MANUTENZIONE E ASSISTENZA

The main theme derived from participants’ view of the foster carer was that of ‘living a provisional experience’ which was divided into two subordinate themes, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Final thematic map for ‘view of foster carer’.

5.6.1 Living a provisional existence

The term ‘living a provisional existence’ has been borrowed from Ironside (2004) and is used within this context to describe not only the ‘provisional’ or functional role of the foster carer, but also relates to the ‘provisional’ or conditional identity that many carers feel they currently assume within this role.

5.6.1.1 Shifting sense of identity

Comments voiced by all foster carers regarding their view of themselves predominantly reflected the numerous roles and responsibilities that they felt they were required to adopt in their role as a ‘foster carer’. Indeed, inherent in their construing of self was the sense of functionality to this role and that it felt imperative that they offered structure and stability in order to keep the young person safe, and thus accomplish their role effectively. More specifically, all of the foster carers highlighted the perceived need to set boundaries and “routine” for the young people in their care, so that they would be kept “safe” and thus protected, something which perhaps they perceived was inherent to their role as ‘protector’

View of foster carer Living a provisional existence Shifting sense of identity Experiencing an inauthentic self

172

and ‘provider’. These findings are supported by that of previous research (Butler and Charles, 1999).

Alongside this need to be responsible carers, a possible dilemma was raised by all three foster carers as doing so was associated with them being perceived as morally upstanding, and responsible, something which Janet reported as being “very tiring, very stressful…it’s really hard living up to those ideals...it would be so nice to just be able to go for what you want and not worry what the consequences might be”.

Whilst acknowledging the functional and practical nature of this role, Sally also recognised its limits. She expressed “I’m not unrealistic…I haven’t got my magic wand”. Furthermore, all of the foster carers expressed that this disciplinarian role was one which they adopted for the “benefit” of the young person and that they recognised that this might have negative implications on the way in which they were viewed personally, as detailed in Janet’s statement:

“I'd like him to understand that I'm strict, will set boundaries because I care, not because I want to curtail his fun”.

Contrary to previous findings in which limits and boundaries imposed by carers were perceived negatively and contributed partially to placement breakdown (Rostill-Brookes et al., 2011; Sinclair et al., 2005), all of the young people in the current study expressed that they knew and respected why boundaries were implemented, despite not agreeing with them all of the time. Indeed, Jenny extolled the fact that Carol “has very tight rules” by stating that “I work better off with a schedule that’s tight and it has all the rules set out for me”.

A common theme which was described by the foster carers was their questioning of parenting judgements and beliefs, in addition to themselves as “good enough” carers, particularly in cases where approaches to manage difficult behaviour had proven unsuccessful (namely Sally and Janet). It therefore seems that the foster carers were not impervious to social narratives relating to parental care and expectations set in part, by the social care system. Moreover, deeply rooted in Western culture is the assumption that mothers, in particular, are responsible for the ways in which their children behave and develop which possibly stems from attachment theory’s original focus on the mother/child relationship (Bowlby, 1969). With all

173

three foster carers being mothers and of White-British origin, it was possible that their construing was influenced by these powerful societal narratives which could have become internalised, a finding which has been noted in other studies (Dallos and Hamilton-Brown, 2005). Whether similar themes might have been raised by male foster carers could be an interesting avenue for further research.

Given that research has shown that placement breakdown can result from strain and burnout, it can be seen how this dilemma and perceived need to live up to socially imposed expectations may contribute to additional strain. Positioning themselves as actively contributing towards the success or the failure of the young person’s development seemed to strengthen the carers’ sense of personal failure which could potentially challenge their identity as a source of stability and a vehicle for possible change in the young people’s lives. Certainly, Janet expressed this view to Luis, stating that “I wanted to be able to help. I think I'm failing if I can't get that through to you”. Similar views have also been reported in other studies (Rostill-Brookes et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2000).

5.6.1.2 Experiencing an inauthentic self

Exploration of the foster carers’ construing revealed relatively tight construing relating to their moral views and expectations about themselves, both as carers but also as parents, in general. It seemed that they viewed these two roles as quite distinct, perhaps in response to societal pressures that looked after children are more ‘vulnerable’ and thus require more specialist protection than their peers. It appeared that the foster carers faced the dilemma of prioritising the need to be an authoritarian over their ideal view of themselves, as someone who was “fun loving” and more “carefree”. Sally and Janet in particular, implied the tension between these two apparently contrasting roles, yet viewed the option of being disciplinarian as a preferable alternative to their contrast pole, which would seem to involve not caring.

Janet: “I like to help people. I just think that’s what I’m here for really, just to help people and when I have to say no, I can’t do that, I just feel awful”

It is further evident that societal expectations of the ‘professional carer’, exacerbated by implemented restrictions regarding physical affection towards looked after children, could engender a typically more masculine, detached view of caregiving which fails to offer sufficient recognition to its interpersonal aspects. It is perhaps unsurprising then, that young

174

people have expressed ambivalence towards their carer being positioned as both a mother figure, but also as detached, paid professional (Parton, 2003). The dilemma for many foster carers in negotiating this balance between professional carer and nurturing parent has also been identified in other studies (e.g. Rostill-Brookes et al., 2011) and whilst it is not new, still highlights a potential area of strain on foster placements.

The foster carers also highlighted discrepancies in their role both as professional carers and as biological parents. Janet in particular, expressed differences in both her behaviour, but also her feelings towards the young person she cared for, in comparison to her biological children. This is highlighted in the following extract, which indicates possible ‘threat’ to her view of herself as a “caring person”.

“I’m not an over-emotional person and I’m also not a really physical person so I don’t, like Luis really wanted me to love him when he came and it worried me that I actually didn’t love him. I didn’t even like him when he first came, actually. It’s taken a long time, but I’m getting more to like him now”.

5.6.1.3 Summary

For many of the foster carers, there appeared an inherent conflict between polarised alternatives, that of fulfilling their role as a foster carer, which involved being strict, boundaried and a disciplinarian, and that of being more authentic to their true self, which was perceived as fun and caring. For the carers, fulfilling the role of disciplinarian meant that they might be perceived by the young people as “mean” and inherently uncaring, something which was incongruent with their self-constructs external to this professional role. Furthermore, developing a close emotional bond with the children that they care for may well deepen the distress should the placement terminate (Rostill-Brookes et al., 2011). This appeared to place considerable strain on them and this sense of inauthenticity in their identity could be likened to the view that the young people were “playing a role”. It may therefore be that both accounts reflect an adaptive self-preservation strategy aimed at placing emotional distance between the self and others, and is perhaps unsurprising given the often uncertain and temporary nature of foster care, governed by the possibility of family reunification. For both young people and their foster carers, it seems that the strain of living such a ‘provisional existence’ could have implications on the stability of placements.

175