Reshaping Youth Participation: Manchester in a European Gaze

This chapter utilises the analogy of ‘parasitical resistance’ (Fisher, 2020) to explore how young people act and interact in ‘adult’ contexts, where they are welcome as young people but still subordinated because of their age, and sometimes their gender. The analysis of young people’s participation in the Greater Manchester Youth Combined Authority suggests that young people who participate in formal, adult spaces need to be able to find the ‘play in the system’ to be heard and to be involved in decision-making. In this sense, the young people embraced a form of ‘parasitism’ and developed tactics to ‘effect subversion from within hegemonic structures’ (Fisher, 2020). This new paradigm argues that resistance is less likely to be found in a radical activism now and is more likely to be found instead in the mutually exploitative relations between dominant hosts (in this case, ‘adults’) giving of their power just enough, and ‘parasitical’ actors (in this case, young people) taking only as much as they need for their own ends. The chapter does not argue that young people are ‘parasites’ at the adult table but, rather, it acknowledges young people must find ways to ‘play the game’ in spaces where longstanding tools of radical resistance have limited effect. The ‘play’ is not unproblematic, however, and the chapter concludes that young people need more than just ‘being heard’ and contributing to something that is achievable, but not especially disruptive or redistributive. Instead, involvement of young people should be focused on achieving genuine parity that can benefit as many marginalised and precarious young people as possible.

There is a growing recognition that participation in ‘shadow’ structures such as youth councils, forums and parliaments does not meet all of young people’s needs for action and engagement, and a growing emphasis on finding and recognising opportunities for young people to move out of these structures and initiate their own forms of democratic action for change. This chapter, co-written by academics and young researchers recruited from a youth council, tells the story of an action research project set up under the auspices of PARTISPACE which aimed to learn about the dynamics of self-initiated and autonomous youth participation beyond the confines of formalised youth participation structures. In this chapter, the authors explain what we all brought to the project, reflect from different perspectives on the process we went through, the challenges we encountered, the outcomes we achieved, and make sense of what we, collectively and individually, learned from the experience about different processes of participation.

Formal forms of youth participation, like youth councils and student committees, are often criticised for being too affiliated with adult-led power structures, giving young people little space for their own initiative and agenda. The general conclusion from the PARTISPACE project confirms this picture, though there is also a considerable variation in how these institutions are organised and led. This complexity is illustrated in a comparison between the Youth Council of Gothenburg (YCG) in Sweden, the Greater Manchester Youth Combined Authority (GMYCA) and the Manchester Young Researchers (MYR). The YCG and the GMYCA both have strong ties to the political assemblies in their cities and this has great influence over their work process. In this respect, the MYR represents an effort where the young members can make their own choices, take on much more personal responsibility, and learn a lot from this practice. At the same time, both YCG and GMYCA deal with important issues for young people and have succeeded in making substantial changes, for example, when it comes to youth access to public transport. The young people who are engaged in the different participatory efforts all want to contribute to an advanced position for their peers. To some, formal participation appears to be a feasible way to accomplish this. The experiences from the YCG and the GMYCA show that this choice is associated with limitations in room for manoeuvre. However, many of the young members see through this and maintain a critical perspective on the contemporary conditions for young people’s participation in society, and their capacity to change them through formal means.

The young feminists in this chapter were part of several feminist groups in Manchester, analysed in this ethnographic case study as part of Manchester’s feminist movement. The young women described their motivations for ‘be(com)ing feminist’ as ‘personal-political’ and ‘political-personal’ journeys (Hanisch, 1970) that came about because of individual and group experiences of gendered disadvantage and a recognition that the needs of women, and women’s equality, would not be achieved in current political and democratic arrangements that favour a focus on the ‘common good’. While the young women campaigned for several causes (abortion rights, safer streets, sexual objectification, and so on), their frustrations with the mainstream neglect of women’s issues were the key drivers for self-organising for political action. The aim of their activism was to dismantle (or at the very least diminish) the patriarchal social order, and their participation and activism focused on women’s issues and rights and the need to create a ‘politics of difference’ (Young, 1990) that addresses their group needs, differences, and specificities.

This chapter sets out the political participation of a group of young socialists in Manchester. The analysis indicates that the young socialists’ participation was driven by a critique of the structural conditions of capitalism. The young people in this group deliberately eschewed discussions of individual stories in their group’s activism, or in recounting what brought them to the group. In doing so, they reject the place of individual needs and stories (framed here as an element of ‘identity politics’) in bringing about the societal change they believe is necessary. This is not to say that they deny the place or role of identity politics but, rather, that they want to supplement achieving change in individual categories of oppression by creating the economic (i.e. non-capitalist) conditions where all oppressions are eliminated. The young socialists’ participation in terms of their group sessions was quite formal in nature (lecture, discussion, etc.) and was concerned with education and theoretical debate, replicating practices from the socialist movement. Drawing on contemporary theory the chapter argues that the socialist students compare greatly to other young people who may be cast as ‘radically unpolitical’ because of the socialists’ sober adherence to an old ideology.

This chapter provides a critical analysis of a case study of a self-managed informal collective and leftist house project in Germany, the Political Cultural Centre (PCC), drawing on observations, group discussions and biographical interviews conducted between June and December 2016. Formed in 2015 by a group of art students and left-wing activists as an alternative space housed in an old building, the PCC consisted of about 30 young people, ranging in age from 18 to 40 years of age, with the majority between 20 and 25 years at the time of our research. This chapter analyses the group’s experiences of alternative-space life through the lens of (counter)politics, focusing on how these young people dealt with the challenges of self-performative contradictions through practices of coping. In so doing, this chapter reflects on the complexities that arise from the (counter-)hegemonic idea of the centre as a political project and reconstructs the power relations and the temporality of doing counter-hegemonic politics within a capitalist society. Based on this analysis, the chapter compares the PCC experience with case studies of other social movements, specifically the Manchester-based young feminists and socialists (Chapters 5 and 6, respectively).

The participatory action research project described in this chapter took place with an established campaigning and research organisation in Manchester. The young activists who were part of the work were all living without legal status in the UK, and had all been failed by the asylum system and cast as the ‘abject’ (Tyler, 2013) and unwanted. Building upon decades of protest against racist and ‘othering’ polices in Britain (Copsey, 2016; England, 2019), the project illustrates a powerful example of young people who are very much on the margins, neglected and disbelieved by the state, and vilified by wider society and deliberate distortions of what it means to ‘seek asylum’, coming together to activate and find a voice in public to call for justice and change. Utilising Voloshinov’s (1929/1986) method of ‘language creation from below’ to create a shared understanding of their experiences in the UK’s ‘hostile environment’ (Goodfellow, 2019), the young activists engaged in consciousness-raising together to explore the commonality of their lives as ‘(young) people seeking asylum’. Rejecting the dominant ideological sign of ‘asylum seeker’, they created a play, ‘Faceless’, to depict the reality of their experiences, to present a counterstatement (Voloshinov, 1929/1986), in the public sphere (Fraser, 1990), and to exercise what Castells (2015) refers to as ‘counterpower’.

This chapter focuses on the Street Work Homeless Project that was the site of one of the ethnographic case studies conducted in Manchester and also one of the participatory action research projects. The participants – men with lived experience of homelessness – were in many ways the antithesis of those usually considered for inclusion in a study on youth participation. However, the chapter shows how there is much to learn from this project, particularly in terms of how marginalised groups can actively participate in and for society. In preparation for the chapter, Rowley and Charles revisited their reflections and learning from the project. From this process, they wrote conversations exploring tensions that ran throughout the project. These tensions, and an antidote, are explored in the chapter. The chapter emphasises the importance of relationality in building mutuality and trust, the limitations of empowerment due to internalising pathologising dominant narratives, and the need to witness rather than spectate the more discomforting aspects of learning participation. By working through these tensions, it was possible to shift relations and roles between those designated as facilitator and participant leading to the question ‘who was lost and who was found?’. The chapter concludes that such processes are necessarily agonistic and creative to enable more inclusive and democratic participation to occur for marginalised groups.

The commentary proposes an analysis of a case study conducted on a self-managed shelter for homeless migrants based in Italy. The shelter was created in 2015 by a group of young activists within an abandoned barracks located in the city centre of Bologna. The shelter was run by the activists in collaboration with the homeless migrants, who were invited to take active part in the shelter’s management. The chapter analyses this experience through the concept of ‘resilience’, seeking to disentangle the complex relationship between fragility and participation. In so doing, the analysis reflects on how participation can develop as a form of resilience and discusses the characteristics distinguishing participation originating from vulnerability. Analysing the practices of participation of fragile people and communities through the lens of resilience sheds light on the combination of dynamics of adjustment and of change in their forms of engagement. From this perspective, the role of the context emerges as crucial in shaping (young) people’s possibilities to react to adversity. Based on this analysis, the chapter draws comparison with the case studies conducted with the refugees and homeless youth in Manchester (Chapters 8 and 9) and reflects on issues of legitimacy and recognition across different contexts when engaging with those living at the margins of society.

Focusing on The Agency, a project of Contact Theatre in North Manchester, the chapter uses records of a conversation between the two authors as well as detailed fieldnotes as the starting point for reflection on the nature of ‘youth participation’ which The Agency nurtures and supports. It shows how entrepreneurship can be and is being seized by young people who see the possibility of making a difference both for themselves as individuals and for their own communities. Young people are identified as protagonists of their own practice, becoming involved, with the support of facilitators, in both self-development and community development and, thus, we argue in new forms of cultural democracy in which relational practice that challenges the shaming of marginalised communities is at the fore. Historic and contemporary forms of working-class culture offer a powerful lens through which new anti-racist forms of community and cultural democracy emerge. For this to happen, recognition and resourcing are each essential.

The Noise Upstairs (NU) is a monthly freely improvised (‘free improv’) music night with a home above a café bar in a mixed/student suburb of Manchester. This chapter uses the perspective of critical improvisation studies to reflect on aspects of a performance ethnography carried out by the authors, both of whom are performers and one of whom (Hunter) curates the NU night for the NU collective. Free improv is a post-1960s set of meta-musical practices related to but contesting both ‘jazz’, ‘free jazz’, ‘new music’ and ‘experimental’ music. In it, real-time co-creation and negotiation of social-and-musical relationships are paramount. Consequently, the question of whether a politics of sorts is enacted in the dialogic and multilateral socialities generated in free improv is a substantive one. In addressing it, the authors deploy some concepts from the ‘affective turn’ in social theory to review how the general milieu and out-of-the-hat ensemble-formation approach adopted at NU in fact enables a ‘minor’ micro-political practice of participating differently to be established there. Arising from that discussion, and in line with a key theme of the wider PARTISPACE study, the authors then discuss whether that politics might meaningfully (and usefully) be articulated in terms of ‘democracy’.

This chapter discusses youth political participation through the study of a band of young Kurdish musicians performing ethnic music in the streets of Eskişehir, a university town in Turkey. These street musicians play local music from the various ethnic groups in Turkey (in Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, Arabic and Persian); in other words, folk music, but with a musical reinterpretation and a symbolic political meaning. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, this study argues that these young musicians performing in the streets are struggling for a place in the public space, as young, Kurdish and musicians. Regarding the political aspect of their participation, their most apparent claim is to freely express oppressed ethnic identities in the public space, starting from their own. The Kurdish identity has been stigmatised for so long that any act publicly revealing a Kurdish identity may be perceived, in public, as political, if not criminal. However, in this particular case, performing ethnic music – not only any songs in Kurdish but a particular genre of music associated with a set of political values and ideas such as multiculturalism – is an artistic choice but a political one too. Besides, their performance place, the streets, as unstructured and informal settings, and how these young musicians choose to deal with the challenges of playing in the streets, also shape their style of participation. With their performance in the streets, they open space for themselves in the city, physically and discursively. In order to make sense of their participation, this study focuses on these young street musicians’ ‘tactics’ for being present in the streets, but also on historical and theoretical elements to understand the politicisation of ethnic music and the political aspects of the streets.

In this chapter, the authors aim to recontextualise the local picture of youth participation in Manchester in a wider European perspective. First, because the research framework was a comparative European research project and, second, because the relevance also of local research depends on the degree to which it provides general insight into a phenomenon. The authors share with the editors and the other authors of this book the aim of questioning dominant understandings that limit youth participation to institutionalised forms and to young people’s involvement in existing practices and processes predefined by others, in most cases adult professionals like educators, youth workers and policy-makers. Based on the identification and discussion of three aspects related to the recognition of young people’s practice as participation in formal, non-formal and informal settings, the current authors want to use their views from the outside to shed light on the tensions and ambivalences of youth participation that do not become obsolete by applying a wider notion of participation.