Genuine social inclusion or superficial co-existence? Former girl soldiers in eastern Congo returning home

Abstract

The article focuses on the social dimension of child soldier reintegration. It draws on an empirical qualitative study on former girl soldiers in eastern Congo, and examines how former girl soldiers fare with regard to social acceptance and re-inclusion into their families and communities. The article presents empirical data revealing that the girls experience social exclusion, stigmatisation and non-acceptance both within their families and within the wider community. It may, therefore, be argued that there is a superficial (physical) co-existence rather than a genuine social inclusion of girls returning home from armed forces or groups. The article's discussion draws attention to the weighting of the different dimensions of reintegration (social, economic, psychological) and argues that the social dimension, although receiving less attention in programming, should be what comes first in order to fulfil former child soldiers' right to reintegration.

Understanding Stigmatisation: Results of a Qualitative Formative Study with Adolescents and Adults in DR Congo

“…People do not want them to behave as a "woman without a moral" or a "bad woman" (Amroussia et al 2017) and are concerned that if they acquaint with them, they might behave and become like them. This fear of passing on bad behaviour echoes an earlier study conducted regarding girls associated with armed forces and groups (Tonheim 2014). The function of stigma of CAAFAG, again with emphasis on potential behaviour transfer, was in another study attached to 'disease avoidance' (Ertl et al 2014).…”

“…Three studies have researched the stigmatisation of CAAFAG, or more specifically girls associated with armed forces and groups in DRC. These studies have described social rejection, reference to addiction and 'acting as if still in the army' (Johannessen and Holgersen 2014), the name-calling and maltreatment of girls associated with armed forces and groups by neighbours, family and peers (Tonheim 2012) and the experiences of discriminatory treatment, challenges to return to former friendships, and consequences on marriage prospects (Tonheim 2014), amongst others. Studies in other countries have further described stigmatisation of CAAFAG, such as in Sierra Leone, where former child soldiers perceived discrimination which affected their mental health (Betancourt et al 2010).…”

Reintegrering av tidligere barnesoldater: Fra teori til praksis

“…Men også reintegrering oppfattes som et viktig tiltak for å hindre ny oppblussing av krig og konflikt. Logikken bygger på at sannsynligheten for å re-rekrutteres til militaere fraksjoner er mindre dersom eks-soldaten er en aktiv aktør i samfunnets sosiale, økonomiske og politiske sfaere, enn om han eller hun er arbeidsledig og uten gode sosiale relasjoner til de rundt seg (Tonheim 2014).…”

“…4 De antas derfor å vaere attraktive rekrutter for vaepnede grupper. Dersom barnesoldater returnerer hjem til en situasjon preget av fattigdom, avvisning fra naermeste familie og sosioøkonomisk ekskludering (se Tonheim 2012Tonheim , 2014, vil dette ikke bare øke sjansene for re-rekruttering; en slik situasjon gir også grobunn for andre former for radikalisering og kriminalitet (Özerdem & Podder 2011). I noen post-konfliktland, som for eksempel 3.…”

Life after armed group involvement in Nepal: A clinical ethnography of psychological well-being of former “child soldiers” over time

“…The paradigm for research into the effects on young people of armed group participation during conflicts has undergone two significant shifts in recent years. First, a previously dominant psychopathology-centred approach, which overwhelmingly emphasised the identification of trauma symptoms within individual psyches, was challenged by psychosocial studies that expanded the scope of study to risk and protective factors within the social environment on return to civilian life (Amone-P'Olak, Lekhutlile, Meiser-Stedman, & Ovuga, 2014;Betancourt, Agnew-Blais, Gilman, Williams, & Ellis, 2010a;Betancourt et al, 2013;Fernando & Ferrari, 2013, Kohrt et al, 2010aTonheim, 2014). This shift clarified that young people uninvolved in armed groups were often affected by conflict in similarly pervasive ways, and required assumptions about the specific effects of participation to be revisited and differentiated more clearly from the generally applicable effects of structurally violent environments (Blattman & Annan, 2010;Eggerman & Panter-Brick, 2010).…”