Paternalism, Participation and Children's Protagonism

Author(s): Manfred Liebel

Source: Children, Youth and Environments , Vol. 17, No. 2, Pushing the Boundaries:
Critical International Perspectives on Child and Youth
Participation - Focus on the United States and Canada, and Latin America (2007), pp. 56-73
Published by: University of Cincinnati
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.2.0056

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Cincinnati is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Children, Youth and Environments

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Children, Youth and Environments 17(2), 2007

Paternalism, Participation and Children’s

Protagonism

Manfred Liebel
International Academy at the Free University of Berlin
Faculty of Humanities, Technical University of Berlin, Germany

Citation: Liebel, Manfred (2007). “Paternalism, Participation and Children’s

Protagonism.” Children, Youth and Environments 17(2): 56-73.

Abstract
Referring to the Working Children and Adolescents’ Movements (NATs) of Latin
America, the paper explains the concepts and expressions of children’s protagonism
as an answer to typical paternalistic social structures and reduced concepts of
participation. After distinguishing traditional from modern kinds of paternalism, the
paper demonstrates the ways in which NATs challenge paternalism and explains the
origins of the debate over children’s protagonism. The paper then discusses the
different forms, previous conditions, appropriate elements and different levels of
realization of children’s protagonism. The author concludes that children’s
protagonism requires from society the amplification of children’s possibilities to
participate not only in “children’s matters,” but in all issues of society; in other
words, to recognize children as citizens.

Keywords: children, working children, social movements, paternalism,

participation, protagonism

© 2007 Children, Youth and Environments

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 57

Introduction
To have rights does not necessarily mean to be able to practice them, which
exemplifies the state of children’s rights in some parts of the world. In 1989, with
the approval of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) at the United
Nations General Convention, it was stated officially and globally that “little ones”
would not be the property or an appendix of “elders,” and would not depend solely
on their benevolence. Do children, however, have opportunities to use their new
rights? What is the benefit children receive by their recognition as “subjects of
rights” granted by the CRC if they still cannot come out of their social situation of
marginality and powerlessness imposed by capitalist society? If children’s rights
were taken seriously, wouldn’t it require producing another childhood, different
from the one the western society considers normative? Perhaps this alternate
childhood is rising in a hidden way that merely needs to be unveiled, deciphered
and made public.

These questions have been asked in different parts of the world for over three
decades. Frequently, they are posed by young people who are rebelling against
their situation and against the treatment they receive as they search for
alternatives. In this paper, I critically reconstruct the complex debate found in Latin
America around the concept of children’s protagonism, the concept that children are
at the center of society and thus must be entrusted with the force and capacity of
having an essential role. However, children have to confront many obstacles in their
attempt to play the protagonist role, including the notion that “the idea that
children as protagonists can generate confusion” (Corona Caraveo and Morfín
Stoopen 2001, 42). It is important to understand the different ways in which
paternalism impacts contemporary societies.

I will begin with a review of the paternalism issue and later discuss the concepts
and expressions of children’s protagonism. My arguments refer mainly to my
experiences with and observations of the Working Children and Adolescents
Movements (the children call themselves NATs—Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes
Trabajadores) in Latin America. These children’s movements have existed for over
30 years in some countries of Latin America (e.g., Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina,
Colombia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala), and since the 1990s in several
regions of Africa and Asia (see Schibotto 1990; Liebel 1994, 2000, 2004; Liebel,
Overwien and Recknagel 2001). While my considerations and conclusions cannot be
generalized to all types of childhood, they can serve to suggest alternative social
positions for children and transformative intergenerational relations in other
societies and cultures.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 58

Traditional and Modern Paternalism 1

There are two types of practiced paternalism: traditional and modern. Traditional
paternalism consists of an absolute subordination of the child, with adults being the
only ones who decide what is good for children and what they must or must not do.
All norms are pre-established and are not “debatable.” Children are not granted a
“world of their own.”

Modern paternalism is different from traditional paternalism in that it offers children

a “world of their own” that is ruled by “laws” of their own. In this world, children
are offered opportunities to develop responsible and mature personalities. Their
“laws” must be guaranteed mainly through protection and support. Children have
certain areas destined specifically for them, without concerns of “life seriousness”
and in which they can express, to a certain degree, a life and dignity of their own.
These areas are separate from “adult society.” Thus the children’s world is a kind of
habitat where life is relatively secure and they can develop freely, but it allows no
provision whatsoever for children to influence adult society. The personal
banishment of traditional paternalism has been replaced by the personal
responsibility and lack of participation of modern paternalism.

The origin of traditional paternalism is colonial. For centuries, in indigenous cultures

the child was considered a town’s offspring and health guarantor, and children were
taken seriously as persons. The Spanish conquerors of Latin America radically
transformed those values. They imposed a relationship between different age
groups that was characterized by contempt for and the total subordination of
children (and women) to paternal discipline. An extreme manifestation of this
situation was that parents could dispose of their children as they pleased, for
example, by abandoning them on the street. The violent treatment that many
adults give children even today can be traced back historically to this lack of care
by adults.

Modern paternalism originates in bourgeois-European thought. Unlike traditional

paternalism that considers children as less important small adults, modern
paternalism conceptualizes childhood as a special phase in life, with typical
characteristics pertaining to each age stage. This view has become an official norm
in Western Europe and North America, but it has been assumed by only a small
portion of the population in the southern part of the world.

The discourse over children’s rights has an ambivalent character. It has one leg in
the garden of modern paternalism, and leans with the other towards non-
paternalist terrain that has been under-explored. On one hand, the discourse aims
to give the child more complete and effective protection; on the other hand, it

1
What I call paternalism is sometimes discussed as adultism in the new sociology of
childhood, or understanding childhood as having a social status of “not yet” (see Prout and
James 1997; James, Jenks and Prout 1998; Qvortrup 2005; Gaitán 2006). The different
forms and historical stages of paternalism are almost never distinguished, thus my
distinction between “traditional” and “modern” paternalism attempts to explain differences
in the intergenerational relationships found in contemporary societies.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 59

contributes to the expansion of children’s autonomy and influence in society. I

assert that the granting of children’s rights will bring the end of traditional
paternalism but will not end modern paternalism.

In addition to the traditional rights that protect children from dangers, the CRC
adopted certain rights that attempt to ensure that children get fair treatment and to
facilitate their participation, such as being guaranteed education. Children are
granted the right to have personal opinions and express them freely, as well as the
right to form groups freely with others.

These are rights that undoubtedly exist outside the area of modern paternalism.
Nevertheless, currently, children’s rights are no more than an epilogue to human
rights in general. The particular conditions in which children live, especially in the
public sector, are not taken into consideration, and this makes it impossible for
their rights to be fulfilled. Also, it appears that the task of overcoming paternalism
is solely assigned to children. Adults have been authorized to listen to what children
have to say, but they may or may not take young people’s points of view seriously.
Adults are not committed to do anything to more easily facilitate children’s true
participation (see Corona Caraveo and Morfín Stoopen 2001, 30-31).

It must be clarified that the CRC is not a children’s document; it has been authored
by adults for children. This truth is not changed by the fact that efforts are made
occasionally to translate it into children’s language. Keeping with the history of its
development, adults are the only ones present and the only ones making decisions
at the multiple conferences held to supervise the fulfillment of the CRC. Even
though it is true that much is spoken about the importance of children’s self-
initiated participation, not much has been done to date towards this goal.

In spite of these adult conferences, little will change because “there still runs a
protectionism wind” in the CRC that “would have wanted to restrict itself to protect
the needy” and “continues viewing the child more like a problem than a social
potential” (Cussiánovich 1996, 27). Further, nothing will be accomplished by
inviting children’s participation in exerting their rights until war is declared, in
praxis, against the modern version of paternalism.

Working Children’s Movements Question Paternalism

The debates over children’s rights and the 1989 CRC stimulated the rising of the
new NATs movements. Working children experience more discrimination than social
recognition, which is why children who work are on the front lines as protagonists in
favor of a new social role for children. They are able to clearly see that if children’s
rights are solely aimed at child protection, adult guardianship becomes a necessity.

Within working children’s movements, the “protectionism wind” disappears

completely and novel ways of social praxis are developed that leave no room for
the modern form of paternalism. The movement evidences that being a child and
participating are not mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to go beyond the
antinomy between being-object (of protection measures) and being-subject

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 60

(participant and executor of relevant social activities). 2 As children develop lives,

communication, and ways of personal acting in the context of their movements and
organizations, they become subjects who can participate and influence without
having to stop being children.

Two elements of the social praxis of the NATs movements support the above
postulations. First, working children do not lean on adult protection (as stipulated
by the CRC), but they defend themselves instead. They develop solidarity and self-
defense practices without relieving the adults of their historical responsibility for the
life and future of children. Secondly, working children’s movements go beyond
requests for adults’ understanding and responsibility, taking the position of
assuming that the fight for their rights and ways of life will be respected. They
undertake a praxis that does not restrict itself to the space of a childhood with no
responsibilities. Working children create a world of their own that allows the
entrance of children’s preferences and specific potentialities. When young people
act as protagonists, they deeply question the paternalistic structures of adult-
dominated society. Even more, children ask questions and formulate answers to
things that adults may not have even thought of, thus contributing to the
transformation of society as a whole.

Working children’s intention to participate and their vision of inter-generational

relations often clashes against adults’ assumptions and may lead to conflicts. This
approach represents a rupture from the deeply ingrained values and behavior of the
dominant culture. Many adults feel that children’s questioning of adults’ dominant
position, their new demands, and their ways of behaving constitute a lack of
respect, a total loss of “values,” and a menace to adult authority.

Consider the example of a teacher who considers “children’s rights” a hindrance to

his professional activity since “they make his job more difficult.” Or a mother who,
shortly after her daughter has been elected part of the directing entity of the
children’s movement, sends her daughter to a remote village where her
grandmother lives so that the child won’t “continue getting together with those lazy
children.” Or a policeman shouting, confused and angry, at a group of children who
demand the immediate liberation of a child who was “captured” the day before.
Alternatively, there is the educator who considers that children’s rights are good,
but does not want to accept the fact the children can choose which teachers will
accompany them to the children’s movements meetings.

These are examples where adults’ reactions are relatively moderate. In some
countries, children who defend themselves against abusive practices and demand
their rights run the risk of being silenced by violent means. For example, in Brazil,
the protagonists of the street children’s movement became the target of death
squadrons, and several of them have already been killed. Similar aggressions

2
For more about the concept of the subject in the context of the children’s movement, see
Liebel 2004, 25-32, and in a more general context, for the analysis of contemporary
societies, see Touraine 1995 and 2005.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 61

towards active young people, particularly those living in poor neighborhoods, can
be observed in Colombia, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Due to these acts of violence suffered by children for “violating the norms” and not
“yielding to their role,” it is incomplete to only talk about paternalism. In places
where the dominant culture includes little respect for children, adult violence cannot
be unexpected. An explanation could be that some adults who espouse traditional
paternalism have been particularly intolerant of children’s new attitudes and
demands.

When children insist on participating, they may be accused of wanting to play a role
reserved for adults. For those adults who regard children as incapable beings who
must be protected, or who want to confine young people’s sphere of influence to a
space reserved specifically for them, this position seems correct. Yet, the children
who participate actively in NATs movements do not intend to compete with adults’
sphere of influence. These children ask that adults respect them as beings with
personal rights and interests, and consider them capable of knowing what is
important and good for them. They ask that adults recognize that the children
themselves have an interest in assuming responsibilities and participating, for the
simple reason that they are the ones who pay the price for any mistakes.

From the standpoint of the NATs movements, the fact that children are not adults is
not a weakness or deficit. It is only considered a disadvantage by children in
contexts in which only adult voices are heard and must be followed, and where
children have to be protected and supervised. In the context of their own
movements and their own structures, children are conscious of their creative,
insightful and responsible abilities. The ways that children communicate among
themselves, look for solutions to problems and work by combining play with
intellectual or practical efforts are very different from those of adults, but should
not be considered less productive or less effective. To the contrary, in their own
context, children have some advantages over adults. For example, they arrive at
results in a more direct way, their solutions to problems and proposals are more
concrete, and their words correspond more with the facts.

Another aspect of the new culture of childhood that has arisen in the context of the
NATs movements’ sphere of action is the questioning of the hierarchical system of
age groups that is typical of the paternalist culture. According to the new culture,
children do not have to stop being children to aspire to autonomy and participation
rights. The fact that “age differences are socially constructed and that small
children require the care of others does not necessarily mean social subordination,
nor the lack of independent rights” (Salazar 1990, 136). The NATs movements do
not only demand rights for various age groups, but also contribute in a direct way
to their fulfillment.

The Discourse of Children’s Protagonism

The debate over children’s protagonism in Latin America emerged at the end of the
1970s (see Cussiánovich 2001). It is linked to the popular education movement and
to the rising of the social movements of working children and adolescents. Based on

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 62

these new experiences, the focus has been on the “marginal” and “exploited”
children, some of whom have to defend themselves and must survive by their own
means, while the rest are “economic subjects” who contribute in an important way
to their family’s survival and help alleviate poverty through their work.

Instead of lamenting a lack of a childhood, as it is presented in the European-

centered perspective, these children are considered subjects capable of and
resistant to opposition; they personify “an invisible childhood” (Schibotto 1988)—a
perspective reminiscent of that of the pre-colonial culture of the continent,
mentioned above.

The discourse over children’s protagonism draws from the popular protagonism
movement that actively fought for liberation and better life conditions for excluded
and exploited population groups in Latin America (e.g., people without land,
inhabitants of poor urban neighborhoods, minorities, black and indigenous
majorities, and the like). The concept of protagonism is considered a criticism and
alternative to the concepts of “paternalists” and “developmentists” (based on the
so-called “modernization theory”) that see the poor and ethnic minorities as
underdeveloped people who are uncivilized and culturally backward. As with popular
protagonism, which underlines the sovereignty and creativity of these classes and
people, children’s protagonism increases awareness of young people’s capabilities
and demands their independent and influential role in society.

The discourse around children’s protagonism has been extended in Latin America.
The concept is part of the standard vocabulary within institutions that are
committed to children’s well-being and rights. The notion of children’s protagonism
no longer merely belongs to adults; children are using it to amplify their
possibilities to influence wider society. Even when it has not yet been put into
practice, thoughts, speeches and adult responses to the possibility of children’s
legitimate protagonism are already in existence.

When children speak for themselves, they contribute in a decisive way so that when
adults talk about children’s protagonism, they do so without losing children’s
perspectives. Below are examples from Nicaragua of what children and adults each
understand protagonism to be.

Children’s Speech
The children’s testimony comes from a meeting with the representatives of the
working children’s movement that took place in June of 1995. The term
“protagonism” was linked by children to different components, including activities
and their conditions:

• Always taking the initiative in our work.

• Expressing our opinions.
• Taking the initiative to defend our rights.
• Expressing and demanding our rights within the space of NATRAS 3

3
NATRAS is an expression in Nicaragua meaning working children and adolescents.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 63

• Taking action in our work, home, and city.

• Having certain roles while working.
• Being the ones to make decisions when we are alone at home.
• Fighting for free education.
• Fundraising to help the school.
• Sharing the profits (from our work on the street) with our families and
satisfying our needs.
• Being organized and working together.
• Organizing ourselves within the Movement.
• Having our own elections.
• Proposing ideas, giving opinions and participating at home, in school, during
projects, and at the Representatives Meeting (of the Movement).
• Representing NATs at the community, regional, national and Latin-American
levels.
• Making concrete proposals during municipal meetings where different
children’s problems are discussed.
• Involving the community in order to receive their support over the issues we
encounter.
• Proposing activities to improve our neighborhood and taking the initiative to
keep it clean.
• Proposing and executing our objectives.
• Using the mass media (radio, TV, press, posters).
• Helping one another (at home as well as on the street).
• Asking for help from teachers.

The children who expressed themselves in this way had for two or three years
played an important role in the children’s movement and had put their written
document into practice. In the movement, they had learned to intervene publicly
with words, advocate for their rights in campaigns, organize their own newspaper
and radio programs, and formulate their own petitions and concrete proposals for
improving their situation.

In other Latin American countries as well, many children are active in their own
movements and organizations, and could express themselves similarly to the
Nicaraguan children. Testimonies of this type are found in reviews of meetings and
seminars, in final conclusions of conferences, and in newspapers created by
children. Nevertheless, it would be problematic to portray children’s protagonism
only according to what they explicitly say; children’s protagonism perhaps most
importantly shown in what they do. Additionally, protagonism is not limited to the
children who organize themselves in social movements and present what they do in
public statements.

Adults’ Speech
In many Latin American countries, it is teachers who are mainly involved in
conceptualizing and theorizing about children’s protagonism. Most of the time, they
do this through seminars linked to children’s meetings.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 64

The adults’ testimony below comes from a seminar with educators that took place
in 1994. The participants, who worked on the street and in poor neighborhoods,
had gathered to clarify their possible role in the newly formed working children’s
movement. They defined children’s protagonism as a developmental process with
predetermined capabilities that takes place through adult society’s intervention. For
example:

• It is the process in which the child develops the capabilities to know his/her
reality, act upon it and propose alternatives to transform it; it is the search
for a space of their own to be able to establish new or different ways of
relating to adults.
• It is the process in which children participate actively, strengthening their
abilities and capabilities and identifying in a critical way their problems,
projecting possible solutions to problems, and reaching a higher level of
development when they are capable of organizing around the defense and
promotion of their rights, generating a new World.
• It is the capacity of children to generate initiative, practice it, and self
educate themselves constantly by strengthening their self-esteem; taking
action; promoting and contributing to the fulfillment of their objectives; the
specific capability of children to open up to their own world of action and
culture; the child’s action as a subject to fulfill being an essential part of
society; children’s capability as active subjects of society to generate actions
in their surroundings; activities performed through children’s self-
management that contribute to the transformation of society and allow for
participation (Liebel 1994, 222-223).

From the perspective of the educators, it is stressed that protagonism is a learning

process in which the children acquire special attitudes and capabilities. This learning
process is essentially based on experiences and reflections of their own actions and
should be supported by adults.

For most adults, children’s protagonism does not refer to children’s autonomy or
independence, but to their ability to play an active role in this world, and contribute
to its change. Thus, there are two dimensions of protagonism: one pertaining to
children’s capabilities to have an active role in the world surrounding them; and the
other, to children’s position in the social structure which, ultimately, is the factor
that places boundaries on their access to an active role in society.

In the Latin-American discussion over children’s protagonism, there is an

agreement that protagonism is a process that can reach different degrees; its origin
and evolution are linked to certain conditions (see Maestría de Políticas Sociales—
Promoción de la Infancia, 2005). By clarifying the issues and basic problems
encountered by the adults who have taken children’s protagonism to be the
criterion for children’s rights or their educational work, this article is intended to
give tools to those who want to support children’s protagonism consciously and in a
systematic way.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 65

Forms of Children’s Protagonism

Two types of children’s protagonism can be differentiated: spontaneous and
organized. Spontaneous protagonism manifests itself daily, individually and
collectively. It is expressed above all in the survival strategies of children in life-or-
death situations. The most common example is children who live on the street and
support themselves on their own. However, spontaneous protagonism is also
expressed when children rebel against unfair treatment in their homes; when they
demand to be taken seriously and be respected; when they must take care of the
household and their younger brothers or sisters because their mother must work
outside the home; when against their will they must work and help support the
family economically. Daily life abounds with such examples of children’s
protagonism.

The organized form of protagonism is observed when children establish a solidary

relationship in order to advance their interests and rights. Children’s social
movements represent an ideal form of organized protagonism. They are directed by
children themselves and the structures and norms are constructed in the same
manner, allowing children’s participation regardless of their sex, age, or skin color.
The group becomes a reality through mutual respect and solidary measures. The
highest level of organized protagonism is achieved when children’s movements
have gained qualitative and quantitative weight in society, and young people are
able to influence the social and political decisions that affect them.

In educational discourses, there is an ongoing discussion about the ways

spontaneous forms relate to organized forms of protagonism. Those who consider
spontaneous protagonism to be an immature form of organized protagonism are
criticized because this measure of protagonism is based on adult criteria rather than
children’s. This view reflects an implicit belief in an age hierarchy that limits
children’s opportunities to be appreciated as protagonists if they have not reached
the age and experience level that would allow them to be formally organized. This
is a common problem in educational projects that regard organized protagonism as
the ultimate goal of, or even the opposite of “spontaneous” practical forms. In
these cases, educators demand the power to stipulate what is good or bad, desired
or rejected. Children’s daily experience and acquired capabilities are inevitably
undervalued as they are considered irrelevant or counterproductive to the “real”
children’s protagonism.

This happens, for example, when adult educators attempt to formalize children’s
groups that sprang forth spontaneously on the street. Here, the adults focus on
changing the elements of the group that they consider problematic (e.g., violence,
sexism) and ignore those that are uniquely powerful (e.g., mutual help). The adult
goal of this educational experience is to give children a new identity that departs
from their “previous life.”

To counteract this, it is necessary to calibrate adults’ and children’s views of the

advancement criteria of children’s protagonism through dialogue in which children
have the same power of definition as adults, and in which children’s protagonism is
encouraged. This means these criteria cannot be regarded as absolute values, but

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 66

must be linked to the context in which they develop. Any attempt to measure the
advancement of protagonism has to take this into consideration, and account for
children’s possibilities in various contexts—including their age, sex and life
conditions—and what they themselves consider desirable and appropriate.

Preceding Conditions for Children’s Protagonism

There are two possible responses to the following question: what conditions lead to
the rise and easiest development of protagonism?

One position understands children’s protagonism to be the result of educational

intervention. This view contends that while children have specific characteristics
that make protagonism easier or harder, such as their age or life conditions, it is
only through educational intervention with educators occupying the main role that
children’s protagonism be expressed and reach its highest level. Children are seen
as human beings who do not yet have the necessary, fundamental capabilities to
confront their reality in a direct and adequate way, and thus cannot solve their
problems without adult help. For example, while it may be recognized that working
children are capable of assuming responsibility for their family’s well-being, they
are not believed to be capable of developing awareness of the value of their work
and the eventual risks of being exploited. Rather, the necessary elements of their
formation and self-awareness can only be transmitted, according to this position, by
capable and experienced adults who coordinate a methodic and directed
educational process.

A technical variation of this position views children’s protagonism as an educational

method in itself. Protagonism is thereby reduced to a type of proposal for children
to take initiatives and assume responsibilities, step by step, in an educational
process intended to achieve a goal pre-established by their teachers. In this form,
the concept of protagonism has been corrupted into a type of motivation stimulus.

The other view of the necessary conditions for protagonism attributes an important
supportive role to education, but above all assumes that children’s protagonism is
derived from children themselves. In this paradigm, the roots of children’s
protagonism are based in their reality and their daily practice, which they interpret
in their own way, even when they cannot or would not articulate it in a way
understood by adults. Thus, to understand children’s protagonism, their
anthropological, cultural and social conditions have to be taken into consideration.
These create and change historic processes, and are not the same for all societies,
or for all children. There are four basic conditions that set the stage for children’s
protagonism:

The first condition is anthropological. The child is a discoverer of the world from the
moment of birth. As soon as children are born they express desires, and articulate
themselves as human beings with needs. Soon, they begin to face the world and
discover it with curiosity and pleasure. Children act as researchers and artists in the
truest sense: they research, interpret, and give shape to their immediate reality.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 67

However, children are soon exposed to a continuous and layered process of denial
of their subjectivity, and their creativity begins to die. It is apparently not until the
child is finally subordinated to adult power positions and conceptions of the world,
that he/she is perceived to be a valid human being. In this way, the child’s
possibilities for developing a recognized agency and personal initiative are reduced.
However, these qualities do not disappear completely; rather, they are stimulated
through social experiences that inspire them to counteract their total subjugation
by adults.

At this juncture, the second basic condition of children’s protagonism emerges.

Spontaneously, children respond to their exclusion and the denial of their
subjecthood and dignity by uniting with other children. The institutionalization of
childhood through the aggregation of children in specialized educational institutions,
gives children the opportunity to identify with others in their age group, with whom
they share experiences and common interests.

At the same time, however, a growing number of children live in quarters and
family conditions that leave no personal space for them. Also, in almost all families
and institutions dedicated to children, adults impose their authority in an absolute
way, even through force. These material limitations and authoritarian and
paternalistic traditions mold the environment, and children look for alternatives
outside educational institutions and their families.

Thus, it is on city streets that children form spontaneous groups to establish

friendships and alliances, to be protected in case of danger or to obtain daily
subsistence. They try to build within the group a fair order and an environment that
allows them to develop their subjecthood and have an honorable and safe life.
Children do not always achieve what they are looking for, but it is this quest that
takes them towards protagonism.

The third basic condition of children’s protagonism results from the erosion of adult
functions and authority in traditional institutions dedicated to the education and
social control of children, in particular the family and the school. These institutions
gradually lose influence in relation to other socialization agents, mainly the mass
media and other technologies in the environment. In contemporary societies, there
is decreasing validity in the ideology that children’s world is isolated from the adult
world. Children find themselves in the wider world at an early age, and have to face
practically the same problems and risks as adults.

Yet, despite all this as well as all the attempts to manipulate and subordinate
children under commercial interests, children now have greater opportunities to
access the information and knowledge that previously was solely the privilege of
adults. Further, children can adapt with more flexibility to technological and social
changes, and they can innovatively adopt the necessary knowledge to orient
themselves and stand up in a changing world. Through these processes, the
traditional hierarchy between elders and minors is inverted, and children begin to
question their subordination.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 68

Lastly, the fourth basic condition of children’s protagonism is specifically pertinent

to working children. All working children know that they carry a heavy weight of
responsibility because they have to contribute to their family’s survival, or because
they must support themselves through their work. Children that work always
develop a certain seriousness—no matter how expressive or passionate they are
and they give the impression of being “older” than children that have not had to
assume such responsibilities. Work experience gives children an earlier
independence, not only in the sense that they have money to spend, but also
because they become sharp and capable of survival, and have the opportunity to
feel capable and productive. In this way, they help to dissolve paternalistic
subordination based exclusively on their age. Children who work are not freer than
the children who do not work, but they experience an internal demand for respect,
have a more influential role in society, and achieve more equal terms in their
relationships with adults and other traditional authorities.

Appropriate Elements of Children’s Protagonism

While the basic conditions of children’s protagonism discussed above are necessary,
they are not sufficient by themselves to produce it. Other elements are needed for
children’s protagonism to be expressed, particularly social spaces where children
can communicate and express themselves freely. Adults can contribute towards the
expression and development of children’s protagonism by creating children’s spaces
and facilitating better conditions for communication and self-expression among
children.

For example, the educators’ solidarity movement played an important role in the
rising of the NATs movements. The social movements of settlers and women, and
human rights committees have also contributed to changing social situations
towards treating children more respectfully. Further, there are also educational
projects that offer important spaces for children to be listened to and supported in
their desires and attempts to attain greater participation.

However, up until now there have been few adults and educators profoundly
convinced of children’s protagonism. Many of them are very interested in promoting
children’s rights, but have little knowledge of or doubts over the direction,
possibilities and manifestations of children’s protagonism. Sometimes when children
start to provoke and organize themselves, these adults become worried because
they do not know and cannot imagine how to define their own role in these
processes.

The debate among educators and other adults interested in children’s protagonism
gained a great deal of interest in recent years in almost all Latin American
countries. Still, I believe that these discussions are still in the preliminary stages as
there is still little clarity over what children’s protagonism means, above all, for our
daily work as teachers or children’s collaborators. For example, as mentioned
above, in several institutions, children’s protagonism is used as an educational
methodology. They offer participation spaces to children, but the main goals are to
obtain their confidence and integrate, motivate, and mobilize them for certain
activities predefined by adults. Groups of children are formed and trained without

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 69

giving importance to children’s own experiences and ideas, or considering what

touches children’s daily lives and what constitutes their identity, individually and as
a social group.

Further, there are certain aspects of children’s protagonism that have been little
addressed before now, such as whether the youngest ones are capable of
exercising it. Discussions almost always refer to adolescents, but we also have to
ask in what sense and in what ways can smaller children act as protagonists, as
well as the ways they can further their articulation and organization processes.

Another little-discussed aspect is girls’ protagonism. In-depth studies are needed to

understand the ways protagonism can be developed and promoted among girls. We
know that girls are leaders in the NATs movements; we know there are efforts to
guarantee equal rights and opportunities among boys and girls and that several
movements practice a 50:50 quota. However, girls are still less active than boys. It
is likely that due to their life conditions, socialization and educational worlds, girls
are more shy and less prepared to play public roles.

Other aspects of children’s protagonism that deserve more attention are the
differences between urban and rural children, and the specific influences of different
cultures such as indigenous cultures and cultures of color. How are children
socializied in these cultures? In what ways are boys and girls involved in the
responsibilities of their families? How are children valued? These are a few of the
questions that have to be examined if children’s movements are to be more
representative and more influential as a social force.

Children’s Protagonism Levels

Because children’s protagonism is something that is always in the development
process, below are some criteria with which to identify different levels of children’s
protagonism. I find the following criteria for the development of children’s
protagonism to be important: participation, representativeness, projection,
solidarity, identity, autonomy and continuity.

Participation means that children:

• Have a voice, are listened to, and have their opinions and proposals taken
into consideration;
• Have opportunities to influence decision-making processes and assume
responsibilities;
• Choose, criticize, and replace their leaders based on self-defined criteria;
• Actively demand their rights, which means not only having a formal
democratic structure within their groups and organizations, but participating
in the wider culture.

Representativeness means:
• The children’s organization truly acts on behalf of those for whom they
speak;
• The working children’s movement is not limited to the young people with the
most visibility and who are better taken care of (like the children working on

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 70

the street and other public places), but also includes children working in
homes, workshops, mines, fields, and other places;
• Males and adolescents do not dominate, but instead are present and
participating in the same way as females and smaller children;
• Children do not only relate to their friends, but are aware of all children and
adolescents as a collective entity with common interests.

Projection means:
• Children collectively define their position in society;
• Children have clarity and consensus over what they want to obtain as a
whole and they articulate proposals and alternatives;
• Children have an idea of the strategies they will use to obtain their goals;
• Children have the capacity to intervene;
• Children demonstrate solidarity with those who are not in their immediate
organization.

Solidarity means that:

• Boys and girls have relationships of mutual respect; they listen to each other
and do not fight;
• A culture of living together exists, with norms, games, dynamics, songs, etc.
that creates friendship, happiness, and a community environment.

Identity means that:

• Boys and girls identify themselves as individuals, with their own interests and
rights;
• Children have an idea of what their own interests are and who they are as a
whole;
• They identify as a whole as economic and social subjects contributing to the
development of their community and country;
• They evaluate their activities and their roles with criticism, and define their
own organization;

Autonomy means that:

• Children can share their opinions and partner freely without restriction or
manipulated intervention from adults or institutions;
• Children organize and direct their own structures;
• Children’s organizations do not depend on parties, institutions or organized
ideologies;
• The manifestations and decisions of children’s organizations are the results of
internal processes where children have the last word.

Continuity means:
• Children, in an organized manner, go beyond the restrictions of age-limited
childhood. “Children’s movements always begin over again” (Miguel Parrilla,
UNICEF conference in Bolivia, 1992);
• Children’s movements create practices, structures and rules to guarantee the
permanent renewal of leadership, such as defining a maximum age for
election or training new, younger leaders;

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 71

• Forming “support groups” or “associations” of young people who have been

childhood leaders of the movement to now act as promoters.

Adult collaborators normally play an important role for the continuity of children’s
organizations because they remain adults, while children eventually stop being
children. But children themselves as the main subjects of children’s organizations
must obtain the opportunity to establish continuity mechanisms. If this does not
happen, their organizations could lose their autonomy and other essential
characteristics of a true children’s movement.

Conclusion
Children’s protagonism, as conceived in this text, can be understood as an answer
to paternalism in all its manifestations. It requires that society amplifies children’s
possibilities to participate not only in “children’s matters,” but in all issues of
society; in other words, recognizes children as citizens (see Cussiánovich 2005).
Children’s protagonism does not exclude the protagonism of other subjects, and it
is not directed against adults in general. To the contrary, it calls for solidarity and
collaboration with adults as well as children’s own protagonism.

This presentation of the appropriate conditions and criteria for children’s

protagonism does not establish norms to say that children’s protagonism can rise in
one place but not in others. Children’s protagonism can always exist, albeit in
different forms and levels. It can be discovered if one listens and observes the daily
lives and practices of boys and girls. This explanation of the conditions, initiators,
and criteria for children’s protagonism may serve as a basis for considering the
particular experiences of children in each country and help determine adequate
interventions.

Acknowledgements
This paper was translated from Spanish by Paula Scarborough. It was revised by Corina
Lelutiu-Weinberger.

Dr. Manfred Liebel is a former Professor of Sociology at the Technical University

of Berlin and is a member of the International Academy at the Free University of
Berlin. He mainly works on international and intercultural research on childhood and
youth. He is co-editor of NATs—Working Children and Adolescents International
Review, published in Lima, and is a consultant on working children and youth
movements in Latin America and Africa. His main publications in Spanish and
English include: Mala Onda: La Juventud Popular en América Latina (Managua:
Ediciones Nicarao, 1992); Protagonismo Infantil (Managua: Editorial Nueva
Nicaragua, 1994); Somos NATRAS: Testimonios de Niños Trabajadores de
Nicaragua (Managua: Editorial Nueva Nicaragua, 1996); La Otra Infancia: Niñez
Trabajadora y Accion Social (Lima: Editorial Ifejant, 2000); Working Children's
Protagonism: Social Movements and Empowerment in Latin America, Africa and
India (co-editor; Frankfurt and London: IKO, 2001); Infancia y Trabajo (Lima:
Editorial Ifejant, 2003); A Will of Their Own: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 72

Working Children (London and New York: Zed Books, 2004); Malabaristas del Siglo
XXI: Niños Trabajadores Frente a la Globalización (Lima: Editorial Ifejant, 2006);
Entre Protección y Emancipación. Derechos de la Infancia y Políticas Sociales
(Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 2006).

References

Corona Caraveo, Yolanda and María Morfín Stoopen (2001). Diálogo de

saberes sobre participación infantil. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Cussiánovich, Alejandro (1996). Algunas premisas para la reflexión y las

prácticas sociales con niños y adolescentes trabajadores. Lima: Rädda Barnen.

----- (2001). “What Does Protagonism Mean?” In M. Liebel et al., eds. Working
Children’s Protagonism: Social Movements and Empowerment in Latin America,
Africa and Asia. Frankfurt and London: IKO, 157-170.

----- (2005). “Participación ciudadana de la infancia desde el paradigma del

protagonismo.” In NATs – Revista Internacional desde los Niños/as y Adolescentes
Trabajadores. Year VII(13-14): 183-209.

Gaitán, Lourdes (2006). Sociología de la Infancia. Madrid: Ed. Síntesis.

James, Allison, Chris Jenks and Alan Prout (1998). Theorizing Childhood. New
York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Liebel, Manfred (1994). Protagonismo Infantil: Movimientos de Niños

Trabajadores en América Latina. Managua: Ed. Nueva Nicaragua.

----- (2000). La Otra Infancia: Niñez Trabajadora y Acción Social. Lima: Ed. Ifejant.

----- (2004). A Will of Their Own: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Working Children.

London and New York: Zed Books.

Liebel, Manfred, Bernd Overwien and Albert Recknagel, eds. (2001). Working
Children’s Protagonism: Social Movements and Empowerment in Latin America,
Africa and Asia. Frankfurt and London: IKO.

Maestría de Políticas Sociales – Promoción de la Infancia, ed. (2005). El

protagonismo social de los niños: Ponencias sobre Infancia presentadas al VI
Congreso Nacional de Sociología. Lima.

Prout, Alan and Allison James (1997). “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of
Childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems”. In James, A. and A. Prout, eds.
Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the
Sociological Study of Childhood. London and Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press, 7-33.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paternalism, Participation, and Children’s Protagonism 73

Qvortrup, Jens (2005). “Varieties of Childhood.” In Qvortrup, J., ed. Studies in

Modern Childhood: Society, Agency, Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1-20.

Salazar, María Cristina (1990). Niños y Jóvenes Trabajadores: Buscando un

Futuro Mejor. Santa Fé de Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Schibotto, Giangi (1988). “La Niñez Invisible.” In Niños Trabajadores:

Experiencias y reflexiones. Lima: Instituto Publicaciones Educación y Comunicación
José Cardijn, 95-110.

----- (1990). Niños Trabajadores: Construyendo una Identidad. Lima: MANTHOC.

Touraine, Alain (1995). Critique of Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

----- (2005). Un Nouveau Paradigm. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.

This content downloaded from

194.230.158.150 on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:15:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms