Filipino Children's Social Construction of

Socioeconomic Differences:
Everyday Realities of Street Children and Private I

School Children
YUKO OKUMA

Abstract

Starting with the author's encounter with a stone-throwing incident, which involved
different socioeconomic groups of children-street children and private school
children-at Katipunan Avenue, this article seeks to understand the processes by which
these two groups of children come to know about socioeconomic differences in their
everyday lives. It first describes the avenue as an interface situation where encounters
between street children and private school children are likely to happen. It subsequently
clarifies the modes and the contents of children's knowledge construction of the other at
the interface situation.

Three findings are drawn from data gathered through key informant interviews and
observations. One, children construct their common-sense knowledge of the other as they
adjust to or reconcile with their own socioeconomic positions. Two, the ongoing process
of knowledge construction involves the reinforcement of their understanding through
actual encounters between the two groups and under the influence of other people and
elements that are directly and indirectly related to interface encounters. Ultimately, the
children themselves actively maintain social reality of socioeconomic differences.

Introduction restaurants, modern condominiums and

buildings. Elegantcars, waitingin front of the
In any bustling street in urban areas of shops or fetching students from the private
the Philippines, we would easily encounter schools, accumulate along this avenue and
the sight of poor children wandering hinder pedestrians from walking smoothly
around the street and begging for coins and safely on the sidewalk. Some of
or food. This sight contrasts vividly with these students stop in Starbucks, drinking
the affluence of those who can enjoy the expensive coffee and chatting with their
prosperity of places surrounded by fancy friends while smoking cigarettes. Others
shops and exclusive subdivisions. look for their favorite stationeries and books
needed in school at National Book Store.
Along Katipunan Avenue, the road
in front of Ateneo de Manila University, A few feet away from these scenes,
we similarly see a variety of fast-food however, young adults sell cigarettes and

Volume 52 January-December 2004 11

fishballs on makeshift stands on the street This shocking incident led me to the
or drive tricycles. There are also groups of central question of a study, upon which
children selling sampaguita (garlands of this article is based: How do Filipino
flowers) or begging for coins from passers- children (specifically of Katipunan
by. The so-called street children wander Avenue), coming from two different
around and wait for people and cars in front socioeconomic backgrounds, come to
of shops such as McDonald's, Shakey's, know about socioeconomic differences
National Book Store, and Kentucky Fried in everyday lives?' To answer this
Chicken (KFC) to beg for little money. central question, this study pursues
They mostly do this at nighttime, but also the following specific ' questions:
sometimes throughout the day. 1) How does each group of children come
to know the socioeconomic differences
Place after place, the security guards between the other group and their own?
of the shops and schools keep the shabby 2) What do they commonly know or
street children away, while inside the glass understand about the other group in
doors, children from the private schools relation to socioeconomic differences?
eat their meals or snacks and pay no
attention to the street children outside. On This article constructs an urban
their way to air-conditioned cars, these ethnography of two opposite
private school children are oblivious to the socioeconomic groups of Filipino
presence of the street children. children-street children and private
school children-around Katipunan
My observation of this dichotomy in the Avenue. By describing the everyday
city began with one incident I encountered realities of these two groups of children,
at Katipunan Avenue, which involved a this article arrives at an understanding
group of schoolchildrenfrom KostkaSchool of socioeconomic relations between the
of Quezon City, a private Catholic school poor and the rich Filipino children.
located at Katipunan Avenue, and a group
of street children wandering around to earn
a living along the avenue. The students Significance
inside the gate of the school were making
fun of the street children outside. I observed This present article contributes
that the street children were getting mad or theoretically and practically to the following
embarrassed by the insults aimed at them, fields: first, the area of child socialization,
so they retaliated against the private school and second, social development studies
children by throwing stones at them. particularly on the issue of social inequality
in the Philippines.

12 Philippine Sociological Review

 First, the article specifically looks at working on issues about street children,
the influence of socioeconomic positions do not adequately address the issue of .
on child development. Moreover, it aims socioeconomic differences in society. In
to complement existing works on child other words, existing studies give little
socialization, which have dominantly attention to the awareness and behavior of
maintainedstructuralfunctionalist accounts the wealthier members of society including
of child socialization. Socialization of children, although Bautista (2002) clarifies
children is usually explained as a molding the existence of a population of middle
process of social roles succeeded to classes. A number of works regarding
'immature' children by adults (Elkin 1960, poverty issues, however, have primarily
1984, Isaacs 1974, Jocano 2002, Lagmay explained the characteristics of the poor
1983, Shimizu 1993, Ventura 1991). in examining poverty (Kerbo 1991), not
This immaturity of children is also often those of the rich. Moreover, the studies on
assumed to be universal. Therefore, the social inequality rarely examine children's
existing studies on child socialization have understanding of socioeconomic relations.
ignored children as active participants of Kerkvliet (1990), for example, studies
social worlds. Although some scholars the resistance of the poor in everyday
(Kohn 1959 & 1963, Lewis 1966a, 1966b, politics by investigating socioeconomic
Wright and Wright 1976) paid attention relations of society in a rural area of the
to differential socialization of children Philippines, stating how the poor (peasants
according to socioeconomic positions, their and workers) understand the wealthier
analyses still retained the conventional people (mainly capitalists), and vice versa.
view of socialization as a molding process But his study does not particularly talk
carried out by adults (e.g., the differences about children's understandings. If the
in parents' values and ways of child rearing perception of socioeconomic differences
between upper- and lower-class). Utilizing among children was examined, it was
the perspective of the social construction of done with quantitative methods. In other
reality and the grounded theory approach studies, the ability to perceive social
in collecting the data, the present article differences according to age, sex, and
gives more attention to the various social status of parents (Johoda 1959), the
processes of knowledge construction by timing and the manner by which children
different socioeconomic groups of children employ concepts of social inequality in
as the main social actors. their environment (Baldus and Tribe 1978)
were statistically measured. This article,
Second, the article looks in particular however, presents the children's subjective
at children's subjective awareness of and interactive realities of socioeconomic
socioeconomic relations in their everyday relations according to their socioeconomic
lives.Theworksonpoverty,particularlythose backgrounds using thick description.

Volume 52 January-December 2004 13

 No study focuses comprehensively reality (Berger and Luckmann 1966) and
on the process in which children from interface situations (Long 1992).
different socioeconomic groups come to
understand socioeconomic differences Social Construction of Common-sense
and behave accordingly. Therefore, the Knowledge
study, upon which this article is based,
is important because it deals more with Berger and Luckmann (1966) analyze
h~w children themselves develop their the reality of everyday life. To understand
knowledge (understanding, thinking the world of everyday life, they clarify the
and feeling) and behavior towards foundations of knowledge that are taken
socioeconomic differences in the larger for granted as common sense by ordinary
society. It also offers insights on the members of society as they conduct their
way wealthier children perceive street everyday lives.
children and their own status, and behave
accordingly while interacting with them. The reality of everyday life presents
It is quite important for us to look at how itself as an intersubjective world, a world
children in higher socioeconomic positions that the individual shares with others.
in this country develop their awareness This intersubjective common-sense world
and sense of accountability towards other is constructed through objectifications
members of society. This question leads of subjective processes such as an
us to consider the extent of the elite's ongoing correspondence between the
awareness of social inequality in this individual's and others' meanings in face-
country and the manner in which their to-face encounters in everyday life. Thus,
understanding of these issues are carried common-sense knowledge is knowledge
over to the next generation in constructing about the reality that is experienced by the
future socioeconomic relations. wide-awake or conscious individual, which
one shares with others in the normal, self-
evident routines of everyday life.
A Framework for Understanding
Encounters Between Children from Berger and Luckman (1966) propose
Different Socioeconomic Groups social interactions in the face-to-face
setting as the most important forms in
Children are active social actors who which to experience and interpret others'
continuously construct knowledge in their subjectivity. The knowledge of others
everyday lives. As a theoretical anchor for as a result of such social encounters
this argument, two relevant concepts are becomes typified into routines or patterns
utilized in this article: social construction of in everyday life.The reality of everyday life

14 Philippine Sociological Review

, thus contains such typifications, which in
turn determine one's understanding and
r actions toward others when he or she The study, which forms the basis of
deals with them in face-to-face encounters. this article, applies the grounded theory
Common-sense knowledge is constructed approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998) in
by entering into ongoing negotiation gathering and analyzing data. Grounded
(modification and reinforcement) in these theory is a strategy of developing a theory
face-to-face situations until it becomes which is derived from data systematically
objective. gathered and analyzed throughout
the whole research process. Once the
Interface Situations researcher goes out to the field for data
gathering based on the initial concepts
Long (1992) elaborates on Berger derived from experience and literature,
and Luckmann's ideas of the social she identifies concepts that emerge from
construction of knowledge. He develops analyzing empirical data and adjusts her
an actor-oriented approach, which interviewing and observing to focus on the
builds upon theoretical work aimed at most relevantrelationship. All procedures of
reconciling structure and actor. The actor- 'theoretical sampling' (Corbin and Strauss
oriented approach is thus to understand 1998) are repetitions of such steps, aimed
experiences and understandings of at identifying, developing and relating
various kinds of people in their everyday concepts during the research process.
life. This methodology enables the researcher
not only to build a theory derived from
From an actor-oriented perspective, data, but also to ground that theory in the
Long proposes the concept of interface everyday life of people.
situations where the different life-worlds or
domains interact and interpenetrate one Data Collection Methods
another based on social discontinuities
of interests, values, knowledge and The initial concepts based on the
practices. It brings about an understanding researcher's experience of observing the
of the processes by which knowledge actual encounter between the two groups
is actively constructed, negotiated and of children and literature review determined
jointly created through various types of the kinds of data to be gathered and the
social encounters among specific actors. methods of collecting the data.

Volume 52 January-December 2004 15

 -------------------

The researcher conducted field structured) with parents of the children

research mainly in Katipunan Avenue, in and observation of their home dynamics
squatter areas, at Kotska school and child were made. And in the final phase, data
key informants homes for five months, that were insufficient were completed.
from the middle of November 2002 to the Throughout the whole research process,
middle of April 2003. Four sets of data were theoretical sampling was conducted, which
gathered and analyzed simultaneously was the iterative identifying key concepts
during the research period, namely, 1) from empirical data and adjusting research
physicaland socioeconomic characteristics methods and processes to real situations
of Katipunan Avenue, 2) socioeconomic reflected in the empirical data.
positions of the two groups of children, 3)
children's knowledge of socioeconomic Analytical Framework
differences between the other and their
own, and 4) modes of children's knowledge The analytical framework uses the
construction with regard to socioeconomic concept of social interfaces to highlight
differences at an interface situation. The children as active agents who participate in
data-collection methods used for the study constructingtheirownsociallives, specifically
are: participant observations, in-depth in constructing their common-sense
interviews, focus group discussions, and knowledge with regard to socioeconomic
secondary data collection. differences. Socioeconomic differences
give a different context to each group of
There were five phases in conducting children in conducting their everyday life.
the study. In the first phase, secondary Two groups of children-street children
data collection, observation and mapping and private school children-who have
of the site, and in-depth interviews with different socioeconomic backgrounds,
key informants were carried out. In the next meet and interact with one another at the
phase, the researcher familiarized herself interface situation. Through these actual
with the areas where the two groups of interactions between the two groups, they
children conduct their everyday activities actively construct their knowledge of the
and identified the subject children. In other." The understanding of the other,
the third phase, selection of specific key in turn, influences their attitudes at the
informants from each group of children, interface situation. Objective organizations
in-depth interviews (semi-structured) such as rules on the streets and moral
and focus group discussions (only for education are also described as important
street childre~nwere undertake.n. I.n.. the elements that affect children in constructing
fourth phase.... -~~)q~iefW~,J~~. mi- their knowledge of the other.
~ . &.) ~ @ nJ (j~~~~
~'j

16 Philippine Sociological Review

 Katipunan Avenue as an Interface Katipunan Avenue is, at the same
Situation time, surrounded by prestigious private
academic institutions, namely, Ateneo
The dynamics around Katipunan de Manila University, Miriam College and
Avenue can be viewed as an interface Kostka School. There is no public school
situation where encounters between in the area. However, the University of the
street children and private school children Philippines (UP), an elite state university,
are likely to happen. This interface is located near Katipunan Avenue. Other
situation includes other social actors who private schools nearby are St. Bridget
are directly or indirectly related to their School, Philippine School of Business
interactions (l.e., barangay officials, NGO Administration(PSBA)in AuroraBoulevard,
workers, and security guards). and the various Montessori schools in
Loyola Heights.
Katipunan Avenue has a certain
physical and socioeconomic structure that The combination of commercial and
creates the interface situation especially educational structures in the avenue
in the stretch from Kentucky Fried Chicken attracts various kinds of people to it.
(KFC) to McDonald's-where commercial Especially in the stretch from KFC to
prosperity and elite private education exist McDonald's, there are three major spots
together with poverty and disadvantaqe." thronged with people: KFC, the overpass
area, and McDonald's. These spots are
The avenue is a center of commercial also conveniently located in terms of
activities in Barangay Loyola Heiqhts.' transportation facilities people commonly
There is a series of business avail, such as tricycles, jeepneys and
I establishments concentrated along this private cars.' Students from Ateneo, Up,
avenue. The intense congestion of these Miriam College or KostkaSchool, residents
establishments signifies the commercial from nearby residential areas, and visitors
prosperity in Katipunan Avenue, especially often converge in these areas, shopping
along the 500-meter stretch from KFC some goods needed, having meals or
to McDonald's. There are at least 25 chatting with their friends over a cup of
restaurants, twelve stores (e.g., cosmetics coffee or softdrink.
shop, bookstores, travel agencies,
Internet services or photocopy services), Commercial prosperity and elite private
seven banks and four condominiums in educationin Katipunan Avenue co-existwith
this stretch. poverty and disadvantage. Street children,
street vendors and parking attendants from

r.,
,I Volume 52 January-December 2004 17
I
nearby depressed areas seek earnings to In the parking space of Jollibee and
survive everyday life and struggle to protect National Bookstore, a middle-aged
their interests by sharing space with others woman attends to cars parking in National
on the street. Their daily life starts with the Bookstore, while another middle-aged
opening of the restaurants and stores in male parking attendant takes charge of
Katipunan Avenue in the morning. They are
.
the Jollibee parking space. They do this all
usually congregated in the same flourishing day, but for a little money. Under the stairs
spots as the wealthier people are. of the overpass, two vendors with small
portable stands sell candies, small packs
Around KFC, some street children of snacks and cigarettes to passers-by.
persistently follow passers-by or approach Near the tricycle station at the overpass,
cars stopped by traffic signals to beg for a young adult male deep-fries fishballs
coins and food. A street child hails taxies on a makeshift stand while people gather
for customers of KFC, while younger around it to skewer and eat them.
ones sell sampaguita to persons walking
by the area. A middle-aged male parking Compared to other spots, McDonald's
assistant in charge of directing cars at has the largest number of street children in
the parking area of KFC receives a few the stretch.They play energetically with their
coins for his service. A vending shop sells peers atthe exterior walkwayof McDonald's,
hotdogs and orange juice right beside the doing cartwheels and headstands or
tricycle station, where street workers such chasing each other. At the same time, they
as tricycle drivers, parking attendants and beg for coins or meals from the customers
street children take a rest to have some coming out of or entering McDonald's.
cheap merienda (snacks). Here, young adult males work as parking
attendants for customers of McDonald's. '1
1
At the overpass area, some younger A female vendor sells newspaper, candies
street children sell sampaguita to and cigarettes at a corner of the parking
customers of National Bookstore and area of McDonald's. This has become a
Jollibee. At the same time, they play, dance gathering place for street children, young
and sing with their peers by the entrances adult parking attendants and other street
of these establishments to catch customers' workers like tricycle drivers.
attention. Depending on the concentration
of customers, these children move to When restaurants and shops close and
the nearby parking area of Starbucks the number of customers decrease, those
and Shakey's. Some persistently follow working on the street also start withdrawing
passers-by until they are given something, from the avenue. Many restaurants are
but they are usually ignored. closed around nine or ten o'clock at night.
1
18 Philippine Sociological Review
I
j
I
 After ten o'clock, only a few vendors and alongside the disadvantaged who barely
parking attendants stay on the street. survive their everyday life in poverty and
However, some street children who are try to receive blessings of the privileged.
still eager to earn by begging or selling
sampaguita transfer to McDonald's, which Because of its socioeconomic
is open and still bustling with customers characteristics, face-to-face encounters
until midnight. specifically between street children and
private school children frequently happen
Around the closing time of Pizza in the stretch. Well-off students from the
Hut also at midnight, the street children surroundingeliteprivateschoolshavemeals
start gathering around the restaurant while chatting with their friends in those fast-
to collect leftover foods that Pizza Hut foods restaurants along Katipunan Avenue.
gives them. The children are able to eat On the other hand, street children beg them
to their stomachs' content. After midnight, for coins and food or sell sampaguita to
Starbucks is the only cafe that is open until them in the streets outside. Some students
early in the morning (usually 1:00 AM, but give street children coins or leftovers and
also 3:00 AM on Fridays and Saturdays). buy sampaguitafrom them, while others are
A few street children still beg around oblivious to the presence of street children.
Starbucks or sleep in the sidewalks and There are also students who are intolerant
parking lots of the restaurants, but most of of street children. They try to avoid street
them go home to depressed areas nearby. children or show disgust and disdain for
At this time, Katipunan Avenue becomes them. Corresponding to these negative
empty and silent. reactions, some street children quickly give
up and withdraw their asking. However,
there are also other street children who try
Shared Realities of Streetchildren to counterattack the students verbally or
and Private School Children physically.

As described above, diverse groups Street children and private school

of people concentrate along the stretch children thus have different shared
of Katipunan Avenue. The place is realities, which are subject to their
characterized by the energetic interaction socioeconomic conditions.With this shared
of different socioeconomic groups whose everyday reality, each group of children
activities and worldviews reflect differing interacts with the other group and comes
interests and needs in the street. The to know or understand the socioeconomic
. I
privileged who can enjoy commercial differences between the other and their
prosperity and elite private education exist own at the interface situation.

Volume 52 January-December 2004 19

Who are the Street Children? Moreover, most of these street children
go to school, whether consistently
The street children in this article are or sporadically, and only hang out in
those children who earn money and the street after their classes until the
obtain food by working for customers restaurants close or until late at night
of commercial establishments (selling so they can earn money. They attend
sampaguita, assisting drivers with parking nearby public elementary schools such
and picking up taxis for passengers, etc.) as Batino School, Quirino School and
or by begging from passers-by along Balara Academy. A few children have
Katipunan Avenue. They go to the streets stopped going to school and are working
to earn money for their baon (school full-time on the street because of financial
allowance) or for helping their family. considerations or some other family
reasons such as having a broken family.
From the three categories of street Some appear in the street everyday
children defined in the literature (Banaag while others only show up on weekends
1997), street children on Katipunan Avenue or on days when they feel like going to
can be classified as 'children on the streets' Katipunan Avenue.
or those 'children working on the streets but
maintain regular contact with their families'. From observation, there were around
Although some of them have stopped 40 to 45 street children at Katipunan
schooling altogether and work full-time in Avenue during the research period. The
the streets, many still go to school and work characteristics of street children in the
long hours before or after their classes. Philippines, which are mentioned in the
1991 PSSC study, are almost similar to
Almost all of the street children on those of street children on Katipunan
Katipunan Avenuemaintain regularcontact Avenue. Their ages range from early
with their families and have homes to go childhood to young adolescence-around
back to. They come from large extended five to 15 years old (six to 18 years old in
families (having many siblings and the PSSC study), but the majority of street
relatives living with them) with an average children in Katipunan Avenue fall into the
household size of almost eight persons." age range of ten to thirteen years old (nine
However, there are several cases where a to thirteen years old in the PSSC study),
parent has left, died, separated from his/ There are more male street children than
her spouse, or rarely comes home. Family female street children who eagerly hang
members also work as parking attendants, out in the street. They tend to cluster and
street vendors or tricycle drivers in the move together with their peers.
same vicinity as their children.

20 Philippine Sociological Review

 They are usually poorly dressed, for that the children gather at the
example, garbed in worn-out clothes and geographically closest spot. For example,
old sooty rubber slippers or no footwear at those children residing in Marytown usually
all, seemingly rarely changing their clothes. go only to KFC, while those from Ronas
Their built is underdeveloped relative to Garden have a tendency to hang around.
their peers from private schools along McDonald's and Shakey's. On the other
Katipunan Avenue. For example, Kotska hand, the children from Kaingin 1 usually
School children from second to fourth gather at the overpass area because
grade (eight to ten years old) are even their parents are also working as parking
much taller and well-built compared to attendants around the overpass. Moreover,
street children of around eleven to twelve children traveling from Antipolo are more
years of age. prone to move around the full stretch of
Katipunan.
Most children come from squatter
areas and depressed communities near
Katipunan Avenue, particularly Marytown Who are the Private School Children?
and Ronas Garden in Barangay Loyola
Heights, and Kaingin 1 in Balara. There Meanwhile, the private school children
are also some children who used to live in this article are the grade school students
in Ronas Garden but resettled to Antipolo who enroll in Kostka School of Quezon City.
when MIESCOR (Meralco Industrial This school is an exclusive private Catholic
Engineering Services Corporation), which school for children whose parents can
owns the land of Ronas Garden, paid afford to pay the school's expensive tuition
some households in Ronas Garden to fees.7The total annual tuition fee of Kostka
r make them leave in 1997 and 1998. They School for a student at the grade school
still return to seek income and food in level is Php 35,600 (in 2003).8 The price is
Katipunan Avenue,especially on weekends quite expensive in comparison with public
because weekdays are generally spent in schools which do not charge any tuition
Antipolo, where the households resettled, fees. Other private Catholic schools in
for studying. However, they sometimes Barangay Loyola Heights similarly collect
do not go home even on weekdays and expensive rates. For example, the annual
sleep on the street or stay at a relative's or tuition fee of Ateneo Grade School in 2003
friend's house in Ronas Garden. ranges from Php 54,053 to Php 60,504
while that of Miriam Grade School is Php

.l Interestingly, where street children live

is related to which part of the street they
46,209 to Php 49,085. The grade school
coordinator of Kostka School characterized
usually congregate in. It is understandable Kostka students as better-off like other

Volume 52 January-December 2004 21

private school children by mentioning that, well developed as compared to the street
'their parents mostly have high status jobs, children described above.
such as doctor, lawyer, politician, business
consultant and the like'. The Kostka students come from smaller
families than street children. The average
It isinteresting to notethat Kostka School household size of the respondents is four
is located right next to McDonald's along persons (not including stay-in helper, yaya
Katipunan Avenue where a lot of street or driver). They live with their immediate
children hang around. After the dismissal or nuclear families (parents and several
of students in the afternoon, many Kostka siblings), but sometimes they also live
elementary students wait to be fetched by together with close relatives. Cases of
their guardians at McDonald's, or inside single parenthood are seldom among
the school property, the boundary of which Kostka students' households.
is marked by a gate at the entrance of the
building. Thus, Kostka School students Their residential areas are usually
have more chances to encounter street exclusive villages, subdivisions, or
children due to the school's location. condominiums. The students who were
selected based on their residence in
Similar to other elementary schools, the Barangay Loyola Heights or in other areas
elementary level at Kostka consists of six c1oseto Katipunan Avenuecome specifically
years of schooling (Grade One to Grade Six). from the following areas: Xavierville
The ages of the students range between subdivisions, Loyola Heights subdivision
six and 13 years old. However, the ages of (Varsity Hills), La Vista subdivision, Loyola
the Kostka key informants range from ten Grand Villas and Esteban Abada Street or
to 13 years old (Grade Five and Six). Total
population of Grades Five and Six is 111 (50
roads close to Katipunan Avenue. . 1
students for Grade Five and 61 students for
Grade Six).The gender ratio is almost equalInterfaces in the Social
"-
since the school is coeducational. But the Construction of Knowledge
proportion of female to male in the group
of fifteen students included in the study is The range of encounters shapes the
two to three (six females to nine males). children's common-sense knowledge of
Students are decently dressed in a school the other and themselves in relation to
uniform-for males, white shirt and light socioeconomic differences. The modes of
brown trousers and for females, white shirt knowledge construction of the two groups
with red ribbon and blue-checkered skirt. of children are discussed as follows.
In general, the students are healthy and

22 Philippine Sociological Review

 Street children, on one hand, construct similarity within their peer group, which
their common-sense knowledge of the takes the form of a barkada (an intimate
other through: 1) everyday encounters company or group of friends) or fraternity
with private school children, 2) everyday which sometimes develops into a gang.
companionship with street peers, 3) Recognizing street peers as a similar
everyday exposure to the rules on the kind, however, street children reinforce
street, and 4) parental influence. their understanding of private school
children as a different kind in the context
Street children mainly acquire of socioeconomic differences.
knowledge in their everyday encounters
(both actual interaction and plain While conducting their street life, on
observation) with private school children the other hand, they encounter rules
at the interface situation. The encounters that regulate their social behavior in the
are both positive (to be given alms) and interface situation-such as policies of
negative (to be ignored or insulted), which business establishments, barangay office,
accordingly affect their favorable and NGO, and DSWD. These regulations are
unfavorable understanding of the other. based on the general notion that street
In particular, their common negative children are problematic elements of
understanding in turn appears in their society. First, they are exposed to the
defiant actions toward the private school business policy of the establishments
children, which strengthen the hostility along Katipunan Avenue that does not
between the two groups. Here, the most allow them to enter. Secondly, the local
symbolic negative interaction is stone- government and other organizations aim
throwing, which I encountered at the very to solve 'the street children problem' by
beginning and became my motivation to regulating the presence of street children
do this research. on the streets. These become the very
factors that makestreet children recognize
Their knowledge about the differences their own disadvantaged position as
between the two groups is at the same different from the other.
time reinforced by their everyday
companionship with street peers. Street Parents seem to have less influence
children place high importance on the on street children after they have gained
companionship of street peers because independence and autonomy in the
the street children in peer groups always streets. However, parental influence
help each other when problems or is actually significant because street
difficulties arise in the streets. In this way, children conduct their everyday life based
they develop a sense of solidarity and on normative values that they acquired

Volume 52 January-December 2004 23

from their parents-that they should be this is represented in conflicts like stone-
independent and helpful to their families throwing.
by earning in the streets. Moreover,
they also develop the knowledge of In the case of private school children,
socioeconomic differences through their parents playa great role in the process of
parent's teaching-that they should their knowledge construction of the other
accept their position and be industrious because they are more submissive to their
and finish their studies if they want to be parents in conducting their everyday life.
better off. In understanding the disparity between
the other group and theirs, private school
Private school children, in contrast, children develop a basic ideology of
have a different manner of constructing appreciating their own privileged status
their common-sense knowledge of street while being generous and helpful to the
children. That is through: 1) everyday poor street children based on their
encounters with street children, 2) parental teachings. Furthermore, the
parental influence, and 3) exposure to parents of private school children often
moral education in the school and mass educate their own children by telling
media. them to not imitate negative behaviors of
street children such as lack of discipline,
Just like street children, private school laziness and delinquency.
children construct their knowledge mainly
through their everyday encounters (both Additionally, private school children's
direct interaction and plain observation) exposure to moral education in school
with street children at the interface and mass media is one important factor
situation. There occurs both positive that influences them in constructing
(acts of charity) and negative encounters their knowledge. They become aware of
(to be annoyed when not giving), which street children's disadvantaged life that
consequently draw their sympathy or other is different from their own through social
sets of unfavorable understandings toward studies or value classes such as Christian
the street children (l.e., undisciplined, ill- Life Education in school. In these classes,
behaved, delinquent). Their unfavorable they are usually taught about street
feelings register in their negative behavior children as objects of social assistance
at the interface situation, which brings and also as one of most serious social
about antagonism between the two issues to be solved in the Philippines.
groups. In common with street children, They also get information from mass j.

24 Philippine Sociological Review

media such as newspaper columns and the following concepts: 1) privilege,
TV programs addressing poverty issues 2) generosity, 3) arrogance, and 4)
and the street children problem such as dependence.
Bantay Bata (a project aiming to protect
kids by surveillance and increased Street children take for granted the
awareness about kids). privilege of private school children in
contrast to their own disadvantaged
conditions in respect to family background,
Common-sense Knowledge of education, activities they are engaged in,
Socioeconomic Differences9 consumption level, material possessions,
appearance, food, living condition, and
Through a series of encounters and security, among others." The following
exposures at the interface situation, both represents street children's common
street children and private school children understanding of the differences between
generally become aware of the inequalities the other and themselves.
in education, wealth, property, and other
resources in society. 'They [Kostka school students] have
large allowances, while I am already
contented with 5 pesos. I also want to
In simplest terms, they commonly become like them because they can
buy anything they want... they are
categorize people into 'the rich' (mga
fetched by their mommy and with their
mayayaman) and 'thepoor' (mga mahihirap). own private cars, while we only make
They also distinguish their own group from it with tricycles. Some high school
students already have their own cars.
the other group of children: street children They also have money to pay for school
are the poor, while private school children bus service. What's more, I am only
are the rich. For example, street children studying in a public school while they
are in that expensive school.'
usually say, 'We are poor, they are rich'.
(Mahirap kami, mayaman sila), when - Nino, street child around
McDonald's, 22 February 2003
talking about how different they are from
private school children. Likewise, private
For street children, having to work is
school children recognize the differences
a major activity that distinguishes them
between them as, 'We are rich, they are
from private school children. One street
poor' (Mayaman kami, mahirap sila).
child expressed this: 'They (private school
children) have a life of pleasure.They don't
Based on the awareness of their
have to work, while we still have to work to
contrasting positions in the socioeconomic
be better'. Another child also said: 'I think it's
hierarchy, street children commonly
more pleasurable to study (mas masarap
understand private school children with

Volume 52 January-December 2004 25

mag-ara~. They can only study, as they are Regardless of these feelings, a lot
supported financially by their parents'. of street children ultimately accept their
disadvantaged reality in contrast with the
Because private school children are privileged reality of the other as their way
'born to be rich', they do not need to work of living. Several street children express
and they can concentrate on their studies reconciliation to their situations as follows:
in those expensive private schools, which
altogether seems to street children as a 'We are not envious of them. This is
where we have lived so we must accept
happy and leisurely life. In comparison, it.' (Oi kami naiingit sa kanila. Dtto na
street children think of themselves as kami nabuhay eh, kailangan tanggapin
namin iyan.)
having a difficult life because they are
born in the poor families. Consequently, -Egay, street child around KFC, 26
they have to earn by themselves on the February 2003
street before they can eat and even get
small things, while at the same time fully or While accepting this reality, street
partially going to public schools, or without children commonly feel justified when
going to school at all. given alms by the private school children
because of the latter's affluence. When
In recognizing these disparities, in fact, their expectation is satisfied, they
they feel envious and inferior to the private understand private school children as
school children. To their understanding, kind or generous, and therefore, as their
private school children can get 'whatever friends. Some street children even hope to
they want'. At the same time, street children make friends with 'rich friends' from private
recognize they are usually viewed as pulubi schools so that they can benefit from these
(beggars) by others and also thought of wealthier children.
themselves as 'dirty'.
Toto: 'It's nice to be friends with the
rich kids. It's good to have rich friends
'We usually don't go together with those who will let us eat at their house. You
from Kostka. It would just be us, the will have lots of food (magsasawa ka sa
barkada [a very close peer group]. Will pagkain). Sometimes they also treat us
the rich go together with the beggars? at McDo.'
Look at how we look, Ate.' '
(Oi kami sasama sa Kostkans. Kami Isko: 'When you are really lucky to
lang, barkada. Ang mga mayayaman meet rich individuals who are kind, I just
seseme sa mga pulubi? Tingnan mo don't know [how muchyou will be given]
mga itsura namin, Ate.)
(pag ma-chambahan mo talaga ang
mayaman na mebeit, ewan ko lang).'
-Toto, street child around McDonald's,
7 March 2003 -A group of street children around
McDonald's, 7 March 2003

26 Philippine Sociological Review

 But in cases where private school Street children's other typical
children do not give anything despite their understanding of private school children
wealth, they usually criticize the private is their dependence. To street children,
school children as 'selfish or greedy' private school children are 'only supported
(suwapang) or 'stingy' (kuripo~. In relation (sustentado) by their parents' for their
to this, street children further describe everyday needs such as food, money,
them as 'mukhang-pera' (literally, money- clothes, and even tidiness. What is more,
face) which connotes greediness as their not being helpful to their own family
they were always concerned only about is totally different from street children's
money. In yet worse situations where independent way of living.
they are treated with contempt because
of their underprivileged conditions or 'I don't want to be like them [privatf}
school children]. I don't want to just ask
annoyedwith the insulting words like 'poor' my parents to provide my needs. At
and 'beggar', they judge private school least, I'm being helpful to my parents.
The private school children depend on
children as 'arrogant or insulting' (many
their parents and are just asking money
words used here such as: mayabang, from them unlike me.'
masungit, maangus, nang/a/ait, nang-
-Jena, street child around Shakey's,
aasar, matapang, etc).The following quote 28 February 2003
is an example of the use of these words:
Because street children have their
'I feel they [private school children] are
arrogant. They don't acknowledge the
normative value that children also need
equalities of human beings. They tease to be helpful to their own family, they
us, they look down on us just because actually place high importance on their
they are rich and we are poor. Well, just
let them be. They don't care about us independence and self-sufficiency.
anyway.' (Feeling ko mayabang sifa. Thus, street children take pride in their
Di nila tinatrato ang pagkakapantay-
independence and justify their being
pantay ng tao. Tinutukso nila kami,
minamaliit lang porke't mayaman sue, street children in a way criticizing
kami mahirap. Pabayaan niyo na site. the dependence of the private school
Wala naman pakialamanan sa amin.)
children.
-Egay, street child around KFC, 26
February 2003 Meanwhile, private school children use
the following types to characterize street
These negative images and children: 1) disadvantage, 2) pity, 3) lack
experiences with private school children of discipline, and 4) delinquency, which
arouse feelings among street children that also reflect their basic understanding of

i they themselves do not wish to be like socioeconomic differences.

'arrogant rich people'.

f.
i Volume 52 January-December 2004 27
 Almost in the same way as street full parental attention for their needs and
children, private school children can study in fine schools without caring
commonly understand street children about their everyday livelihood. Although
as disadvantaged in comparison to their they sometimes become conscious of
own privileged conditions in terms of social inequality (as. a student asserts,
parents' ability (to fulfill their parental 'every child should be able to go to
obligations), education, activities they school and his or her needs should be
are engaged in, food" consumption level, fulfilled'), they strongly believe that the
material possessions, appearance, living situations of street children would never
conditions, opportunity and security,among happen to them and that they would
others. For example, a student showed her attain a successful and brilliant future
idea as follows: that street children would never be able
to. Hence, they eventually think that these
'They [street children] are unfortunate differences are the natural order of their
unlike me. Unfortunate because they
have no parents to guide them. They everyday reality. The' following statement
are not studying and are not learning is well exemplified this:
anything. They do not have enough
food to eat for a day. They are not
'I don't want to be like them because I
comfortable wit,h their lives, and also do
want to do well in my life. I don't want
not feel stable in life because they are
to get into bad things. I want to be
working. They can't do anything about
protected... a good future.'
it. They might be playing but they don't
learn anything.'
(Ayoko maging katulad nita. Kasi gusto
ko mapaganda buhay ko. Ayokong
-Fatima, Grade 5,
mapasama. Gusto ko protektado ako...
17 March 2003
magandang future.)

According to their understanding, -Fatima, Grade 5,

17 March 2003
street children have a difficult time or
feel uncomfortable with their own
While taking the disparities for granted,
lives because their life conditions are
private school children believe that better-
impoverished due to the poverty of their
off people like themselves should have
family, and thus, have to work on the
mercy toward the 'pitiful' (they often use
streets without stUdying at school. To
the word awa or kawawa) street children.
them, the disadvantaged conditions of
In addition, private school children usually
street children are largely attributed to
know the existence of some organizations
the culpable negligence of their parents.
such as orphanages and the Department
In contrast, private school children think
of Social Welfare Development (DSWD)
of themselves as fortunate because they
that would help street children out of
live a comfortable life in which they have

28 Philippine Sociological Review

 f"~;~ ".1' "" tl .... ,;.. '"" \I ~ "'V

t.[ J? C\ IJ. 0 J ~ c:;::..

';, " i
.. .J.

the disadvantaged situations. A student only beg in the streets without studying as
refers to this: 'DSWD should take a role to lazy and not making own efforts:
improve the situations of street children'.
To their understanding, street children 'They [street children) are only begging,
not working. Theyare not studying. They
should be the objects of social aid by these just beg and beg (hingi lang nang hingl).
organizations. That's not work. They will not be able to
improve their lives.'

Despite their ideology of being merciful -Lea, Grade 5,

toward unfortunate people, private '17 March 2003

school children negatively understand Likewise, they hold a similar image

the street children as 'undisciplined' and of street children's parents: They earn a
'badly behaved'. They believe that street living by 'working like beggars' and are 'not
children are undisciplined because of enough to make their lives better'.
their persistence and naughtiness in
asking for asalms. They also think of street At the same time, they usually decide
children as badly behaved through their that they should not go near the street
experiences with street children always children because of delinquency of the
saying bad words to people, which they street children, getting involved in 'bad
feel 'rude' (bastos) or 'persistent' (makuli~ things' such as smoking, gambling, and
A private school child says: taking drugs. They understand that street
children are more exposed to or related
'They [street children) don't have to bad surroundings of the streets. In
manners. Bastos (rude). They don't
contrast, private school children think
study and are not educated. They are
always cursing.' of themselves as behaving properly in
better environments where they get proper
-Bong, Grade 6,
4 March 2003 education at a fine school and appropriate
guidance from their parents.
In comparison with street children,
'They [street children) are napapasama
however, private school children usually (getting into bad things that are beyond
reflect on themselves as being more their control) because they are getting
used to it there (in the streets). They are
disciplined and better behaved. Therefore,
affected by drugs and by what they see
they settle with the idea of not minding the in people [passers-by].'
street children anymore because they think
-Fatima, Grade 5,
the street children are not well educated. 17 March 2003
Moreover, they deem street children who

Volume 52 January-December 2004 29

 ~~ FRANK):{. I!.VNCH
IlfiBRAFiY
Private school children are also These perspectives suggest how
scared of getting close to the delinquent the distinctions are maintained in street
street children characterized as 'siga' children's heads. Their positive feelings
(punk or someone having a strong street about the private school children
personality) such that they usually try to (generosity) allow them to passively
keep their distance from the street children accept their condition, while their negative
when walking in the streets. feelings about the private school children
(arrogant and dependent) give them
reasons to actively swallow their condition
Analysis and justify being street children (although
they sometimes question the reality of
Both street children and private school disparities, which therefore arouses a
children shape their common-sense feeling of antipathy toward the private
knowledge of the other in the form of school children). Both give them some
adjusting to or reconciling with their own meaning in their everyday lives. In these
socioeconomic positions. ways, street children reconcile their own
position in the process of negotiating their
First, there are certain patterns of knowledge of the other.
thinking among street children when they
construct their common-sense knowledge Second, private school children
of private school children in the context of develop their point of view in cultivatlnq
socioeconomic differences. their common-sense knowledge of street
children in relation to socioeconomic
a) Because the privileged private differences:
school children are generous, it is
acceptable to be poor because they a) Because the disadvantaged street
will share their wealth with street children are pitifUl, privileged people
children. like private school children should
have mercy on them.
b) Because the privileged private
school children are arrogant, street b) Because the disadvantaged street
children do not want to be like them. children are undisciplined and badly
behaved, private school children do
c) Because the privileged private not want to be like them.
school children are dependent, street
children are actually better off than c) Because the disadvantaged street
they are. children are delinquent, private school

30 Philippine Sociological Review

 children should avoid the street their way of liVing and thinking also gives
children and not imitate their vices. clues to the street children in absorbing
their knowledge about the other. However,
Their logic shows how private school they are rather actively independent in
children gain a sense of superiority or acquiring their common-sense knowledge
how they boost their awareness that they becausethey are in a circumstance inwhich
are different and much better than street they are extensively exposed to the streets
children in terms of socioeconomic while earning and enjoying their autonomy
position. Their sympathy toward the almost without parental supervision. The
street children (as pitiful) makes them understandingsthat street children develop
conscious of social inequality and by experience in the streets determine their
question street children's disadvantaged actions toward the private school children
socioeconomic position. However, their in face-to-face encounters. These face-to-
bad/negative feelings about the .street face encounters accordingly confirm or
children (undisciplined, badly behaved modify their common-sense knowledge of
and delinquent) allow them to actively the other. Through a repeated process 'of
disregard the street children and maintain negotiating knowledge (i.e., continuously
their superior position.Thus, private school organizing, confirming or modifying their
children eventually adapt themselves to understanding) in the interface situation,
their own position when conducting their they reinforce their common-sense
everyday lives. knowledge of the private school children.

Both street children and private school Similarly, private school children's
children actively construct their common- common-sense knowledge of street
sense knowledge of the other through children is constructed mainly through
everyday encounters with various kinds their actual encounters with the street
of social actors in the interface situation. children at the interface situation.However,
However, the modes of knowledge parental influence is also quite significant
construction appear to be slightly different. for private school children in learning
about socioeconomic differences between
Street children's common-sense the other group and their own. Moreover,
knowledge of private school children is private school children's exposure to moral
constructed mainly through their actual education in school and mass media is
encounters with a variety of social actors also identifiable as their way of acquiring
at face-to-face situations (private school knowledge, which is not a mode of social
children, street peers, and other social construction among street children. These
actors in the street). Parental influence on two latter modes accordingly affect their

Volume 52 January-December 2004 31

ways of interacting with street children happensthroughactualencountersbetween
at the interface situation. Thus, private the two groups at the interfacesituation and
school children are active participants in under the influence of other people and
the social construction of their common- elements that are directly and indirectly
sense knowledge. Like street children's related to their interface encounters. Thus,
ways of knowledge construction, they the children themselves actively maintain
continue to negotiate and reinforce their social reality of socioeconomic differences.
common-sense knowledge of the other At the same time, othersocial actors such as
through repeated typification, confirmation security guards, barangay officials, DSWD,
or modification of their understanding and NGO workers at the interface situation
while interrelating with the street children. systematicallymaintain this social reality.
However, the knowledge construction of
private school children is more subject Following Berger and Luckmann (1966)
to adults' concern of the reproduction and Long (1992), the article regards
of the social order because they are childhood as a part of constructing
more obedient and dependent on adult reality unlike those existinq works which
guidance (i.e., parental teaching, moral use the socialization approach, and see
education at school and in mass media) childhood as an apprentice period of
while conducting their everyday life. social roles in 'adult' society. This article,
at the same time, recognizes that under
certain circumstances, especially in the
Conclusion case of street children, the everyday life
of children does not allow them much
Both street children and private school control over their difficult life conditions
children actively develop common-sense and therefore, children do not have other
knowledge of the otherinthecontextoftheir choices to 'actively reconcile' themselves
socioeconomic positions. They also share to their own socioeconomic position. And
knowledge of each other's socioeconomic this is true enough for the key informants
differences. In the process of constructing described in this article. Yet, findings
knowledge, they adjust themselves to their highlight children as active knowing actors:
own position, although they sometimes that children themselves actively come
question the way that this reality is taken for to know socioeconomic differences and
granted. The ongoing process of knowledge behave accordingly, while fully taking into
construction involves any of the following: account society's determinations over their
typification and accumulation, confirmation everyday lives.
or modification of their understanding. This

32 Philippine Sociological Review

 The grounded theory approach thus has Dr. Czarina Salorna-Akpedonu, and
been quite useful in examining the process Dr. Emma Porio for the gui<;jance she
of children's social construction at the received while developing her ideas in
interface situation from an actor-oriented this thesis.
approach.By shedding light on the children
as active participants in their social life, this "This work limits the concept of 'other'
article shows that children take an active for Katipunan street children and Kostka
part in socially constructing the everyday school children as mutually referring to
realities of socioeconomic differences in each other. It should be noted that the
context of their socioeconomic conditions 'other' for street children may include not
at the interface situation. At the same time, just the Kotska children but all children
other social actors in the interface situation that are not part of their immediate peer
systematically reinforce their everyday group. Similarly, the 'other' of Kostka
realities. Inthis regard,this article advocates children may include schoolchildren of
the necessity of fostering involvement of wealthier schools.
both the wealthier children and the poor
children in addressing social inequality 2The theme of children as active actors
in Philippine society as they grow up, in the social world has been a topic of
and not merely addressing the issue of previous studies (e.g., Calago, 2002,1110
structural deficiencies of the poor. It is only 2003, Torres 1996).
by understanding their own encounters at
the interfacethat street children and private "Ihe socioeconomic structure of
school children in particular, and various Katipunan Avenue is observed as of
socioeconomicgroups in society in general, February 2003. It may be different
get to question the taken-for-granted now because of recent changes and
realities of socioeconomic differences. developments in the avenue.

4Barangay is a Tagalog word for the

Endnotes smallest political unit and community of
Philippine society.
This article is based on the author's
master's thesis presented to Department 5Tricycle and jeepney are both public utility
of Sociology and Anthropology, Ateneo vehicles popularly used by Filipino people.
de Manila University in March 2004. The tricycle is a motorcycle with a sidecar
The author would like to thank her key for passengers, whereas the jeepney
informants for their generosity in sharing is a share-ride vehicle popular for short
their lives, and her thesis adviser, journeys. The jeepney originates from

Volume 52 January-December 200433

reconstructed Jeeps left behind by the US sciences because of the difference
army after the Second World War. between Marxist concept of class and
Weberian concept of status. In this
"Some households overlap. Thus, study, the expression of 'the differences
because of kinship, several street children in socioeconomic conditions' is used
are somewhat related. to designate different socioeconomic
groups which the children subjectively
7The school provides scholarships only for judge they belong to or not in terms of
rd
its honor students (1st to 3 honors) at the appearance, material possessions, food,
I
fourth to sixth grade levels, but not for less education, behavior, and activities they
fortunate children. Most Kotska students are engaged in.
enroll from Grade 1. The school usually
does not accept transfer students. 1This enumeration of socioeconomic
differences is derived from categorizing
8The totaltuitionfee means the sum oftuition empirical data, which were collected
fees and basic fees, and excludes costs of in semi-structured interviews with the
books and other miscellaneous fees.While children. The questions were open-ended,
public school students enjoy free tuition, such as: 'How different are you from street
they still have to pay miscellaneous fees. children or Kotska School children?' and
'How do (did) you know the differences?'
9To clarify the concepts of stratification
is somewhat problematic in the social

34 Philippine Sociological Review

References

Baldus, Bernd and Verna Tribe. 1978. "The Development of Perceptions and Evaluations of
Social Inequality among Public School Children." Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 15 (February): 50-60.

Banaag, Cornelio. 1997. Resiliency- Stories Found in Philippine Streets. AusAID and UNICEF.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Constitution of Reality. England:
Penguin Books.

Calago, Cindy. 2002. "The Agency of the Child in Social World of Sex Work:' MA thesis, Ateneo
de Manila University.

Elkin, Frederick and Gerald Handel. 1984. The Child and Society: The Process of
Socialization. 4 th ed. New York: Random House.

Gecas, Viktor. 1979 "The Influence of Social Class on Socialization." In Contemporary Theories
About the Family, ed. Wesley Burr et at, 365-404. New York: Free Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.

1110, Jeanne Frances. 2003. On Their Own Behalf: Case Studies of Child and Youth
Participation in the Philippines. Quezon City: Consuelo Foundatdion and the Institute
of Philippine Culture.

Isaacs, Nathan. 1974. A Brief Introduction to Piaget-The Growth of Understanding in the

Young Child. New York: Schocken Books.

Jocano, Jose Landa. 2002. Slum as a Way of Life: A Study of Coping Behavior in an Urban
Environment. Metro Manila: PUNLAD Research House.

Johoda, Gustav. 1959. "Development of the Perception of Social Differences in Children from
6 to 10." British Journal of Psychology 50: 159-175.

Kerbo, Harold. 1991. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical and
Comparative Perspective. McGRAW-Hili, Inc.

Kerkvliet, Benedict. 1980. "Classes and Class Relations in a Philippine Village." Philippine
Sociological Review 28: 31-50.

Kerkvliet, Benedict. 1990. Everyday Politics in the Philippines: Class and Status Relations in a
Central Luzon Village. University of California Press.

Kohn, Melvin. 1959. "Social Class and Parental Values." American Journal of Sociology 64
(January): 337-351.

Kohn, Melvin. 1963. "Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpretation:'

American Journal of Sociology 68 (January): 471-480.

Volume 52 January-December 2004 35

Lagmay, Leticia. 1983. Cruz-Na-Ligas: Early Socialization in an Urbanizing Community.
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Lewis, Oscar. 1966a. "The Culture of Poverty." Scientific American 215 (4): 19-25.

Lewis, Oscar. 1966b. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family-in the Culture of Poverty. San Juan and
New York: Random House.

Long, Norman and Ann Long, eds. 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory
and Practice in Social Research and Development. London and New York: Routledge.

Porio, Emma. 1994. "Children of the Streets: Socialization and Formation of the Self in
Rapidly Urbanizing Contexts." Philippine Sociological Review 42: 40-52.

Shimizu, Hiromu. 1993. "Filipino Children in Family and Society: Growing Up in a Many-people
Environment." In SA 21 Readings, 106-128. Quezon City: Office of Research and
Publications.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.

Torres, Amaryllis. 1996. Profiles of Disadvantaged Children: Street Children in Six Philippine
Cities. Quezon City: Office of Research Coordination, University of the Philippines.

Ventura, R. Elizabeth. 1991. Philippine Child Psychology. Module No.3. Psychological

Association of the Philippines.

Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe: Free Press.

Wright, James and Sonia Wright. 1976. "Social Class and Parental Values for Children: A
Partial Replication and Extension of Kohn's Thesis." American Sociological Review 41
(June): 527-537.

36 Philippine Sociological Review