Cultural Context, Intersectionality, and Child Vulnerability

Abstract

Children around the world are vulnerable to multiple and varying sources of adversity and risk, the meanings, experiences, and outcomes of which are shaped by the cultural context and the individual’s place in that context. In this paper we explore how the cultural context and intersectionality frameworks may aid in understanding which children are vulnerable and under which circumstances. Culture influences child vulnerability by providing the context in which children live in their families, communities and the larger global world. Nevertheless, within any cultural context, some children are more vulnerable than are others. Intersectionality takes into account the ways in which multiple meaningful and overlapping social group memberships combine to shape experiences of vulnerability. Taken together, cultural context and intersectional approaches enhance the potential of planning meaningful actions to improve the safety and well-being of children, families, and communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Andresen, S. (2014). Childhood vulnerability: Systematic, structural, and individual dimensions. Child Indicators Research, 7(4), 699–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%. Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ben-Ari, A., & Strier, R. (2010). Rethinking cultural competence: What can we learn from Levinas? British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2155–2167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women's Studies, 5(3), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by design and nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  6. Brown, T. H. (2012). The intersection and accumulation of racial and gender inequality: Black women’s wealth trajectories. Review of Black Political Economy, 39, 239–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, K., Ecclestone, K., & Emmel, N. (2017). The many faces of vulnerability. Social Policy and Society, 16(3), 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry, 56(1), 96–118.

  10. Creek, S. J., & Dunn, J. L. (2011). Rethinking gender and violence: Agency, heterogeneity, and intersectionality. Sociology Compass, 5, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.

  12. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Etherington, N., & Baker, L. (2018). From “buzzword” to best practice: Applying intersectionality to children exposed to intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(1), 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fontes, L. A. (2005). Child abuse and culture: Working with diverse families. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ghavami, N., Katsiaficas, D., & Rogers, L. O. (2016). Toward an intersectional approach in developmental science: The role of race, gender, sexual orientation, and immigrant status. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50, 31–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hernandez, M., & Issacs, M. R. (Eds.). (1998). Promoting cultural competence in children's mental health services. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Josephson, J. (2002). The intersectionality of domestic violence and welfare in the lives of poor women. Journal of Poverty, 6, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kelly, U. A. (2009). Integrating intersectionality and biomedicine in health disparities research. Advances in Nursing Science, 32, 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Korbin, J. E. (1980). The cross-cultural context of child abuse and neglect. In C. H. Kempe & R. E. Helfer (Eds.), The battered child (Third ed., pp. 21–35). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  22. Korbin, J. E. (2002). Culture and child maltreatment: Cultural competence and beyond. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6–7), 637–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Krizsan, A., & Lombardo, E. (2013). The quality of gender equality policies: A discursive approach. European Journal of Women's Studies, 20, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lancy, D. (2008). The anthropology of childhood. Cherubs, chattel, changelings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Latting, J. K. (1990). Identifying the “isms”: Enabling social work students to confront their biases. Journal of Social Work Education, 26(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leinaweaver, J. (2014). Informal kinship-based fostering around the world: Anthropological findings. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levine, R. A. (2017). Challenging developmental doctrines through cross-cultural research. In J. Cassaniti & U. Menon (Eds.), Universalism without uniformity: Explorations in mind and culture (pp. 23–31). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. LeVine, R. A., & New, R. (Eds.). (2008). Anthropology and child development: A cross-cultural reader. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mafigiri, D., & Walakira, E. (Eds.). (2017). Child abuse and neglect in Uganda. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Liu, Z. (2015). Polycultural psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 631–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mugumya, F., Asaba, R., Kamya, I., & Asingwire, N. (2017). Children and domestic water collection in Uganda: Exploring policy and intervention options that promote child protection. In E. Mafigiri & E. Walakira (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect in Uganda (pp. 95–112). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Murphy, Y., Hunt, V., Zajicek, A. M., Norris, A. N., & Hamilton, L. (2009). Incorporating intersectionality in social work practice, research, policy, and education. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nadan, Y. (2017). Rethinking ‘cultural competence’ in international social work. International Social Work, 60(1), 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nadan, Y., Spilsbury, J. C., & Korbin, J. E. (2015). Culture and context in understanding child maltreatment: Contributions of intersectionality and neighborhood-based research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. National Association of Social Workers. (2015). NASW standards for cultural competence in social work practice. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Radis, B. (2018). A qualitative study exploring African-American lesbian mothers’ family experiences using both intersectionality and a risk-resilience framework (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania School of social Policy & Practice, Philadelphia, PA.

  38. Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1981). Child rearing and child abuse. The Polynesian context. In J. Korbin (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 186–204). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shi, L. (2017). Choosing daughters. Family change in rural China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weisner, T. S. (2002). Ecocultural understanding of children’s developmental pathways. Human Development, 45(4), 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Whiting, B. (1963). Six cultures. Studies of child rearing. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Worthman, C. (2010). The ecology of human development: Evolving models for cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(4), 546–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yochay Nadan.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nadan, Y., Korbin, J. Cultural Context, Intersectionality, and Child Vulnerability. Childhood Vulnerability 1, 5–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41255-019-00003-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Child vulnerability
  • Culture
  • Cultural context
  • Intersectionality