Citizenship, Social and Economics Education

Volume 9 Number 1 2010

www.wwwords.co.uk/CSEE

Youth Citizenship and

the Millennium Generation

LISBETH LINDSTRÖM
Department of Pedagogy and Learning,
Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

ABSTRACT This article presents a theoretical review of the notion of citizenship using a
critical analysis of published international research. A citizen may be described as a member
of a political community or state who has certain legal, social and moral rights, duties and
responsibilities. Based on the research, the author suggests the notion of citizenship must be
seen in a broader perspective with aspects of both globalisation and local phenomena seen
from a citizen’s daily life experiences as well as of gender, race, sexuality, ability, ethnicity,
religion and class. The notion of citizenship must also focus on cultural, demographic,
political and socio-economic contexts of everyday life. The Marshall paradigm of citizenship
and the various critiques of it are presented in the introduction. Widespread concerns about
declining levels of political engagement and participation among young people in the entire
Western world are discussed as well as more recent research that has questioned the view
that young people are politically apathetic. Insights are presented about theories and
perspectives of young people’s citizenship, and those dimensions of citizenship that have
remained invisible, such as young citizens’ adoption of values of individualisation and
globalisation, are highlighted.

Introduction
A citizen may be described as a member of a political community or a state who has certain legal,
social and moral rights, duties and responsibilities. Citizenship is a political concept with a variety
of rights and responsibilities in a given political community. These rights and responsibilities
change over time as the result of social struggle, economic change and shifts in governing ideology.
Citizens are persons living in a country and either born of native parents or of parents who have
achieved citizenship in that country. A citizen is an adult with full membership of different markets
and who takes a place in the public sphere. Young people are not sovereign members of the
community because they are still in the entrance into adulthood. Young citizens do not have full
access to the citizenship rights of adults. It is also the case that they do not have indirect rights, as
children do, via their parents or carers. It is therefore argued that the United Nations Conventions
on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is needed as a protection in this situation of dependence (Jones
& Wallace, 1992; Jones, 2002, 2008).
Citizenship has both a formal and informal meaning. Formal citizenship means the legal
obligations and rights which a person has, in terms of being a citizen in a certain country. This
varies depending on the country and often includes such tasks as paying taxes, obeying the laws
and participating in the political life at least by voting. Informally, there is a philosophy that citizens
should work towards the betterment of society through economic participation, volunteer work
and other efforts to improve life for all citizens. Though young people can be included in the

48 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/csee.2010.9.1.48

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

informal part, they are seldom looked upon as real citizens. Rather, they are considered as citizens-
to-be, in need of education to be able to fulfil their role as citizens.
Much of what is written today about citizenship starts with the theories of Marshall in the
1950s. He discussed citizenship in his essay ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ (Marshall & Bottomore,
1996). The Marshall paradigm of citizenship was intended as a bridge between liberalism and
Marxism. In his writings, he took a historical approach focusing on the development of citizenship
from ancient times. Due to Marshall, three different kinds of rights – civil, political and social rights
– are included in the concept ‘citizenship’. He argues that these different rights were won in a
particular order. Firstly, the citizen was given civic rights, such as freedom of speech, individual
freedoms, freedom of thought and faith, the right to own property and the right of justice.
Secondly, political rights, including the right to vote and to stand for political boards, followed in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Finally, the welfare state guaranteed basic social and
economic rights. Each of these three kinds of rights corresponds to a particular set of institutions; a
court system that protects civil rights, political rights corresponding to institutions of local
government and parliament, and social rights associated with the welfare state (Biesta & Lawy,
2006). Marshall’s conclusions have, however, been criticised, for example, because the conception
primarily describes men’s citizenship. Biesta & Lawy (2006) claim that Marshall had an optimistic
belief in the welfare state as the impartial guarantor of social justice. Furthermore, they argue that
the impartial guarantor of social justice was overtaken by actual transformations in the
industrialised world such as the globalisation of production and consumption and by social and
cultural changes. Hindess (1993) states that there is much to be said for these criticisms of
Marshall’s argument and that we need a more sophisticated approach if we are going to understand
the significance of citizenship in the modern world. Another difficulty in Marshall’s theory is the
question about whether there is a single version of citizenship or if there can be many diverse and
different formulations of citizenship according to different social and cultural traditions (Turner,
1993). When it comes to education and citizenship, Faulks (2006) sees a major weakness in
Marshall’s theory. This concerns his focus upon the administration of rights by the agents of the
state at the expense of the participatory aspects of citizenship. His account fails to specifically
identify political education as a crucial precondition and resource for active rather than passive
citizenship.
Yuval-Davis (1997) criticises Marshall because social division and social position such as gender,
ethnicity, class and so forth have not been problematised in his work. She stresses that these aspects
are crucial to the construction of citizenship as well as individuality. Furthermore, she argues that
Marshall’s definition of citizenship as membership of a community rather than of the state is too
vague. She contends that his notion of citizenship is too narrow because of people’s membership in
different communities wherein citizens can have different possibilities and positions depending on,
for example, gender or ethnicity.
Werbner & Yuval-Davis (1999) contend that modern citizenship is inserted into a social field of
competing, heterogeneous and partially overlapping discourses. They argue that democratic
citizenship overtly stresses rationality, individuality and the rule of law. Furthermore, they claim
that central credos of democratic citizenship such as freedom, autonomy and the right to be
different are pitched against the regulatory forces of modernity and the state and are subverted by
the discourses of traditions, culture, nationalism, religiosity and the family. For Werbner & Yuval-
Davis, citizenship is a social and political construction that defines the limits of state power and
where a civil society or the private sphere of free individuals begins. They are hopeful about the
future of the concept and maintain that discourses of citizenship constitute horizons of possibility.
They state that national and transnational citizenships constitute two coexisting and interrelated
modalities of citizenship. In that sense, they argue, the work of citizenship becomes a work for the
future, for generations yet to be born.

The Notion of Citizenship

The Thatcherite view of citizenship was the idea of market rights such as property ownership,
consumer rights and choice between service providers. All this was seen as more empowering than
collectivist welfare rights. It was possible to talk about going from social rights to market rights.

49

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Lisbeth Lindström

Biesta & Lawy (2006) stress ‘that the most central aspect of the New Right Conservative
governments of Thatcher and Major was the redefinition of the relationship between individuals
and the state and hence the redefinition of the very idea of citizenship’ (p. 68). At the centre of that
vision stands the active citizen as an individual person who takes responsibility for his or her own
actions rather than depending upon government interventions and support. The answers to this
were radical constitutional reforms from the Labour government from 1997. Morch (2003) claims
that the market economy, new liberalism and the consumer society have become an insistent
reality, and furthermore that aspects of human life have become regulated according to market
economy. Jeffrey & McDowell (2004) state that neoliberal economic and social changes are
radically transforming young people’s experiences of youth and early adulthood in many parts of
the world. They argue that young people face a greater range of uncertainties than perhaps in any
previous era. As a result of the growth of knowledge societies within neoliberal economies,
learners are increasingly individualised and expected to be responsible for their learning (Phoenix,
2003).
Petersson et al (1998) discuss the meaning of citizenship. They talk about an inner core, whereas
the idea of citizenship is built on people’s equal value. All citizens must be able to enjoy several
common rights and also have some obligations towards society and to other citizens. They stress
that the conception of a citizen is not just a national law; it also has a broader sociological and
historical meaning such as women’s struggles for citizenship or the place of minorities in our
society or the European citizen. Petersson et al (1998) argue that young children and youth make
their citizenship differently from that of most adults since they are dependent upon adults to be
able to claim and exercise their citizenship. The youth are a social construction and a special
category of people with different civil rights at different ages. Citizenship for the young is like a
transitional stage between childhood and adulthood. Bennett (2003) argues that our recent
generations have entered a time of post-material politics. Young citizens participate by other means
through ‘self-actualising’ or ‘self reflexive’ involvements in personally meaningful causes guided by
their own lifestyles and shifting social networks (Giddens, 1991; Ingelhart, 1997). On the other
hand, Montin (2004) argues that citizenship is an instrument for delimitation that implies a
combination between what is private or official and what is subjectively or objectively egoistic and
altruistic.
Benedicto & Morán (2007) state that the concept of citizenship has revealed itself as a potent
conceptual and analytic instrument for explaining youth transitions and, furthermore, that
citizenship is socially constructed through concrete experiences and practices in the public sphere.
They argue that young people become citizens when they make use of the rights they are acquiring
and when they demand to participate in the collective decision-making procedure. They do not
become citizens when they are acknowledged to be adults. At the same time they suggest that the
most important questions are how young people can be citizens without being independent.
Benedicto & Morán (2007) stress that people’s work is no longer where the identity of European
youth is constituted and developed. It is instead developed by involvement in leisure and consumer
activities, which have become elements for young people’s feelings of belonging. Being a citizen is
a complex phenomenon in which institutional processes, cultural practices, and political actions are
intertwined. Jones & Wallace (1992) make a similar argument and ask if the definition of citizenship
that depends on work has been changed. They imply that education and the labour market
structuralise young people’s future access to citizen’s social civil rights and talk also about heeding
young people’s income and a kind of citizenship salary connected to their citizenship. It is possible
to relate modern citizenship to ideas about a collective obligation to work for the good of the
nation. Work is also found to be important for young people’s social inclusion: ‘Work is clearly still
important to young people and we must recognise its continuing significance in their lives’ (Jones,
2002, p. 15).
Plummer (2003) focuses on the overlap of public and private and uses another sphere for
citizenship, the concept of intimate citizenship. Intimate citizenship suggests that if the social bonds
between individuals and communities are to be strengthened, it will not be possible to understand
the relationships between them simply in terms of formal and abstract rights and to ignore the
development of emotional resources. Plummer (2003) argues that knowledge from the sociology of
emotion and psychoanalysis can help to stretch citizenship theory beyond its traditional focus on

50

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

formal rights. He requires us to consider carefully the more intimate kinds of resources and types
of relationships entailed in active citizenship. Plummer’s lists of intimacy cover factors such as
emotional life, sexuality, relations, body and family. He suggests the use of the concept ‘intimate
citizenship’, through which it is possible to bridge the personal and the political. Intimate
citizenship envisages that the social bonds between individuals and communities need to be
strengthened in modern society.

The Decline of Democracy?

Harris et al (2007) state that in all of the Western world, youth participation in formal democracy is
declining. It is found that young people see a lack of connection between voting and democratic
participation with everyday politics. They do not perceive voting as an important component of
their daily lives. Lack of trust in political leaders is also evident. Other scholars, however, argue that
young people do have political views and participate in alternative political behaviour although
they are not well informed about the role of citizens (Bennett, 2003; Henn et al, 2005; Osler &
Starkey, 2006; Harris et al, 2007; Print, 2007).
In research carried out in Australia, Harris et al (2007) called this phenomenon the new
engagements thesis. Their research identifies new activities and spaces in which young people
create communities and networks. New terms such as ‘neotribes’, ‘lifestyles’ and ‘scenes’ are used
to describe new loose networks and shifting affiliations for young peoples. Broad definitions of civic
engagement are seen which include everyday activities of young people, including leisure activities
such as clubbing and non-traditional associations such as joining online groups. There are examples
of what can be called autonomous channels and new spaces such as clubs, raves and hip hop gigs
that serve as alternative public spheres or as sites of a new community. Harris et al (2007) argue
that songs, dances and gigs are often used as explicit tools for the public articulation of political
concerns such as inequality and human rights. Other music cultures, songs and dance events have
also been analysed as places were young people participate in the creation of politics as well as in
leisure communities with their peers. Harris et al (2007) state that young people’s lack of
engagement with formal politics is a powerful reflection of the impact of globalisation on
citizenship more broadly. Young people are moving beyond adult-centric views of engagement but
their interest in environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect, the water situation, questions
about equality, human rights and globalisation may become manifest in more subtle kinds of
engagement. Harris et al (2007) have found in their research, using Putnam’s classic expression,
that young people are not ‘bowling alone’, but that they prefer to ‘be engaged in informal activities
that are not structured through organisations or by adults’ (p. 24).
In order to understand why young people are withdrawing from conventional forms of political
participation O’Toole et al (2003) investigated through qualitative interviews how young people
themselves conceive of and experience the political. They were interested to know whether young
people had any distinctive political concerns or experiences as a result of generational or life-cycle
factors. Their research shows that young people are very far from being politically apathetic and
indeed they were found to be highly articulate about political issues, but a very strong sense among
their respondents was that they felt marginalised or excluded from political decision-making or
debates. They felt that politics is something that is done to them and not anything that they can
influence. Based on lived experiences of class, gender, ethnicity and age, inequalities were also seen
in their research.
Helve (2001) has investigated the value structure among young people in Europe to find out
their ideological preferences. The categories presented ranged from the ages 16 to 19. Her study
showed that although different value structures can be found among young people, only a few
clearly belonged to just one category. The values the youth preferred were in accordance with the
situation in which they found themselves. This means that the same young person may choose
statements as an individualist in some situations and as a humanist in others. Helve, therefore,
claims that it is worth asking what type of citizenship will be suitable for young people with
floating values and a variety of sub-cultures. Investigations in Sweden and other countries have
shown that young people are concerned about society and want to have influence over issues that
are important for them (Sörbom, 2000, 2002, 2003, p. 8; Harris et al, 2007). However, youth are

51

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Lisbeth Lindström

turning away from conventional party politics and instead show involvement in networking,
activism, and political consumerism, e.g. boycotting certain goods (Tebelius & Ericsson, 2001).
Smith et al (2005) argue that this perceived lack of engagement among young people needs
intervention in order to develop their citizenship. Even if young people hold political views, they
do not have access to formalised channels such as voting. Neither do they have the ability to
influence or to change political decisions. Rather than seeing young citizenship as something
starting with adulthood, Smith et al (2005) claim, ‘The fluidity of young people’s self-identity
suggests that the transition to citizenship is negotiated throughout the life-course’ (p. 426). Their
conclusion calls for a conceptually comprehensive view of citizenships through which young
people’s status as ‘real citizens’ can better be understood. One way to find this is through greater
recognition and support of what young people already do as citizens. Smith et al (2005) argue that
extensive research on political socialisation over the years shows that sources of influence on young
people learning about politics and democracy are within the family. This comes about through role
modelling, from discussions and from how the media is used in the family.
Bennett (2003) describes the young people of today as the ‘Millennial generation’ (p. 1). The
Millennials are found to be less guided by encompassing ideologies, mass movements and party
and governmental support structures that might help individuals to focus on government and
politics in times of strain.
Research shows that among those who were around 20 years old at the turn of the century in
Britain, more than 70% of the young people were found to believe that voting did not make any
difference. Follow-up research showed that 40% of 18-24-year-olds in Britain were not even
registered to vote. That is in comparison to the general generation where just 8% are not
registered. A media myth talks about more young people voting in the reality television show Big
Brother than in the 2001 general election in Britain. In a survey of the civic and political health of the
nation in the United States, American ‘Millennials’ are termed the ‘DoNets’. They are so called
because of their strong self-identification as a generation as well as their preferences for
communication through various digital interactive media. This is something that Bennett (2003)
argues would be an important factor to have in mind in civic education initiatives. These young
people are also turning away from conventional politics and instead show high involvement in
activism, protest activities and political consumerism. Furthermore, Bennett argues that when
politics becomes personal, public policies that try to embrace the Millennials fail. The reason for
this is that governments tend to deliver collective solutions that do not fit personalised problems
(Bennett, 1998, 2003; Tebelius & Ericsson, 2001; Tebelius, 2004; O’Toole, 2004).
Bang (2003) has come to call this generation the ‘everyday’ generation, who define their own
sense of politics according to networks of personal relationships aimed at adding value to their
lived experiences. O’Toole (2004) and Bang (2003) argue that the new generations of citizens are
simply redefining what they mean by politics, and that scientists should embrace this shift. Bang
(2005) argues that the scope of the political in late modern society is expanding and is much more
expressed in and through people’s everyday lives, meaning that the political is now personal. Bang
(2004) furthermore argues that uncoupling between public authorities and citizens has increased
because of globalisation, the decline in the power of parliaments, the growth of expert systems and
increased professionalisation and policy networks. He describes two new types of political activists,
Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers; social constructivists who share certain characteristics but
are also very different. Everyday Makers are in politics to achieve well-defined aims, to be involved
and to make use of their knowledge and to act. The Expert Citizen deals with all types of elites and
sub-elites and they feel that they can do politics and implement policy.
Hoikkala (2009) characterises the young people of today, who are around 30 years old, as the
‘sandwich generation’ (p. 10). He argues that these young adults are sandwiched between the ‘real’
youth of below 20 years of age and the older generations holding the societal power. Furthermore,
he argues that they do not have power themselves, and he states that nobody knows whether they
want power in the same way as the politicised youth. The ‘sandwich generation’ extend their
youth by travelling, consuming and enjoying themselves. However, they get anxious, have feelings
of loneliness and suffer from psychophysical symptoms. He also talks about the ‘yo-yo’ generation
that is constantly drifting between work and unemployment (Hoikkala, 2009, p. 11).

52

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

Franklin (2004a) claims that recent studies have demonstrated that those voters who will react
particularly to the character of an election are younger voters: those who have not yet become set
in the habit of voting or non-voting. From research conducted in 22 countries which have had a
record of elections held continuously within one electoral cycle since the end of World War II it
was found that voting is a habit and that people learn the habit of voting, or not, based on
experience in their first few elections (Franklin, 2004b). Furthermore, those elections that do not
stimulate a high turnout among young adults leave a footprint of low turnout in the age structure
of the electorate, as many individuals who were new at those elections fail to vote at subsequent
elections. Consequently, according to Franklin, elections that stimulate a high turnout leave a high
turnout footprint so that a country’s history provides a baseline for a current turnout that is largely
set, except for young adults. Franklin (2004b) claims that this baseline shifts as older generations
leave the electorate and as changes in political and institutional circumstances affect the turnout of
new generations. The lowering of the voting age in many established democracies is seen as being
particularly important in creating a low turnout footprint that has grown with each election. But
turnouts are also found to vary enormously between countries, and electorates have also been
found to become more fastidious (Franklin et al, 2003).

Global Changes and Citizenship

Arnot (2006) questions what sort of citizen will be needed in the future and how youth can best be
prepared for the social changes that are seen in our society. She refers to cultural research that has
found young people of today employing the language of individualising and the concept of
freedom and choice to justify their lifestyles and decisions. Arnot (2009) states that globalisation
breaks the boundaries of macro and micro, the global and local, the categories of time and space,
and challenges existing social classifications and stratifications while generating new ones.
In the same way, Beck & Beck-Gernsheim (2002) describe what they call ‘Freedoms Children’.
By that they mean children who have been brought up, unlike their parents, to become choosers,
or consumers of what life has to offer. This new culture is described as a self-culture and it is tightly
connected to leisure. ‘Central to this self-culture is the process of individual reflexivity in which
individuals come to see themselves as the centre of their own life-world. People’s lives become an
art form – something to be created’ (Arnot, 2006, p. 70). For young people it is important to belong
to certain groups, representing a lifestyle rather than shared values and a common ideology.
Participation in collective actions is often spontaneous and short lasting rather than a result of long-
term engagement (Tebelius & Ericsson, 1995, 1997, 2001).
Isin (2000) states that citizenship must be defined more as a sociological conception with fewer
legal rules and more emphasis on norms, practices, meanings and identities. His main point is that
postmodernisation and globalisation have intensified the role of the city in democracy; global cities
are seen as places where the work of globalisation gets done. Isin (2000) describes cities, particularly
global cities, as having becoming political spaces where the concentration of different groups and
their identities is intertwined with the articulation of various claims to citizenship rights. Rose
(2000) talks about a new image of the city. He sees that a new image of the healthy city has
emerged. He means that the city works as a network of living practices relating to well-being. He
argues that the cities are like a packed zone of enjoyment, managed by an alliance of urban
planners, entrepreneurs, local politicians and governmental agencies. In the city inhabitants can
promote their own micro-cultures of bohemian, gay or alternative lifestyles. But on the other hand,
Isin (2000) argues that these various claims have strained the boundaries of citizenship and pitted
group against group in the search for identity and recognition. Kymlica (1998) agrees and argues
that in general there exists a fear that multicultural questions, if taken too far, could justify every
ethnic group being allowed to adopt their own legal traditions, even when these traditions are in
conflict with fundamental human rights or constitutional principles.
Tebelius (2004) states that the younger generation create new forms of solidarity and
community life and act for a common benefit through, for example, buying ecological products.
Hoikkala (2009) also states that consumer citizenship is connected to issues of ethical consumption
and sustainable development and mentions that products of ethically produced goods such as

53

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Lisbeth Lindström

ecological bags and clothes or fair travel have become more visible. Through these consumer
channels and similar cultural activities people are building trust.
Dobson develops the idea of ecological citizenship by developing existing theories of citizenship
to accommodate environmental concerns. He proposes that ecological citizenship could be a
motivating force for sustainable consumption (Seyfang, 2006). Dobson (2004) discusses liberal, civic
republicanism and what he calls a post-cosmopolitan citizenship. He distinguishes between
environmental citizenship and ecological citizenship and argues that, while the former can be
spoken of in terms of liberal and civic, republican ecological citizenship requires a new framework
which he calls post-cosmopolitan citizenship. Dobson (2004) discusses two types of
cosmopolitanism as political responses to globalisation. He calls them dialogic and distributive
cosmopolitanism, and his post-cosmopolitanism shares their commitment to a citizenship beyond
the state. Dobson suggests that the ecological citizen’s injunction is to work towards a sustainable
society and their post-cosmopolitan citizenship goes beyond liberal and civic republican frames of
citizenship.
Torres (2002) argues that the process of globalisation is seen as blurring national boundaries,
shifting solidarities within and between nation-states and deeply affects the constitutions of national
and interest-groups’ identities. He asks what the implications of globalisation for citizenship,
democracy and education will be.
Föllesdal (2007) discusses the kind of equality European citizenship requires. He talks about
three philosophical issues for the European Union: firstly, the issues of requirements for a multiple
democratic citizenship beyond the nation-state: secondly, how to respect diversity while securing
equality and inculcating commitments to justice and norms of citizenship; and lastly, the issue of
the multiple reasons for equality of various kinds among political equals living in a union as
compared to living in unitary states. He argues that citizens must be socialised to certain norms
through promoting trust and trustworthiness. These include respect for others, respect for
democratic decision-making, and tolerance in argumentation. A shared knowledge base should be
taught in school, which as far as possible, avoids religious or philosophical extremes. Citizens
should have two political loyalties, one towards their fellow Europeans and one toward their own
member state. This discussion indicates that citizenship should be defined as a broad societal
concept resting less on legal rules and more on norms, practices, meanings and identities.
Beauregard & Bounds (2000) state that the nation-state is no longer as dominant as it once was
and this is dependent on two forces: globalisation and cultural diversity. As a response to this, they
suggest an alternative concept that they term ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ in recognition of the
multiplicity of the world. Their argument for using cosmopolitan citizenship is based on their
concern for vulnerable groups and oppressed communities. A cosmopolitan approach places
obligations on citizens over and above obligations to their own nation. Cosmopolitan citizenship is
the idea of a varied and multicultural identity in relation to other signifiers such as ethnicity, class,
etc. (Beauregard & Bounds, 2000).
Multiple citizenship is suggested when rights and responsibilities have to reach across a range of
political institutions ranging from the local level to global (Faulks, 2006). According to Faulks the
most pressing reason for this is the growing threat of planetary dangers, such as global terrorism,
wide-scale poverty, migration and ecological damage. To fulfil the statement that all human beings
are equal, Faulks (2006) argues, a citizenship must be internationalist and multilayered in its
obligations.

Citizenship and New Technology

Investigations by Harris et al (2007) have shown that new public spaces for youth and new forms of
connection to the society are created by technologies such as the Internet and cellular phones.
These devices give young people new ways to express themselves and keep in contact with friends.
Digital communication technologies allow young people to blur the difference between
consumption and production and to appropriate new cultural symbols, which have relevance to
their lives and their citizenship.
Mossberger et al (2003) state that new communication forms, like chat rooms and emails,
represent new modes of information exchange and opinion mobilisation. There are new

54

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

opportunities for shared political information and communication on the Internet. Other scholars
(see, for example, Grossman, 1995; Hague & Loader, 1999; Norris, 2001) suggest that the Internet
may function as a deliberative public forum, something which can strengthen democracy
(Mossberger et al, 2003). There is a fear, however, that information technology will promote
further inequality for democratic participation and widen the gap between those who participate
and those who do not (see, for example, Putnam, 2000; Wilhelm, 2000; Margolis & Resnick, 2000;
Alvarez & Nagler, 2002). On the other hand, young people as groups seem to acknowledge digital
democracy (Mossberger et al, 2003). The Internet can be a site for construction of new forms of
connection to society and the development of citizenship.
Gallagher & Hafner (2008) state that by using modern technology it should be possible to make
citizens aware of governmental activities and bring them into the decision-making process and also
bring the government closer to the people. Gallagher & Hafner further state that since such a large
amount of the youth’s time is invested in online social networking, they might be more likely to
exercise their political authority if they got the opportunity to vote online. This can be called e-
democracy, which is a relatively new concept that involves using technologies such as the Internet
and cellular phones to bring the government closer to the people.
Drawing on research from Willis (1990), Laermans (1993), Micheletti (2000) and De Léséleuc et
al (2002), Vinken (2005) states that culturally, today’s society provides space for more autonomous
construction of meanings and builds on individuals who function within multiple cultures. He
proposes that the Internet is a constitutive force as it adds to the creation of multiple identities and
the symbolisation of fluid selves in a setting where no culture has central control. He argues that
the main focus of civic socialisation could be put on the leisure and consumption sector. Some
smaller qualitative studies have suggested that shared consumer interests, shared fashion and
shared musical tastes create a strong sense of affinity and are ultimate factors of socialisation for
young people instead of, for instance, involvement in traditional political or ideological interest
groups (Vinken, 2005). Consumer and shopping activities can have the same result as the use of the
Internet.

The Idea of Citizenship Education

Print (2007) states that there is evidence that young people who have taken citizenship education
also demonstrate higher levels of civic knowledge and skills than those who have not studied such
courses (see also Henn et al, 2007). It is possible to say that school can make a difference. Similar
results are found, for instance, in Australia, which show that if participatory pedagogy is weak there
is a risk that schools’ attempts to engage young people in the issues of democracy diminish.
Bennett (2003) states that there is a problem in that most policy makers define and fund civic
education programmes based on a conventional citizen when there is a changing civic orientation
to citizens. He suggests that these models centre on the ‘Dutiful Citizen’ (DC) instead of the ‘Self-
Actualizing Citizen’ (AC). The characteristics of a DC citizen are that voting is the core democratic
act. There is an obligation to participate in government-centred activities, become informed about
issues and government by following the mass media and joining civil society organisations and/or
expressing interest through parties. For an AC citizen, voting is less meaningful than other activities
such as consumerism or community voluntary work. A mistrust of the media and politicians is
visible and there is a strong sense of individual purpose. Finally, an AC citizen favours loose
networks of community action, often established through friendships or maintained by interactive
information technology. The last point reminds us that our young citizens might be part of the
richest information environment in human history.
Torres (2002) argues that education in modern times has been shaped by the demands within
the state to prepare labour for participation in its economy and to prepare citizens to participate in
the polity. Furthermore, he argues that formalised education becomes problematic as globalisation
blurs national sovereignty and also shifts solidarities within and outside the national state. He states
that, to understand the issues at stake in education, one must consider these tensions within
globalisation and their implications for reshaping the limits on, or potential for, civil society. An
overall question is how educational policies could contribute to a democratic multicultural
citizenship.

55

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Lisbeth Lindström

Biesta & Lawy (2006) claim that there are three problems with the idea of citizenship education.
Firstly, it is a problem in that it is largely aimed at individual young people. Secondly, there is a
problem concerning the assumption that citizenship can be understood as the outcome of an
educational trajectory. Thirdly, they argue that there is no guarantee that the outcome of what
young people learn is identical to what is being taught. They argue that teaching citizenship is
problematic when it comes to going from teaching citizenship to learning democracy. They mean
that the problem of citizenship is not about young people as individuals but about young people in
context. Therefore citizenship education should focus on young people in context and on the
social, economic, cultural and political contexts in which they live their lives. Of interest is how
young people might actually learn about democracy. They even argue that a shift from teaching
citizenship to learning democracy also has implications for policy makers and politicians. If policy
makers and politicians are concerned about young people’s democratic citizenship, they have to
pay attention to, and invest in, the actual conditions under which young people can be citizens and
learn what it means to be a citizen.
Consequently, Biesta et al argue that any attempt to improve young people’s citizenship should
start with the improvement of the democratic quality of the communities and practices that make
up people’s lives (Biesta et al, 2009). Biesta et al further state that young people learn at least as
much about democracy and citizenship through their participation in a range of different practices
as they learn from officially prescribed and formally taught matters. They further state that the
teaching of citizenship needs to be supplemented with a more thoroughgoing understanding of the
ways in which young people actually learn in the communities and practices that make up their
everyday lives.

Conclusions
This review of literature shows that we have largely moved beyond Marshall’s theories from the
1950s. It stresses that it is no longer possible to describe a citizen as just a member of a political
community or a state, who has certain legal, social and moral rights, duties and responsibilities.
These rights and responsibilities change over time as the result of social struggles, economic
changes and shifts in governing ideology. As this article shows, being a citizen is a complex
phenomenon in which institutional processes, cultural practices, and political actions are
intertwined.
When concepts are presented from different disciplines, the theory of citizenship can be
elaborated. Especially when applied to young people, the content of citizenship has to be
broadened and the global perspective also has to be considered. Global city-regions generate spaces
for new identities and make demands on other citizenship rights and obligations. A concept of
‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ is suggested, something which has affected the lives of young people. In
a European perspective, citizenship should be defined as a broad societal concept resting less on
legal rules and more on norms, practices, meanings and identities. However, various claims can
strain the boundaries of citizenship and pit groups against groups in a search for identity and
recognition. The risk is that this will justify groups adopting their own legal traditions, even when
these traditions are in conflict with fundamental human rights or the principles of the country in
which they live. New technology such as the Internet can be a site for the construction of new
forms of connection to society and the development of citizenship.
To conclude, from these theories a ‘new’ concept of citizenship has developed that will have an
impact on people’s citizenship in the future. Citizenship must be multiple or multilayered and
include aspects of social positions such as life circumstances and aspects of globalisation and the
individualisation of our society. We have to ask new questions about citizenship and civic
engagement and explore how youth themselves define their citizenship. We need to be critical, to
fill out the gap seen in this review, and those voices must mirror the perceptions of youth in a
global perspective, youth in cities, sub-areas and densely populated areas, as well as from a local
perspective for those living in sparsely populated areas.

56

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

References
Alvarez, R. & Nagler, J. (2002) The Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation,
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34(3), 1115-1153.
Arnot, M. (2006) Freedom’s Children: a gender perspective on the education of the learner citizen,
International Review of Education, 52(1), 68-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-005-5611-5
Arnot, M. (2009) A Global Conscience Collective? Incorporating Gender Injustices into Global Citizenship
Education, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(2), 117-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1746197909103932
Bang, H. (2003) A New Ruler Meeting a New Citizen: culture governance and everyday making, in H. Bang
(Ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bang, H. (2004) Everyday Makers and Expert Citizens Building Political Not Social Capital. Paper delivered to
Australian National University, School of Social Science, January.
Bang, H. (2005) Among Everyday Makers and Expert Citizens, in J. Newman (Ed.) Remaking Governance:
peoples, politics and the public sphere. Bristol: Policy Press.
Beauregard, R. & Bounds, A. (2000) Urban Citizenship, in F.I. Isin (Ed.) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global
City. London: Routledge.
Beck, U. & Beck Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization: institutionalized individualism and its social and political
consequences. London: Sage.
Benedicto, J. & Morán, M.L. (2007) Becoming a Citizen: analysing the social representations of citizenship in
youth, European Societies, 9(4), 602-622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616690701314085
Bennett, L. (1998) The UnCivic Culture: communication, identity and the rise of lifestyle politics, Political
Science and Politics, 31, 741-761.
Bennett, L. (2003) Civic Learning in Changing Democracies: challenges for citizenship and civic education.
Seattle: Centre for Communication and Civic Engagement, University of Washington.
http://www.engagedcitizen.org
Biesta, G. & Lawy, R. (2006) From Teaching Citizenship to Learning Democracy: overcoming individualism
in research, policy and practice, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 63-79.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490981
Biesta, G., Lawy, R. & Kelly, N. (2009) Understanding Young People’s Citizenship Learning in Everyday Life:
the role of contexts, relationships and dispositions, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(1), 5-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1746197908099374
De Léséleuc, E., Gleyse, J. & Marcellini, A. (2002) The Practice of Sports as Political Expression? Rock
Climbing at Claret, France, International Sociology, 17(1), 73-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0268580902017001004
Dobson, A. (2004) Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: University Press.
Faulks, K. (2006) Rethinking Citizenship Education in England: some lessons from contemporary social and
political theory, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(2), 123-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1746197906064673
Föllesdal, A. (2007) Equality of Education and Citizenship: changes of European integration, Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 27(5), 335-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9050-6
Franklin, M. (2004a) Electoral Competitiveness and Turnout: how voters react to the changing character of
elections. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, April.
Franklin, M. (2004b) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin, M., Marsh, M. & Lyons, P. (2003) The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established
Democracies. Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association,
Durban, South Africa, July.
Gallagher, R. & Hafner, C. (2008) E-democracy: principles of information sciences. Boston: Northeastern
University.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Grossman, L. (1995) The Electronic Common Wealth. New York: Penguin.
Hague, B. & Loader, B. (1999) Discourse and Decision-Making in the Information Age. London: Routledge.

57

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Lisbeth Lindström

Harris, A., Wyn, J. & Younes, S. (2007) Young People and Citizenship: an everyday perspective, Youth Studies
Australia, 26(3), 19-27.
Helve, H. (2001) Reflexivity and Changes in Attitudes and Value Structures, in H. Helve & C. Wallace (Eds)
Youth, Citizenship and Empowerment. Burlington: Ashgate.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Forrest, S. (2005) Uninterested Youth? Young People’s Attitudes towards Party
Politics in Britain, Political Studies, 53(3), 556-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00544.x
Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Hodgkinson, S. (2007) Social Capital and Political Participation: understanding
the dynamics of young people’s political disengagement in contemporary Britain, Social Policy and
Society, 6(4), 467-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746407003818
Hindess, B. (1993) Citizens in the Modern West, in B. Turner (Ed.) Citizenship and Social Theory. London:
Sage.
Hoikkala, T. (2009) The Diversity of Youth Citizenships in the European Union, Young, 17(1), 5-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/110330880801700102
Ingelhart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernism: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Isin, F.J (2000) Democracy, Citizenship and the City, in F. I Isin (Ed.) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global
City. London: Routledge.
Jeffrey, C. & McDowell, L. (2004) Youth in Comparative Perspective: global change, local lives, Youth &
Society, 36(2), 131-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X04268375
Jones, G. (2002) The Youth Divide: diverging paths to adulthood. Layerthorpe: York Publishing Services.
Jones, G. (2008) Youth Citizenship and the Problem of Dependence, in A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds)
Children and Citizenship. London: Sage.
Jones, G. & Wallace, C. (1992) Youth, Family and Citizenship. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kymlica W. (1998) Mångkulturellt medborgarskap [Multiple citizenship]. Falun: Nya Doxa.
Laermans, R. (1993) Bringing the Consumer Back In, Theory, Culture & Society, 10(1), 153-161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327693010001008
Margolis, M. & Resnick, D. (2000) Politics as Usual: the cyberspace ‘revolution’. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Marshall, T. & Bottomore, T. (1996) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press.
Micheletti, M. (2000) Shopping and the Reinvention of Democracy: green consumerism and the
accumulation of social capital in Sweden. Paper presented at the European Consortium of Political
Research’s (ECPR) group on Fortms of Participation Joint Sessions, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14-15 April.
Montin, S. (2004) Moderna kommuner [Modern local councils]. Malmö: Liber.
Morch, S. (2003) Youth and Education, Young, 11(1), 49-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1103308803011001076
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. & Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual Inequality: beyond the digital divide. Washington:
Georgetown University Press.
Norris, P. (2001) Critical Citizens: global support for democratic support. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2006) Education for Democratic Citizenship: a review of research, policy and
practice 1995-2005, Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 443-466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520600942438
O’Toole, T. (2004) Explaining Young People’s Non-participation: towards a fuller understanding of the
political. Paper presented at the 2004 European Consortium of Political Research, Uppsala, Sweden,
13-18 April.
O’Toole, T., Marsh, D. & Jones, S. (2003) Political Literacy Cuts Both Ways: the politics of non-participation
among young people, Political Quarterly, 74(3), 349-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.00544
Petersson, O., Hermansson, J., Micheletti, M., Teorell, J. & Westholm, A. (1998) Demokratirådets rapport 1998.
Demokrati och medborgarskap [The democracy councils report 1998. Democracy and citizenship].
Stockholm: SNS-Förlag.
Phoenix, A. (2003) Neoliberalism and Masculinity: racialization and the contradictions of schooling for 11- to
14- year-olds, Youth & Society, 36(2), 227-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X04268377
Plummer, K. (2003) Intimate Citizenship: private decisions and public dialogues. Washington, DC: University of
Washington Press.
Print, M. (2007) Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in Democracy, British Journal of Educational
Studies, 55(3), 325-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00382.x

58

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016

Youth Citizenship and the Millennium Generation

Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Rose, N. (2000) Governing Cities, Governing Citizens, in F.I. Isin (Ed.) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global
City. London: Routledge.
Seyfang, G. (2006) Ecological Citizenship and Sustainable Consumption: examining local organic food
networks, Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 383-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003
Smith, N., Lister, R., Middleton, S. & Cox, L. (2005) Young People as Real Citizens: towards an inclusionary
understanding of citizenship, Journal of Youth Studies, 8(4), 425-443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260500431743
Sörbom, A. (2000) Vem är du?: en som spelar med eller en som tittar på? : om politiskt engagemang i olika generationer
och klasser [Who are you? One who participates with or one who just watches? About political
engagement in different generations and classes]. Institute of Sociology, University of Stockholm.
Sörbom, A. (2002) Vart tar politiken vägen?.Om individualisering, reflexivitet och görbarhet i det politiska
engagemanget [Where did politics go? About individualization, reflexivity and the possibilities to influence
the degree of political engagement]. Stockholm Studies in Sociology N.S 14. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Sörbom, A. (2003:8) Den goda viljan. En studie av ungdomspolitik i nio kommuner. Ungdomsstyrelsens skriftserie.
[The good will. A study of youth politics in nine local councils]. Stockholm: Ungdomsstyrelsen.
Tebelius, U. (2004) How to Get Youth Engaged in Democracy. Some Experiences from Leisure Youth Work
in Sweden. Paper presented at the 32nd Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) conference,
Reykjavik, Iceland, March 11-14.
Tebelius, U. & Ericsson, M. (1995) ‘Det är val att ungdomar ska få säga till.’ En utvärdering av Ungdomsforum – ett
demokratiprojekt.i Jönköping [‘It is a choice that young people shall have influence’. An evaluation of
‘Ungdomsforum’ – a democratic project in Jönköping]. Jönköping local council.
Tebelius, U. & Ericsson, M. (1997) Tonåringar och demokrati [Teenagers and democracy], in I. Lundberg &
M. Mattsson (Eds) Landet Lagom – Folkhemmet på lokalplanet [The moderate country – the folk home at
local level]. Stockholm: Byggforskningsrådet.
Tebelius, U. & Ericsson, M. (2001) Demokrati som procedur eller engagemang. Unga kvinnors och mäns möjlighet till
demokratisk påverkan [Democracy as a procedure or engagement. Young females and males opportunities
for democratic influences]. Forskning i Halmstad nr 4. Halmstad: Högskolan i Halmstad.
Torres, C. (2002) Globalization, Education, and Citizenship: solidarity versus markets?, American Educational
Research Journal, 39(2), 363-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312039002363
Turner, B.S. (1993) Citizenship and Social Theory. London: Sage.
Vinken, H. (2005) Young People’s Civic Engagement: the need for new perspectives, in H. Helve & G. Holm
(Eds) Contemporary Youth Research: local expressions and global connections. Farnham: Ashgate.
Werbner, P. & Yuval-Davis, N. (1999) Women and the New Discourse of Citizenship. London: Zed Books.
Wilhelm, A. (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Willis, P. (1990) Common Culture: symbolic work at play in everyday cultures of the young. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1997) Gender and Nation. London: Sage.

LISBETH LINDSTRÖM is a researcher in education with a special interest in youth citizenship.

To understand citizenship in relation to the leisure activities of young people is a central challenge;
one of Lisbeth’s research topics is whether young people can experience democracy and develop
their citizenship through leisure activities offered by local councils. Correspondence: Dr Lisbeth
Lindström, Department of Pedagogy and Learning, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87
Luleå, Sweden (lisbeth.lindstrom@ltu.se).

59

Downloaded from cse.sagepub.com at Universitas Gadjah Mada on March 23, 2016