Tapio Kuure
In the history of sociology the most well known discourse on the problem youth is connected to the concepts norm and deviant behaviour. So called sociology of deviance draws the long line from the old Chicago school in 1920`s via Parsonsian sociology in 1950´s to the constructionist sociology of outsiders in 1960`s a´la Howard S. Becker. The problem youth was displaced by youth culture in the analysis of 1970`s by Birgmingham school. During 1980´s and 1990`s the “underclass” debate both in its´ conservative and radical version focused on risk behaviour of the underdog young people.1
The change of the concept risk took place during 1990`s in the transformation of the welfare state´s social policy, based in paid labour, into so called new liberalism, based in entrepreneurship. According to the new liberalist missionaries the ethos of paid labour was changing into the ethos of entrepreneurship.
The concept of risk in the use of new liberalism is to be traced back in management science, from where the most of new concepts are coming from, e.g. self management, time management and risk analysis. The management –type –of – concepts took their space not only in the discourse of social sciences but in our everyday life as well. In the new liberalism way of thinking the individual (no more talking about citizen) must be able to take risks. Taking risks is normal and acceptable behaviour in new liberalist society. To put briefly, if you are as person not able to take risks, you are a looser. As an individual, you must have competences to make risk analysis of your own. If your analysis is wrong, or under some circumstances you take too big risks, you are going into trouble. If you are going into too big trouble, you will loose your contact to the world outside.
1 Ulrich Beck`s risk concept is structural in formulas like individualization of risks in reflective modern, while underclass debate, especially in its` conservative version concentrate into the individual`s everyday life and regeneration process.
However, in Finland we do not have any pure new liberalism. Most structures of welfare state still remains and the vocabulary used in definition of individuals´
problems are still based on social sciences. This does not mean that concept of risk is left outside from the covernance of society. The concept of risk is used in the identification of risks and measuring the risks. The new information technology gives all the time updated data to the politicians and civil servants to formulate “knowledge based management” and “evidence based politics”. The risks are identified and measured in the construction process of social indicators. After the first wave of social indicators debate in 1970`s we have now the second wave, started in the middle of 1990`s.
The social indicators used in Finnish youth policy are based on concept “young people´s living conditions”, developed in the beginning of 1990`s in the Ministry of Education. The variables are quite traditional ones. In the internet data base (free for everyone in http://www.nuoret.org/) there are over 100 variables concerning living conditions. The variables are divided into 10 sections
- employment - education - housing
- internal and international move - parenting
- income - health - crime
- accidents and deaths - exclusion
The variables that are indicating risk behaviour are quite rough in comparing with other sections: sentences set by courts, amount of accidents, suicides, deaths. The conventional risk analysis used in youth policy is based on three variables: the amount of young people who do not have any particularly place to go after compulsory school, so called status zer0 youth - without a work, outside upper secondary schooling or training or they are long-term users of social benefits.
The well-or ill-being variables, developed and used by STAKES are more focusing to the problem behaviour than variables on young people`s living conditions. The variables are divided into 8 sections:
- teenage pregnancies - suicides and injuries - employment and income - child welfare
- smoking and substance abuse - social relations and sexuality - schoolwork and health
- juvenile delinquency
How about young people themselves? What are their own experiences about uncertainty and risks in their life?
In the survey, conducted by Jani Eerola, young people were asked about their own experiences of uncertainty (Eerola 2004). The list was quite different than official lists of problems. Young people, age between 18-29 in the end of the year 2003 worried about:
- environment
- attitudes and values in present society - international politics
- aging of population
Young people were not worried about their - income
- safety and welfare of their family - continuity of social relationship
In the same survey young people were asked about their feelings of risks: In what kind of things risks are connected in your life? The risks were located in:
- drugs
- guarantee somebody`s loan - gambling
- stock-market - own enterprise
- one night stand –type of sexual relationships - short-term loans
The risks were not seen in drinking alcohol, going out in the evening or discussing with strangers.
Many criminological studies have shown that the feeling of uncertainty or risk and the street levele reality of getting into trouble do not necessarily correlate. The most typical examples are young men, who do not have fear to go out in the night, but they actually are the most likely victims or perperators in the context of street violence. In order to get coherent picture about the uncertainties that we live with, we have to get data from both sides, from official statistic organizers and from the feelings of citizens.
The new kind of information society with its` updated data based on registers and surveys gives us a lot of information about the living conditions, attitudes, beliefs, opinions and fears of citizens. The dream of knowledge based management and evidence based politics in the modern history of mankind has produced totalitarian nightmares. The strategy to avoid the totalitarian nightmare in the future is transparency, one of the basic concepts in the White book of governance in the European Union and in the Lisbon strategy of the Union. The key element in the transparency of society is the transparency of data production and open dialogue both in data production and interpretation of the data.