
“Intersectionality and inclusion” explores the demographic factors linked to youth political participation. It begins by outlining the limitations in this area of research before summarising what is known about the intersection of gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity with regards to youth participation.
A range of studies have considered how the experiences of different social groups may vary within the youth cohort when engaged in youth participation activities. These studies explore the intersection of youth and other social identities (Earl et al 2017), but they do not always adopt intersectionality (Crenshaw 2017). Martyn et al (2019) provide a review of research on demographic factors linked to youth participation concluding that “there are widespread differences in young people’s civic and political engagement as a function of their social economic status, gender, and ethnicity. However, the differences that have been found are by no means either universal or consistent. Furthermore, the differences that are linked to demographic categories are complex, with patterns of engagement sometimes being specific to particular subgroups defined in terms of the intersection between two or more demographic categories”. So, whilst identities such as gender and race might be better thought of not as individual attributes but social attributes that enable or delimit youth political involvement (Chryssochoou et al 2017), few, if any, studies have conceptualised youth participation with a fully intersectional lens.
The extent of research into demographic marginalisation within youth participation has also only been sufficient to establish broad tentative patterns. It is generally understood that “if [young people] are to enter the public sphere in its current form, they do so on an extremely unequal footing. The public sphere is not neutral in terms of age, race, socioeconomic background, or gender. Unequally powerful groups develop unequally valued styles of operating with the result that subordinate groups are marginalised or excluded” (Bessant 2003). However, the precise patterns and structures of marginalisation across different social groups as they intersect with youth are not robustly identified. The research is sufficient to identify some trends relating to gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, but lacking in areas such as sexuality and disability. Strong inferences can potentially be made from research into adult participation; it might be presumed that patterns of political exclusion within adulthood would be mirrored in youth (Labanesi et al 2012), but some scholars argue against this, as democracies have changed over time and the experience of democracy for young people will be different historically compared to older generations. (Barrett et al 2019).
Gender
A wide body of research on gender differences in adult political participation has strongly established that women are less likely to consider being involved in political activities than men (Pfanzelt et al 2019). These differences are largely attributed to gender socialisation processes (Zanie et al 2012) and constraints on women by psychological, familial, and societal factors (Martyn et al 2019).
The limited number of studies directly on youth and gender indicate a more complex picture. Gender differences are identified in levels of political knowledge, efficacy, and interest, but not necessarily always in favour of young men (Cicognani et al 2012, Martyn et al 2019). Some studies have failed to find gender differences (Gaby 2016, Martyn et al 2019, Orfan 2020). It is possible that newer generations have experienced different political socialisation patterns with regard to gender (Barrett et al 2019) or that other factors, such as age of a democracy may be more influential than gender on young people (Mirazchiyski et al 2014). Discrimination and constraints faced by young women when entering participation spaces, or engaging in activism are still routinely identified (Earl et al 2017). Overall, it is clear that young women are growing up in a world which is politically gendered, but the extent to which that will have changed by the time they are adults is not clear.
It is argued, but not concluded, that there are preferences for different forms of participation between genders. Young women have been argued to have a preference towards social movements (Hooghe et al 2004), non-institutional forms (Pfanzelt et al 2019), or participation that can be undertaken more privately in the home such as signing petitions (Marien et al 2010). Young men are argued to be more attracted to traditional politics such as voting (Barrett et al 2019). These patterns may not be consistent across countries and are attached to expectations of women’s versus men’s rights, duties, and behaviour, as well as policies to promote female participation (Barrett et al 2019), and opportunities for women within the countries (Cicognani et al 2012). Literature in this area is also highly affected by terminological inconsistencies regarding forms of participation, making many studies difficult to directly compare.
See also: chapter on youth in political affairs.
Socioeconomic status
Compared to research into other demographic factors, the link between socioeconomic status (SES) and youth political participation is much more strongly demonstrated, particularly when education is taken into account. Research in adults has routinely found that those who have a higher SES (measured by income, employment, and education) display higher levels of engagement. With education being the most powerful predictor of many forms of political and civic participation. This finding is mirrored in young people, though SES amongst youth is typically measured by parental employment, parental income, and/or parental educational achievement (Barrett et al 2019). Research into SES and youth political participation has still demonstrated some of the strongest links, identifying trends relating to political knowledge, efficacy, behavioural intention, and attitudes toward democracy (Grasso et al 2022; Gaby 2012; Diemer 2012). Patterns amongst young people do vary by country, particularly with regard to links between SES and future voting intention or political behaviour, where psychological factors play a more significant role (Barrett et al 2019). SES remains the most clearly identified vector of marginalisation intersecting with youth.
Ethnicity and migration status
Political participation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds varies according to a wide range of psychological and demographic factors, including their knowledge of civic and political institutions, their political values, their linguistic skills, their social capital, migration history, SES, and gender (Zani et al 2012). Patterns of exclusion therefore vary both between majority and minority groups, but also between minority groups and within minority groups, linked not only to ethnicity and gender, but to the intersection between ethnicity and gender within a particular locale and country (Barrett et al 2019).
Within this complex situation, research into youth political participation has revealed widespread differences between ethnic majority and minority groups in patterns of political engagement across most continents and countries as well as in the psychological and social factors that predict participation (Barrett et al 2019). The extent to which ethnicity relates to migration plays a variable role. Political participation might be a difficult issue for immigrant youth to manage, as it requires deciding whether to participate in the society they have been born into or to remain attached to their society of origins (Grigoropoulou & Chryssochoou, 2011). This may apply less to minority groups or individuals with less or no connection to immigration, such as those young people educated to the same level as their majority group peers and with proficiency in the national language (Barrett et al 2019).
Some research has argued that, when other factors such as SES (Quintelier 2009) and reduced access to resources or political representatives (Earl et al 2017) are taken into account, ethnicity and immigration status do not play a significant role in youth participation. That is to say that people with similar class and resource levels engage in participation in a similar way even if they are of different immigration status. Ethnic minority individuals frequently have lower SES than members of the ethnic majority groups so at least some of the differences in levels of political engagement are a factor of SES and educational attainment (Barrett et al 2019; Quintelier 2009). Though if the reduced levels of participation of minority youths are due to their overrepresentation within lower SES groups, the end outcome remains the same.
There is some research to indicate motivation and methods of mobilisation may vary with ethnic groups, but this is highly limited (Chryssochoou et al 2017; Earl et al 2017; Hope et al 2014). The research is emphasised by the limited number of countries it has been carried out within; there is insufficient work overall to establish the extent to which demographic patterns are country/region specific, and which are more global. It is identified that participation among minority youth may be reduced by institutional and social discrimination, but experiences of discrimination may also play a galvanising role (Barrett et al 2019; Earl et al 2017).