Abstract

Any discussion of the “family collective” and the place of children within it requires an understanding of what constitutes a family and what a child is. Since ”family”, “child” and “agency” are all value-laden notions full of meanings, and vary cross-culturally, they need to be unpacked, and this is one of the things I will be doing throughout this lecture. What is a family? Is there one ideal Ethiopian family collective? Who is the ageless, genderless and culture-neutral “child”? Also, how is the agency of children in the plural differentiated, intersected and dissected by religion, ethnicity, stage of childhood, and social maturity, as well as rural and urban locations? To what extent are the actions of children constrained or enhanced by the family collective and vice versa? Clearly, these are very broad and complex questions, and while I do not attempt to answer them all, I try to approach them from the perspective of my own discipline of geography, largely focusing on rural-urban contrasts, differences and linkages. In so doing, I underline some overlaps, contradictions and peculiarities in the ways in which children exercise agency within families by drawing on (and sometimes inferring from) the limited sociological and anthropological literature on the issue (Hammond 2004, Poluha 2004, 2008, Hamer 1987, Hamer & Hamer 1994), as well as my own research (Abebe 2008). My lecture is organized along the following lines. I begin with problematizing the Ethiopian family collective and present a discussion of families and households, and their diverse structures, forms and functions. Second, I explore the concept of childhood, focusing on how notable lifecycle events, such as birth, name-giving, circumcision, and christening, are infused with notions of agency, particularly ones related to symbolic agency. Finally, I discuss how children experience authority while growing up, and exercise agency to varying degrees and in contexts in which they find themselves. I wish to emphasize from the outset that this attempt is only descriptive and although I give examples whenever possible, this is at the risk of making generalizations about the otherwise ethnically and culturally diverse country of Ethiopia, which, demographically speaking, is also the second most populous nation in sub-Saharan Africa.

Highlights

  • Any discussion of the “family collective” and the place of children within it requires an understanding of what constitutes a family and what a child is

  • I begin with problematizing the Ethiopian family collective and present a discussion of families and households, and their diverse structures, forms and functions

  • I wish to emphasize from the outset that this attempt is only descriptive and I give examples whenever possible, this is at the risk of making generalizations about the otherwise ethnically and culturally diverse country of Ethiopia, which, demographically speaking, is the second most populous nation in sub-Saharan Africa

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Any discussion of the “family collective” and the place of children within it requires an understanding of what constitutes a family and what a child is. Households and families are contentious terms when discussing the internal functioning of Ethiopian society, largely because societies exist in fluid ways and family relationships are undergoing constant change in their forms and meanings (Ansell & Van Blerk 2004). As households and families are both dynamic social units that “tend to contract and expand” as members live across space, and as the nature of the relationships binding them perpetually changes, it is useful to acknowledge a third concept, “the household/family nexus” (Ansell & Van Blerk 2004), which I believe is what constitutes the “family collective”. According to the Norwegian social anthropologist, Jan Brøgger (1984), who carried out fieldwork among the Sidamo in southern Ethiopia, the patrilocal family structure is such that multiple wives may reside in the same compound.2 These co-wives work interdependently as this is advantageous regarding work on subsistence agriculture, cash crops, domestic tasks, and raising children. Most importantly, levirate marriage ensures that the reproductive power of the widow is “not wasted”, especially if the husband dies without having had children, who are seen as both a family resource – as “wealth in people” – and as sources of prestige and social status.

Kin and social networks of support
Life stages in childhood
PUBLIC AGENCY Openly acting with adult sanction
Almost no agency
Agency as reproduction of power
Agency as negotiated interdependence
In search for relative autonomy
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.