This paper explores the ways that constitutive elements of globalization-including a celebration of risk, reduction in state funding for social reproduction in developed nations and pressures to modernize in underdeveloped ones-are being "smuggled in" in the guise of new discourses around youth and childhood. Far from being a byproduct of capitalism in its various phases, youth and childhood can be located at its literal and figurative core.In a crude characterization of the global map as it has emerged in over the past twenty years, one would find a world drawn roughly into three parts-and in each of these parts, youth and childhood is being restructured in a distinct way. These divisions look suspiciously like the earlier global models of developed, developing and underdeveloped nations, but the nature of the exclusions that sustain them spell particularly bad news for the world's young people. Modern ideals of youth and childhood that became hegemonic in the West over the past century are being exported to non-Western contexts in which resources to adequately reproduce these forms are sadly lacking. At the same time, in Western settings over the past two decades, such resources have been eroded for children and young people, and celebrated aspects of "youthfulness" have been displaced to adults to justify lifelong learning and the increasing assumption of risk by older workers.The paper urges a move away from the study of behaviors of "children and adults" as static categories and towards an exploration of shifting norms and forms of "childhood and aging" as dynamic processes that both help to constitute and are constituted by a new political economy.

In our engagement with Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid’s thesis on planetary urbanization we argue that, while they have successfully marked some important limits of mainstream thinking on the urban, their privileging of epistemology cannot produce an urban theory for our time. Engaging in a symptomatic reading of their work, and with a focus on the implications of their limited mobilization of social ontology—or Lefebvre’s ontology of the everyday—we ask what is occluded in planetary urbanization. In particular, we explore three areas of concern: the urban as the grounds for difference, centrality and the everyday; the omission of subjects of and occlusion of subjectivity; and the occlusion of a constitutive outside and its political capacities to remake the urban.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper is the second of two that examine the paradoxical relationship of the child to the liberal notion of the subject. Together they explore the range of contexts in which children's relationship to parents and other caregivers raise questions about the nature of the subject qua individual, and highlight the potential for a ventriloquist discourse around the child in which political projects are mobilized by neo-liberal and neoconservative groups that purport to speak for the child. The first paper examined the emergence of two contradictory images: the 'knowing' fetal subject and the confused child; the second paper explores particular forms of presencing and absencing of the child in relation to parental rights and questions of social entitlements. Both papers speak to the contorted somatography and topography of the child-as-subject that is emerging at an historical juncture when children's rights are being mobilized to undermine the gains made by a range of heterodox subjects. They point to the limits of liberal constructions of the subject in struggles for emancipation.