- Email: [email protected]
The ecological model and the study of child abuse in Nigeria
ChildAbuse& Negkw, Vol. 13, pp. 379-387, Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
1989 Copyright
0145-2134/89$3.00+ .oa 8 1989 Pergamon Press plc
THE ECOLOGICAL MODEL AND THE STUDY OF CHILD ABUSE IN NIGERIA E. B. WILSON-OYELARAN Department
of Psychology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Be-Ife, Oyo State, Nigeria
Abstract-Physical abuse and exploitative child labor are two common forms of child abuse in Nigeria. Exploitative child labor exists in both the formal and informal sectors where children work as hairdressers, beggars’ assistants, hawkers, and as factory and agricultural workers under conditions characterized by long hours, hazardous environment, and meager remuneration. Research on the incidence of physical abuse in Nigeria is less systematic, and few empirical studies are available. Physical abuse is primarily the result of corporal punishment which has become excessive. Poverty and the existence of a dependent capitalist economy are often proffered as the primary causes of child abuse. While both explanations have some validity, their unidimensional nature limits their explanatory capacity. These explanations also lead to the belief that very little can be done to improve the quality of children’s lives until the social order is restructured. The ecological model proposes that child abuse can best be understood if it is analyzed multidimensionally with emphasis on the individual, family, social environment, and cultural milieau, as well as the dynamic interaction between these levels. This model appears appropriate for the study of child abuse in Nigeria, and its application is advocated as a vehicle for improving the quality ofchild abuse research.
INTRODUCTION RESEARCH IN CHILD ABUSE and neglect is a relatively recent phenomenon world wide; however, in Nigeria it is only within the last decade that scholarly interest has been generated. Consequently, the research suffers from many of the limitations associated with child abuse and neglect studies in other societies. Zigler (1979) has noted that theoretical and empirical research in the area is “primitive, rudimentary and recent.” These comments describe the state of the art in Nigeria. As social concern for child abuse and neglect increases, there is likelihood that the govemmentor other agencies will seek appropriate avenues for intervention. Without a solid theoretical understanding of the problem backed by empirical support such intervention is likely to be haphazard. This paper examines the currently emerging ecological model of child abuse and neglect and evaluates its utility in Nigeria with particular reference to two types of abuse, exploitative child labor and physical abuse. The problems in defining child abuse and neglect relate to three underlying issues: First, what types of harm are to be considered abuse? Many individuals have argued that child abuse refers to physical harm only (Parke & Collner, 1975). Others argue that all forms of child maltreatment (for example, emotional abuse and child labor) constitute child abuse (Alvy, 1975). Gil (1975) argues that any action which impedes a child’s development should be considered abuse. Second, who abuses? Is child abuse descriptive of the behavior of parents Presented at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Seminar on Crime and Social Control in Nigeria, July 27-30, 1987, Obafemi Awolowo University, Be-Be. Received for publication January 11, 1988; final revision received August 24, 1988; accepted September 6, 1988. Reprint requests may be sent to Dr. E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran, Department of Education, North Carolina Wesleyan College, 3400 Wesleyan Blvd., Rocky Mount, NC 27804. 379
380
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
and those acting in loco parentis only, or can abuse also describe the action of employees, governments, or society at large? Third, is there a universal standard against which child maltreatment is to be determined or is maltreatment a relative term determined primarily by the norms and conventions of a particular culture? In spite of the above complexities, at a recent UNICEF/NISER conference participants generally agreed that child abuse and neglect “in Nigeria’s circumstance,” was implied by any of the three following conditions: (1) neglect of the child’s survival and developmental needs; (2) physical or emotional injury or harassment; and (3) subjecting a child to measures, situations, and experiences which interfere with a child’s healthy development towards adulthood (e.g., labor which overworks the child and/or interferes with the child’s participation in formal education, child marriage, etc.) (Akeredolu-Ale, 1986). Conferees also agreed that not only individuals but also the government or the entire society could commit child abuse. Such an all encompassing description incorporates a wide variety of mistreatment, for example, physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, abandonment, educational neglect. etc. Each type of mistreatment may have a different etiology and a different set of psychosocial dynamics and consequences. There is considerable evidence to indicate that all categories of child abuse and neglect exist in Nigeria today (Jinadu, 1986). However, this discussion will be confined to exploitative child labor and physical abuse. Exploirutive
Child Labor
Socializing children into the world of work by increasing their roles in productive activity is common in most rural communities in Nigeria. Children participate in family agriculture and food production according to their ability from as early as 3 years of age. This activity is not seen as work but as “training,” and the child acquires a sense of competence from performing such tasks successfully. Exploitative child labor goes far beyond these situations. Dyorough ( 1986, May) makes a distinction between labor within and outside the family context and argues that work outside the family context is more likely to be exploitative; however, this distinction may not be as sensitive as the author suggests. Ewuruigwe (1986) reports a high degree of exploitative child labor in family-run economic activities. Exploitative child labor may be defined by both or only one of the following conditions: (1) The work performed by children under 15 years of age interferes with their developmental, health, and educational needs; (2) the child is not remunerated adequately for his labor, has no access to his remuneration, or no decision-making role in the determination of how the remuneration will be used. The Nigerian Labor Act of 1974, Section 58 ( 1) attempts to protect children from such exploitative situations. Nwogagu ( 1986) states: Under the Act. no child shall be employed or work in any capacity except where he is employed by a member of his family on light work of an agricultural. horticultural, or domestic character approved by the Minister. Such child shall not in any case be required to lift. carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to injure his physical development. Generally, no young person under the age of fifteen years shall be employed or work in any industrial undertaking. The Act prohibits the employment of young persons under the age of sixteen to work underground, on machine work or on public holidays, In addition, it is prescribed that no young person shall be employed in any employment which is injurious to his health, dangerous or immoral. Lastly, there is a general ban on the employment of young persons during the night, The contravention of these prohibitions constitutes an offense punishable on conviction with fine or imprisonment.
Of all the categories of child abuse and neglect in Nigeria, exploitative ceived perhaps the greatest attention. Most studies focus on a particular within a confined geographic area, e.g., street trading in Enugu (Ebigbo
child labor has retype of child labor & Izuora, 1985) or
Child abuse in Nigeria
381
beggars’ assistants in Jos (Dyorough, 1986, November). Alternatively, the focus is on all forms of child labor within a given geographical area, for example, Choba, Port Harcourt (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Although these studies do not provide reliable data regarding the incidence of exploitative child labor, they provide a useful picture of the type of labor in which children are engaged and the variety of conditions which they face. Exploitative child labor can be found in a variety of work situations in both the formal and informal sectors. Among the most common are beggars’ assistants, street hawkers, load carriers, house maids, hotel workers, apprentice mechanics, tailors, hairdressers, factory laborers, and commercial agricultural laborers. For the most part, the conditions are characterized by long working hours, hazardous environments, exposure to crime and harassment, and meager remuneration. In a study of 34 children working in Central Motor Park, Jos, Dyorough (1986, May) reports that children working as conductors (i.e., assistants to bus drivers) labor from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. with few breaks. In addition, he notes that the weight borne by load carriers is hazardous to their health and may result in stunted physical growth. Most girls, but especially street hawkers, hotel/bar maids, and house maids, are often subjected to sexual abuse in addition to long working hours and little remuneration. Ewuruigwe ( 1986) reports that child traders, hotel workers, and street hawkers who attend school begin work as early as 4:30 in the morning. These children may break at 8:30 a.m. for school, only to resume work in the afternoon. In many cases they do not cease work until 10 at night. It is difficult to determine what percentage of child workers are enrolled in school and of those enrolled, how regular their attendance is. Some children report they drop in and out of school depending on their finances. Others are drop outs who aspire to return. Some have never had any form of formal education. The children receive very low wages over which, in many cases, they have no control. The average commission for beggar is N 1.49 daily (Dyorough, 1986, November). Hotel workers make approximately N30.00 per month with meals and tips in addition. Petty traders selling fruits, biscuits, and nuts net approximately N 12.00 per month, while kiosk operators make N30.00 (one U.S. dollar exchanges for four naira). These funds are used to augment the family income, pay school fees, and provide for the general maintenance of the child and his siblings. In come cases, these children never see the funds which instead are given to parents or “recruiters.” Exploitative child labor is not without its own problems. When asked about their work, the majority of street traders report that they like it although they fear the physical hazards of their work (Okpara, 1986; Oloko, 1986). These children wish that they had more time to play, to study, and to attend school. At the same time the funds they contribute to the family income give these child workers a sense of competence and pride. The available data indicate that a child is as likely to be engaged in exploitative child labor by his own parent as by a nonrelated adult (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Furthermore, children of the elite are rarely found among exploited child workers. Schildkrout (1978) reports that the economic status of the father is negatively correlated with exploitative child labor. Thus, the phenomenon is associated with lower class status in both rural and urban communities.
Physical Child Abuse Physical abuse of children creates a substantial risk of other serious physical injuries child battering, torture, and which are not normative and The data with reference to
is defined as an action inflicted nonaccidentally which causes or causing disfigurement, impairment of bodily functioning, and (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). In Nigeria, such actions include child homicide. They may also extend to ritualistic practices which result in injury to the child. physical abuse in Nigeria must be described as less than system-
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
382
atic. However, evidence ofthis type of maltreatment can be gleaned from three sources: newspaper accounts, conceptual discussions of child abuse, and a few empirical studies. These reports clearly indicate that a major portion of physical abuse in Nigeria is a consequence of attempts at discipline which have become excessive resulting in bodily harm to the child. Harsh disciplinary measures are generally recognized as common and normative in Nigeria (Durojaiye, 1976). The most common forms involve corporal punishment administered by hand or with aid of sticks or whips; verbal abuse, including rebukes, humiliating statements and curses; or a combination of corporal punishment and verbal assault (Wilson, 1978: Afamefuna & Wilson, 1985). While such actions are normative, it is possible for any of them to result in physical maltreatment of the child. The most notorious of such cases, many of which result in child death, are reported in the newspapers: Hauwa Abubakar, the 12-year-old child bride, whose legs were amputated to keep her from running away and who eventually died; a 3-year-old male child beaten to death because he stole meat from a neighbor’s soup pot; a 7-year-old child killed by her father because she was believed to be a witch: a secondary school student in Benin city beaten to death by the school’s disciplinary master because he was caught gambling. The question, for every case reported how many remain undetected, becomes more salient when one recognizes that those cases brought to public attention through the press are the few which have been officially reported to the law enforcement agencies. The child who is repeatedly battered, who is mutilated for stealing, or who is continually denied food as a punishment, is hidden from the eyes of the police, the journalists. and the public at large. Jinadu (1986) Kalu (1986) and Okeahialam (1982) note that harsh physical punishment and aggression against children are among the most common forms of child maltreatment in Nigeria. When primary 6 children in Anambra State were asked to define and describe child abuse, Maduewesi ( 1986) reports that 19% equated child abuse with beating and harsh physical punishment. In a survey of University of Ife undergraduates, severe beating ranked first as the most common form of child abuse in Nigeria. In a systematic study of incidence conducted at UNTH (Enugu) between 1970- 1972, after careful screening, 2% of all accident cases involving children 10 years and under were determined to be physical abuse. Children under 4 years of age accounted for one-third of these cases (Nwako, 1979). Most cases involved repeated multiple trauma inflicted by flagellation or battery from associated blunt instruments, or caused by burns. At least 39% of the children sustained permanent disfigurement, while 6% died. The majority of children were abused by their parents or guardians and SES was unrelated to incidence of abuse.
Theoretical Framework To explain contradictory utilized.
such behavior in a society known for its love of children several theoretical frameworks, each with considerable empirical support,
apparently have been
Thepsychologicalperspective. The psychological perspective presumes that the causative factor is the psychologically malfunctioning parent who can be identified by a series of contributory characteristics. According to Roscoe and his associates ( 1979), low self-esteem (Keleta & Wise, 1976) a history of childhood abuse or childhood emotional neglect, inflexibility and intolerance for frustration and criticism (e.g., Blumberg, 1974) are a few of the factors which characterize abusive parents. Sociological perspective. Conversely, sociological theories stress the importance tors in the etiology of abuse and neglect. Societal values (for example, tolerance
of social facfor violence),
Child abuse in Nigeria
383
and economic conditions (particularly poverty) are perceived as the foundations of child maltreatment. High correlations have been found between abuse and the following social factors: lower class status, social isolation, and unemployment (Roscoe, Callahan, & Poterson, 1985). Interactive theories. Interactive theories examine faulty interaction between the parent and child (Light, 1973). Within this framework characteristics of the child which may predispose him to abuse are considered. Prematurity, chronic illness, and the child’s temperament may all predispose him to abuse (Belsky, 1980). The ecological model. The ecological model (Belsky, 1980; Howze & Ketch, 1984; Garbarino, 1977) attempts to fuse the findings of these earlier perspectives to develop a more unified explanation of child mistreatment. Based on Brofenbrenner’s ( 1979) ecology of human development, the model proposes that child abuse and neglect can only be understood if it is analyzed from a perspective which incorporates the previously disparate levels ofanalysis, namely the individual, the family, the social environment, and the cultural milieu, and also examines the dynamic interactions both between and within each level. The individual brings to every encounter his biological and psychological make-up as well as his past history, each of which combine to make him what he is at any particular moment. As noted above, certain biological and psychological characteristics when combined with a specific type of behavioral history may predispose an individual to abuse or to be abused. Parents, children, and other relations bring these individual attributes to the family, the arena of their interaction. The structure and function of the family, its emotional climate and stability, the level of social isolation or support as well as the patterns of interaction, particularly those with reference to conflict resolution and aggression, create an environment which significantly influences whether one’s predisposition to abuse or to be abused is realized. A central premise ofthe ecological model is that the individual and the family are embedded in a social environment and a cultural milieu which exert considerable influence upon their development and functioning. At the social environment level, emphasis is placed on stress generating social factors which may stimulate abuse and neglect, and on the availability of formal and informal support systems which mediate both the social factors and the predispositions emanating from the individual and family systems. Salient are variables related to the social and economic resources which the family has at its disposal. Thus, emphasis is placed on analysis of socioeconomic indicators, social networks, and social support, as well as on more pervasive social variables (for example, government policy, social change, etc.). According to Spearly and Lauderdale ( 1983) examination of community-related variables provides an index of a particular neighborhood’s ability to offer material and social support for families. Availability of material support is associated with the quality of housing, rate of unemployment, and presence of economic resources in the area. Social support, on the other hand, may be determined by social cohesiveness, participation in community activities, extended family and friendship ties, and the availability and utilization of community services, e.g., day care. Such factors appear to be independent of SES indicators. Other forces of the societal level which have impact on abuse and neglect include both unemployment and employment experiences. Belsky ( 1980) suggests that unemployment may affect child abuse not merely by decreasing family financial resources. The increase in family violence associated with unemployment may be partially explained by increased frustration, a sense of powerlessness, and humiliation generated by the change of status, or simply by increased parent-child contact. Likewise one’s work experience, particularly the level of job satisfaction, has also been implicated in abuse and neglect. Finally, analysis of the role of the social environment in the etiology of abuse and neglect
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
384
involves examination of the larger social milieu, particularly the structure of the economy, political, social and economic policy, and the quantity and direction of social change. The ideological fabric of the society as manifested in its cultural values and norms influences the individual, the family, and the society, and may also contribute to child abuse and neglect. Scholars have isolated attitudes to violence and to corporal punishment as well as attitudes about children as aspects of the cultural milieu which may promote or discourage mistreatment. Not only must such attitudes be considered before intervention, but the dynamics of their influence on other systems must be articulated with precision.
THE
ECOLOGICAL
MODEL
AND
CHILD
MISTREATMENT
IN NIGERIA
The dearth of systematic investigation of child abuse makes it very difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the ecological model in the Nigerian context. However, a review of the model in light of explanations of child mistreatment indicates a variety of areas for investigation.
Exploitative Child Labor The etiology of exploitative child labor is usually attributed to poverty (Okpara, 1986) or to a dependent capitalist economy (Dyorough, 1986, May: Ewuruigwe, 1986). Okpara ( 1986) suggests that parents involve or allow their children to be involved in exploitative conditions as a consequence of poverty. By implication, a reduction in poverty will bring about a reduction in exploitative child labor. As compelling as the argument may be, it has serious limitations. First, exploitative child labor is not endemic in all societies characterized by poverty. The incidence of exploitative child labor in all classes ofCuban society is negligible in spite ofthe presence of poverty (Wald, 1978). Second, this explanation fails to examine the relationship between the existence of poverty and the larger structure of the national and global economy. That is, it fails to ask the question, what is the cause of poverty in our contemporary situation? Finally, the poverty thesis does not address the issue of where and how the market for exploitative child labor is generated. The poor do not create the market for cheap labor. Without demand such exploitation would not be possible. Careful explanation of exploitative child labor requires an understanding of more than national and personal poverty. The political economy approach appears more appropriate in explaining exploitative child labor which is described as the outgrowth of the mode of production and the social relations of production operant in a dependent capitalist economy. The demands of the system of production create a need for cheap labor. The organization of capitalist society results in the presence of impoverished classes whose very survival depends heavily upon the benefits, financial and other, which are an outgrowth of the exploitation of their own children. Exploitative child labor performs two functions in undeveloped capitalist economies. It satisfies the need for cheap labor and profit maximization in both the formal and informal sectors while allowing families marginalized by the structure of the economy to survive. A by-product of the latter function, according to the thesis, is dampening of the nascent resistance of the marginalized groups (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Both the poverty and the political economy theses focus solely on the social environment. In addition, each singles out only one aspect of this level of analysis. Such explanations may result in over simplification of the problem and may leave several facts unanswered. Furthermore, they do not provide concepts which may assist those concerned with improving the lot of children who live within the present socioeconomic framework.
Child abuse in Nigeria
3x5
The ecological model may be useful in attempting to determine those factors which lead to exploitative child labor in some marginalized families but not in others. This is not meant to imply that exploitative child labor is the result of free choice or preference on the part of parents who are selecting between a variety of available alternatives. At the level of the individual child it may be useful to determine whether all the children within a particular family are likely to be exploited in this manner and also to isolate those factors which are indicators (for example, academic performance, age, sex, birth order) and psychological variables (such as social responsibility, deferred gratification, and achievement motive). How might such child variables interact with factors of family size, parent’s childhood work experience, and the cultural value which defines children’s work as “training” to generate exploitative child labor? A critical explanatory factor in the social environment appears to be the presence of material and social support. Can incidence of exploitative maltreatment be differentiated on the basis of the availability of formal and informal social and material assistance? The assumption that extended family ties and fostering among relatives militate against exploitative child labor requires verification in light of general socioeconomic changes, particularly the harsh economic situation of the last three to five years. At the cultural level, the view that profits are more important than people is rapidly gaining ground in most segments of Nigerian society. Although it is an outgrowth of the economic system, this ethos is developing a life of its own. Not only will it make the exploitation of children more acceptable, it will also predispose employers and families to participate in the exploitation of children.
Physical Abuse The etiology of physical abuse has been traced to broken homes, large families, and the breakdown of extended family support (Jinadu, 1986). Also implicated are overcrowding and presence of handicaps in the child (Jinadu, 1986), as well as acceptance of harsh corporal punishment as a normative disciplinary method (Kalu, 1986). When compared to the etiological explanations of exploitative child labor, the formulations concerning physical are more multifaceted but not necessarily ecological in that no attempt has been made to integrate the various features into an interrelated whole. As in the case of child labor, the empirical verification is limited. Although the ecological model has import for several types of investigation, a critical analysis of the importance of lack of social support in the etiology of physical abuse merits systematic examination. Several studies conducted in the United States suggest that when poverty has been implicated in the incidence of child abuse it is almost always accompanied by an absence of social support (Spearly & Lauderdale, 1983). The presence of material support was found to mediate against neglect but not abuse. In discussing the absence of social support in Nigeria, emphasis is usually placed on the decline of the extended family and urban isolation. The significance of government policy for the ecology of abuse has for the most part been neglected. Economic policies of the last decade have increased both financial problems and stress at the levels of the individual and the family. The inability of government to utilize its power and authority to insure that every adult who wishes to work is able to do so and the decision to revamp the economy ci la the dictates of the international monetary cartel have for the most part had negative impact on the lives of families and individuals. Inability to successfully adjust to these adversities may contribute to the predisposition to abuse generally, but especially among those families where parents have a childhood history of abuse. Simultaneously, government policy with respect to development, education, and health has diminished the effectiveness of existent support systems in mediating the individual predispo-
386
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
sitions and family crises that may generate abuse. Neglect of rural areas in development planning has been a major determinant of the rural-urban migration which has led to isolation, overcrowding and de facto female-headed households. Each of these phenomena is implicated in the decline of the extended family and, by extension, child abuse. Education, health care, and child care can be classified as institutional social networks which provide support for the parenting process. To the degree that access to these supports is a function of income, families in poverty are excluded from participation. Recent cutbacks in health care, reimposition of school fees, and failure of the government to provide child care for working mothers represent actions of government which reduce the social supports available to all low income families and many so-called middle class families. In the ecology of abuse, government policy which prevents families from catering adequately to the welfare of their children provides the backdrop for continued physical abuse. It may actually instigate such abuse.
CONCLUSION The ecological model provides a holistic and comprehensive approach which appears appropriate for the systematic study of abuse and neglect in Nigeria. The execution of such studies, however, presupposes ability to identify the abused and the exploited with some degree of reliability. This constitutes a major challenge which requires the awareness and mobilization of government and private agencies as well as the general community. Acceptance of the ecological model does not imply a rejection of the political economy thesis that fundamental restructuring ofthe society is a prerequisite for the primary prevention of exploitative child labor and physical abuse. However, research based on the model will allow those committed to improving the lives of children to effectively evaluate this social phenomenon within the present circumstance and devise informed and intelligent intervention strategies. Hopefully, such efforts will not diminish their attempts to effect more longterm solutions.
REFERENCES Afamefuna, G. C., & Wilson, E. B. (1985, April). Perceptions of child abuse and neglect among University ofI_e students. Paper presented at the National Conference on Human Behavior and the Challenges ofNational Development. Be-Ife, Nigeria. Akeredolu-Ale, E. 0. (I 986). Appropriate indicators, sources of data and strategyfor monitoring the status of children and mothers in Nigeria. Final report of the UNICEF/NISER Experts’ Workshop. Ibadan: NISER. Alvy, K. (1975). Preventing child abuse. American Psychologist, 30,92 l-927, BeIsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35,320-335. Blumburg, M. L. ( 1974). Psychopathology of the abusing parent. American Journal OfPsychotherapy, 28,2 I-29. Brofenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Durojaiye, M. 0. A. (1976). A new introduction to educationalpsychology. Ibadan: Evans. Dyorough, A. E. ( 1986, November). Beggars and beggars’ assistants: An analysis of the use of children by beggrs in Jos metropolis. Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Dyorough, A. E. (1986, May). The problematics of child labor and exploitation in Nigeria. In Child labor in Africa (pp. 45-5 1). Proceedings of the Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Ebigbo, P., & Izuora, G. I. (1985). Child labor in market places in Enugu. In N. 0. Buribo and P. M. Onyago (Eds.), Children in especially disadvantaged circumstances. Nairobi: UNICEF. Ewuruigwe, F. A. (1986, May). Exploitation of child labor in Choba, Port Harcourt: A political economy approach. In Child labor in Africa (pp. 26-33). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of maltreatment: A conceptual model for research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39,721-735.
Child abuse in Nigeria
387
Gil, D. G. (1975). Unravelling child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45.346-356. Giovannoni. J.. & Becerra. R. I1979). Definina child abuse. New York: The Free Press. Howze, D. C., & Ketch, J. B. (i984).‘Di&ta&ing life events, stress, and social support: Implications for the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8,40 l-409. Jinadu, M. K. (1986).Combating child abuse and neglect in developing and newly industrializing countries: A unique primary health care approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, I I5- 120. K&u, W.J. (I 986, May)..Emotional abuse and neglect in contemporary Nigerian family: A reassessment of parenthood skills. In Child Labor in Africa (DD. 96- 103). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Wopkshop. Enugu: ANPPCAN. Keleta, T., & Wise, J. H. (1976). An MMPI comparison ofchild abuse with two groups of criminal offenders. Journal ofpediatric Psychology, 1,77-86. Light, R. J. (1973).Abused and neglected children in America: A study of alternative policies. Harvard Educational Review, 43,556-598. Maduewesi, E. (1986, November). The child’s concept ofabuse and neglect. Presented at First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Nwako, F. A. (1979). Child abuse syndrome in Nigeria. Medicine, Social Science & Law, 2, I30- 133. Nwogagu, E. I. (1986, November). Legal dimensions ofchild abuse and neglect in Nigeria (p. 8). Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Okeahialam, T. C. (1982, September). Child abuse in Nigeria. Paper read at the Fourth International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect. Paris. Okpara, E. (1986, May). Child labor as a significant characteristic of the culture of poverty in Nigeria: Implications for social policy. Child labor in Africa (pp. 52-63). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Oloko, A. (1986,November). Street children trading in Nigeria: Informal education, economic participation, or child abuse. Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin: ANPPCAN. Parke, R. D., & Collner, C. W. (1975). Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In M. E. Hetherinton (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roscoe, B., Callahan, J. E., & Poterson, K. L. (1985). Who is responsible? Adolescents’ acceptance of theoretical child abuse models. Adolescence, 7, 189-197. Schildkrout, E. (1978). Age and gender in Hausa society: Socioeconomic roles of children in urban Kano. In J. S. Lafontaine (Ed.), Sex and age asprinciples of social differentiation. New York: Academic Press. Spearly, J. L., & Lauderdale, M. (1983). Community characteristics and ethnicity in the prediction ofchild maltreatment rates. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7,9 I - 105. Wald, K. ( 1978). Children of Che child care and education in Cuba. Palo Alto, CA: Ramparts. Wilson, E. B. (1973). Social control and childhood among the Yoruba ofNigeria. Unpublished M.A. critique. Claremont. Zigler, E. F. (1979) Controlling child abuse in America: An effort doomed to failure. In Gil, D. (Ed.), Child abuse and violence. New York: AMS.
Resume-L’exploitation de I’enfant par la travail et les s&ices physiques est frequemment observee au Nigeria. L’auteur kudie la litterature existant sur le sujet et examine les quelques explications etiologiques, en particuher la pauvrete et les problemes politico-economiques. II ne fait pas de dome que la structure socio-economique dominante au Nigeria et ses tendances de diveloppement social offrent un contexte dans lequel il est facile d’exploiter les enfants comme travailleurs et qui est favorabie aux &ices physiques. Ainsi, la these de la politique iconomique semble Ctre la bonne, mais il faut toutefois noter qu’elle presente plusieurs limites. En effet, I’explication est unidimensionnelle et incapable de foumir des don&es qui puissent &re utiles i ceux qui tentent d’amiliorer la vie des enfants au sein des structures socio&onomiques actuelles. 11existe done un besoin d’analyse multidimensionnelle qui in&e mieux les don&es. 11faudrait employer une approche bologique ainsi qu’un modele qui posent les problemes de recherche i effectuer; un tel modele est d&it. L’auteur supgere que ce modele ecologique pourra foumir un canevas et un cadre de travail capables d’ameliorer la qualiti de la recherche sur la maltraitance au Nigeria et r&her dans des strategies d’intervention plus realistes et mieux fond&es. Resumen-Se examina la documentation a nuestra disposition con respect0 a la explotacion de menores y el abuso fisico de1 niiio, ambos formas comunes del maltrato de1 niiio en Nigeria. Asimismo se examinan vatias explicaciones etiologicas de ambas formas de abuso, y las hipoteses de la pobreza y la economia politica coma factores causativos son examinadas criticamente, No cabe duda de que la estructura socio-economica de Nigeria y la politica social y de desarrollo que la acompaiian estimulan tanto la explotacion de1 trabajo de menores coma el abuso fisico, apoyando asi la hipotesis de la economia politica coma factor causative. Aunque reconocemos el caracter apropiado de esta hipotesis, se notan ciertas limitaciones de la misma, incluyando su caracter unidimensional y su incapacidad de generar datos que puedan ayudar a aqueilos que se preocupan de mejorar las vidas de 10s menores dentro de la presente estructura socio-economica. Se subraya la necesidad de un aproche integrativo y multidimensional de tipo ecologico y se identifican, basadas en el modelo, varias areas de investigation. El autor sugiere que el modelo ecologico provee un esquema que puede mejorar la cualidad de la investigacibn acerca de1 abuso de1 niiio en Nigeria y que puede resultar en estrategias de intervention mis informadas y realisticas.
1989 Copyright
0145-2134/89$3.00+ .oa 8 1989 Pergamon Press plc
THE ECOLOGICAL MODEL AND THE STUDY OF CHILD ABUSE IN NIGERIA E. B. WILSON-OYELARAN Department
of Psychology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Be-Ife, Oyo State, Nigeria
Abstract-Physical abuse and exploitative child labor are two common forms of child abuse in Nigeria. Exploitative child labor exists in both the formal and informal sectors where children work as hairdressers, beggars’ assistants, hawkers, and as factory and agricultural workers under conditions characterized by long hours, hazardous environment, and meager remuneration. Research on the incidence of physical abuse in Nigeria is less systematic, and few empirical studies are available. Physical abuse is primarily the result of corporal punishment which has become excessive. Poverty and the existence of a dependent capitalist economy are often proffered as the primary causes of child abuse. While both explanations have some validity, their unidimensional nature limits their explanatory capacity. These explanations also lead to the belief that very little can be done to improve the quality of children’s lives until the social order is restructured. The ecological model proposes that child abuse can best be understood if it is analyzed multidimensionally with emphasis on the individual, family, social environment, and cultural milieau, as well as the dynamic interaction between these levels. This model appears appropriate for the study of child abuse in Nigeria, and its application is advocated as a vehicle for improving the quality ofchild abuse research.
INTRODUCTION RESEARCH IN CHILD ABUSE and neglect is a relatively recent phenomenon world wide; however, in Nigeria it is only within the last decade that scholarly interest has been generated. Consequently, the research suffers from many of the limitations associated with child abuse and neglect studies in other societies. Zigler (1979) has noted that theoretical and empirical research in the area is “primitive, rudimentary and recent.” These comments describe the state of the art in Nigeria. As social concern for child abuse and neglect increases, there is likelihood that the govemmentor other agencies will seek appropriate avenues for intervention. Without a solid theoretical understanding of the problem backed by empirical support such intervention is likely to be haphazard. This paper examines the currently emerging ecological model of child abuse and neglect and evaluates its utility in Nigeria with particular reference to two types of abuse, exploitative child labor and physical abuse. The problems in defining child abuse and neglect relate to three underlying issues: First, what types of harm are to be considered abuse? Many individuals have argued that child abuse refers to physical harm only (Parke & Collner, 1975). Others argue that all forms of child maltreatment (for example, emotional abuse and child labor) constitute child abuse (Alvy, 1975). Gil (1975) argues that any action which impedes a child’s development should be considered abuse. Second, who abuses? Is child abuse descriptive of the behavior of parents Presented at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology Seminar on Crime and Social Control in Nigeria, July 27-30, 1987, Obafemi Awolowo University, Be-Be. Received for publication January 11, 1988; final revision received August 24, 1988; accepted September 6, 1988. Reprint requests may be sent to Dr. E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran, Department of Education, North Carolina Wesleyan College, 3400 Wesleyan Blvd., Rocky Mount, NC 27804. 379
380
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
and those acting in loco parentis only, or can abuse also describe the action of employees, governments, or society at large? Third, is there a universal standard against which child maltreatment is to be determined or is maltreatment a relative term determined primarily by the norms and conventions of a particular culture? In spite of the above complexities, at a recent UNICEF/NISER conference participants generally agreed that child abuse and neglect “in Nigeria’s circumstance,” was implied by any of the three following conditions: (1) neglect of the child’s survival and developmental needs; (2) physical or emotional injury or harassment; and (3) subjecting a child to measures, situations, and experiences which interfere with a child’s healthy development towards adulthood (e.g., labor which overworks the child and/or interferes with the child’s participation in formal education, child marriage, etc.) (Akeredolu-Ale, 1986). Conferees also agreed that not only individuals but also the government or the entire society could commit child abuse. Such an all encompassing description incorporates a wide variety of mistreatment, for example, physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, abandonment, educational neglect. etc. Each type of mistreatment may have a different etiology and a different set of psychosocial dynamics and consequences. There is considerable evidence to indicate that all categories of child abuse and neglect exist in Nigeria today (Jinadu, 1986). However, this discussion will be confined to exploitative child labor and physical abuse. Exploirutive
Child Labor
Socializing children into the world of work by increasing their roles in productive activity is common in most rural communities in Nigeria. Children participate in family agriculture and food production according to their ability from as early as 3 years of age. This activity is not seen as work but as “training,” and the child acquires a sense of competence from performing such tasks successfully. Exploitative child labor goes far beyond these situations. Dyorough ( 1986, May) makes a distinction between labor within and outside the family context and argues that work outside the family context is more likely to be exploitative; however, this distinction may not be as sensitive as the author suggests. Ewuruigwe (1986) reports a high degree of exploitative child labor in family-run economic activities. Exploitative child labor may be defined by both or only one of the following conditions: (1) The work performed by children under 15 years of age interferes with their developmental, health, and educational needs; (2) the child is not remunerated adequately for his labor, has no access to his remuneration, or no decision-making role in the determination of how the remuneration will be used. The Nigerian Labor Act of 1974, Section 58 ( 1) attempts to protect children from such exploitative situations. Nwogagu ( 1986) states: Under the Act. no child shall be employed or work in any capacity except where he is employed by a member of his family on light work of an agricultural. horticultural, or domestic character approved by the Minister. Such child shall not in any case be required to lift. carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to injure his physical development. Generally, no young person under the age of fifteen years shall be employed or work in any industrial undertaking. The Act prohibits the employment of young persons under the age of sixteen to work underground, on machine work or on public holidays, In addition, it is prescribed that no young person shall be employed in any employment which is injurious to his health, dangerous or immoral. Lastly, there is a general ban on the employment of young persons during the night, The contravention of these prohibitions constitutes an offense punishable on conviction with fine or imprisonment.
Of all the categories of child abuse and neglect in Nigeria, exploitative ceived perhaps the greatest attention. Most studies focus on a particular within a confined geographic area, e.g., street trading in Enugu (Ebigbo
child labor has retype of child labor & Izuora, 1985) or
Child abuse in Nigeria
381
beggars’ assistants in Jos (Dyorough, 1986, November). Alternatively, the focus is on all forms of child labor within a given geographical area, for example, Choba, Port Harcourt (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Although these studies do not provide reliable data regarding the incidence of exploitative child labor, they provide a useful picture of the type of labor in which children are engaged and the variety of conditions which they face. Exploitative child labor can be found in a variety of work situations in both the formal and informal sectors. Among the most common are beggars’ assistants, street hawkers, load carriers, house maids, hotel workers, apprentice mechanics, tailors, hairdressers, factory laborers, and commercial agricultural laborers. For the most part, the conditions are characterized by long working hours, hazardous environments, exposure to crime and harassment, and meager remuneration. In a study of 34 children working in Central Motor Park, Jos, Dyorough (1986, May) reports that children working as conductors (i.e., assistants to bus drivers) labor from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. with few breaks. In addition, he notes that the weight borne by load carriers is hazardous to their health and may result in stunted physical growth. Most girls, but especially street hawkers, hotel/bar maids, and house maids, are often subjected to sexual abuse in addition to long working hours and little remuneration. Ewuruigwe ( 1986) reports that child traders, hotel workers, and street hawkers who attend school begin work as early as 4:30 in the morning. These children may break at 8:30 a.m. for school, only to resume work in the afternoon. In many cases they do not cease work until 10 at night. It is difficult to determine what percentage of child workers are enrolled in school and of those enrolled, how regular their attendance is. Some children report they drop in and out of school depending on their finances. Others are drop outs who aspire to return. Some have never had any form of formal education. The children receive very low wages over which, in many cases, they have no control. The average commission for beggar is N 1.49 daily (Dyorough, 1986, November). Hotel workers make approximately N30.00 per month with meals and tips in addition. Petty traders selling fruits, biscuits, and nuts net approximately N 12.00 per month, while kiosk operators make N30.00 (one U.S. dollar exchanges for four naira). These funds are used to augment the family income, pay school fees, and provide for the general maintenance of the child and his siblings. In come cases, these children never see the funds which instead are given to parents or “recruiters.” Exploitative child labor is not without its own problems. When asked about their work, the majority of street traders report that they like it although they fear the physical hazards of their work (Okpara, 1986; Oloko, 1986). These children wish that they had more time to play, to study, and to attend school. At the same time the funds they contribute to the family income give these child workers a sense of competence and pride. The available data indicate that a child is as likely to be engaged in exploitative child labor by his own parent as by a nonrelated adult (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Furthermore, children of the elite are rarely found among exploited child workers. Schildkrout (1978) reports that the economic status of the father is negatively correlated with exploitative child labor. Thus, the phenomenon is associated with lower class status in both rural and urban communities.
Physical Child Abuse Physical abuse of children creates a substantial risk of other serious physical injuries child battering, torture, and which are not normative and The data with reference to
is defined as an action inflicted nonaccidentally which causes or causing disfigurement, impairment of bodily functioning, and (Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). In Nigeria, such actions include child homicide. They may also extend to ritualistic practices which result in injury to the child. physical abuse in Nigeria must be described as less than system-
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
382
atic. However, evidence ofthis type of maltreatment can be gleaned from three sources: newspaper accounts, conceptual discussions of child abuse, and a few empirical studies. These reports clearly indicate that a major portion of physical abuse in Nigeria is a consequence of attempts at discipline which have become excessive resulting in bodily harm to the child. Harsh disciplinary measures are generally recognized as common and normative in Nigeria (Durojaiye, 1976). The most common forms involve corporal punishment administered by hand or with aid of sticks or whips; verbal abuse, including rebukes, humiliating statements and curses; or a combination of corporal punishment and verbal assault (Wilson, 1978: Afamefuna & Wilson, 1985). While such actions are normative, it is possible for any of them to result in physical maltreatment of the child. The most notorious of such cases, many of which result in child death, are reported in the newspapers: Hauwa Abubakar, the 12-year-old child bride, whose legs were amputated to keep her from running away and who eventually died; a 3-year-old male child beaten to death because he stole meat from a neighbor’s soup pot; a 7-year-old child killed by her father because she was believed to be a witch: a secondary school student in Benin city beaten to death by the school’s disciplinary master because he was caught gambling. The question, for every case reported how many remain undetected, becomes more salient when one recognizes that those cases brought to public attention through the press are the few which have been officially reported to the law enforcement agencies. The child who is repeatedly battered, who is mutilated for stealing, or who is continually denied food as a punishment, is hidden from the eyes of the police, the journalists. and the public at large. Jinadu (1986) Kalu (1986) and Okeahialam (1982) note that harsh physical punishment and aggression against children are among the most common forms of child maltreatment in Nigeria. When primary 6 children in Anambra State were asked to define and describe child abuse, Maduewesi ( 1986) reports that 19% equated child abuse with beating and harsh physical punishment. In a survey of University of Ife undergraduates, severe beating ranked first as the most common form of child abuse in Nigeria. In a systematic study of incidence conducted at UNTH (Enugu) between 1970- 1972, after careful screening, 2% of all accident cases involving children 10 years and under were determined to be physical abuse. Children under 4 years of age accounted for one-third of these cases (Nwako, 1979). Most cases involved repeated multiple trauma inflicted by flagellation or battery from associated blunt instruments, or caused by burns. At least 39% of the children sustained permanent disfigurement, while 6% died. The majority of children were abused by their parents or guardians and SES was unrelated to incidence of abuse.
Theoretical Framework To explain contradictory utilized.
such behavior in a society known for its love of children several theoretical frameworks, each with considerable empirical support,
apparently have been
Thepsychologicalperspective. The psychological perspective presumes that the causative factor is the psychologically malfunctioning parent who can be identified by a series of contributory characteristics. According to Roscoe and his associates ( 1979), low self-esteem (Keleta & Wise, 1976) a history of childhood abuse or childhood emotional neglect, inflexibility and intolerance for frustration and criticism (e.g., Blumberg, 1974) are a few of the factors which characterize abusive parents. Sociological perspective. Conversely, sociological theories stress the importance tors in the etiology of abuse and neglect. Societal values (for example, tolerance
of social facfor violence),
Child abuse in Nigeria
383
and economic conditions (particularly poverty) are perceived as the foundations of child maltreatment. High correlations have been found between abuse and the following social factors: lower class status, social isolation, and unemployment (Roscoe, Callahan, & Poterson, 1985). Interactive theories. Interactive theories examine faulty interaction between the parent and child (Light, 1973). Within this framework characteristics of the child which may predispose him to abuse are considered. Prematurity, chronic illness, and the child’s temperament may all predispose him to abuse (Belsky, 1980). The ecological model. The ecological model (Belsky, 1980; Howze & Ketch, 1984; Garbarino, 1977) attempts to fuse the findings of these earlier perspectives to develop a more unified explanation of child mistreatment. Based on Brofenbrenner’s ( 1979) ecology of human development, the model proposes that child abuse and neglect can only be understood if it is analyzed from a perspective which incorporates the previously disparate levels ofanalysis, namely the individual, the family, the social environment, and the cultural milieu, and also examines the dynamic interactions both between and within each level. The individual brings to every encounter his biological and psychological make-up as well as his past history, each of which combine to make him what he is at any particular moment. As noted above, certain biological and psychological characteristics when combined with a specific type of behavioral history may predispose an individual to abuse or to be abused. Parents, children, and other relations bring these individual attributes to the family, the arena of their interaction. The structure and function of the family, its emotional climate and stability, the level of social isolation or support as well as the patterns of interaction, particularly those with reference to conflict resolution and aggression, create an environment which significantly influences whether one’s predisposition to abuse or to be abused is realized. A central premise ofthe ecological model is that the individual and the family are embedded in a social environment and a cultural milieu which exert considerable influence upon their development and functioning. At the social environment level, emphasis is placed on stress generating social factors which may stimulate abuse and neglect, and on the availability of formal and informal support systems which mediate both the social factors and the predispositions emanating from the individual and family systems. Salient are variables related to the social and economic resources which the family has at its disposal. Thus, emphasis is placed on analysis of socioeconomic indicators, social networks, and social support, as well as on more pervasive social variables (for example, government policy, social change, etc.). According to Spearly and Lauderdale ( 1983) examination of community-related variables provides an index of a particular neighborhood’s ability to offer material and social support for families. Availability of material support is associated with the quality of housing, rate of unemployment, and presence of economic resources in the area. Social support, on the other hand, may be determined by social cohesiveness, participation in community activities, extended family and friendship ties, and the availability and utilization of community services, e.g., day care. Such factors appear to be independent of SES indicators. Other forces of the societal level which have impact on abuse and neglect include both unemployment and employment experiences. Belsky ( 1980) suggests that unemployment may affect child abuse not merely by decreasing family financial resources. The increase in family violence associated with unemployment may be partially explained by increased frustration, a sense of powerlessness, and humiliation generated by the change of status, or simply by increased parent-child contact. Likewise one’s work experience, particularly the level of job satisfaction, has also been implicated in abuse and neglect. Finally, analysis of the role of the social environment in the etiology of abuse and neglect
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
384
involves examination of the larger social milieu, particularly the structure of the economy, political, social and economic policy, and the quantity and direction of social change. The ideological fabric of the society as manifested in its cultural values and norms influences the individual, the family, and the society, and may also contribute to child abuse and neglect. Scholars have isolated attitudes to violence and to corporal punishment as well as attitudes about children as aspects of the cultural milieu which may promote or discourage mistreatment. Not only must such attitudes be considered before intervention, but the dynamics of their influence on other systems must be articulated with precision.
THE
ECOLOGICAL
MODEL
AND
CHILD
MISTREATMENT
IN NIGERIA
The dearth of systematic investigation of child abuse makes it very difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the ecological model in the Nigerian context. However, a review of the model in light of explanations of child mistreatment indicates a variety of areas for investigation.
Exploitative Child Labor The etiology of exploitative child labor is usually attributed to poverty (Okpara, 1986) or to a dependent capitalist economy (Dyorough, 1986, May: Ewuruigwe, 1986). Okpara ( 1986) suggests that parents involve or allow their children to be involved in exploitative conditions as a consequence of poverty. By implication, a reduction in poverty will bring about a reduction in exploitative child labor. As compelling as the argument may be, it has serious limitations. First, exploitative child labor is not endemic in all societies characterized by poverty. The incidence of exploitative child labor in all classes ofCuban society is negligible in spite ofthe presence of poverty (Wald, 1978). Second, this explanation fails to examine the relationship between the existence of poverty and the larger structure of the national and global economy. That is, it fails to ask the question, what is the cause of poverty in our contemporary situation? Finally, the poverty thesis does not address the issue of where and how the market for exploitative child labor is generated. The poor do not create the market for cheap labor. Without demand such exploitation would not be possible. Careful explanation of exploitative child labor requires an understanding of more than national and personal poverty. The political economy approach appears more appropriate in explaining exploitative child labor which is described as the outgrowth of the mode of production and the social relations of production operant in a dependent capitalist economy. The demands of the system of production create a need for cheap labor. The organization of capitalist society results in the presence of impoverished classes whose very survival depends heavily upon the benefits, financial and other, which are an outgrowth of the exploitation of their own children. Exploitative child labor performs two functions in undeveloped capitalist economies. It satisfies the need for cheap labor and profit maximization in both the formal and informal sectors while allowing families marginalized by the structure of the economy to survive. A by-product of the latter function, according to the thesis, is dampening of the nascent resistance of the marginalized groups (Ewuruigwe, 1986). Both the poverty and the political economy theses focus solely on the social environment. In addition, each singles out only one aspect of this level of analysis. Such explanations may result in over simplification of the problem and may leave several facts unanswered. Furthermore, they do not provide concepts which may assist those concerned with improving the lot of children who live within the present socioeconomic framework.
Child abuse in Nigeria
3x5
The ecological model may be useful in attempting to determine those factors which lead to exploitative child labor in some marginalized families but not in others. This is not meant to imply that exploitative child labor is the result of free choice or preference on the part of parents who are selecting between a variety of available alternatives. At the level of the individual child it may be useful to determine whether all the children within a particular family are likely to be exploited in this manner and also to isolate those factors which are indicators (for example, academic performance, age, sex, birth order) and psychological variables (such as social responsibility, deferred gratification, and achievement motive). How might such child variables interact with factors of family size, parent’s childhood work experience, and the cultural value which defines children’s work as “training” to generate exploitative child labor? A critical explanatory factor in the social environment appears to be the presence of material and social support. Can incidence of exploitative maltreatment be differentiated on the basis of the availability of formal and informal social and material assistance? The assumption that extended family ties and fostering among relatives militate against exploitative child labor requires verification in light of general socioeconomic changes, particularly the harsh economic situation of the last three to five years. At the cultural level, the view that profits are more important than people is rapidly gaining ground in most segments of Nigerian society. Although it is an outgrowth of the economic system, this ethos is developing a life of its own. Not only will it make the exploitation of children more acceptable, it will also predispose employers and families to participate in the exploitation of children.
Physical Abuse The etiology of physical abuse has been traced to broken homes, large families, and the breakdown of extended family support (Jinadu, 1986). Also implicated are overcrowding and presence of handicaps in the child (Jinadu, 1986), as well as acceptance of harsh corporal punishment as a normative disciplinary method (Kalu, 1986). When compared to the etiological explanations of exploitative child labor, the formulations concerning physical are more multifaceted but not necessarily ecological in that no attempt has been made to integrate the various features into an interrelated whole. As in the case of child labor, the empirical verification is limited. Although the ecological model has import for several types of investigation, a critical analysis of the importance of lack of social support in the etiology of physical abuse merits systematic examination. Several studies conducted in the United States suggest that when poverty has been implicated in the incidence of child abuse it is almost always accompanied by an absence of social support (Spearly & Lauderdale, 1983). The presence of material support was found to mediate against neglect but not abuse. In discussing the absence of social support in Nigeria, emphasis is usually placed on the decline of the extended family and urban isolation. The significance of government policy for the ecology of abuse has for the most part been neglected. Economic policies of the last decade have increased both financial problems and stress at the levels of the individual and the family. The inability of government to utilize its power and authority to insure that every adult who wishes to work is able to do so and the decision to revamp the economy ci la the dictates of the international monetary cartel have for the most part had negative impact on the lives of families and individuals. Inability to successfully adjust to these adversities may contribute to the predisposition to abuse generally, but especially among those families where parents have a childhood history of abuse. Simultaneously, government policy with respect to development, education, and health has diminished the effectiveness of existent support systems in mediating the individual predispo-
386
E. B. Wilson-Oyelaran
sitions and family crises that may generate abuse. Neglect of rural areas in development planning has been a major determinant of the rural-urban migration which has led to isolation, overcrowding and de facto female-headed households. Each of these phenomena is implicated in the decline of the extended family and, by extension, child abuse. Education, health care, and child care can be classified as institutional social networks which provide support for the parenting process. To the degree that access to these supports is a function of income, families in poverty are excluded from participation. Recent cutbacks in health care, reimposition of school fees, and failure of the government to provide child care for working mothers represent actions of government which reduce the social supports available to all low income families and many so-called middle class families. In the ecology of abuse, government policy which prevents families from catering adequately to the welfare of their children provides the backdrop for continued physical abuse. It may actually instigate such abuse.
CONCLUSION The ecological model provides a holistic and comprehensive approach which appears appropriate for the systematic study of abuse and neglect in Nigeria. The execution of such studies, however, presupposes ability to identify the abused and the exploited with some degree of reliability. This constitutes a major challenge which requires the awareness and mobilization of government and private agencies as well as the general community. Acceptance of the ecological model does not imply a rejection of the political economy thesis that fundamental restructuring ofthe society is a prerequisite for the primary prevention of exploitative child labor and physical abuse. However, research based on the model will allow those committed to improving the lives of children to effectively evaluate this social phenomenon within the present circumstance and devise informed and intelligent intervention strategies. Hopefully, such efforts will not diminish their attempts to effect more longterm solutions.
REFERENCES Afamefuna, G. C., & Wilson, E. B. (1985, April). Perceptions of child abuse and neglect among University ofI_e students. Paper presented at the National Conference on Human Behavior and the Challenges ofNational Development. Be-Ife, Nigeria. Akeredolu-Ale, E. 0. (I 986). Appropriate indicators, sources of data and strategyfor monitoring the status of children and mothers in Nigeria. Final report of the UNICEF/NISER Experts’ Workshop. Ibadan: NISER. Alvy, K. (1975). Preventing child abuse. American Psychologist, 30,92 l-927, BeIsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35,320-335. Blumburg, M. L. ( 1974). Psychopathology of the abusing parent. American Journal OfPsychotherapy, 28,2 I-29. Brofenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Durojaiye, M. 0. A. (1976). A new introduction to educationalpsychology. Ibadan: Evans. Dyorough, A. E. ( 1986, November). Beggars and beggars’ assistants: An analysis of the use of children by beggrs in Jos metropolis. Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Dyorough, A. E. (1986, May). The problematics of child labor and exploitation in Nigeria. In Child labor in Africa (pp. 45-5 1). Proceedings of the Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Ebigbo, P., & Izuora, G. I. (1985). Child labor in market places in Enugu. In N. 0. Buribo and P. M. Onyago (Eds.), Children in especially disadvantaged circumstances. Nairobi: UNICEF. Ewuruigwe, F. A. (1986, May). Exploitation of child labor in Choba, Port Harcourt: A political economy approach. In Child labor in Africa (pp. 26-33). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of maltreatment: A conceptual model for research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39,721-735.
Child abuse in Nigeria
387
Gil, D. G. (1975). Unravelling child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45.346-356. Giovannoni. J.. & Becerra. R. I1979). Definina child abuse. New York: The Free Press. Howze, D. C., & Ketch, J. B. (i984).‘Di&ta&ing life events, stress, and social support: Implications for the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8,40 l-409. Jinadu, M. K. (1986).Combating child abuse and neglect in developing and newly industrializing countries: A unique primary health care approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, I I5- 120. K&u, W.J. (I 986, May)..Emotional abuse and neglect in contemporary Nigerian family: A reassessment of parenthood skills. In Child Labor in Africa (DD. 96- 103). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Wopkshop. Enugu: ANPPCAN. Keleta, T., & Wise, J. H. (1976). An MMPI comparison ofchild abuse with two groups of criminal offenders. Journal ofpediatric Psychology, 1,77-86. Light, R. J. (1973).Abused and neglected children in America: A study of alternative policies. Harvard Educational Review, 43,556-598. Maduewesi, E. (1986, November). The child’s concept ofabuse and neglect. Presented at First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Nwako, F. A. (1979). Child abuse syndrome in Nigeria. Medicine, Social Science & Law, 2, I30- 133. Nwogagu, E. I. (1986, November). Legal dimensions ofchild abuse and neglect in Nigeria (p. 8). Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin. Okeahialam, T. C. (1982, September). Child abuse in Nigeria. Paper read at the Fourth International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect. Paris. Okpara, E. (1986, May). Child labor as a significant characteristic of the culture of poverty in Nigeria: Implications for social policy. Child labor in Africa (pp. 52-63). Proceedings of the African Network for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN) Workshop. Enugu, Nigeria: ANPPCAN. Oloko, A. (1986,November). Street children trading in Nigeria: Informal education, economic participation, or child abuse. Paper presented at the First ANPPCAN National Workshop. Benin: ANPPCAN. Parke, R. D., & Collner, C. W. (1975). Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In M. E. Hetherinton (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roscoe, B., Callahan, J. E., & Poterson, K. L. (1985). Who is responsible? Adolescents’ acceptance of theoretical child abuse models. Adolescence, 7, 189-197. Schildkrout, E. (1978). Age and gender in Hausa society: Socioeconomic roles of children in urban Kano. In J. S. Lafontaine (Ed.), Sex and age asprinciples of social differentiation. New York: Academic Press. Spearly, J. L., & Lauderdale, M. (1983). Community characteristics and ethnicity in the prediction ofchild maltreatment rates. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7,9 I - 105. Wald, K. ( 1978). Children of Che child care and education in Cuba. Palo Alto, CA: Ramparts. Wilson, E. B. (1973). Social control and childhood among the Yoruba ofNigeria. Unpublished M.A. critique. Claremont. Zigler, E. F. (1979) Controlling child abuse in America: An effort doomed to failure. In Gil, D. (Ed.), Child abuse and violence. New York: AMS.
Resume-L’exploitation de I’enfant par la travail et les s&ices physiques est frequemment observee au Nigeria. L’auteur kudie la litterature existant sur le sujet et examine les quelques explications etiologiques, en particuher la pauvrete et les problemes politico-economiques. II ne fait pas de dome que la structure socio-economique dominante au Nigeria et ses tendances de diveloppement social offrent un contexte dans lequel il est facile d’exploiter les enfants comme travailleurs et qui est favorabie aux &ices physiques. Ainsi, la these de la politique iconomique semble Ctre la bonne, mais il faut toutefois noter qu’elle presente plusieurs limites. En effet, I’explication est unidimensionnelle et incapable de foumir des don&es qui puissent &re utiles i ceux qui tentent d’amiliorer la vie des enfants au sein des structures socio&onomiques actuelles. 11existe done un besoin d’analyse multidimensionnelle qui in&e mieux les don&es. 11faudrait employer une approche bologique ainsi qu’un modele qui posent les problemes de recherche i effectuer; un tel modele est d&it. L’auteur supgere que ce modele ecologique pourra foumir un canevas et un cadre de travail capables d’ameliorer la qualiti de la recherche sur la maltraitance au Nigeria et r&her dans des strategies d’intervention plus realistes et mieux fond&es. Resumen-Se examina la documentation a nuestra disposition con respect0 a la explotacion de menores y el abuso fisico de1 niiio, ambos formas comunes del maltrato de1 niiio en Nigeria. Asimismo se examinan vatias explicaciones etiologicas de ambas formas de abuso, y las hipoteses de la pobreza y la economia politica coma factores causativos son examinadas criticamente, No cabe duda de que la estructura socio-economica de Nigeria y la politica social y de desarrollo que la acompaiian estimulan tanto la explotacion de1 trabajo de menores coma el abuso fisico, apoyando asi la hipotesis de la economia politica coma factor causative. Aunque reconocemos el caracter apropiado de esta hipotesis, se notan ciertas limitaciones de la misma, incluyando su caracter unidimensional y su incapacidad de generar datos que puedan ayudar a aqueilos que se preocupan de mejorar las vidas de 10s menores dentro de la presente estructura socio-economica. Se subraya la necesidad de un aproche integrativo y multidimensional de tipo ecologico y se identifican, basadas en el modelo, varias areas de investigation. El autor sugiere que el modelo ecologico provee un esquema que puede mejorar la cualidad de la investigacibn acerca de1 abuso de1 niiio en Nigeria y que puede resultar en estrategias de intervention mis informadas y realisticas.