Showing posts with label international. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international. Show all posts

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

(Multi)culturalizing Inequalities: Citizenship Contradictions of Marriage Transnationalization in South Korea/East Asia

Chang Kyung-Sup, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Seoul National University writes for us ahead of his keynote presentation today at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships.



As in other societies, globalization has had many faces in South Korea. Since the early 2000s, for instance, South Korean men’s marriage with foreign women, mostly from less affluent Asian countries, has suddenly increased. This trend became significant initially between Korean Chinese women (Chaoxianzu) and poor urban men, and Han Chinese women were soon introduced to similar South Korean men. From around 2005, many local governments and rural communities began to approach Southeast Asian women – in particular, Vietnamese women – as brides for rapidly increasing “forced” bachelors in rural areas. The semi-public campaign of “sending rural bachelors to in-law’s home” (nongchonchonggak janggabonaegi, meaning making rural bachelors marry) spread quickly throughout the country, so South Korean villages suddenly became the very forefront of a sort of sociocultural cosmopolitanization. This has become perhaps the first societal initiative for openly promoting “multiculturalism” in Korean history as the South Korean government, at the urge of civilian experts and activists, formally adopted “the multicultural family support” policy and began various public programs for assisting foreign brides and their Korean families. All of a sudden, multiculturalism became a keyword not only in social policy but also in cultural and political policy. However, this policy has not only failed to address the structural problems that were responsible for the necessity of transnational marriages but also engendered other structural problems. My study analyzes such structural problems by examining the historical and institutional nature of South Korea’s formally promoted multiculturalism.

The “multicultural family support” policy seems to have culturally particularized the complex social and economic problems surrounding foreign brides, their Korean families, foreign laborers, and South Korean society as a whole. First, this policy has been exclusively applied to marriage migrants while openly excluding foreign guest-workers (despite their lengthier and more sizable presence) for no (multi)cultural reasons. Second, while the material and social status of foreign brides is basically determined by that of their Korean family members – most of whom are unfortunately poor and often old – the (multi)cultural policy alone has had no significant effect in improving the latter’s material fate. Third, despite a paternalistic social atmosphere for helping relieve foreign brides’ difficulties in Korean life, the multiculturalism drive has often neglected the asymmetrical gender dimension of social globalization.

Rapid marriage transnationalization and the accompanying multiculturalism drive are certainly a new component of globalized life in South Korea, but the country’s persistent structural inequalities involving laborers (now including foreign workers in increasing numbers), rural families, and women have had quite interesting manifestations in this process. These material problems have been (multi)culturally reframed in both the specific terms of the multicultural family support policy and the broad outlines of civilian multiculturalism. The main conclusion I wish to offer to this international conference is that multiculturalizing South Korea has failed to meaningfully address or redress various structural inequalities that foreign brides as laboring, rural, and women citizens share with foreign guest workers, foreign brides’ Korean families, and native women.

===============

Professor Chang Kyung-Sup is a keynote speaker at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships. You can read a brief introduction to his presentation here.

You can follow live tweets from the conference using the hashtag #CRFR2016 on Twitter.










Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Harmonising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with children’s rights

By Patricio Cuevas-Parra, Senior Policy Adviser on Child Participation and Rights at World Vision International and CRFR PhD candidate.

For those working in international development, September 2015 marks a major milestone in the fight toward the eradication of poverty worldwide as the United Nations adopted the post-2015 development agenda. During its 69th session, the General Assembly agreed on the new global framework 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This agenda included 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets, which cover issues ranging from hunger and food security to climate change and sustainable ecosystems.

Over the past three years, a large number of children’s rights advocates and child-focused organisations engaged in intense consultations and negotiations with multiple parties, including governmental agencies, multilaterals, and civil society and private sector organisations. They sought to ensure SDGs were inclusive of children and their rights. Their efforts were successful. The adoption of the SDGs embodies, in the text, much human rights language, recognises children and young people as subjects of rights, and acknowledges the obligation to achieve progressively the full realisation of their rights.

As someone who has worked on children’s participation in different parts of the world, I was personally pleased to see a clear commitment to the realisation of children’s rights. I was also satisfied to read multiple mentions made of the right to participate in the declaration of the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. The SDGs underline the importance of the empowerment and engagement of children and young people as critical agents of change that should be able to participate fully in society.Nevertheless, many questions remain open. How will children’s rights be unpacked? How will the potential tension between child-wellbeing and child rights be addressed? How can we ensure that children and young people are able to participate in the implementation and monitoring of this global framework?

The SDGs have embraced a general human rights language, which is a major step forward; however, the core set of global issues affecting children have not completely been framed in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The discussion on favouring child well-being over children’s rights has also raise some concerns. For instance, there is a preoccupation that a focus on child well-being can undermine the obligations for States Parties have ratified the UNCRC.

For Tisdall (2015), children’s well-being and children’s rights are not equivalent concepts. The former underlines a preventive and asset-based approach, which is aspirational, but can be apolitical. On the other hand, children’s rights are a set of agreed upon minimum standards where the States Parties that have ratified the UNCRC, as the main duty bearers, can be held accountable to realise those rights. So, the harmonisation of the SDGs with children’s rights requires the States Parties develop a robust connection between the targets and the agreed upon set of non-negotiable UNCRC standards, especially in accordance with its core principles of non-discrimination, the best interest of children, the right to life, survival and development and the respect for the views of children.

The SDGs seek to realise the human rights of all and call to respect these rights. However, experiences from the field have shown that children and young people still face age-based discrimination and, as a result of that, they are excluded from decision-making processes. Moosa-Mitha (2005) argues that children will often be excluded if they are considered as ‘equality-as-same’ instead of being treated as ‘differently equal members of the public culture in which they are full participants.’ I believe that this difference-centre approach can help children and young people to exercise their citizen rights on the basis of their identity as children, and prevent them from being excluded solely on the basis of their age.

My final thoughts are around the promises made by SDGs to create spaces and opportunities for children and young people to participate in the global agenda. The member states at Rio + 20 also called to ensure the active participation of children and young people in decision-making processes and in monitoring and accountability. Writing from a UK context, Tisdall (2008) argues that one of the major tasks in ensuring children’s and young people’s participation is to change institutions to a position where they are able to include children and young people as stakeholders in decision-making. The SDGs have recognised children and young people as critical agents of change and asked them to actively engage in shaping their world. This is a very promising approach that has been widely applauded by children’s rights advocates, however, it is also brings several questions. How do the international community and other key actors incorporate children and young people’s participation in global strategies, policies and legislation and; more importantly, what do children and young people think about that?

If you would like to learn more about the SDGs, check out these sites: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SDGs-child-friendly.pdf
http://www.wvi.org/united-nations-and-global-engagement/article/world-visions-commentary-open-working-groups-proposed

References

- Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005) A Difference-Centred Alternative to Theorization of Children's Citizenship Rights, Citizenship Studies, 9 (4), pp. 369-388, DOI:10.1080/13621020500211354
- Tisdall, K. (2008) 'Is the honeymoon over? Children and young people’s participation in public decision-making' International Journal of Children’s Rights, 16 (3), pp. 343-354.
- Tisdall, K. (2015) Children’s rights and children’s wellbeing: Equivalent policy concepts? Journal of Social Policy, 44 (4), pp. 807-823, 10.1017/S0047279415000306.
- United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, A/RES/70/1, retrieved 10 November 2015 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

Patricio Cuevas-Parra's CRFR PhD project ‘All opinions matter: Children and young people leading their own research’ aims to critically explore how the process and outcomes of the participation of children and young people in their own research contribute, positively or negatively, to decision-making processes.


==============================================================

Do you want to develop your skills in research and consultation with children and young people? Take a look at our Continuing Professional Development courses, delivered by Dr Susan Elsley and Professor Kay Tisdall:

10-11th March 2016: Involving children and young people in research and consultation
28-29th April 2016: Using creative methods in research with children and young people

Monday, 16 April 2012

New journal on families and relationships launched

cover image of Families, Relationships and Societies
 
CRFR is pleased to support the launch of a new social science journal, Families, Relationships and Societies. The journal explores family life, relationships and generational issues from a social science perspective and with a strong policy and practice focus. The aim to present high-calibre work and stimulate debate has been well achieved in the first issue:
  • Editorial: Tess Ridge and Brid Featherstone
  • An ethic of care and sibling care in older age: Marian Barnes
  • Doing family, contesting gender and expanding affinity: Family practices of married women in Hong Kong: Anita Chan
  • Family structure, family stability and outcomes of five-year-old children: Terry-Ann Craigie et al.
  • Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the concept: Ros Edwards
  • The effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving access to the health and mental health services for looked after children and young people: A systematic review: Roy Jones et al.
  • Reflections on governing the family: The close relationship between child protection and social work in advanced Western societies – the example of England: Nigel Parton
  • Care relations and public policy: Social justice claims and social investment frames: Fiona Williams
  • Open Space: A review of social trends and family and relationships policies in England and Wales: Martina Klett-Davies
 Marian Barnes offers insight into the under-researched area of sibling care, and together with Anita Chan's article on married women in Hong Kong, demonstrates the value of qualitative approaches in exploring family practices. The journal has taken on an international perspective and the quantitative study by Craigie, Brooks-Gunn and Waldfogel from the United States is an important contribution to a contested area in families research. Edwards and Gillies have offered a similarly stimulating argument, and the editorial team are hopeful that many readers respond to the ideas put forward in these two articles in forthcoming issues. The systematic review by Roy Jones and colleagues, and the article by Nigel Parton are required reading for those interested in child welfare and protection, and again the editors would welcome alternative views of policy and practice in this area. Finally Fiona Williams' article builds on her groundbreaking work on care ethics.

Open Space is a unique feature of the journal providing space for more critical reviews of research, policy, practice initiatives and recent publications and providing an opportunity, over time, for authors to test out new viewpoints, stimulate debates and bring one another up-to-date on local and global contexts. Martina Klett-Davies kicks this off with a policy review in the area of relationships support.

The journal is available in print and online, and all institutions have free online access to the journal in 2012. Go to http://www.policypress.co.uk/journals_frs_trial.asp? for more information.

CRFR would like to congratulate everyone on the editorial board for this important contribution.