On challenges, dilemmas, and opportunities in studying trafficked children

Anthropological Quarterly, Fall, 2008 by Elzbieta M. Gozdziak

On Definitions

According to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000), child trafficking is defined as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of any person under the age of eighteen for the purposes of sexual or labor exploitation, forced labor, or slavery." The US law mirrors this definition and concurs with the general agreement in the international community that, in the case of minors, the trafficking term applies whether a child was taken forcibly or voluntarily (Miko 2004), simply because children do not have volition and cannot consent to being smuggled. I will return to the issue of agency and vulnerability later in this essay.

The UN Protocol and the US law on child trafficking use the definition of a child promulgated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRS), which states that "every human being below the age of 18, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" is considered a child. The Convention uses chronological age as the universal measure of biological and psychological maturity and rejects cultural and social meanings attached to local systems of age ranking (La Fointaine 1978). There is no distinction in this definition between a four and a 17 year old. Both are defined as children who need special safeguards and care. In addition, this definition assumes a natural progression from childhood to adulthood, from incompetence to competence and from immaturity to maturity (Bluebond-Langer and Korbin 2007).

In reality the concepts of "child" and "childhood" vary according to social, cultural, historical, religious and rational norms as well as according to one's personal circumstances. There are tremendous differences between a four and a 17 year old. There are also often considerable differences between two different 17 year olds, particularly individuals coming from different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. Gender differences need to be accounted for as well. The cohort of trafficked children in our study ranged in age from two to 17 years, with the vast majority (83.3%) of the children falling between 14 and 17 years of age when they were trafficked. Approximately two-thirds of all the children concentrated in the 16 to 17 year age range when trafficked. Not surprisingly, the unaccompanied children were older than those who were trafficked with other family members. The majority of the children were girls. There was a substantial difference in the male to female ratio between the unaccompanied and accompanied cohorts. Among the accompanied children, 15 of the 46 survivors, or 33%, were males, while only two, or 4%, of the 56 unaccompanied children were males.

We were hard pressed to find two children that were very similar and could be used as examples of the proverbial poster victim of trafficking. Even girls who were part of the same trafficking case appeared to be very different. Interestingly, the traffickers treated them differently as well. In one case we examined, four adolescent girls were trafficked together and forced to work in the same bar. The girls with kinship ties to their 'employers' were treated very differently than those who could not claim such a relationship; they could keep money they earned and send some of their income to their families, and were given prettier clothing.

Many of the 16-17 year olds in our sample considered themselves adults not children and had considerable difficulties in adjusting to programs which wanted to assist them in "reclaiming their lost childhood." They did not want, for example, to follow rules not commensurable with their own self-image. They not only resisted things like curfews and chores, but also often valued work more than education. In fact, some of the adolescent boys trafficked for labor exploitation wanted to continue to work for the same employer. They liked working in construction and liked being able to send remittances back home; all they hoped for were remuneration commensurate with the work they performed and better working conditions (eight hour work days with breaks for lunch). Their self-image stood in sharp contrast with childhood ideals championed by the programs serving them.

In the United States the system of care for trafficked children has been developed within a framework based on middle-class Western ideals about childhood as a time of dependency and innocence during which children are socialized by adults and become competent social actors. Economic and social responsibilities are generally mediated by adults so that the children can grow up free from pressures of responsibilities such as work and child care. Children who are not raised in this way are considered "victims" who have had their childhood stolen from them. This framework views universal concern for children as transcending political and social divides; assumes a universally applicable model of childhood development; presupposes a consensus on what policies should be in place to realize the best interest of the child; assumes that child victims have universal needs (such as a need for rehabilitation); and promotes a therapeutic model of service provision.