Abstract
While the field of youth citizenship has grown in recent years, many ‘gaps’ still exist. This commentary paper takes a critical look at three of these gaps in youth citizenship studies, namely (i) the Global North/Global South gap in understandings about youth citizenship, (ii) the citizenship status and empowerment gap, and (iii) the citizenship opportunity and participation gap. The paper argues that unless these gaps are attended to, we have a distortion in what we know about youth citizenship as the understandings and young people profiled (predominantly the Global North, elite, White and well resourced) represent only a small subsection of the whole, thus ignoring the experiences, knowledge, stories and voices of many diverse young citizens.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The burgeoning field of youth citizenship in the past three decades has helped to establish the idea that young people are citizens. Despite this, ‘gaps’ are still apparent within and between groups of young people in citizenship understandings, status and opportunities for participation that reflect enduring legacies of stigma, social class, colonisation, race and disability. These gaps can take multiple forms, and they appear in youth citizenship studies as ruptures, inequities, chasms and blind spots in relation to different groups of young people and their citizenship experiences and practices. In this commentary, I examine three of these gaps, namely (i) the Global North/Global South gap in understandings about youth citizenship, (ii) the citizenship status and empowerment gap, and (iii) the citizenship opportunity and participation gap.
While these ‘gaps’ take different forms and have different affects, the overall outcome is that we have a ‘bias’ emerging in both youth citizenship research and in democratic representation. For example, the research on citizenship and young people has overwhelmingly taken place within the Global North, focusing on democratic countries which operate in a certain way and with distinctive perceptions of children and youth. What that means is that when we are talking about ‘youth citizenship’, we are actually frequently talking about a very small group of young people at a global level and taking them to represent the whole (Cooper et al. 2019; Hanson et al. 2018; Swartz 2022). At another level, there is a participation gap whereby young people from privileged backgrounds with the type of social/cultural or ‘participatory capital’ (Wood 2013) that tends to match that of the ruling elites establish a dominance in democratic and participatory spaces. This creates a citizenship status and empowerment ‘gap’. The American Political Science Taskforce on Inequality and American Democracy [APSA] ( 2004, p. 651) put it this way:
The privileged participate more than others and are increasingly well organized to press their demands on government … Citizens with low or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government, while the advantaged roar with the clarity and consistency that policymakers readily heed.
Similarly to adults, affluent and middle-class young people reflect this pattern and a small elite group dominates the public political space, rendering a large group of young people with little representation, voice and participation opportunities (Kahne and Sporte 2008; Levinson 2010, 2012; Nairn et al. 2006). While these gaps continue to exist for adults, they operate in particular ways for children and young people (as a result of their age, status, resources and the multitude of ways gender, race and social class play out) and deserve greater attention.
Gap 1: the Global North and Global South Youth Knowledge Gap
At the outset, we need to acknowledge that one of the most significant ‘gaps’ in children and youth citizenship is the uneven knowledge between Global North and Global South youth studies. This gap reflects wider patterns whereby the global metropole (primarily Europe and the USA) controls domains of sociological and academic knowledge (Connell et al. 2017), thus overlooking a Youth studies ‘in’, ‘of’ and ‘for’ the Global South (Cooper et al. 2019). The implications of this for youth citizenship research are that much theorising and literature assume a universality of experiences, understandings, values and aspirations that ignore ways of knowing, being and understanding that emanate from the Global South. We have in fact, right now, a distorted knowledge of youth that rests upon knowledge generated about some but not all youth. For example, theories of youth transition reflect the experiences of primarily Global North youth who largely reside in countries with stable democracies, education systems and employment, even if this, at times, comes under threat (see, for example, the special issue on NEETS in Europe by Vieira et al. (2021)). As Sharlene Swartz (2022) has succinctly put it, we cannot talk of a body of knowledge about global youth studies if we recognise that most of it has been written about youth in the Global North, by Global North scholars.
Similarly, the idea of a ‘globalised childhood’ represents an unstated Global North (Western) construction of childhood that has operated with hegemonic power in childhood studies since its origin (Hanson et al. 2018; Nieuwenhuys 1998). As Tatek Atebe outlines in his interview with Hanson, particular ideologies of what the young should do and how they are expected to exist (schooling, domesticity and work) are caught up in a western notion of childhood that then is stated with superiority as the norm for all children (Hanson et al. 2018). This privileges a linear narrative of a modern normative childhood that simply cannot reflect the realities and life experiences of children worldwide (Nieuwenhuys 1998). The impact of this is that it implies that Southern childhoods and childrearing practices, forms of play, school and work are pathologized and deemed deficient and in need of ‘fixing’ (Imoh and Ame 2012), despite the dominant narrative representing only a minority of the world’s children. Several scholars are working to address this gap in citizenship studies with children and youth. In particular, we see a growing group of Indigenous and Global South scholars (see, for examples, Larasati et al. 2020; Nuggehalli 2021; Tom 2021) who are broadening and enriching, and simultaneously critiquing, narrow normative understandings of citizenship and assumptions about the experiences of young citizens.
Gap 2: the Citizenship Status and Empowerment Gap Within Children and Youth
Despite advances in youth citizenship research which has helped to establish a rich vein of understandings about young citizens (Harris et al. 2021; Wood 2022), a gap within children and young people still remains that relates to uneven and unequal experiences of citizenship status. In particular, age, gender, race, disability and social class variables play out in differing ways with some young people not enjoying ‘the full package of rights attached, nor the same security of status’ (van Waas and Jaghai 2018, p. 415).
Children and young people’s experiences of citizenship and membership of communities are still strongly configured by their age. As ‘not-yet-citizens’ under the age of 18, they are often subject to high levels of adult surveillance and censure and this curtails and configures the spaces and places they can occupy (Collins and Kearns 2001; Malone 2002; Vanderbeck and Dunkley 2004; Wood 2016a). While this at times results in direct curtailment of movement (such as curfews of young people after dark (see Collins and Kearns 2001, for an example from a small New Zealand town), at other times, young people’s actions, behaviour and movement in everyday spaces are constrained as a result of the effect of feeling ‘out of place’ (Cele and van der Burgt 2015; Cresswell 1996) or ‘Other’ (Krejsler and Staunæs 2013). Such young people include those who are marked by the ‘psychic landscape of social class’ (Reay 2005), as well as race (Kidman et al. 2021; Laketa 2018; Reynolds 2013), sexuality (Aggleton et al. 2018) and gender (Lister 2008). As these studies show, the experience of citizenship is far from even, revealing that some groups of young people are more excluded or ‘abject’ citizens than others (Sharkey and Shields 2008; Wood 2016), and that further research to expose these differences and how they can be reduced is still needed.
One further significant ‘gap’ in youth citizenship status is how forms of disability shape the experience and status of young citizens. While cognitive, physical and sensory forms of disability can restrict access to citizenship rights, these have been perpetuated further by exclusive ableist assumptions of political liberal theory that overlook different forms of participation and rhythms of time, and less linear notions of citizenship ‘development’ and autonomy (McLaughlin 2023). Critical disability studies are needed to both explore the experience of disability and citizenship and to critique the normative assumptions of citizenship (Kiwan 2022; McLaughlin 2023).
These experiences of ‘semi’ or marginalised citizenship status in turn impact upon citizenship and political efficacy and empowerment. Studies have found that people with high levels of political efficacy are more likely to vote and be involved in civic participation (Kahne and Westheimer 2006; Verba et al. 1995). This notion has underpinned many educational programmes designed to boost young people’ sense of efficacy and equip them with a sense that they are competent civic actors. However, civic empowerment is still fractured along class, racial and socio-economic status lines. With reference to the USA, Levinson (2010) writes that:
There is a profound civic empowerment gap in the US that disproportionately muffles the voices of non-White, foreign-born, and especially low-income citizens and amplifies the voices of White, native-born, and especially wealthy citizens (Levinson 2010, p. 331).
While this empowerment gap has strong evidence in the USA, we need deeper understanding of citizenship participation and the different forms it takes and its impact in/across diverse political systems, and how ‘representative’ such processes are. The final ‘gap’ I explore explains how this also relates to opportunities for participation.
Gap 3: the Civic Opportunity and Participation Gap
The final citizenship gap I will discuss relates to the civic opportunity and participation gap. While the goal of equipping active citizens is a growing feature of policy for educational institutions and local and national governments, research reveals the tendency to provide participation opportunities in places like Local Government to a very narrow group of youth. In particular, those who are deemed to hold potential to be future leaders, and occasionally the ‘trouble-makers’ who demand some type of ‘fixing’, often preoccupy those with opportunities for voice, leadership and representation (Matthews 2001; Matthews and Limb 2003; Nairn et al. 2006). This pattern ignores and excludes the ‘ordinary’ young people who represent the majority of youth but get few participation opportunities. This pattern is frequently repeated in research where many ‘ordinary’ young people are excluded in favour of articulate and confident ones (Wood and Ristow 2022).
Research in many countries also reveals that students who are more academically successful and those who parents have higher socioeconomic status receive more civic learning opportunities (the Civic Opportunity Gap) (Kahne and Middaugh 2009, p. 313; Spring et al. 2007) and attain higher grades in civic learning (the Civic Achievement Gap) (Levinson 2012). A large IEA international study found that students with higher-than-average socio-economic status levels were more than twice as likely to study how laws were made, 1.89 times more likely to report participating in service-learning activities and 1.42 times more likely to report that they had debates, panels and open discussions of political issues in their learning (cited in Kahne and Middaugh 2009). Having citizenship education and participation opportunities while young matter because these build political efficacy and capacity, as studies have shown that students with fewer opportunities for volunteering, social action and political representation in schooling were less inclined to be involved in citizenship action later in life (Kahne and Middaugh 2009; Kahne and Sporte 2008; Levinson 2010). As Levinson (2010, p. 327) puts it, ‘the legitimacy, stability and quality of democratic regimes are all directly dependent on the robust participation of a representative and large cross-section of citizens’.
In sum, there are still many ‘gaps’ in youth citizenship studies that reveal alarming chasms, oversights and bias in what we know about the experiences, knowledge, stories and voices of diverse young citizens. In addition, we have explored how these gaps are reinforced happen through forms of citizenship education and lack of exposure to opportunities for participation. Unless these gaps are attended to, we have a distortion in what we know about youth citizenship as the understandings and young people profiled (predominantly the Global North, elite, White and well resourced) represent only a small subsection of the whole. The ‘gap analysis’ in this commentary reveals that there is still considerable work to be done to achieve social justice, inclusion and equality for all groups of young citizens. As researchers, youth advocates and educators, we still need to ‘mind the gap’.
References
APSA Taskforce on the Inequality and American Democracy (2004) American democracy in an age of rising inequality. Perspect Polit 2(4):651–689
Aggleton P, Cover R, Leahy D, Marshall D, Rasmussen ML (eds) (2018) Youth, sexuality and sexual citizenship, 1st edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351214742
Cele S, van der Burgt D (2015) Children’s embodied politics of exclusion and belonging in public space. In: Kallio K, Mills S, Skelton T (eds) Politics, citizenship and rights. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 1–14
Collins D, Kearns R (2001) Under curfew and under siege? Legal Geogr Young People Geoforum 32(3):389–403
Connell R, Collyer F, Maia J, Morrell R (2017) Toward a global sociology of knowledge: post-colonial realities and intellectual practices. Int Sociol 32(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580916676913
Cooper A, Swartz S, Mahali A (2019) Disentangled, decentred and democratised: Youth Studies for the Global South. J Youth Stud 22(1):29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1471199
Cresswell T (1996) In place/out of place: geography, ideology and transgression. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Hanson K, Abebe T, Aitken SC, Balagopalan S, Punch S (2018) Global/local’ research on children and childhood in a ‘global society. Childhood 25(3):272–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568218779480
Harris A, Cuervo H, Wyn J (2021) Citizenship. In: Thinking about belonging in youth studies. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 131–168
Imoh AT-D, Ame R (2012) Childhoods at the intersection of the local and the global. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London
Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2009). Democracy for some: the civic opportunity gap in high school. In J. L. Youniss, Peter (Ed.), Engaging young people in civic life (pp. 29-58). Nashville: Venderbilt University Press.
Kahne J, Sporte S (2008) Developing citizens: the impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. Am Educ Res J 45(3):738–766. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208316951
Kahne J, Westheimer J (2006) The limits of political efficacy: educating citizens for a democratic society. PSOnline, April 2006:289–296
Kidman J, MacDonald L, Funaki H, Ormond A, Southon P, Tomlins-Jahnkne H (2021) ‘Native time’ in the white city: indigenous youth temporalities in settler-colonial space. Children's Geogr 19(1):24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2020.1722312
Kiwan D (2022) Dis/abled decolonial human and citizen futures. Citizsh Stud 26(4-5):530–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2022.2091236
Krejsler JB, Staunæs D (2013) Desire and (self-)management in education. Post-lenses on Nordic intakes of transnational tendencies. Int J Qual Stud Educ 26(9):1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.828245
Laketa S (2018) Between “this” side and “that” side: on performativity, youth identities and “sticky” spaces. Environ Plan D Soc Space 36(1):178–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817723632
Larasati RS, Wood BE, Laksana B (2020) Rural Indonesian youths’ conception of success. In: Swartz S, Cooper A, Batan C, Kropff Causa L (eds) The Oxford handbook of Global South youth studies. Oxford Handbooks Online, pp 1–13
Levinson M (2010) The civic empowerment gap: defining the problem and locating the solutions. In: Sherrod L, Torney-Purta J, Flanagan C (eds) Handbook of research on civic engagement. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp 331–361
Levinson M (2012) No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Lister R (2008) Inclusive citizenship, gender and poverty: some implications for education for citizenship. Citizens Teach Learn 4(1):3–20
Malone K (2002) Street life; youth, culture and competing uses of public space. Environ Urban 14(2):157–168
Matthews H (2001) Citizenship, youth councils and young people’s participation. J Youth Stud 4(3):299–318
Matthews H, Limb M (2003) Another white elephant? Youth councils as democratic structures. Space and Polity 7(2):173–192
McLaughlin J (2023) Bringing disability studies and youth studies together to enhance understandings of youth transitions. J Youth Stud:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2023.2182674
Nairn K, Sligo J, Freeman C (2006) Polarizing participation in local government: which young people are included and excluded? Child Youth Environ 16(2):248–271
Nieuwenhuys O (1998) Global childhood and the politics of contempt. Alternatives 23(3):267–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437549802300301
Nuggehalli RK (2021) Youth protagonism in urban India. In: Swartz S, Cooper A, Batan CM, Kropff Causa L (eds) The Oxford handbook of Global South youth studies. Oxford University Press
Reay D (2005) Beyond consciousness? The psychic landscape of social class. Sociology 39(5):911–928
Reynolds T (2013) ‘Them’ and ‘us’: ‘Black neighbourhoods’ as a social capital resource among Black youths living in innner-city London. Urban Stud 50(3):484–498
Sharkey A, Shields R (2008) Abject citizenship - rethinking exclusion and inclusion: participation, criminality and community at a small town youth centre. Children's Geogr 6(3):239–256
Spring, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. (2007). Leveling the pathway to participation: volunteering and civic engagement amoung youth from disadvantaged circumstances. Retrieved from Washington DC: https://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0406_disad_youth.pdf
Swartz S (2022) A charter for Global South youth studies scholars. J Applied Youth Stud 5(4):335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-022-00084-6
Tom T (2021) Youth and citizenship rights after Zimbabwe’s land reform. J Applied Youth Stud 4(1):51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-021-00041-9
van Waas L, Jaghai S (2018) All citizens are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Netherlands Int Law Rev 65(3):413–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-018-0123-8
Vanderbeck R, Dunkley CM (2004) Introduction: geographies of exclusion, inclusion and belonging in young lives. Children's Geograp 2(2):177–183
Verba S, Schlozman K, Brady H (1995) Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Vieira MM, Pappámikail L, Ferreira T (2021) NEETs in Europe: from Plural (in)visibilities to public policies. J Applied Youth Stud 4(2):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-021-00050-8
Wood BE (2013) Participatory capital: Bourdieu and citizenship education in diverse school communities. Br J Sociol Educ 35(4):578–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.777209
Wood BE (2016a) Border spaces: geographies of youth exclusion, inclusion and liminality. In: Kraftl P, Nairn K (eds) Space, landscape and environment. Vol. 3 of Skelton, T. (ed) Geographies of children and young people, vol 3. Springer, Singapore, pp 481–498
Wood BE (2016) Excluded citizens? Participatory research with young people from a ‘failing’ school community. Children's Geogr 14(3):310–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1043515
Wood BE (2022) Youth citizenship: expanding conceptions of the young citizen. Geogr Compass 16(12):e12669. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12669
Wood BE, Ristow B (2022) Everyday talk: self-directed peer focus groups with diverse youth. Int J Soc Res Methodol:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2138107
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Ethical approval was not required for this paper as it is a commentary drawing from prior literature.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wood, B.E. Mind the Gap: Uneven and Unequal Experiences of Youth Citizenship. JAYS 6, 169–175 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-023-00096-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-023-00096-w