Introduction
In the midst of global conflict and violence, children often come to represent the tragedy of suffering and the motivation for the restoration of peace. International responses to child suffering, and orphans in particular, can easily become a barometer for global humanitarianism.
Many charitable organizations promote the building of orphanages, encourage volunteer work at such institutions, and even posit international adoption as a solution to purported “orphan crises” in the wake of social upheaval - despite their cost inefficiency or lack of support for local efforts to improve overall child protection. Persistent narratives of “orphan rescue” thus drive an industry that, counter to its stated goal, often spurs the proliferation of “orphans” and even child trafficking.While many scholars and activists from various disciplines have reported on numerous aspects of orphan policy and the international adoption industry, there has been little synthesis of this information and its implications for global child protection. This chapter therefore puts the pieces together to argue that the misidentification of “orphans” as a category for development and humanitarian intervention has subsequently been misappropriated by many Western individuals and charitable organizations. Promoting a discourse of orphan rescue, they foster the growth of an “orphan industrial complex.” In developing countries whose children are targeted for “rescue,” the discourse and practice of “orphan rescue” is subsequently jeopardizing child protection and even driving the “production” of orphans as objects for particular kinds of intervention counter to established international standards of child protection.
This chapter first traces the etymology of the definition of “orphan” and its attendant “crises.” Then, using examples from Guatemala and Uganda, we consider how the idea of an “orphan crisis” has traveled from development to charitable responses and what effects this has on local child protection systems. It then weighs the implications of ostensibly humanitarian interventions for orphans and offers some alternative care models.
2