Abstract
Street children are often constructed as fragile individuals who lose their innocent childhood since they have to work and do not have the opportunity to play like most of their peers. Using Bourdieu's concept of field, capital and habitus, this article seeks to go beyond the existing notion of play by exploring how street children in Bandung, Indonesia, understand and negotiate play with working as part of their everyday lives. The authors took an ethnographic approach to collect data from 14 street children and their guardians, mainly through observation and ongoing conversation. The findings suggest that the children are able not only to navigate the meaning of play, but also to negotiate their social position with adults on the street. This article serves as an invitation for educators and policymakers to develop educational programmes that are sensitive to multiple meanings of play, children and childhood.
Introduction
This article explores how street children in Bandung, Indonesia, understand and negotiate play. The study reported in this article is premised on the tension around the binary of play and work – that is, play as essentially good for children and work as something harmful to children. This tension is particularly pervasive when we talk about street children in Indonesia. Their working on the street has been identified as the worst form of child labour (Beazley, 2003b). There is a general view that the street is a dangerous space for young children (Dewayani, 2011; Hengst, 2005). Research conducted in Indonesia tends to view street children as being prone to committing criminal acts (Sukoco, 2008). Their existence is seen as social deviance from the ideal state ideology of family and children (Demartoto, 2012). Street children are also perceived as a threat to public order (Purwoko, 2013). They are even seen as having the potential to become drug addicts (Azmiyati, 2014). These studies seem to perpetuate the idea that street children need protection to return to the normalcy of a playful childhood. Troubled by the prevailing tension, we seek to bring a different understanding of Indonesian street children, who, in Bourdieu’s (2000) terms, frequently navigate between spaces for play and work as their habitus.
This article contributes to the existing literature on play and street children in at least two ways. First, the current research on play mostly illuminates its positive dimensions. Wood (2009), for instance, believes that play is a fundamental aspect of early childhood education. A solid commitment to play results in a better pedagogical outcome. Other research shows how play is expected to foster all aspects of children's development (Bodrova and Leong, 2005; Wood and Attfield, 2005). This positive understanding of play is just as prevalent in early childhood education in Indonesia. It is so powerful that it has become a taken-for-granted notion (Ailwood, 2003). Children who work on the street are considered deficient and to be losing their childhood (Balagopalan, 2008). In this light, we want to demonstrate the need to expand the meaning of play to incorporate the experiences of marginalised children like street children in Indonesia.
Second, this article hopes to contribute to the literature by challenging the dominant conception of street children. Street children are commonly perceived as fragile and victims of exploitation, or individuals who are prone to criminal behaviour (Purwoko, 2013; Rohman and Rohman, 2009) and vulnerable (Astri, 2014). Street children are believed to be forced to work by their parents (Dewayani, 2011). While we do not deny the fragility and hardship faced by street children, as Beazley (2003b) reveals in her research, we want to argue that working on the street should be understood as a form of career choice made by some children. There has been research showing street children's agency (see Bademci, 2012; Balagopalan, 2008, 2014; Beazley, 2003a, 2003b). As James (2009) articulates, children are full human beings, who are agentic and capable of voicing their opinions and making decisions independently of adult intervention.
Scholars such as Balagopalan (2014), Beazley (2003b) and Dewayani (2011) assert that it is vital to recognise street children as individuals with agency, regardless of their highly complex, multiple and diverse identities. It is essential to acknowledge, too, that there has been local research on street children that attempts to challenge the notion of their vulnerability. Beazley (2003a, 2003b), in her study in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, argues that street children constitute a form of subculture, which exists to challenge the marginalisation they experience. Another study, conducted by Dewayani (2011), unpacks how street children negotiate the tension between work and school. Van Daalen et al. (2016)) also show in their research how the notion of children's rights is often translated by adults – particularly policymakers – to speak on behalf of street children without considering their voices. Despite the fact that previous research attempts to challenge the dominant understanding of street children, most of the studies focus on older children, and none explore specifically how these children understand play.
From a Bourdieuan perspective, we examine the meaning of play among young street children and their guardians in Bandung, Indonesia. The three research questions that we aim to address are:
How do young street children and their guardians experience the tension between school, play and work? How does the habitus of young street children shape their agency? How do these children construct and negotiate play?
Theoretical framework
Informed by Bourdieu's theory, we conceptualise the street as a field where the negotiation of power, dominance and habitus production occur (Alanen et al., 2015). A field serves as both a physical space and a metaphorical space to construct an individual's social class, status and position in society (Wacquant and Deyanov, 2002). As Bourdieu (1986) explains, one has to understand the field in relation to the field of power. Multiple in nature, ‘fields exist both hierarchically and vertically in relation to each other[;] they may intersect and subfields may emerge within larger fields’ (Vuorisalo and Alanen, 2015: 80). We argue that the street is part of the larger metaphorical field named ‘childhood construction’. The street exists in relation to the school, home, government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) programmes. It is a space where different ideological conceptions of play, work and school regarding street children intersect and sometimes clash with the global values of children's rights and child protection promoted by international donor agencies and the Indonesian government. The struggles between the various fields can lead to inequalities in street children's everyday lives.
In terms of capital, we argue that the accumulation of street children's social and cultural capital is the result of both their economic capital and the constant struggle for dominance on the street. Bourdieu’s (1986) narrative on economic capital highlights its role in catalysing the accumulation and exchange of other forms of capital, such as social capital and cultural capital. Under the lens of network theory, social capital consists of networks and connections; it is often leveraged to access and build other forms of capital and maintain the privileges of the dominant minorities (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). The acquisition of social capital results in the embodiment of cultural capital. Bourdieu (1986: 243) articulates that cultural capital can exist in the form of ‘the embodied state, that is, in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body’. Through their daily interactions on the street and constant struggle of dominance, with their guardians and the government, street children epitomise their social and cultural capital. As Alanen et al. argue: The three forms of capital are made meaningful through symbolic capital, which for its part, is connected with symbolic power and symbolic struggles over the value of various kinds of capitals. Through symbolic struggles and processes, the values of various agents’ capital possessions are constantly valued and revalued in their target fields. (Alanen et al., 2015: 7) the initial accumulation of cultural capital, the precondition for the fast, easy accumulation of every kind of useful cultural capital, starts at the outset, without delay, without wasted time, only for the offspring of families endowed with strong cultural capital; in this case, the accumulation period covers the whole period of socialisation. (Bourdieu, 2020: 49) a set of dispositions, reflexes, and forms of behaviour that people acquire through acting in society. It reflects the different positions people have in society, for example, whether they are brought up in a middle-class environment or in a working-class suburb. It is part of how society reproduces itself. (Bourdieu, 2000: 19)
Meaning of children, childhood and play in the Indonesian context
The conception of children and childhood in Indonesia reflects the entanglement between global and local values. The international influence on the construction of childhood in Indonesia is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indonesia is one of the countries that has ratified the convention. Children's right to participate is at the heart of the UNCRC. The UNCRC is celebrated because of its stance on more humane and democratic views of children. It has become one of the United Nations most ratified conventions and is arguably the most comprehensive. However, several scholars (e.g. Balagopalan, 2002; Hartas, 2008; Quennerstedt et al., 2018) have critically questioned the convention, particularly the extent to which it is responsive to the life experiences of children in the majority world or children of the global South.
In the Indonesian context, the notion of children's rights is brought by international donor agencies such as the World Bank, UNICEF and Save the Children. The specific construction of children and childhood endorsed by these agencies prolongs the colonial legacy, which positions children in the global South as the Other (Adriany et al., 2019; Penn, 2011). Despite the UNCRC's emphasis on children's rights to participation and provision, the paradigm of child protection is prominent among the donor agencies (Penn, 2011). From child marriage to child stunting, a child in the global South is often regarded as deficient and in need of safeguarding. The notion of protection is particularly prevalent in understanding the life experiences of street children. The childhood of needy children like street children is positioned as a threat to the idealised notions of children and social order. In addition to the UNCRC, Indonesia has adopted the International Labour Organization’s Convention 182 (International Labour Conference, 1999). The impact of both the UNCRC and Convention 182 has pushed the government to develop domestic policies such as the Indonesian Child Protection Act of 2002, which acknowledges children's right to play.
While we do not doubt that play is indeed part of children's rights, the protectionist paradigm reflects western conceptions of play and childhood. Play is assumed to be good for and beneficial to children. Play can be defined as ‘a practice initiated by the children’ (Samuelsson and Carlsson, 2008: 623). It reflects ‘children's free and natural impulses, and it is done for its own sake’ (Saracho and Spodek, 1995: 134). Recent research has even argued that the importance of play is not confined to children in the early years, but continues after children enter primary school (Fisher, 2021). The notion of play is often constructed as a binary in opposition to the notions of learning and work. Wyness (2006) suggests that play is the main characteristic of a child, and it is constructed in opposition to work, as the main characteristic of an adult. Play is seen as child-led activities; learning and work, however, are adult-led and done to seek external rewards (Saracho and Spodek, 1995). The childhood of street children is considered problematic because they are assumed to be losing out on time for play (and study). This perspective does not consider how street children may have their own ways of participating in the construction of play. Punch (2003) argues that children and adults are not two separate categories. Many children in the majority world can combine work and play at the same time. According to Punch's (2003) observation, it is dangerous for international donor agencies to impose ideas of appropriate childhood of the minority world on the majority world, as it leads to the construction of a normative notion of globalised childhood for all children (see Hanson et al., 2018). This imposition places the emphasis on children's right to protection, whereas children's rights to participate in work and be active financial contributors to their households are overlooked (Hanson et al., 2018). Under the protectionist paradigm, the notion of working children, therefore, continues to be perceived as deviating from the idealised norms of children and childhood in Indonesia (Beazley, 2003a, 2003b).
Methodology
This research adopted an ethnography approach. Ethnography allowed us to immerse ourselves in the street children's daily routines. Most importantly, when doing research with young children, ethnography provides more space for their voices to be heard (Swain, 2006). We conducted the study at a busy crossroads in Bandung, Indonesia. Bandung is the capital city of the province of West Java and, economically, one of the most developing cities in Indonesia. In 2017, Bandung's economic growth was around 7.21% – much higher than the country's economic growth of 5.07% (Santoso and Kharisma, 2019). At the same time, Bandung is marked by social and economic inequalities (Palat, 2008). It is a city of contradictions, with dreams and hopes, on the one hand, and despair, on the other, as illustrated by the growing number of street children. It is estimated that there are around 2162 street children in the city, ranging in age from 4 months to 17 years (Tumangger and Riasih, 2020).
We spent approximately seven months on the research site, from November 2020 to May 2021. We visited the street three or four times every week from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. From February to April 2021, we intensified our visits by going to the site every day in order to better understand the routines and habitus manifested in the street, with one of us conducting most of the observations. We realised that if the three of us were together in the street, it would create some discomfort among the children. During our first encounter, there was resistance from the children. Initially, they were reluctant to talk with us. Their parents were suspicious, thinking that we were representatives from certain NGOs or government officers. The fear exhibited by the parents and children might be evidence of the imbalance in power of the relations between government officers, NGO representatives and the street children, who were constantly policed. Their concern also demonstrates how the street has become a field of power where symbolic struggle takes place (Bourdieu, 1986). After we had convinced the children and their parents that we were not from the government or an NGO, they slowly welcomed us. Nevertheless, we could feel that there was a distance between the children and ourselves. To overcome this, we showed them that we were not there to correct their behaviour. For example, when the children used swear words, we did not comment or correct them – something that is always done by government officers or people from NGOs. In this way, the children could see that we were not judging their behaviour.
The street children participating in our research were always accompanied by their parents, grandparents or siblings, meaning that they were not alone in the street but under their guardians’ supervision. This situation, to some extent, allowed them not to be exploited by other street children. Street children are used to being harassed by other street children; they seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes harassment (Beazley, 2003b). Altogether, there were 14 children, aged from four to eight years old, participating in the study. Most of them did not attend kindergarten or school; only two were enrolled in primary school. In addition to the child participants, there were 14 adult participants. As Boyden and Ennew (1997) suggest, any research conducted with young children should also involve their families or communities.
We realise that researching with young children brings ethical concerns, especially when the children are considered to belong to a vulnerable group. Hence, we conducted this research with a high degree of caution. We handed out written consent forms for the guardians to sign. The children’s consent was not requested in writing but by adopting a method of continuous consent, indicating that their consent was not asked for only at the beginning of our research (Warin, 2011). Rather, it continued to be negotiated throughout the research process. We paid particular attention to the children's non-verbal behaviour and the language they spoke. Whenever they showed resistance, we stopped the questioning and let them continue with whatever they were doing. We have also ensured that we are protecting the participants’ privacy and confidentiality by giving them pseudonyms. All of the pictures we took were analysed for research purposes only and not disseminated elsewhere. Throughout the study, we thought carefully about the kind of language we used and the type of behaviour displayed. Boyden and Ennew (1997) point out that when carrying out research with children, it is essential not to use the kind of language that may generalise street children as one single category. The three of us were aware that we held certain presumptions regarding street children. Because of this, we kept reminding ourselves about the multiple meanings of children and childhood, as discussed by Beazley et al. (2009). We felt that the children were comfortable with us. Occasionally, they asked for selfies or played a dance video on TikTok.
The data was gathered through field notes, observations and interviews. The field notes were based on our observations, while the interviews were treated more like an ongoing conversation than formal interviewing (Swain, 2006). We spoke mainly in the languages of Indonesian and Sundanese. Language was not a barrier since the three of us are fluent in both languages. Our ability to speak Sundanese facilitated the research process. The participants could express their opinions freely in whatever language they felt comfortable with and understand the language's cultural context. The data was then analysed using Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist grounded theory, where the most critical aspects are coding and constant comparison. After assigning coding to our field notes and interview transcripts, we compared all of the coding. The comparison allowed us to reveal three themes, as shown and discussed in the following section.
Findings and discussion
In this section, we present three themes based on the analysis – namely, the tension between school, play and work; young street children's habitus and agency; and creating the playground. Each theme responds to the corresponding research question. Before reporting and discussing the findings, we introduce the street. To us, the street is a field where symbolic struggle takes place. It is also a metaphorical space where the embodiment of habitus, resulting from the accumulation of children's social and cultural capital, occurs.
Introducing the street: the field
As mentioned earlier, the street children in our study were accompanied by their guardians. All of the guardians worked as street singers. Street singers occupy a rather unique and privileged position on the streets in Bandung. Their existence is legal because they have a membership card. According to Rudi (a parent), street singers can have this position because they are unified under Kelompok Penyanyi Jalanan (KPJ), a street singers group which often acts as a gatekeeper. KPJ has lobbied the local government, arguing that street singers are working and not begging for people's money. This ensures that all the workers, including their children, operate according to an agreed value. KPJ also alerts others if there are sightings of people from the government conducting inspections. It decides who can talk to the children and who cannot.
There are different reasons why parents bring their young children onto the street. One reason is that they do not have anyone to take care of their children. Others indicated that it can increase their daily income because people tend to give more money to young children. Here lies an intersection between age and social status, where people tend to show care towards street children but perceive older adult street workers as dangerous (Beazley, 2003a, 2003b). Since begging is criminalised in Indonesia, these children are often disguised as pengamen (‘buskers’), following their parents’ profession as street singers. In reality, the children do everything from selling tissue paper to cleaning cars and even begging. However, the primary responsibility of these children is to collect money for the street singers. The street singers usually occupy a specific spot on the edge of the pavement. When the traffic lights turn red, the children run between the cars and motorcycles to distribute envelopes. Before the lights turn green, they quickly collect the envelopes in the hope that passers-by have put some money in them. The children then count the money and hand it over to the adults.
The relationship between the guardians and the children on the street is indeed very complex. The guardians act as supervisors of their children to make sure that they work on the street and hand over the money. It is interesting to note that the children can decide how much money they would like to give to the adults. Some give 100,000 rupiah (US$7) per day; others give only 60,000 per day (US$4); and some give most of the money they collect. Interestingly, girls are given the flexibility to keep their own money, while boys are more policed to hand over their money to the adults. According to Titin (a parent): ‘the girls are more thorough in keeping the money, while the boys are more careless and often lose the money’. It appears that the traditional gender construction that places girls as the saver and boys as ponderous is evident here (Wolf, 2013). Meanwhile, the fact that children have the autonomy to decide how much money they would like to give to their guardians also marks the level of agency they possess. We do not intend to celebrate street children's agency here; instead, we want to demonstrate, as Amigó (2010) asserts, the tension between their self-rule and the system that constrains it.
Tension between school, play and work
The parents of street children, contrary to being neglectful (which is how society regards them), have aspirations for their children. They dream of a better life for their children. Lilies (a parent) expressed her views as follows: Of course, I want them to have a better life, better than mine. Nevertheless, what can I do? My children do not really like school. My eldest son quit school when he was in secondary school, and now my youngest, who is in primary school, already said he's bored with school.
In our study, the younger children under six did not wish to attend school or their parents did not send them to kindergarten due to the fees charged for early childhood education in Indonesia. As explained by Ina (a parent), there were other expenses that she could not afford even if she could pay the monthly tuition fee: ‘Too many things we have to pay for. The uniform, the field trip, many more. I feel like the school keeps on demanding money from us [parents]’. Similarly to Ardi's experience, Ina's statement depicts the idea that schools are biased against those who do not have the required cultural capital. The tension between schools, the street children and the parents highlights not only the constant struggle of dominance, but also the constant struggle between various fields.
Another reason why the parents did not want to send their children into early childhood education was that the parents often felt perplexed when asked to spend money on activities that were considered playing. Lina (a parent) said: ‘It [early childhood education] is expensive, and the activities are only playing … you know, playing can be done here on the street. You see it yourself how the children have been playing here’. Lina's comments are a criticism of the privatisation of early childhood education, where fees are charged to play. Her view also indicates how the parents of street children have a different understanding of what constitutes playing. To them, play is spontaneous; it is something that does not have to be purchased and does not have to be taught, and it can be done anywhere. Play is separated from the concept of learning, but it is not isolated from working. Schools should focus on learning because the parents realise that they lack the social and cultural capital to provide their children with learning resources at home. There is a tendency among parents of low socio-economic status to emphasise the academic aspect of learning simply because they see education as a ‘way of imagining the future’ (Naafs, 2018). Adriany (2019b: 85) asserts that the aspirations of these parents should be treated as ‘a desire to improve their [children's] socio-economic status in the future’. When schools assume that all parents and children have homogenous economic, social and cultural capital, and continue to promote sameness among the students (Francis and Mills, 2012), they sustain a symbolic struggle (Bessell, 2009). Hence, if the parents of street children feel that schooling cannot improve their children's future status, it is no longer a priority for them.
Young street children's habitus and agency
As shown, the street as a field is full of power and dominance, situated within the larger metaphorical field of childhood construction where endless ideologically different conceptions such as school, play and work intersect and collide. The hard life and daily interactions on the street literally develop young street children to be endowed with increasing social and cultural capital to embody their habitus. This, in turn, gives them a greater capacity to increase their individual agency for negotiation and navigation.
Through the study, we learned that street children are required to give the money collected to their guardians, which often creates tension between them. When we first met the children, we were shocked to hear the guardians – particularly the parents – ranting at them and using swear words if they refused to work or did not want to hand over their money. However, we noticed that the children also yelled back at their parents, indicating that they did not consider their parents’ behaviour a form of violence. Beazley (2003a) argues that street children perceive violence in a slightly different way. This resonates with what Cresswell (1996: 85) says: ‘a lifestyle that is perceived as a disorder is really a different kind of order, a different set of priorities and expectations’. The street, without any doubt, has become a field where a specific habitus is constructed. Yelling in this context becomes a form of habitus that makes the children and adults feel like they are part of this community of street workers. For the children, yelling back at their parents can also be a form of resistance, challenging their parents’ authority. They know that their parents, to some extent, are dependent on them; hence, despite the fact that their parents are scolding them, they can negotiate power. Working children, according to Amigó (2010), often have a sense of autonomy that allows them to deal with their wages with their guardians.
Although the street children had to hand over the money to their parents, they could keep the extra money they collected. Usually, the children used it for jajan (‘buying snacks’). Jajan holds a very important position in the lives of street children. It becomes part of the habitus produced on the street: ‘To each field there is a corresponding habitus, a system of embodied dispositions to think and act in certain ways; actors’ field-specific habitus develops when they participate in the game of the field, strongly believing in its significance’ (Vuorisalo and Alanen, 2015: 82). For the working children, jajan was a reward for the work that they were doing and a way to have fun (Bessell, 2009), as depicted in a conversation we had with one of the street children, a seven-year-old girl named Salsa, who was buying a snack: What are you buying, Salsa? It's a milk jelly. How much is it? Four thousand rupiahs. Do you want to try? [laughing] No … Aren't you worried that you might spend all your money? Nope. I already gave some to my mother. This is for myself because I earn extra money [smiling while continuing to eat the jelly]. (Field notes, 30 March 2021) When the traffic light turned green, an ice cream man approached the street. The children rushed to him and bought the ice cream. They enjoy the ice cream while jumping up and down. A five-year-old girl named Ita asks me if I would like to taste her ice cream. (Field notes, 7 April 2020)
It is too easy to assume that street children are spendthrifts when they have money or they do not know how to use the money they earn (such as spending the money on snacks). Our conservations with the children did not support this assumption. In addition to giving money to their guardians and spending it on snacks, the children saved their money with Ibu Rina, one of the parents. Ibu Rina acted like an informal bank for the street children. Every day, the children deposited some money, which could be withdrawn before the Ied Festival. One day before the festival, the children could collect their savings, and normally they would use them to buy clothes (Field notes, 11 May 2021). This practice shows the extent to which street children, in contrast to what society believes, can actually manage their spending and hence possess financial literacy (Amigó, 2010). It also helps us see the totally different childhood of street children, characterised by strong relational and negotiation skills, playfulness and agency.
Creating the playground
For this theme, we draw mostly on our field notes to illustrate the children's construction and negotiation of play on the street. The playground constructed by the children symbolises their creation of ‘a collective solution for the dilemmas they confront in their everyday lives’ (Beazley, 2003b: 182). In other words, the playground reflects a form of resistance to the dominant societal view that situates street children as having a miserable childhood and presumably not being able to play. When watching the children play, we have to admit that somehow we forgot that we were underneath a flyover at a busy intersection: The traffic lights are now turning green, signifying a new world where the children are free to roam around, unbothered by the endless responsibilities handed to them. In this playground they created, underneath the bustling flyovers, there towered a billboard proclaiming ‘Bandung with dignity’ [Bandung Bermartabat]. It was there the children found their haven. Unknown to the outside world, hidden between the rusty, interconnected pieces of metal, their version of reality would exist. There, the children often use that space to climb or play hide-and-seek. (Field notes, 11 December 2020) Two children, Rayhan (a six-year-old boy) and Dimas (a five-year-old boy) are romping around. They are chasing one another. The light turned red again. Quickly, Rayhan and Dimas ran back into the street, distributing envelopes. Once the light becomes green, they resume their play. Rayhan yelled at Dimas, ‘Dimas, let's race’. Together, they pretend to drive a car. They went around the billboard making car sounds. Rayhan suddenly stopped and said, ‘Oh no, we have to fill the gas’. They stopped near the metal at the edge of the billboard and pretended it was the gas station. They continue playing for a while before the light turns red again, and they are back in the street. (Field notes, 25 March 2021)
We argue that the children's construction of the playground depicts the extent to which they possess agency or the capacity to negotiate between playing and working. Because of the complex field structure that confines them, these children's opportunities to play, however, are quite limited. They could only play when the lights turned green, for approximately 90 seconds to 2 minutes. Sometimes, when the lights turned red, while collecting the money, the children would chase one another when approaching the vehicles one by one. The children, in effect, are forced to negotiate their time to play in the middle of the work they are doing.
Our findings also show the street children's creative and daring spirit in playing with whatever things they could find on the street: Bombom, a five-year-old boy, played together with Neta, a girl of the same age. Soon, they were joined by other children. They were collecting stones from the pavement. The stones were heaped up and they created a tower from them. They laughed every time the building fell down. After some time, a girl named Kiki looked a bit bored with the game. She then asked Bombom to play cockroach hunting. They chased cockroaches then lined them up. Kiki then asked her friends to take a picture of them using her phone. While we were a little bit nervous, Kiki did not look scared at all of the cockroaches. (Field notes, 7 February 2021)
Like before, we noticed that not all of the children had equal access to playing. Boys had more access to playing on different sides of the street, while the girls could only play on the pavement near their guardians (Field notes, 29 April 2021). The older children, again, had more opportunities to explore the street. Presumably, both boys and older children were seen to have more social and cultural capital – for example, they were considered to be braver and more competent on the street. As Ali, an eight-year-old boy, remarked: ‘You need to have skills to survive on the street’.
On the whole, the children's strong attachment to the playground reflects an acute awareness of their social status and class in society: One day, Nisa (a six-year-old girl) asked Irma (a six-year-old girl) to play a game called ‘Rich and Poor People’. This is one of the most popular games that children play in Indonesia, where children are divided into two groups: rich people and poor people. There is a particular song following the game. Irma giggled and said, ‘But we are all poor people’. Nisa, Irma and the other children burst into laughter, but they played the game anyway. (Field notes, 20 December 2020)
Conclusion
This article illuminates street children's negotiation of play. The findings suggest that, contrary to the prevailing assumption that positions play as something foreign for street children, the children can actually construct and negotiate play. Their play can be interpreted as an attempt to resist the societal view about their childhood. Through their play, these children demonstrate their imagination, creativity and relational skills. The findings also suggest that the street children's way of playing results from the interactions of their habitus and cultural capital on the street – that is, the context of a given field (Bourdieu, 1986). The street children explore spaces to navigate their agency in the face of various forms of dominance: the dominance of their guardians, who set specific rules for them; educational institutions, which privilege middle-class values; NGOs and the government, which enforce child protection; and different ideological conceptions (such as play, work, children's rights and street children), which contribute to a specific childhood construction.
This article does not aim to disguise the vulnerability experienced by street children. However, we argue that overlooking their voices will perpetuate their marginalisation. We believe that understanding street children's construction and negotiation of play will allow us to reimagine the kind of education needed by the children to appreciate their participation fully. Here, our findings serve as an invitation for educational programmes to be sensitive to children's diverse living experiences. There should be an option where children can have access to education while at the same time being protected in their working duties.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Dr Gail Yuen and Dr Suzannie Leung for their support with this article. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Finally, we are grateful to all the brave street children in our research who have shared their stories with us.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by a research grant from the School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
