Citizen Youth Kennelly Summary

III. Oversimplification of Youth Structures: Critiques and Alternatives Each research question and argument (outlined in the previous paragraph) establishes the contents of the book. Citizen Youth is an incredibly interesting analysis of contemporary youth activism. Kennelly draws upon many different anthropological, political and geographic approaches to create an engaging book. Unfortunately, the argument surround this paragraph focuses on Kennelly’s large generalization of the youth activist. In certain sections of the book, Kennelly draws stark generalizations that most activists react and originate the same in different cities, and different types of activism. While at the same time, Kennelly does not address narratives from youth who

By focusing on such a specific group of youth, Kennelly neglects the capabilities, opportunities and situations of others. The term “youth” encompasses a large number of individuals whom vary in social, racial, economic and cultural structures. By ignoring many subcategories, Kennelly has a misconstrued definition of Canadian youth. For example, large amounts of young people are participating in more informal every day ways, even amongst youth who are not especially politically radical or inclined towards subcultures (Harris, Wyn, & Younes, 2010). If Kennelly’s observed a broader population, her thesis would be sound. By focusing on the Canadian youth mainly involved in university subcultures, she ignores other subcultures that do not depict normative involvement. Specifically, she ignores subcultures that cannot access certain levels of postsecondary education. These assertions are incredibly problematic to addressing Kennelly’s overarching thesis. Since certain “relational agencies” are ignored, the reader can assume only one certain type of habitus exists; a habitus that allows postsecondary enrollment. For example, if an individual did not enroll in post-secondary education, but was still politically engaged, he or she would be excluded from the analysis. Farthing (2010) notes that, within non-institutional settings,

Kennelly uses examples of “Radical Frosh” in Montreal (p. 119), activist cultures in Vancouver (p. 122), and groups in Toronto like OCAP (p. 120). In this instance, there must be a common consensus that youths indeed become politically active through relationships. However, by effectively arguing that situations in different cities create the same outcome, Kennelly generalizes the impact of Canadian cities. For example, Montreal is a city that promotes many progressive ideals based on a set of social-democratic values that are inherent in Quebec culture (Bégin-Caouette & Jones, 2014). Vancouver, on the other hand, is not necessarily known for the same embedded notions of civic engagement. These differences create the asymmetrical and often decentralized Canada we see today. By generalizing both cities into similar cultures, histories and political milieu, Kennelly creates an inaccurate idea of Canada. Rather than focusing on institutions within the city, she could focus on institutions in the context of each city. If Kennelly observed other means of “developing relationships,” her thesis could be more appropriate for the larger Canadian population. Because of this disconnect between political, cultural, and social realities, the legitimacy of the book is minimized. However, the book is still important to the field of youth politics as a