Of regiments and radicals: The critical need for empowering youth as radical agents of change

Abstract

Youth have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of radical positive social change that advances the human condition. Historically major social movements seeking change, equality, and social justice have been driven by youth. The role of youth in facilitating social change is particularly relevant today more than half of the world’s population is currently under 25, and a third under 15. While some see this “youth bulge” demographic as uninformed and vulnerable to extremism and exploitation, we reject this deficit model and see them as a population capable of, and already engaging in, transformational social thought and action. This paper argues that the broad field of youth engagement would benefit from examining youth contributions to upholding or challenging the social status quo through varying forms of civic engagement. We seek to guide research and practice in ways to distinguish types of youth engagement to better reflect its potential for positive change. Therefore, this article does three things: (1) distinguishes regimented and radical youth involvement from extremism; (2) distinguishes the contexts and environments where regimented and radical engagement operate; and (3) provides a conceptual framework to study and apply the key aspects of both, radical and regimented, youth engagement.

Keywords

radical engagement social change social justice youth change agents youth civic engagement youth empowerment

Introduction

Youth have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of radical positive social change that advances the human condition. Historically major social movements seeking change, equality, and social justice have been driven by youth (Earl et al., 2017; Ekman and Amnå, 2012; Farzanegan and Witthuhn, 2017; Giroux, 2013; Roberts, 2015; Petropoulou, 2010). In more recent decades (the US and other civil rights, Anti-Apartheid in South Africa, Tiananmen Square, the Velvet Revolution, the Arab Spring), youth have been at the forefront of challenging the social, political, and ethical blind spots of their age (Earl et al., 2017; Giroux, 2013; Guzman-Concha, 2015; Roberts, 2015; Zamponi and Fernández González, 2017).

Now, over 10 years on from the beginning of the Arab Spring (2010–12), the Manchester riots (2011), Occupy protests (2011–12), and the more immediate Black Lives Matter movement (2013–present), the Hong Kong political reform protests (2014), the US March for Our Lives/Never Again MSD gun violence movement (2018) youth driven change and action continues. Beyond these, emergent change is driven in the globally recognized youth movements driven by Greta Thunberg and other youth over climate change, and the sustained youth gender equity education movement advanced by Malala Yousafzai. Finally, and once again, youth were at the forefront of providing social support and leading change in response to the 2020–22 COVID-19 pandemic (UNESCO, 2021). In light of these movements and sustained change, we reflect on youth driven efforts for positive, and radical social and political change.

Understanding social change

Social change has been widely framed in a range of definitions, perspectives, and conceptualization. While most have similar notions, they vary by context, audience, and setting. This is nothing new, as defined by Barth (1967) who delved deeply into the complexities and context in which we envision social and other change.

Others have strived further define the core of what exactly social change represents (Buzinde et al., 2019; Chetkovich and Kunreuther, 2006; Moore, 1968; Mutekwe, 2012). We follow the basic definition of both Chetkovich and Kunreuther (2006) and that followed by Buzinde et al. (2019). Social change is to:

“serve those who have been disadvantaged” and “to address systemic problems in a way that will increase the power of marginalized groups, communities or interests” (Chetkovich and Kunreuther, 2006: 2; and also Buzinde et al., 2019: 2).

Further clarifying this is the work of Moore (1968), that advances the definition:

“social change is the significant alteration of social structures (that is, of patterns of social action and interaction), including consequences and manifestations of such structures embodied in norms (rules of conduct), values and cultural products and symbols” (Moore, 1968).

Such actions advance the human condition and are often youth driven. That said, what constitutes youth civic engagement, activism, and contributions to stable, civil societies are vague, more complex, multidimensional, and diverse than we often assume (Watts and Flanagan, 2007; Zeldin et al., 2005). Ekman and Amnå (2012) point out that engagement, disengagement, and political participation can take many active and passive forms, motivations, and actions. Shaw et al. (2014) similarly present youth engagement as representing a continuum of actions, structures, and ownership. Much like Ekman and Amma, they present engagement not as a single concept but one presenting layers of latent and manifest actions that can be at the individual and collective levels.

Youth and social justice

The role of youth in facilitating social change is particularly relevant today more than half of the world’s population is currently under 25, and a third under 15 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022). While some see this “youth bulge” demographic as uninformed and vulnerable to extremism and exploitation, we reject this deficit model and see them as a population capable of, and already engaging in, transformational social thought and action. While it is true that an extremely small portion of this 3.6+ billion youth have been drawn into violence and extremism (by most measures far less than 0.005%), the rest are living productive, and meaningful lives every day. They are in school, working, supporting immediate and extended families, raising theirs and other children, vocal in support of the communities and people they hold dear, and providing leadership in their communities and beyond. This is a critical distinction to make, as invisible youth doing great things tends not to get noticed.

This paper argues that the broad field of youth engagement would benefit from examining youth contributions to upholding or challenging the social status quo through varying forms of civic engagement. In this article, we seek to demonstrate a conceptual model to guide research and practice in ways to distinguish types of youth engagement to better reflect its potential for positive change. Therefore, this article does three things: (1) distinguishes regimented and radical youth involvement from extremism; (2) distinguishes the contexts and environments where regimented and radical engagement operate; and (3) provides a conceptual framework to study and apply the key aspects of both, radical and regimented, youth engagement. To address these, we start by positing a series of conceptual arguments:

Argument 1

There is a distinction between radical and extremist and the two should not be confused

The first section of this article explores the differences between extremist and radical actions. The clarification of these terms is critical as they are often used interchangeably, and in combination, based not on explanatory power but on sensational political or other agendas. While not the focus of this paper, we view this distinction as vital. Extremism and radicalism have been given equal billing in media and casual usage. We hope to help reframe this inaccurate narrative.

While often used interchangeably, we see it as critical to stress that these two concepts are distinctly different before moving on to the possible ways in which radical and regimented engagement might exist, and complement, each other. Such a discussion here, while not exhaustive, does make the important distinction between the terms we build upon. With this initial understanding, readers can then determine themselves if youth actions are indeed radical or extreme.

Beginning with “extremist,” simple definitions stress a belief in, and support for, ideas that are very far from what most people consider correct or reasonable. They also focus on a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to, or advocates, extreme action and/or violence (Bötticher, 2017; Borum, 2011). To clarify this, Bötticher (2017) provides a comprehensive analysis of both terms drawn from a systematic review of a variety of professional and academic literature:

“Extremism characterizes an ideological position embraced by those anti-establishment movements, which understand politics as struggle for supremacy rather than as peaceful competition between parties with different interests seeking popular support for advancing the common good.

Extremism exists at the periphery of societies and seeks to conquer its center by creating fear of enemies within and outside society.

They divide fellow citizens and foreigners into friends and foes, with no room for diversity of opinions and alternative life-styles.

Extremism is, due to its dogmatism, intolerant and unwilling to compromise. Extremists, viewing politics as a zero-sum game, tend—circumstances permitting—to engage in aggressive militancy, including criminal acts and mass violence in their fanatical will for gaining and holding political power.

Where extremists gain state power, they tend to destroy social diversity and seek to bring about a comprehensive homogenization of society, based on an often faith-based ideology with apocalyptic traits. At the societal level, extremist movements are authoritarian, and, if in power, extremist rulers tend to become totalitarian. Extremists glorify violence as a conflict resolution mechanism and are opposed to the constitutional state, majority-based democracy, the rule of law, and human rights for all.” (Bötticher, 2017: 74).

This definition places extremists in the minority, typically as members of a very select club, in which few can enter. Extremists tend to be homogenous group, based on an incontrovertible dedication to a select characteristic (religious sect, select political entity, etc.). Opportunities for individuals not meeting exclusive criteria to be part of change initiatives are virtually nonexistent. Their activities tend to be beyond the norm, often involving violence, intimidation, and force. The end result is not the bringing together of societies, but fragmentation and planned chaos (Borum, 2011).

Alternately, turning to “radical” we again highlight the simple components often used to define the term. Included are ideas and beliefs that are very different from the usual or traditional, that favor significant changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions, or are associated with political views, practices, and policies of significant change. Again, Bötticher’s (2017) systematic review of literature takes these ideas further in her definition:

“Radicalism refers to a political doctrine embraced by socio-political movements favoring both individual and collective freedom, and emancipation from the rule of authoritarian regimes and hierarchically-structured societies. In that sense radicalism, advocating sweeping political change, represents a form of hostility against the status quo and its establishment.

Often, its initial milieu is found among the sons and daughters of a bourgeois elite, young people who identify with, and seek to improve, the social conditions of larger sections of the population. Historically, radical political parties were key drivers in the progress towards greater democracy in a number of states.

Radicalism as an ideological mindset tends to be very critical of the existing status quo, pursuing the objective of restructuring and/or overthrowing outdated political structures.

By their opponents, radicals are often portrayed as violent; but this is only partly correct, as radicalism tends to be associated historically more with a progressive reformism than with utopian extremism, whose glorification of violence it rejects.

Radicalism is emancipatory and does not seek to subjugate people and enforce conformity like extremism does.

Radical narratives contain utopian ideological elements, but they do not glorify a distant past.

Although unwilling to compromise their ideals, radicals are open to rational arguments as to the means to achieve their goals. Unlike extremists, radicals are not necessarily extreme in their choice of means to achieve their goals. Unlike extremists who reject the extremist label, radicals also self-define themselves as radicals.” (Bötticher, 2017: 75).

By all accounts, and these definitional criteria, historical figures viewed as positive change agents such as Martin Luther King, Jesus, Malcolm X, Gandhi, Angela Davis, Harriet Tubman, and countless others were certainly radicals, with radical ideas that challenged the moral and ethical blind spots of their age. They were however far from extremists. Such beliefs were supported by many, questioned by others, and vehemently opposed by individuals now widely condemned by history. Their actions to challenge injustice were radical, nonviolent, broad-based in their followers, and reflecting activities that while disruptive (voter protests, sit ins, protest marches, boycotts, and community based political organization) were very rarely violent, morally/ethically unjust or oppressive. Such radical action is part of normal social change and democratic processes where despite initial concerns, wider social acceptance is ultimately gained.

Bötticher (2017) further distinguish between these entities, highlighting that “radicalism looks more at a golden future for all rather than seeking to restore an allegedly golden past for adherents of its own creed.” (p. 75), and most importantly that “radicalism draws strongly on the political legacy of the 18th century Enlightenment, with its ideas of human progress and its faith in the power of reason. Extremism, on the other hand, is linked to an irrational, usually religious and fanatical belief system, that claims a monopoly of truth on the basis of which it seeks to transform society according to its retrograde vision” (p. 76). Youth engagement historically matches clearly with these radical characteristics. With these critical distinctions in mind, we now turn to the environments in which regimented and radical youth engagement exist and advance society.

The rise in extremist and intolerant political thought in the past decade necessities radical ideas and their applied response. Radicalism pushes back against intolerance and inequality by championing empathy and the collective good. We argue that it is a moral imperative that radical engagement is encouraged and facilitated at all levels, and not inaccurately labeled as extreme, intolerant, divisive, or intolerant. Radical actions are fundamentally different and should be viewed as such until they show otherwise.

Argument 2

Positive social change requires youth engagement which is radical and not just regimented

One of the most common, and oft studied, forms of youth engagement is structured within a highly organized, hierarchical, controlled, and sometimes compulsory engagement. Often reminiscent of military service, this form of youth engagement can be seen as “regimented.” (Table 1). In this regimented setting, youth civic engagement is often adult led and rarely composed of actions that would be seen as transformational to society (Dolan and Brennan, 2016). For example, low-level volunteerism, random one-off altruistic ventures, and structured activities in traditional and regimented contexts (military, scouts, sports, religious, and other hierarchical service activities) all are designed to maintain structural and institutional outcomes. This systems maintenance activity can be useful for fully functioning systems but is ultimately based in the assumption that the system is stable, equitable, and near perfect. In this setting, social change is not desirable and inequities in the system are easily overlooked by leaders and citizens in general.

Table 1.

Tendencies of regimented and radical youth engagement.

	Regimented	Radical
Characteristics
Change/maintenance	System maintenance	Dramatic social change
Pace of change	Slow	Rapid
Engagement leadership	Adult driven/youth client/	Youth ownership
Structure	Hierarchical	Collective
Action	Formal participation (politics, etc.)	Civic participation (social movements)
Setting	Institutionalized	Public/voluntary sector
Framing	Positive/patriotic	Negative/revolutionary/treasonous
Organizational structure	Highly structures	Loosely structured
Compulsory/voluntary	Compulsory or expected	Voluntary
Youth voice/decision making	Little to none	Youth developed and defined
Open/closed	Closed/limited entry/exclusive	Open to all
Orientation	Present	Future
Engagement duration	Short term/defined	Long term/open ended

Youth engagement and service, in this setting, is generally not designed to challenge inequalities and the untruths of the age. Equally important, youth involvement in such service often is designed to provide valuable skill development, professional opportunities, networks, and personal growth in ways which further establishes them as future players within the maintenance of the overall system. Here, youth are designated as adults in waiting, gain skills and knowledge through service, and serve as apprentices to adulthood and aspirants to legitimate citizenship (Roholt et al., 2009). Such activities are often strategically ingrained into our cultural and societal narratives that highlight the importance of coordinated youth engagement as central to nation building, prestigious service, security, and the preservation of ways of life.

While serving an important function, regimented youth engagement can present significant problems, namely a quieting of youth voice and institutionalization of short-term engagement. First, the narrative around these regimented activities casts engagement in a patriotic or other light, making it difficult to engage in open critique, criticism, or questioning of the society and its current conditions, inequalities, and wider concerns. Here, very little opportunity exists for youth voices that challenge prevailing narratives. This may stunt or slow wider societal development in the longer term and be counterproductive to fostering environments where change is desired. We must be very careful and cognizant of this. Traditional engagement such as military and government service, in maintaining the system, at best facilitate very slow social change while maintaining the system’s key structures and institutions, or purely sticking to the “status quo” approach. While stable, such engagement may perpetuate the disenfranchisement of certain groups of society. This is not surprising since certain societal institutions, such as government, school, and religious institutions depend upon, and are heavily interdependent with, the current social system in which they are imbedded. Therefore, they often have little desire to see systematic change, or at best are unaware of the need for social change.

Secondly, regimented engagement tends to be episodic, with clearly defined time periods for engagement and few paths for sustained youth engagement. It is not uncommon that once youth reach a certain age or terms of service, they are no longer allowed to continue engaging in this form of activity through which they have become accustomed. A leap of faith is implied that youth will take the skills they have learned as subordinates and now move to active citizenship and leadership positions within their societies. The research and program literature make this assumption questionable at best and indicate significant declines in engagement once youth age out or complete their terms of service. The sustainability of youth engagement through regimented service then can be called into question, or at least is extremely uncertain.

In contrast to regimented actions, some youth engagement falls into what might be broadly categorized as “radical” engagement. Radical engagement is characterized by an open criticism of inequalities and societal blind spots. The identification of these is often is youth driven (Watts and Flanagan, 2007; Zeldin et al., 2005). For example, in America during the civil rights, LGBT, gender rights, and antiwar movements of the 1960s and 1970s, youth, alone or choosing to equally partner with adults, were the driving forces of social change on these issues (Prout, 2004).

Globally this was seen in recent decades as youth continued to wrestle control over decision-making and social justice from adults (Braungart and Braungart, 1990; Gordon, 2007; Taft and Gordon, 2013; Johnston, 2019). Examples include Palestinian and Arab youth during the “Arab Spring” (Anderson, 2013; Natil, 2017), the 2008 youth uprisings in Greece (Petropoulou, 2010; Panagiotis, 2010), social and rural marginalization movements in Brazil and Nepal (Ghimire, 2002), and anti-austerity mobilization by youth in Europe over the last decade (Zamponi and Fernández González, 2017; Petropoulou, 2010).

Conceptually it is drastically different from regimented engagement, and historically has fostered social movements, revolutions, and significant positive social change. It is characterized by empathy coupled with an inherent need to challenge inequality and intolerance. This is underpinned by a strong sense of social values among youth.

Radical engagement is often youth led, transformational, empathetic, and at times unprecedented in their ability to challenge inequalities and reform social structures. It can also be argued that youth are more socially active, interact more frequently with diverse groups, and are more engaged in general. This, partnered with possibly more open ideals, leads to a heightened awareness of social conditions and inequalities. It can be argued that youth, not being formally imbedded in the social and cultural structure of our societies might actually see things more objectively. The commitment of youth to such activism, if cultivated, can also tend to be more ingrained, sustainable and characterized by a commitment to ownership of the process, roles, and responsibilities (Dolan and Brennan, 2016).

Similarly, it has been argued that societal systems have different states, that there will not always be equilibrium and that, when working with young people, we have to understand the complexity of the systems they inhabit (Prout, 2004). The radical behavior of youth serves the important function of a continuous questioning and challenging the trajectory of our societies. This behavior is designed to remind us and make us keenly aware of inequalities, infringement upon personal religious and political freedoms, and intolerant treatment of others. Radical youth engagement serves as an empathetic and ever-present vigil, guarding against an evolution of an overall system that is contrary to its founding principles. In short, radical activities do not maintain the system. They keep the system in check and force it to grow and adapt in a positive and productive forward-thinking path. Included are more equitable distributions of resources, power, and opportunities based on changing societal demographics and makeups. While challenging to static, established structures, this youth activism is far from antisocial. In actuality, their countries, communities, and local societies will only be made stronger and better for the process.

For youth with radical ideals, there is a passionate desire for long-term engagement. They are keen to lead change as well. However, there is traditionally little support or opportunity for empowering youth to lead change, especially radical social change, on their own or with the support of adults and other segments of our societies. Youth development, leadership, and training for skill building rarely, if ever, sees youth in this light or motivate them toward radical action. This is a shortcoming on behalf of adults and our youth development efforts. There is a lack of perception of the strength in numbers that organized youth represent. Both globally and at home, youth make up more than half of our societies. Harnessing this massive, committed, and engaged audience can be an unprecedented catalyst for sustained positive social change. Nonetheless, such action and youth leadership are not seriously promoted. As a result, positive social change happens at a much slower place, youth become increasingly disengaged, apathy grows, and existing inequalities plague our communities and societies. We need to commit as much attention to developing youth with radical ideas and efforts as we do to the massive focus we place on developing regimented activities. In the end, these complement each other and make both stronger by linking them as equal parts, not polar opposites at odds with each other.

Radical engagement must not be looked at as antisocial. In reality, it is one of our most important contributions to social change and functioning societies. It represents a challenge, most often a desperately need challenge, to the system. Without radical ideas, the questioning of authority, and the ability to challenge inequalities, societies are quickly corrupted and begin to crumble. Ultimately questioning and critical thought becomes a treasonous act. Worse, without radical thoughts and ideas, it never occurs to citizens to question or challenge the wrongs of society because critical thought has been forgotten. Challenges to the system support and enhance the process of societal development. These challenges bring new change agents into the mix, as well as bring hidden societal needs and inequalities to the forefront, contributing to enhancement of the human condition. Youth are at the forefront of recognizing and acting to address these needs. They are now, and have forever been, the driving force behind such positive change movements.

System maintenance is needed for any semblance of social stability and functioning institutions (social, economic, political). That said, systems without a framework for infusing positive change as needed from societal progression, are doomed to become corrupted and ultimately fail. Our societies are dynamic entities that are always introducing new knowledge, ideas, beliefs, types of people, and behaviors. Our societies are also continuously becoming keenly aware of inequalities on which the system was built—inequalities that must be equitably addressed if the system is to heal, grow, and thrive. Here, regimented efforts must work with other, more radical engagement efforts to be made aware of these needs and effectively weave new agendas for equity into the collective whole. Once achieved, the regimented forms of engagement can ensure the maintenance of new structures within the now functioning society.

Much like we see in the community development and capacity building literature (Brennan and Israel, 2013; Bridger and Alter, 2006; Bridger et al., 2010; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Wilkinson, 1991), facilitating interaction between these two forms of engagement is critical to building bridges among divergent groups and to maximizing collective efforts. With the facilitated interaction and coordination of our regimented and radical entities this process can be accelerated, integrated and moved forward with lesser social tensions and divisions.

Working collectively, radical and regimented youth can transform our communities, societies, and nations. It is vital that program and policy makers create space for both to coexist, and carefully consider the radical-regimented distinction as they frame various programmatic outcomes.

Argument 3

To really understand youth engagement for social change, we must create a framework which frames engagement not as a single action, but as a multidimensional concept

The third part of this article presents a multidimensional theoretic model for understanding the often-ignored potentials and mechanisms for youth engagement, from both a regimented and radical approach. Both are critical to the advancement of the human condition and should not be seen as mutually exclusive or in contrast to each other. Each serves their purpose and must be viewed as such by program and policy makers. In Figure 1, all represents a continuum where the left half of graphic is indicative in terms of youth development and civic engagement being directed by adults and maintaining systems. This is largely reflective of regimented engagement. Each component is counterbalanced by “an opposite position.” Thus, the right half is more supportive of youth as civic actors leading social change in more radical contexts.

Figure 1.

A conceptual model for understanding regimented and radical youth engagement strategies.

Understanding the interrelationship of these concepts can help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers and youth themselves focus efforts and outcomes between the dimensions outlined in Figure 1. We here offer a discussion of the four dimensions presented:

(1) Is the nature of the engagement to maintain or change the existing system?

(2) Who controls the form of engagement?

(3) What practical outcome is driving this engagement?

(4) How visible are the engagement activities to others?

These four driving questions can open new avenues for effectively framing and maximizing youth civic engagement.

The items listed in the conceptual model are dimensions of engagement to consider. They are ideal types and opposite dimensions of engagement reflecting more regimented and radical elements. These obviously depend on context, but also each axis is a mirror image of the other. Both can and should exist simultaneously. Each axis can be seen as a continuum that is based on context, settings, issues, culture, and other conditions. More radical or regimented actions may make more sense in such context. Nonetheless, it is important for program and policy interests to consider these dimensions and prospective. Engagement, like that presented by Shaw et al. (2014) and Ekman and Amnå (2012), highlight how this process is a complex and multidimensional entity made up of the dimensions of this model, as well as other conditions.

First, we focus on the driving forces behind youth engagement, that is whether it is adults or youth leading the engagement. Most often youth engagement is adult driven, particularly in the context of regimented activities. Youth are engaged in hierarchical structures throughout most of their lives (e.g. sport, scouts, religious groups). Even in situations where youth are given some liberty for deciding their actions and experiences, these are usually closely designed and approved by adults. In these setting, a clear power dynamic exists in which youth are aware of their role and place in the activities. It is also clear that they have little, to no, agency or leadership for activities or desired outcomes. In such engagement, youth are recipients of knowledge and experience that immediately maintains rather than changes the system, and hopefully in the longer term, may create functioning citizens that don’t further propagate the system. More rarely seen are adult-youth partnerships where youth are given greater leeway to collaboratively shape agendas, priorities, and action. Nonetheless, these still are in the context of adult supervision and approval. Again, the outcomes of such engagement tend to be top down and focused toward basic system maintenance. Finally, youth led engagement is a much rarer occurrence. This setting is entirely youth driven and youth led. While external adults and others may be engaged, this is based on the decision and invitation by youth into the process. In this context and in short, youth own the process and its outcomes. This setting can be both system maintenance and radical engagement, but most often represents the latter.

Next, the ideological rationale for the engagement must be understood. Cause-based or political activism emerges as youth identify inequality, abuse, and institutional structure which inhabit their quality of life and opportunities. These are the quintessential youth protests and social movements which push for social change and new ways of viewing the social status quo. While cause based civic engagement is often explored and heralded as important to improving community social life, need based engagement is as important and can serve a quieter, but crucial function. Youth play important roles in their intimate relationships with family members, friends, and other youth in a variety of ways not often considered because they are outside of formal youth activities that view youth as individuals, and are rather part of the daily life of youth as enmeshed in their collective identities as brothers, sisters, children, friends, and mentors. Youth perform roles such as in home carers for ill family members, care takers of younger siblings or kin, and mentors to other youth or children. Youth also historically provide economic and physical support for their families and communities when they take jobs to pay the family bills, transporting neighbors to and from work, and volunteering to help their neighbors with household tasks, to name only a few examples.

Finally, closely related to outcomes is the visibility of engagement and the critical impacts of youth engagement that occurs beyond the visibility of common settings. Youth engagement often focuses on activities conducted in the public domain, while private, familial and household caretaking activities are ignored and overlooked. In actuality, the tangible impacts of hidden contributions by youth far exceed the publicly recognized actions which tend to be episodic, limited in scope, and closely linked to rewards (scholarships, community service points, etc.). While much of regimented engagement is very visible through clubs and organizations operating in a visible public setting, radical activism may go unnoticed, particularly when this engagement is further embedded within sub-cultural norms. The latter is often characterized by neighborhood level social supports, care, and actions that may often be hidden. In more extreme cases individuals can be highly active in contributing to service providing and caregiving (particularly in the home to parents and the elderly) yet go unrecognized. In actuality, these actions may contribute far more to local quality of life and the human condition than might regimented type engagements that, while visible and rewarded, may only contribute token or short-term contributions which maintain the status quo. In contexts where government sponsored social support is rare, youth providing these supports are in fact challenging this societal status quo, and therefore are participating in a radical form of engagement.

Each form of youth engagement serves a purpose and is better suited to unique settings and contexts. Each also come with their own limitations and push youth in different developmental directions. Program/policy makers and activists need to remain keenly aware of the types, contexts, and outcomes of engagement, while also clearly understanding what they want to accomplish. They can then identify the best forms of engagement that empower youth while also meeting and advancing wider societal needs. From these, more effective program and policies can be developed. Table 2 offers some critical considerations for activists, program developers, and policy makers. It displays a list of these key components with their guiding questions. Decision makers at all levels would do well to use these as a basis for decision making and engagement strategies that advance the human condition.

Table 2.

Items to use when framing youth engagement.

Component of engagement	Guiding question
Systems level	Does this form of engagement support or challenge the existing social system?
Power	Is this form of engagement controlled by youth or controlled by adults? Who benefits the most from the engagement?
Domain	Does the form of engagement take place in the public or private domain?
Cause	Is the form of engagement cause-based or needs-based?
Visibility	Is this form of engagement visible (in the public setting) or invisible (at home or within relationships)?

With these in mind, more targeted and effective programs and policies can be developed, resulting in high achievements and more stable and just societies.

Argument 4

When we use this framework, we see that radical and regimented engagement strengthen and support one another, but because radical engagement is rare, it requires more attention and effort

Despite the range of challenges to youth civic engagement and its decline and change over time, there remains a critical need for youth participation above and beyond the individual benefits that youth may receive (Nitzberg, 2005). We must not forget that our communities and societies are dynamic entities, ever-changing, ever in need of processes to help them adapt to changing social, political, economic, and demographic changes. Here, radical ideas, awareness, and activism are essential to positive societal development. Our history is filled with countless examples of social justice issues that took decades (or centuries) for our radical and regimented elements to come together. The abolition of slavery, establishment of same sex marriage, voting and educational rights for women, interracial and interfaith marriages, and many other conditions that are now rightfully commonplace were long caught between the tensions of institutional acceptance (regimented) and social justice engagement (radical). The achievement of these equalities by radical youth and others are now vehemently and legally protected by our regimented interests. Program and policy makers will need to find ways to accelerate this process. They will also need to establish ways to link these groups more cohesively into concerted action. Both serve a critical function and program/policy makers need to be clear which aspect they seek to empower and how the agendas of the other can be linked to such efforts.

Radicals and regiments are part of a symbiotic relationship where these two side of the same coin facilitate social change and wellbeing. In short, both keep each other in check, while advancing the system. Radicals shed light on the darkness, whereas regiments keep the torch lit. The radicals seek to ensure social justice and change that keeps the system from becoming dictatorial and suffocating. Similarly, the stability and institutionalized processes provided by the regiments, ensures that dramatic social change does not happen too quickly and with unanticipated negative consequences. When proven outcomes emerge the regimented efforts permanently see them through.

The active engagement, and resulting significant contributions, of youth to local life and beyond is receiving increased attention from a variety of sectors. This dramatic change in how we view the role of young people represents a paradigm shift in policy, research, and programing. It calls on us to honestly challenge age-old stereotypes, our own preconceived notions of youth efficacy and commitment, and to actively seek the inclusion of youth as our equals in social change. It calls on societies to be open to the engagement of young people as current contributors to society and not simply adults in waiting. It calls on us to listen, recognize their contributions, and join with them in facilitating social change. If we cannot do the latter, it is contingent upon us to not block their way.

Conclusion

Building on these four arguments and associated framework above we suggest that radical youth should not be forced out, they should be embraced. Policy makers should make room for them and their ideas. Programmers should build on youth’s capacity to contribute to stable productive societies by enabling leadership roles for them. Not all regimented scenarios will work and not all radical engagements will succeed. But the dual engagement of youth on both sides will make for more innovative, adaptive, and resilient communities and societies. Thus, ensuring that youth are contributors to society today, and not as just a future silent investments, our societies will be better off for this process.

This focus on youth engagement and promotion of radical change is not the result of wishful thinking about how our young people might someday benefit from today’s token investments. On the contrary, our focus is about an urgent need to engage young people worldwide in a significant, substantive way. Keeping in mind that more than half of the world population is under age 25, and that this population is growing in size, we must seek to put youth at the forefront of radical thinking and change. This “youth bulge” represents not just a statistical anomaly but also an unprecedented opportunity for action and global development. It is in these settings that an acceptance of youth as radical agents of change can prove transformational. Research on youth and program evidence show conclusively that societies are made better, more stable, resilient, and more secure when youth are active participants. We have an equally impressive body of knowledge proving that youth themselves are better off for being part of the process. Their engagement results in far stronger social, psychological and developmental competencies, leading to adaptability, resilience, and a long list of positive developmental outcomes (Brennan, 2008).

In the end, the benefits of youth engagement as radical change makers are real, measurable and tangible. Radical youth engagement is system growing, not system destroying. The impacts discussed above are not just ideas but based on the rationale that: Engaged youth at all levels, but especially with their “radical” ideas equate to stable, secure, civil and just societies. Their voice, engagement, agency, and ownership in individual and societal development should be at the forefront of advancing the human condition. . .. a truly radical idea.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mark A Brennan

Erica Odera

References

Anderson

(2013) Youth, the “Arab Spring,” and social movements. Review of Middle East Studies 47(2): 150–156.

Barth

(1967) On the study of social change. American Anthropologist 69(6): 661–669.

Borum

(2011) Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security 4(4): 7–36.

Bötticher

(2017) Towards academic consensus definitions of radicalism and extremism. Perspectives on Terrorism 11(4): 73–77.

Braungart

(1990) Youth movements in the 1980s: A global perspective. International Sociology 5(2): 157–181.

Brennan

Israel

(2013) The power of community: Advancing community theory by understanding community power. In: Brennan

Bridger

Alter

(eds) Theory, Practice, and Community Development. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, pp.78–98.

Brennan

(2008) Conceptualizing resiliency: An interactional perspective for community and youth development. Child Care in Practice 14(1): 55–64.

Bridger

Alter

(2006) Place, community development, and social capital. Community Development 37: 5–18.

Bridger

Brennan

Luloff

(2010) Chapter 9: The interactional approach to community. In: Robinson

Green

(eds) New Perspectives in Community Development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, pp.85–100.

10.

Buzinde

Foroughi

Godwyll

(2019) Youth leadership programs for community development and social action: A pedagogical approach. Community Development Journal 54(4): 677–694.

11.

Chetkovich

Kunreuther

(2006) From the Ground Up: Grassroots Organizations Making Social Change. New York: Cornell University Press.

12.

Dolan

Brennan

(2016) World Youth Report: Civic Engagement: An Overview. New York, NY: United Nations, Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth.

13.

Earl

Maher

Elliott

(2017) Youth, activism, and social movements. Sociology Compass 11: e12465.

14.

Ekman

Amnå

(2012) Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs 22: 283–300.

15.

Farzanegan

Witthuhn

(2017) Corruption and political stability: Does the youth bulge matter? European Journal of Political Economy 49: 47–70.

16.

Ghimire

(2002) Social movements and marginalized rural youth in Brazil, Egypt and Nepal. The Journal of Peasant Studies 30(1): 30–72.

17.

Giroux

(2013) Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future. New York, NY: Routledge.

18.

Gordon

(2007) Allies within and without: How adolescent activists conceptualize ageism and navigate adult power in youth social movements. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36(6): 631–668.

19.

Guzman-Concha

(2015) Radical social movements in western Europe: A configurational analysis. Social Movement Studies 14(6): 668–691.

20.

Johnston

(2019) The elephant in the room: Youth, cognition, and student groups in mass social movements. Societies 9(3): 55.

21.

Moore

(1968 [1974]) Social Change. New York: Englewood Cliffs.

22.

Mutekwe

(2012) The impact of technology on social change: A sociological perspective. Journal of Research in Peace Gender and Development 2(11): 226–238.

23.

Natil

(2017) Palestinian youth movements and “the Arab Spring”. In: Arbatli

Rosenberg

(eds) Non-Western Social Movements and Participatory Democracy: Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Cham: Springer.

24.

Nitzberg

(2005) The meshing of youth development and community building: Putting youth at the center of community building. New Directions for Youth Development 106: 7–16.

25.

Olson

Brennan

(2018) From community engagement to community emergence: A conceptual framework and model to rethink youth-community interaction. In: Kenny

McGrath

Phillips

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Community Development. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge, pp.264–278.

26.

Panagiotis

(2010) Rebels with a cause: The December 2008 Greek youth movement as the condensation of deeper social and political contradictions. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(1): 203–209.

27.

Petropoulou

(2010) From the December youth uprising to the rebirth of urban social movements: A space-time approach. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(1): 217–224.

28.

Prout

(2004) The Future of Childhood: Towards the Interdisciplinary Study of Childhood. New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Roberts

(2015) Youth mobilisations and political generations: Young activists in political change movements during and since the twentieth century. Journal of Youth Studies 18(8): 950–966.

30.

Roholt

Hildreth

Baizerman

(2009) Becoming Citizens: Deepening the Craft of Youth Civic Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Shaw

Brady

McGrath

, et al. (2014) Understanding youth civic engagement: Debates, discourses, and lessons from practice. Community Development 45(4): 300–316.

32.

Taft

Gordon

(2013) Youth activists, youth councils, and constrained democracy. Education Citizenship and Social Justice 8(1): 87–100. 8 (1).

33.

UNESCO (2021) Youth as Researchers: Exploring the Impact of COVID-19. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/news/youth-researchers-exploring-impact-covid-19 (accessed 20 June 2022).

34.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2022) Population dynamics and world population prospects. Available at: https://population.un.org (accessed 20 June 2022).

35.

Watts

Flanagan

(2007) Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology 35(6): 779–792.

36.

Wilkinson

(1991) The Community in Rural America. New York: Greenwood Press.

37.

Zamponi

Fernández González

(2017) Dissenting youth: How student and youth struggles helped shape anti-austerity mobilisations in Southern Europe. Social Movement Studies 16(1): 64–81.

38.

Zeldin

Camino

Mook

(2005) The adoption of innovation in youth organizations: Creating the conditions for youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology 33(1): 121–135.