In order to understand and appreciate CSA in its entirety and all its complexity, this study was informed by the Ecological theory by Bronfenbrenner (1979). Harilall and Kasiram (2011) suggested that the Ecological theory is an extension of the Systems approach which allows exploration of the wide circle of systemic influences. The systems approach argues for the exploration of the wide circle of systemic influences and how environmental forces influence things. The systems approach further argues that individuals exist within a social context and to best understand them you have to look at them in context (Pincus and Minaham 1973).
9 | P a g e
The Ecological perspective presented a unique philosophical view of understanding CSA as it relates to the socioeconomic factors that contributed to the vulnerability of children to CSA. According to Sincero (2012), the Ecological theory holds that the child is part of and encounters different environments that have an influence on them. The theory sees the child survivor as located in a series of systems (Doyle, 2012). Our understanding of phenomenon of CSA is and should therefore be bounded by context of interacting factors. Bronfenbrenner in Harilall and Kasiram (2011) suggests five systems that influence the child and CSA in this context. These systems are the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macro-system and the chronosystem.
The microsystem is the direct environment in which the child lives and is directly impacted by. The microsystem is comprised of the child, the child’s family, friends and others with direct contact with the child. The child survivor also influences the system in that their behaviour and biological makeup may also influence the occurrence and effect of CSA.
Secondly, there is the mesosystem which involves the relationships between and within the micro-systems surrounding and interacting with the child. The child’s family experiences may be related to their school environment and CSA. The relationship between the child’s parents may impact and expose the child to CSA. Relatives and those surrounding the child (other microsystems that make up the meso system) may be themselves the perpetrators of CSA. According to Chitereka (2010) and Kheswa (2014),the majority of the perpetrators are related or close to the abused children, such as fathers, uncles, brothers, step parents, relatives, well- respected individuals by family members, neighbours and, in some instances, their school teachers.
The third system, the exosystem is the setting in which there is a link between the context and life events, wherein the child survivor does not have any active role, and the context where in is actively participating. An example is the transference of one of the parents to another work place that may expose the child to single parenting that is noted as a risk factor.
Fourthly, the macro-system relates to the cultural and social setting in which the child is situated. At this level is the cultural context in which the child lives. Meursing, Vos, Coutinho,
10 | P a g e
Moyo, Mpofu, Oneko, Mundy, Dube, Mahlangu and Sibindi (1995) and Lalor (2004) note that strong cultural practices, belief systems and male domination in societies such as Zimbabwe do place children at risk of CSA. The macro-system also involves the socio-economic status of the child and family. Putman (2003) links low socio-economic status to CSA. Poor housing, for example, has been shown to expose children to abuse. Poverty has also been linked to exposing children to transactional CSA (Jones and Jemmott 2009). There are myths, cultural and social practices that may promote or expose the child to CSA. According to Meursing et al. (1995) there are common belief in Zimbabwe’s Matabeleland provinces that sexual intercourse with children may cure one of disease or in other ways bring good fortune or financial success. The VFS is part of the macro system as it constitutes society’s response to CSA.
Lastly, there is the chronosystem which includes the transitions and shifts in the child’s life. The sociohistorical contexts of the child may have an influence on the child. An example is divorce and separation of parents that result in risk factors such as single parenthood and step parenting. Separation may result in lowering of economic status that may result in poor housing and a drift into poverty. This may expose the child to CSA as research (Jones and Jemmott, 2009) shows an increased risk of CSA, with the presence of a step parent in the child’s life.
From an ecological perspective, CSA is understood within a context at the various levels or systems and environmental forces (Messman-Moore and Long, 2003).CSA is multifaceted; operating at the various levels and influences surrounding the child. To understand the CSA, from a causal and intervention perspective, one will have to explore the various systems and factors surrounding CSA the child. These forces exact influence on CSA. The Ecological theory is used in this study to analyse the different variables and systems involved in the conceptualisation of CSA (Calaa and Sorian, 2014). According to Harkonen (2007), CSA is thus a fruit of complex environmental factors that interact with the child’s own micro- environment. The child can either positively influence the occurrence of CSA or the factors surrounding him/ her can also positively or negatively influence CSA ( the occurrence, factors and impact thereof).
11 | P a g e
Although generally well received, Bronfenbrenner’s model has encountered some criticism. Most of the criticism centre on the difficulties to empirically test the theory and model and the broadness of the theory that makes it challenging to intervene at any given level. Doyle (2012) notes some examples of criticisms of the theory as;
1. Challenging to evaluate all components empirically;
2. Difficult explanatory model to apply because it requires extensive scope of ecological detail with which to build up meaning that everything in someone's environment needs to be taken into account;
3. Failure to acknowledge that children positively cross boundaries to develop complex identities;
4. Tendency to view children as objects;
5. The systems around children are not always linear;
6. Underplays abilities, overlooks rights/feelings/complexity;
7. Gives too little attention to biological and cognitive factors in children's development; 8. Fails to see that the variables of social life are in constant interplay and that small
variables can change a system.