Boyden J
Disasters. 1994 Sep;18(3):254-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.1994.tb00311.x.
This paper challenges the limited models of childhood, conflict and relief which determine most humanitarian interventions targeting children in conflict related emergencies. In particular, it notes the tendency of relief programmes to focus on "spectacular" groups of children (orphans, child combatants and refugees) at the expense of larger child populations indirectly affected by conflict. This relief bias is attributed to an inappropriate 'apocalypse model' of conflict which sees relief interventions only as repair. The bias also lies in a mistakenly universalist model of childhood and a medical paradigm which pathologizes children's experience in conflict and characterizes children as passive victims rather than active survivors. The paper argues for greater recognition of the wider social experience of children in conflict, and for relief practice which takes account of childhood resilience and children's different roles and capacities in coping with conflict. Appropriate interventions must engage with the wide variety of indigenous coping mechanisms involving children and not simply replicate a standard package of relief interventions in every emergency, based on simplistic and universalist interpretations of children's experience of conflict.
本文对有关儿童、冲突和救济的有限模式提出了质疑，这些模式决定了大多数针对与冲突相关紧急情况中儿童的人道主义干预行动。特别是，它指出了救济方案倾向于关注“引人关注”的儿童群体（孤儿、儿童战斗人员和难民），而牺牲了受冲突间接影响的更多儿童群体。这种救济偏差归因于一种不恰当的冲突“天启模式”，该模式将救济干预仅仅视为修复。这种偏差还在于错误的普遍主义儿童模式以及一种医学范式，该范式将儿童在冲突中的经历病态化，并将儿童描绘成被动受害者而非积极的幸存者。本文主张更广泛地认识冲突中儿童的社会经历，并主张救济实践要考虑到儿童的恢复力以及儿童在应对冲突中的不同角色和能力。适当的干预措施必须涉及儿童参与的各种本土应对机制，而不是简单地基于对儿童冲突经历的简单化和普遍主义解释，在每次紧急情况中复制一套标准的救济干预措施。
