Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 DOI: 10.17645/si.v5i3.969 Article A Political Space for Children? The Age Order and Children’s Right to Participation Jeanette Sundhall Department of Cultural Sciences, Gothenburg University, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 31 March 2017 | Accepted: 17 July 2017 | Published: 26 September 2017 Abstract This article discusses how adulthood is naturalized and how adulthood norms set limits on the possibilities of including children in democratic processes and understanding them as political subjects. The article examines the kind of resistance children and youth can meet when participating in democratic processes, with examples of speech acts from the Gothen- burg Youth Council. It also discusses the theoretic concept of childism (Wall, 2008, 2010) and how childism can be a way to escape the dominance of adulthood norms. The concept of childism means addressing children’s experiences by trans- forming understandings and practices for all humans, not only for non-adults. How is it possible to create a political space for children and involve children in defining what should count as politically important? Keywords adulthood norms; age order; childism; participation; youth council Issue This article is part of the issue “Promoting Children’s Participation in Research, Policy and Practice”, edited by Jo Aldridge (Loughborough University, UK). © 2017 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction Prout, 1998; James & Prout, 1990; Qvortrup, 1994). This has been criticized by John Wall (2012) who argues that In this article, I discuss how adulthood norms set limits concepts like agency and competence assume and repro- on the possibilities of including children in democratic duce an adulthood norm where rights are not absolute processes and understanding them as political subjects. but must be earned. In this article, I use Wall’s concept Adulthood norms are norms that imply an adult position of childism in order to critically examine a case and dis- which is implicit, invisible and thus naturalized. The theo- cuss current structures and norms, as childism offers a retical starting point of this article is thus that adulthood tool for deconstructing the naturalisation of adulthood. is naturalized and fundamental to an understanding of In the field of childhood studies, the meanings and the age categorization of children, and also that age (like the effects of adulthood are not much discussed. Just as gender) is constructed relationally. One is always young, theoretical approaches in queer theory and critical white- old, older, or younger relative to someone else, but also ness studies focus on the superior position and show that relative to a certain context. it is important not to restrict examination to the subor- Since it started in the 1980’s, the research field of dinate position, I believe that this idea is equally impor- childhood studies has had the stated ambition of re- tant when it comes to power relations between children ducing the difference in power between children and and adults. adults. The research field launched concepts like: the child as an actor, the competent child, children’s partic- 2. Age as a Power Order ipation. These concepts are about recognizing children as full human beings and as equivalent to adults (Ala- The idea of working for children’s increased participation, nen 1988, 1992; Hockey & James, 1993; James, Jenks, & which is formulated in Article 12 in the UN convention Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 164 on the rights of the child, is based on knowledge that, as under development and in need of protection, this due to their age, children and young people are under- gives legitimacy to the primacy of adults which can be represented in political processes and are seldom heard compared to how women, in a binary understanding of in public. Age is a widespread and accepted reason to gender, are constructed as weak and emotionally unsta- treat people differently. Age and different ways of regu- ble and how this gives legitimacy to male superiority. lating age are common ways to create social order (Näs- The age order is about how adults use children to de- man, 2004). That is why age can be regarded as a power fine themselves in an ideological process of dominance order; a social order which carries hierarchies and dis- and self-definition that can be compared with processes crimination, inclusions and exclusions. Ideas and norms where men have defined women and colonizers have de- regarding age are used in order to organize and disci- fined the persons they colonized as “the Other” (Sund- pline individuals, activities, and contexts. Age is regarded hall, 2012; Thorne, 1987). as a “neutral belonging” and these organizations thus The emphasizing of children’s agency in the field gain an objective character as something biological and of childhood studies has resulted in children being dis- chronologic (Krekula, Närvänen, & Näsman, 2005; Närvä- cussed in terms of citizenship, a concept that has tra- nen, 2009). ditionally completely excluded children (Archard, 1993; The life phase of adulthood is generally ascribed a Freeman, 2011; Nakata, 2015; Oswell, 2013). In societies higher status when compared to other life phases since that regard themselves as democratic, there is still a the individuals here are considered nourishing: they are large part of the population who are not permitted or as- contributing to the survival of society. The individuals sumed to be a part of the political life and to be involved belonging to the life phases of childhood, youth, and in formulating what is politically important. This applies old age are, on the contrary, regarded as consuming: to the age categorization of children, who are excluded they are not contributing to society but merely using due to their chronological age. Their exclusion is thus due its resources (Hockey & James, 1993; Närvänen & Näs- to their difference compared to the norm of the citizen, man, 2007). a synonym for the adult subject. Age is made binary by the division into children and The basis for this article is an analysis of speech acts adults, although age categorizations contain concepts concerning the Youth Council of Gothenburg, Sweden, such as teenager, youth, and young adult, which soften which I use to discuss how adult norms are naturalized this binary division and imply that the boundary between and consolidated but also how they are made visible and child and adult is a flexible one (Sjöberg, 2013). In prac- challenged. This analysis of speech acts involves post- tice, however, children and adults are often positioned in structuralist ideas of how language is performative and a binary way. The naturalization of adulthood also means my interest in different kinds of texts focuses on what that it constitutes the unmarked age (Krekula & Johans- the text is doing and not what it means. I will use the son, 2017). The unmarked age is that which other age cat- concept of childism (Wall, 2008, 2010) and discuss how egorizations are related to and which itself constitutes it can be a way to escape the dominance of adult norms. the norm. In the case of adulthood, this is an invisible The concept of childism means addressing children’s ex- norm: a naturalization. Adulthood is so fundamental to periences by transforming understandings and practices being seen as a full human that we view it as natural that for all humans, not only for non-adults. Childism can then children are considered not yet fully human. Thus, adult- be an approach which challenges and changes structures hood becomes naturalized and at the same time age be- and possibilities (Wall, 2010). comes a legitimate power order when it comes to the age categorization of children, since children’s subordi- 3. The Significance of Speech Acts for the Dominance nation is regarded as something natural and often even of Adulthood desirable; children are viewed as “under development” and in need of adult protection and care. The naturalization of adulthood implies that it can be My position in analysing and discussing adulthood hard to spot, though the effects of the naturalization may norms is that it is not enough to analyse only the subor- be easier to uncover. One effect emerges through an dinate position, that of the child. In order to understand embodiment and repetition of norms which lead others how dominance relations are constructed, reproduced, to believe in their naturalizing effects (Butler, 1993). Ex- and challenged, it is also necessary to examine the supe- plicit references to adulthood and its prerequisite childity rior position. (Sjöberg, 2013) are often used for disciplinary purposes: Age is constructed relationally in that the child cate- “Grow up! Don’t be such a baby! You’re acting like a gorization comprises characteristics such as immaturity, three-year-old!” Often, these references are made with- volatility, and spontaneity (in the sense of being non- out anyone reflecting on how these speech acts work reflective), while the adult categorization is constructed in a discriminatory and subordinating way, not towards as the opposite: adult individuals become mature, sta- those the words are directed against but to those who ble, and reflective. The child categorization thus con- fit into the age categorization of children. The effect of tributes to the association of adulthood with positive the speech acts is thus to confirm the normality of adult- qualities (Alanen, 1992). When children are understood hood. Some constructions function in such a naturalizing Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 165 way that one no longer understands that they are con- An alternative view of children’s rights of equality structions or that the function is subordinating.