INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD CARE IN URBAN SOUTH AFRICA

culture, where things, concepts, and persons are given their identity through relationship,
this word loses its utility in many instances of institutionalization. If the orphaned child
goes on to form a new attachment with an assigned caregiver, the strong connotations of
abandonment may no longer be as appropriate. On the other hand, if connotations that
come from the word are internalized by the child, this may serve as an impediment to that
attachment being formed.
Many other South African languages recognize the societal role of orphans
through the relationship between orphanhood and poverty. Thus many speakers of Zulu,
widely spoken around the areas of Johannesburg and Pretoria, will refer to orphans and
vulnerable children with the term intandane, which may be literally translated as orphan,
but with strong connotations of poverty. These connotations are significant enough so
that many people, including adults, living in impoverished areas may refer to themselves
as intandane. (Mientjes & Giese, 2006)
The terms kgutsana or kgutsana ya kgudu have been widely used as a term for
orphans and vulnerable children in prior research conducted in the Southern Sothospeaking
areas. (Carstens, 2000) However, these terms carry the root -sana, which carries
the implication of having nothing or being destitute. The term is heavily stigmatized and
in local communities is largely avoided. The weight of its connotations make the label an
insult to an individual, and to the implied family that has abandoned the child or failed to
provide adequate support and care.
What makes an orphan an orphan?
30