Discourses on Well-Being

Child Ind Res DOI 10.1007/s12187-014-9272-4

Discourses on Well-Being Shazly Savahl & Charles Malcolm & Stef Slembrouk & Sabirah Adams & Ingrid A. Willenberg & Roseline September

Accepted: 12 October 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract In the current South African socio-political framework children have been afforded the highest priority within government, via affirmation of their rights. Not only have the rights and needs of children been entrenched in the development strategies of the government, but children themselves have been guaranteed socio-economic rights and protection from abuse, exploitation, and neglect. Subsequently, knowledge and information on the well-being of children have become important pursuits. It has also become increasingly important to obtain an understanding of what children regard as essential to their wellbeing. The current study explores children’s subjective perceptions of well-being, with a specific focus on elucidating the discourses that children use to assign meaning to wellbeing. A qualitative study was conducted using a series of focus group discussions with 56 children between the ages of 13 and 15 from rural and urban geographical locations. A discourse analysis reveals a complex interplay between the social environment and the children’s sense of well-being. Three key thematic domains were identified, namely, personal safety, infrastructural deficiencies, and psycho-social functioning. Central discourses to emerge from these thematic domains were closely interrelated and mutually influencing and focussed on, personal safety, the social environment and a stable self as ‘non-negotiables’ of well-being, helplessness and vulnerability, desensitisation, marginalisation, (non)acknowledgement and (dis)respect. A notable finding emerging from the study was the extent to which the participants’ discursive constructions of well-being were ideologically configured. The findings raise important considerations for educational and intervention programmes and policies aimed at children and youth. S. Savahl (*) : C. Malcolm : S. Adams University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] S. Slembrouk University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium I. A. Willenberg Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia R. September Department of Social Development, Pretoria, South Africa

S. Savahl et al.

Keywords Children . Discourses . Subjective well-being . Qualitative research . Child participation

1 Background The history of children and childhood in South Africa is one characterised by exposure to political violence, oppression, abuse, and suffering. Following the advent of democracy in 1994, the government enacted a series of legal commitments to redress the atrocities that children experienced in the past and to make South Africa a better place for all children. These commitments include the promulgation of the Children’s Act (No. 38 of 2005), the Children’s Amendment Act (No. 41 of 2007), the Child Justice Act (2008), the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations General Assembly, 1989) in 1995, the inclusion of children in Section 28 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and the ratification of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (2000). These legislative advancements not only grant children’s socioeconomic rights and protection from abuse and exploitation, but also foreground the rights and needs of children in the development strategies of government. Providing a structure for these commitments, the National Programme of Action was put in place to provide “a holistic framework in which all government departments put children’s issues on their agendas. It provides a vehicle for co-ordinated action between NGOs, government and child related structures” (Office on the Rights of the Child, 2001, p. 21). While there has been significant progress made in the development of objective indicators and the collection of aggregate data, there is however, still a lack of child centred data as well as data specific to children’s subjective perceptions of their well-being. The interest in subjective well-being is aligned to current trends in international literature which point to the critical importance of subjective perceptions in developing indicator systems of well-being. Casas et al. (2013), for example, with reference to the International Survey on Children’s Well-being (see www.isciweb.org), motivate for the focus on children’s subjective perceptions which they believe is critical in assessing overall wellbeing and quality of life. The current study hopes to contribute in this regard by providing an in-depth understanding of subjective well-being from the perspectives of children. This article is derived from the primary author’s PhD dissertation (see Savahl, 2010), parts of which fed into a larger child well-being project that aimed to identify the domains of well-being from the perspectives of children. Data, with specific reference to the larger project, is published in September & Savahl (2009), while this article reports on children’s discursive constructions of well-being. 1.1 Aim of the Study The ultimate aim of the current study is to elucidate the key discourses of well-being from children’s perspectives. Within this process the study attempts to ascertain: i

what children regard as important elements of their well-being (what does wellbeing mean to them)? ii how children use specific discursive resources and repertoires to construct well-being iii how this is manifested in children’s discourses

Discourses on Well-Being

1.2 Subjective Well-Being Subjective well-being is generally defined as an umbrella concept that includes the cognitive and affective evaluations that people make regarding their lives, the events affecting their lives and the circumstances in which they live (Diener, 2006; Diener et al. 2005). The cognitive element refers to one’s perceptions of global and domain specific life satisfaction, while the affective element refers to both positive and negative affect. Early emergence of the concept of subjective well-being can be located in Wilson’s (1967) Correlates of avowed happiness (as cited in Diener et al. 1999), Bradburn’s (1969) The structure of psychological well-being, and is later evident in the work of Campbell et al. (1976) and Andrews and Withey (1976). Over the years there has been a progressive increase in studies focussing on subjective well-being, with the last three decades in particular, showing a dramatic increase (Diener, 2013). Diener et al. (1999) contend that advancement in the field “reflects larger societal trends concerning the value of the individual, the importance of subjective views in evaluating life, and the recognition that well-being necessarily includes positive elements that transcend economic prosperity” (p. 276). Studies in subjective well-being work from the premise that objective indicators only provide a partial explanation of quality of life, and what people think and feel about their lives are of critical importance. Within child indicator and child well-being research, however, the interest has been less concerted, with the discipline largely pre-occupied with developing objective indicators of well-being. Notwithstanding the languid start, research in subjective child well-being has experienced a marked proliferation in recent years. In fact, within current international dialogue, it is highly unlikely to find commentary that disaffirms the significance of subjective perceptions of well-being, both in measuring and monitoring initiatives, as well as in assessing overall child well-being (Savahl et al. forthcoming). Contemporary quantitative and qualitative studies on subjective child well-being suggest that the concept is often differentiated into a number of dimensions (see e.g. Fattore et al. 2007; Land et al. 2007; Pollard & Davidson, 2001; Pollard & Lee, 2003; September & Savahl, 2009; Thornton, 2001; Zaff et al. 2003). Land et al. (2007) points out that the domains identified in these studies generally align to those identified in systematic reviews conducted by Cummins (1996). Cummins (1996) concluded that the domains revealed in the reviewed studies can be grouped into seven broad categories: & & & & & & &

Economic and material well-being Health Safety Productive activity Place in community Intimacy Emotional well-being

With a constantly growing body of empirical initiatives on subjective well-being, it becomes important to consider the methodological implications. Researchers have

S. Savahl et al.

proceeded in two directions. The first and most dominant is the development of standardised scales and measures, often adapted from adult versions. Of these, the Personal Well-Being Index-School (Cummins & Lau, 2005), the Student Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1991), the Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1994) and the Brief Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Scale (Seligson et al. 2003) are the most widely used and have shown good cross cultural adaptation with children aged between 8–18 across a range of contexts (see e.g. Casas et al. 2014; Jones, 2011; Savahl et al., forthcoming) (see also Proctor et al. 2009, for a review of life satisfaction measures developed for use with children and youth). Secondly, and consistent with a qualitative focus, a developing trend in child research is the acknowledgement of children as valid informants and participants in the research process, and the subsequent shift towards soliciting their knowledge, opinions, attitudes and perceptions on matters that affect them. Often termed child participation research, this increasing cognisance of the need to seek children’s perspectives has been fuelled by the growing emphasis on affording children their participation rights as enshrined in Article 12 of the UNCRC. This methodological framework has been used both to solicit children’s advice on improving subjective measures of well-being (see e.g. Casas et al. 2012), as well as determining children’s perceptions of subjective well-being, the nature of well-being domains and how they make sense of and assign meaning to well-being (see e.g. Fattore et al. 2007, 2012; September & Savahl, 2009). Casas (2011) in fact points to the importance of qualitative research which he believes will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of child and adolescent well-being. The qualitative methodological framework, based on the child participation model, is followed in the current study.

2 Method 2.1 Design In accordance with the aims of the study, a qualitative methodological framework was followed, specifically adopting a child participation design. In this design children are regarded as key partners and stakeholders in the study, actively assisting in various processes of the project. The research team enlisted the assistance of a specific group of children who actively contributed to the development of the sampling frame, instrument construction and interpretation. These children engaged with the primary researcher through a series of consultation meetings during various phases of the project. 2.2 Participants The current study was conducted in the Western Cape Province which is one of the nine provincial regions in South Africa. With area size of 129 370 km2 and an approximate population of 5.8 million, it is situated on the south-western tip of the African continent and is comprised of urban, semi-urban and rural areas. Participants were selected from both low and middle income communities. The participants were 56 children between the ages of 13 and 15 years from 1 rural and 3 urban schools. The schools included in the study were purposively selected from a sampling frame of nine schools which


formed part of a research contractual arrangement and subsequently afforded the researcher unproblematic access to children of the required age. Once the sampling frame was established, four schools were purposively selected from the sampling frame. The primary motivation for the final selection of the four participating schools was that they offered access to children from different racial, cultural, language and social economic backgrounds. The sample reflected equal gender composition, while the cultural, racial and language disparities reflected the geographical realities. The life skills teachers at the selected schools assisted with identifying potential participants based on their perceived reliability to actively participate in the study as well as their enthusiasm and willingness to participate. The urban participants were recruited from two suburbs that included both the advantaged ‘White’ and poorly resourced ‘Coloured’ neighbourhoods. The term ‘Coloured’ refers to a racial category in the Apartheid era, constituted of mixed race individuals who were systematically oppressed, disenfranchised and denied access to resources. The rural participants were exclusively ‘Coloured’, living in a small town with few resources and many infrastructural deficits. The residents are mainly children, young adults, and older persons, with the economically active adults between the ages of 25 and 45 years commonly living and working away from the town in the surrounding farmlands. 2.3 Data Collection Procedure Data were collected by means of focus groups interviews. The data collection protocol followed a 3 phase sequential process with each phase consisting of 7 focus groups, comprising 8 participants per group. The interview protocol was largely unstructured, with only 3 core questions (1 in each focus group phase) and a number of probes designed to elicit engagement with the various aspects of well-being. The three core questions were: i) ii)

What does it mean for you to be well? (exploring what well-being means to them) What are the problems (important issues) that you (as young people) are currently facing within the community? iii) What is it like being a young person in the world today? The actual focus groups were preceded by one pre-emptive contact session to facilitate rapport-building, which was explicitly aimed at increasing the ecological validity of the data. The focus groups were followed by a termination session that ensured a structured exit point for the researcher, as well as giving the respondents the opportunity to add or amend certain viewpoints and reflect on the experience of being involved in the research. Even though the pre-emptive and termination sessions were not formal focus group sessions, the information garnered was considered admissible to the overall data set. Furthermore, the researcher found that informal discussions with participants before or after the focus group sessions yielded a rich amount of information. With permission, the content of these discussions were also included in the overall data set. A total of 7 homogenous groups were constituted, with 2 groups each selected from 3 schools and 1 group from the remaining school. Group composition was identical for each round of focus group sessions and consisted of eight participants each. The

S. Savahl et al.

attrition rate was very low with only 2 children, 1 each from Group 1 and Group 6, failing to attend the final group discussion. These 7 groups participated in 3 sequential focus group interview sessions; with the inclusion of the pre-emptive and termination sessions, this effectively translated into 35 contact sessions and 21 focus group interviews. The focus group interviews were between 60 and 90 min in duration and were conducted in English and Afrikaans by the primary investigator and a co-facilitator, both of whom have considerable experience in working with, and conducting group discussions with children and youth. After each focus group interview, detailed memos were developed. Memos constitute the reflections of the group facilitators and can be defined as specialised written records that document various instances in the research process. Thus memos are an essential methodological tool in qualitative research, ensuring methodological rigour and contributing to the validity of qualitative research (Kvale, 1996). The focus group interviews were audio-recorded using a digital Dictaphone, transcribed verbatim and independently verified. The interviews were conducted on the school premises at the end of the school day. The participants were provided with a meal prior to the interviews and transported safely home thereafter. 2.4 Ethics Once the schools were selected, the research team met with the principals and life skills teachers. An information session was arranged with the selected participants where the aim, the nature of their involvement and ethics of the study were discussed. The participants were advised on the ethics principles of informed consent, confidentiality, the right to withdraw and privacy. Participants who agreed to participate were requested to provide signed consent as well as obtain signed consent from their parents. Only those who returned the consent forms participated in the study. The participants were also required to provide a signed confidentiality binding form which affirmed their commitment to keeping the content of the focus groups confidential. Counselling services were made available to participants. 2.5 Analysis Consistent with the primary aim of the study, discourse analysis was used to demonstrate how the participants used language to construct their well-being. Burr (1995) defines a discourse as “a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way together produce a particular version of events” (p. 48). Discourse analysis is thus interested in the functional or performative use of language, elucidating discursive activity by isolating structural units that are theoretically assigned, i.e. forms, functions, meanings, categorical values, interpretations, strategies and beliefs (van Dyk, as cited in Duncan, 1993). Within the social sciences, two versions of discourse analysis can be generally distinguished. The first version, with roots in ethnomethodology and communication studies, focuses on the discourse practices and how speakers draw on various forms of discursive resources to construct particular realities and to achieve certain aims in interpersonal contexts


(Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Willig, 2000). The second version, commonly associated with the Foucaultian tradition, focuses on the function of discourse in the constitution of subjectivity, selfhood and power relations (Willig, 2000). In the current study, the authors have adopted the former approach, broadly based on the technique as outlined by Potter and Wetherell (1987). To facilitate the analysis and interpretation process, the discourse analysis was preceded by a six step thematic analysis protocol as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The aim of the thematic analysis was to elucidate the domains of well-being identified by the participants. The emerging discourses are discussed within these thematic domains.

3 Findings The central discourses emerging from the corpus of texts were located in three broad thematic domains namely personal safety, infrastructure and environmental context and socio-psychological well-being. 3.1 Personal Safety The key themes expressed within this domain were: witnessing or experiencing various forms of violence, abuse and criminal activity. These issues were invariably associated with specific social contexts of the participants. Furthermore, the discourses strongly point to the psychological functioning of the participants. A range of psychological responses associated with violence and abuse manifested in the focus group sessions, with fear and anxiety being prominent within their responses. In their explication of well-being, this domain was the most dominant and prolific in the discussion and generated intense reactions. The extracts below demonstrate the intensity of the participants’ responses: Female Respondent: Violence affects my well-being. People in the neighbourhood always clashing with one another. Female Respondent: Sexual abuse and AIDS are the things that bother me. I know this girl that went out with this guy and he drugged her and then raped her! It’s sickening to know that such things are happening to us children. We not safe! Male Respondent: Being safe! That’s the most important! Multiple Respondents: [Yes, safety!] Male Respondent: Violence… And to see it in front of you is just the worst experience. Female Respondent: At a very young age you expose yourself to all kinds of gangster elements, especially growing up in Cape Town.

S. Savahl et al.

Female Respondent: That doesn’t mean that we should accept these elements! Male Respondent: I know, but we are so used to it. We sometimes seem not to notice it anymore. Female Respondent: You get grade 4 children with no life-experience shouting gang slogans. Now you tell me, where did they get that from? Male Respondent: It could be anybody: a parent, an uncle, a friend or just the neighbourhood. Male Respondent: So we should hold all of society accountable. (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) The participants’ comments in the above excerpt point to their intense dissatisfaction with the pervasiveness of violence in their society and introduce the first discourse i.e. ‘personal safety as a non-negotiable’. This discourse was particularly evident in the intensity of the delivery, tone and demeanour portrayed by the responses. This, together with the fact that all the participants of the group consistently responded in an emphatic manner, supports the ‘non-negotiable’ sentiment of the discourse. Further evidence of its significance is revealed in the fact that all the participants within the study acknowledged the impact of experience and exposure to violence on their lives and well-being. In the second quotation a female participant demonstrates the close proximity and imminence of instances of abuse and sexual violence in her anecdotal portrayal of a sexually violent incident. This, together with a first-hand account of the witnessing of violence, functions to lend a sense of credibility to the contentions as well as attempting to ensure that a complete understanding is achieved by the interlocutors. It is further interesting to note how the participants make sense of violence by the critical appraisal of how it is perpetuated in society. They even extended the appraisal to include an examination of their own responses to it. By displaying a sense of familiarity with instances of violence as well as a keen self-awareness of their reaction and responses to it: “we are so used to it”, another discourse, albeit of a contradictory nature, that of ‘desensitisation’, emerges. This discourse is rather interesting as it is running a strong contradictory line to the dominant discourse, yet is conspicuously present. The emergence of this discourse supports findings by Overstreet and Braun (2000) as well as Leoschut and Burton (2006) who found that subjects reported feeling safe even though they were exposed to chronic community violence. The contradiction between this dominant discourse and the conspicuous portrayal of ‘desensitisation’ is an indication of the contestations present within the meaning making process of the participants. A further point to note is the participants’ use of the narrative to demonstrate the meanings of exposure to violence. Shaw (2004) demonstrates how narratives provide a route to meaning. In this instance both the anecdotal experience and the self-appraisal are presented in narrative form. Thus, in the process of retelling, the participants are allowing themselves an opportunity to re-examine


the details of the experiences of violence in an attempt to make sense of the experiences (Shaw, 2004). An important point to note when engaging with these texts is the inherent sense of helplessness portrayed by these and the other participants of the study. They clearly are presenting themselves as helpless recipients of the situation. When probed regarding their role in society, they responded as follows: Female Respondent: What can we do, that’s the way it is Interviewer: What do you mean, why don’t you do something Male Respondent: It’s just the way things are. Like what…you can’t just do things Interviewer: Why not Male Respondent: [responds] because it doesn’t work like that…you not an adult - you must shut-up and do as you told Female Respondent: But we shouldn’t just take things lying down, we are people too… (Group 7: Urban Middle Income) From the above extract, it seems that the participants have bought into the notion that “it’s just the way things are” and have to some extent accepted their position in society. While this ‘interpretive repertoire’ is challenged later in the discussion, the above extract portrays how the inferior social status of children is legitimised is society; in the sense that they have prescribed to the notion of social relations between adults and children being natural and permanent and which follows a line of reasoning that ultimately legitimates and rationalises the nature of the social relations between the two. It is this legitimisation that points to the role of ideology in configuring the participants’ discursive constructions of well-being (Savahl, 2010). A concept put forward by Potter and Wetherell (1995), an interpretive repertoire is defined as: discernable clusters of terms, descriptions or figures of speech often assembled around metaphors…they are available resources for making evaluations, constructing factual versions and performing particular actions (p. 89). However, even though there appeared to be a prescription to this repertoire of children being of inferior social status, there appears to be a subtle element of resistance emerging. Of equal significance to note, is the presence of another important discourse, that of ‘helplessness and vulnerability’. It appears that lack of agency in the negotiation of social relationships and engagement with the adult world is leaving children vulnerable to the exploits of the adult world. There is a sense that children are the

S. Savahl et al.

receivers of the society’s actions and behaviours and, for various reasons, lack the capacity to challenge (physically or ideologically) the actions and behaviours. Another explicit example of the ‘helplessness and vulnerability’ discourse is presented by a female participant from an urban group. Female Respondent:…we sit in class today and this female, not a female a girl at our school… she came down the bridge, …two guys came from behind her and grabbed her, and she ran off… and when she came here she was in a state… (Group 4: Urban Low Income) The discernible rearticulating of her words from “not a female,” to “a girl at our school” negates any probable perception of a far-removed relation. This discursive manoeuvre to demonstrate the contiguity of the relationship serves to highlight their first-hand exposure to violence. The extract further serves to highlight the typical events that children are exposed to on a daily basis. The reaction to this sort of incident is best described by a female participant’s matter of fact response: “I feel unsafe and not secure”. While the above quotation provides the quintessential expression of the participants’ feelings towards violence, the deeper psychological impact is more pronounced in this quotation by a female participant: Female Respondent: yes, you kind of inside you in this little umm like a box in this thing and there’s no way out because you the only one in the box and that’s how you feel when you constantly have to face these things that you can’t do anything about and you the only one there at the moment [emphasis added] (Group 4: Urban Low Income) The rest of the group concurred with this description and proceeded to provide further anecdotal evidence of exposure to violence. The discourse of ‘helplessness and vulnerability’ is profoundly evident in this quotation. The manner of the delivery further depicts the intensity of the feelings and assists in creating the ethos of ‘helplessness and vulnerability’. Even though the participants concurred that their ‘helplessness’ was experienced as a collective, it also appears to be experienced individually, or in isolation, as the italicised part of the quotation strongly emphasises. 3.2 Infrastructure and Environmental Context “To be in a stable environment” was often the first response to the question of wellbeing, suggesting that the broader social context is a key determinant of well-being. This response was always met with a high degree of concurrence among participants and it was often presented as a proviso for well-being. A “stable environment” can thus be included as a ‘non-negotiable’ discourse. Other issues to emerge in this thematic domain included the need for recreational and entertainment facilities, as well as services such as transport, municipal, health and police services.


The lack of recreational facilities emerged consistently as a point of discussion. The participants mentioned the need for a gym, parks, a library, a swimming pool and community centre. They believed that the presence of these facilities would contribute significantly to their well-being. More specifically they felt that it would help them “forget about problems” and “calm” them. A female participant further mentioned that the lack of these activities for children was often the instigating factor that contributed to their involvement in deviant behaviour. Male Respondent: We do not have recreational facilities in our neighbourhood. Therefore most of the young people end up just drinking and so on Male Respondent: There is not enough things to do Interviewer: The fact that there are not enough things to do here – How does it make you feel? Male Respondent: We do wrong things Interviewer: Like what? Female Respondent: Drink, experiment with drugs… (Group 5: Rural Low Income - Translated) Poor infrastructure and lack of community services were also frequently mentioned as impediments to well-being. As previously mentioned, this was to a large extent related to personal safety. A female participant believed that the poor conditions of the roads, lack of streetlights and the lack of traffic officials in the area negatively affected their well-being. Probably the most telling explication of the significance of this category was presented by a male participant from the urban group. Commenting on the prerequisites for well-being, he asserted: Male Respondent: Probably to enjoy your life…and to be well, your surroundings just have to be totally A Ok…I mean where you live and where you stay, the people around you, the stuff that you do: in your family; and things like that should be OK. Because if it’s not, then there’s going to be trouble. (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) The ‘non-negotiable’ sentiment is again evident, in this instance it is related to the social environment. It is interesting to note how the participant perceives his well-being as a fusion of the social milieu (“your surrounding has to be A OK”) and social relations (“your family; and things like that should be OK”) and presents it as a definitive condition of well-being (“because if it’s not, then there’s going to be trouble”). It seems to be emerging that well-being consists of closely related and mutually influencing elements rather than disparate components.

S. Savahl et al.

The participants further voiced discontent about poor community services and were especially irate about poor health and police services, citing instances of corruption and inefficiency as well as lack of access to medication and poor treatment at these facilities. They further indicated that they, as young people, were often discriminated against. Commenting on experiences of visiting a health clinic: Female Respondent: …And they rude…on this one occasion when I was sick and went to the clinic without an appointment, I was horribly insulted in front of other people. It’s like we a nuisance. Interviewer: Now what effects does that have on young people… Male Respondent: We stay away (Group 5: Rural Low Income - Translated) The above extract is a quintessential example of discourses in action. The proliferation of these discourses fuel negative perceptions of children (James & Prout, 1997), which in turn leads to discriminatory practices against young people, as the last quotation demonstrates. The act of imitating adults’ responses to children is also decisive in that it posits the participants’ insistence on the accurate portrayal of how young people are treated. The imitation itself was devoid of any humour in its delivery and was used exclusively as a mechanism to portray accuracy. What is fundamental about these engagements with society is the young people’s behavioural (“we stay away”, from the clinic) reaction to it. Various other accounts and anecdotal evidence from the participants posit the profound effect that these common-sense constructions of children have on the behavioural patterns of the young people. The emerging discourse is that of ‘(non)-acknowledgment’. The discourse is suggesting that on a societal level children appear not to be acknowledged for the role that they play in society, or as valid social actors or contributors. Instead, the participants believed that they are seen to be a ‘nuisance’. Furthermore, there seems to be a sentiment that children need to exercise a high degree of autonomy in their own individual development. This, together with the geographical isolation of the rural town, has exacerbated the feelings of ‘marginalisation’ within the participants. This discourse of ‘marginalisation’ is omnipresent within the voices of the rural participants and has significance for the following thematic domain as well. 3.3 Socio-Psychological This thematic domain included discussion around psychological well-being, social acceptance, participation, respect/acknowledgement, interpersonal relations, substance abuse, discrimination, role models and social support. Psychological well-being focussed on issues such as self-esteem, social exclusion and social acceptance. The significance of the ‘self’ was the central concept of psychological well-being. As the following extracts reveal: Interviewer: What does it mean for you to be well?


Male Respondent: To feel good about yourself and not to feel down. (Group 6: Rural Low Income - Translated) Female Respondent: To be happy with yourself and to be pleased and not to be under or doing something that you don’t want to (Group 2: Urban Low Income) Well-being, in these quotations, is clearly constructed around the integrity and stability of the ‘self’. In other words, being well means that the ‘self’ is functioning successfully. If the integrity of the ‘self’ is breached, well-being is compromised. In the current study, it appears that society’s attitude towards young people could trigger these effects. As two participants, commenting on some teachers’ attitudes and behaviour towards students, state: Female Respondent: It destroys your self-esteem. Male Respondent: They are committing character murder. (Group 5: Rural Low Income - Translated) These descriptions, both powerful in content and delivery, succinctly convey the possibility of low self-esteem. The word usage is interesting as it indicates a sense of inevitability and permanency. The discourse of ‘helplessness and vulnerability’ is also overtly present. Other signs of low self-esteem emerged in response to evidence of pervasive negative sentiment most notably when participants were falsely accused or when they were presumed guilty. Closely related to the functioning of the ‘self’, the issue of social acceptance also proved significant. Female Respondent: I think to be accepted for who you are. Not only at home, but also wherever you go. To be accepted for who you are… It’s very difficult. So being accepted would mean everything. (Group 3: Urban Low Income) This quotation again points to the functioning of the self-identity. It shows that this respondent has constructed well-being in terms of the social acceptance of their identity. It further points to well-being as being a socially negotiated construct. The content of the last sentence suggests that social acceptance should be perceived as a ‘non-negotiable’ pointing to the importance of a stable social identity. These discourses are more explicitly demonstrated in the following extracts: Female Respondent: People have to respect your opinion as a child

S. Savahl et al.

(Group 2: Urban Low Income) Female Respondent: Because people don’t respect you or the way you look or the way you are (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) Interviewer: Do you sometimes feel as a child that you are not taken seriously Male Respondent: Yes. Most commonly at school Male Respondent: [continues] teachers say, “shut up and then you can’t respond” Interviewer: You feel that is because you are a child Male Respondent: Yes, yes and you can’t even think of saying anything back (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) The above extracts point to the centrality of respect in the well-being of c h i l d r e n a n d a l s o i n t r o d u c e t h e d i s c o u r s e s o f ‘ ( d i s ) re s p e c t ’ a n d ‘(non)acknowledgement’. A point of note is a participant’s use of the present tense in his explanation of disrespect (third excerpt, line 3). This narrative technique has the result of making the incident more contemporaneous and real, and more effectively demonstrates their ‘helplessness’. What is interesting, however, is that even though the participants appear to be yielding to the societal structure, they do not posit hegemonic tendencies typical of repressed social categories in society. Furthermore, the extract demonstrated the tendency of the participants to locate the genesis of the problem within adult society’s frame of reference. The resulting tension is demonstrated in the following response: Female Respondent: My point is that if grown-ups can’t have respect for me, then I can’t have respect for them. (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) It appears that young people’s reaction to this culture of disrespect, in fact perpetuates a cycle of disrespect between young people and society in general. The lack of acknowledgement of their perspectives also appears to be fundamentally contributing towards the ethos of non-participation. The participants, for example, claimed that their input was not regarded as important and that no platform was provided for them to voice their opinion. Exaggerating the issue of non-participation is that they were often denied the right to voice their concern on matters that directly affected them. The following excerpts provide the most telling examples: Female Respondent: I want to be heard! … And be taken seriously


Female Respondent: Our opinion should be taken into consideration, we are a part of South Africa and our opinion should matter. (Group 2: Urban Low Income) Female Respondent: They must also give me a chance to have my say so that I can also be part of decisions that they make. Most of the decisions that my father makes has an impact on me and most of the time it’s not even a good. Because decisions were made here that I must live with for the rest of my life and it was made without consulting my brother, sister or myself. (Group 6: Rural Low Income - Translated) Male Respondent: You are not even allowed to present your side of the story then it’s a big deal Male Respondent: it’s very difficult to raise your voice and actually say something like this is wrong, no I don’t like this. Male Respondent: yes, but they actually stopping us from having a say (Group 1: Urban Middle Income) The above extracts all show a profound conviction for the “right” to ‘participation’, with ‘participation’ presented as a ‘non-negotiable’ of well-being. The extracts further posit the intensity of the responses towards participation with the participants’ narrative tone being quite animated and excited. The participants contended that they were excluded from significant decisions and believed that this negatively impacted on their well-being. They further showed an acute awareness of their rights, explicitly demanding recognition of their rights. This could in all likelihood be a residue of the participatory method. Finally, participation was presented as dependent on adult society’s acceptance of these participation rights. Also present in the above extracts, is the discourse of ‘(non)acknowledgement’, as participants claimed that they should be acknowledged as bona fide members of society. As a result of the ‘non-acknowledgement’ and ‘non-participation’, protracted discussions further revealed how these discourses contributed to the discourse of ‘marginalisation’. For the rural participants these feelings of ‘marginalisation’ were exacerbated by their geographical isolation. In fact, they tend to experience their geographical isolation itself, as a form of marginalisation. For most, the discourses vacillated between ‘(non)acknowledgement’, ‘non-participation’ and ‘marginalisation’, with the latter undoubtedly the most powerful, as revealed by the following extracts: Interviewer: Do you feel sometimes that you don’t belong? Male Respondent: Yes

S. Savahl et al.

Female Respondent: Everyday, all the time, and nobody listens to you Interviewer: What do you mean nobody listens to you? Female Respondent: [replies] If you don’t belong then nobody listens to you, then they tell you [animates a waving away action] right? Interviewer: How does it make you feel that nobody listens to you? Female Respondent: I feel they don’t care…like you don’t exist, you are not seen in this world… (Group 5: Rural Low Income) The extract portrays classic ‘marginalisation’ discourse. The participant’s response to the question is of particular interest. It is axiomatic that she is responding not only to the question but also addressing the inadequacy of the first response. She finds it important to elaborate on the first response which she probably deems inadequate. However, she continues to upgrade her response from “everyday” to “all the time”, a discursive manoeuvre intended to emphasise the serious nature of the trend, as well as to ensure that the message is brought across adequately and forcefully. This is also typical of what Edwards and Potter (2001) refer to as ‘extreme case formulation’ which refers to the use of extreme accounts to indicate commitment and investment in those accounts. In this example, the extreme case is being used to strengthen the account against doubt and reservation (see also Pomerantz, 1986). Less apparent, but still conspicuous nonetheless, is that the participant is consciously and deliberately making the link between ‘(non)acknowledgement’ and ‘marginalisation’. Her response to the probe regarding this is fascinating and complex. At face value it appears as if she is simply referring to group membership (“if you don’t belong”), with children on the receiving end of an out-group status. A closer examination posits a number of discourses operating simultaneously within this seemingly innocuous statement. Firstly, the ‘othering’ discursive strategy is apparent, elucidated by the presence of the “if – then” rhetorical strategy. Secondly, the ‘(non)acknowledgement’ discourse is operative since “you don’t belong”, which in this instance, implies that out-group status results in them not being acknowledged as valid members of a group. In this case the group membership under question is personhood. Thirdly, the ‘non-participation’ discourse is overtly present, elucidated in this case by the ‘waving away’ gesture. This statement further serves to emphasise the link between the discourses of ‘non-acknowledgement and disrespect’ and ‘non-participation’. Together, these discourses contribute to the ‘marginalisation’ discourse. The subsequent responses all appear to be supporting and confirming the discourse of ‘marginalisation’ in what appears to be an act of discursive scaffolding. In other words, once the ‘marginalisation’ discourse was presented all subsequent responses were geared towards confirming its validity. This discursive manoeuvre was further advanced by precise turn taking and the use of short explicit responses which added to the overall feel of authenticity. One can even go as far to say that it presented as a well-


orchestrated and pre-determined performance. At this point, however, identifying the intent of this engagement can only be mere conjecture. Furthermore, what is fascinating is that it presented, albeit less fervently, in other groups and was a definite discursive trend throughout the study. Rather than being the presence of the ‘marginalisation’ discourse, it would be more accurate to perceive of it as the ‘proclamation of marginalisation discourse’. However, its presence does not depart from the fact that ‘marginalisation’ itself was a key feature in the current study. The participants also communicated the importance of social and interpersonal relationships, specifically highlighting the importance of belonging to a social circle and having “a social life”, and claiming that it “is important…” and “…its part of life”. Moreover, they mentioned that the breakdown in interpersonal relations between themselves and parents, teachers and peers affected them profoundly. This is consistent with findings by Gorecka and Niespoj-Roguszko (as cited in Piekarska, 2000), who found a high incidence of reported conflicts with teachers and parents concerning school performance. The authors further reported that participants demonstrated high levels of frustration, fear and anger towards school and teachers. Similarly, Piekarska (2000) found that abusive behaviours by teachers significantly increased the stress levels of children. In the current study the participants intimated that strained relations with friends and peers had similar negative outcomes and profoundly affected their sense of well-being.

4 Conclusion and Recommendations The three major thematic domains identified in the data, namely, Personal Safety, Infrastructural Deficiencies, and Psycho-Social Functioning are consistent with previously identified domains in the literature (see e.g. Cummins, 1996; Land et al., 2007). Of the emerging discourses ‘personal safety, a stable social environment, a stable ‘self ’ and participation, are considered [by participants as]non-negotiable’ components of their well-being. These, along with the discourses of ‘helplessness and vulnerability’; ‘(non)acknowledgement’; ‘(dis)respect’ and ‘marginalisation’ are indicative of the actual meanings that the participants attribute to well-being. The close and mutually influencing relationship of the domains and discourses suggest that the concept of wellbeing should be perceived as an integrated whole consisting of closely interacting components rather than a discrete multidimensional phenomenon (September & Savahl, 2009). A notable finding emerging from the study was the extent to which the participants’ discursive constructions of well-being were ideologically configured. This means that the ideological imbrications emerge during the process of meaning making; how they make sense of and assign meaning to their well-being is somewhat structured by ideology. ‘Personal safety as a non-negotiable’, as it relates to exposure and experiences of violence, was the most pervasive discourse and was consistent in discussion of all three thematic domains. Furthermore, it was present in the discourses of all the participants, irrespective of social class and economic status. However, a trend can be identified whereby those participants residing in the rural and lower socio-economic areas provided narratives depicting first hand exposure, while the participants from the more affluent areas provided secondary anecdotal evidence.

S. Savahl et al.

A ‘stable social environment as a non-negotiable’ was another discourse that featured prominently. The meanings of well-being in this instance were attached to the integrity of the physical and social environment, in particular the infrastructure and provision of community services. What emerged as quite significant, was the minutiae of children’s and young people’s relationship with the social environment, i.e., what was the nature of their engagement and how did this affect their well-being. A ‘stable self as a non-negotiable’ emerged in the thematic domain of ‘psychosocial’. This discourse includes social acceptance and good social relations. The final non-negotiable was ‘participation’. Children were quite impassioned about their role in society and their right to participation. The conviction was however, more pronounced by the urban participants than the rural participants. The internal determinant here is the level of self-esteem of the participants. The urban participants ostensibly posited a higher level of self-esteem than the rural participants, were more outspoken, vociferous, and resolute in their claims for participation rights. ‘Helplessness and vulnerability’ was another discourse that was pervasive in the corpus of texts. Whether referring to their ‘helplessness and vulnerability’ in the face of physical and sexual violence, or as a remnant of being at the receiving end of a power relationship with adults, this discourse is substantial in its effects. Other closely related discourses are that of ‘(non)acknowledgement’ and ‘(dis)respect’. This discourse is ultimately both a residue and catalyst of typical negative discourses and perceptions that pervade society’s view of children as incomplete members of society (James & Prout, 1997; Qvortrup, 1994). The discourse of ‘marginalisation’ emerged as a key trend throughout the entire study. It appears to be a composite discourse comprising the discourses of ‘(non)acknowledgement and (dis)respect’, ‘helplessness and vulnerability’, and (non)participation. Participants were constantly positioning, negotiating and contesting the terms of their well-being within the discussion. The use of the narrative and the supply of anecdotal evidence are both conspicuous and prolific in the corpus of texts. Understandably, the participants are using the narrative as a meaning-making device. Their use of discursive and narrative techniques to convey their message was interesting in itself. Through these techniques the participants were able to conjure up powerful images and effectively communicate the components of their well-being. It is also very evident that the participants used this process as a platform to voice their discontent at their current experiences of childhood. A re-examination of the corpus of texts as a whole would indicate that the participants are often engaging in, what appears to be, a pseudo-political discourse with the primary function of highlighting the nature of their social space. An interesting question that arises is whether this positioning, negotiating and contesting are unique to these discussions, i.e. are children only using this opportunity to get their voices heard? Or alternatively, is this typical of the lived world of the young person? Considering the findings of the current study, it is recommended that future research focus on the relationship between the child and social aspects of well-being. In particular we recommend a focus on how the social environment impacts on the construction of the ‘self’ and how these constructions influence subjective perceptions of well-being. Noting the extent to which the discursive constructions of subjective well-being were ideologically configured, it is recommended that further research be conducted to reveal the extent to which these configurations impact on children’s subjective perceptions of well-being and overall quality of life.

Discourses on Well-Being Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad and the National Research Foundation for financial and institutional support.

References Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York: Russel Sage. Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 555–575. Casas, F., Bello, A., González, M., & Aligué, M. (2013). Children’s subjective well-being measured using a composite index: What impacts Spanish first-year secondary education students’ subjective well-being? Child Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s12187-013-9182-x. Casas, F., González, M., Navarro, D., & Aligué, M. (2012). Children as advisors of their researchers: Assuming a different status for children. Child Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s12187-012-9168-0. Casas, F., Tiliouine, H., & Figuer, C. (2014). The subjective well-being of adolescents from two different cultures: Applying three versions of the PWI in Algeria and Spain. Social Indicators Research, 115, 637– 651. Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328. Cummins, R. & Lau, A. (2005). Personal Well-Being Index – School Children (PWI-SC) 3rd Edition, School of Psychology, Deakin University Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404. Diener, E. (2013). The remarkable changes in the science of subjective well-being. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 8, 663–666. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2005). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 63– 73). New York: Oxford University Press. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. Duncan, N.T.F. (1993). Discourses on racism. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Western Cape, Bellville. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2001). Discursive psychology. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyse talk in institutional settings (pp. 12–24). London: Continuum. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s conceptualisation(s) of their well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80, 5–29. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2012). Locating the child centrally as subject in research: Towards a child interpretation of well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 423–435. Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology International, 12, 231–240. Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale of children. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 149–158. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Routeledge. Jones, J.L. (2011). Adolescent well-being in West Africa: Subjective well-being of adolescents in Cote d’Ivoire. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, Louisiana, United States of America. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. California: Sage. Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in well-being: An evidence based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132.

S. Savahl et al. Leoschut, L., & Burton, P. (2006). How rich the rewards: Results of the 2005 national youth victimisation survey. Monograph series number 1. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention. Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence and post-traumatic stress symptoms: Mediating factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(2), 263–271. Piekarska, A. (2000). School stress, teachers’ abusive behaviours, and children’s coping strategies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(11), 1443–1449. Pollard, E. L., & Davidson, L. (2001). Foundations of child well-being. (UNESCO Education Sector Monograph No. 18). USA: Centre for Child Well-Being. Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78. Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A new way of legitimating claims. In G. Button, P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Human studies (Interaction and Language Use Special Issue) (9, pp. 219–230). Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 80–92). London: Sage. Proctor, C., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life satisfaction measures: a review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 128–144. Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, & H. Winterberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 1–23). Aldershot: Averbury. Republic of South Africa. (2005). Children’s Act, No. 38 of 2005. Pretoria: Government Printers. Republic of South Africa. (2007). Children’s Amendment Act (No. 41 of 2007). Pretoria: Government Printers. Republic of South Africa. (2008). Child Justice Act. Pretoria: Government Printers. Savahl, S. (2010). Ideological constructions of childhood. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Western Cape. Bellville. Savahl, S., Casas, F., Adams, S., Noordien, Z. (forthcoming). Testing two measures of well-being amongst a sample of children in the Western Cape. Seligson, J., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2003). Preliminary validation of the Brief Multidimensional Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). Social Indicators Research, 61(2), 121–145. September, R. L., & Savahl, S. (2009). Children’s perspectives on child well-being. Social Work Practitioner/ Researcher, 21(1), 23–40. Shaw, R. L. (2004). Making sense of violence: a study of narrative meaning. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(2), 131–151. The Office on the Rights of the Child – The Presidency. (2001). Children in 2001: A Report on the state of the Nation’s Children. Pretoria: The Office on the Rights of the Child – The Presidency. Thornton, A. (2001). Introduction and overview. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (pp. 3–27). Michigan: University of Michigan Press. United Nations General Assembly. (1989). Adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations. Willig, C. (2000). A discourse dynamic approach to the study of subjectivity. Theory and Psychology, 10(4), 547–570. Zaff, J. F., Smith, D. C., Rogers, M. F., Leavitt, C. H., Halle, T. G., & Bornstein, M. H. (2003). Holistic wellbeing and the developing child. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 23–32). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.