The study has demonstrated the gradual process of pushing children from the home.
Informants were seems engulfed between push and pull factor of both space; home and street.
There are different dialectical relations between the events that informant experiencing in process of moving into another space. Informants shift towards one place to another seems to form two primary causes, .i.e., underlying causes and initial causes. Underlying causes incorporate those home environments where children have been experiencing poverty, migration, war conflict, survival necessity and family responsibility. Underlying causes evolved due to pressing needs of informant where push factor playing major role to keep them away from home reluctantly. Similarly, initial cause incorporate those factor that lure
informants to leave home without driven by pressing needs such as, peer influence, search for freedom, autonomy and urban attraction. In case of those informants, whose condition initiate from their personal attraction than from their socio-economic factor can easily pulled towards street space. Some informant reported to leave home due to pure socio-economic condition but other shows their personal attraction towards City Street as major cause to pull children in street. Informants shows their process of decision to leave home developed as they gradually facing adverse condition to live in. children ambivalent response towards their adverse condition indicates that their action of shifting space playing dialectical role to one another and valorization of one space mark their movement to another space. To emphasize informant’s relationship, study has drawn on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory (1979), which recognizes that human beings operate within connected or nested environment;
the home(primary relationship), community and other social space(street), in what can be thought of as ‘constant process of reciprocal interaction(Jack, 2001: 185). Furthermore, in this interplay between two spaces has been stimulated by the transition person who makes
children to come into the action quickly.
The study also exhibits that most of the informants decided to leave home because they get false information about the street through peer or transitional person. These persons can analyze as exo-system. The exo-system is comprise of environment structure that the child is not directly in contact with, but still affects the child’s development through interaction or influence other ( Klefbeck, 1995). Informants happened to get second hand information about city environment, i.e., only attractive side of street. Informants reveal that they were
supervised by their parents in order to maintain family burden. Children and family decided to
leave home because of basic livelihood problem and compelled them to move into the city street. Informants constant encountered with their daily livelihood problem likely to turn their space ambivalence situation into decision of moving to other space. Chamber and Conway (1992), basically sates that livelihood activities related to the material and social relationship which he categorized in individual capability and assets. In this view, children process of leaving home was shaped by searching for better livelihood in new space. Initially, most informants perceived street as source of assets and brings them to capitalized maximum assets. To be more precise, informants’ obligation and choice to move from home are constantly affected by their previous life condition and capacity to step ahead.
Furthermore, (Burn,2003) mention that child migration is guided by economic factor and social displacement. Physical dislocation, separation of people and one’s family environment, social disruption and material disposition and therefore interwoven to developed informants decision of migration. Therefore, urban migration can be taken as pull factor where poor home condition become push factor where children desire to chase better space constantly possess dialectical relation in action.
Likewise, Bronfenbrener’s (1988), ecological model of human development provides a vintage point through which children action of coming into the street can be view in relation to their different interrelation between layer of condition to their particular reaction towards their environment. It can be argued that informant decision of leaving home is much more than their autonomous decision.
It is evident in the study that children go through different process of social and economical process of choosing street migrates. Though, some informants were affected by peer influence and other was compelled by responsibility and parent’s decision. This study has also indicated that informants have experienced many ambivalence situations that triggered particular action and the role of false supervision pushed them to the street life. In this process of living in the street, informant encountered various hardship and stigmatization. As a result, street children were viewed as easy prey to the general public. They shown to categorize either as physical deformed, drug addict, or those ostracized for other reason who constantly struggle to adjust to their precarious social identities (Goffman, 1963).
It is the journey of informants to the street which has across many challenges of livelihood and related to their economic stress and desire of escaping adverse situation. In this process of shifting their space informants seems transformed with their identity, image, dreams,
responsibility and environment. Informants were expressed their mixed feeling of fear and excitement, responsibility and loneliness, family and public in the way to leave home to street.
Hence, informants entering into the next space is full of ambivalent situation; deliberate and compulsion.
CHAPTER 6: STREET LIVELIHOOD: BETWEEN TEMPTATION AND HARDSHIP