The use of children as soldiers is common in many conflict-ridden developing nations today. Even in some industrialized nations, such as the Philippines, they are used by militant groups, though these are rarely sanctioned by the state. Current international law, including Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 77 of the Geneva Convention’s Protection of Victims of International Conflicts, forbid the engagement of anyone under the age of 15 being enlisted into armed conflict. Nonetheless, in places where international law has no sway and local culture takes precedence, or where manipulation of those most easily penetrated by ideology – youths – is necessary in power struggles, young boys are the most easily entranced by the romance of war and the appearance of manhood.
While today’s dominant moral norms discourage the use of children in conflicts, considering it a form of exploitation, this was not always the case. In fact, the concepts of “childhood” or “adolescence” themselves are a relatively modern construction. Historical and cultural context determines what a child is and thus what a child soldier is, and many ancient or early modern cultures – such as the Egyptians, Romans, and medieval Europeans – made extensive use of children in military campaigns in some capacity. An understanding of the history of behind contemporary debate on the use of juveniles in armed conflict, and how the “notions of childhood are constructed and manipulated in times of war” can help give us better insight into arguments from either side.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Boy Soldiers".
Galway (2012) looks at how children’s literature may have influenced the incidence and perception of underage soldiers – specifically the “boy soldier” – during the First World War. Such literature impacted both the children themselves and adults. Galway identifies a fundamental conflict between portrayals of children as victims of war who need to be protected, and portrayals that “celebrate the contributions made by young fighters” (Galway, 2012, p. 298). Both of these representations can and did serve as propaganda, influencing readers to support the war effort in order to protect the children or motivating children themselves to take up arms and join the conflict. Galway notes that a substantial number of juvenile soldiers have been documented as participating in the war, both on the German and allied sides.
Galway identifies specific works by A. R. Hope, A. L. Hayden, A. Tegnier, and others, published between 1914 and 1919, that tell stories of how young boys heroically contributed to the war effort. She argues that not only are such works products of popular opinion, but they actively influenced that opinion in their own contributions to the discourse. These literary works were instrumental in the development of a generation of young British, Canadian, and American children, along with those of other allied nations. Galway also notes the double standard that allied countries enforced: the contributions of juvenile fighters on their own side was heroic, while those on the enemy’s side was framed as exploitative and “barbaric” (p. 301). This, clearly, is transparent propaganda, used to vilify the Germans and glorify the universal spirit of the allied forces.
An important distinction is made between “moments of child agency, and moments of adult manipulation of the child” (Galway, 2012, p. 303). Galway feels that there is a positive effect that literary works celebrating boy soldiers can have: empowering young people to participate in their own defense and not be passive victims. Victims of armed conflict are how they were often portrayed in propaganda literature, in order to generate anger or sympathy in the public. Galway asks some difficult questions regarding the manipulation of children’s values through literature. Is there value in promoting the independent agency of youth, to the point where the can take an active part in armed conflicts in which they are involved? Their involvement is usually not a matter of choice, but their decision to be victims or heroes is, to some extent.
Many young Americans below the legal age of enlistment faked their way into the armed forces during World War I. Whether the government condemned this activity or happily looked the other way is a question that should be addressed elsewhere. In any case, the part that juvenile literature plays in these romantic visions of sacrifice and passage to manhood is an issue worth examining. For the most part, grown men had no concept of the horrors they were to experience in World War I; it is nearly impossible that young boys could imagine the reality of war and make an informed decision to enter into in. This raises the question of whether children should be exposed to more complex, gruesome, and morally ambiguous accounts of modern warfare. Would this dissuade them from a desire to fight for their nation?
Child soldiers have factored into American wars of recent years, though, for the most part, on the opposing side. In battle zones like Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East, where religious ideology is strong and children are often trained as suicide bombers or assassins, American soldiers have learned to trust no one. Men, women, and children are all potential threats in any hostile environment and the tragic fact is that young men are often the ones to carry out the most horrific attacks. Are they being exploited and manipulated in the way their teachers interpret sacred texts? If they are culturally isolated and bombarded with the orally transmitted stories of the glories that their peers have achieved, how can they resist going down the same path?
- Galway, E. A. (2012). Competing representations of boy soldiers in WWI children’s literature. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 24(3), 298–304. doi: 10.1080/10402659.2012.704257
