M ATRIMONIO Y EMIGRACIÓN HACIA TIERRAS GADITANAS

Rhodes (2002:26) warns that there are many unanswered questions as to exactly how and why mentoring works and that one should be careful to make claims about positive outcomes without the scientific backing. It does seem, however, that positive mentoring outcomes are directly linked with the quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee. Rhodes reminds one that positive developmental outcomes are unlikely to unfold without a strong interpersonal connection characterised by mutuality, trust and empathy. The author D.J. Levinson observed (1979:100), “mentoring is not a simple, all-or-none matter, and if a bond does not form, youth and mentors may disengage from the match before the relationship lasts long enough to have a positive impact on youth.” Such a meaningful connection is only possible to the extent the mentee is willing to share her/his feelings and self-perceptions and be actively engaged in the relationship. Rhodes (2002) adds that this engagement does not imply that every moment needs to be packed with “profundity and personal growth.” She says (2005:3) that “it seems more likely that successful mentoring of youth is more often characterised by a series of small wins that emerge sporadically over time” and that it is often the “mundane moments which might

be laced with boredom, humour and even frustration” that can help to forge a connection from which the mentee may draw strength in moments of vulnerability or share triumph in moments of accomplishments. One must also remember that often abused and neglected youth do not have the ability to express their emotions and self-perception, therefore one should be cautious to measure the quality of a relationship on the immediate participation and interaction of the mentee, but should rather perceive over time how the mentee’s developmental outcomes are in line with the mentor’s developmental inputs. In a study done on 600 mentoring pairs in community- and school-based programmes, Herrera, Sipe and McClanahan (2000:72), concluded that “at the crux of the mentoring relationships is the bond that forms between the youth and mentor.” Other research (Allen et al. 2003) shows that empathetic and supporting parenting was a predictive of attachment security (belonging) among adolescents (Rhodes 2005:3). Rhodes also argues that in the same way, mentors who are attuned with their mentees are likely to be in a better position to handle discussion around vulnerable topics without undermining the youngsters’ sense of self-confidence (2005:3). Larson (2000:5) holds that the major cause for troubled youth, is the detachment of young people from adults, and suggests (2000:92) that the first building block in restoring these broken relationships is building trust between youth and adults. When mentoring is done correctly, this trust relationship might be the probable outcome youth-at-risk intervention practitioners are looking for in solving the “youth-at-risk problem”. This is a significant statement, since as discussed in the previous Chapter, these relationships between youth and significant adults lead to developing resilience, which is a protective and promotive factor. Rhodes suggests that most research concerned with mentoring outcomes revolves around the understanding of building resilience and understanding resilience models.

The Circle of Courage theory, is one resilience model that strongly leans towards a mentoring implementation model (Larson 2000; Brown 2012). The Circle of Courage emerged from a collaboration of Martin Brokenleg, a professor of Native American Studies, and Larry Brendtro, a professor in children’s behaviour disorders, research and work. Brokenleg and Larson studied how traditional indigenous cultures were able to raise respectful and responsible children without resorting to coercive discipline. Within their research they found that within traditional indigenous (Native American) cultures, four essential “growth needs” were addressed, namely: Belonging, Mastery, Independence and Generosity. In 1988 their findings were presented to an international conference of the Child Welfare League of America in Washington, DC. Twelve years later, with the publication of Reclaiming Youth at Risk by

Larry Brendtro, Martin Brokenleg and Steve Van Bockern, who were then colleagues at Augustana College, the Circle of Courage entered the mainstream of education and youth work in the United States. In 1992, the journal Reclaiming Children and Youth was formed to advance research and practice related to the Circle of Courage and in 1994 the annual Black Hills Seminars were established in collaboration with the South Dakota Children’s Home Society. These conferences have expanded to Canada and abroad and have even made their way to South Africa. The model was adopted to transform youth services in South Africa during the administration of the first democratically elected president, Nelson Mandela, under leadership of Minister Geraldine Moloketi and Lesley du Toit.

According to Canadian anthropologist Inge Bolin (1998), "rituals of respect" permeate the values and child rearing practices of traditional indigenous cultures. She says that when needs for belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity are met, children and youth thrive and achieve their full potential. Unfortunately, in modern society, since young people are ‘disconnected’ from caring adults and hyper-influenced by peers, the ‘ecology of childhood’ is disrupted, basic growth needs go unmet and youth present a host of problems and risky behaviour. Larson explains (2000:72) that the outcomes of a completed Circle of Courage in a young person’s life, is that he/she will be able to act with strength and integrity even in the face of life’s most difficult challenges. These ‘areas’ are also described by behavioural scientists as attachment, achievement, autonomy and altruism, which research suggest are so essential to human well-being (resilience) that they are the fundamental building blocks in our genetic makeup (Larson, 2000:74).

Concerning belonging (attachment), Larson & Brendtro says that it develops in a child’s earliest bonds with caregivers:

“When attachments are secure, children develop a healthy sense of belonging. Children who do not feel wanted usually have difficulty trusting others. As a result, they easily become disheartened, discouraged, and dejected – not just about a few specific things, but about life in general. Longing for love, they are at the same time deathly afraid of it.” (2000:75)

Young people with an undeveloped identity in the area of belonging seek belonging in risky sexual behaviour, gangs and social drug use. Also, these young people often express their sense of alienation and rejection because of their lack of belonging by rebelling against authority

through vandalism and “by sabotaging every significant relationship they enter” (2000:75). The outcomes of a committed, consistent and persistent mentor however help mentees shape new and positive attachment patterns which naturally results in the development of their competence.

Competence is an essential element in the development of a young person’s identity in the area of mastery (achievement). Larson says that “children need knowledge, skills and values to confront the challenges of living and to creatively solve problems. Those without competence become locked into patterns of self-defeating behaviour and develop a failure identity (2000:76). He also notes that most young people have experienced so much failure in their lives that they believe that they cannot succeed in anything – in a sense they become familiar with failure. “Success is scary, failure is at least familiar” (2000:77). This sense of failure often leads to a great sense of frustration that is expressed in all sorts of at-risk behaviour. Several researchers have found that a close relationship between a mentor and mentee leads to developing a young person’s efficacy or competence which is an important outcome for building resilience and protective factors (Bayer, Grossman & DuBois 2015).

According to Erikson’s developmental model discussed in the previous chapter, a sense of competency leads to developing autonomy, or independence. Independence has to do with making good decisions and taking ownership over one’s decisions. The formation of an identity that takes responsibility, has self-control and can self-regulate are the essential elements in the formation of independence. Without these elements, young people are easily misled or they rebel in a false independence (2000:80), feel helpless and demonstrate defiance (2000:74). Research suggests that some mentoring outcomes show positive results concerned with mentee self-regulation, and pro-social values (Blechman & Bopp 2005:3).

Lastly, the final part of the Circle of Courage model is generosity. Generosity is concerned with understanding one’s purpose for one’s life beyond that of simple animal survival. Psychologist Victor Frankl has spoken of the forming of generosity in one’s identity when he said, “What man actually needs is not a tensionless state, but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him” (Larson & Brentro 2000:84). Selfishness and indifference, along with little empathy and conscience, are the typical characteristics of a young person who has an undeveloped sense of identity in the area of generosity. Mentoring, however, creates the

platform for conversation about mentee purpose and life that could lead to growth in this area, building resilience as a protective factor.

Besides research done on resilience and the Circle of Courage, some researchers suggest that the greatest outcome of mentoring is the social and emotional development of the mentee. Kohut argues that close relationships can be therapeutic in and of themselves since it can help an individual to realize “that the sustaining echo of empathy resonance is indeed available in the world.” (Kohut 1984:78) Reflecting on this statement, Rhodes says that “theoretically, by modelling caring and providing support, mentors can challenge negative views that youth may hold of themselves or of relationships with adults and demonstrate that positive relationships with adults, themselves and the world are possible. Thus, the mentoring relationship may become a ‘corrective experience’ for youth who may have experienced unsatisfactory relationships.” (Rhodes 2005:3) According to attachment theorists, children construct cognitive representations of relationships through their early experiences with primary care givers (Bretherton & Waters 1985). These “experiences” are believed to be incorporated into their personality structure and influence all interpersonal relationships throughout the person’s life. Even though the expression of these (negative) experiences throughout life within relationships are very stable, they are flexible and can be modified in response to changing life circumstances such as engagement in unconditional supportive mentoring relationships (Rhodes 2005:3). Mentoring also helps adolescents to better understand, express and regulate both positive and negative emotions as well as help youth who had previously unsatisfactory experiences with adults, form the abilities to engage in sustainable beneficial relationships with others, which will in turn, promote positive modification to previous negative experiences. “Preliminary research support has emerged for the potential of positive relationships with mentors to strengthen or modify the social-emotional development of youth” (Rhodes 2005:3). Mentoring relationships have been linked to improvements in adolescents’ perception of their parental relationships, including levels of intimacy, communication and trust which in turn have been found to be associated with improvements in areas such as feelings of self-worth, perceived scholastic competence, spelling and substance abuse. (Rhodes 2005:4).

Some hold that cognitive development is also an outcome of mentoring. According to developmental theorists, social interaction, such as that found in a mentoring relationship, may effect a range of cognitive developmental processes such as information processing, abstract

and relativistic thinking and self-monitoring. Furthermore, according to the theory of the “zone of proximal development” (in which learning takes place beyond that which an adolescent can attain within an individual problem solving situation), intellectual growth and cognitive development are facilitated by mentoring relationships beyond the individual’s capabilities of growth. Thus, mentoring may also help adolescents acquire and refine new thinking skills as well as provide a safe haven for youth to air sensitive issues and receive adult values, advice and perspectives. (Rhodes 2005:4)

Lastly, with all of this in mind, one may conclude that the natural outcome of mentoring would be the development of a positive identity within the mentee. Psychologists Freud (1914) and Kohut (1984) have built strong cases that children and adolescents internalize the attitudes, behaviours and traits of individuals they wish to emulate as well as attach themselves to an idealized parental “image” whose qualities they incorporate into their own personalities. Thus, theoretically, “mentoring relationships also may facilitate identity development of youth.” (Rhodes 2005:4) Rhodes suggests that through the process of reflected appraisal, mentors may help to shift children’s and adolescents’ conception of both their current and future identities. Rhodes also points out that research provides evidence that supports the possibility that mentors can affect change in youth behaviours relating to their identity development. In their research Aseltine, Dupre & Lamlein (2000), Davidson & Redner (1988) as well as Grossman & Tierny (1998) found that adolescents that had natural or volunteer mentors were less likely to take part in delinquent problem behaviour and more likely to graduate from school which suggests the presence of a more positive orientation in the identities of mentored youth (Rhodes 2005:4).