Street Children as Agents: "Choosing" the Street

Rather than viewing street children as either innocent victims or deviant delin­quents, new research in childhood studies has focused on recognizing children as active agents (van Blerk 2005; Evans 2006; Conticini and Hulme 2007).

Street children often come from homes and communities with substantial levels of abuse, conflict, and instability. Multiple studies indicate the role that violence in the home plays in shaping their decisions to move to the street (Beazley 2003; Conticini and Hulme 2007; Young 2004; Ursin 2011). In such a context, the street, rather than being presented as a threat, offers possible solutions to some of the violence to which children and young people are exposed. Children actively use the streets as part of their livelihood strategies, to create opportunities for themselves, as spaces of socialization, and as ways of mitigating the risk and violence to which they are exposed in other places (Van Blerk 2005; Evans 2006).

Further, the violence in children’s lives needs to be considered in its social context. Children do not perceive all types of violence in the same way. A number of studies have actively sought children’s own interpretations of violence, offering important insight into understanding why some move to the streets. Specifically, some research indicates that it is when violence is perceived as unjust that children are most negatively impacted and may decide to flee the home.

Additionally, feeling unloved or unwanted can be even more painful for some children than is physical violence. In the aforementioned study of street children in Bangladesh, while children reported that violence occurred in the streets more frequently than it had in their homes, the perceived intensity of that violence was actually lower in the streets than it was in their homes or government institutions and schools (Conticini and Hulme 2007). Conticini and Hulme (2007) hypothesize that violence committed by strangers or those of whom children have few expec­tations for trust and support does not violate relationships or expectations in the same way as violence committed by family or others perceived as sources of protection and is therefore seen as not as painful. When violence is committed by family members, children may respond by blaming themselves (Hecht 1998). The emotions around violence, such as shame, low self-esteem, and guilt, last much longer than immediate acts of violence (Conticini and Hulme 2007). While streets themselves may be spaces of violence, Conticini and Hulme (2007) argue that the loss of so-called innocence associated with street life may actually occur in the household itself. Recognition of the multiple spaces of violence in children’s lives challenges an exclusive focus on the street as a space of danger.

Some children also move from neighborhoods and communities that themselves face high levels of violence.

Thus, despite dominant discourses of childhood that present the home as a place of protection and the street as a place of danger, some studies indicate that in the lives of street children, the situation may be the reverse (Butler 2009; Veale et al. 2000); the street itself may provide security (Conticini and Hulme 2007). Children encounter a wide range of different individuals on the street, including adults working in the informal economy; children, police, and educators; and other members of the public (Hecht 1998). While some of these adults may pose a threat, others provide children with important supports, look out for them, and may even teach them useful skills that help them better engage in livelihood strategies in the streets. Ursin (2011) found that street children’s social networks increased on the street, giving them access to more work, consumption, and leisure activities. In fact, some children specifically talked about how it was safer to earn money in the streets than in other places.

2008).

Street children are on the streets for a wide variety of reasons and utilize the streets in diverse ways. For many young people, the street is not so much a dangerous space but a site of labor, providing much needed income for food, education, and some consumption items. Multiple studies focus on the ways in which the street serves as an important space in which to earn one’s livelihood (Swanson 2010; Abebe 2008; Invernizzi 2003). Children migrate in search of informal labor opportunities, to earn money to pay school fees, and for the possi­bility of food and social interactions that they cannot find by staying home. Rather than being victims then, conducting certain activities in the streets may be a means to get ahead. Multiple studies show that street children often have more access to food, money, and material items than they do at home (Aptekar and Stoecklin 2014). In her study of children who go to beg in the streets of Ecuador, Swanson (2010) concludes that begging may actually be a path to progress for young people who otherwise do not have many other opportunities. At the same time, while migration can sometimes open up more opportunities, indigenous children continue to face high levels of discrimination when they work on the streets (Swanson 2007). Thus, it is important to consider street children’s experiences with everyday violence in the context of structural violence.

There is also some indication that moving to the street can improve children’s overall well-being and strengthen characteristics that help them respond to violence and conflict. In some situations, the street may provide an environment in which children can build up resilience and important coping skills. In Colombia, for example, some research indicates that street children have better mental and physical health than do siblings who remain at home (Aptekar 1991), and in Makutano, Kenya, children who live on the streets have a higher standard of living than their home-based siblings and peers (Davies 2008). Children also report feeling less confined on the street and instead being able to play and meet friends (Butler 2009; Hecht 1998; Aufseeser 2014b). Through contributions to their house­hold, children are also sometimes able to negotiate and strengthen their position within the family (Abebe 2008). In this regard, children utilize the streets in ways that allow them to address some of the poverty and structural violence in their lives and possibly even better position them to respond to domestic violence as well.

3.1 Resisting Marginalization: Creating a New Identity on the Street

As part of a move toward recognizing children’s agency, a number of studies examine how children actively reject the labels society puts on them, develop their own subcultures, and recreate personal identities as a way to counter margin­alization and some of the violence in their lives (Beazley 2002; 2003; Van Blerk 2005; Herrera et al. 2009). By developing a sense of solidarity with other street children, they build up support networks that can protect them from violence and social exclusion and actually raise their well-being (Thomas de Benitez 2007). For example, in one situation in Indonesia, when a boy was stabbed, his friends took care of him until he was able to work again (Beazley 2003). More generally, being part of street children’s subcultures can improve self-esteems and provide children with access to more resources than would otherwise be the case.

and where to find places to sleep, bathe, or eat (Ennew and Swart-Kruger 2003; Evans 2006).

Some of the strategies used to recraft identities and improve well-being are distinctly spatial. In some cases, street children use their mobility in order to reduce the amount of violence they face on the streets (Young 2003; Aufseeser 2014c). They often move strategically, depending on the time of day or in order to avoid detection or abuse by police or social workers. In multiple cities, rather than accepting their exclusion, street children try to create niches in which they feel safe and are also able to earn money, play, or engage in various behaviors that are not considered acceptable in more central areas of public space (Beazley 2003; Young 2003). In Makutano, Kenya, children create spaces that are intimidating to adults and, in doing so, are able to partly avoid adult scrutiny (Davies 2008). However, they also reinforce understandings of street children as threatening or delinquent. Further, while street families may offer protection from some forms of violence, they are also sites of violence themselves. Being beaten up in order to join a street family or if a child's behavior deviates from group norms is common. Again, in these situations, however, it is important to consider the meaning that children attach to the “violence.” Visible scars can indicate a toughness and tolerance for pain and help children gain respect (Herrera et al. 2009). Violence may also help children and young people resolve conflicts (Winton 2004). In such regards, including children's own perspectives on their situations is important.

Although the street may serve as a space of freedom and a way of minimizing some of the everyday violence to which street children would otherwise be exposed, there is also a danger of overly romanticizing street life. It is worth reiterating that street children do experience frequent violence and often face significant physical and mental health difficulties (Aptekar and Stoecklin 2014). Assumptions that street life is either a space of violence or a space of safety overlook the diversity of the street experience itself and the ways in which it may be both simultaneously. For example, the streets are highly gendered spaces. Street girls may face double stigmatization in the streets as both children and females (Evans 2006). Some girls explain that their gender makes them more vulnerable to sexual violence on the street. They specifically faced the risk of becoming pregnant and the subsequent stigma accompanying such pregnancy (Evans 2006). At the same time, moving to the streets allowed some girls to simultaneously defy gender expectations and to experience a level of freedom that they did not always find in their homes (Evans 2006; Beazley 2002).

The level of economic opportunity children find, the violence to which they are exposed, and the way street children are viewed vary considerably over space and time. Children engaging in the same activities can be viewed in very different ways, depending on the context. Young (2004) points out that while children were working in the markets of Kampala in the 1970s, it was not until the 1980s that they began to be referred to as street children. Similarly in Peru, street children were referred to as “pajaros fruteros” or orchard birds in the 1960s. Today, however, they are viewed as much bigger threats and instead are called “pirafiitas,” or little piranhas, because of their tendency to rob in groups (Aufseeser 2012). Such labels can in and of themselves be stigmatizing and also provide justification for various police and social workers' efforts to respond to street children. Further, different children may interpret the same spaces differently, making it hard to generalize about the dangers and benefits of street life. Some children do see the street as a dangerous place, while others find it exciting (Young 2003). Taking children's perspectives into account necessitates a more nuanced understanding of risk and danger and is important for understanding the way they negotiate and respond to everyday violence.

4