SECTION II Literature Review
4.5. Summary and critique of the risk and stress related literature
the context of a relationship in which the CSA is evidence of a betrayal of trust. Levett (1989) argues that individual circumstances need to be considered in order to understand the degree of impact on the child. These include the child's circumstances and her range of subjective responses, both at the time of these experiences and later, in retrospect (Myburgh, 1997). A wide range of emotions need to be considered, including possible feelings of warmth and affection towards the perpetrator. Complex, contradictory, or paradoxical feelings often result from abuse experiences.
However, the negative consequences attributed to CSA may not in fact be due to the abuse per se but due to an accumulation of variables and the interaction of various other factors, such as family dysfunction.
peoples' grieving? Can one reasonably hope to generate optimism, hope and faith in children who live in wretched circumstances? Or should all resources and interventions be geared towards reducing environmental risk circumstances? With poverty being acknowledged as the most debilitating risk to which children can be exposed (Aber et al., 1997; Brooks-Gunn
& Duncan, 1997; McLoyd, 1998), should poverty alleviation take priority over all other forms of intervention, such as those aimed at offering psychosocial support? However, poverty alleviation programmes do very little to address psychosocial needs of children and it is known that children who have food but no love, do not prosper (Jareg, 2003).
There are no simple answers to these questions. However, sensitivity is essential. One needs to be aware of the critiques that have been raised about the risk literature. Despite the strong empirical support, much of the risk literature can be considered to be somewhat problematic for several reasons:
• Problem /deficit focus: The risk models focus on the problems and difficulties that children experience. There is an assumption that certain children are deficient since they lack the internal and/or environmental conditions required for adaptive functioning. Alternatively, through their repeated exposure to adversity their development has been compromised (Howard & Dryden, 1999). Either way, they are assumed to be deficient and beset with problems and difficulties (Fraser, 1997). Equating risk, deficit and problems can have serious consequences, such that all children who have been exposed to certain risks (orphans, poor children or abused children) are considered to be 'problems'. The risk models have tended to largely identify children who belong to minority cultures (Goodlad & Keating, 1990, in Howard & Dryden, 1999), due to their greater risk of exposure to four or more of the generic risk factors (Rutter, 1994). Furthermore, within school and community contexts, the focus has primarily been on identifying problem children - those who exhibit difficult or antisocial conduct (externalised distress). The quite, withdrawn children who do not present management problems (Fleming, Mullen & Bammer, 1997) are less likely to be identified but may be at greater risk of difficulties by virtue of their internalising their problems.
• Impact of labeling: The underlying assumption that drives the identification of risk factors is their possible application in predicting future outcomes using statistical probability models (Fraser, 1997), so that one could target high risk children for early preventive intervention (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2002). There is an implicit assumption that the absence of risk factors would lead one to the reasonable conclusion that children who have had few adversities are
at 'low risk' for developing emotional or behavioural problems (Jenkins & Keating, 1999).
These assumptions create ideological and ethical tensions. As in all probability models, linear prediction in terms of prognosis is implausible. Therefore, an intervention that labels and targets high risk children may be counterproductive in terms of the ethical analysis of cost and benefit (Steere, 1987).
• Implications of labeling: Categorising young children as being at risk, at an early stage of their development, could constitute a risk in itself. It potentially has the effect of lowering teacher expectations of that child's capacity (Soodak & Podell, 1994) and stigmatising them (Toomey & Christie, 1990). A more ethical approach would be to describe some children as experiencing especially arduous and troublesome lives with numerous hardships, making it difficult for them to grow to their potential.
A corollary to the risk model would be a firm belief that children can only exhibit their strengths, talents, uniqueness and special gifts in a facilitative, emotionally-supportive environment (Baylis, 2002). Resilience studies, off-springs from the risk literature, have focused on identifying strengths and assets in individuals and systems that enable people to overcome adversity and grow to their full potential. These will be discussed in the next chapter.
Chapter 5
Theories of Resilience and Strength
An interesting, and unexpected, finding emerged from the risk-related epidemiological studies:
some children are able to withstand very high levels of disadvantage without their functioning being impaired and without manifesting either emotional or behavioural problems (Luther & Cicchetti, 2000; Werner, 1995). This discovery gave rise to new research endeavours that identified those factors that appear to help both adults and children to withstand adversity and develop positive patterns of coping (Masten et al., 1990; Rolf et al., 1990; Rutter, 1985; Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber
& Farrington, 1993; Werner, 1993). Thus, the earliest resilience studies involved children who were statistically considered to be at risk of developing psychopathology and other negative outcomes, but appeared to remain unscathed by the misfortunes that they had experienced (Anthony, 1987;
Bernard, 1999; Garmezy, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1982). The study of resilience therefore aims to understand the inter-related processes of risk and resilience, to discover why some children grow up to be well-adapted, healthy and productive adults despite having experienced physical, emotional, and/or social hardships. As such, resilience relates to both the stress and risk paradigms that were discussed in the previous chapter and adds a whole new dimension to our understanding of the developmental process.
Resilience is considered to be one of the great puzzles of human nature (Coutu, 2002, p. 46) and ordinary magic (Masten, 2002). These dichotomous positions are reflected in the way in which the study of resilience oscillates between various definitions, models and intervention policies that struggle to explain the various empirical findings. There is an inherent puzzle as to why resilient children do well in life and have the ability to bounce back and cope well despite having experienced profound problems (Masten et al., 1990; Rutter, 1985). They seem vulnerable but invincible (Werner & Smith, 1982). They rise above adversity to work well, play well, love well and expect well (Garmezy, 1986). In fact, research shows that 50% to 66% of children growing up in circumstances of multiple risk (such as endemic poverty, the chaos of war-torn communities, with mentally-ill, alcoholic, abusive or criminal parents) appear to overcome the statistical odds and turn a life trajectory of risk into one that manifests resilience (Dawes, 2000; Masten, 2001; Bernard,
1999). In addition, there is a clear developmental component in that children vary in the degree of resilience that have at different points in their lives. These variations in resilience seem to reflect the interaction and accumulation of individual and environmental risk factors (Howard & Dryden,
1999; Sameroff & Seifer, 1987, in Rolf et al., 1990), once again indicating that a systemic perspective on the social ecology of childhood is required.