Evans and Becker (Reference Evans and Becker2009) call the ‘deficit model’ of childhood, to a focus on the agency of caregiving children, we adopt a constructionist viewpoint on resilience. The starting point for our framework is therefore that local understandings of childhood can facilitate or undermine the resilience of caregiving children through processes of recognition or misrecognition.

Resilience is not an individual attribute, but it is located at the social/individual interface. Ungar (Reference Ungar2008: 225), for example, notes that:

Drawing on this understanding of resilience, Skovdal et al. (Reference Skovdal, Ogutu, Aoro and Campbell2009) have highlighted that caregiving children's ability to cope depends on children's ability to participate in community life and actively navigate and negotiate social support – a process mediated by local understandings of childhood which recognise children as social actors and shape their identity.

Identity can be defined as a socio-psychological process of positioning oneself in relation to others. As such, identity is as much about identification as about recognition (Duveen, Reference Duveen, Deaux and Philogène2001). Recognition refers to patterns of representation that circulate in a society and create the symbolic environment for the development of identities. Social representations can be described as systems of socially constructed, commonsense knowledge, including values, ideas and practices, which enable people to orientate themselves in their social world (Moscovici, Reference Moscovici and Herzlich1973). Drawing on the theory of social representations, Duveen (Reference Duveen1993:172) has defined identity as:

Identity is, thus, intertwined with one's place in a community. This suggests that ‘it is not enough simply to assert an identity; that assertion must also be validated, or not, by those with whom we have dealings’ (Jenkins, Reference Jenkins1996: 42).

The impact of recognition on the development of self has been theorised by G. H. Mead. Mead (Reference Mead1934) conceptualises the self as arising through the relationship between the I, the here and now self in action, and the Me, the self as an object of knowledge. Only by being able to see oneself through the eyes of the other(s), as an object, can one become self-conscious. Therefore, the way we are seen or recognised by others is integral to our sense of self. The ‘other’ can take many forms: it can be a reference group, an institution, or a knowledge system (Marková, Reference Marková2006). Concerning caregiving children, the ‘other’ can be the prevalent representations of childhood. In Mead's terms, such representations and norms form part of the ‘generalised other’. Mead argues that for a person to be socialised as a member of a community, he or she has to appropriate the perspective of the generalised other (Mead, Reference Mead1934). Therefore, in order to construct an identity, caregiving children have to situate themselves in relation to the norms and representations that define childhood (see Duveen, Reference Duveen, Deaux and Philogène2001; Duveen and Lloyd, Reference Duveen and Lloyd1986; Moloney and Walker, Reference Moloney and Walker2007). The representation of caregiving children as children who have lost their childhood and the lack of recognition of their efforts can therefore be detrimental to their identity. Taylor (Reference Taylor1992: 25) refers to this as ‘misrecognition’:

Against that, Honneth (Reference Honneth1995) has argued that recognition of a person's abilities and achievements enhances that person's social esteem in that he or she is recognised as a contributor towards achieving community goals. Thus, recognition can play a legitimating and empowering role. Being recognised means being acknowledged as a competent and legitimate social actor (Noble, Reference Noble2009).

However, as our review of the literature highlights children in the West are too often seen as lacking agency. This is part of the common Anglophone representations of childhood that position children as adults in the making. This perspective on childhood is also evident in traditional child development theories (cf. Piaget, Reference Piaget1953). As a result, caregiving children are seen predominantly as victims. Relating Western notions of childhood to the literature on caregiving children, Evans and Becker (Reference Evans and Becker2009: 244) point out:

On the other hand, social representations and contexts that recognise children as competent social actors have the potential of enhancing the agency of caregiving children (Robson et al., Reference Robson, Bell, Klocker, Panelli, Punch and Robson2007). As Hutchby and Moran-Ellis argue (Reference Hutchby and Moran-Ellis1998: 6): ‘Childhood is not a natural phenomenon or fixed stage of life, but a historically and culturally variable social construction.’ Therefore, different contexts produce different understandings about the role of children in the community. In order to be able to support caregiving children, we need to recognise them as both competent social actors and potentially vulnerable beings in need of protection. In this effort, it is necessary to deconstruct universalistic representations of childhood and critically explore the benefits of ‘other childhoods’ (Kesby et al., Reference Kesby, Gwanzura-Ottemoller and Chizororo2006).

Findings

The HIV and AIDS epidemic has affected many families in SSA. However, to fully understand the agency and coping strategies of children and households affected by AIDS, an appreciation of the cultural context is necessary. Our findings are intrinsically linked to the cultural systems of the Luo ethnic group, the second largest ethnic group of people in Kenya, and must be understood against this unique socio-cultural and religious context. Whilst Luo culture is traditionally characterised by a clear gender and age hierarchy, governing social relations and dictating certain practices (Potash, Reference Potash1978; Southall, Reference Southall1952), the continuity and transformation of these practices are influenced by religion, modernity, disease and poverty. Whilst modernity and the introduction of free and accessible primary education may challenge certain cultural systems, disease and poverty, reflecting a continued lack of structural support, have reinforced the traditional value of children in this context as active contributors to their household.

Implications for policy and practice

To appropriate policy and practice for caregiving children in Kenya and beyond, the aim of this paper was to highlight the importance of recognition and identity in understanding and promoting resilience. To do this, we focused on a local Kenyan context where children have been observed to cope well with young caregiving (Skovdal and Ogutu, Reference Skovdal and Ogutu2009; Skovdal et al., Reference Skovdal, Ogutu, Aoro and Campbell2009). An immediate limitation is that our Kenyan case study is not representative of other young caregiving contexts in Africa, nor does it represent an ideal context – largely because of the lack of support services available to caregiving children. So, whilst we are keen to emphasise the agency of children, we are acutely aware that by focusing on children's resilience we are shadowing the real grim reality that has left many of the participating children in very difficult circumstances. However, we believe that our Kenyan case study has provided useful pointers to some of the social psychological resources that can facilitate resilience, which, alongside our theoretical framework, have implications for future policy and practice.

We have argued that children's position within the community is mediated by a complex web of factors that include the socio-cultural and religious context, disease and poverty. In light of this, we have explored how recognition of agency is played out amongst caregiving children in rural Kenya as they cope with difficult circumstances. We have shown that recognition of children's agency – in our Kenyan context – is intrinsically linked to local understandings of childhood which, contrary to dominant Anglophone understandings of childhood, construct children as active agents in community life. We found that this social recognition encouraged children's participation in community life and enabled them to construct positive identities that enhanced their resilience. The data presented in this paper support the argument that recognition of agency enhances resilience.

These findings have important implications for policy and practice in Kenya and other African contexts. The study shows that caregiving children are not only victims of difficult circumstances, but they can, if the social and symbolic resources are available to them, make sense of their difficult circumstances, and construct social meanings that will help them cope (Antonovsky, Reference Antonovsky1979, Reference Antonovsky1987). There is therefore a need to develop and make available the social and symbolic resources that children draw on to build positive social identities and cope. What these social and symbolic resources are will differ across cultural contexts, emphasising the need for further research in this area in different cultural contexts. As social and symbolic resources (e.g. social representations) are dynamic and open to change, efforts should be made to reframe negative and victimising representations of children in difficult circumstances and explore how alternative and strengths-based representations can open up promising arenas for future interventions. Reflecting this recommendation, programmes targeting caregiving children in African contexts, in addition to providing the children with practical support, need to provide the children and adults in their communities with social spaces in which they can assess the circumstances surrounding caregiving children. For example, caregiving children can be brought together into youth clubs to engage with each other through sports and income generating activities (Skovdal, in press) and adults can be sensitised through community mobilisation tools such as community conversations (UNDP, Reference UNDP2004), stepping stones (Welbourn, Reference Welbourn1995) or participatory learning and action techniques (Rifkin, Reference Rifkin1986).

Whilst our findings explicitly highlight recognition of children's agency as a social and symbolic resource, our findings also, albeit implicitly, highlight the limitations of a misrecognition of caregiving children's agency. In the introduction, we highlighted a concern by Olsen (Reference Olsen1996) that the literature on caregiving children in Anglophone contexts is predominantly represented in negative terms, a concern others have also more recently recognised (Aldridge, Reference Aldridge2008; Skovdal, Reference Skovdal, Evers, Notermans and van Ommering2010b). For Taylor (Reference Taylor1992) such victimisation can be a form of misrecognition because it shrinks or distorts the children's social reality to a reality objectified by social services and care workers (in an Anglophone context), international aid agencies (African context), researchers and policy-makers. In their investigation of the importance of social identities in policy, Hockey and James (Reference Hockey and James2003: 90) have noted that children, and indeed representations of childhood, are shaped by policy as a ‘conceptual category and social identity that is given material form in everyday life’. It is therefore a concern when the majority of research into the circumstances of caregiving children is problem-focused, leading researchers and policy-makers to overwhelmingly dwell on the negatives of young caregiving. We therefore suggest that policy and practice for caregiving children in all countries should take this into account and shift its focus. In order to support caregiving children, policy interventions ought to enhance children's coping abilities by recognising them as agents, rather than undermining the potential benefits of caregiving.

However, there is a fine line between acknowledging the agency of caregiving children and detracting responsibility from the state. Welfare support is essential in helping caregiving children cope with difficult circumstances. But this support should be designed within a framework of building resilience and encouraging agency and children's coping skills. The success of any programme seeking to support caregiving children in Africa and beyond are therefore dependent on the attitudes of all people involved, from community members, to donors, service providers, policy-makers and researchers. We conclude that incorporating recognition of children's agency in policy and practice can help implement more successful interventions.