INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD CARE IN URBAN SOUTH AFRICA

understand the complexities surrounding a term such as “orphan,” and how these
complexities serve as a testament to the disparity between the role of institutions in
developing countries and how they are understood in Western Cultures. The humanitarian
approach taken by the West adopts a pseudo-imperialistic mindset by reframing the
nature of institutionalized child care in a way that affects how the relevant institutions
carry out their services. (Tester, 2010) This may include scenarios where an institution
must define “orphan” by Western impressions rather than the situations that actually
render a child vulnerable in his or her own culture. The aim of this literature review,
therefore, is to provide a thorough understanding of the ambiguities, complexities, and
histories surrounding orphan and vulnerable child discourse, to shed light on its present
day meanings and challenges, and to examine where there have been gaps in the existing
literature.
Because orphans and vulnerable children come from such a wide range of
backgrounds and are faced with a wide array of challenges, it is difficult to address all of
the many behavior, health, and psychology studies conducted on “orphans.” Researchers
of various disciplines have shown interest in finding commonalities between populations
of orphans. However, a historically and politically informed perspective of contemporary
child care institutions in the developing world would suggest that children living in
institutions may be understood by their differences as much as their commonalities.
Complexity and Terminology
The term “orphan” is defined by USAID (2004) as any child under the age of 18
whose mother or father has died. In the contemporary developing world, the terms
10