To a large extent, the future development of humankind is defined by the way young generations view the world and shape it accordingly. Youth, or adolescents, are characterized by a peculiar state of transition between childhood and adulthood, when physical and psychological immaturity does not allow functioning as complete members of society.
At the same time, during the period of youth, adolescents are in a constant state of becoming somebody: “becoming an adult, becoming a citizen, becoming independent, becoming autonomous, becoming mature, becoming responsible” (Kelly 2001, p. 30).
Since the youth are generally considered not to possess sufficient wisdom to make the right personal, social, educational and other choices, they are guided by more credible educational authorities. Especial attention is paid to the so-called youth ‘at risk’, who are governed through a range of official interventional measures widely debated in modern debate on educational policies.
The notion of risk plays one of the key roles in modern society that views risk as anything that prevents a normal functioning of individual within the accepted social institutions. The ways people define the course of their lives is through making choices, and it is only through the right choices that a socially accepted life is possible. Risk results from making wrong choices; therefore, individual decision making is extremely significant since it forms the basis for absence or presence of risk (Kelly 2001, p. 26).
One of the major risks for the youth within the educational system is seen in failing to complete senior secondary education (te Riele 2006, p. 134). The number of risk factors that leads to this failure is vast and comprises, inter alia, such factors as personal or individual qualities, family situation, social background, and school peculiarities (te Riele 2006, p. 134).
However, according to Kelly, governmental attempts at managing youth ‘at risk’ are based on the idea that the youth and their families should be held responsible for their decisions in the first instance (Kelly 2001, p. 30–31). The special category of youth ‘at risk’ is viewed as resulting from ‘risk families’ (Tait 1995, p. 2). Accordingly, governmental management of youth ‘at risk’ is carried out through standardization and responsibilization of the youth and their families classified as ‘at risk’.
Attempting to determine the significance of risk in modern society, Peter Kelly views risk as a “technique” for governmental control (Kelly 2001, p. 23). Labeling a part of society as ‘risk’ brings forward the necessity of managing such ‘at risk’ social group by official governmental interventions.
By dividing society into ‘at risk’ and non-risk government gets the opportunity for creating a powerful concept of deviance, incompatibility, and non-conformity that should be eliminated through immediate action. The abstract concept of risk thus penetrates in everyday life of youth ‘at risk’ and serves as a “technique to regulate the behaviors and dispositions of young people” (Kelly 2001, p. 25).
As such, it appears that risk discourses lead society to imposing certain limitation on the representatives of youth ‘at risk’ so that the latter conform to the standard requirements of social life. This process of limitation and restriction is carried out via recognized social institutions, such as schools, and basically aims at bringing youth ‘at risk’ in compliance with the general requirements, or at standardization of youth ‘at risk’.
In connection with standardization, government treats the problem of transition to adulthood by youth ‘at risk’ by employing the process of responsibilization. Since risk results from improper decision making, youth ‘at risk’ should be aware of the right and the wrong choices available, as well as they should recognize the possible consequences of wrong decisions. Once youth are viewed as those who shape the future, youth ‘at risk’ are accordingly considered as those jeopardizing that future by their wrong choices (Kelly 2001, p. 30).
In order to diminish the risk situations possibly brought about by youth ‘at risk, government considers it necessary to conduct the so-called responsibilization of youth ‘at risk’, so that the latter recognize their significant role in shaping the future. The process of responsibilization of youth ‘at risk’ involves both youth and their families, and thus there are two social components responsible for emergence or absence of risk in society: youth and their families (Kelly 2001, p. 30).
Responsibilization of youth and their families is viewed as a means of normalizing and stabilizing the youth ‘at risk’ “as rational, choice-making citizens (to-be), who are responsible for their life chances through the choices they make with regard to school, career, relationship, substance use, etc.” (Kelly 2001, p. 30). Therefore, as a result of such responsibilization as an “inclusive technology of government”, it is expected that youth ‘at risk’ enter the realm of collective security based on social responsibility (Kelly 2001, p. 27).
The debate on the aforementioned ways of governance over youth ‘at risk’ emphasizes, that the vision of youth ‘at risk’ and the means of managing them are not as transparent and comprehensive as it may seem. On the one hand, risk discourses suggest that youth ‘at risk’ constitute a deviant minority of society, whereas real life practice shows it is rather a social majority (te Riele 2006, p. 129).
Therefore, the marginalization of youth ‘at risk’ by risk discourses distorts the true state of affairs. On the other hand, risk discourses emphasize the necessity for intervention with the youth ‘at risk’ and their families as the major source of misbalance and possible deviance. However, there exist a big number of other risk factors that may influence the behaviour of youth ‘at risk’.
Therefore, the necessity for governmental intervention into family matters appears as “blaming the victim” rather as an act of help (te Riele 2006, p. 138). Instead of tackling the objective side of the issue, risk discourses lead to practicing a one-sided marginalizing and stigmatizing approach to youth ‘at risk’.
The politics of social regulation suggested by modern risk discourse appear to be incomplete and to focus on only one of the possible reasons for emergence of youth ‘at risk’. Governmental attempts at preventing the possible future risks through dealing with the personal and familial issues of youth ‘at risk’ should be reconsidered so that the problem is tackled from another point of view.
Rather than adjusting the youth ‘at risk’ to the existing educational system, it could prove more reasonable to reconsider the education itself. The result of such flexible policy would be satisfying the requirements of modern youth, of which youth ‘at risk’ constitute a convincing majority. Once government recognizes that youth ‘at risk’ are not a marginalized minority, the problem of eliminating social risks can be solved more efficiently.
Reference List
Kelly, P. (2001) Youth at Risk: Processes of Individualization and Responsibilisation in the Risk Society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22(1), 22-33.
te Riele, K. (2006) Youth ‘At Risk’: Further Marginalizing the Marginalized? Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 129-45.
Tait, G. (1995) Shaping the At-Risk Youth: Risk, Governmentality and the Finn Report. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 16(1), 123-43.