A reading sample from “Participation in Residential Childcare. Safeguarding children’s rights through participation and complaint procedures” edited by Claudia Equit, a snippet from chapter “No Voice – No Choice? – Practices of silencing in Residential Group Care” by Julia Ganterer.
No Voice – No Choice? –
Practices of silencing in Residential Group Care
Julia Ganterer
Introduction
This chapter contains reports on violence and victimization experienced by children and young people. This can trigger experienced trauma. Please be aware of this when reading this chapter!
The interest in giving children a voice arose from the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) (1991). Previously, it seemed that children were (non-)perceived as mute objects, especially by politicians (Lundy, 2007; 2014). From a scientific perspective, it seemed to be a methodological problem to capture children’s voices. Therefore, scientific tools have been and are being sought to enable children to share more about themselves, their knowledge and their view of the world with us. When trying to empirically capture voicing and silencing, one of the challenges is to recognize them as such in conversations or interviews with children and adolescents, because all communication is structured by language restrictions. Silence is part of this communication. Due to the proximity to soundlessness or simply silence, the perception that someone is silent is initially an attribution. Therefore, voicing and silencing must be correctly recognized, heard and interpreted in certain social contexts (Assmann, 2013; Hahn, 2014). The German Research Foundation (DFG)1 project “Participation in Residential Childcare” (2019–2022) attempted to take this challenge into account methodologically by asking about the idio-cultures, that make it possible to legitimize violence and power dynamics. Voicing and silencing thus form the thematic field of analysis in this chapter. Throughout the project, however, the practices of silencing were understood more as a cipher that is subsumed under the various actions and (social) practices of participation and complaints procedures of children and young people as well as professionals and management, leading to the concealment of hegemonic orders and power hierarchies in the organizations. The research results show that practices of silence reinforce hegemonic orders and power structures between the actors involved – children/young people, professionals and management.
Therefore, this chapter deals with the phenomena of voice and practice of silence with regard to children’s rights, the UN CRC and childhood research. The research findings from the research project reveal that voicing and silencing are explicit voids for violence and power dynamics in residential organizations. According to Article 12 of the UN CRC of 1989, children and young people have the “right to a voice”. However, the complexity of implementation lies in the problem of normative decision-making forces on the part of adults who view and weigh children’s and adolescent’s views and complaints differently.
First, reference is made to Article 12 of the UN CRC to then approach the phenomenon of voice and the practice of silence. Therefore, it starts with a brief historical outline of children’s rights and the (UN CRC) in order to make participation tangible and comprehensible in the context of children’s rights and child protection with regard to residential childcare. This is followed by a contextualization of the study in the current debate on childhood studies and its positioning on Article 12 of the UN CRC. This is followed by a discussion of the concept of violence and the social functions and forms of silence. This is followed by a description of the research project and documentation of selected research findings, including an analysis of the complex practices of silence in the context of violence in residential childcare. Finally, a summary is drawn and the question “What do we know about practices of speaking and silence in the context of violence and power dynamics in residential childcare?” is answered.
Historical outline of children’s rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
The UN CRC was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989. This convention was preceded by a laborious and lengthy process, the roots of which lie in the history of childhood and were marked by friction and debate. The history of childhood as a contribution to childhood studies is difficult to grasp, since childhood history does not exist and can thus only ever be viewed from certain angles, leaving many facets and positions in the dark. What can be said, however, is that the historical works of Philippe Ariès (1978) and Lloyd deMause (1977) provide best-received basic literature, which should, however, be read with a critical-reflexive eye, since surviving documents on all periods of childhood qua do not exist (Bühler-Niederberger, 2020). The paradigm shift in New Childhood History or Childhood Studies in the past thirty years has led to childhood no longer being regarded as an independent, biologically based phase of life, but as a preparatory phase that is socially constructed by society (Bühler-Niederberger & Sünker, 2014). Representatives of childhood sociology and gender studies pointed out the unequal relation between children and adults, as they stand in a generational and thus hierarchical social relationship to each other (Alanen, 2005). A paradigm shift was called for, which focuses on the independence of the child in all life and problem situations and the associated rights of participation and complaint (Krüger & Grunert, 2002).
In retrospect, the educator and physician Janusz Korczak is considered a pioneer of children’s rights, who advocated that children and adolescents be seen as full human beings and that the Magna Charta Libertatis be realized as a basic law for children and adolescents (Beiner, 2008, p. 23). In this writing, Korczak demanded the comprehensive right of participation for children, adolescents and overcame the idea of a view characterized by sole protection and promotion (Maywald, 2016, p. 31). In the international context, the Geneva Declaration Charter was drafted by the International Union for Child Welfare in 1924 and adopted in the General Assembly of the League of Nations, which was then expanded by the League of Nations in 1959. On the occasion of the International Year of the Child in 1979, the United Nations (UN) set up a working group to draft a convention on the rights of the child and adolescents. Ten years later, the 44th General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the UN CRC (Maywald, 2016, p. 32). In a total of 54 articles, economic, social, cultural, civil and political human rights were combined in a single treaty right. The aim of children’s and adolescent’s rights worldwide is “to ensure the dignity, survival and development of children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) and thus of more than half of the world’s population” (Maywald 2016, p. 32). In general, children’s and adolescent’s rights are divided into the following three categories – the so-called 3-Ps: Provision Rights, Protection Rights and Participation Rights (Reynaert et al., 2015; Ruck et al., 2014).
The three Ps set out the policies and fundamental rights of educating children and adolescents worldwide, which are in turn divided into further articles. Equit and Purtell (2023) draw attention to the fact that the three Ps. “are complemented by ‘four underlying general principles’ which constitute the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of the UN CRC. The principles include ‘non-discrimination’, the ‘best interests of the child’, the right to live, survival and development and the requirement for ‘participation’ (Reynaert et al., 2015, p. 6). Art. 12 of the UN CRC includes the right of children ‘to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child’. It is a ‘key overarching principle’ (Tisdall, 2015, p. 185) and must be applied in the exercise of all other rights” (Equit & Purtell, 2023, p. 2, emphasis in original).
Although consensus exist about the three different categories of children’s rights, different interpretations and understandings exists with regard to the term participation. Roger Hart (1992) describes in his stage model eight different and partly stages of participation for the implementation of children’s rights. The model features eight “rungs” that describe the characteristics associated with different levels of decision-making agency, control, or power that can be given to children and young people. Hart mentions that this model is oriented towards Western culture and therefore cannot be valid worldwide. Hart emphasizes that the use of his model of the “participation ladder” should be done with care and with great willingness to critique and reinvent: The critique of cultural bias can even be applied to some extent to the UN CRC, for this is based on Western notions of child development and the importance of children’s individual autonomy (Hart, 2008, p. 28). Hart’s concern was to argue that the potential of children and young people as citizens must be fully recognized, and that children and young people should therefore be able to participate as much as possible. “When people recognize the rights of others to have a voice and involve them, then this, in my mind, is morally superior to children being ‘in-charge’. (Hart 2008, p. 24, emphasis in original).
Laura Lundy (2007) has developed an approach specifically for a reference to the implementation of participation in organizations. Lundy draws attention to the fact that Article 12 is one of the most controversial provisions of the UN CRC, as it has the potential to undermine the authority of adults and override the voice of children and adolescents. Lundy calls for greater awareness to be created “that respecting children’s views is not just a model of good pedagogical practice (or policy making) but a legally binding obligation” (2007, p. 930), so that the demanded right of children and adolescents to be heard and to participate becomes a reality. In order to be able to implement children’s and young people’s participation and complaints, space and time are needed to offer children and young people opportunities to raise their voices. After all, the possibility to express one’s own voice and opinion is a prerequisite for children and young people to be able to communicate and represent their views and points of view. To conceptualize the child’s right to participation as enshrined in Article 12, Lundy developed the Model of Participation to help decision-makers focus on identifying the following four overlapping and interlocking elements: “Space, Voice, Audience, Influence” (ibid., p. 932). The Lundy model will not be discussed in detail here, but the relevance of this model should be expressed, which involves the consideration of other articles such as “Article 2 (non-discrimination); Article 3 (best interests); Article 5 (right to guidance); Article 13 (right to seek, receive and impart information); and Article 19 (protection from abuse)” (ibid., p. 933) for the implementation of Article 12. The UN Committee comments on Article 12 in a multi-page paper that ends with the following conclusion:
“Investment in the realization of the child’s right to be heard in all matters of concern to her or him and for her or his views to be given due consideration, is a clear and immediate legal obligation of States parties under the Convention. It is the right of every child without any discrimination. Achieving meaningful opportunities for the implementation of article 12 will necessitate dismantling the legal, political, economic, social and cultural barriers that currently impede children’s and adolescent’s opportunity to be heard and their access to participation in all matters affecting them. It requires a preparedness to challenge assumptions about children’s and adolescent’s capacities, and to encourage the development of environments in which children and adolescents can build and demonstrate capacities. It also requires a commitment to resources and training. Fulfilling these obligations will present a challenge for states parties. But it is an attainable goal if the strategies outlined in this general comment are systematically implemented and a culture of respect for children and their views is built” (UN CRC Art. 12, 2009, p. 31).
The core message of the document is that children and young people must be heard and involved in all their concerns and that their views must be given due weight according to the age and maturity of the child. Regarding residential care, the Carta emphasizes that the views of children and adolescents in out-of-home care must be solicited and considered in “decision-making processes and out-of-home placements, [the] development of care plans or in relation to visits to parents and family” (UN CRC Art.12, 2009, p. 15). With the UN CRC, the States Parties recognize the right of the child to special state protection, to state promotion of their mental and physical development and that the child’s point of view is considered in all matters. In Germany, the Convention entered into force in April 1992 and underlines the progress made in international efforts to make human rights binding in an ongoing process that helps to ensure that the special needs and circumstances of children and young people are considered. The main aspects of the UN CRC are, in summary, the establishment of children’s rights of participation and that children and adolescents are informed about their rights. The UN CRC stands for children’s and adolescent’s “interests, their developmental and educational opportunities and, above all, their participation rights being taken into account” (Krappmann, 2017, p. 14). The best interests of the child are the focus of all measures. In addition, children and adolescents who have been exploited or abused have the right to rehabilitation and the government’s promise that the children’s and adolescent’s health will be guaranteed. A state commitment also exists in the definition of principles for adoption, foster or residential childcare. In addition to the state, the economy and society, politics in particular is called upon to create suitable framework conditions and prerequisites for legislative measures in order to be able to implement children’s and adolescent’s rights in everyday practice (UN CRC, 1981; UN CRC, 2009). It is important to mention here that the meaning of the UN CRC has undergone a change which, in contrast to its preceding human rights instruments, represents a paradigm shift in that the child is seen as an independent subject and bearer of human rights. This also involves the discourse around participation and involvement of children and young people in residential care in the last decade (Equit, 2018; Equit & Purtell, 2023). “The discussion is no longer about the legitimacy of participation, but about the implementation of participation-oriented concepts as well as the coupling of participation and complaint possibilities in the institutions”, according to Equit (2018, p. 16). Internationally, this new focus has increasingly led to discussions about ensuring participation and complaints processes for children and young people in residential facilities (Equit et al., 2017).
In view of the following presentation of the partial results of this study from Germany, it is necessary to draw a bow from the international discourse on the UN CRC and Article 12 (right to participation) to the complaint procedures of children and adolescents in residential childcare. The coupling of participation and complaints is, however, subject to particular attention and need for discussion, especially in residential childcare. However, the studies highlight a large deficit of knowledge in relation to the goals and content of children’s rights in German population. The majority of adults living in Germany say they know children’s rights only by name (73 %), 15 percentage say they know them well, and one fifth have not yet heard or read anything about children’s rights. Not even one in 20 adults can say exactly what the UN-Convention, which came into force 31 years ago, covers. According to their own assessment, 18 percentage of children and adolescents are well acquainted with children’s rights. 18 percentage of children and adolescents aged 10–17 have only heard about children’s rights without being able to give details. These are the findings of the Children’s Report presented by the German Children’s Fund in Berlin in 2017 (Children’s Report Germany, 2017). The findings show that society still does not focus enough on children’s rights and that neither politics nor educational organizations deal with them to a sufficient extent. To date, it is not possible to speak of comprehensive participation of adolescents in relation to the concerns of their lifeworld context. The possibility of participating in the shaping of life together with others on the basis of children’s rights would be promoted if the rights of adolescents were recognized, written down and guaranteed, and their necessity articulated in a broad consensus on the part of science and relevant national and international organizations. To be substantially strengthened, they would already have to be enshrined in national basic laws.
***
Would you like to continue reading?
Order “Participation in Residential Childcare” in our shop or download it for free as open access
Participation in Residential Childcare
Safeguarding children’s rights through participation and complaint procedures
edited by Claudia Equit
You would like to know more about our work? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.
