Child Protagonism in Transformational Community Development

Violence

Children who live and work on the streets of Cochabamba face difficult social factors. Poverty and exploitative working conditions plague many young lives. Violence is one of several significant contributing factors for why children leave home and develop street lifestyles. Research conducted by EEP personnel points to early detection of family violence as a preventive measure to keep children from developing street lifestyles. In particular, EEP notes interfamilial violence as a significant factor.

Research on violence in this context suggests that 1) 53.60% is that of physical violence, 2) 40.20% is that of psychological and other violence, and 3) 6.20% consists of sexual violence (Iriarte, 2004: 515). In discussions with children living and working on the street in Cochabamba, parental and familial abuse was noted as significant problems that they faced.

Transformational development, as understood here, seeks to understand the conditions that plague communities and encourage the local community to collaborate and find solutions. Outside direction, in most cases, is unavoidable and can prove to be helpful if led appropriately. John Friedmann suggests that the place for the outside agent is to ‘generate an organized response on the part of community groups to a new challenge. Their basic task is to “animate” – that is, to blow the breath of life into the soul of the community and move it to appropriate action’ (1992: 144). In many cases, projects will have outside contributors, but the local community, those most affected by the issues must take control. In the case of EEP, children are the primary actors in bringing change to the conditions that plague their communities and as developed below, are innovating responses to violence in their communities.

From Powerlessness to Empowerment

Recognition of human agency within the social sciences has spurred a number of interesting discussions in child welfare studies. Human agency is generally recognized as human action in history (Giddens, 1979: 15). ⁵ One such conversation about human agency has focused on the idea of child empowerment. Empowerment continues to play an intriguing role in childcare projects and outreach. It is commonly believed that children at risk, while acknowledged by some as social actors, are excluded from participating in society and thus need to be given space or enabled to exert their agency. If human agency is understood as a significant feature in childhood activity, then empowerment is perceived as a term that helps practitioners recognize, through concrete steps, how to increase the activity of people who are viewed as powerless in society.

While human agency recognizes the specific place and participation of children in society, it is almost universally recognized that children who live, and in many cases work, on the street are understood to be powerless. ⁶

Evangelical assumptions about poverty are often perceived within a vacuum. Poverty is understood from one particular viewpoint and regularly fails to take into account the issue of power (Christian, 1999: 72). One of the larger structural issues that is faced in achieving a ‘totality’ perspective on poverty, as Paulo Freire calls for, is an understanding of social power (2003: 141). ⁷ Jayakumar Christian focuses on the issue by recognizing that

power as a key issue has not received the same attention among evangelicals as among secular development theorists and liberation theologians. While descriptives like oppression and exploitation do indicate recognition of power issues, discussion of power as a critical theme in the evangelical paradigm of mission has not been frequent. (1999: 72)

Power, and in particular disempowerment as a key factor for understanding the place of children at risk in society, must be included in the contextual analysis. Friedmann argues for a change among community development specialists and their lack of focus on power relations. As Freire (1992, 2003) does, Friedmann calls upon development workers to encourage the poor to understand the issues at play contributing to important issues in their communities.

In order to continue discussing the role of power, we must understand the role of power in society. Friedmann discusses eight bases of social power in society (1992: 67–69): 1) defensible life space – territorial base of household economy and immediate neighborhood, 2) surplus time, 3) knowledge and skills, 4) appropriate information, 5) social organization, 6) social networks, 7) instruments of work livelihood, and 8) financial resources . If we fail to understand the role of these eight bases of social power, development responses to household and community poverty will lack the contextual understanding that is needed to deal with essential structural issues at work.

Christian, in light of Friedmann’s household poverty concept, calls for a more appropriate understanding of poverty relationships. Poverty relationships are to be seen as a ‘three-dimensional unit consisting of the household, the community and the individuals’ (1999: 118). In understanding the context of powerlessness with children living in difficult circumstances, practitioners would value from taking into account this three-dimensional unit and the poverty relationships found within this perception of a child’s local world, in light of Friedmann’s eight bases of social power.

Social power includes and excludes. Typically, the poor, and especially poor children such as street children, are excluded from participating in society. They are excluded from social power and deemed ignorant and unworthy of such great responsibility. If communities are to be transformed, children, those deemed most powerless in society, must be given space to rearrange the natural order of things. This study suggests that children, with recognition of developmental stages of childhood, should be considered key actors in the development process.

The following terms help distinguish two unique understandings of empowerment that prove helpful to this study. They are: 1) endogenous empowerment, and 2) exogenous empowerment. ⁸ An endogenous empowerment perspective is a bottom-up approach that encourages the agent to bring about change; it is something that is acquired internally, something that the subject seeks out. In contrast, exogenous empowerment is top-down, originating with the external agent, not from within the individual or group that has been excluded and disempowered (Garba, 1999: 131). Both types of empowerment are noted as key to the development process. In addition to empowerment as a key variable in the transformation process, the field research also points to a unique Cochabamba phenomenon referred to as protagonismo infantil.

Protagonismo Infantil

Protagonismo infantil has become a prominent term for what some would describe as child empowerment in Bolivia and beyond. The term is much more common in Latin America, but can also be found in use in different regions as well. Within Latin American childcare organizations there have been recent discussions about this concept. The term, while unfamiliar to the English reader is gaining ground in Latin American fields among academics and practitioners alike.

Protagonismo infantil is a Spanish term that is difficult to translate into the English language. When it is translated into English, it is usually translated as ‘child protagonism.’ I will primarily use it in English from this point on.

The term is ‘used in Latin America [and] implies for adults (and their institutions) to respect and support children as equal and essential partners in the organizing of their lives’ (Liebel, Overwien, and Recknagel, 2001: 380). This notion has long been a part of liberation movements. ⁹ In some circles, there is a direct link to the basic ecclesial communities (BECs) in Latin America. ¹⁰

According to working children’s advocate Manfred Liebel (2007: 62),

The discourse over children’s protagonism draws from the popular protagonism movement that actively fought for liberation and better life conditions for excluded and exploited population groups in Latin America (e.g., people without land, inhabitants of poor urban neighborhoods, minorities, black and indigenous majorities, and the like). The concept of protagonism is considered a criticism and alternative to the concepts of ‘paternalists’ and ‘developmentists’ (based on the so-called ‘modernization theory’) that see the poor and ethnic minorities as underdeveloped people who are uncivilized and culturally backward. As with popular protagonism, which underlines the sovereignty and creativity of these classes and people, children’s protagonism increases awareness of young people’s capabilities and demands their independent and influential role in society.

In perceiving an oppressed group (or person) as protagonist, there is an understanding that they are the central political and/or social actor of a movement. In the following discussion, children and adolescents are perceived as social and political actors who transform the social environment. Activist and former Priest, Alejandro Cussiánovich has written extensively on the issue. He lists the following as essential elements contained in the concept (2001: 166):

Child protagonism provides a helpful lens as we explore the issues of empowerment and transformational development. The following components are considered significant contributors to this understanding: ‘Participation, representation, projection, solidarity, self-reflection or identity, autonomy and continuity’ (Cussiánovich, 2001: 166). So, from the perspective of Cussiánovich, protagonism takes on a meta-category with several key components that are essential to its very existence.

It is important to note that ‘protagonismo infantil does not refer to children’s autonomy or independence, but to their ability to play an active role in this world, and contribute to its change’ (Liebel, 2007: 62–64). So the term appears to be congruent with human agency as noted in the works of sociologists like Anthony Giddens (1984) and Margaret Archer (2000).

Child protagonism is developed in a local context where children play a significant part. Adults are also found to be involved in the process as well. What Liebel and others attempt to recognize is that children should be understood as equals with adults. They should not be viewed as immature beings that must only be protected and nurtured, but rather as human beings with the ability to work as partners with adults (2004: 7). This should not deny the fact that children are in many cases vulnerable and in need of protection. Children, as protagonists, should be considered central to transformational processes taking place in communities. Unfortunately they are frequently marginalized by the process.

What was originally perceived to be comparable to child participation or empowerment has resulted in what could be construed as a meta-category that, while incorporating participation and empowerment, cannot be assumed to be equivalent with them. In the words of Cussiánovich, ‘Participation does not necessarily imply the exercise of protagonism, although we cannot speak of protagonism without participation’ (2001: 162).

Child protagonism as a meta-concept has emerged as a sophisticated idea that reminds Christian development workers and others that children should have a voice in community projects. While child protagonism is similar to child participation, it is identified as something superior. Ultimately, we see several important practices in holistic child development methodology today incorporated into the idea that they are social actors and central to transformation in communities.

The Early Encounter Case

Given that EEP recognizes the place of children and youth as central actors in social projects, EEP has developed a child ambassador scheme that targets key problematic issues found in the communities where the children live. All projects involved in the alliance elect (via child-led democratic elections) two ambassadors to represent them. In addition, child leaders are also elected within each project to assist the adult leadership in their tasks. This program is highly connected with the idea of child protagonism. EEP has come to realize that every child and youth must be involved with the design, plan and implementation of the associate projects. This is not to say that all of the projects give the same priority to protagonism, but there appears to be a progression of child protagonism in place.

A primary tool within the EEP to encourage children as social actors is the child ambassador program. Ambassadors are elected to help represent and speak up for the children in each associate project. Monthly meetings are carried out by the ambassadors and are organized with the help of an adult facilitator (outside agent) who provides training and direction for the children in the program. The ambassadors represent their projects before governmental bodies, professional athletic departments as well as churches and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The children in the ambassador project note several important distinctions about who they are and what they represent:

As noted in the list above, child ambassadors provide leadership and project representation. On several opportunities, in focus groups, training workshops and social campaigns, young children were observed leading and creatively engaging with children and adults alike. As ambassadors, the children have developed a leadership and protagonism unseen in the associate projects up to this point. The EEP director remarks,

From the moment that we organized the ambassador project, the children leaders began to have protagonists roles in the sense that they were now listened to and because they were listened to, the projects have taken certain actions. Generally it is the children that participate in different [public] acts, it is the children that lead and demonstrate, in many cases what their projects are; it is not necessarily the directors of the projects doing this. (Cuaquira, Daniel. Interview by Greg Burch, Cochabamba, Bolivia, 10 September 2008)

While child protagonism is understood as an active social phenomenon that leads to social action by children, EEP has noted the development of protagonism through the ambassador project. This points to the idea of the external agent’s ability to animate the subjects with endogenous empowerment. ¹¹ In this case, the EEP facilitating team initiates an idea that leads to acceptance and embracement by the associate project leaders, children, and local church pastors. As external agents, they seek to respond to issues affecting those at risk and best suited to understand the factors that have contributed to the social problems.

Child protagonism includes the idea that children are defending their own rights and gaining access to speak into issues that affect the community. In the words of Rut, a child ambassador, ‘To be a protagonist for me means to participate . . . to know how to participate by defending others, but also allow others to participate, it’s for the common good more or less.’ It does not appear to be an external empowerment, but rather an endogenous empowerment that flows out of their being, out of how God has made them.

The data from the research also points to the idea that child protagonism goes beyond self promotion and touches upon issues of transformation of self and community. Children as protagonists have a God-given competence and ability to act (participate). To construct their own lives does not mean children should be let loose and construct this life free from adult input, but rather they should be given space to develop their lives in community and participate as social actors. This idea is portrayed by sociologists Allison James and Alan Prout in an emergent paradigm for a new sociology of childhood as well. Children construct their lives with input from adults and society in general (1997: 29).

Child participation as a component of child protagonism is best captured by the following summaries from EEP leadership:

Active participation by the children leads them to focus on change and transformation of themselves, others and society.

Participation in Politics and Beyond

One example of this understanding can be seen in the way of political participation. While conducting a focus group with five young people between the ages of 12 and 14, I lead inquiry into what they believed was their place in the world of politics. I was surprised to hear of their interest in this topic. For example, the children, in discussing national politics, believe they should be able to vote at the ages of 14 or 15. There was a general consensus that they should not have to wait until they are 18. In part, their conclusion was that some children have more abilities and sophisticated political opinions than some adults. This underscores the desire they have to express their opinions in the area of politics and beyond. Several other children concurred with these ideas during interviews and informal conversations.

In addition to our discussion about politics, nearly all the children, minus one (five in attendance) expressed a sense of discouragement when probed about how they feel when their opinions are not taken into account. This was also echoed by subsequent focus groups in several of the projects that were visited. Whether it is in the arena of politics or the design and plan of a social program that will benefit themselves and other children, young people desire to participate and bring about a transformation to their world.

Child participation leads to a place in design and planning of social projects that highlight kingdom principles. EEP recognizes the importance of child participation in the area of helping to draw up plans for events and missional outreach. Children, once elected as ambassadors, have a role in the design and planning of mission projects. This was especially noted in the development of the annual plans for 2008 where a strategic focus on family and violence prevention became an important new development. In addition, the children came up with an idea to write and record a jingle that could be used to promote the strengthening of the family. Ideas such as these reveal the desires of children to be involved and take on an active ownership in the projects which were originally established to care for them as passive recipients. As the results of the research reveal, no longer should children who are considered at risk in society only be perceived as passive subjects. As Ravi Jayakaran, in referring to Proverbs 22:6 notes, ‘God’s first expectation is that we provide what children need for their care and nurture’ (2007: 153). Community based projects must respond to the needs of children, but their place as actors must be recognized as well.

Children and Kingdom Participation

While political and social transformation became an important discussion for children and adults alike, the issue of child protagonism within a kingdom perspective became especially intriguing for this study. In focus group discussions with children, several themes were oriented around the issue of transformation and missional engagement as protagonists. Children not only appear to take far greater interest in political discussions than I imagined, but spiritual transformation as well. Because children are made in the image of God, they are viewed as transformative actors. Children are social agents because they are made in the imago Dei. This leads to an experience that transforms social projects, participating churches and society. Due to the ambassador program and the recognition of child protagonism, evangelism activities in the church are now run by children who are more involved in the services. No longer are they passive recipients.

As transformative actors, the children involved in the EEP understand protagonism not only in terms of a social phenomenon, but through in biblical passages as well. The predominate number of biblical references that are pointed to focus on the following biblical characters: 1) David (specifically the David and Goliath story), 2) King Josiah, and 3) Jesus’ visit to the synagogue as a child.

In the case of David (1 Samuel 17), he was identified as a young person who acted and brought about change in society. David was portrayed as a biblical example to follow for young people who seek to find central roles as actors in society. One ambassador described the story of David winning his battle with Goliath and used the passage to make reference to the idea that some children have opinions that are more thoughtful and accurate than adults. The context of this statement was in reference to adult leaders within childcare projects. When children’s ideas and thoughts are not valued, children frequently feel disempowered and look to the stories such as David and Goliath for strength.

A second biblical passage was that of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:1–23:30). King Josiah ruled over the Israelites and ‘he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left’ (2 Kings 22:2). Josiah was age 8 when he began his rule and he died fighting against the pagan Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt, ending his 31-year reign as king (Konkel, 2006: 633) (see 2 Kings 23:29). Josiah is viewed as the supreme example of a king and ‘is the only king to turn to God in accordance with the law of Moses’ (Konkel, 2006: 639) (see 2 Kings 23:5). The children and adults looked to Josiah as a positive example of child protagonism.

A third passage pointed to by the children is that of the young Jesus in Luke 2:41–52. Jesus, in teaching leaders in the synagogue, provides inspiration for young people who are frequently understood as recipients of teaching. This story was frequently referred to by child participants during focus groups. Jesus is portrayed as the ultimate understanding of children acting in society with positive protagonism. There was no distinction made between the historical Jesus and children today. To many he was simply a child, acting out in a way that was bringing about transformation in his community. This typology of protagonism in the Bible was also indicated as a source of strength by EEP project leaders.

Children are not just objects of development projects, but rather actors. This is precisely what has come out of the findings and is now recognized as a legitimate way forward in project sustainability. Children, who in many cases have aligned their faith with Christ, have chosen to act and participate in extending the kingdom of God by reflecting biblical values. As seen in the EEP, the children provided no great theological basis for acting out in compassionate ways toward others, but it was rather a spontaneous response as child protagonists.

In the words of Jürgen Moltmann, ‘As his image, human beings represent God on earth; as his similitude, they reflect him’ (1993: 219). If they reflect God, they too inherently have the ability to create and transform. The act of creation is naturally a God mirrored performance that children of all ages encompass. The very notion and ‘meaning of the image in Genesis Chapter 1 is the dynamic power or agency that God grants humans at creation’ (Middleton, 2005: 204). This ability to create and act plays an essential part in transforming social realities. Children, as they create and act can contribute to transformation in local communities and societies. Realizing aspirations, or from a theological perspective, the creative act of realizing a God given potential, is an essential step towards empowering young people. Traditionally, power is described as the ‘capacity of some persons within a social relationship to be in a position to carry out their own will toward creating intended and foreseen effects on others despite resistance’ (Christian, 1999: 11). Yet, in line with Christian, this is not the kind of power that the Bible advocates, but rather a kingdom understanding of power that involves the creative action of the child in fulfilling their God-given ability to speak into issues of justice and righteousness.

A Child Abuse Prevention Campaign

As a response to the violence that is affecting the lives of both adults and children in Cochabambino communities, the children, along with the adult project leaders are actively seeking to transform their communities into safe places where children are respected as human beings made in the image of God.

A campaign called ‘Buen Trato’ (Good Treatment) was elaborated by the children and young people involved in the EEP. Nearly 1,200 boys and girls who are associated with the EEP began training programs to become informed themselves and inform others about how to prevent abuse and violence in their communities. On the day of the event, the children and youth who were trained began to take their message to the streets to discuss with anyone they found about the need to care for children. It was quite a sight to behold as children, some as young as 5 years old, walked up to adults and children alike on the street to raise awareness about child abuse and neglect. Some of these very children, months and years prior to the event could have been seen approaching adults on the street to beg and sell small products. At one time they were dependent on these very adults for their livelihood, yet now they seek to help these people understand what it means to treat other children with dignity and to respect their rights.

The campaign not only took place in Cochabamba, but was held in communities in Sucre, Oruro, Potosi and La Paz by other groups affiliated with Viva-Together with Children in Bolivia. Thousands of people were targeted as children stood up for other children who are abused and neglected around the country. These thousands of people were lead to a place of restoration not by just children who are victims, but by children who are transformative agents simply acting out of their place as social actors.

The Buen Trato Campaign in some ways highlights the emerging place children have in society. Children, as protagonists, have a part to play in society as transformative agents, yet also as children who deserve to be protected. As we saw in the EEP case, the projects seek to extend the role of children as actors by providing them with the opportunity to speak into issues and decisions where children would normally not be accepted. This research indicates that there is great value in providing space for children to act like this. The children of the EEP are now working on future campaigns and projects that not only target violence but other pertinent issues in their communities. The study suggests that a new way forward in community development is to allow children themselves to begin directing and helping to implement new transformative innovations in development work today.