Child en,
ci izenship
and c isis: owa ds
a pa icipa o y
agenda
Ana Nunes de Almeida
Ana So ia Ribei o
Jussa a Rowland
5.
114 ci izenship in c isis
in oduc ion
Child en’s ci izenship has become a majo heme in con empo a y social
policy and science deba es, and child en’s igh s ha e g adually eme ged as
benchma ks o many na ional, egional o local policy na a i es, consis en
wi h he un Con en ion on he Righ s o he Child (un 1989). Indeed, he
unc c concep o ci izenship encompasses, o he i s ime, pa icipa ion,
p o ision bu also pa icipa ion igh s. The a en ion has ocused no only
on child en’s “supe io in e es ” bu also on hei agency capaci ies and hei
pa icipa o y igh s, conside ing hem ac i e and compe en ac o s in social
ela ionships, who ha e a oice, i espec i e o hose o adul s. C ises, caused
by disas e s, economic and social ad e si ies a e momen s o dis up ion
whe e he p e-exis ing unequal social ies be ween indi iduals o g oups in
socie y become mo e isible, e idencing di e en access o ci izenship s a us.
Child en ha e e y o en been po ayed as passi e and helpless ic ims o
as ulne able ecipien s o aid in c isis si ua ions, wi h li le a en ion gi en
o hei abili y o pe cei e and in e p e hese phenomena, o wha hey can
con ibu e o public policies ha add ess hese issues.
The chap e discusses he ela ion be ween child en, ci izenship and c isis,
based on wo esea ch p ojec s ocussing on he pe spec i es and oles o child en
in c ises, ei he o an economic na u e (“Po uguese Child en and he C isis”)
o clima e change ela ed disas e s (“cuida : Cul u es o Disas e Resilience
among Child en and Young People”). I add esses he impo ance o including
child en’s pe spec i es in c isis na a i es ( he igh o be hea d) and ad oca es a
pa icipa o y agenda ecognising child en’s agency and compe ence o be ac i e
pa icipan s in policy p ocesses ha conce n no only hei p esen , bu also
hei u u e ( he igh o pa icipa e). I ul ima ely suppo s he impo ance o
engaging child en om an ea ly age in ci izenship p ac ices ha bene i socie y
as a whole no only in he p esen , bu also in he u u e.
child en and ci izenship
In con empo a y Wes e n socie ies, “child en ha e an unse led ela ionship
wi h he s a us o ci izenship” (La kins 2014, 7). Al hough hey a e gi en
p o ision, p o ec ion and some pa icipa ion igh s (unc c 1989), hei ull
legal o poli ical ci izenship is no ecognised. Child en (as once women o
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 115
blacks) do no accede o some exclusi e adul p i ileges o obliga ions in he
public sphe e: hey a e denied he igh o o e o o be elec ed; hey canno
make con ac s; hey do no ha e inancial o economic esponsibili ies. The
wo d “mino ”, designa ing indi iduals unde 18 yea s old, illus a es hei
“lowe ”, “in e io ” posi ion in his domain. In he a e ma h o Wo ld Wa ii,
T. Ma shall (1950) p oposed ci izenship as a complex mul idimensional
concep , in ol ing h ee dimensions depic ing his o ical s ages, bu na u ally
designed o adul s: ci ic, poli ical and social igh s. I child en, as indi iduals,
a e implici ly emb aced by ci ic and social o ms o ci izenship, hey a e
ce ainly excluded om i s poli ical dimensions. This is no an acciden al o
na u al e ic ion, ins ead i is based on cul u al concep ions.
Libe al and o mal pe spec i es on ci izenship, on he one hand, and
adi ional ep esen a ions o childhood, on he o he , unde lie his ci izenship
di ide be ween gene a ions.
Fi s , ci izenship concei ed as an abs ac , legal o social s a us con eyed
by na ion-s a es o a ional au onomous indi iduals excludes child en on
he basis o hei ulne abili y and dependence: hei “un eadiness”, as
Cockbu n (2012, 3) ema ks. In con as o adul s, child en would no ha e
“come o age” o lack “ he compe ences associa ed wi h ci izenship, such as
a ionali y and independence” (La kins 2014, 8). They a e “in need” o being
p epa ed and ained as u u e ci izens.
One migh ask, howe e , i his is a clea -cu dis inc ion. In “ isk socie ies”
(Beck 1992) o in “liquid mode ni y” scena ios (Bauman 2000), adul hood
has become a ne e -ending, unp edic able changing p ocess o sea ching o
ul ilmen in ela ional se ings. Adul s, like child en, e y o en seem “in he
making”, un eady, unp epa ed o ulne able o ace a ied social injunc ions.
This can be acknowledged o indi iduals acing he impac o an economic
c isis, whe e e idence o ulne able and dependen adul g oups in need o
p o ec ion (no o men ion he p o ision o basic ma e ial goods and se ices)
is s ong. Adul hood is e y o en an open, incomple e and un inished
expe ience o ela ional o ins i u ional dependences. In addi ion, he abs ac
no ion o “ci izen” hides he ac ha adul s (jus like child en), depending on
hei social posi ion and powe , ha e unequal compe ences o use igh s and
ace du ies. E en in his adi ional amewo k, some g oups o child en a e
no mo e ulne able han some g oups o adul s.
Second, he associa ion o libe al ci izenship wi h he public sphe e
ein o ced child en exclusion, as home was he igh place o hem o be.
116 ci izenship in c isis
Howe e , when child labou became a majo issue in indus ial Eu ope, and
schooling appea ed la e as he p edominan o m o socialisa ion, he indoo -
ou doo bo de became mo e unclea . Adul s wo k in he labou ma ke , bu
don’ child en wo k a schools as well? (Q o up 2001). Also, eminis s b ough
ci izenship issues in o he p i a e ealm, ehabili a ing he home as a place o
p oduc ion and gende domina ion; and claimed body, sexual, ep oduc i e
igh s as c ucial dimensions o ci izenship. Mo e ecen ly, mino i y sexual
g oups coming ou om a long s anding social qua an ine, claiming hei
igh o isibili y, ha e ein o ced he ex ension o ci izenship igh s om he
public o he p i a e sphe e. Bo de s be ween adul s and child en ha e hus
been blu ed in some imes and spaces, and hyb id gene a ional ca ego ies
e eal he limi a ions o a adi ional concep o libe al ci izenship con eyed,
in abs ac , o (all) adul s and denied o (all) child en.
Fu he mo e, hegemonic social ep esen a ions o child en and childhood,
e y o en suppo ed on scien i ic o philosophical lines o hough , ha e
con ibu ed o ein o ce adul -cen ic iews on ci izenship. As ega ds social
sciences, du ing he 1980s a new pa adigm eme ged ad oca ing childhood as
a social cons uc ion and a con ingen p oduc o ime and space, con as ing
wi h biological o psychological iews conside ing i a uni e sal o abs ac
condi ion (Almeida 2009; P ou 2005; Jenks 1992). Consequen ly, childhood
is a he e ogeneous condi ion, whe e gende , social class, e hnici y and age
g oups in oduce di e ence and di e si y. Fu he mo e, concep ual au onomy
o child en in esea ch (and socie y) is de ended, and so child en’s ela ionships
a e wo hy o s udy on hei own, i espec i e o adul s’ pe spec i es.
Impo an ly, child en a e conside ed as “beings in he p esen ” and no jus
“adul s in he making” (Ha den e al. 2000) o “human becomings” (Soa es
1998). In he same ein, Si o a (1998) e used o educe childhood o a
“ o e unne momen ” o a ansi ional s age o adul hood, in a con inuum
om an unachie ed, imma u e o uncomple ed being o an immu able and
comple ed adul . Also, child en agency is pu o wa d: ins ead o abula asa
o passi e ecipien s o social no ms and p ac ices, hey a e compe en and
ac i e in he cons uc ion o hei li es, he li es o hose a ound hem and he
socie ies in which hey li e.
Hence, gi ing oice o child en in science has become a majo challenge
o esea che s, ul ima ely con ibu ing o me hodological inno a ions in
he ield. Pa icipa o y me hodologies enhancing child agency in all esea ch
s ages has gained inc eased impo ance. This u n canno be dissocia ed om
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 117
con empo a y poli ical and child en/adul igh s mo emen s demanding
mo e inclusi e and pa icipa o y o ms o “ac i e ci izenship” (T e isan
2014).
A majo miles one was he Uni ed Na ions Con en ion on he Righ s o
he Child (unc c) (un 1989), whe e child ci izenship was, o he i s ime,
concei ed as no jus a ma e o holding indi idual igh s o p o ec ion,
p o ision, bu also o pa icipa ion (Beazley e al. 2009). unc c announces
he “supe io in e es o he child” as he p ima y conside a ion in making
decisions ha may a ec hem. I men ions ha child en’s opinions should
be aken in o conside a ion in decisions aken on hei behal . I assigns he
child he “ eedom o seek, ecei e and impa in o ma ion and ideas o all
kind” and he eedom o hough , conscience and eligion. In e na ional
binding ci izenship s anda ds a e now es ablished conce ning child en’s
s a us and pa icipa ion in con empo a y socie ies. No su p isingly,
commen a o s highligh he gap be ween “ he he o ic and ideals o he
unc c and he eali y on he g ound” (Cockbu n 2012, 169). This is
pa icula ly e iden du ing his o ical imes o c isis, whe e ex eme e en s
o si ua ions dis up he daily o de . The opic is discussed in he ollowing
sec ion.
ci izenship a s ake in imes o c isis
La ge scale and ecen poli ical, economic and en i onmen al global
u bulence has made li ing h ough c i ical e en s mo e equen ly
expe ienced o pe cei ed, bo h a he local and global le els, in “de eloped”
coun ies. They a e less and less seen as unusual, isola ed o unique
si ua ions ypical o dis an socie ies, bu ha e all uelled a g owing sense
o ulne abili y and insecu i y among ci izens who end o ep esen he
wo ld as an inc easingly ulne able and no - aken- o -g an ed place (Fu edi
2007). Mo eo e , p eda o y media co e age (Kleis and Jansen 2016; Lewis
2010) ampli ies hei impo ance, omnip esence and amilia i y. In his
espec , child en a e ypical ins umen s o announce and epo social o
na u al c ises wi h de as a ing impac ; in con as o no mal pe iods whe e
hei isibili y is a he hidden o disc e e, child en (o ce ain g oups o
child en) acqui e an unp eceden ed p ominence in images o ic imised o
a - isk popula ion in c i ical scena ios.

118 ci izenship in c isis
Seen as up u es in he social ab ic o e e yday li e (Nolas 2015), c ises
appea as e ela o y momen s (Solway 1994). Be o e-a e up u es can e eal,
on a b u al scale, he p e-exis ing unequal social ies be ween indi iduals and
g oups (Vaughn 2012). Di ides be ween p i ileged s. dep i ed, dominan s.
domina ed, p o ec ed s. ulne able g oups eme ge in hei ull s eng h. An
illus a ion o hese clea ages lies in he gene a ional o de ha is o en pulled
inside ou h ough he lens o a c isis. Indeed, s a is ical da a unco e s he ac
ha child en – compa ed o adul s - a e e y o en he mos ulne able pa
o a popula ion a ec ed by a na u al o social c isis, and i s impac can lead
o d ama ic iola ions o undamen al p o ec ion and p o ision igh s (Peek
2008; Mo ow 2009).
So c ises a e associa ed ei he wi h occasional o b eakdown e en s o
hey can eme ge h oughou his o ical leng hy p ocesses emb acing ime,
hei impac a ec ing he p esen , bu also he u u e (Baez Ullbe g 2017; Hay
1996). In e es ingly, he ela ion o a coming ime is he key ac o ounding
child en’s p esence in escue o eme gency public policies: hey a e en isaged
as “ u u e ci izens”, equi ing p o ec ion he e and now, so ha la e adul hoods
a e no comp omised. They a e pe cei ed as he “inhe i o s”, in he long e m,
o he majo p oblems c ea ed by adul s oday (Mo ow 2009). Along op-
down hie a chical p og ammes and ini ia i es designed by adul s, child en
ei he appea as he objec o measu es aken o mi iga e he nega i e impac
o a c isis; o “ hey a e a ge ed as an audience o educa ion” (Johnson e al.
2014), o be ained in o de o lea n basic p e en ion and eme gency ules.
On he o he hand, child en can also be used as essels o accede adul s and
encou age beha iou al change (Schmid e Gue a 2013). They a e anyway
excluded om decision-making p ocesses whe e s a egies a e discussed and
planned. Ra he han pa ne s in c ime, child en a e sys ema ically depic ed
as ecipien s o aid, helpless ic ims o ex e nal ad e se condi ions, which
hey would passi ely go h ough unde he guidance o adul s (Gibbs e al.
2013).
When i comes o child en’s ci izenship, c ises open windows e ealing he
ac ha hey a e in he on line ega ding ha m and nega i e impac , which
can se e ely comp omise p o ision and p o ec ion igh s. Second, hey e y
clea ly un eil he p e alence o “child en a isk” and “un eadiness” pa adigms,
which igno e o beli le hei agency, compe ences and pa icipa o y igh s.
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 119
owa ds child en’s ci izenship:
gi ing a oice, in ol ing hem in decision-making
We p esen and discuss in his chap e esul s o wo esea ch p ojec s ecen ly
ca ied ou a he ics, ega ding wo ypes o c i ical dis up ion: a social,
economic c isis (Po ugal, 2008-2012); and clima e change ela ed disas e s.
We b ing bo h oge he in o discussion as examples o dis inc me hodological
expe iences dealing wi h child en’s ci izenship. The i s illus a es he
impo ance o gi ing child en a oice, cap u ing hei na a i es abou
conc e e daily expe iences and in oducing hei pe spec i es (i espec i e o
hose o adul s) on social discou ses. “Bu oice is no enough” (Lundy 2007).
Depa ing om a pa icipa o y amewo k, he second was exp essly designed
o wo k in he ield wi h child en, in ol ing hem as pa ne s in collec i e
discussions and ac ions, in o de o p oduce ecommenda ions o decision-
make s on disas e isk educ ion policies.
Commissioned by unice Po ugal, “The Impac o he C isis on Po uguese
Child en” in ended o lis en o child en1 and epo p ac ices and pe cep ions
abou how hei e e yday li e expe iences had been a ec ed by he d op o
amily income and ising le els o unemploymen . Face o ace in e iews
we e ca ied ou a home wi h 77 child en, 39 boys/38 gi ls o wo age g oups
(8-12 and 14-17 yea s old) du ing Ma ch-May 2013 (Wall e al. 2015). The
quali a i e sample ensu ed di e si y o childhood condi ions: i in ol ed boys
and gi ls, li ing in u ban, subu ban and u al a eas o No h/Cen e/Sou h,
li ing in di e en amily o ms (bipa en al, econs i u ed and monopa en al
amilies) o highe , middle and wo king classes.
The la e , “cuida – Cul u es o Disas e Resilience among Child en
and Young People” (2015-2018) is a Eu opean p ojec aiming o enhance
he esilience o child en in u ban communi ies o disas e s, and o enable
disas e esponden s o mee hei needs mo e e ec i ely (Delicado e al.
2017). Albu ei a and Lou es we e he wo ci ies in ol ed in he consul a ion
p ocess. In each loca ion, we wo ked wi h wo di e en age g oups: 4 h g ade s
and 9 h g ade s. In Albu ei a, a Y4 class o 24 child en aged be ween 9 and 12
yea s old pa icipa ed in he wo kshops. I was gende balanced (13 gi ls,11
boys), and e y di e se: 16 pupils we e Po uguese, while he emaining had
o he na ionali ies (Uk aine, Molda ia, India and Equa o ). The olun ee
1 Following he c c, a child is he e conside ed an indi idual unde he age o 18.
120 ci izenship in c isis
g oup o 9 h g ade s was composed o 10 14 yea old s uden s (8 gi ls, 2 boys),
om qui e a homogenous backg ound. In Lou es, we wo ked wi h a 4 h g ade
class o 26 child en (11 gi ls and 15 boys), wi h mos child en coming om a
low o middle socioeconomic backg ound. The 9 h g ade g oup was composed
o 3 boys and 8 gi ls aged be ween 14 and 15 yea s old. Fi e had a o eign
backg ound - ei he amily o igin o expe ience o li ing ab oad (Sou h A ica,
Luxembu g, Cape Ve de, B azil and Bulga ia).
he igh o be hea d
“The Impac o he C isis on Po uguese Child en: oices o child en, public
policy and social indica o s”, ca ied ou a he ics in 2013, aimed o p o ide
a ho ough and upda ed pic u e o childhood in Po ugal in imes o c isis
(Wall e al. 2015).2 Two ypes o analysis we e unde aken. Based on a ailable
s a is ics and s udies, he e olu ion o ma e ial condi ions o child en and hei
amilies in Po uguese socie y was depic ed based on key indica o s o e he
ime pe iod 2005-2012. Public policies impac ing on hei li es and launched
o ace he economic c isis and aus e i y measu es we e also con empla ed.
Complemen a y o his ex ensi e app oach, a quali a i e one was de eloped,
in o de o cap u e he expe iences and he pe cep ions o dina y child en had
wi h he c isis, gi ing hem a oice. The aim was o unde s and – om hei
own pe spec i e – wha he c isis mean o hem and how i had a ec ed hei
e e yday li es.
Indica o s and s udies sha ed e idence: Po uguese child en had been
d ama ically a ec ed by he c isis. Po e y and inequali ies we e on he ise all
o e Eu ope (Ca i as Eu ope 2015), bu hei in ensi y and de as a ing e ec s
we e pa icula ly se ious in Sou he n coun ies like Po ugal. In households
su e ing om se e e ma e ial dep i a ion and po e y, unemploymen ,
unde employmen , unp eceden ed cu s in sala ies and in social bene i s, and
ax inc eases, child en we e disp opo iona ely a ec ed, jeopa dising o e en
comp omising hei undamen al p o ision and p o ec ion igh s (Sa men o
e al. 2014).
In 2013, 439 000 child en in Po ugal we e a isk o po e y a e social
ans e ences, and since 2008 hey we e he age g oup mos a ec ed by po e y
isk a e social ans e ences (22.4%) and by ma e ial dep i a ion (24.4%),
2 We would like o hank all ou P ojec colleagues o hei con ibu ion o ou wo k.
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 121
compa ed o olde age g oups (+ 65 o 18-64) (Wall e al. 2015). A ailable
da a also indica ed ha isk o po e y a e in amilies wi h child en (20.1%)
was highe han in amilies wi hou child en (15.6%); among households wi h
dependen child en, la ge amilies (a couple wi h 3 o mo e child en) o single-
pa en ones s ood ou om he o he a angemen s (Sa men o e al. 2014).
Repo s in 2013 by he Child en and You h P o ec ion Na ional Commi ee
egis e ed g owing numbe s and changing pa e ns o “cases”: highe numbe s
o child en exposed o “de ian beha iou o adul amily membe s” (alcohol
o o he addic ions, domes ic iolence), a highe p opo ion o child en unde
5 signalled by he sys em ( ic ims o se e al o ms o negligence), inc ease o
school d opou (cpcj 2014). Ma e ial po e y eme ged as an expe ience o
many child en: o example, ollowing school di ec o s’ accusa ions o hung y
child en, he Go e nmen launched a special p og amme o mi iga e his
p oblem: “B eak as a school”. Many schools in dep i ed a eas o he coun y
s a ed, in 2011, o open can eens du ing holidays o p o ide meals o child en
in need (Sa men o e al. 2014).
Agains his backg ound, how did o dina y child en pe cei e he c isis
a ec ing he coun y o hei amilies? How did hey speak abou i ? How did
hey desc ibe he impac , i any, on hei own li es and hose o hei iends?
All child en in e iewed we e awa e o he “c isis” a ec ing he coun y. I
was a meaning ul wo d and a known, e y p oblema ic eali y o hem, e en
hough hey e ealed ha he subjec had no been di ec ly aised o discussed
wi h hem by hei own pa en s (“ hey wan o p o ec us”) o eache s in
schools. They we e conce ned abou i , ei he because hei amily was going
h ough a delica e si ua ion, o because hei iends we e expe iencing ha d
imes. Who old hem abou he c isis? The e we e no speci ic in o man s.
They hea d and obse ed people a ound hem; hey picked up clues he e and
he e; hey saw he news on o he In e ne . “By chance”, as Nuno (9y)
ema ked. Daniel (10y) said he same: “In he s ee s, on , on he compu e
news and my pa en s deba ing wi h my b o he as well”. O Ca olina (11y): “I
lis en o con e sa ions when he amily is oge he ”.
The impac o he c isis was “e e ywhe e” bu hei pa en s’ wo k load,
unemploymen , unde employmen , sala y cu s and lowe amily incomes we e
he mos in luen ial ac o s in shaping new “aus e i y” ou ines. Pa en s seemed
always “wo ied”, “s essed”, “ i ed”, “wo king mo e and mo e”, “unmo i a ed”;
some imes hey had o mig a e, lea ing child en behind. Conce ns we e
shown ha ela ional amily en i onmen s, a ec i e ies we e o could be
128 ci izenship in c isis
g oups deba ed ba ie s and p o ec i e ac o s in all 3 a eas, and sugges ed
solu ions. Lack o ime was iden i ied by all g oups as a majo ac o impeding
no only he pa icipa ion o young people in he olun ee dd ac i i ies in
hei communi y, bu also he implemen a ion o mo e pa icipa o y pedagogies
in isk educa ion. In ac , he o e whelming school schedules poin ed ou by
youngs e s once again e lec ed he need o ame and su eille child en, ha
a e hen dep i ed o he au onomy o eely de e mine how o use hei own
ime. On he o he hand, he need o g ea e in o ma ion abou dd achie ed
h ough con ac wi h o he s wi h expe ience on he subjec was also sugges ed,
wi h he youngs e s ecognising ha he p ojec p o ided hem wi h a c i ical
knowledge on he opic ha hey would no o he wise gain.
Hence, his engagemen p ocess aised awa eness in child en and young
people on he opic o disas e s, wi h concep ual maps showing an inc ease o
ocabula y and wi h child en hemsel es ecognising ha “We lea ned ha
loods a en’ un” (Ped o, 4 h g ade) o ha “I lea ned ha we shouldn’ hink
abou na u al disas e s only when hey occu ” (Vanda, 9 h g ade).
Howe e , he main goal o his p ocess was no educa ional bu pa icipa o y,
ha is, o c ea e an oppo uni y o he pa icipa ion o child en in a ma e
ha conce ned hei p esen and u u e, and om which hey end o be
excluded: clima e change ela ed disas e s, an issue ha se s i sel up as a ma e
o in e gene a ional jus ice5. By hinking and deba ing he eali y hey li ed
in, and by concei ing ac ions o p oposals ha imp o e bo h hei wellbeing
o ha o hei communi ies, hey ha e in e nalised a ci ic conscience and
ga he ed skills ha will allow hem o mo i a e hei pee s o pa icipa e in
simila p ojec s, hus becoming empowe ed agen s o hei communi ies. In
ac , along wi h he sha ing o hei ideas wi h o he s, child en s essed he
impo ance o g oup wo k as an oppo uni y o ge ela ional skills:
In he beginning, I only wan ed o skip classes, and disas e s was a bo ing Geog aphy opic
o me, bu hen I go in e es ed because I el like I was helping people. (Ma ia, 9 h g ade)
I el ha he wo kshops we e e y good no only because we could exp ess ou opinions
bu also because hey augh us how o ela e o each o he . (Magda, 9 h g ade)
5 See o ins ance he child en o Ped ógão G ande aiming o sue 47 Eu opean S a es: h ps://w
ww. hegua dian.com/wo ld/2017/sep/25/po uguese-child en-c owd und-eu opean-clima e-change-
case-sue-47-coun ies.

child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 129
This con i ms ha besides being hea d, e ec i e pa icipa ion also equi es
co-p oduc ion o knowledge, sha ed decision making and idea exchange (Day
e al. 2015; Lundy 2007). I is hen in hei in e ac ion wi h hei pee s ha
child en a e exposed o o he poin s o iew and expe iences, hus gaining he
c i ical hinking skills and commi men alues necessa y o make in o med
collec i e decisions and pe o m meaning ul ci izenship ac s.
I is wo h ecalling he e ha he chie a gumen o no allowing child en
o pa icipa e in o mal poli ical p ocesses and ull ci izenship is hei lack
o compe ence. In an in e es ing discussion on “ he heal h o a democ acy”
(Wagne e al. 2012), he lowe ing o he o ing age and he p os and cons o
youngs e s’ elec o al pa icipa ion, poli ical science has challenged he aken
o g an ed assump ions on hei “un eadiness”. Resea ch has b ough ele an
clues o he deba e on whe he o no young people (a 16 o 17 yea s old)
ha e he ma u i y, he in e es o he knowledge o o e, and i he quali y o
hei choices is simila o olde i s ime o e s. Now, he e is li le empi ical
e idence ha hey a e less able o less mo i a ed o pa icipa e in elec ions;
hei u n ou is e en highe han he olde ones’ (18-25 y). This is pe haps
because hey o e in a mo e shel e ed en i onmen – s ill li ing a home and
a ending school (Zeglo i s 2013, 253). Mo eo e , hei iews a e based on
“ easoned a gumen s” (Wagne e al. 2012, 373). A e all, an ea lie expe ience
lea es “a oo p in on one’s o ing biog aphy” (Zeglo i s 2013, 252), which can
encou age u u e poli ical p o-ac i i y.
Fo i s pa , cuida demons a ed ha al hough child en equi ed
assis ance in de eloping hei ideas, hey a e ully capable o e lec ing upon
hei expe iences, coope a ing in sol ing p oblems and p oposing solu ions
ha can be adop ed and deba ed by hose in powe . On he o he hand,
while i p o ided an oppo uni y o hese child en o ehea se hei u he
pa icipa ion, i s de elopmen aced se e al challenges, namely he esis ance
o some adul s in ega ding hese opics as no being jus a child en’s a ai , o
he amoun o ime and willingness hese engagemen p ocesses equi e in
o de o be e ec i e and engaging o child en. The e is some eluc ance om
bo h sides ha can be o e come wi h mo e dialogical momen s. Rega ding
he cuida na ional e en , one youngs e s a ed: “Du ing he mee ing, I
became awa e ha he e a e adul s who s ill ca e abou wha eenage s say.”
S akeholde s hemsel es ecognised ha he cuida ’s wo k made hem ealise
“ he u gency o ensu ing he empowe men o child en and young people in
in o ma ion and awa eness- aising p og ammes”. Thus, mo e wo k needs
130 ci izenship in c isis
o be done in sensi ising bo h s akeholde s and child en o hei igh s and
du ies, and o he ac i e ole hey can play in hese p ocesses, in o de o os e
hei g owing inclusion in policy p ocesses adjus ed o hei needs in Po ugal.
discussion and closu e
To challenge dominan concep ions o ci izenship, b inging child en in o he
discussion e eals i s educ i e scope in con empo a y socie ies. Pe ained o
an indi idual s a us held by adul s in he public sphe e, i keeps child en a a
dis ance. Howe e , om his o mal pe spec i e, gene a ional clea ages do no
lead o sha p dicho omies: in isk o e lexi e socie ies, adul s seem o sha e
a ibu es o “un eadiness”, “imma u i y” and “ ulne abili y” wi h child en.
Bo h a e simul aneously “beings in he p esen ” and ci izens “in he making”,
and his double ime a ilia ion uns h oughou hei li e cou se. Now, i is
consensually accep ed ha bo h a e due p o ision and p o ec ion igh s. Bu
he same canno be said abou pa icipa o y igh s: despi e he manda o y
unc c o simila in e na ional di ec i es, child en a e s ill e y a ely engaged
in decision making p ocesses, e en o domains ha pa icula ly a ec hem.
On he o he hand, c ises a e e ela o y momen s. Unde hei a ages,
socie ies can be exhibi ed on hei e e se side, namely as ega ds social
inequali ies o ulne able ies. The example o child en – po ayed as innocen
o helpless ic ims in media “ agedy” co e ages, objec i ely he mo e a ec ed
by he ha m and nega i e impac o c i ical e en s o p ocesses – is ele an .
The p edominance o a child en a isk discou se in c i ical scena ios igno es
o was es hei agency and compe ence o wo k oge he wi h adul s in
p epa ing, esponding and eco e ing om hei nega i e impac .
Fi s , c ises e y o en wo sen hei li ing condi ions ( o a longe o
sho e pe iod o ime) and comp omise hei p o ec ion and p o ision igh s.
The esea ch p ojec on he Po uguese economic c isis unco e ed ala ming
indica o s conce ning po e y and dep i a ion a es and he ways eal
anonymous child en pe cei ed i . The wo d “c isis” had a meaning o hem
and hey we e able o apply i o eal si ua ions o hei daily li es ( amily budge ,
ood, clo hing o schooling). F om hei pe spec i e, child en’s igh s we e a
beyond he access o ma e ial goods o social se ices: hey e y i mly ex ended
hem o a ela ional well-being (in he amily) and o hei u u e expec a ions
(in educa ion, o example). In e es ingly, he c isis was no an explici heme
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 131
o con e sa ion wi h hei signi ican adul s, ei he pa en s o eache s.
Dispe sed in o ma ion was caugh in o mally he e and he e, h ough media
co e age, social ne wo ks o lis ening o adul con e sa ions. The igh
o ecei e and impa in o ma ion (a 13, unc c), pa allel o he igh o
eedom o exp ession, was no gua an eed, lea ing child en on hei own in a
no man’s land whe e insecu i y o ea s canno be exp essed o so ened.
On he o he hand, he cuida p ojec illus a ed me hodological
app oaches o pu pa icipa o y expe iences wi h child en in o p ac ice. Based
on hei daily expe iences and om an in e ac ion wi h local s akeholde s,
child en we e able o en isage an ac i e ole in hei communi ies in
disas e isk managemen . Also, hey we e able o s ep up o a mac o le el
and ackle global clima e change issues. cuida d ew a en ion o he o en
igno ed en i onmen al dimension o ci izenship. The igh o li e sa ely in,
and p ese e, he blue plane (ou common home) implies he knowledge o
h ea s a ec ing i , a consciousness o human p eda o y beha iou and i s
consequences, and in o ma ion on good p ac ices o p o ec i . This was also
an inno a i e con ibu ion om cuida .
As men ioned abo e, o be hea d, as in he i s p ojec , is no enough:
ci izenship is ul ima ely buil upon child en’s engagemen in daily decision
making p ocesses, pa icipa o y ac s o eal expe iences. Based on pe cei ed
c i ical scena ios on clima e change ela ed disas e s, cuida in ol ed child en
in ga he ing in o ma ion, enabling hem o iden i y and choose p io i y opics
o be collec i ely deal wi h. I also engaged hem in knowledge co-p oduc ion
and dissemina ion among pee s and adul s, encou aging hem o ad oca e
ecommenda ions o policymake s in ace o ace wo kshops. In con as o
consul a i e p ocesses, whe e adul s ob ain in o ma ion om child en and use
i o p o ec hem du ing c i ical e en s, in op-down ini ia i es ein o cing
ep esen a ions o child en as passi e aid ecipien s and hei domina ed
posi ion in he gene a ional o de , he e child en we e ecognised as ac i e
ci izens capable o being in ol ed in he de elopmen o policies o sel -
ad ocacy p e en ion, p epa edness and esponse p ojec s.
In con as o o mal lea ning- eaching hie a chical p ocedu es p e alen
in Po uguese schools, hese hands on child-cen ed ac i i ies (using isual
me hodologies), inspi ed by a pa icipa o y agenda, we e no only easible
bu also success ul and e y posi i ely e alua ed by pa icipan child en. They
gi e powe ul a gumen s o hose who claim child en should be conside ed
ci izens in hei own igh , which ob iously implies a ca e ul conside a ion
132 ci izenship in c isis
o hei in e nal di e si y, hei eal inse ion in pa icula social con ex s o
in e ac ional se ings.
In o he espec s, a pa icipa o y agenda o child en o e s an oppo uni y
o seize and enhance hei p o ision and p o ec ion igh s. To cap u e
child en’s oices on hese opics, i espec i e o adul ones, while c ea ing
he p ope se ings o hem o be hea d, can highligh dimensions o clues
ha a e signi ican ( om child en’s pe spec i e) and pe mi he choice o an
unde s andable and appealing language o enuncia e hem.
In e es ingly, opening up he pa icipa o y issue, ia child en’s exclusion
om a ull ci izen s a us, is also a way o denounce qui e simila si ua ions
conce ning adul s. I can legi ima ely be claimed ha exp essi e social
inges o adul s (pa icula ly he economically dep i ed and hose wi h li le
educa ion) a e no hea d o included in decision making p ocesses a ec ing
hem. Bu on a la ge scale, con empo a y ep esen a i e democ acies ha e
been challenged by ci izens’ social mo emen s conce ned abou he dis ance
be ween he people’s oices, hei exp ession o in luence and he elec ed
poli ical ule s.
____________________________________
ana nunes de almeida
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
ana.n[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0003-3174-3870
____________________________________
ana so ia ibei o
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0001-6648-611x
____________________________________
jussa a owland
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
jussa[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0003-2639-3714
____________________________________
child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a pa icipa o y agenda 133
e e ences
almeida, A. N. 2009. Pa a Uma Sociologia da In ância. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais.
baez ullbe g, S. 2017. “La con ibución de la an opología al es udio de c isis y desas es
en Amé ica La ina”. Ibe oame icana – No dic Jou nal o La in Ame ican and Ca ibbean
S udies, 46 (1): 1-5.
bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Mode ni y. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
beazley, H., e al. 2009. “The igh o be p ope ly esea ched: esea ch wi h child en in a
messy, eal wo ld”. Child en’s Geog aphies, 7 (4): 365-378.
beck, U. 1992. Risk Socie y: Towa ds a New Mode ni y. London: Sage.
ca i as eu ope. 2015. Po e y Inequali ies on he Rise. I eland: Ca i as Eu ope.
cockbu n, T. 2012. Re hinking Child en’s Ci izenship: Theo y, Righ s and In e dependence.
Basings oke: Palg a e.
cpcj. 2014. Rela ó io Anual de A aliação da A i idade das cpcj. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional
de P o eção das C ianças e Jo ens em Risco.
day, L., e al. 2015. E alua ion o Legisla ion, Policy and P ac ice on Child Pa icipa ion in he
Eu opean Union (eu). Luxembou g: Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union.
delicado, A., e al. 2017. “Child en in disas e isk educ ion in Po ugal: policies, educa ion,
and (non) pa icipa ion”. In e na ional Jou nal o Disas e Risk Science, 8 (3): 246-257.
u edi, F. 2007. “The changing meaning o disas e ”. A ea, 39 (4): 482-489.
gibbs, L., e al. 2013. “Resea ch wi h, by, o and abou child en: lessons om disas e
con ex s”. Global S udies o Childhood, 3 (2): 129-141.
ha den, J., e al. 2000. “Can’ alk, won’ walk? Me hodological issues in esea ching child en”.
Sociological Resea ch online, 5 (2): 1-12.
hay, C. 1996. “Na a ing c isis: he discu si e cons uc ion o he ‘win e o discon en ’ ”.
Sociology, 30 (2): 253-277.
jenks, Ch. 1992. “In oduc ion: cons i u ing he child”. In Sociology o Childhood: Essen ial
Readings, o g. C. Jenks. London: G egg Re i als, 9-27.
johnson, V. A., e al. 2014. “E alua ions o disas e educa ion p og ams o child en: a
me hodological e iew”. In e na ional Jou nal o Disas e Risk Reduc ion, 9: 107-123.
kleis , N., S. Jansen. 2016. “In oduc ion: hope o e ime—c isis, immobili y and u u e-
making”. His o y and An h opology, 27 (4): 373-392.
la kins, C. 2014. “Enac ing child en’s ci izenship: de eloping unde s andings o how
child en enac hemsel es as ci izens h ough ac ions and Ac s o ci izenship”. Childhood,
21 (1): 7-21.
lewis, J. 2010. C isis in he Global Mediasphe e: Desi e, Displeasu e and Cul u al T ans o ma ion.
Basings oke: Palg a e.
lundy, L. 2007. “ ‘Voice’ is no enough: concep ualising A icle 12 o he Uni ed Na ions
Con en ion on he Righ s o he Child”. B i ish Educa ional Resea ch Jou nal, 33 (6): 927-
-942.
ma shall, T. H. 1950. Ci izenship and Social Class and O he Essays. New Yo k: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
mo ow, V. 2009. “The global inancial c isis and child en’s happiness: a ime o e-
isioning?”. Childhood, 16 (3): 293-298.
nolas, S. M. 2015. “Child en’s pa icipa ion, childhood publics and social change:
a e iew”. Child en and Socie y, 29 (2): 157-167.

134 ci izenship in c isis
peek, L. 2008. “Child en and disas e s: unde s anding ulne abili y, de eloping capaci ies,
and p omo ing esilience-an in oduc ion”. Child en You h and En i onmen s, 18 (1): 1-29.
p ou , A. 2005. The Fu u e o Childhood. London/ny: Rou ledge/Falme .
q o up, J. 2001. “School wo k, paid wo k and he changing obliga ions o childhood”.
In Hidden Hands. In e na ional Pe spec i es on Child en Wo k and Labou , o gs. P. Mizen
e al. London: Rou ledge, 91-107.
ashid, M., K. R. Ronan, and B. Towe s. 2016. “Child en as change agen s in educing isks
o disas e s.” In Educa ion in Times o En i onmen al C ises: Teaching Child en o be Agen s
o Change, ed. K. Winog ad. New Yo k: Rou ledge, 233-247.
sa men o, M. J., e al. 2014. “The economic c isis in Po ugal and child en’s igh s o non-
disc imina ion”. Teache Educa ion, 22 (1): 38-55.
schmid , L., J. Gue a. 2013. “Do ambien e ao desen ol imen o sus en á el: con ex os e
p o agonis as da educação ambien al em Po ugal”. Re is a Lusó ona de Educação, 25:
193-211.
si o a, R. 1998. “L’ eme gence d’une sociologie de l’en ance: e olu ion de l’obje , e olu ion du
ega d”. Éduca ion e Socié és, 2: 9-33.
soa es, N. 1998. Ou as In âncias. Scien i ic and Pedagogical Ap i ude Examina ion. B aga:
iec.
solway, J. S. 1994. “D ough as a e ela o y c isis: an explo a ion o shi ing en i lemen s and
hie a chies in he Kalaha i, Bo swana”. De elopmen and Change, 25 (3): 471-495.
anne , T. 2010. “Shi ing he na a i e: child-led esponses o clima e change and disas e s
in El Sal ado and he Philippines”. Child en & Socie y, 24 (4): 339-351.
e isan, G. 2014. Somos as Pessoas que Temos de Escolhe , Não São as Ou as Pessoas
que Escolhem Po Nós. In In ância e Cená ios de Pa icipação Pública: Uma Análise
Sociológica dos Modos de Codecisão das C ianças na Escola e na Cidade. PhD hesis. B aga:
Uni e sidade do Minho.
un (Uni ed Na ions). 1989. un Con en ion on he Righ s o he Child. A ailable a : h p://www.
ohch .o g/Documen s/P o essionalIn e es /c c.pd . Accessed 2 Feb. 2018.
unisd (Uni ed Na ions In e na ional S a egy o Disas e Reduc ion). 2015. Sendai
amewo k o disas e isk educ ion 2015–2030. A ailable a : h p://www.unisd .o g/
iles/43291_sendai amewo k o d en.pd . Accessed 9 No . 2017.
aughn, S. E. 2012. “Recons uc ing he ci izen: disas e , ci izenship, and expe ise in acial
Guyana”. C i ique o An h opology, 32 (4): 359-387.
wagne , M., D. Johann, and S. K i zinge . 2012. “Vo ing a 16: u nou and he quali y o o e
choice”. Elec o al S udies, 31: 372-383.
wall, K., e al. 2015. Impac os da C ise nas C ianças Po uguesas: Indicado es, Polí icas,
Rep esen ações. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais.
zeglo i s, E. 2013. “Vo ing a 16? You h su age is up o deba e”. Eu opean View, 12: 249-
-254.
ci e his chap e as:
almeida, A. N. de, A. S. Ribei o, and J. Rowland. 2018. “Child en, ci izenship and c isis: owa ds a
pa icipa o y agenda”. In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. ii. Ci izenship in C isis, eds. M.
C. Lobo, F. C. da Sil a and J. P. Zúque e. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 113-134.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715047.05