![]()
Chapter 1
Student politics and protest
An introduction
Rachel Brooks
Introduction
As has been widely documented by the media, recent years have witnessed protests by students across the world against attempts by national governments to reform various aspects of higher education. Students have also been involved in other political activities, for example, as part of āOccupyā, the international movement against social and economic inequality. Such involvement has presented clear evidence that young people are not, as has been previously claimed by politicians and social commentators in many countries of the Global North, politically apathetic. Nevertheless, it has rarely been the focus of academic enquiry, and we know little about the role of higher education institutions in the politicisation of students. Moreover, while studentsā unions and student societies have become an increasingly important part of the higher education landscape in some parts of the world, our knowledge about their role, and the extent to which they foster political engagement, is equally limited. Student Politics and Protest: International Perspectives redresses these gaps in our knowledge. By drawing on new research from across the globe, it provides the first book-length analysis of the ways in which contemporary student politics and protests are played out in different national contexts. This introductory chapter situates the 12 chapters that follow by providing an overview of our extant knowledge in relation to young peopleās political engagement in general, as well as student protests and politics more specifically, before outlining briefly the structure of the book.
Young peopleās political engagement
Students are clearly not synonymous with young people: despite a significant increase in higher education participation rates across the world, there are still many young men and women who never progress to higher education, and higher education students can of course be mature participants who choose to return to study at a later point in their lives. Nevertheless, when considering the propensity of students to become involved in politics and protest, many of the wider debates about young peopleās political engagement have some relevance. These will first be discussed before turning, in subsequent sections of this chapter, to students more specifically.
Across the Global North, there has been evidence that young peopleās involvement in formal politics has declined. In many national contexts, this reflects trends within the population more generally, but is typically seen more acutely among younger age groups. Young people are less likely than older age groups to vote in elections and to participate in other forms of institutional politics (for example, through becoming a member of a political party or trade union). Moreover, they tend to feel disengaged from formal politics and ignored by politicians, and have low levels of political trust (Garcia-Albacete, 2014; Henn and Foard, 2012; Martin, 2012). However, patterns of engagement are more complex than these overall trends suggest: turnout in elections, on the part of young people, can be quite volatile, often depending on whether or not an election captures their attention (Martin, 2012; Pilkington and Pollock, 2015); some studies have indicated that young people do have an interest in formal politics (Henn and Foard, 2012); and, across Europe at least, there appears to be considerable support for the democratic process. As Pilkington and Pollock (2015: 8) note, on the basis of their research in 14 European countries:
The paradox to be understood, it would appear ā¦ is that these young people are not so much āantiā politics but profoundly disillusioned with the current democratic system while continuing to be, in principle, supportive of democratic forms of government and seeking to ābe heardā through it.
Scholars, social commentators and politicians have all proffered explanations for these patterns. In very general terms, these can be conceptualised as a binary, with explanations either problematising or celebrating young peopleās behaviour (Garcia-Albacete, 2014; Sukarieh and Tannock, 2015). The former tend to emphasise the apathy of young people and a decline in their sense of civic duty, while the latter stress, instead, what are claimed to be the alternative political repertoires that young people have taken up in place of formal political engagement. However, Kimberleeās (2002) typology, developed over a decade ago, remains a useful means of exploring different possible explanatory frameworks in a rather more nuanced manner. He outlines four perspectives that have been used to interpret the changes in young peopleās political behaviour. Firstly, he identifies youth-focussed explanations which see the problem as lying with the individual (e.g. being apathetic) or a social characteristic associated with them (such as their social class background). Such explanations sometimes draw also on lifecycle factors, suggesting that in contemporary societies, young people often experience āstart upā problems in relation to engagement with formal politics ā as a result of their geographical mobility (for education and/or employment) and associated lack of strong community ties. Secondly, he discusses a range of politics-focussed explanations. These typically emphasise the ways in which young people are put off politics by, for example, outdated electoral systems, the failure of political parties to attract young people and the absence of youth-focussed policies within party manifestos. In their analysis of young peopleās political participation in Germany, for example, Busse et al. (2015) argue that the āprofessionalisationā of national politics has been largely responsible for youth disengagement. Kimberleeās third group of explanations coalesce around the idea of young people having developed alternative values. Such perspectives are informed by the growth of New Social Movements in the 1960s and 1970s. As Kimberlee (2002: 92) notes, these movements ātend to be culturally oriented rather than power oriented, and they re-create themselves in dynamic and unpredictable ways that make them highly attractive to younger peopleā. Theoretically, the perspectives are informed by the work of Inglehart and Welzel (2005) who have argued that, as a result of an increase in levels of education, contemporary citizens are less deferential, less trusting of elites and more willing to act independently and autonomously than previous generations. There are strong links here to Farthingās (2010: 190) conceptualisation of young people as āradically unpoliticalā, viewing āthe retreat from politics on the part of many young people as the very core of their political actionā, and OāToole et al.ās (2007) contention that choosing not to vote can be, in itself, a highly political act. Finally, Kimberlee identifies a generational change perspective. Those adopting this perspective argue that recent cohorts of young people have experienced unique events that have discouraged them from participating in formal politics ā such as delays in securing full-time employment and taking on a variety of other adult roles (Garcia-Albacete, 2014).
Although there is no clear consensus within the academic literature, the evidence available to date tends to offer little support to the āalternative valueā thesis: there has not been any growth in non-conventional forms of political participation over recent years, and although the range and types of expressive political engagement are proliferating, they are only taken up by a minority of young people (Keating, 2015; Pilkington and Pollock, 2015). Evidence about young peopleās interest in formal politics (even if such interest is rarely acted upon) tends to undermine the āyouth-focussedā perspective (Henn et al., 2005) while contemporary scholars have also been sceptical about the basis for asserting any generational change (Garcia-Albacete, 2014; Roberts, 2015). Thus, some researchers have suggested that the politics-focussed perspective has most explanatory power (e.g. Henn et al., 2005) and/or that the degree of discontinuity with previous generations has perhaps been overstated (Garcia-Albacete, 2014).
Associated with debates about the extent to which young people are engaged in formal and informal politics are studies that have explored the media through which conventional and/or āalternativeā forms of politics are practised. Harris (2008), for example, has argued that, in the face of increasing regulation and surveillance brought about by neo-liberal forms of governmentality, young women have turned to new technologies ā through blogging, constructing personal websites and participating in virtual communities ā to carve out spaces for themselves and that this, in itself, should be considered a political act. She maintains that:
Online DIY cultures and social networking are important examples of the ways that young women are negotiating the absence of traditional citizenship ideals and the emergence of new, somewhat problematic ones in their place. Young women engage in these activities at times to develop new forms of activism and political subjectivity, but more often to create unregulated, public spaces for peer communities and to construct public selves.
(Harris, 2008: 492)
Other youth researchers have argued that new technologies often tend to reinforce patterns of offline political participation, rather than encourage new groups to become politically involved. Indeed, various studies have indicated that the young people most likely to take advantage of new opportunities for political participation offered by the Internet are those from advantaged backgrounds (Keating, 2015; Martin, 2012). Moreover, Pilkington and Pollock (2015) have suggested that new technologies may actually have the effect of closing down political debate through āselective exposureā, i.e. the consumption of only that information which reinforces oneās own views and prejudices. They go on to contend that āthe implication of this is that the internet can create publics that are isolationist and exclusionary in nature, having little or no engagement with those whose interests are opposed to their ownā (ibid.: 5). Such debates have also been played out in relation to student protests more specifically; these are discussed below.
Student politics and protest
When considering the political engagement of students, more specifically, there is some evidence to suggest that participation in higher education has a politicising effect; indeed, adults with a degree are more likely than their less-educated peers to be active in politics throughout their lives (Crossley and Ibrahim, 2012). Moreover, some scholars have argued that universities are ideal āmicropublicsā in which people from different backgrounds can come together and, as a result of engaging in āprosaic negotiationsā, come to terms with diversity and form new solidarities (Amin, 2002; Harris, 2012). Moreover, Loader et al. have argued ā on the basis of their empirical work in Australia, the UK and US ā that small, student-run societies within universities play an important role in āfacilitating the habitus of the student citizenā (Loader et al., 2015: 820). They contend that such spaces allow students to experiment creatively, try out the performance of their āpolitical selfā in a safe environment and gain access to (politically) relevant cultural and social capital. Drawing on some of the points made previously in this chapter, an important part of their argument is that these processes are increasingly enacted through social media rather than solely through face-to-face contact between students.
This analysis of educational establishments as sites for dialogue across difference and political socialisation is not, however, shared by all. Andersson and colleagues (2012) have argued that while the social composition of university campuses can in some senses be seen as akin to the āthrown togethernessā of urban public space (Massey, 2005), in practice, the campus offers relatively few opportunities for genuine cross-cultural encounter (see also Hopkins, 2011). Moreover, research has indicated that while higher education can have a politicising effect on some students, for others, their particular social networks can serve to close down political debate and engagement (Brooks et al., 2015b; Hensby, 2014). It is also problematic to assume that there is any automatic relationship between students and political engagement; the social and political context exerts significant influence. As Williams (2013: 106) has argued, āwhat it means to be a student at any given point in time is a social construction; it alters with the prevailing social and political conditions within society at that timeā. Moreover, the wider context influences both the opportunities that are available to students to contribute politically and the substantive political attitudes they take up. In Chile, for example, the prevailing political climate has had an important bearing on studentsā propensity to take up political causes and engage in political activity, with the current generation of student leaders no longer feeling, as their predecessors had done, compromised by the limits imposed from the transition from dictatorship to democracy (Bellei et al., 2014). Instead, they have felt able to question the institutionalised arrangements inherited from that period (ibid.). Moreover, in the US and UK, it has been argued that a dominant neo-liberal agenda has encouraged a strongly individualistic perspective on the part of students (Phipps and Young, 2015) and reduced the spaces available for developing alternative political positions (Brooks et al., 2015c; Giroux, 2011). In exploring these relationships in more detail, the rest of this section focuses on two of the more high-profile forms of student political engagement: involvement in protests and studentsā unions.
Student protests
Contemporary students are often berated for not being sufficiently politically active and are frequently compared, in negative terms, with their predecessors, for whom, it is suggested, political activism was a central part of their student identity. However, it is only since the 1960s that students have been perceived in this way. In earlier parts of the 20th century, popular conceptions of students tended to emphasise, instead, devotion to studies or the pursuit of an active social life (Williams, 2013). Indeed, Williams (ibid.) notes that it was only in 1969 that the terms āstudent activistā and āstudent revoltā were first used in print. Nevertheless, the student protests that occurred across the world in the 1960s were significant in changing dominant constructions of the student and an emotional commitment to political principle came to be considered by many students āto be more important a statement of their identity than the conclusions of dedicated and painstaking scholarshipā (Williams, 2013: 108).
The 1960s student protests, which spread across North America and Europe, and touched other continents, too, had their roots in the civil rights protests that began in the US in the 1950s, and the peace marches and demonstrations that followed in Europe (Roberts, 2015). The participating students were concerned to show support for national, racial, ethnic and religious liberation, and oppose what they argued were colonialist wars and imperialist interventions. The Vietnam War became a particular focus of protest, with students arguing that it represented an illegitimate attempt by a foreign power to impose its will by force on another people (Lipset, 1969; Sukarieh and Tannock, 2015). The protests were also influenced by concerns about higher education. While university systems in many parts of the world had expanded significantly over the 1960s, taking in larger and more diverse student bodies, university policies and practices remained elitist and traditionalist (Sukarieh and Tannock, 2015). Students thus demanded more rights and freedoms on campus, greater involvement in university governance and a more coherent and relevant curriculum (Cockburn and Blackburn, 1969). Reflecting some of the debates that would continue into the 21st century, the student protests of the 1960s were informed by broad concerns about the purpose of higher education and what students perceived to be contradictions ā firstly, between the collective and autonomous nature of productive intellectual work and what was perceived to be the authoritarian structure of contemporary education and, secondly, between the need (and official aspiration) to make educational opportunities more equal and the stratifying functions of the education system (Adelstein, 1969).
While only a minority of students took part in the 1960s protests, the campus environment facilitated effective mobilisation (Lipset, 1969), and the issues they pursued tended to be supported by the wider population. Indeed, as Roberts (2015) notes, as this generation grew older, many aspects of the counter-culture associated with the 1960s student protests, such as gender and race equality and an acceptance of alternative family forms a...
