Supporting Children, Blaming Parents: Frontline Providers’ Perception of Childhood’s Adversity and Parenthood in Indonesia

Abstract

This article explores the construction of childhood and parenthood in rural communities in Indonesia based on a series of focus group discussions with service providers, community decision makers, and paraprofessionals; a group that we refer to as “frontline providers”. By examining the providers’ definition of successful children and their perception of factors that could undermine a child’s success, we provide insights into how frontline providers understand the role of parents, and how parenthood is constructed accordingly. We found that the providers’ definition of successful children reflects a strong neoliberal logic and that education is seen as the primary mechanism of such investment, an evolution of the idea of a modern nation under the previous regime that has permeated into an individual assessment. The paternalistic culture has further cemented the tendency among the frontline providers to problematize parents as the main risk factor for children’s educational achievement and to ignore the structural and ecological factors. We traced this paradigm in Indonesia’s educational and child protection policy framework, prompting a myriad of parenting programs that put parents from the underprivileged group as the main subject of intervention. Informed by studies in different countries, we argue that without changes in structural factors, any intervention on parenting will be deemed ineffective.

Understanding and ending violence against children: A holistic approach.

“…For example, a singular focus on ending child beating and violence in the family can make local parents feel disrespected since the intent behind corporal punishment is to enable children to grow up with good behavior and values. Worse yet, this deficits approach blames parents for harms to children, when the parents had been trying to do the right thing (Siagian, Arifiani, Amanda, & Kusumaningrum, 2019). Disrespect and blame are weak starting points for NGOs or Government stakeholders to make progress in helping to end family violence.…”

“Poor brain development” in the global South? Challenging the science of early childhood interventions

“…A new generation of scholars from the global South is continuing this work (e.g., Ejuu, 2015; Ng'asike and Swadener, 2019; Oppong, 2015; Rai, 2019). Other researchers apply sociological approaches to global ECD, focusing mainly on the social construction and circulation of a particular, Western‐derived concept of childhood through this movement (Nilsen and Steen‐Johnsen, 2020; Penn, 2011; Siagian et al., 2019). Some critical responses to global ECD are also emerging from various medical fields: a group of psychiatrists and medical anthropologists in South Africa recently pointed out the need to consider local knowledge in infant mental health, an applied field that largely overlaps with ECD (Lachman et al., 2021).…”

Toward a broader, more inclusive mosaic of learning for ending violence in childhood.

“…Some research exemplars come to mind, including the Peterman et al (2017) article cited above that demonstrated the potential of cash transfer programs to simultaneously reduce poverty and violence against children. In a less hopeful example, in their analysis of parenting programs in Indonesia, Siagian et al (2019) embedded their analysis in neoliberal policies and forces, finding that, by individuating parents primarily as agents of a productive economy, parenting programs ultimately blamed parents and undermined their ability to care for their children. In yet another hypothetical case, we could also suggest that measurement of efforts to reduce school-based violence must also go hand in hand with measurement of children's access to quality education.…”