Version 1
: Received: 12 December 2022 / Approved: 16 December 2022 / Online: 16 December 2022 (03:29:14 CET)
How to cite:
Keddell, E. Recognising the Embedded Child: Children’s Participation, Child Protection Inequities and Cultural Capital in Child Protection. Preprints2022, 2022120293. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202212.0293.v1
Keddell, E. Recognising the Embedded Child: Children’s Participation, Child Protection Inequities and Cultural Capital in Child Protection. Preprints 2022, 2022120293. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202212.0293.v1
Keddell, E. Recognising the Embedded Child: Children’s Participation, Child Protection Inequities and Cultural Capital in Child Protection. Preprints2022, 2022120293. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202212.0293.v1
APA Style
Keddell, E. (2022). Recognising the Embedded Child: Children’s Participation, Child Protection Inequities and Cultural Capital in Child Protection. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202212.0293.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Keddell, E. 2022 "Recognising the Embedded Child: Children’s Participation, Child Protection Inequities and Cultural Capital in Child Protection" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202212.0293.v1
Abstract
Children’s right to participation in child protection decision-making is supported by moral imperatives and international conventions. The fragmented implementation of this right reflects an already-conflicted discursive terrain that attempts to incorporate both children’s agency and their need for protection. This article uses two key theoretical lenses to further examine this terrain: child welfare inequalities and cultural capital. These theories draw attention to how social inequities and cultural capital relating to culture and class affect how participation plays out. An unintended consequence of constructing children within a traditional liberal account of rights, within neoliberal and ‘child focussed’ policy paradigms, is the reduction of an acknowledgment of the culturally contested nature of an individualistic construction of children, excising children from their social backgrounds and promoting the notion of a ‘universal child’. With a particular focus on class, culture and professional paradigms, I argue that the ways children’s views are elicited, the content of those views and how they are interpreted, become subject to a set of professional assumptions that tend to take little cognisance of the social backround of children, including norms relating to class, ethinicity and the oppressive structural relations relating to those two factors. This process is shored up with concepts such as attachment theory, the ‘adultification’ of children of colour, the diminishing of Indigenous concepts of children and childhood, and the pre-eminence of the ‘concerted cultivation’ middle class parenting style. The child’s cultural worldview and manner of expressing it may clash with professional cultures that emphasise an ability for verbal expression, independence, and entitlement when negotiating preferences with representatives of powerful social institutions such as child protection systems. Many children may not comply with this expectation due to both cultural and class socialisation processes, and the histories of the oppressive functions of child protection systems. The unspoken power of child protection organisations that must engage in constant translation of children’s cultural capital to ensure participation, may instead better serve children’s participation aims by devolving authority to affected communities. Communities reflecting children’s own, may be better able to offer recognition to children and enable their participation more effectively.
Keywords
Child protection, social work, participation, child abuse, inequalities, cultural capital
Subject
Social Sciences, Sociology
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
