search expand

Book review: How the Ganges boatmen resist upper-caste and state domination

Caste, Occupation and Politics on the Ganges is the title of a new book by anthropologist Assa Doron that Tereza Kuldova reviews here for antropologi.info. It is a book about the life of a marginalized group of people in India – the boatmen at the river Ganges in Banaras (also called Varanasi).

The pictures are taken by juicyrai (1,2), flickmor, omblod and Alex Craig.

Doron, Assa. (2008). Caste, Occupation and Politics on the Ganges: Passages of Resistance. Ashgate 198 pages. ISBN 978-0-7546-7550-1. Price £55.00.

Review by Tereza Kuldova

This anthropological study takes us straight into the everyday world of the boatmen at the river Ganges, in Banaras. It pictures their lives, narratives and practices and it contextualizes these within a wider historical perspective and social forces which have impact on their daily lives.

It is a study of a group of people disadvantaged and marginalized in both traditional and modern terms. It is a study of power and resistance in its everyday forms. It provides both a historical account of the evolution of the caste of boatmen during the colonial and post-colonial times and a discussion of the current position of this community, which faces the social and economic changes in the modern India as well as the impact of globalization. It shows how the boatmen, even though a low-status and under-privileged group, manage to challenge and contest the upper-caste and state domination. The book is first and foremost a thorough discussion of the processes of domination, subordination and resistance.

This book is intended primarily for anthropologists, historians and other social scientists or any student interested in the contemporary India, the topics of religion, everyday politics and globalization. Because of its historical and analytical rather than literary approach to the subject it is particularly interesting for the professionals, but I believe, less so for occasional readers of ethnographic accounts.

The first chapter, The Criminal Type: Domesticating the Ganges Boatmen, deals with the encounter between the boatmen and the colonial state and the classification of the Mallah (boatmen) caste by the British. It provides us with a historical account of how this occupational caste became classified and relegated into a criminal caste category and thus gained a reputation of thieves and gangsters and how the colonial rule imposed restrictions on the occupation and movement of the boatmen in Benares, which resemble to a great degree the limitations imposed by the modern Indian state.

But Assa Doron does not present the boatmen as incapable victims of this imposed classification in which “one was recognized by the bureaucratic administration of the state only as a number and part of an aggregate caste group” and where “individual capabilities were measured through one`s extended ‘body’: caste” (p. 36). On the contrary, he explores also the ways in which boatmen tried to manipulate these classifications and thus resist the domination. One of such ways was for example the idea to improve their status by claiming a different name, the name Nishada. “This name had positive connotations for the group as it placed the caste among an honorable people who, according to the epic Ramayana, devotedly served and protected the godking Rama during his tribulations in exile” (p. 37).

This is just one among the many strategies boatmen employed to resist the dominant classification. But, “nevertheless, claims for higher status were not always effective. The Mallah`s criminal reputation with its exotic, unlawful and immoral behavior (…) formed the basis of colonial census classification” and “being categorized as low caste often meant exclusion from recruitment to military service, the police force or administrative jobs” (p.37).

The second chapter, ‘Step-sons of the State’: Marginalization and the Struggle for Recognition, is devoted to the discussion of the influence of the state policies and particularly the development scheme known as Ganga Action Plan on the Mallah community. This development scheme imposed restrictions on the on sand mining, fishing and cultivation of the land on the riverbeds, which were all traditional occupations and part of the traditional rights of the Mallah caste. “The result is that the occupational diversity of boatmen working on the riverscape has been reduced to that of ferrying passengers” (p. 72). This led not only to the further development of the ‘marginalized boatmen identity’ identified with poverty, oppression and exclusion, but also to the establishment of caste community associations, which try at the same time to resist the state domination and collaborate with the state.

Using the dominant rhetoric and the politics of positive discrimination, the caste organizations actually try to subvert and resist the state domination by engaging in open political action and articulating their objections to the governmental policies.

The boatmen claim that “Ganga has been exploited by corrupt politicians, local officials and powerful Brahmins who siphon (‘eat’) money on the pretext of cleaning the river. In the process, it is the poor, ordinary citizens who suffer, through loss of customary rights, police harassment and caste prejudice” (p.77).

The relationship between boatmen and the state is thus ambivalent and filled with tension. On one side there is a need to cooperate and to negotiate; on the other there is a need to resist.

But what we clearly see from Assa Doron`s account is that “the way in which boatmen express their plight and act to fend off state domination, demonstrated that they understand and are well aware of the inner workings of liberal democracy, including ideas of citizenship, public accountability, rational legal authority and democratic rule” (p. 79).

The third chapter, The Moral Economy of Boating: Territorial Clashes and Internal Struggle, takes into spotlight the sophisticated socio-economic system which organizes the everyday work of the boatmen and can be said to work as a ‘moral economy’, in that it regulates the space, mitigates the conflict and provides “an economic safety net for the boatmen” and prevents “the modern state, local actors and commercial entrepreneurs from infringing on their livelihood” (p. 18).

The work system stands for rules the differentiately positioned boatmen must respect, these rules direct their work, divide the space on the riverfront within which the particular boatmen can operate and direct the mutual relations between the boatmen. Though numerous tensions exist within the boatmen community, the work system still provides measures to ensure subsistence for all the members of the community.

In this respect the notion of haq (right/property) is particularly interesting; “there is a moral expectation that they /the ghatwars – the wealthier members of the boatmen community/ let other members of the community have their share of the earnings derived from the river economy” (p. 111). At the same time the wealthier members are dependent on the support of the poorer members of the community in the matters of political action. But though this system of mutual obligations and reciprocity, this ‘moral economy’ is still important in the daily lives of the boatmen, it is at the same time challenged by the social and economic changes – be it for example the changing nature of the tourist industry, or the introduction of motorboats – which are all transforming the nature of the relationships between the boatmen and even lead to the fact that the boatmen tend to take up different types of unskilled jobs elsewhere, reducing thus the dependency on the river economy. But as already pointed out, “the work system remains an important ideological and economic institution for ensuring stability and security of the community” (p. 114).

The fourth chapter, River Crossings: Boatmen, Priests and the Ritual Economy of Banaras, focuses on the role of boatmen as ritual specialists within the ritual economy of Banaras and on their relationship with the river Ganga. Assa Doron concentrates here on how the boatmen invoke their caste identity, myth and other cultural symbols to contest the Brahmanical authority and to assert their rights to conduct rituals and maintain a certain control over ritual spaces around the Ganga.

The ritual serves here for the boatmen as a way of gaining respect and recognition for their role and work on the riverscape. They argue that they are granted the role as ritual specialists by the virtue of their caste and occupation. “By firmly establishing their position as ritual specialists on the riverscape, the boatmen register their claim over physical space that is valuable beyond the ritual context” (p. 124).

These claims and the identity of the boatmen are related to the story of the boatman Khevat from Ramayana, in which Khevat ferries lord Rama, Sita and Lakshmana across the river, at the end of trip Sita wants to pay the boatman a fee, with the only thing she has, her ring, but the Khevat rejects it saying to Rama: “we are of the same profession, you carry people across the river of life (samsara) to the far shore of liberation (moksha) and I carry people from this bank of the river to the other side. (…) Rama you are also a boatman (tum bhi Khevat), how can I charge you?” (p. 127). This encounter of Khevat with the lord Rama is perceived as a transformative event for the boatmen collective identity; this encounter is an evidence of the dignified roots and esteemed position of all boatmen within the Hindu social order.

The “boatmen creatively appropriate the myth to denote their dignified existence and elevate themselves in the caste hierarchy, inflecting it with their own aspirations, which eulogize the community and its morality” (p. 130). The myth thus serves as a justification to conduct particular rituals in the riverscape, which at the same time interrupt the priestly authority. “They may contest Brahmanical order and authority, yet at the same time imitate it and draw their strategic positioning from it” (p. 137). But “it is important to emphasize (…) that while such actions clearly subvert priestly authority, Banaras` ritual economy is still very much organized around the governing principles and values associated with orthodox religion” (p. 138).

The fifth chapter, The Romance of Banaras: Boatmen, Pilgrims and Tourists, discusses the asymmetrical powers relation between the boatmen and the pilgrims and tourists. Assa Doron focuses here particularly on how the boatmen deploy strategies to control and influence the pilgrims and tourists at the riverfront and on how the boatmen appropriate, manipulate and take advantage of the tourist discourse emerging in the First World and how they thus further their social and economic interests.

To illustrate this let us have a look at an example of such practice in relation between boatmen and pilgrims, “a practice where the subordinate (in the extreme case, beggars) bless and praise ‘their (potential) benefactors’ trapping them in ‘the cultural implication of their roles as superiors, that is, in the obligation to be generous’. It is important to note, however, that for the boatmen a position of subordination is assumed strategically. In their capacity as culture brokers boatmen also assume a position of authority when guiding pilgrims, selectively informing them about the city” (p. 147).

But not only do the boatmen get use of the traditional language, they also use the modern tourist discourse in their daily activities. Banaras as a tourist place is subject to commoditization whereby the tourists consume the local culture, which is – among others – mediated by the boatmen, who deploy this dominant tourist discourse. This discourse “emanating from Western countries, serves to produce a series of Orientalist tropes, largely produced and disseminated by the travel industry and media as well as travel talk” (p. 141). The boatmen thus help to reproduce the Orientalist India, which the foreign tourists search for, giving them what they want.

Though the book is in all convincing in its description of the everyday life of the boatmen community and its relations with the state and the dominant Brahmins, it has according to my opinion also several weaknesses.

Firstly, the discussion of the actual methodology of the research is almost completely missing. We get no clear idea about how the author went actually about gathering the data and what do the data consist of. And also throughout the book, we get almost no access to first-hand data – concrete cases are almost missing (with the exception of several cases in chapter 3 and 5). The book thus provides us with very descriptive and abstracted statements about what ‘boatmen think, do, feel’, but we rarely hear the actual voice of the boatmen, concrete illustration of their conduct or are presented with actual cases which would support the descriptive and analytical language of the author.

Secondly, the author is not really present in the book in any reflexive sense. The reflection on one`s own positioning is not elaborated in any detail. We for example get to know that the author had a Brahmin research assistant, but this fact is not commented upon any further. We thus do not get to know how this crucial relationship could have influenced or affected the data gathered, or for what kind of work the research assistant was used; what was the nature of his relationship with the boatmen, and how his being Brahmin could have affected the data, etc. But this is a general problem which I experienced reading this book – the lack of the discussion of the concrete interactional data.

Thirdly, the author is obviously influenced by the subaltern studies and at the same tries to get beyond their explanations, but he only suggests the direction of his approach. Therefore I believe that the theoretical discussion presented in the Introduction could have been more exhaustive. Towards the end of the study one tends to get an idea that the boatmen, constantly labeled as subaltern, marginalized and oppressed, are continually trying to resist the oppression of either the state, represented most often by the local police and administration or of the traditional authorities, represented by the Brahmins. And that is what they basically do in their everyday lives, that their lives basically consist of resistance itself or are resistance. Every single action of theirs tends to be viewed in the perspective of resistance. So for example fishing in the night (which is actually prohibited, so it cannot be done during the day), is perceived as a convert form of resistance against the state authorities. It may be – too, but not only.

And fourthly, though the author notes that he did not have any contact with the police or the local Brahmins, because of his close relationship with the boatmen, which may be understandable, the fact that we thus never get to know the same story as told from the perspective of those labeled as “dominant”, is certainly disappointing, particularly when the author tends to discuss the ‘inter-relationships’ and ‘mutual relationships’ between the boatmen and Brahmins and local representatives of the state.

This being said, there is still no doubt that the book is extremely valuable in its account of the lifeworld of the boatmen community in Banaras, which is first of its kind. I definitely recommend it to all interested.

For more information about the book, see the presentation by Ashgate, where also the introduction can be downloaded (pdf)

Caste, Occupation and Politics on the Ganges is the title of a new book by anthropologist Assa Doron that Tereza Kuldova reviews here for antropologi.info. It is a book about the life of a marginalized group of people in India…

Read more

Ausstellung “Crossing Munich”: Ethnologen für neue Perspektiven in der Migrationsdebatte

Wie können Ethnologen zu einer nuancierteren Migrationsdebatte beitragen? In München startet ab 10. Juli ein neuer Versuch. Zusammen mit Volkskundlern, Historikern und Künstlern haben Studierende und Doktoranden der Ethnologie an der Uni München die Ausstellung “Crossing Munich” konzipiert.

Drei Semester lang hat sich dieses interdisziplinäre Team mit dem Thema Migration in München auseinandergesetzt. Doch die Forschenden waren nicht nur in München unterwegs, sondern auch in Istanbul, Antwerpen oder Pristina im Kosovo.

Sie wollen zeigen, dass man das Thema Migration auch anders diskutieren kann. Migration dreht sich nicht nur um Kultur, Ethnizität oder Integration. Und ob nun Migration eine Bereicherung oder eine Bedrohung darstellt, ist auch nicht die interessanteste Problemstellung.

Die Ausstellung hat auch eine überraschend informative Webseite und ist damit auch für uns interessant, die weit weg von München wohnen.

Einen Einblick in die Ausstellung finden wir unter dem Menuepunkt Projekte.

In ihren Projekten verorten die Forscher die Stadt München in einem globalen Netz von Bewegungen und Verbindungen – sowohl heute wie auch in der Vergangenheit.

Einen spannenden Eindruck macht das Projekt Spedition Schulz. Die Autos und Autowracks, die man von aussen sieht, lassen nicht erahnen, dass die „Spedition Schulz“ Teil eines übergreifenden transnationalen ökonomischen Systems ist, welches München mit Afrika und Vorderasien verbindet:

Die Arbeit „Spedition Schulz“ geht in akribischer Feldforschung den ökonomischen Transaktionen nach und macht die transnationalen familiären, sozialen und ökonomischen Pfade sichtbar, die von diesem Ort ausgehen. (…) So erzählen die Autos, die z.B. über Antwerpen afrikanische Häfen ansteuern, nicht nur eine post-koloniale Geschichte von historischen Handelsnetzwerken und ungleichen Tauschbeziehungen, sondern über die Mikroökonomie eines Speditionsplatzes auch die Geschichte afrikanischen Lebens in München.

Einen wichtigen aber offenbar unbekannten Teil der Geschichte rollt das Projekt Migrantische Kämpfe. Kämpfe der Migration auf:

Bisher ist die Geschichte der Proteste und Kämpfe der MigrantInnen der ersten Stunden der „Gastarbeitsära“ nur in sehr geringem Umfang aufbereitet worden. Allerdings können die Recherchen von „Migrantische Kämpfe – Kämpfe der Migration“ deutlich machen, in welchem breitem Ausmaß sich bereits die sogenannte erste Generation an den Protest- und Streikbewegungen in den 1960er und 1970er Jahren beteiligte und/oder ihre eigenständigen politischen Projekte, Solidaritätsbewegungen und Forderungen nach gleichen Rechten in Bildung, Arbeit und Staatsbürgerrecht entwickelte. (…) Das Wissen um diese Ereignisse wird aber bis heute nur spärlich weitergegeben.

Einen kritischen Beitrag zur Debatte um “Ghettos” in den Vorstädten liefert das Projekt “westend“. Die Migration von Arbeitern aus dem Süden veränderte nämlich den Diskurs über die Verhältnisse in den Vorstädten:

Während zunächst noch die sozialen „krassen Missstände“ (SZ 3.3.1970) in den zu hohen Preisen vermieteten Altbauwohnungen angeklagt wurden, produzierte der bald einsetzende Ghetto-Diskurs (1972) eine andere öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit. Jetzt waren es nicht mehr die Praktiken der Vermieter, sondern „der Zustrom der Gastarbeiter“, der plötzlich mit den als Ghettos stigmatisierten Stadtteilen ein Gesicht bekam. (…) Die Arbeit „westend urban_lab“ startet mit einer kritischen Lektüre des Münchner Ghetto-Diskurses und begibt sich selbst auf historisch-ethnographische Spurensuche ins Westend.

Das Dossier skizziert die Positionen der beteiligten Wissenschaftlerinnen. Die wissenschaftliche Leiterin der Ausstellung, Volkskundlerin/Europäische Ethnologin Sabine Hess, wirft in ihrem Text Welcome to the Container einen kritischen Blick auf die dominierenden Diskurse über Migration und zeigt neue Wege in der Forschung auf (sprachlich jedoch nicht gerade leserfreundlich)

Es ist vor allem wichtig, das Containerdenken und den methodologischem Nationalismus zu überwinden und transnationale Perspektiven anzuwenden.

Mit Containerdenken meint sie folgendes:

Die eigene Gesellschaft oder die Stadtgesellschaft wird als kulturell homogener Zusammenschluss mit deutlichen Grenzen vorgestellt. Naturalistischen, ja gar physikalischen und hydraulischen Gesellschaftsvorstellungen folgend wird das von außen Kommende als Fremdkörper imaginiert, das die „Aufnahmefähigkeit“, die „Belastbarkeit“, die „Integrationskraft“ der nationalen Containergesellschaft herausfordert, aus dem „Gleichgewicht“, ja zum „Überlaufen“ bringt (vgl. Crossing Munich 2009).
(…)
Politisch gesehen bringt das Containermodell dabei eine ungeheuere Rigidität mit sich, die den Prozess der Akkulturation und Neuansiedlung in nationale Loyalitäts- und Identitätsrhetorik kleidet nach dem Motto: „Du kannst kein anderes Vaterland neben mir haben“. Diese Perspektiven sind der derzeitigen Integrationsdebatte tief eingeschrieben, die Integration als Imperativ an die MigrantInnen adressiert.

>> zur Webseite von Crossing Munich

UPDATE 1: Interview mit Sabine Hess in der Sueddeutschen und Ausstellungsbesprechung auf no-racism.net

UPDATE 2: 900 Gäste kamen zur Eröffnung. Crossing Munich wurde ausgewählt an der 4. Internationalen Architektur Biennale Rotterdam teilzunehmen, die unter dem Motto „Open City: Designing Coexistence“ vom 24. September 2009 bis zum 10. Januar 2010 stattfindet. Crossing Munich ist in der Kategorie Diaspora vertreten und wird sich dort neben Projekten aus Taiwan, Tokio, Washington und Leipzig präsentieren.

SIEHE AUCH:

“Projekt Migrationsgeschichte”: Kulturwissenschaftler in Container in Innenstadt

Ethnologe schreibt Migrationsgeschichte – Interview mit Erwin Orywal

ZEIT nicht beeindruckt ueber “Projekt Migration” in Köln

Cosmoculture – how art can contribute to promoting mutual understanding

How to challenge Us-and-Them thinking? Interview with Thomas Hylland Eriksen

Transnationale Migration – eine vielversprechende Perspektive?

Erforschte das Leben illegalisierter Migranten

Qualitative Migration Research in Europe: New issue of “Forum Qualitative Social Research”

Ethnologen, raus aus der Kulturfalle!

Wie können Ethnologen zu einer nuancierteren Migrationsdebatte beitragen? In München startet ab 10. Juli ein neuer Versuch. Zusammen mit Volkskundlern, Historikern und Künstlern haben Studierende und Doktoranden der Ethnologie an der Uni München die Ausstellung "Crossing Munich" konzipiert.

Drei Semester…

Read more

How anthropology in Eastern Europe is changing

Studia ethnologica Croatica is one of those Open Access journals I’ve found recently. Their latest issue gives an overview over recent delevopments in anthropology in Eastern Europe. The texts are based on presentations made at the conference ‘New Curricula in Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology – Marking the 80th Anniversary of Croatian Ethnology’ in Zagreb.

Janusz Baranski is one of several authors who describe how anthropology in Eastern European countries has changed recently. In his paper New Polish Anthropology, he writes:

(T)he Polish tradition of anthropology differs from Western traditions in at least one aspect. Whereas the main subject of the latter were the so-called primitive cultures of the New World, colonized by Western powers; the main subject of Polish and other East European ethnologies were the so-called folk cultures.

Scholars who wanted to deal with non-European cultures did their research in Western academic centers; Bronislaw Malinowski is perhaps the best-known example. The opposition “our – foreign” or “us” and “them” was, in the East European context, identified with the opposition of “upper classes – the people” or “upper culture – lower culture”. For East European anthropologist, a peasant filled the role that the Trobriander filled for Malinowski.

He thinks he is a good example of recent shifts of interests within Polish anthropology:

I am a graduate of ethnography – this was the formal nomenclature of the discipline in the communist period (with a thesis on Slavic mythology; so, one would say, a “traditional one”); next I completed a postgraduate degree in ethnology – this is the nomenclature of the discipline in the post communist period (the thesis was on the language of political propaganda; say – a “modern one”); finally, I identify, above all, with cultural studies: my post-doctoral dissertation was on material culture and social symbolism of the material world – commodity aesthetics, fashion, lifestyle, consumer culture.

In this respect, I am a typical example of the tendency among anthropologists, mentioned by George Marcus, to shift from the first project, which is framed by the traditional field of anthropology, into the second – experimental and new for the discipline, which, he claims, is a growing tendency in American anthropology. Not only in American, as we see.

>> read the whole paper

Spiritual culture and folk medicine have become popular research topics, as Antoaneta Olteanu writes in her paper “Teaching Anthropology in Romania”:

We should not forget that, under the communist regime, we were forbidden to talk (and write) about the spiritual culture, folk mentality and folk religion (folk Christianity, demonology and such), in order to prevent their interference with the healthy vision of the communist ideology.

This was one of the reasons why, after 1989, Romanians started to publish research of both the ethnological and the anthropological approaches on peasant healing (both text and rituals, but also general representations of illness, demons, personality of the healer, ritual plants, objects and others topics (…).

>> read the whole paper

>> overview over all articles in this issue

SEE ALSO:

Interview: “Anthropology Is Badly Needed In Eastern Europe”

Doing fieldwork in Eastern Europe – New issue of Anthropology Matters

“Take care of the different national traditions of anthropology”

How can we create a more plural anthropological community?

Studia ethnologica Croatica is one of those Open Access journals I've found recently. Their latest issue gives an overview over recent delevopments in anthropology in Eastern Europe. The texts are based on presentations made at the conference ‘New Curricula in…

Read more

Doktoravhandling: Mer segregasjon på arbeidsmarkedet

Flere utviklingshemmede enn i dag kan få jobber på vanlige arbeidsplasser når det legges til rette for dem. Men tendensen går i retning økende segregering, viser antropolog Terje Olsen i sin doktorgradsavhandling “Versjoner av arbeid. Dagaktivitet og arbeid etter avviklingen av institusjonsomsorgen“.

Han skriver:

Tallene viser at det fortsatt er de fysisk segregerte arbeids- og aktivitetstilbudene som dominerer, i form av dagsentra og varig tilrettelagte arbeidstilbud. Tendensen synes sågar å gå i retning av en økende segregering. Et relativt beskjedent antall personer med en diagnose utviklingshemming, rundt 1300 personer på landsbasis, har sitt virke på en vanlig arbeidsplass, altså i en fysisk integrert setting sammen med ikke-funksjonshemmede.
(…)
Dagsentra og VTA (tilrettelagt arbeid) fremstilles langt på vei som ”standardløsningene” overfor utviklingshemmede og deres nærpersoner. De som ønsker å prøve noe annet opplever å måtte ”kjempe mot systemet” for å få forsøke seg i andre typer av arbeidsmarkedstilbud.

Mens arbeid oppleves som viktig, føler noen utviklingshemmede at det er flaut og skambelagt å jobbe på disse stedene, sier han til forskning.no.

Terje Olsen er blitt intervjuet i nyeste utgaven av Fontene Forskning, som blir utgitt av Fellesforbundet. Han jobber i Nordlandsforskning og har tidligere bl.a. undersøkt helsetjenestene til samer i Tysfjord og fangers jobbmuligheter etter soning. I 1993 dro han på sitt første feltarbeid – til vestkysten av Grønland.

>> Riper i lakken- Intervju med Terje Olsen (Fontene forskning)

>> – Snevert tilbud for utviklingshemmede (forskning.no)

>> last ned doktoravhandlingen “Versjoner av arbeid. Dagaktivitet og arbeid etter avviklingen av institusjonsomsorgen”

SE OGSÅ:

– Mangfald er på moten, men kravet til normalitet er skjerpa

Kulturens forakt for svakhet – eller: Hva er normalt?

Fengslende frihet – GEMINI om det nye arbeidslivet

– For mer fabrikkantropologi

Flere utviklingshemmede enn i dag kan få jobber på vanlige arbeidsplasser når det legges til rette for dem. Men tendensen går i retning økende segregering, viser antropolog Terje Olsen i sin doktorgradsavhandling "Versjoner av arbeid. Dagaktivitet og arbeid etter avviklingen…

Read more

Minoritetsforeldre: Engasjerte men umyndiggjort

(via monica-five-aarset.blogspot.com) Såkalt “minoritetsungdom” får mye oppmerksomhet i den offentlige debatten. Men foreldrenes situasjon er underbelyst – også i forskningslitteraturen. Dette skal rapporten “Foreldreskap og ungdoms livsvalg i en migrasjonskontekst“, skrevet av antropologene Monica Five Aarset og Miriam Latif Sandbæk, endre på.

Antropologene fra Institutt for samfunnsforskning har intervjuet foreldre med bakgrunn fra Irak (Kurdistan), Kongo, Pakistan, Somalia og Tyrkia.

Rapporten viser at foreldrene er engasjerte i sine barns situasjon. Flere av dem var aktive i foreldrenes arbeidsutvalg (FAU) og noen også i barnas fritidsaktiviteter. Men samtidig føler de seg umyndiggjort. Grunnen er det norske samfunnets fokus på barnas rettigheter og forestillingen om at “minoritetsforeldre” er for kontrollerende. Dette igjen kan føre til at foreldrene blir strengere og mer kontrollerende overfor barna sine, sier Monica Five Aarset til Aftenposten.

Forskerne skriver:

Intervjuene viste at den tvang/frihet-diskursen som er dominerende i forståelsen av minoritetsfamilier i den norske debatten, hvor minoriteten assosieres med «tvang» og majoriteten med «frihet», og den underkommuniseringen av avhengighet og grenser, bidrar til at flere foreldre oppfattet det norske samfunnet som nærmest likegyldig og grenseløst når det gjaldt synet på hvordan ungdom skal oppdras, noe de opplevde som skremmende.
(…)
Foreldrenes største bekymringer var knyttet til redsel for at barna skulle havne i dårlig miljø, at de ikke skulle klare seg på skolen og at de skulle få alkohol- og rusproblemer.
(…)
Skolen ble av mange av foreldrene sett på som «barna beskytter» mot foreldrene og som en aktør som kunne virke splittende på foreldre-barn relasjonen, og ble derfor muligens ikke sett på som en potensiell støttespiller for foreldrene i en del verdibrytninger og -konflikter.

>> last ned rapporten

>> mer info om rapporten

>> Føler seg umyndiggjort (Bergensavisen)

SE OGSÅ:

Fri diktning om vold mot barn i “innvandrerfamilier”

Omskjæring: Antropolog advarer mot heksejakt

(via monica-five-aarset.blogspot.com) Såkalt "minoritetsungdom" får mye oppmerksomhet i den offentlige debatten. Men foreldrenes situasjon er underbelyst - også i forskningslitteraturen. Dette skal rapporten "Foreldreskap og ungdoms livsvalg i en migrasjonskontekst", skrevet av antropologene Monica Five Aarset og Miriam Latif Sandbæk,…

Read more