Conclusion
This paper has illustrated how children take purposeful actions to
further their desired goals and meet their own needs, enhancing and
preserving their well-being despite the living contexts characterized by
ongoing military violence and oppression. The children interviewed
displayed a real determination to find their own ways of regaining
control over their environment, showing that their adverse living
conditions were not enough to stop them from creating strategies
to survive and imagine a better future for themselves and their
communities. Moreover, acknowledging the complementary role of structure
and agency, it has shown how the ability of young people to exert agency
is strongly shaped and influenced by the fields of social and
environmental structures in which their lives are embedded.
We should acknowledge and discuss the limitation of this study. Firstly,
the gender imbalance in the group of participants prevents us from
providing a more detailed picture of the gendered features of agency. A
second limitation is related to the contradictory aspect of children’s
agency that we were unable to explore within the study. Agency should
also be assessed within its ‘negative forms,’ as children may exercise
it against their own best interests as well as against those of others
(Bordonaro & Payne, 2012; Spyrou, 2018, Valentine, 2011). Perhaps
because our focus was directed at detecting those practices of agency by
which children preserve and enhance their well-being, we may have
overlooked possible self-destructive practices (Abebe, 2019; Gigengack,
2014). Further studies should pay close attention to examining the
potential forms of ‘negative’ agency exerted by children, with reference
to both gender and geographical origins.
Despite these limitations, the present study suggests possible
directions to follow in order to design policies and interventions in
contexts affected by political violence. A focus on agency allows us to
pay attention to the children’s many ways of comprehending and
responding to the challenging situations in which they live (Habashi,
2011). It means emphasizing the ability of children to participate in
the promotion and safeguarding of their own well-being by addressing the
personal, local, and cultural notions of ‘best interest’ and well-being.
Moreover, in acknowledging children’s agency within structures, our
study highlights the role of social, economic, political, and material
constraints that effectively limit and shape the extent by which
children’s agency can be exerted. In accordance with others scholars
(Bordonaro, 2011; Hoggett, 2001; Punch, 2007), this is a fundamental
step in order not to overemphasize agency, which might ‘deflect
attention away from those with moral and legal responsibilities to
improve children life chances’ (Abebe, 2019, p.8) and lead to the
erroneous assumption that children ‘are not simultaneously victims of
larger political and economic machinations that severely impact their
lives’ (Kovats-Bernat, 2006, p.7).