Acting in Adversity

Child poverty, according to the authors, is too often described and understood
from the perspective of adults, who neither fully appreciate the way in which
children experience poverty, nor understand the contributions children themselves make toward determining the quality and nature of their everyday lives.



Feeny and Boyden argue that most literature and advocacy programs
begin with a very narrow and culturally biased vision of childhood. The standard
premise is that childhood should be "a time free from work and centred on
development, play and learning." This assumption, according to the authors,
leads outsiders to pass judgement on alternative forms of childhood that may yet
provide positive experiences for those children. Children, they say, may be
labelled as in a state of "poverty", when, from their own perspective
and experience, this is not the case. Further, the common assumption that children
are merely passive beings leads to a lack of understanding of the powerful agency of
the child.



Achieving an accurate view of child poverty, according to the authors, is further
complicated by the complexities involved in defining childhood, the family unit and poverty
itself. By relying on simplified easily quantifiable economic standards of
poverty, such as the notion of
an economic "poverty line", researchers are missing the
actual experience of children, which
may be considerably different than the basic statistics suggest.



The authors take issue with a series of "myths" surrounding childhood.
In particular they question the focus on child labour as an absolute negative
part of the childhood experience. The authors explain some of the fallacies behind the following common assumptions:

• Employment during childhood is not beneficial
• Poverty constrains families to make their children work
• Children working in the formal urban sector need the most protection
• Work has a detrimental effect on education

The authors also take issue with the premise that gender discrimination is
intimately related to poverty. Such discrimination, they point out, can be found in
richest households and one shouldn't believe it is cured simply by raising economic standards.



Street children,
according to Feeny and Boyden, have also been misrepresented as more powerless than they
are. Both street children and sexually
exploited children are often acting with a greater consent of their families and even
themselves than is commonly recognised. To tackle these issues, the agency
of the child must, according to the authors, be considered.



The authors conclude that the misrepresentation of children as passive
"victims" has led to a focus on "rescue and rehabilitation" efforts. In fact, they believe, a more "culturally sensitive and
nuanced" approach will take into consideration the active role that
children play as agents engaged in the determination of their own futures. They
recommend that programmes aimed at tackling child poverty recognise both "the cultural biases and assumptions on which the current approaches rest
"and
"that the eradication of child poverty is...not something we are likely to achieve quickly, easily, or without the
active involvement of others - particularly that of children themselves."