Street Kids in Amman

I have arrived in Amman, before heading into the West Bank to begin some preliminary research. When I was touristing around, I sat down under a park bench to relax and regroup. I was instantly seized upon by about 6 young street kids, none of whom spoke English. We tried communicating in mime and using my Lonely Planet glossary. One of them brought me a Pepsi, which became the only word we could communicate to each other. (And wouldn't Pepsi just LOVE that!) When I offered to pay for the Pepsi, they refused the money. I asked (in Arabic) where the Citadel was, and they pointed in the direction of a large hill. I took off, only to feel the presence of someone following me. Hakim and Ibrahim (two of the kids) decided to accompany me to make sure I got there OK. They shuttled me through side streets, alleys, and markets pointing out things on the streets and telling me their arabic names (fish=maki...I think). When we got to the tourist depot, I again offered money for their time, and they shrugged me off. I think that they would have gone all the way to the top of the Citidel with me, but they knew how steep it was, how hot it was, and how uncomfortable it was going to be. They were smart to avoid the near sunstroke I had when I reached the top. I was happy for SPF70 sunblock and conservative Islamic rules mandating that I cover most of my body, or else I would have been covered in sunburn.

Methods of Policy Analysis

Dror (1984) calls policymaking “a very presumptuous activity” (p.13). Though the same might be said about research. In comparing the two activities, Edwards (2005) describes the “uneasy relationship” between research and policymaking. Whereas policymakers believe that research doesn’t concern itself with issues that are relevant to the lived realities of the studied populations and is often “driven by ideology” masked as intellectual inquiry, researchers believe that there is a lack of government interest in research and that there are roadblocks put in place by policymakers to make research more difficult to carry out. Furthermore, Edwards describes a general anti-intellectualism embraced by policymakers, in that they are wary about critical analysis because it could make certain policies embarrassing or irrelevant. Similarly, researchers note that there is a lack of incentives for researchers to create policy-relevant research. To Edwards (2005), all of this bickering illustrates two distinct cultures, but more significantly, two distinct ways of communicating.

Stone (as cited in Edwards, 2005) outlines twelve perspectives that encompass the many reasons that there is a gap between research and policy. Though all of Stone’s supply side, demand side, and socio-cultural factors are insightful and accurate, the ones that I see as being the most striking are:

• Comprehension: Researchers don’t understand what the policy process is and how research fits into the policy process.
• Communication: Researchers don’t have the adequate tools to convey messages about their research to policymakers.
• Anti-intellectualism in government: Government ideology is driven by an inherent distrust in using pure science to base policy decisions.
• Politicization of research: Researchers and policymakers are not viewed as being objective, but rather present information and/or make decisions based on ideology.

Dror’s (1984) concept of “fuzzy gambling” challenges some of these above factors, with policymaking being a process of unknowable, and constantly changing “rules of the game” (p.15). There is an assumption that research is a yes/no or true/false process. But, Dror (1984) suggests that it is more of a “multi-valued” logic. By viewing research and policymaking through this lens, research and policymaking become more open to dialogue between one another, because they understand that it’s not an all-or-nothing process.

Building upon the policy gambling perspective, Dror (1984) suggests that policy scientists broaden their methodologies, including methodologies “capable of handling irreducible uncertainty, including qualitative uncertainty with inability to specify qualitatively main alternative possible futures” (p.16). Social workers work with qualitative data all the time, in listening to clients’ situations and when conveying these situations through advocacy efforts in attempts to persuade colleagues and government bodies. Edwards (2005) mentions a valuable qualitative methodology, which bridges research and policy: the case study. Edwards notes: “To determine more systematically what works when, there and how, ideally calls for case studies designed to illustrate the diverse ways in which research can connect to policy” (p. 71). Qualitative research methods are an important addition to the policymakers’ toolbox, for they can persuade and convince in a way that quantitative data alone cannot. For example, the United Nation’s Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict has been consistently monitoring the six grave violations (killing and maiming of children; recruitment and use of child soldiers; rape and other forms of sexual violence against children; abduction of children; attacks against schools and hospitals; denial of humanitarian access to children) against children during armed conflict. In the gathering of evidence, the UN has solely relied upon qualitative data, which has made quite an impact on the depth of the problem. Nevertheless, the scope of the problem has yet to be understood, and therefore, efforts are being made to supplement the qualitative data with quantitative methods, both of which provide breadth and depth.

Perhaps the divide between research and policy is not so dichotomous. Aren’t researchers always asking themselves, How can our work be relevant and useful? Or is this an idealistic or naïve perspective of research? As a humanist science, social work researchers should be constantly thinking about their work’s impact on practice and policy. For example, I worked as the program manager for the Care and Protection of Children in Crisis-Affected Countries (CPC) Initiative (www.cpclearningnetwork.org), which sought to create a global network of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to collaborate on research projects to develop new methodologies for child protection in crisis-affected settings. This culminated in the Child Protection Action Summit, which gathered these figures for a four-day meeting to discuss ways that international child protection research could be relevant to policy, and vice versa. Edwards (2005) notes that even though the literature may suggest that if researchers and policymakers work closely together then there should be good policy outcomes, this might not be true in all circumstances, because there are multiple factors at play. For what didn’t work with CPC was what Edwards noted was most important for the success of bridging the divide. She notes: “The degree to which research influences policy often depends on individuals building relationships of mutual trust and respect, rather than on an ongoing and sustained discourse between governments and researchers” (p.73). CPC conducted the Child Protection Summit, holding conversations with the goal of creating common research priorities. However, over one year later, these conversations are no longer taking place. Meetings are currently happening with researchers and practitioners determining the research agenda, with policymakers at the receiving line of research several years after the major decisions have been made. Why can’t we include policymakers in the “ongoing and sustained discourse”, starting from the research proposal and moving forward? We know that it shouldn’t be such a dichotomy, but rather a partnership. Nevertheless, we still don’t know how to effectively bridge the divide for effective partnerships between research and policy.

Sources:

Dror, Y. (1984). Perspectives on public policy: On becoming more of a policy scientist. Policy Studies Review, 4(1), 13-21.

Edwards, M. (2005). Social science research and public policy: Narrowing the divide. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(1), 68-74.

Whither the Welfare State?

There are several paradoxes in the historical debate among social policy circles. One example is the historical development of the “good society”. “Good society” arose in conjunction with women’s shifting gender roles (Esping-Andersen, 1990b). Whereas modernization signified that women were afforded much more choice in terms of career and life, this also resulted in increased risk, as there was a marked increase in unstable households and family arrangements. This represents one of many paradoxes that the welfare state brings up.

An additional paradox is the increasing emphasis on skilled workers, which is reminiscent of social policies such as Canada’s immigration laws, which favor workers with professional skills. On the other hand, the last century (and since the writing of both of Esping-Andersen’s articles) has seen an increase in low-end, low-skill jobs. This mismatch of demand and social policy creates a paradox in that the ideal does not match the reality. This is illustrated by in the recent global economic crisis, which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s. Reflecting the countless narratives of laid-off workers over the past year, Esping-Andersen’s (1990b) words foretold of this predicament: “Those with insufficient skills or cultural and social resources may easily slide into a life course marked by low pay, unemployment, and precarious jobs” (p.2).

The idea that class no longer matters, or rather, “class may be less visible” (Esping-Andersen, 1990b) brings to mind Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society, which was also proposed in the 1990s. Beck (1992) suggested that class is no longer an adequate way to structure and view society. He claimed that the consequences of human actions as a function of modernity and industrialization (much like Esping-Andersen’s (1990b) “structural transformation”) have introduced a wide array of risks and uncertainties, which exacerbates the risk of the everyday. This is another paradox, as the risks of today’s modern society are generated by the very methods of modernization that are trying to control them. In this way, the traditional certainties and securities of the pre-modern society can no longer be relied upon. This reflects the “great ironical twist of historical change” (Esping-Andersen, 1990b), in that the structural transformation of modernization that social policy addresses also necessitates social policy.

In further outlining the historical development of “good society”, Esping-Andersen (1990b) discusses the role of the libertarian and neo-liberal call for social reform. Their proposition suggested that big government and excessive regulation were to blame to “social segmentation and the reproduction of poverty” (p. 4). This seems counter-intuitive, as big government oftentimes creates more social programs and policies in attempts to address social inequalities and ills. Likewise, today, the libertarian model embraces a platform that condemns big government and excessive regulation. And like today, they failed to gain public support for their vision of “good society”, as many viewed it as too radical. Their efforts were not all for naught, however, as the seeds for Britain’s “Third Way” were planted. The “Third Way” was able to take the best aspects of the libertarian and neo-liberal “Good Society” platform and combined it with the right place and the right time (Esping-Andersen, 1990b).

Here arises yet another paradox. How can one welfare state be a model for another state, when there are so many variables and confounders to consider? For no two welfare states are alike. It’s impossible to compare, because they are different on so many levels. Esping-Andersen (1990a) notes that when scholars have attempted to compare welfare state variations, for example, “relevant measures of working-class mobilization or economic openness are not included” (p.19). Another case in point is when we assume that spending counts equally, but in reality, “expenditures are epiphenomenal to the theoretical substance of welfare states” (p.19). In his discussion of the effects of globalization on the welfare state, DeHann (nd) also proposes that globalization changes the composition of states, and average trends in poverty reduction and inequalities are inadequate for comparison. It is fascinating to suggest that the process of linearly comparing welfare states is not effective. There must be a way to compare components of welfare states, rather than welfare states as a whole. How can we best overhaul this system of evaluating what works and what doesn’t work when addressing the welfare of states and the people within those states?

Perhaps, we should be focusing on known and proven long-term outcomes, rather than side-by-side comparisons of isolated variables. Esping-Andersen (1990b) notes that life chances are dependant upon investment in learning abilities and accumulation of human capital. For example, early childhood and development (ECD) programs make a strong case that investments in ECD lead to improved outcomes in cognitive development and educational attainment. There is also an argument for investing in the future, with policies implemented with young children, with the effects felt generationally. In looking at long-term outcomes, we might better understand the true impact of social welfare, and make a stronger case for its continued support. Furthermore, social welfare should be expanded to include wider definitions of poverty. Poverty shouldn’t just include fiscal outcomes, such individuals living below the poverty line. Rather there should be consideration for people who are at risk of poverty, due to lack of education, low skills, and decreased access to human capital. If there was more attention paid to broader definitions poverty to include at-risk populations, we might not have seen such devastating impacts of the financial crisis on individuals and families.

Sources:

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.

DeHann. (nd). Globalization, inequality, and the demise of the state? From DeHann, Reclaiming

Social Policy.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990a). The three political economies of the welfare state. From G.

Esping-Andersen, The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990b). Towards the good society, once again? From G. Esping-Andersen,

Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

A Third Way to Combat Poverty

A low point of the Bill Clinton presidency was the sweeping reform of the United State’s welfare system in 1996. In an effort to reach across Republican Party lines and create a bipartisan effort, Clinton and his fellow Democrats compromised on Democratic social principles to create a more punitive welfare arrangement. The new work-oriented system “ended welfare as we know it” as an entitlement program; required recipients to start work after two years of receiving benefits; placed a lifetime limit of five years of benefits; encouraged two-parents families and discouraged out-of-wedlock births; and enforced child support. In essence, it took the “well” out of welfare.

In comparison and in contrast to the United States system, Hills and Waldfogel (2004) describe the United Kingdom’s “Third Way” in welfare reform, which was enacted one year after the US welfare reform. Under the leadership of Tony Blair and his New Labour party, the “Third Way” reforms were similar to the US’s reforms in that they included the emphasis on work. However, a vital difference between the two countries’ policies was the UK’s stressing of the importance of reducing and eventually eliminating child poverty and avoiding social exclusion of impoverished families. Whereas the US took a punitive approach to welfare reform, the UK took a preventative approach to welfare reform, addressing poverty at its root causes.

Some of the reasons that the US and UK enacted their welfare reforms had to do with their countries’ current political climates. Prior to welfare reform in the US, a majority of Americans believed that welfare should be eliminated. Public opinion for welfare was low, and therefore Clinton negotiated a welfare package that reflected the nation’s depiction of “the welfare mother” as economically draining and morally irresponsible (Conniff, 1994). Whereas the US focused on the image of welfare mother as a slovenly spendthrift, antithetical to America’s Calvinist work ethic, the UK focused on the long-term effects of poverty on children, based on empirical evidence, rather than ideology. Across the Atlantic, the UK was facing increasing evidence that the situation of child poverty in the UK was getting worse. Secondly, researchers and policymakers were able to illustrate children’s long-term outcomes as a result of poverty and as a result of interventions, such as programs. Perhaps most importantly was the fact that the UK public was increasingly supportive of government intervention to address child poverty in the UK. It became clear to Blair and his New Labour Party that an investment in welfare and ending child poverty was a politically necessary and strategic policy.

Even though there is a belief that “one cannot succeed in America unless one can pass the chance for success on to one’s children” (Hochschild, as cited by Wilson, 1996, p.194), the US welfare reforms tended to focus on the mother and her work ethic, versus the child and eliminating child poverty. The success of the UK’s Third Way lies in its focus on the child in eliminating child poverty. By investing in children through programs such as “Sure Start”, improving the quality of childcare and its provision, by investing in education, and providing financial incentives that keep children in school there is a focus on supporting children rather than stigmatizing parents. Even though Hills and Waldfogel (2004) report that actual improvements in child poverty are difficult to see at this stage, it is impossible not to embrace a strengths-based program over a punitive system.

The Third Way in welfare reform makes it clear that when addressing social welfare policy issues, policymakers should focus on reducing economic and social isolation. However, what is lacking in Hills and Waldfogel’s (2004) article is the voice of the welfare recipients. In Schiller’s (2004) examination of underclass theory, he notes that welfare mothers “perceive clearly – more so than many academic observers – the great divergence between their aspirations and their actual opportunities” (2004, p.145). There have been movements to mobilize the underclass in exhibiting their discontent, despite their perception of decreased opportunities and especially in the face of deprivation and discrimination. Provided the opportunity for economic improvement, many in the underclass have taken the steps to move out of poverty, especially with the help of social welfare programs. Nevertheless, the cycle of discrimination and deprivation still preserves the underclass’s position in society.

No place is poverty more apparent than in Haiti, where last week’s devastating earthquake highlighted Haiti’s precarious economic situation and the living circumstances of its 9.8 million inhabitants. Before the earthquake, Haiti was one of the most poor and least developed countries in the world, ranking 149^th out of 182 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index. Most Haitians lived on less than $2 per day. Poverty was ubiquitous. After the earthquake, things are much worse. Perhaps the only good thing that can be said is that the world is more aware of the poverty and hardship that makes up the Haitian landscape, and efforts will be made to develop long-term policies to address the country’s ills.

This harsh reality in the form of a destructive natural disaster calls for the importance of achieiving the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs were adopted at the UN Millenium Summit in September 2000 to dramatically reduce extreme poverty in all of its dimensions. The UN Millennium Declaration seeks to address a host of social problems by: (1) Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, (2) Achieving universal primary education, (3) Promoting gender equality and empower women, (4) Reducing child mortality, (5) Improving maternal health, (6) Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) Ensuring environmental sustainability, and (8) Developing a global partnership for development. The MDGs target core sources of global poverty and obstacles to development. These admirable, though ambitious, goals are intended to be accomplished by 2010. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2008) calls the MDGs “the most determined effort in history to galvanise international action around a common set of development targets” (p. 1). ODI further recognizes the importance of the MDGs by noting that “their success or failure will have immense consequences, not only for the world’s poor, but also for the credibility of the international community” (p.1).

Despite its importance to the international community and the world, two-thirds of the way through the MDG commitment process, progress is lagging. This is exemplified by Haiti, as well as many other countries. In the UN Millenium Project’s (2005) five-year report to the UN Secretary General, the authors recognized that the world was falling short of the MDGs. Various reasons were given for the shortfall, with no one reason being primary. For example poor governance, marked by corruption, poor economic policy choices, and/or denial of human rights may lead to a country falling short of MDG achievement. Poverty traps, where local and national economies are too poor to make needed investments, may also cause a shortfall. There can also be inconsistent progress made in different parts of one country, so that the country as a whole is unable to make complete progress towards the MDG.

Leading advocate for the MDGs and head of the UN Millennium Project, Jeffrey Sachs (2005), states, “The [MDGs] are the down payment on ending poverty” (p.365). But they will not work unless countries specifically enact policy to address the eight goals. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has declared that achievement of the MDG poverty-reduction goals by 2015 is one of his key priorities this year. The UN will convene a special Summit to push towards the achievement of those goals. Unfortunately, the UN’s commitment is not enough. Like the UK, it is necessary for countries to see an investment in the welfare of their people as a strategic policy for the survival of their people and the country. Perhaps we need a “Third Way” to eliminate global poverty?

Sources:

Conniff, R. (1994, August 1). Big bad welfare. The Progressive. Retrieved online from

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Big+bad+welfare.+(welfare+reform+politics+and+children)+(Cover+Story)-a015667744

Hills, J. & Waldfogel, J. (2004). The “third way” in welfare reform? Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4), 765-788.

Overseas Development Institute (ODI). (2008, September). Achieving the MDGs: The fundamentals. (Briefing Paper No. 43). London, UK: Author.

Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Schiller, B.R. (2004) The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

UN Millenium Project. (2005). Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve the Millenium Development Goals. New York, NY: Authors.

Study Finds Sexually Abused Children in Turkey Exhibit More Psychiatric Disorders at Initial Assessment than Two-Years Later

Prior research indicates that children who have been sexually abused are at risk of developing various negative short and long-term psychological sequelae. However, there is little research on the effects of sexual abuse on children living in non-Western contexts. In this study, Ozbaran et al. (2009) aim to explore the emotional and psychological impact of sexual abuse among a sample of children in Turkey at referral and two years after referral. Over 300 parents and their children (ages 5-16) were referred to the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Ege University in Turkey, and 20 parents and their children agreed to participate in the research. At referral, the parent-child pairs (N=20) completed the first evaluation, which included a detailed psychiatric examination of each participant, completion of the Child Behavior Checklist by the mother, and an evaluation of the child’s mental capacity by a clinical psychologist. Over a period of two years, the sample participated in a combination of the following interventions, depending on the child and family’s needs: psychopharmacologic medication, parental support groups, family meetings with social workers, school counseling services, sport and art activities, and outpatient occupational therapy. After two years, the parent and child were asked to return for a follow-up evaluation. The study found that children who were sexually abused had more psychiatric disorders during the first assessment (55%) than during the second-stage evaluation (0%). However, the study also found that there was no statistically significant relationships between psychiatric diagnoses, socio-demographic features, duration of abuse, or abuse type.

The study methodology lacked rigor in that it was not clear that there was a systematized method for conducting the first and second-stage evaluations. However, the implementation of blind psychiatric interview during the second-stage evaluation was strength of the study, because it lessens the likelihood that the therapist’s impressions will be biased. The small sample size (N=20) of the study, ensured that no participants were lost to follow-up. However, the small sample size - and therefore the decreased statistical power - also made it difficult to draw any statistically significant conclusions. The lack of a control group in the study design also made it a challenge to directly demonstrate a causal relationship between sexual abuse and development of a psychiatric diagnosis or behavioral problems. The authors’ statement that the condition of the sexually abused children in their sample improved significantly as a result of time is misleading, because the study design doesn’t discern whether this is attributed to time or to the array of intervention services that the children and their families received during the study period. Lastly, sampling bias may pose a threat to the external validity of the study, as the sample reflected less than 7% of the initial referrals (over 300) to the hospital. This small sample may have characteristics that the general population does not exhibit. In light of these limitations, this study still adds to the sparse literature on the topic of children affected by sexual abuse in non-Western settings and represents an obvious precursor to more rigorous studies.

Source:
Ozbaran, B., Erermis, S., Bukusoglu, N., Bildik, T., Tamar, M., Ercan, E.S., Aydin, C., and Cetin, S.K. (2009). Social and emotional outcomes of child sexual abuse: a clinical sample in Turkey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(9), 1478-1493.

Parenting Program Effective in Improving Mothers’ Parenting and Child Well-Being

Empirical evidence indicates that poor parenting and child exposure to marital conflict are powerful predictors of psychological disorders in children. Yet, these two risk factors have been found to be mediated by preventive interventions. Bodenmann et al. (2008) conducted a randomized control trial in Switzerland to determine the effectiveness of a parenting program to improve parenting skills and children’s well-being. The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program is a multi-level program for parents to enhance their knowledge, skills, and confidence as caregivers. Researchers used public advertisements to recruit couples (N=150) with children between the ages of 2 and 12 years old. Couples were randomly assigned to one of three programs: a parenting-oriented program (Triple P), a marriage-oriented couples coping enhancement training (CCET), or a non-treatment control group. Data were gathered using self-report questionnaires measuring marital relationship, parenting, and child behavior. Questionnaires were administered to both parents at four separate times: (1) two weeks prior to intervention, (2) two weeks after completion of intervention, (3) six-months follow-up, and (4) one-year follow-up. The control group completed questionnaires at the same time as the other groups. Results indicated that mothers in the Triple P group showed improvements in parenting and parenting self-esteem, a decrease in parenting stressors, and lower rates of reports of child misbehavior as compared to the other two groups. Fathers in all three groups showed no improvements in parenting behaviors.

The strength of this study is in its randomized control design, allowing researchers to determine the effectiveness of Triple P, while ruling out the plausible competing hypothesis, a marriage-oriented program. Overall, the attrition rate was fairly small and heterogenous across groups, though there was a higher rate of dropout among fathers (13.3%) than mothers (10.7%). Furthermore, the lack of significant results from the fathers was surprising in that both mothers and fathers equally participated in the Triple P program. On the other hand, it was not surprising considering the authors’ hypothesis that mothers would benefit more from Triple P than fathers, because the former are more likely to be directly involved in child rearing, especially in the Swiss context. This raises an interesting question about the importance of paternal involvement in the efficacy of Triple P, which might indicate an area of future research. One limitation of the study is the single source of data relying on parent self-report. For example, the parent’s positive or negative views of their own parenting skills may have impacted how they rate their own child’s behavior. The study could have been strengthened if data included assessments from external sources (e.g., therapist, clinician) or even child self-reports, (although the authors do concede that the mean age of the children was 6.6 years). Overall, this study adds to the growing body of evidence about what programs are effective for improving parenting skills and child behavior.

Source:
Bodenmann, G., Cina, A., Ledermann, T., and Sanders, M.R. (2008). The efficacy of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in improving parenting and child behavior: a comparison with two other treatment conditions. Behavior Research and Therapy, 46, 411-427.

Risk & Society

The concept of risk society describes a modern worldview where tradition has broken down and scientific advances, rather than nature, are dominant. The consequences of human actions as a function of modernity and industrialization across a range of areas have introduced a wide array of risks and uncertainties, which exacerbate the risk of the everyday. A central paradox of risk society is that risks are generated by the very methods of modernization that are trying to control them. In this way, the traditional certainties and securities of the pre-modern society can no longer be relied upon. Fundamental to an understanding of risk society is the breakdown of the expert systems of trust in science, which has implications for how children and families function.

Beck (1992) focuses on this breakdown in the expert systems of science by drawing attention to the fact that science often draws different conclusions about the same thing, thus creating mistrust in a society that relies upon certainty and security. For example, as an element of traditional childrearing, there have been conflicting messages about breastfeeding throughout the world, with contradictions coming from both science and the media. On the one hand, this had disastrous consequences for many children in developing contexts, as many mothers chose the financially unsustainable method of formula feeding. Mothers were not able to sustain the expensive modern method of formula feeding, and therefore the baby’s nutrition and subsequent growth suffered. On the other hand, in some developed countries such as the United States, there have been breastfeeding advocacy campaigns aimed at mothers that have relied upon scare tactics rather than evidence-based advice. Mothers who use formula are portrayed as “bad mothers” who are actively harming their children, because they are not using “natural” methods to raise their children. Strong attitudes towards such childrearing practices are driven by ideology and politics and framed by blame, rather than concern for the individual. There are multiple examples of contradictions like this present in risk society.

This example proves that risk society has fundamentally changed the modern worldview, including the way children are raised. Claims about the risks to children’s health and well-being continue to proliferate and revolve around debates about what it means to be a “good parent”. This concept is more often linked to common perceptions of risk than to scientific evidence.

Similarly, Castel (1991) argues that many discourses on risk dissolve the notion of a subject or concrete individual, and put in its place risk factors. He critiques this modern view because it excludes any face-to-face relationship between the carer and the cared, the helper and the helped, the professional and the client. It clusters people as groups of risk factors, and only intervenes in cases when the risk factors produce dangerous combinations within individuals. Castel uses the example of the 1976 GAMIN system in France, when children were screened at a few days, a few months, and two years after birth. The combination of predetermined factors triggered automatic alerts, which prompted a social worker “to confirm or disconfirm the real presence of danger, on the basis of the probabilistic and abstract existence of risks” (p.287-288). Though Castel makes his distaste for such a system known, one must wonder if we are heading towards a global, and perhaps more intrusive, surveillance system such as GAMIN. The main question, however, is whether or not risk society or surveillance of risk factors, can account for the accidental and unpredictable nature of unique human beings.

Sources:
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Castel, R. (1991). From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.