27 ■ Political socialization portant studies have been published and Ö there has been an intensification of the VERSIKTER and human agency. theoretical debate, stimulated partly by contemporary changes in political culture The development of and social institutions. There are, howe- OCH civic engagement from ver, limitations that can be identified in re- MEDDELANDEN search. Together they raise at least eight adolescence to adult- challenges our research program systema- hood tically will approach. 1. Conceptualizing young people as ERIK AMNÅ, MATS EKSTRÖM, active agents in their own socialization, MARGARET KERR, HÅKAN STATTIN 1 rather than passive objects of sociali- zing institutions In research from various disciplines, Youth & Society (YeS) at children and youths have most often been Örebro University seen as passive recipients of socialization rather than active agents with needs and A multidisciplinary, longitudinal seven- desires that direct their behavior. Schools year research program at Örebro Univer- have been thought to shape students’ sity will take place with support from views by providing knowledge and skills Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. It is jointly (Campbell et al.1960; Delli Carpini and led by professors Erik Amnå (political sci- Keeter 1996; Holmberg and Oscarsson ence; coordinator), Mats Ekström (media 2004; Milner 2002; Nie, Junn and Stehlik- and communication studies), Margaret Barry 1996; Niemi and Junn 1998; Verba, Kerr (psychology) and Håkan Stattin Schlozman and Brady 1995). Parents have (psychology). been hypothesized to shape their adoles- cents through various unidirectional me- Challenges in previous chanisms (e.g., Pancer and Pratt 1999). political socialization Media tend to be seen as influences and young people as passive recipients of ex- research posure (e.g., Chaffee and Yang 1990). After decades of a silence, the research Thus, this view cuts across disciplines and field on political socialization now is un- research areas. dergoing revitalization. A number of im- There are some recent movements toward a more agentic view of youths. In family research, McDevitt (2005) has pro- 1 Erik Amnå är professor i statskunskap. posed that discussions adolescents initiate Mats Ekström år professor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap. Margaret Kerr with their parents about political issues är professor i psykologi. Håkan Starrin är drive their political identification and de- professor i psykologi. Samtliga är verk- velopment (and also their parents’) samma vid Örebro universitet. (McDevitt 2005; McDevitt and Chaffee E-post: [email protected] 2002). The idea is that news, media, and [email protected] [email protected] school stimulate youths to engage their [email protected] parents in discussions, and when parents ■ Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 2009, årg 111 nr 1 28 convey their views, youths can be influen- been extensive, but has to a large extent ced by them (Kiousis, McDevitt and Wu been divided into different disciplines and 2005). In this model, however, adoles- research areas focusing on one or two as- cents are primarily only active in initiating pects of young people’s every day lives. A discussions that give them access to the number of studies have tried to compare values that parents have. Achen (2002) the relative explanatory power of media, proposed a model that assumes youth education, and family (Buckingham agency and essentially argues that correla- 2000); however, when these influences tions between youths’ and parents’ views are pitted against each other, they are still are spurious. Youths, according to Achen, conceptualized as essentially separate. Li- are not directly influenced by their pa- vingstone (2002) argues that media are be- rents’ views. They appear to be, because, coming so important in young people’s in the absence of their own experiences, everyday lives because they are now an in- they use their parents’ experiences as the tegral part of family, peer, and school con- grounds for their choices. To our know- texts. Some have argued that youths’ peer ledge, however, this model has not been relationships affect family interactions tested empirically. In research on media, (see Dishion et al. 2004), and that parents scholars have pointed out the problem of try to influence peer relationships (see ignoring youth agency. Approaches have Mounts 2008). To take one example, in- been developed that focus on how young terpersonal talk and dialogues in different people use and appropriate media forms contexts (family, peers, internet, school, for different activities, projects, and grati- and organizations) might influence each fications. Young people have been fram- other in the process of political socializa- ed as active agents and socialization as tion (see Eveland, McLeod and Horowitz partly a question of media choices, activi- 1998; McLeod 2000). Thus, the challenge ties, and creativity (Buckingham 2000; Li- is not only to consider as many of the dif- vingstone and Millwood Hargrave 2006; ferent contexts of everyday life as possible Olsson 2006). When it comes to youths’ instead of studying one context at a time, citizenship-relevant use of new media, ho- but to develop models of political sociali- wever, research is primarily limited to zation that explain the interrelations bet- small-scale case studies (e.g., Dahlgren ween contexts. 2003; Dahlgren and Olsson 2006). In short, a challenge for research in media 3. Taking the ongoing changes in diffe- and other areas of political socialization is rent contexts seriously to develop theories that recognize the In Western societies, rapid changes are agentic nature of youths and to design occurring in youth and young adulthood. studies that will allow the possibility of Education is prolonged. Young adults testing different directions of effects. marry four years later today than they did in 1980. Researchers used to talk about a 2. Integrating the different contexts of sharp transition from adolescence to everyday life, instead of studying one young adulthood, but today they talk context at time about “emerging adulthood” as ages 18 to The research concerning the roles of fa- 25 or older. Because many emerging mily, school, media, civil society, and pe- adults have not yet assumed family and ers in youth political socialization has work responsibilities, the period tends to 29 ■ be characterized by identity exploration, stitutional and more individual, diverse, Ö feeling in-between, instability, self-fo- and unconventional (Barnes, Max and Al- VERSIKTER cused enjoyment, and thinking about fu- lerbeck 1979; Dalton, Scarrow and Cain ture possibilities (Arnett 2006), thus allo- 2004; Inglehart 1977, 1997; Norris 2002). wing for considerable changes in political Young people in particular have widened OCH and civic orientations. Thus, to capture their political repertoires to include ‘non- MEDDELANDEN the potentially important life stages, new political’ arenas such as life styles, recyc- research on political socialization must ling routines, Internet activities, consumer cover emerging adulthood and the young- habits, and music choices (Bennett 1998, adult years beyond it. 2000; Dalton 1996, 2000, 2008; Zukin et Another change that must be taken seri- al. 2006; Hooghe 2004; Norris 2002; O ously is young people’s widespread use of Toole 2003), and these might differ by new communication technologies. First, gender (Hooghe and Stolle 2003; Ekman in research aimed at explaining differenc- 2007). One can argue whether the chan- es in political knowledge and participa- ges mean that youths are now very self- tion, media consumption has most often absorbed and uninterested in civic mat- been operationalized as news consump- ters (see Milner 2002; Yates and Youniss tion from papers and television (e.g. 1998) or whether their interests are just Buckingham 1997, 2000; Ensuong 2003, qualitatively different from those of ear- Chaffee and Yang 1990). To understand lier generations (see Buckingham 2000; political socialization, new media formats Dalton 2008; Dalton, Cain and Scarrow and the variety of Internet activities must 2004; Livingstone 2002; Loader 2007, Zu- also be considered (Dahlgren 2007, Loa- kin et al. 2006). What is clear, however, is der 2007). Second, the new forms of soci- that the limited sets of measures used in al networks, spheres of public interaction most studies cannot capture political in- and civic participation, based on new volvement as it is broadly defined today. communication technologies mean that Measures must include elements of com- researchers have to reconsider what they munity involvement such as member- mean by membership in groups and asso- ships in local groups, networks, organisa- ciations (Wollebaeck and Selle 2003). In tions, and political consumption, volun- short, to understand political socialization tary work, donations etcetera. They also today, research must take changes in dif- must capture skills and commitments citi- ferent contexts seriously and adjust the re- zens may need if they become concerned; search designs accordingly. a ‘civic reserve’ (Almond 1987, p. 99). Po- litical socialization must be studied in a 4. Conceptualizing political participa- broader perspective that includes civic tion broadly, not only focussing on for- identity development and connects nar- mal institutions and narrow electoral row politics with broader civic engage- aspects ment. Another challenge to be met in future re- search is to measure political participation 5. Taking a longitudinal