Young People in Risk Society: The Restructuring of Youth Identities and Transitions in Late Modernity

The Restructuring of Youth Identities and Transitions in Late Modernity

Mark Cieslik, Gary Pollock

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138730335
• eBook ISBN: 9781351746175
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Cultural & Social Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This title was first published in 2002: Loosely divided into two sections, this book's first part includes chapters which explore young people's identities and youth cultures in relation to issues such as drug use, education and dance music. In various ways, the authors examine whether there is a need to rethink the existing theories and concepts which have informed the study of youth cultures and identities. The second part to the volume is concerned with how young people experience "transtitions", in relation to such topics as employment, sexuality, and household formation. The chapters also raise theoretical questions on the usefulness of the transition concept in late modernity, illustrating how the reshaping of key institutions in late modernity has had a profound effect on the sorts of transitions young people make today. In addressing such issues the authors examine the potential contribution that concepts around risk and risk society and new Third Way social policy initiatives can have to contemporary youth studies.

Chapter 1

Introduction: Studying Young People in Late Modernity

MARK CESLIK and GARY POLLOCK

Introduction

The last decades of the twentieth century has witnessed considerable change. We have seen the restructuring of the key institutions of welfare, employment, family and community as well as developments in information and communication technologies. The reshaping of cultural and economic processes have meant that we all now live in an increasingly globalized culture and society. For some these changes suggest the emergence of a post-modern era (Jameson, 1984), others talk of Post-Fordism (Brown and Lauder, 1997) and recently many have discussed the notion of late modernity and with it the concept of a risk society (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990, 1991). With such changes youth researchers have suggested that new patterns of identities and transitions have emerged bringing with it the creation of new opportunities as well as divisions and inequalities amongst contemporary youth. The election of new governments in Europe as we saw with the election of the British Labour Party in 1997 and 2001 also promised the beginning of a new social policy agenda for young people. In Britain, as in other countries with social democratic traditions of government there has been the emergence of the so-called Third Way philosophy which would marry the older socialist concerns for social justice with the Neo-Liberal or New Right concerns for economic efficiency and market policies. In the light of these changes many youth researchers agree on the need for new ways of exploring the impact of these developments on the lives of young people – new research agendas with an innovative approach to research problems, theories and methods (MacDonald et al., 1993; Cohen and Ainley, 2000). One of the key aims of this book therefore is to illustrate some of the most recent research with young people in the context of late modernity and risk societies. It also sets out to explore the impact on young people of some of the new social policies emerging from the Labour government of Tony Blair. In so doing it seeks in a modest way to contribute to a new youth research agenda for the new millennium.

Risk and Risk Society

The concepts of risk and risk society are interesting as they have implications for how we understand social identities, the wider structure and organization of societies and also the key concepts which underpin the social sciences (Luhmann, 1990, 1995). One of the first writers to popularize the concept of risk was Mary Douglas (1966, 1983, 1992). Douglas illustrates how the category of risk operates as a key part of the classification system in contemporary cultures and that this has emerged because of the recent transformation of western societies. An important point made by Douglas is concerned with the process of social construction which underpins the use of risk categories in modem societies. The ways in which some practices or groups or places are constructed as ‘risky’ or ‘at risk’ inevitably involve political, ethical and moral judgements by some in relation to others. Some members of society then, have the resources and the power to define others and make such definitions stick, despite the efforts of those labelled to resist such categorization. The concept of risk and its operation is so effective and has become so pervasive Douglas suggests, as it draws on older categories such as sin, danger, cleanliness, purity and pollution. As sin and danger did in the past the concept of risk works today as a way of categorising social membership and in the process helps to maintain social order in modem societies. Significantly, such a system of categorization and the role of risk have become necessary because of the dynamism of contemporary societies. As Beck (1992) and Giddens (1991) were to later argue the reshaping of families, employment and communities in part through the pressures of globalisation creates uncertainties over identities and social membership. Such processes continually (re)create new marginal groups and thus contribute to the recasting of boundaries between those who belong and those who do not- the established and the outsiders. For Douglas, risk has become embedded in contemporary culture as it serves as a key ‘forensic resource’ (Lupton, 1999) for managing the disputes, uncertainties and anxieties over social membership in modern societies.

In contrast to Douglas who understood risk as a social category and an element of social classification, Beck and Giddens have developed the wider argument about the emergence of risk societies as a stage in the development of societies in late modernity. As such they make claims about the distinctiveness of risk societies in relation to earlier forms of industrial societies. For Beck (1992) a distinctive feature of risk society is the growth in manufactured hazards because of the pursuit of wealth through industrial production. These take a bewildering form – such as environmental pollution, food poisoning, anxieties over medical procedures and drug treatments as well as concerns over dangerous transport systems. These hazards create great uncertainty as their pervasiveness and global origins mean that they are often difficult to escape from. Moreover, the very fact that expert knowledges such as science and technology are used in the industrial processes which have created these risks have contributed to a growing scepticism in the power of expert discourses to offer solutions to these hazards.

Risk society is also characterized by other features which create a sense of uncertainty. Long term processes of cultural change – detraditionalization – means that those norms and values which act as collective cultural guides in our lives are waning in influence and this is reflected in a much more fluid understanding of families, employment and community life. In the place of these collective guides and traditional institutions are much more individualized identities and biographies where individuals have a greater scope beyond traditional markers of class, race and gender to create complex subjectivities and lifestyles.

The growth of new global hazards and the uncertainties of detraditionalization have created a world in which individuals increasingly have to become much more reflexive about their daily practices. This reflexiveness for Beck is the key way in which people manage their lives in risk society. When confronted by new global hazards, the restructuring of civil society and a growing critique of expert knowledges, individuals are compelled to become more involved in processes of ‘self-confrontation’ (Gudmundsson, 2000) or much more ‘self-conscious’ about their daily lives and practices if they are to successfully manage their biographies in contemporary societies.

A further development of the risk society concept by Giddens emphasizes the transformation of time and space and the impact this has on the lives of every citizen. Global capitalism has helped create a mediazed world where interaction is increasingly mediated by information and communication technologies (ICTs) and less and less through face-to-face interaction. This process of disembedding of social relationships creates a variety of problems (and indeed opportunities) for individuals – in particular around the issue of the trust that can or cannot be placed in the absent individuals which make up the lifeworld of citizens. The insecurity that people feel in a mediazed society, Giddens suggests, is compounded by wider processes of detraditionalization as outlined by Beck above. Those once predictable institutions which made up the fabric of modernity – the family, employment, welfare and community become increasingly fluid and unpredictable. The processes of detraditionalization and disembedding combine to produce an environment characterized by ontological insecurity – doubts about one identity, careers and biography. In such a world Giddens suggests, following Beck, that people have no alternative but to develop individualized and reflexive approaches to the management of their life projects – in their search for trust and ontological security.

The Third Way and Social Policy

In the twenty-first century governments have the difficult task of helping their citizens to meet the challenges presented by risk societies. One way of doing this is by developing innovative social policy which is suited to the dynamic, globalized societies in which we live. For some years now there has been an ambitious socio-political project in many European countries which has been exploring the possibility of moving beyond the old political and ideological divisions of Left and Right that have characterized politics for much of the twentieth century. These calls have been made as most western societies are struggling to find new ways of dealing with deeply ingrained problems of growing social exclusion and material inequalities as well as a crisis in the fabric of civil society. Many modem societies are experiencing the profound reshaping of institutions such as the family but also a growing cynicism about, and disengagement from, local and national political processes.¹ There is a need then to redemocratize contemporary societies. However, in their respective ways, we are told, the older social democratic and neo-liberal projects are both unsuited to risk society (Giddens, 1998). In Britain, Thatcherism’s championing of the market and minimal state may have helped the economy adjust to global markets but has been unsuccessful in coping with the attendant social dislocation, particularly the growth in inequality and deterioration of many local communities. By promoting economic individualism Neo-Liberal policies have helped undermine the social solidarity that is essential to any society. In contrast social democratic governments have traditionally used state intervention to resist the effects of the global economy using welfare expansion and economic management to pursue egalitarian policies, usually via the goal of full-employment. Under this approach, the reliance on the state to furnish solutions to social problems has led to the growth of welfare dependency and the erosion of individual liberties through burgeoning state bureaucracies.

As developed by Giddens (1998, 2000) and championed by Tony Blair and others (for example the Democratic Party in the USA and the SPD in Germany), the Third Way is an effort to reshape the social democratic political project in the context of risk society. At its heart is the aim of promoting social solidarity and social justice which were a feature of old Labour socialist policies whilst also maintaining the individual’s freedoms and liberties which the New Right championed through the market based policies of Thatcherism. The Third Way aims to do this via several concepts which in turn have subsequently influenced current policy-making. A key concept is that of ‘active citizenship’ where there is the understanding that individuals can exercise their rights to welfare support only if they recognize their responsibilities to the wider community- ‘the hand up not hand out’ approach. Individuals then should look for work if unemployed, parents must take some responsibility for their child’s welfare and all of us must make more of an effort to participate in our local communities. The Third Way also argues for a mixed economy where the state, private business and voluntary organisations can bring their respective expertises and work together to manage the economy and provide welfare services. The partnership approach is a way of involving a wider group of people in democratic processes of policy-making and implementation so as to check the current apathy which is felt by many about such issues. A partnership approach is also a way of empowering a wider range of people to become involved in the governance and policy process avoiding the problems associated with top-down initiatives which many feel ignore the views and interest of those it is supposed to represent.

There have been a range of social policies aimed at young people which reflect this current Third Way approach to government in risk societies. For example the British Labour government has revamped the careers advisory system creating in its place the new ‘connexions’ service which aims to provide support for young people managing what are now much more fragmented and extended transitions through education, training and work. In mainstream education the British government hopes to distance itself from the previous Conservative governments by using its policies to tackle social exclusion and promote social justice. Policies such as Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities and Surestart are explicitly focused on delivering a range of flexible learning opportunities to those children, young people and their families who are living in areas of multiple disadvantage (see Simpson and Cieslik, 2000). Yet at the same time these policies are different to earlier Old Labour initiatives as they incorporate many of the market based initiatives of previous Conservative administrations. The Labour government, for example has done little to change the competitive ethos of the secondary school system, based as it is on student testing, open enrolment and league tables of examination results. Moreover in such a system, parents and young people have to exercise a key responsibility in making an informed choice about the sort of education they wish to receive. The introduction of student loans and tuition fees in higher education implies that parents and students now have financial as well as moral responsibilities when it comes to their participation in state education. At all levels of the education system the government promises to provide a quality system of education which is integral in the fight for social justice only if at the same time parents and young people play their part in this quest. Government will provide the key services which underpin citizenship only if citizens play an active part in such provision – the concept then of ‘active citizenship’ which is central to the philosophy of the Third Way.

The principles underlying this Third Way approach and in particular the concept of active citizenship can be seen in the New Deal initiative as Percy-Smith illustrates in his chapter in this volume. This particular initiative is based on the government, in partnership with a variety of local stakeholders, offering young people a choice of quality training and employment placements- a key departure from previous conservative schemes, yet at the same time insisting that young people take greater responsibility for making these choices and securing their long term employment. Yet as Percy-Smith’s empirical data suggests, the aim of empowering young people to improve their own credentials and employability may in fact be undermined by the political imperatives and bureaucratic logic which underpins the delivery of New Deal programmes. As has happened with earlier training schemes the New Deal initiative may be compromized by the desire of politicians and officials to meet unrealistic performance targets set within a hopelessly ambitious timeframe.

The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) is also illustrative of Third Way policy making, in that for the first time it enshrines the preventi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1.  Introduction: Studying Young People in Late Modernity
• 2.  Young Offenders, Risk and Personal Development Programmes
• 3.  Young People and Illicit Drug Use in Postmodern Times?
• 4.  Victims of Risk? Young People and the Construction of Lifestyles
• 5.  Global Clubcultures: Cultural Flows and Late Modern Dance Music Culture
• 6.  Research on Youth Transitions: Some Critical Interventions
• 7.  New Deal or Raw Deal? Dilemmas and Paradoxes of State Interventions into the Youth Labour Market
• 8.  Domestic and Housing Transitions and the Negotiation of Intimacy
• 9.  Ignoring the Past: Under-Employment and Risk in Late Modernity
• Index