Freedom From Symbolic Violence? Facilitators and Barriers to Participatory Practices in Youth Justice

Abstract

The Child First Participation agenda in England marks a paradigm shift in youth justice. This solidifies a commitment to democratising decision-making processes with children. Drawing on interviews with children and professionals, this article explores the enablers and constraints to Child First participation in youth justice services, including how risk-oriented practices, managerialism and neo-liberal mechanisms constrain positive relationships with children. In this article, Bourdieu’s concept of ‘symbolic violence’ is used to explore systemic problems when engaging children in co-producing youth justice interventions. The article suggests how participatory practices can provide freedom from symbolic violence for both children and practitioners.

Guest editorial

“…As a result, there are often huge power imbalances between professionals and children in this context. These power imbalances can often force children to suppress their feelings, withhold a perspective and consequently refrain from engaging and collaborating with adult professionals (Creaney and Burns, 2023). This halts progress towards a co-produced agenda, or an approach designed to be relational and collaborative.…”

Guest editorial

“…In the opening section of the editorial to Part One of this Special Issue, the barriers to operationalizing the principle of co-production were reflected upon, and the benefits of using creative methods of engagement were discussed (Creaney et al , 2023). When working with children who are subject to court orders, practitioners and case managers wield disproportionate power over responses and agenda-setting (Creaney and Burns, 2023). Furthermore, certain risk management processes remain “steadfastly punitive” (Deakin et al , 2022, p. 101), which prioritises professional power and prevents partnership and reciprocity working with children.…”

“…Any commitment to co-production has to balance prioritising concerns around the “risks” children pose to society. It also must be acknowledged that practitioners are working within considerable constraints, which limit time, space and ability to initiate bespoke participatory approaches (Creaney and Burns, 2023). Moreover, heightened concerns around public safety limits professional interest in co-production, wherein interventions become professional-led and power holders remain wedded to mechanisms of control and surveillance in response to a preoccupation with identifying and managing the “harms” children pose to others (Burns and Creaney, 2023).…”

“…Such methods include a continued use of a neo-liberal lexicon amongst the workforce, punitive discourse and risk management processes to satisfy public protection agendas, which tend to reflect “an unequal social order and an asymmetrical distribution of power” (Garrett, 2018, p. 132). Children can be relatively powerless within relationships due to surveillance of their behaviours and attitudes being a key aspect of supervision (Creaney and Burns, 2023). The appeal of co-production within youth justice may lie in its apparent challenge to institutional power and control (Burns, 2023; Johns et al , 2022).…”

“…Children may feel discouraged from expressing agency or exercising “freedom of thought” unless they have received sufficient guidance and reassurance from practitioners (Deakin et al , 2022). If they do input into the process, they may be reticent to challenge professional authority and unsettle the elite due to perceived consequences of “talking truth to power” and thus they may – involuntarily at least - self-censure, feel compelled to withhold or suppress their honest thoughts when presented with the opportunity to interact with adults (Creaney and Burns, 2023; Creaney, 2020). As Hart (2022, p. 3) notes, “trust”, an important ingredient of co-creative practice, “is necessary to coax agency and voice from people who have been systematically controlled and silenced”.…”