Youth activists, youth councils, and constrained democracy

Abstract

This article provides a critical examination of a common form of adult attempts to promote civic engagement among young people, namely, youth advisory councils. While youth councils have been widely celebrated as an effective way to integrate young people into political processes, little research has explored why some politically active youth choose to leave, or refuse to join, youth councils. Based on two qualitative studies of politically active teens throughout North and Latin America, the authors argue that teenage activists possess valuable dissident knowledge of, and critical perspectives on, the potential for youth advisory councils to promote youth political power. We argue that young activists understand democracy in ways that are fundamentally different from that offered to them by youth councils. Youth activists put forth a theory of democracy that emphasizes authority and impact, not just voice; they understand democracy as representing collective concerns and perceive youth councils as elitist and nonrepresentative; and they emphasize the value of controversy and contentious politics while expressing anxiety that youth councils can function as modes of social control that tame and channel youth dissent, rather than opportunities to foster youth political power.

Contingent authority and youth influence: When youth councils can wield influence in public institutions

“…Adults with greater authority to organize public forms of participation persistently foster non-participation as a norm for young people, where small numbers of young people may be present but without directing meaningful influence (Taft & Gordon, 2013). Here, tokenism is of particular concern because of its persistence in organizations like youth councils.…”

“…Throughout the Western world, young people's participation in liberal democratic societies has been a contested topic (Bessant 2004;Hart, 1992;Matthews, Limb, & Taylor, 1998;Smith, Lister, Middleton, & Cox, 2005;Taft & Gordon, 2013). Scholars and practitioners have analyzed the logics underlying various forms of youth participation, types of experiences and their accessibility, and the degree to which they yield influence or change in varied contexts.…”

“…While they establish sites for potential participation (Fleming, 2013), they have been effectively critiqued for reproducing forms of non-participation (Taft & Gordon, 2013). Such councils also offer sites for learning technical knowledge that is considered developmentally appropriate, while legally restricting the related participatory practices.…”

“…These councils have been celebrated as an advance in producing participatory spaces for young people (Matthews et al 1998;Smith et al, 2005) and critiqued for their undemocratic and non-participatory enactments (Matthews and Limb 2003;Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). RIE, 2017, 35(2), 537-562 Taft and Gordon (2013) addressed young people's critiques of their experiences on youth councils as normative and nondemocratic and set those experiences in contrast with alternative models of democracy employed by youth movements. The young people in their studies had notably abandoned the youth council model after direct experience with the "political marginality" they frequently engender.…”

“…Taft and Gordon (2013) provided a general description of what youth councils share in common: connection with policy makers, formal and official role in governance, availability of staff and training, and a size of between 15 and 25 high school aged students. These councils have been celebrated as an advance in producing participatory spaces for young people (Matthews et al 1998;Smith et al, 2005) and critiqued for their undemocratic and non-participatory enactments (Matthews and Limb 2003;Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).…”