Connecting Youth Civic Action
To Social Support and Resilience
Author: Pat Dolan
Word Count: 6100 (including references)
Date: January 2010
Introduction
In recent years, resilient youth or those who can bounce back and do better than expected has received consistent attention from policymakers, practitioners and the academic community (Rutter et al, 1998; Gilligan, 2009; Ungar, 2008). This strength based perspective, rather than a problem centred approach has also been implicit in relation to the new sociology of childhood which highlights the value and capacity of young people as civic actors. The potential of youth as societal leaders has also focussed on resilience as a key factor particularly given that we rear children and youth not just to the benefit of families but as contributors to society. For example, adapting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the 1970s’, Van Linden and Fertman (1998) highlight three S’s, safety, survival and self-esteem, as important factors for enabling young people to demonstrate hardiness. Like others (see Rutter, et al 1998) they highlight the need to view resilience as occurring in the face of severe adversity rather than just coping with daily hassles and stress. However, we can also be hopeful in terms of viewing the capacity of youth to adjust and reconfigure. This flexibility which can be deemed to be one of the benefits of being young is typified by Van Linden and Fertman as “a time during which people develop their individuality and are interested in trying new things and learning new skills" (p. 36, 1998).
While much of these assumptions are based on how young people cope under adversity, how ‘in practice’ youth can be enabled to do better needs greater attention. Specifically, the role, power and process of using social support networks as positive allies for youth experiencing adversity has not been given due attention (Pinkerton & Dolan, 2007). This being the case, this chapter will first explore the core connection between resilience and social support including their interplay at individual, family and wider ecological levels. Similarly, the influence and benefits of youth civic engagement and action to enable both better social support enlistment and robust resilience is considered. Importantly, the contexts of daily life as well as incidents of crises are highlighted as factors influencing this relationship. Finally, these three concepts of social support, youth civic action and resilience are composited into a ‘tentative’ conceptual framework, with three short vignettes presented to illustrate its application to policy and practice.
Connecting Resilience to Social Support
Whereas much has been written on the importance of social support and social networks as proven buffers to stress (Cutrona 2000), less attention has been paid to the wider context of social networks and how they are related to building the resilience of youth, their families and communities. While more generally, much is known about the role of kin as a source of social support (Tracy and Whittaker, 1990) and as a protective factor, the more distinct supportive role of young people's schools and community settings is less well researched (Dryfoos et al, 2005). It could be argued that many helping professionals often assume that by ensuring a youth has multiple sources of support, that better mental health and associated coping capacity will ensue. However, social support has more discrete and nuanced aspects that influence well-being (Cobb, 1976) and these should influence interventions from professionals. Key coping issues for young people and their families relate to their access to emotional and instrumental assistance, usable advice, and the dependability of help on offer to them. These social network factors are essential to resilience building in youth and go deeper than just identifying ‘who can help’.
Although there are contexts where optimal support can be best accessed from professionals, overall, most youth access the help they need from informal sources. Often described as natural helpers (Cotterell, 1996), these informal supporters are ‘unpaid’ and typically comprise parents, siblings, other family members and close friendships (Dolan, 2010). Nevertheless, despite the fact that such help is available outside of office hours, is a naturally occurring form of sustenance, and generally is the lowest cost of intervention, this key function of informal support tends to be overlooked by frontline professionals, policymakers and service designers alike. Most importantly, this connection between natural help and reciprocity within networks, when operative, has solid benefits for youth. This includes minimising a young person’s sense of being stigmatised. In addition, on the basis of ‘returning a favour’ by reciprocating support received, it lessens his or her sense of feeling beholden to others. Increased interest in utilising such informal support has been highlighted in the literature as having particular value (Cutrona, 2000; Ghate and Hazel, 2002).
Two further specific concepts in social support theory have emerged which are of particular importance for building resilience in youth. Firstly, hidden support which relates to assistance which a young person receives but remains unaware of its donation has been seen to be very effective. Secondly, convoyed help from the social networks of others enables a young person to utilise help from new contacts (Levitt, 2005). Both of these social support factors are now explored briefly in the context of resilience building.
While hidden support is help which one does not realise one is receiving, or is provided in a very low key way, it must be delivered so that the recipient feels little impingement on him/her. Bolger and Amarel (2007) show that when one receives support through a straight forward transaction of help from another person, whereas the recipient may appreciate the support, he or she will often feel worse after the event. This can result in a young person or his/her family harbouring feelings of now owing something to others; with feelings of inadequacy at not being able to reciprocate support once it has been received.
Where the exact same type and level of help is provided in a hidden way, for example via a third more neutral party or provided anonymously, the positive effects for the recipient include a lessened sense of poor self-esteem and increased self-efficacy (Bolger and Amarel, 2007). In terms of using social support as a tool to build protective factors for individual youth, families and communities this is particularly important. It highlights that for youth in need, their journey of recovery or capacity to bounce back or just cope can be enhanced by discrete acts of social support.
In addition to the potential of hidden help, accessing social support through sources outside of a young person’s immediate network have been highlighted as having particular potential for practice and programme interventions (Levitt 2005). Mary Levitt has developed this concept of support being convoyed for a person with a weak network by channelling help through one reliable alliance. This can act as an antidote for youth who have poor or toxic social network ties with few supporters including family and friends. Thus by accessing help from the positive supporters of another person’s network, a youth can derive benefits. So as with bridging social capital (Putnam, 2000) convoyed support may occur where a young person can both ‘get by and get ahead’ by identifying one responsive person in his/her otherwise poor network who opens up a range of new network contacts and opportunities. For example, through using the contacts of a friend, a youth seeking a job accesses employment. Furthermore, while most appreciative of the introduction to this work contact, he/she may be unaware of the additional hidden help by this friend which enabled such a successful outcome.
This process of utilising hidden and convoyed help is in opposition to the early image of social support which sought to create an ideal network by changing relationships between the central network member and others (Tracy and Whittaker, 1990). The approach is also gaining interest among frontline practitioners including social workers. For instance, both Youth Mentoring and Family Group Conferencing are programmes which use such social support network interventions and have been developed and well tested over recent decades (Tierney et al, 1995; Connolly, 2004).
Limitations of Social Support
As well as emphasising its strengths, it is important to highlight the limitations of social support in the lives of young people (Cotterell, 1996). Not all help is positive and networks can often contain dangers such as unfair criticism from the donor, or lack of reciprocity which has a negative impact on a young person and particularly so when he or she is feeling vulnerable (Whittaker 2009). Similarly, a recent negative incident in a relationship with a parent or friend can impair any accurate assessment by the young person on the amount of support he or she has on offer (Ungar, 2004). So, when those who are close fall out even briefly, the negative impact on the supply of support for a young person can last for some time (Dolan, 2008). Such events or confrontations are often overlooked or not fully accounted for by professionals in considering the bank of supporters available to a young person. Furthermore, the support that a youth perceives to be available can sometimes be ‘wishful thinking’ on his or her part rather than an accurate account of actual available help. Cotterell (1996) indicates that youth often over-report the range of sources levels and quality of support on offer.
Young people can also often overuse their supply of help. Thus, if help from indirect sources is over assumed by a young person, the donor who acts as the gateway to help may become unhappy and feel he or she is being used. Again, the ultimate outcome of this scenario for a young person is that his/her main alliance will withdraw assistance and the associated convoy of supporters evaporate. Thus, where social support is over used, negative or ineffective it can lead to youth having poorer coping capacity and reinforcement of their sense of helplessness and hopelessness. It can also have the effect of diminishing a young person’s sense of self-compassion, happiness, optimism positive affect, wisdom and personal initiative (Neff, et al 2007).
Support in Everyday Living and in Crises
Although Tracy and Whittaker describe social support as “direct acts of assistance between human beings” (p.23, 1990), the timing and context in which help is offered is of equal importance. While supporting individual youth in the face of imminent stress tends to be the focus for professionals, help in everyday living contexts does not get the same attention (Dolan, 2010). For example, when a youth loses a parent through sudden death, the initial well meaning onslaught of emotional support from professionals and non-professionals alike can be a cause of additional stress and impair the youth’s capacity to bereave and be resilient. This flood of support can wane quickly and go from too many people offering help to the bereaved youth, to no one giving comfort. Similarly, where relationships were poor or not close prior to the young person experiencing loss, although peace breaks out during the immediate time of a funeral and in the aftermath to the death, over time, problems and negative history which predate the death will re-emerge as unresolved.
The difference between crisis and everyday social support has been further highlighted by Hawkins and Maurer (2010). They studied how families coped during and after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans USA and found that youth and their families utilised differing forms of support during the immediate crisis of the flood compared to help they accessed later on as part of their recovery. They also found that locally sourced social support were a key factor in the capacity of youth to be resilient and retain hopefulness. In sum, in order to bridge the gap between working with individual youth and working with communities there is a need not just to see both social support networks and resilience as concepts that come into play in a crisis, but having important usage in the context of everyday life.
Civic Engagement to Enlist Social Support and Enable Resilience
The concept of mastery is recognised as an aid in enabling resilience for children and youth. For example, Gilligan (2009) highlights that through accomplishment of a hobby or other leisure activity a young person can become resilient regardless of other failure occurring in close relationships, or other adversities such as coping with a disability or the experience of extreme poverty or school exclusion. Over several decades within the media of film, success in a hobby during adolescence has been depicted as a ‘lynchpin’ or turning point that enables the growth of resilience for a young person. For instance, the 1969 classic British film ‘Kes’ describes how a young boy living in poverty and experiencing abuse within his family, befriends and cares for an injured falcon. Through this acquired mastery of falconry he gains self efficacy and demonstrates a strong capacity to ‘bounce back’ from adversity.
However, this portrayal of achieving resilience through hobby or leisure achievement may not be the only possible pathway. The concept of social civic engagement which engages youth in altruistic acts in their family and/or wider community may hold potential for young people (Dolan 2010). Youth civic action as a potential for the enablement of resilience has received little attention (Flanagan and Nakesha, 2001). Youth civic engagement is described in terms of leadership and defined by Van Linden and Fertman (1998) as “individuals who think for themselves, communicate their thoughts and feelings to others, and help others understand and act on their own beliefs” (p. 17).