Young people’s participation within the family: Parents’ account

SMILJKA TOMANOVIĆ - MIHAJLOVIĆ

Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, Cika Ljubina

18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Young people’s participation within the family:

Parents’ account

The International Journal of Children’s Rights, Vol. 8. 2000: 151 – 167.

Abstract:

The article is based on the project on young people'sparticipation in family and in school as seen by theirparents, their teachers, and themselves. It deals withparticipation and participatory rights of seventeen-years-oldsfrom their parents' perspective. Parents' attitudes towardschildren's participation and rights were examined, as well astheir accounts concerning everyday practice within thefamilies. Participation in family life has been studiedthrough its three domains: the domain of communication, thedomain of choices and decisions, and the domain of involvementand cooperation. The research has shown that the majority ofparents do not perceive children's participation, particularlyin family life, as an important issue. Parents understandchildren's rights in relative terms: they should be given (bysomeone) or achieved (by status), rather than that they belongto young person by his/her mere existence. The research hasrevealed that there exist some changes towards morecomplementary and participative relations between parents andchildren: in communication openness, and children'sinvolvement in decision-making process through negotiations.Nevertheless, at most of the domains the prevailingrelationship is paternalistic and overprotective. It isparticularly apparent in the areas of dealing with familyproblems, the domestic work and obligations, and family

1

companionship. Young people are not confronted with open anddirect control and coercion, but with different strategies ofinfantilisation that they internalize. The combination oflittle significance given to children's rights andparticipation, the lack of "participative ethos", andpaternalistic strategies of overprotection andinfantilisation, has for the consequence that Yugoslavfamilies are still far from being true arenas for the trainingof participation in civil society.

2

Introduction

The article derived from the study, which is the joint project

of Yugoslav Child Rights Center, the Research Community

“Petnica”, and Save the Children Fund - Program for FR

Yugoslavia. The study is based on the research conducted by an

interdisciplinary team of psychologists, educationalists and

sociologists at ten towns in Yugoslavia in January 1999 (Pesic

et al., 1999)1. The study deals with secondary school

children’s rights to participate as seen by their parents,

teachers and themselves. The objectives were to explore the

attitudes towards participatory rights, as well as the reality

of young people’s participation in school and at home. The

study results are aimed to serve as the foundation of

different actions and activities in improving children’s

participation.

The subjects of the study were mostly seventeen-year-

olds. This particular age group of young people has been

chosen because they are the closest to legal maturity, forming

the group sometimes referred to as “not yets” (Verhellen,

1998). They are at the “threshold of adulthood” - “children

who are not children anymore”2. The significant novelty of the

project is young people’s participation in different phases of

its course. The young people: participants in the experimental

summer school for the gifted - “Petnica” and members of the

NGO group “Child-to-child”, were asked to take part in the

development of research instruments. By a series of

brainstorming and group discussions, young participants

defined domains of participation in school and at home that

they considered the most important. Areas of participation

3

thus defined served as the basis for constructing the research

instruments. The young people were involved in the

construction of the scales of participation. They also

interviewed their peers at their hometown school and they

participated in some phases of data processing.

The research was conducted in four separate but

coordinated studies: two with children - on participation, and

on family relations and self-evaluation; one with parents, and

one with teachers.

Both brainstorming and defining participation domains

proved that the family context was by far the most important

for children. The important areas of family participation, as

defined by young people, were: the respect of privacy, the

respect of one’s opinion, attitudes and life style, freedom of

movement (going out, staying late), the choice of friends,

sexual partner, profession and extracurricular activities, and

participation in making decisions that affect the whole family

(Pesic et al, 1999: 197).

The article is based on the research I conducted with

parents of seventeen-year-olds. In other words, it deals with

parents’ perspective and perception of their children’s

participation.

Background

As often stated, one of the major contributions of the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child is that children’s

participation is introduced for the first time in an

international legal document. That act also marks the shift in

the attitude towards children and childhood: children should

4

be recognized as social actors, as participants in society

(Lansdown, 1994: 36). For the first time through the

Convention civil and political rights are broadened to include

children. That normatively gives children some attributes, if

not the status, of citizens, which are guaranteed to adult

members of society. Although they do not have certain rights

essential to the status of citizen (the right to vote, to

approach court and political instances etc.), the Convention

normatively guarantees to children the rights to identity and

integrity, as well as the rights to be informed, to express

their opinion, to autonomous choice and decisions, and right

to gather and act in order to protect their interests.

Although there are many classifications, it could be accepted

that the above stated rights make the group of civil and

political, or participatory rights in broader sense.

The stated shift in the legal status of childhood could

not be easily implemented either on normative or on practical

level of social reality. The Convention itself contains an

inherent contradiction between child’s right to be protected

and the right that his/her voice be heard. In other words,

there exists a potential collision between protectory and

participatory rights of the child that reflects the social

reality in which the relation of protection, stemming from

child’s need to be protected, becomes a paternalistic

relationship. According to Gerison Lansdown, from the inherent

vulnerability of the child based on physical weakness

(immaturity) derives structural vulnerability, by which,

because of the supposed “immaturity”, political and economic

power and civil rights are denied to him or her. Obviously, by

such a process children are placed in a marginal position

which is characteristic of all minority groups.

5

A special problem is constituted by the fact that the

implementation of participatory rights challenges the

boundaries between adults and children, which were well

established so far. The broadening of the domains of

children’s rights, particularly participatory ones,

automatically diminishes the jurisdiction of the family

(parents) and society who have the control over childhood.

In contemporary society, the control over child

(childhood) is seldom exercised through mere coercion. More

often, it is given the character of “democratic” control:

through organizing child’s activities and social life, for

example. The most important overall processes for implementing

control are institutionalization - through segregation of

protected spaces for children, and through organization of

their time and activities; and familization, which is

represented, among other things, through strenghtening the

family (Childhood Matters, 1994).

The process of possible limiting of child’s rights

follows this line of reasoning: society, or one of its

segments, is perceived as dangerous, protection with control

implemented within is offered: the result is an asymmetrical

relation of power. Paternalism is the specific form of power:

it is the power based on good intentions to protect the child,

i.e. everything is done “in child’s best interest”. Control

and the power based on it by their essence limit the scope of

participation, and thereby endangering the child’s rights.

Social reality, fortunately, gives a less pessimistic

picture. There are reports which show that children are fully

aware of adults’ dominance (Bardy, 1994). Children are also

developing different individual and group strategies by which

6

they resist adults’ pressures and diminish the uneven

distribution of power.

In this ever dynamic process emerging between parents’

intention to balance care and control and children’s struggle

for autonomy and recognition, the notion of child’s competence

seems to be the core issue. The way in which a particular

culture defines childhood determines in many aspects the

status of the child as well as the arenas for his/her

participation in social life. Because participatory rights are

based, in everyday knowledge, on the concepts of competence

and responsibility, their implementation depends heavily on

the social construction of the meaning of childhood in

particular context.

Participatory rights postulate individuality (and

individualism as the value), as well as solidarity - as the

presumptions for participation in the family. The concept and

the reality of modern family are based, among other things, on

the participation of family members and negotiation process:

parents have to take into account children’s opinions and

wishes (Bardy, 1994).

The researcher from these parts of the world faces a

crucial question: to what extent has Yugoslav family, as part

of a patriarchal and collectivist culture, approached the

described model (or ideal) of modern family as the community

of partners. For our topic it is also important to find out

how the prevailing concept of the child influences parent -

child relations, particularly concerning child’s

participation.

The starting point of my research is the thesis that

family constitutes the basic social context for participatory

7

rights of the child. In other words, I believe that by

participating in family life the child realizes a substantial

part of his/her participatory rights, while “training” for

participation in civil society.

The research starts from a broader concept of

participation, which encompasses identity, autonomy,

communication, freedom of choice and decision making, as well

as participation through acting. By implementing the broad

concept of participation in the area of family life, I arrived

at three important dimensions or domains: the domain of

communication, the domain of choices and decision-making, and the domain of

involvement and cooperation. To document the interdependence of

dimensions of participation operationalized in such a way, I

shall define their contents as they are comprehended and

implemented in the research.

The domain of communication deserves to be placed first since

communication is the prerequisite for the realization of

participation in other domains of family life. The Article 17

of the Convention states that child has the right to be

informed about things that are of his/her concern or interest.

Implemented in family life, it would mean that the child has

to be informed on key issues and problems within the family.

In connection to with the right to be informed is the

dimension of communication openness, which refers to the

possibility of open and free expression of opinion. According

to numerous studies openness of communication is significantly

correlated to the type of distribution of family roles

(Bernstein, 1971). The means of control are also related to

communication: personal modes of control rely heavily on

strategies of covert parental influence especially through

8

communicative means, while institutional modes assume direct

rule enforcement of norms (Brannen, 1996: 117).

The domain of choices and decision-making is so named because of

the inseparability of its two inherent elements: choice

presupposes decision, while the decision is a choice between

options. It seems that the key question in this domain of

family life is in whose interest is the choice, and where is

the source of the decision, i.e. who and in whose name is

making the decision. It is important to distinguish personal

choices, which are in the last instance connected to the

question of personal integrity, from collective choices, which

are related to the group (collective) interests. Personal

choices should result from individual autonomous decision,

while collective choices (of family as a group - in this case)

should be the product of mutual agreement in the decision-

making process.

The domain of involvement and collaboration is examined through

two dimensions: participation in domestic chores in the

household, and participation in joint activities that involve

all family members. From sociological perspective, work in the

family is approached as the significant mode of relating

towards the family, as the aspect of collaboration which could

increase family solidarity (White and Brinkerhoff, 1981: 791).

The amount of work or domestic chores that child takes over

(or has been given) shows not only the significance that the

work has, but also indicates the meaning of childhood for the

particular family. In other words, the status of the child

within the family is defined by domestic work (Solberg, 1990).

Unlike the results of numerous international studies, which

1

2

9

show that children take over regular chores from an early age,

the few domestic studies point that only a small number of

children regularly participate in household tasks (Tomanovic-

Mihajlovic, 1997). On the other hand, the meaning and

significance ascribed by family members to (child’s) work in

the family is very important. According to one of the

classifications, those meanings can be defined by the

following categories: “developmental” (“builds character”,

develops autonomy and responsibility), “reciprocal

obligations” (work is duty - moral obligation), “helping

parent”, and “learning tasks” (White and Brinkerhoff, 1981:

793). White and Brinkerhoff came to the following conclusions:

in older age groups of children and among more educated

parents there is the demand for reciprocal obligations, while

overburdened and single parents have need for child’s help in

relieving the load of domestic work (Ibid: 797). From the

perspective of our interest - participation within the family,

the most important is the understanding of child’s work as

reciprocal obligations - as form of collaboration between

family members.

As the second element of “family ethos”, I have examined

companionship through participation in joint activities of all

family members, particularly in the leisure area (going out,

gatherings, play etc.). I assumed that essential companionship

is based on consensus - not on coercion, that it is the

product of solidarity - not of formality, that it is active -

not passive. In my opinion, companionship that is understood

in such a way is an inherent part, as well as the product, of

true participation of the family members.

The importance of the realization of participatory rights

could be looked at, beside the family perspective, from the

10

perspective of personality development, as well as from the

perspective of the development of civil society. Those

outcomes of participation process are sometimes referred to as

“the benefits of participation”. Many studies have shown that

the status of the child is defined by the degree of his/her

participation in different domains of family life (Brannen,

1996; Solberg, 1990). The status defines the comprehension of

competence, and, by that, the degree of autonomy of the child

or young person. It has been proved that participation not

only develops responsibility, but also influences person’s

self-consciousness: self-esteem, self-reliance, and self-

respect3. Those personality traits are necessary precondition

for developing an activist prosocial life orientation. On the

other hand, civil society relies on self-conscious individuals

who have developed feelings of responsibility, tolerance,

respect for difference and others, and solidarity, and who are

familiar with different strategies of participation in social

life.

Research results

The goal of the study was to shed light on participation at

middle level of social reality: the family as a group, which

is one of the key contexts (with school and peer group) for

everyday life of young person.

The field research was conducted at eleven high schools

(six gymnasiums and five vocational schools) in seven towns of

FR Yugoslavia at the end of December 1998 and during January

1999.

3

11

The research instrument was the questionnaire divided in

two parts. The first part was on everyday practice in the

family: it referred to parents’ reactions to real and

hypothetical situations in everyday relations with their

child. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to

reveal the parents’ attitudes towards child’s participation in

the family and wider. I am aware that the survey method has

significant limitations when aiming towards understanding of a

particular social phenomenon such as participation within the

family. Although objective conditions determined the type of

the research, I tried to avoid the limits of the survey method

by introducing a greater number of open-ended questions. They

enabled qualitative analysis of certain segments of everyday

life of the family.

The respondents were parents of children at the third

grade of the mentioned high schools. The questioning took part

at PTA meetings where parents, after being instructed by

professionals trained for the purpose, filled out the

questionnaire.

The sample consists of 247 respondents: 134 mothers and

113 fathers. The children they answered about were 136 boys

and 111 girls, most of them seventeen-year-olds. The parents

are mostly professionals, then clerks and workers. Most of

them have high school diploma, then college and BA degree,

while only a few have finished just primary school. As

respondents belong to a relatively younger population from

bigger towns and cities, their educational structure is better

than Yugoslav average. Their families are mostly nuclear,

consisting of four members, and with two children, so it

reflects the dominant model of urban family.

12

According to their responses, a great number of parents

have heard about the Convention. Nevertheless, only a few can

state and specify its contents, while the others responded

that they are not familiar with it or that they are not sure.

When adding the finding that only a few parents are interested

to get acquainted with the Convention, and that they are not

the members of any kind of organization, one comes to the

conclusion that most parents are reflecting the situation of

ignorance and apathy relating to civil knowledge and behavior.

The basic dimensions of communication domain are openness

and knowledgeability.

The precondition of true communication within the family

is openness; i.e. the possibility to express one’s opinion

that is then taken into account. Through analyzing particular

attitudes expressed by parents, and by insight on into their

qualitative responses, it could be seen that there exists a

far greater possibility and real communication in the relation

parent - child (in both directions) than it was the case

within the families of preceding generations, not to mention

the traditional culture.

Child’s knowledgeability on family topics could be

learned from the degree of his/her knowledge of their

important aspects, such as the distribution of family budget,

significant family issues and potential problems. The research

shows that there exists certain knowledgeability on family

topics. According to parents, they talk a lot with their

children. Family talks are, unfortunately, more on financial

problems than on relations, personal traits and other things

concerning its members. Through family talks they try to solve

conflicts between personal needs and wishes and financial

13

potentials of the family, which are severely limited by great

material deprivation. Attitudes towards the quantity and

quality of talking with children vary from:

“A little, if we must /they talk/” and

“Only on those problems he has to know /they talk/” to

“About every topic, without any restrictions /they talk/”.

There is a high degree of agreement with the statement

”One should avoid overburdening the child with family

problems”, while parents also showed great support of the

statement “If parents could not agree on some important

matter, they should ask their child for his/her opinion”. At

first, these data seem contradictory: on one side they show

paternalistic overprotective educational style, while on the

other side, they show that the child has a (normative)

possibility to be involved in the process of decision making.

It is apparent that most of the parents select the information

they share with their children, but they are willing to

consult child’s opinion on significant issues that are a

matter of dispute.

The domain of choices and decisions includes some aspects of

realization of personal choices and right to make decisions on

those choices, as well as the involvement in decision-making

process within the family.

In contrast to the highly supported child’s autonomy in

arranging his or her personal space (one’s own room), the

change of school because of discontent is a choice which

demands more serious discussion, negotiation and decision

making between parents and children. The situation is best

described by following words of one mother:

14

“I would first talk with him to learn the reason of his discontent. If it would be in my

opinion a justified reason, then I would allow him to change school” (underlined

by S.T.M.).

It is interesting that parents’ attitudes on their

child’s competence to autonomously choose their future

profession are sharply divided between those who acknowledge

(46,5%) and those who deny such a competence (50,6%).

Only a small number of parents thinks that the

organization of free time and activities is a matter of

child’s personal choice and autonomous decision, while most of

them offer some kind of assistance and interfere.

Seventeen-year-olds have won the right to separate

vacation: more than two thirds of parents would not insist on

going on holidays together with their children. Autonomous

holidays with the partner is a different story: it is the

question mostly attached to achieved status (legal or other

maturity) and related to child’s gender (girls are more

restricted than boys).

The choice of sexual partner is an important area of

autonomy. Concerning the question of their child’s competence

for such a choice, parents’ views are again sharply divided:

47% see them as competent, 47,3% - as not. On the other hand,

very small number of parents would interfere with the choice

of the partner by their child. Most of parents (49,8%) would

comment but would not try to interfere:

“I would present my observations, but I wouldn’t influence the choice”;

“I would talk openly about that, but the decision is hers”;

while a lot of them (39,9%) would not interfere at all, for

different reasons:

“It is not my problem”;

“I wouldn’t want to choose her boyfriend”;

15

“I wouldn’t interfere - those are casual relationships”;

“I would not say anything, it’s her choice”;

“The only criterion is that he finds her nice”.

The change of family residence, although mostly

hypothetical because of small mobility, presupposes one of the

biggest family decisions. The family need to continue joint

living is complicated by child’s age: they are old enough to

have developed their own needs, interests, aspirations, social

networks and social life, but, on the other side, they are

mostly financially dependent of their parents:

“He has to accept, as long as he is financially depending on us, he has no right to

decide on this matter”;

“He would have to come with us, because he is not independent and has nothing to

live on”.

It seems that for most of the parents compromise would be

overcome by collective interest:

“In this situation, the prosperity of the whole family is more important than

particular opinion of one member” so,

“I would convince my child that it is best for him to come with us”.

Making the decision on the amount of the allowance is a

matter of negotiation between parents and the child through

estimation of parents’ resources and justification of child’s

needs:

“Depending on family resources on one side, and optimal needs of the child on the

other side”;

“What he thinks, he has to explain: for what needs, for what kind of pleasure. Always

by an agreement”.

Some parents explain their refusal to raise the amount of

allowance by not having trust in their child:

“I wouldn’t raise it, because I think the child would abuse it”,

16

while the others try to direct their children towards earning:

“If he is not satisfied, than he has to try to earn something”.

The matter of trust and previous positive experience with

the child, or an elder brother or sister, is crucial in

deciding to leave the flat (the house) for a night so he/she

could organize the party:

“I think you should let your child know that you trust him/her by letting him/her to

organize the party with the friends”;

“We would do that, because it is a part of growing up”.

The length of night outgoing was the hot issue at the

time. The decision making at this area was very turbulent and

caused most of dissatisfaction at both sides. Some parents

(23,5%) let their child stay as long as the other friends,

some (23,5%) try to find a compromise solution, while some

(36,8%) stick to previously settled time. From parents’

responses, it could be seen that they unwillingly (against

their principles, worries, and perceptions of child’s welfare)

agree to longer staying out at the night because of pressures

from the others:

“I allow her to stay as long as she wants. It is better to come back home with her

friends than alone”;

“Although I think it is too much, and I disagree with going to night clubs, I also think

it is dangerous to exclude him from his peers, because consequences could be even

worse. One parent can’t change anything, but I am the first for that the time of their

staying out should be limited (by local authorities - STM)”;

“Of course I don’t like late outgoing and coming home late, but he can’t stay apart

from the others. I think that it is dangerous for their health, and that the society

should do something to change that”.

Although it is obvious that this is the area where the

parents have “loosened up” the most compared to previous

generations, they also perceive the length of night stays and

17

the freedom of moving as crucial questions where their

children ask for more rights. The parents try to maintain

control by trying to know always where, with whom and how

their child spends time.

There are two key areas in family life where active

involvement and cooperation of the members are manifested: the area

of domestic work (household chores), and the area of

companionship (joint activities).

Less than one fifth of the seventeen-years-olds has one

or more regular chores in the household. The biggest number of

children, according to their parents, takes care of their

personal belongings and helps in the house occasionally; i.e.

they have no regular obligations. The extreme of the situation

is shown at the response of the father of a seventeen years

old girl:

“She has to study; to take care of personal hygiene; to write a letter to her

grandmother - which is enough obligations”.

The qualitative analysis shows that parents think that

children should be unburdened of domestic obligations because

they are overburdened by school tasks:

“When he goes to school even that he studies is a lot, because his working day is

sometimes 16 hours long”;

“I think it is a minimum of obligations, because school and obligations attached to it

take most of the time”.

Some parents have an extremely paternalistic attitude:

“I don’t think it is a lot. But there will be time: she would have a lot of obligations

when she grows up”,

while some of them attach educational function to domestic

work:

“It is just enough obligations for them to get used to discipline and settled life”;

18

“I think that girls should learn all the domestic chores beside school”.

Statistical analysis did not show the expected difference by

gender in having domestic chores: children of both genders are

equally “unburdened” of taking part in domestic work. It is

indicative, nevertheless, that mothers of the girls gave the

responses on the educational function of domestic work.

Parents think that children should help those parents who

are overburdened with work, rather than considering work to be

a reciprocal obligation of all family members, or as an

important part in development and gaining independence. Some

other data show that children actually work in the household,

farm or family business. Their work is, nevertheless,

occasional and is a form of helping their parents. The

decision on child’s domestic obligations is most frequently

made through agreement of parents and children (34,4%), or it

is made by child himself/herself (22,3%).

That the area of responsibilities related to family is

still mostly under parents’ jurisdiction is shown through

great support given to the statement: “In our house there is

the rule: children should study, and parents should take care

of them, the money and other matters”.

Parents seldom go out with their children, mostly to

shopping, family visits or gatherings. Joint activities of

family members are also rare: parents mentioned working

together at the household or on the farm, or family meals.

One could not say, therefore, that the nurturing of

family companionship through joint activities and cooperation

is a characteristic of contemporary Yugoslav family. There is

either companionship out of need (instrumental): doing chores

or shopping, or formal: maintaining relations with kinship

19

networks (family gatherings and meals), or passive

companionship: watching TV, for instance.

I asked parents what do they think where their child

seeks or expects, and where he/she should have more rights.

Does the fact that over one third of parents did not answer to

those question indicate that the problem of child’s rights of

such little importance to them?

Parents perceive that their children expect more rights

in the area of personal choices and decision-making: going

out, clothes, freedom of movement and activities 4, while some

parents do not perceive that their children seek any rights.

When asked what rights should their child have, most of the

parents answered that their children have all the rights:

“I never think about that. I think that he has as much rights as the child of his age

should have and as much we had when we were of his age (underlined by

STM)”.

Some parents relate rights to achieving the status (legal

maturity):

“Surely you should give more rights to the child when she reaches legal maturity and

becomes more mature in decision making”;

while some seek more rights for their children in schooling:

“He should have more rights at school, and that sometimes children who are not

children anymore should be asked about matters that are so important to them

(underlined by STM)”.

Some people see the realization of children’s rights as

opposed to the social situation that is endangering them:

“He should have the right to live normally, because in this economic crisis my child

can’t afford even a decent breakfast at school. The right to walk freely in the streets

protected from criminals. That their voice be heard at school”.

4

20

Discussion

The topic of the research is participatory rights of the child

(or young person) from his/her parents’ perspective. The

subject thus defined presupposes two goals: 1. an insight into

how parents understand participation and participatory rights

of young person (in and out of the family); 2. an insight into

how parents perceive the actual realization of participation

and rights of young person (mostly in the family).

In summing up the results and concluding, I shall follow

the opposite direction. First, I shall present conclusions

concerning the insight into the realization of young person’s

participatory rights within three areas of everyday practice

in the family: the domain of communication, the domain of

choices and decisions, and the domain of involvement and

cooperation. I shall, then, present the conclusions from the

insight into how parents implicitly define participation and

into their attitudes towards participatory rights of the

young.

The research has shown that in the analyzed families

there exists relatively more open communication between

parents and children as compared with previous generations,

and especially when compared to traditional culture. The

analysis shows that the opportunities for communication are

greater than its actual realization in everyday life of the

family. There are almost no forbidden topics, but parents

still select information on family life and problems that are

made available to young person. In the basis of such limiting

of the access to information, there lies the paternalistic

21

motivation to protect the child – so she/he would not be

“overburdened with family problems”. That such an intention is

not realized could be seen from the fact that financial

problems are the dominant topic in most of the families.

Majority of parents states that young people do get an

opportunity to express their opinion and that the opinion is

taken into account. This is supported by the finding that the

greatest number of decisions is made through negotiations or,

as stated by respondents, by “seeking the compromise”.

The possibility of deciding on matters of personal

interest (I called them personal choices) indicates the degree

of autonomy of young person within the family. The most of

analyzed situations shows that personal choices are not

autonomous, that there is parents’ influence or interference.

Somewhere parents’ influence is smaller: as in the case of

separate vacations or in the case of choice of the partner

(although they do not consider their children competent for

making that decision). The right to autonomous choice is

significantly limited already in the case of the arrangement

of personal space, through changing of the school, and

organization of time and leisure activities, to autonomous

holidays with the partner. All the situations reveal a

significant denial of intellectual, social and sexual

competence of the young person. For some young people,

especially girls, those rights should be “earned”: achieved

status (legal maturity) brings confidence in maturity and

competence.

The decision on night outgoing is made through

negotiations, but most of the parents make indirect control of

movement by attempting to be always informed on whereabouts of

their child. That reveals the lack of basic trust in the

22

child. The question of trust is the key issue in deciding on

organizing a party in the house, and sometimes in defining the

allowance amount. Although in both mentioned situations there

is negotiation involved in decision-making process, parents

make the last executive decision. The parents’ opinion is

decisive also in deciding on changing the family residence. In

most cases, parents make the decision on this matter of

collective interest, because they usurp the right to estimate

what is the collective interest of the family as a group.

It has been confirmed that the presumption that areas

of rights and influence are not separated within the domain of

choices and decisions. The decisions and choices that should

be autonomous are under parents’ influence, while the

decisions, which should be collective – are not so.

It has been shown that young person’s involvement in

family life through household chores could be a good indicator

of the state of family roles and relations, especially of

his/her status within the family. Domestic work is still the

area of interest and agency of parents, particularly mothers.

Education is perceived to be the basic interest of young

person, and accordingly parents “free” the child from

household work and obligations. The described situation is

partly the consequence of a joint effect of paternalistic and

sacrificing type of parenthood. On the other hand, there is

revealed a particular work ethic: work in the family is

understood as a burden not as a reciprocal obligation - a form

of cooperation that stimulates family solidarity. It could be

seen from the finding that occasional work has only the

character of helping out the overburdened parents. Unlike the

picture described in international studies (Brannen, 1996),

our research shows that the child in contemporary Yugoslav

23

family neither has the opportunity nor probably the need to

participate through domestic work in the family, and thereby

to achieve autonomy and attached status. The young people

themselves do not see involvement in family work as in the

function of growing up and participating (Brankovic in Pesic

et al, 1999).

Parents themselves perceive that, particularly in

this phase of family life cycle, joint activities are very

rare. If they exist, they point at instrumental, formal or

passive companionship. Essential companionship as the value in

itself, which postulates partner’s (equal) relations,

reciprocal obligations, cooperation and solidarity, apparently

is still rare in analyzed families.

The normative aspect of the research is on how

parents understand participation and participatory rights and

what attitudes they have towards those issues. The assumed

comprehension of the rights and perception of their

realization should be based on knowledge about children’s

rights. The research has revealed that parent’s knowledge

about children’s rights and the contents of the Convention is

extremely small. Equally small is parents’ interest to become

acquainted with the issue. Numerous aspects of the analysis

show that significant number of parents perceive children’s

rights as irrelevant. The general attitude of parents towards

the rights of young person could be summed up as follows:

parents give children certain rights, while children have to

achieve others (through some kind of “maturity”). For a

significant number of parents the rights are simply an area

that is not questionable: everything is explained by the above

statement, everything is clear: what is not clear – is

understood.

24

None of the parents spoke explicitly of participation

and attached rights. Implicitly, parents define participation

as the right to autonomous personal choices, the right to

participate in decision-making process, and the right to

child’s opinion to be taken into account. It is important to

note that neither parents nor young people mentioned the right

of gathering and acting in order to protect collective

interests as a part of participatory rights. Apparently, young

people and their parents do not perceive the so much discussed

political rights of the child as important (Morrow, 1999:

155).

According to parents’ perception, young people seek

more rights in the area of personal choices (outgoing,

clothes, activities, freedom of movement, etc.). On the other

hand, parents think that their children have all the rights in

accordance with their age and compared to the generation of

their parents. The rights are apparently perceived as

relative: they are not something that young person posses by

his/her mere existence, but they are something which should be

given (accepted) by development, or achieved by status, in the

context of altered social circumstances. Parents seek

participatory rights for their children only at school. It is

most important to note that parents do not perceive

participation and the need for participation in the domain of

family life (communication, decision-making, and

companionship).

Parent - child relations concerning children’s

participation reveal particular strategies of infantilisation:

support of immaturity, overprotection, and disdain. Young

people are not confronted, then, with strict and direct

discipline and sanctions, but with the control based on

25

messages such as: “it is for your welfare”; “it is too early

for you to worry about that”; “we have to provide you with the

future, all you have to do is to study”, etc. That young

people have accepted the message could be seen from the

discrepancy between young people’s need and wish for more

autonomy and their own feeling of incompetence for autonomous

decisions on important issues (Pesic et al., 1999: 190). By

living in the environment where it is considered normal that

young people stay for a long time at their parents’,

financially dependent and with the status of the child, young

people tend to internalize parents’ image of them. They

generally consider themselves capable and competent for

autonomous decisions on matters concerning everyday life, but

not so when the decisions have a long-term effect (choice of

profession, decisions on sexual life and partnership, etc.).

That reveals a rather conformist attitude: lack of readiness

to take responsibility for long-term decisions and their

effects (Ibid: 201).

Another study of the project has shown that lack of

autonomy together with strict control and “cold” family

atmosphere leads to low self-esteem, global feeling of

incompetence, lack of initiative and fatalistic attitude

towards social reality (Brankovic, in Pesic et al, 1999). The

families I studied reveal substantial openness in

communication, lack of harsh discipline but presence of

paternalistic negotiations, as well as some kind of warm and

close relations among their members. Nevertheless, if we

consider the above-described strategies of infantilisation and

their internalization by young people, those families can

hardly be the arenas for the training of participation in

civil society.

26

Notes:1. The time of the research is important to note, because it

preceded by two or three months the armed conflict between NATO and Yugoslavia. My presumption is that some of the research results would be altered if the project was conducted during or after the mentioned conflict.

2. As defined by a female respondent in my research.3. The interrelation of those processes and personality traits

has been shown in another part of this study done by B. Brankovic (Pesic et al., 1999: 147ff).

4. It corresponds with data obtained from children (Brankovic in Pesic et al., 1999).

References

Bardy, M. (1994) “The Manuscript of the 100-Years Project:

Towards a Revision”, in J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, H.

Wintersberger (eds.), Childhood Matters. Social Theory, Practice and

Politics, Aldershot: Avebury.

Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control, Vol. I: Theoretical Studies

Towards a Sociology of Language, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Brannen, J. (1996) “Discourses of Adolescence: Young People’s

Independence and Autonomy within Families”, in. J. Brannen and

M. O’Brien (eds.) Children in Families: Research and Policy, London: The

Falmer Press.

Childhood Matters. Social Theory, Practice and Politics (1994) J. Qvortrup,

M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, H. Wintersberger (eds.), Aldershot:

Avebury.

27

Lansdown, G. (1994) “Children’s Rights”, in B. Mayall (ed.)

Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced, London: The Falmer

Press.

Morrow, V. “’We are people too’: Children’s and young people’s

perspectives on children’s rights and decision-making in

England”, The International Journal of Children’s Rights 1999 (7) 149 -

170.

Ochiata, E. and A. Espinosa “Children’s participation in

family and school life: A psychological and developmental

approach” The International Journal of Children’s Rights 1997 (5) 279 -297.

Pesic M., B. Brankovic, S. Tomanovic-Mihajlovic, V. Dejanovic

(1999) Participacija mladih pod lupom (Participation of Young People in Focus)

Belgrade: Yugoslav Child Rights Center.

Solberg, A. (1990) “Negotiating childhood: Changing

Constructions of age for Norwegian children”, in A. James and

A. Prout (eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, London: The

Falmer Press.

Tomanovic – Mihajlovic, S. (1997) Detinjstvo u Rakovici (Childhood in

Rakovica), Belgrade: Institute for Sociological Research.

Verhellen, E. (1998) From Protection to Participation - European

training on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Zagreb: Center for Social Policy Initiatives.

28

White, L. and D. Brinkerhoff “Children’s work in the family:

Its significance and meaning” Journal of Marriage and the Family

November 1981: 789-798.

29