Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
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: jeanette.sundhall@gu.se
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
In this article, I discuss how adulthood norms set limits
on the possibilities of including children in democratic
processes and understanding them as political subjects.
Adulthood norms are norms that imply an adult position
which is implicit, invisible and thus naturalized. The theo-
retical starting point of this article is thus that adulthood
is naturalized and fundamental to an understanding of
the age categorization of children, and also that age (like
gender) is constructed relationally. One is always young,
old, older, or younger relative to someone else, but also
relative to a certain context.
Since it started in the 1980’s, the research field of
childhood studies has had the stated ambition of re-
ducing the difference in power between children and
adults. The research field launched concepts like: the
child as an actor,the competent child,children’s partic-
ipation. These concepts are about recognizing children
as full human beings and as equivalent to adults (Ala-
nen 1988, 1992; Hockey & James, 1993; James, Jenks, &
Prout, 1998; James & Prout, 1990; Qvortrup, 1994). This
has been criticized by John Wall (2012) who argues that
concepts like agency and competence assume and repro-
duce an adulthood norm where rights are not absolute
but must be earned. In this article, I use Wall’s concept
of childism in order to critically examine a case and dis-
cuss current structures and norms, as childism offers a
tool for deconstructing the naturalisation of adulthood.
In the field of childhood studies, the meanings and
the effects of adulthood are not much discussed. Just as
theoretical approaches in queer theory and critical white-
ness studies focus on the superior position and show that
it is important not to restrict examination to the subor-
dinate position, I believe that this idea is equally impor-
tant when it comes to power relations between children
and adults.
2. Age as a Power Order
The idea of working for children’s increased participation,
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,
due to their age, children and young people are under-
represented in political processes and are seldom heard
in public. Age is a widespread and accepted reason to
treat people differently. Age and different ways of regu-
lating age are common ways to create social order (Näs-
man, 2004). That is why age can be regarded as a power
order; a social order which carries hierarchies and dis-
crimination, inclusions and exclusions. Ideas and norms
regarding age are used in order to organize and disci-
pline individuals, activities, and contexts. Age is regarded
as a “neutral belonging” and these organizations thus
gain an objective character as something biological and
chronologic (Krekula, Närvänen, & Näsman, 2005; Närvä-
nen, 2009).
The life phase of adulthood is generally ascribed a
higher status when compared to other life phases since
the individuals here are considered nourishing: they are
contributing to the survival of society. The individuals
belonging to the life phases of childhood, youth, and
old age are, on the contrary, regarded as consuming:
they are not contributing to society but merely using
its resources (Hockey & James, 1993; Närvänen & Näs-
man, 2007).
Age is made binary by the division into children and
adults, although age categorizations contain concepts
such as teenager, youth, and young adult, which soften
this binary division and imply that the boundary between
child and adult is a flexible one (Sjöberg, 2013). In prac-
tice, however, children and adults are often positioned in
a binary way. The naturalization of adulthood also means
that it constitutes the unmarked age (Krekula & Johans-
son, 2017). The unmarked age is that which other age cat-
egorizations are related to and which itself constitutes
the norm. In the case of adulthood, this is an invisible
norm: a naturalization. Adulthood is so fundamental to
being seen as a full human that we view it as natural that
children are considered not yet fully human. Thus, adult-
hood becomes naturalized and at the same time age be-
comes a legitimate power order when it comes to the
age categorization of children, since children’s subordi-
nation is regarded as something natural and often even
desirable; children are viewed as “under development”
and in need of adult protection and care.
My position in analysing and discussing adulthood
norms is that it is not enough to analyse only the subor-
dinate position, that of the child. In order to understand
how dominance relations are constructed, reproduced,
and challenged, it is also necessary to examine the supe-
rior position.
Age is constructed relationally in that the child cate-
gorization comprises characteristics such as immaturity,
volatility, and spontaneity (in the sense of being non-
reflective), while the adult categorization is constructed
as the opposite: adult individuals become mature, sta-
ble, and reflective. The child categorization thus con-
tributes to the association of adulthood with positive
qualities (Alanen, 1992). When children are understood
as under development and in need of protection, this
gives legitimacy to the primacy of adults which can be
compared to how women, in a binary understanding of
gender, are constructed as weak and emotionally unsta-
ble and how this gives legitimacy to male superiority.
The age order is about how adults use children to de-
fine themselves in an ideological process of dominance
and self-definition that can be compared with processes
where men have defined women and colonizers have de-
fined the persons they colonized as “the Other” (Sund-
hall, 2012; Thorne, 1987).
The emphasizing of children’s agency in the field
of childhood studies has resulted in children being dis-
cussed in terms of citizenship, a concept that has tra-
ditionally completely excluded children (Archard, 1993;
Freeman, 2011; Nakata, 2015; Oswell, 2013). In societies
that regard themselves as democratic, there is still a
large part of the population who are not permitted or as-
sumed to be a part of the political life and to be involved
in formulating what is politically important. This applies
to the age categorization of children, who are excluded
due to their chronological age. Their exclusion is thus due
to their difference compared to the norm of the citizen,
a synonym for the adult subject.
The basis for this article is an analysis of speech acts
concerning the Youth Council of Gothenburg, Sweden,
which I use to discuss how adult norms are naturalized
and consolidated but also how they are made visible and
challenged. This analysis of speech acts involves post-
structuralist ideas of how language is performative and
my interest in different kinds of texts focuses on what
the text is doing and not what it means. I will use the
concept of childism (Wall, 2008, 2010) and discuss how
it can be a way to escape the dominance of adult norms.
The concept of childism means addressing children’s ex-
periences by transforming understandings and practices
for all humans, not only for non-adults. Childism can then
be an approach which challenges and changes structures
and possibilities (Wall, 2010).
3. The Significance of Speech Acts for the Dominance
of Adulthood
The naturalization of adulthood implies that it can be
hard to spot, though the effects of the naturalization may
be easier to uncover. One effect emerges through an
embodiment and repetition of norms which lead others
to believe in their naturalizing effects (Butler, 1993). Ex-
plicit references to adulthood and its prerequisite childity
(Sjöberg, 2013) are often used for disciplinary purposes:
“Grow up! Don’t be such a baby! You’re acting like a
three-year-old!” Often, these references are made with-
out anyone reflecting on how these speech acts work
in a discriminatory and subordinating way, not towards
those the words are directed against but to those who
fit into the age categorization of children. The effect of
the speech acts is thus to confirm the normality of adult-
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-
structions or that the function is subordinating.
4. The Need to Redefine Key Concepts
One aim of this article is to consider how to seriously
include children in democratic processes. Two theorists
who have discussed this issue by starting from the con-
cept that adult norms are in control are Moosa-Mitha
(2005) and Wall (2008, 2010, 2012). Both propose that
the very definitions of concepts like democracy and hu-
man rights are problematic, not least in ownership of the
right to define them. The conclusion is to redefine what
democracy and human rights actually mean—only then
can children be included.
Moosa-Mitha has discussed how adult norms ex-
clude children by defining democracy and human rights
as something that children do not yet deserve and that
an implicit adulthood is used as the standard of a real
citizen (Moosa-Mitha, 2005). If we instead reflect on the
basis of alternative models of citizenship—models that
put difference at their centre—we can see possibilities
of defining children’s citizenship in ways that take chil-
dren’s rights and status as citizens seriously, due to their
identities as children rather than despite them (Moosa-
Mitha, 2005).
Moosa-Mitha takes as a starting-point the more fluid
and pluralistic way in which feminist theorists discuss dif-
ference by thinking about citizenship as situated in a poli-
tics of solidarity; a transversal politics where citizens with
multiple subject positions get together and enact resis-
tance against oppression (Moosa-Mitha, 2005). Moosa-
Mitha also uses the concept differently-equal, as pro-
posed by Yuval-Davies (1999). By emphasizing difference
before equality, Yuval-Davies suggests that it is through
difference that equality is defined and that difference
can become the very foundation of citizenship, rather
than a place of exclusion (Moosa-Mitha 2005; Yuval-
Davies, 1999).
Moosa-Mitha discusses how difference is related to
citizens’ experiences of belonging and participation, and
how citizenship is thus characterized by a recognition
of citizens’ differences regarding specific historical cir-
cumstances, vulnerabilities, and interests. The concept
of participation can be widened to encompass an under-
standing of participation as an expression of agency, no
matter how differently that agency is expressed. Pres-
ence is central in this understanding. It is not enough to
have a voice; in order to have a presence in society, one’s
voice also has to be heard. Not to acknowledge the pres-
ence of a citizen is itself a form of oppression (Moosa-
Mitha, 2005). Being treated as an equal member of so-
ciety means having one’s personal concerns viewed as
questions of general importance. Since participation in
the public sphere is so important for this, an exclusion
from participation implies that one is excluded from be-
ing able to perform one’s citizenship.
An alternative view of children’s rights of equality
would focus on normative assumptions and beliefs of
social institutions that are gendered, racialized and
adultist, and which exclude children from belonging
as equals both within and outside the family. (Moosa-
Mitha, 2005)
For children, belonging as equals in society is a prerequi-
site for being able to participate in democratic processes
and being able to be understood as political subjects.
5. Childism
John Wall follows the same route as Mehmoona Moosa-
Mitha in discussing the concept of childism. Childism is a
concept that was coined by two different theorists and it
has two different meanings. I will here assume the defini-
tion of John Wall, which is completely opposed to Young-
Bruehl’s definition as discrimination against children (cf.,
sexism and ageism). Wall’s definition is about redefining
central norms so that they can include children’s expe-
riences, which is exactly what Moosa-Mitha discusses.
The whole theory of human rights is constructed around
adulthood. In all of the justifications of why humans
should have human rights, children are placed in a posi-
tion of lacking the right to have rights (Wall, 2008). Rights
belong to rational subjects and throughout western his-
tory rationality has been discussed as a qualification pos-
sessed by the adult subject, but not by the child. In
this understanding, children can only be nurtured, disci-
plined, or educated into rational individuals (Wall, 2008).
The inclusion of children in democratic processes re-
quires an extended concept of the political subject and
the political terrain. According to Wall, this new concept,
which is analogous to feminism, queer theory, and en-
vironmentalism, is childism. In discussing concepts such
as agency and representation in relation to political in-
clusion, Wall points out that the idea of politics as an ex-
pression of agency is not a new one, but derives from the
Enlightenment. Until now, it has been possible to con-
ceive of children as second-class citizens because agency
is connected to an autonomous and independent adult-
hood. Agency is, in itself, a political norm based on a
historical, adult-centred preconception. This understand-
ing of agency attempts to fit children into political con-
structions which take adulthood as their starting point,
rather than challenging the constructions themselves
(Wall, 2012).
The result of this is the proposal of a model where
children’s political citizenship is based on interdepen-
dence, which is about an individual’s simultaneous active
independence and passive dependence. The advantage
of basing citizenship on interdependence rather than
agency is that children and adults then become more
equal. However, according to Wall, children’s voices will
still be marginalized in such a dialogue because of the
historical oppression against them. What is needed is a
political
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 166
a political space where children are entitled to express
their own views and claim their difference toward others
(Wall, 2012).
Regarding the difference model advocated by Moosa-
Mitha, Wall argues that this model has the advantage of
giving children the chance to claim historical marginaliza-
tion. The difference model can be used to deconstruct
the normative assumptions which view children as not
being complete political subjects. The difference model
also makes it clear that children are not a homogeneous
group but, like all other age categorizations, are living
under various circumstances and therefore might partic-
ipate in politics in various ways. However, Wall argues
that the model is nevertheless problematic because one
of the most significant ways in which children are “differ-
ent” is that they generally have less experience in fighting
for political power (Wall, 2012). Age has an actual effect
on one’s ability to execute political action and children
have usually participated in political life for fewer years
than adults. Age implies a genuine difference when it
comes to the ability to fight on behalf of one’s difference
(Wall, 2012). The solution to this problem, Wall argues,
is to rethink the foundations of political representation
in a way that is simultaneously both interdependent and
difference-oriented.
This can be done, I now argue, by learning about the
larger meaning of democracy from children’s particu-
lar experiences. What is learned is that political repre-
sentation should ultimately mean empowering lived
differences to make a difference to interdependent
political structures. The negative aim of deconstruct-
ing power meets the positive aim of creating com-
munity in the truly democratic aim of a difference-
responsive political whole. (Wall, 2012)
Wall emphasizes that children can be understood as polit-
ically responsible. Being politically represented does not
only mean expressing one’s own interests, but rather,
along with others, creating a more diversely constructed
political whole (Wall, 2012).
6. The Youth Council of Gothenburg: An Attempt to
Include Children in Democratic Processes
Some attempts have been made to include children in
the political context and cater for children’s right to
participation. These include, for example, the child and
youth parliaments that are available in at least 30 coun-
tries, either on a national or a municipal level. These par-
liaments are often initiated by adults and researchers in
the field have discussed how adults in many ways simul-
taneously extend and shrink the political and civil par-
ticipation of children and young people (Kawecka Nenga
& Taft, 2013). Youth councils and children’s parliaments
have also been criticized by researchers for being elitist,
adult-led, and empty symbols of participation (Gordon &
Taft, 2011). Researchers have also discussed examples of
children’s parliaments where children and youth exercise
direct, political power and achieve significant differences
in their societies (Wall, 2012). Some relatively new move-
ments are working for child-friendly cities and build upon
a growing attention to “the rights to the city”. This refers
not only to individual access to resources, but also to ex-
ercising collective power in order to promote urban de-
velopment. Child-friendly cities not only aim to provide
safe and accessible spaces but also opportunities for chil-
dren’s and young people’s participation in local decision-
making (Flanders Cushing & van Vliet, 2016). The city of
Gothenburg has the explicit aim of being “a children’s
and youth city” and it is declared that “the young per-
spective is especially important to the decision-makers
of the city” and also that a goal of the city is that “young
citizens of Gothenburg shall be given increased opportu-
nities to influence” (City of Gothenburg, n.d.).
Gothenburg has had a Youth Council since 2004. The
website of this Council states that:
The Youth Council consists of 101 young people from
all districts of Gothenburg. In the Youth Council,
young people between 12–17 years of age meet and
discuss various questions concerning young people in
Gothenburg. It is the young people themselves who
decide which questions are to be discussed. Via the
Youth Council, you who are young have the opportu-
nity to influence municipal committees, boards, com-
panies, and administrations. (Youth Council, n.d.)
My overall intention in researching the Youth Council
was to examine how children and adults cooperate in
projects like this, projects aiming at children’s right to par-
ticipate in society. It was when I attended a conference
during which the Youth Council presented their work that
I first began to pay attention to the Youth Council. At the
conference, an adult in the audience suggested a topic
she considered adequate for the Youth Council to engage
in: boys taking a lot of space in the classroom at the
expense of girls. The Youth Council chairperson on the
stage agreed with the problem at first, but then reacted
with slight annoyance and responded that that should be
the responsibility of the teachers and that more impor-
tantly it is the Youth Council members themselves, not
adults, that formulate the issues they want to work with.
On this occasion, I came to reflect on the possibility of
adults taking over the privilege to formulate issues that
they think is appropriate for the Youth Council to engage
in and the consequences of such an approach.
During the two years that I have followed the work of
the Youth Council, it has become clear to me that much
of the Council’s work is aimed at ending the segregation
between different parts of Gothenburg. Public transport,
for example, has been a matter of great concern. Over
the past ten years, the Youth Council has been working
on the issue of expanded and free public transport. Their
accomplishments have included the securing of free pub-
lic transport for all schoolchildren until 10 pm on week-
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 167
days (instead of 7 pm), as well as a summer holiday card
which gives free travel for all schoolchildren between
the ages of 12 and 17 for three months during the sum-
mer. It is my understanding that the Youth Council con-
sider public transport a question of justice on two levels:
firstly, children and young people should not have to be
dependent on their parents or guardians; and secondly,
children and young people should be able to travel any-
where in the city and not be limited to a particular area.
In a meeting concerning public transport, the mem-
bers of the Youth Council argue in favour of free public
transport for children and youth. The adults invited to
the meeting, a politician and a delegate from a transport
company, do not agree with the Youth Council’s descrip-
tion of children and youth as a particularly vulnerable
group in society when it comes to economic issues. One
of the adults says: “Free public transport for children and
youth would promote justice and integration more for
young people than for other groups. Justice is a broad
concept.” A Youth Council member argues: “As an adult,
you create your own life but as a child you are born into
an economic situation. You have less opportunity to in-
fluence your economic situation.” In doing this, the Youth
Council member is making the general power differences
between children and adults explicit and the age order,
which is often invisible and unproblematized, is made vis-
ible. After some exchanges of views, the adults at last
agree with the Youth Council members’ arguments about
the specific experiences of being children and being de-
pendent on adults. It is an example of childism when
the Youth Council members, from their positions as non-
adults, claim that their position differs from the privi-
leged position of adults, in terms of dependence and the
possibility of influencing one’s life conditions (Field notes
2016-05-09).
I have attended several meetings and workshops initi-
ated by the Youth Council to which they had invited adult
politicians and officials. Sometimes I have recognized
that the adults are doubtful about or question the ideas
and proposals presented by the Youth Council. However,
I have never seen such resistance from the adults as re-
garding the water slide discussed below. For this reason,
I found it a particularly interesting case to examine.
During the summer of 2015, the Youth Council
wanted to organise a 140-metre-long water slide at the
annual Gothenburg Culture Festival. The aim of the wa-
ter slide was to “create a meeting space for young people
from all districts. The Youth Council believes that meet-
ings between young people from various backgrounds
and conditions contribute to greater integration” (Offi-
cial statement on 2015-05-19 ref: 1130/15). The Youth
Council would also inform about their work in connec-
tion to the water slide in order to reach more children
and youth.
The Youth Council have an annual funding of 300 000
Swedish kronor (equivalent to about 31 663 euros) and
the cost of organising the water slide was calculated at
165 000 Swedish kronor. Since this would exceed 10 000
Swedish kronor, the Youth Council, according to a regu-
lation, had to ask permission from the City Council. The
response from the City Council consisted of two texts,
one from each political bloc. I will now discuss how adult
norms are both made visible (and thus challenged) and
made invisible (and thus reproduced) in the texts. One of
the political blocs stated:
The Youth Council is an important part of the City’s
work to increase participation and impact among
young people. Consequently, it is important to reach
out widely among the young people of the City so that
as many as possible get the opportunity to be heard.
To increase the awareness of the Youth Council and its
work is thus an important part of the work….A consid-
erable sum of the Youth Council’s budget will be used
to rent a so-called water slide which will be the centre
of attention for the activities of the Youth Council and
act as a draw. This is a priority that may seem strange
to many adults. However, the idea of the youth coun-
cil was not that all of its decisions should be like the
ones that adults would have made, but that new per-
spectives should come through….Last but not least we
would like to offer the idea of not having an upper age
limit, so that we who are older also get an opportunity
to try the water slide (Opinion S,MP,V Gothenburg City
Council 2015-06-10. Errand 2.2.5).
The other opinion was formulated thus:
It is unusual, if it has even ever happened, that the
City Council have felt it necessary to contradict a pro-
posal from The Youth Council. However, the current
proposal has a scope and design that cannot pass un-
noticed. Firstly, the proposal provokes thoughts about
the size of the budget. The budget of 300 000 cor-
responds to the full annual city tax payment of five
wage earners. There are a lot of working hours be-
hind this money that the Youth Council can dispose
of freely. Now the Youth Council wishes to use half
of that money on a water slide (Opinion M, FP,KD.
Gothenburg City Council 2015-06-10. Errand 2.2.5).
The opinions from the City Council are examples of
speech acts where the adult norm is reproduced but also
challenged. In the first text, a problematizing of the adult
norm is formulated: “This is a priority that may seem
strange to many adults”, with the effect that the adult
norm is no longer naturalized but rather made visible. It
is also emphasized here that the idea behind the Youth
Council is to enable new perspectives and promote de-
cisions that adults perhaps would not make, which is a
formulation that points to a childistic perspective: that
the right to define what is politically important does not
solely belong to adults but to children as well. The last
sentence of the opinion is a playful way of breaking up
the power relation through an appeal not to exclude
adult water slide riders.
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 168
The second text contains different formulations
which are not as playful. That the “five wage earners”
are adults does not need to be written and as a result
the power relation the opinion is based on is made invisi-
ble. These “working hours” are contrasted with the state-
ment that the Youth Council “dispose…freely” of 300 000
Swedish kronor every year, and the opinion ends with a
call for a review of how the Youth Council’s money has
been used in recent years:
We would like a review of how the Youth Council’s
budget has been used in recent years. The support
given to the Youth Council given by the City needs
to combine the procurement of young people’s ideas
with expertise in how the aims of the initiatives are
best met.
The emphasis that the Youth Council “freely” has respon-
sibility for 300 000 Swedish kronor and the contrasting of
this sum against the working hours behind it have a disci-
plinary undertone. The fact that children are not given
the possibility of performing professional work under
the same conditions as adults, both due to compulsory
school attendance and various age limitations in work-
ing life, and thus are not given the same opportunities
as adults to contribute to the economy of the society is
made invisible. Adult norms remain naturalized through
the speech act in the opinion. Moreover, the request for
“a review of how the Youth Councils budget has been
used in recent years” could be interpreted as a threat.
Is the Youth Council really capable of dealing with that
much money? What have they actually accomplished?
Formulations like “the support…given by the City” and
“expertise” imply that adult power is active; that adults
have the power to define what is right and wrong in rela-
tion to the assignment of the Youth Council. “Expertise”
is formulated as something adults can possess and offer
children rather than something that the members of the
Youth Council can have themselves.
The adult politicians do not seem to consider the pos-
sibility that the members of the Youth Council have them-
selves already discussed the high cost of the water slide.
However, such a discussion did take place and some of
the members were doubtful whether it was “worth such
a large part of our budget”. One member said:
I am doubtful of the idea. It’s good to have a deeper
thought behind an activity so we fulfil our aims….If
you consider the adults in society who’ve been work-
ing and paying taxes…we’re responsible for every
krona we’re using from the municipality. It is more
important than the water slide. It can give quite the
wrong signals. I think we should spend the money on
something useful. (Field notes 2015-04-20)
This member’s argumentation against the water slide
aroused protests among the other members, but one
partly agreed:
I am ambivalent. It’s a lot of money, but it’s a good
cause. Of course, some people will think that it’s a
waste and that it’d be better to invest in something
serious (Field notes 2015-04-20).
Thus, the adult norms were not upheld solely by individu-
als who are categorized as adults—and this is how norms
work. Norms are not only reproduced or challenged by
the groups which benefit from the norm; we all con-
tribute to them (Butler, 1993).
7. Childism: Reclaiming the Childish and Making
Fundamental Change
The water slide finally got clearance from the City Coun-
cil and following a cold spell the weather changed in time
for the August days during which the event was held. The
local paper Göteborgs-Posten reported that “Thousands
got to try the water slide. There were at least 6 500 rides
on the 140-metre-long water ride this week-end” (Mar-
tinsson, 2015).
The chairperson of the Youth Council during 2015,
Morgan Landström, was quoted in the print version of
Göteborgs-Posten as saying:
We wanted to contribute to the Culture Festival and a
water slide feels at the same time summery and child-
ish. To us, it is important to create a place of commu-
nity and openness for the youth of Gothenburg. (Dal-
ghi, 2015)
Here, Morgan is reclaiming the word childish by using it
in a clearly positive way. Refusing to accept the idea that
childishness should represent anything negative is a way
to challenge current adult norms.
One reason for the City Council’s approval of the wa-
ter slide was the idea that the Youth Council should evalu-
ate whether the event really did become a meeting place
for young people from all over Gothenburg. The Youth
Council thus performed a survey asking what districts the
water slide riders came from. The results showed that
children and young people came from all over Gothen-
burg to ride the water slide, and that the event got very
good reviews: “The result is, to say the least, a positive
one; 99% of the respondents had a positive opinion and
41% felt that a water slide was the best idea ever. No
one thought that it was rubbish or bad” (Youth Coun-
cil, 2015).
How, then, can we understand the possibilities of
including children in democratic processes and under-
standing them as political subjects? How can a childistic
perspective challenge the adult norms which set limits
on this? Childism implies thinking in a new way and en-
abling a broader understanding of democracy through
the specific experiences of children. The positions which
decide what is to be considered politically important are
held by adults. Child and youth parliaments can have the
effect of leading children to embrace adult values but
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 169
they can also enable children to challenge the political
worlds surrounding them in surprising and unforeseen
ways (Wall, 2012). The discussion about the water slide
exemplifies the thoughts of Mehmoona Moosa-Mithas
and John Walls about how children’s own lived realities
and subjective experiences can dissolve adulthood’s con-
struction of power (Moosa-Mitha, 2005; Wall, 2012). A
truly child-inclusive society is not a society where chil-
dren are simply made into the equals of adults, but rather
a society that allows itself to change fundamentally in an-
swer to what makes children different (Wall, 2010). Hu-
man rights have always pointed to something beyond
that which has been thought hitherto. The perspective
of children can extend what it means to be human be-
yond “the white noise of adult-centrism” (Wall, 2010).
8. Conclusions
In this article, I have discussed the kind of resistance chil-
dren and young people can meet when they are partici-
pating in democratic processes. The example of the water
slide and the reactions to the proposal show the difficul-
ties that children and young people are faced with during
such participation and how they are questioned by adult
norms. Every political proposal has to be open to criti-
cism and this includes proposals from the Youth Council.
However, it is how this is done that is interesting if one
wants to try to understand what hinders children’s partici-
pation and presence in society. The purpose of the Youth
Council’s water slide was to create a meeting place for
children and young people in Gothenburg and the Coun-
cil succeeded in creating this despite the resistance that
they encountered. Childism is about being able to rede-
fine the political landscape. The example of the Gothen-
burg Youth Council is not about changing the legislation
or rephrasing policies but about the right to belong un-
der the same conditions as adults and to be involved in
defining what should count as politically important.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the members of the Youth Coun-
cil of Gothenburg, and the council’s coordinator Paula Ai-
jmer, who kindly let me take part in their work. It has been
really joyful and interesting for me to listen to the Youth
Council’s discussions and take part in their experiences.
Conflicts of Interests
The author declares no conflict of interests.
References
Alanen, L. (1988). Rethinking childhood. Acta Sociologica,
31.
Alanen, L. (1992). Modern childhood? Exploring the ‘child
question’ in sociology. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Institute
for Educational Research.
Archard, D. (1993). Children. Rights and childhood. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. On the discursive
limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.
City of Gothenburg. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://
www.goteborg2021.com/jubileumsprojekt/av-och-
med-unga
Dalghi, B. (2015, August 15). Blöt fest vid Näckros-
dammen. Göteborgs-Posten.
Flanders Cushing, D., & van Vliet, W. (2016). Chil-
dren’s right to the city: The emergence of youth
council in the United States. Children’s Geographies.
doi:10.1080/14733285.2016.1244602
Freeman, M. (2011). Children’s rights as human rights.
Reading the UNCRC. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M.-
S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood
studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gordon, H. R., & Taft, J. K. (2011). Rethinking youth polit-
ical socialization: Teenage activists talk back. Youth &
Society,43(4), 1499–1527.
Hockey, J., & James, A. (1993). Growing up and growing
old. Ageing and dependency in the life course. Lon-
don: Sage.
James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990). Constructing and re-
constructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the so-
ciological study of childhood. London: Fallmer Press.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing child-
hood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kawecka Nenga, S., & Taft, J. K. (2013). Youth engage-
ment: The civic-political lives of children and youth
(Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, Volume
16). Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.
Krekula, C., & Johansson, B. (2017). En introduktion till
kritiska åldersstudier. In C. Krekula & B Johansson
(Eds.), Kritiska åldersstudier. Lund: Studentlitteratur
AB.
Krekula, C., & Närvänen, A.-L., & Näsman, E. (2005). Ålder
i intersektionell analys. Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift,
2005(2–3).
Martinsson, A. (2015, August 17). Tusentals fick prova
jätterutschkanan. Göteborgs-Posten. Retrieved from:
http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.2804053-tu
sentals-fick-prova-jatterutschkanan
Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005). A difference-centered alterna-
tive to theorization of children’s citizenship rights. Cit-
izenship Studies,9(4), 369–388.
Nakata, S. (2015). Childhood citizenship, governance
and policy. The politics of becoming adult. London:
Routledge.
Närvänen, A.-L. (2009). Ålder, livslopp, åldersordning.
In H. Jönsson (Ed.), Ålder, åldersordning, ålderism.
Linköping: Linköpings universitet.
Närvänen, A-L., & Näsman, E. (2007). Age order and chil-
dren’s agency. In H. Wintersberger, L. Alanen, T. Olk,
& J. Qvortrup (Eds.), Childhood, generational order
and the welfare state: Exploring children’s social and
economic welfare. Odense: University Press of South-
ern Denmark.
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 170
Näsman, E. (2004). Barndom, barn och barns rätt. In L.
Olsen (Ed.), Barns makt. Uppsala: Iustus Förlag.
Official Statement. Gothenburg City Council 2015-05-19.
Ref 1130/15.
Opinion S,MP,V Gothenburg City Council 2015-06-10. Er-
rand 2.2.5.
Opinion M, FP,KD. Gothenburg City Council 2015-06-10.
Errand 2.2.5.
Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children. From family to
global human rights. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction.
In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, H. Wintersberger
(Eds.), Childhood matters. Social theory, practice and
politics. Aldershot: Avebury.
Sjöberg, J. (2013). I marknaden öga. Barn och visuell
konsumtion (Linköping Studies in Art and Science No
581). Linköping: Linköpings universitet, Institutionen
för Tema.
Sundhall, J. (2012). Kan barn tala? En genusvetenskaplig
undersökning av ålder i familjerättsliga utredning-
stexter. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, institutio-
nen för kulturvetenskaper.
Thorne, B. (1987). Re-visioning women and social
change: Where are the Children? Gender & Society,
1(1), 85–109.
Wall, J. (2008). Human rights in light of childhood. Inter-
national Journal of Children’s Rights,16, 523–543.
Wall, J. (2010). Ethics in light of childhood. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wall, J. (2012). Can democracy represent children?
Toward a politics of difference. Childhood,19(1),
86–100.
Youth Council. (n.d.). Retrieved from ungdomsfull
maktige.se/homepage/home-v5
Youth Council. (2015). Survey waterslide.
Yuval-Davies, N. (1999). Ethnicity, gender relations and
multiculturalism. In R. D. Torres, L. F. Miron, & I. J.
Xavier (Eds.), Race, identity and citizenship: A reader.
Oxford: Blackwell.
About the Author
Jeanette Sundhall has a PhD in Gender Studies and works as a Senior Lecturer at the Department
of Cultural Sciences, University of Gothenburg. Her research interests concern age categorizations,
children’s rights, and power orders and she is particularly interested in how ideas about adulthood are
formulated and performed.
Social Inclusion, 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 164–171 171
