Towards an inter-cultural dialogue about children's family troubles across diverse contexts.

What is it about?

Troubles are a 'normal' part of children's family lives, but sometimes what's occurring may be sufficiently troubling to be considered harmful, perhaps requiring intervention. But how may children's family troubles be judged to be harmful, and are such judgements always dependent on cultural context? We argue that this question cannot be answered through any universal objective measures, whether empirical or philosophical, since these always involve moral and political values. As a result, uncertainty is unavoidable. So does this mean that there can't be any agreements about what constitutes 'harmful' family troubles for children that can apply regardless of diverse cultural contexts? We argue that the choice isn't just between universalism and total relativism, but an inter-cultural dialogue is needed, since there may be times when decisions are made to intervene in response to children's family troubles - regardless of cultural context. Such an inter-cultural dialogue needs to make it clear what values, ideas of personhood, and ways of being in the world in relationships with others, are at stake in such decisions. We explore the immense challenges in developing such a dialogue, and briefly offer some alternative frameworks for thinking about these issues.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Currently it is Anglophone and Western European assumptions, values, ideas of personhood, and ways of life that are totally dominant in the evaluation of children's family troubles. These assumptions are part of a neo-colonial power dynamic, that shuts out, and renders invisible, alternative ways of thinking about children's lives. Unless we develop a sensitive inter-cultural dialogue about these issues, we risk doing harm of a different sort to children, and obliterating valuable alternative resources for thinking about children's lives, which may be lost for good.

Perspectives