‘A troublesome girl is pushed through’: Morality, biological determinism, resistance, resilience, and the Canadian child migration schemes, 1883–1939

Abstract

This article critically analyses correspondence and decisions regarding children/young people who were included in the Canadian child migration schemes that ran between 1883 and 1939, and those who were deemed ‘undeserving’ and outside the scope of the schemes. Drawing on critical realist ontology, a metatheory that centralises the causal non-linear dynamics and generative mechanisms in the individual, the cultural sphere, and wider society, the research starts from the premise that the principle of ‘less or more eligibility’ lies at the heart of the British welfare system, both now and historically. Through analysing case files and correspondence relating to children sent to Canada via the Waifs and Strays Society and Fegan Homes, I shed light on the complex interplay between morality, biological determinism, resistance, and resilience in decisions around which children should be included or excluded. I argue that it was the complex interplay and nuance between the moral/immoral, desirable/undesirable, degenerate, and capable/incapable child that guided practice with vulnerable children in the late 1800s. In judgements around ‘deservedness’, related stigmas around poverty and ‘bad’ behaviour were rife. Within this, the child was punished for his/her ‘immoral tendencies’ and ‘inherited traits’, with little regard for the underlying reasons (e.g. abuse and neglect) for their (abnormal) behaviour and ‘mental deficiencies’.

Revisiting ‘resilience’ in light of racism, ‘othering’ and resistance

“…From this vantage point, it could be argued that resilience can also mean 'resistance', i.e., resisting bad treatment and racism, as well as reflecting agency, identity and ownership of one's own life and choices within this. 15 Yet, in light of dominant constructions of resilience, resistance tends to be viewed negatively and equated with bad behaviour, positioning the victim of racism as the 'other'. This highlights the need to revisit and redefine resilience, as well as take seriously the methods and strategies employed by people from diverse communities to express resilience, in light of racism and bias.…”

“…38 Moreover, by constructing behaviours and responses as 'threatening' and 'different', such as in the quote above ('from what they said to me, I thought I needed to be aware of you'), the focus is largely on a reductionist, moralistic and isolated notion of the individual, who is blamed for their 'bad' behaviour, rather than on largescale social structures. 39 In practice, this, once again, translates into one-sided exclusionary assessments and judgements locating 'problems' in the individual and their community, ignoring the dynamics in the immediate social context. 40 Thus, the need to revisit and redefine resilience.…”

“All emigrants are up to the physical, mental, and moral standards required”: A tale of two child rescue schemes

“…deficiencies, but became increasingly synonymous with perceived deficits in mental capacity, personality, and conduct (Sims-Schouten, 2021;Wright, 2001). Perceptions around physical and mental abilities and deficiencies were highly pertinent in decisions regarding which children should be included or excluded from various child rescue and migration schemes-in this case, the BHS and Kindertransport (Fong et al, 2018;Jones et al, 2018;Sohasky, 2015).…”

“…The current paper is centered around two child migration schemes, namely the British Home Child scheme (BHS, 1869(BHS, -1930 and the Kindertransport scheme (1938)(1939)(1940), and the controversies surrounding constructions and perceptions as to which children could and could not be rescued, inherent in each of the schemes (Sims-Schouten et al, 2019;Craig-Norton, 2014;Lynch, 2016). Specifically, we focus on constructions of "mentally and physically deficient" children/young people, informed by eugenic viewpoints and biological determinism, and how these guided inclusion and exclusion decisions in both schemes (Sims-Schouten, 2021;Buss, 1976;Partridge, 1912;Stewart, 2009).…”

“…1 Similarly, communication with the Home Office about the Kindertransport in 1939, specifies that this will only involve "children who are 100% mentally and physically fit." 2 Presented as a moral program to "rescue" children facing poverty or danger, the above highlights how the BHS simultaneously adopted discriminatory selection procedures, excluding "mentally inferior" and/or "physically impaired" children (Sims-Schouten, 2021;Sohasky, 2015). Decisions about which children could be included in the BHSs were largely made by the sending homes, sometimes without parental knowledge, let alone consent (Coldrey, 1999;Constantine, 1991Constantine, , 2002.…”