Advertisement

Non-conventional/illegal political participation of male and female youths

  • 139 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

Belgian data from the PIDOP project show that boys are more involved than girls in illegal political actions, namely the production of graffiti and other acts of “incivility”. These activities must be considered in both groups as complementary to conventional political and social participation and not as their opposite. The main explanatory factor is the level of the perceived efficaciousness of such actions. The lack of trust in institutions and the level of awareness of societal discrimination play no significant explanatory role. In males, the involvement level in these activities depends on feelings of personal discrimination and on the lack of freedom concerning individual choice, confirming the theory of societal vulnerability and Honneth’s theory of recognition. This level also increases along with increasing opportunities to make acquaintances and have fun in the neighbourhood. In females, this involvement is explained by the distance with regard to pro-sociality level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

References

  1. Bereni, L., Chauvin, S., Jaunait, A., Revillard, A. (2008). Introduction aux Gender Sudies. Bruxelles: de Boeck.

  2. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

  3. Briggs, J. E. (2008). Young Women and Politics: an Oxymoron. Journal of Youth Studies 11(6), 579–592.

  4. Cario, R. (1997). Les filles résistent au crime. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  5. Carlen, P. (1998). Women, Crime and Poverty. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

  6. Chauvel, L. (2001). Le retour des classes sociales?. Revue de l’OFCE 79, 315–359.

  7. Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crime (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  8. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies 56, 76–98.

  9. Delacolette, N., Dardenne, B., Dumont, M. (2009). Stéréotypes prescriptifs et avantages des groupes dominants. L’Année psychologique 101, 617–653.

  10. Duret, P. (1999). Les jeunes et l’identité masculine. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

  11. Egli, N., Vettenburg, N., Savoie, J., Lucia, S., Gavray, C., Zeman, K. (2010). Belgium, Canada and Switzerland: are there Differences in the Contributions of Selected Variables on Property and Violent Self-Reported Delinquency? European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 16(3), 145–166.

  12. Gallego, A. (2007). Inequalities in Political Participation. Contemporary Patterns in European Countries. Irvine: Center for Study of Democracy, University of California.

  13. Gavray, C. (2009a). Délinquance juvénile et enjeux de genre. Interrogations, Revue en sciences de l’homme et de la société, Formes, figures et représentations des faits de déviance féminins, 8 juin.

  14. Gavray, C. (2009b). Consommations et délinquances: deux expériences complémentaires à l’adolescence. In M. Guedah (Ed.). Délinquances et changements sociaux, des modes de vie et des pratiques d’intervention. Dialogue nord-sud, Rabat: Actes du 11ème colloque de l’Association des criminologues de langue française, 213–241.

  15. Gavray, C. (2010). Valeurs et attitudes stéréotypées à l’adolescence: quels enjeux en matière de réussite et d’insertion scolaire? In C. Gavray and A. Adriaenssens (Eds.). Une fille = un garçon? Identifier les inégalités de genre à l’école pour mieux les combattre, pp. 19–37. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  16. Heidensohn, F. (1995). Women and Crime. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

  17. John, P., Fieldhouse, E., Liu, H. (2011). How Civic is the Civic Culture? Explaining Community Participation Using the 2005 English Citizenship Survey. Political Studies 59(2), 230–252.

  18. Honneth, A. (1999). Intégrité et mépris: principes d’une morale de la reconnaissance. Recherches sociologiques 30(2), 11–22.

  19. Honneth, A. (2004). La théorie de la reconnaissance: une esquisse. Revue du MAUSS 1(23), 133–136.

  20. Honneth, A. (2006). La Société du mépris. Paris: La Découverte.

  21. Le Goff, A. (2006). Délibérations, conflits et coopération. Honneth critique Habermas: vers une redéfinition de la notion de démocratie délibérative. Paris: Université Paris X-Nanterre, Les cahiers de l’école doctorale, 5, 5–25.

  22. Longshore, D., Turner-Rand, S., Stein, J. A. (2006). Self-Control in a Criminal Sample: an Examination of Construct Validity. Criminology 34(2), 209–222.

  23. Marry, C. (2004). Une révolution respectueuse: les femmes ingénieurs. Paris, Berlin: Perspectives sociologiques.

  24. Ndobo, A. (2010). Les nouveaux visages de la discrimination. Bruxelles: de Boeck.

  25. Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. (2000). An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.). Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, pp. 23–45. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  26. Vettenburg, N., Walgrave, L., Van Kerkhove, J. (1984). Jeugdwerkloosheid, delinquentie en maatchappelijke kwetsbaarheid. Antwerpen/Arnhem: Kluwer/Gouda Quint.

  27. Vettenburg, N., Gavray, C., Born, M. (2010). Belgium. In J. Junger-Tas, I. H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee, B. Gruszczynska (Eds.). Juvenile Delinquency in Europe and Beyond: Results of the Second International Self-Reported Study, pp. 29–46. London: Springer.

  28. Walgrave, L. (1992). Délinquance systématisée des jeunes et vulnérabilité sociétale: essai de construction d’une théorie intégrative. Genève: Méridiens Klincksieck.

  29. Worrall, A. (2001). Girls at Risk? Reflections on Changing Attitudes to Young Women’s Offending. Probation Journal 8(2), 86–92.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Claire Gavray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gavray, C., Fournier, B. & Born, M. Non-conventional/illegal political participation of male and female youths. Humaff 22, 405–418 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0033-0

Download citation

Key words

  • Belgium
  • youth
  • non-conventional political participation
  • theory of societal vulnerability
  • Honneth’s theory of recognition
  • gender theory