1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«In this article, [the] objective is to document the social representations used by the stakeholders in the parliamentary committee to support their positions regarding the inclusion of child psychological maltreatment in the Quebec YPA [Youth Protection Act]. Furthermore, [the] objective is to document how these representations were instrumentalized in the defense of certain proposals for intervention with the families concerned by the problem.» (p. 3)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«This study seeks to answer three questions. In this context of public debates in hearings held in the parliamentary committee for the adoption of Bill 125 amending the Youth Protection Act: (1) What were the different stances of the stakeholders on the incorporation of psychological maltreatment into the YPA? (2) What social representations of children and parents can we identify in their discourse? (3) How did these representations feed into the different positions?» (p. 5)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
The authors «conducted a qualitative analysis of the hearings held in the parliamentary committee for the adoption of Bill 125 amending the Youth Protection Act.» (p. 3) «Each of the 9 days of hearing corresponds to a pdf document of between 130 and 166 pages. Between 7 and 9 stakeholders spoke per day of the hearing. Then, [authors] selected testimonials from stakeholders taking a position on the incorporation of child psychological maltreatment or amendment of Section 38 of the Act. Over the 9 days of hearings, 24 bodies, groups, or persons raised these subjects. They also pertained to various types of organizations, such as community-based organizations, advocacy groups, research institutes, independent government agencies, etc.» (p. 5)

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

Authors «found that the same social representation of children as vulnerable and innocent was shared by all the stakeholders involved in the parliamentary hearings studied. [Their] results have thus allowed [them] to observe the existence of a specific type of social representation, a sub-category of hegemonic representation, the representation that [they] here call “sacralized” because it has come to be regarded as too important to challenge. [Moreover], the stakeholders who took part in the parliamentary hearings used several social representations of parents in their discourse: dangerous parents, destitute parents, and powerless parents. On the one hand, these different social representations of parents have allowed for dialogue about child abuse to exist. On the other hand, the hegemonic social representation of dangerous parents has been mobilized in the process of othering individuals and social groups. In [their] case, [they] have seen that the image of the poor, young single mother who is addicted to drugs and refuses to get help recurs in the discourse of the stakeholders to illustrate the problem of the psychological maltreatment of children. This representation also serves to protect the identity of the dominant group. The hegemonic social representation of the dangerous parent makes it possible to identify in the already disadvantaged and marginalized groups of society the “culprits” from whom one can differentiate and distinguish oneself as a good parent.» (p. 17-18)