Growing up in the age of uncertainty

The considerations set out below originate from the university research program “Sustainable practices of everyday life in the context of the crisis: toward the integration of work consumption and participation” (Prin 2010-11) which aimed at starting an analysis of the strategies implemented by young people in order to tackle the crisis that has hit Italy since 2007/2008,

In Italy young people are particularly affected by this phase of major historical and cultural change: in the age group 15-34 the unemployment rate has attained 24.3% [Istat 2015; Rizza, Maestripieri 2015]; 26.9% of young working people have a fixed-term employment contract [Istat 2015]; seven in ten Italians aged 18-34 still live at home with their parents [Eurostat 2017]. Given figures like these, the project discussed here aimed to analyse the adaptation and possible innovation scenarios and strategies emerging in daily life [Bovone, Lunghi 2017].

In this article I will use two types of data collected during the research carried out from 2013 to 2016.

The first data type was derived from a complex semi-structured questionnaire administered to 700 (350 female and 350 male) high-school senior students of the provinces of Milan, Pavia, Cremona, Lodi, Brescia and Varese ^[2]. The questionnaire comprised four sections and explored values, lifestyles, political affiliation and participation and, finally, representations of the future. In particular, the last section went into further detail on the theme of the economic crisis (asking to mention the «top five words that come to your mind when you think of the crisis»); sensitivity to the themes relating to protection of the environment; willingness to adopt sustainable forms of consumption; awareness of the thoughts on declining growth by the French anthropologist Serge Latouche [Latouche 2006] ^[3].

The questionnaires have been analysed taking into account two fundamental points. First of all, the age of the respondents: they were high school students who had just become of age, which is supposed to have an impact on their knowledge, their sense of belonging and their representation of the future. The second point is the inevitable gap between representations of reality and actual practices. Because of it questionnaires have to be considered as a partial and limited means and, as such, have to be used only in full awareness that any instrument of analysis is selective when representing a given phenomenon [Duranti 1997], so as to highlight some of its properties. In our case, the questionnaire enables us to have access, broadly speaking, to the semantics and the discourse young people move in while shaping their future.

Despite these two limitations, the data gathered appear to be an interesting starting point: indeed, going through a situation of persisting crisis when approaching adulthood and defining one’s own identity may have a profound effect on the formation of the system of meanings which (will) guide one’s thoughts and actions in the world. Moreover, the cognitive and ethical categories used can be decisive in setting up effective participation and recognition strategies as well as in expanding one’s horizons when aspiring to a better future [Appadurai 2013].

The second group of data comes from seventy-five interviews with 18-31 year-olds from Milan area who completed their formal education in the years 2007-2010 and hence approached the labour market during its deep downturn. Half of them have a training school certificate; the remainder have a BA or MA university degree.

Essentially, we conducted in-depth interviews and heard the accounts of transformations and adaptations in four areas: job search and evaluation of one’s current work position; changes in lifestyle, forms of participation in social and political life and perception of the crisis (where crisis is meant as a set of constraints and opportunities). Through these interviews we have gathered information on the strategies used by young people who have almost completed their formal education, find themselves in a context of crisis and therefore have to decide how to cope with it every single day.

Starting from these elements (relating, on the one hand, to the young who are deciding what to do in the future and therefore need to imagine the context in which they will live and, on the other hand, to the young who have already completed their formal education and hence have to tackle the crisis in order to survive), I wish to put forth my comments on “growing up in the age of uncertainty”: how young people figure out their future and to which extent they believe themselves responsible for making change possible.

From the first three sections of the questionnaire we derived information on the background for the cultural representations of the crisis of the young high-school senior students interviewed, who had just become of age.

We got the impression that this generation is strongly tied to ICT and in particular to images. In their opinion the most important objects in daily life are the smartphone, the pc, the i-pad and the gaming console as well as photographs, family albums and cameras. Communication seems to take place through visual thinking ­– s­eeing and being seen, taking pictures and being photographed – significant affections and relations are expressed and “stored” through images, one’s personal identity and relations are kept alive using images (as it is the case with Instagram and Whatsapp) [Jenkins 2006; Bagnara, Mesenzani, 2010]. This technological generation, though, is still anchored to traditional values such as family, friendship, love, education, honesty/sincerity. The dominating values are the ones that hinge upon affections, on all that is well-known and the family. Whether the young have grown up with the paradigm of the Internet, mobility, travel and experimentation or of sedentariness [Pasqualini 2011; Rosina 2011], this element does not substantially change their set of values, which remains strongly rooted in stability and tradition and displays a hierarchy of values that were typical of the young Italians of thirty years ago [Cavalli, De Lillo 1988].

The gathered data confirm the scenario of a generation which is scarcely interested in political participation. They seem to have accepted that politics has a low ethical profile and the situation cannot be changed. When there is no vis polemica, the general attitude appears to be the one expressed by a Milanese girl attending a training school and living with her mother:

The scarce interest shown in participation is an aspect of the continuous deferral of decision-making in life (which the interviewees are allowed to do even when their families have limited economic resources and little social support).

No mention is made of any forms of unconventional political participation [Norris 2007] even though, since the interviewees are “always online”, we do not know if they are keeping alive some form of remote participation in movements or associations. Assuming that political belonging and commitment are somehow being re-defined and expressed through the new technologies, those who are redefining these forms of political belonging and commitment have not yet found the words to tell this story. Also references to voluntary work are actually quite rare - perhaps because the respondents are still too young.

Rather, young people thoroughly express the ongoing process of individualization of life stories in contemporary society [Beck 1986]: they express aspirations and desires. Their parents actually support them in every decision, since they are more concerned about their children’s “happiness” and “fulfilment” than about the development of appropriate employment strategies in this delicate time or about acting as an alternative generation [Biscaldi 2009; Lanz, Tagliabue, Marzana 2013; Marta, Marzana, Alfieri 2013].

Considering the first three sections of the questionnaire – values, lifestyles and forms of participation – the economic crisis does not appear to have had an impact, as it can be inferred from the respondents’ reference values, the places they go to, the way they spend their time, as well as from their lifestyle (that appears to be studded with small purchases and forms of entertainment – the so-called happy hour, lotteries, gaming halls, cinema and sports) and from the steady use of social networks.

None of the respondents made direct and explicit reference to the economic crisis, at least in terms of belonging to political parties or to religious faith (which are not considered as a possible response) or in the description of their life project, which does not appear to be questioned or having to be redefined in the light of the problematic economic context.

The description of their lifestyle, in line with an affluent society, is in striking contrast with the statements they made in the subsequent sections as well as with the alarmed tones used and it appears to point out a gap between practices, timing and relations in their daily life and what they actually express when explicitly asked about the present “crisis”.

Neither the respondents aged 18-31 describe a daily life of deprivation or some frustration in their consumerist attitude, regardless the differences in the economic capital of their families; they rather, describe how they have learnt to self-regulate and to come up with smart solutions in order to cope with the present situation in their daily life. It is fundamental for them to feel that they can rely on the material support of their parents, but this kind of support probably plays down the expectations or any other claim of welfare.

The historical period young people are living in is not interpreted in terms of generational or ideological change and does not appear to be able to generate a reactive or revolutionary project; rather, it is part of a strongly individualized vision in which any individual is asked to re-read and re-adapt his/her life project, to analyse him/herself, maybe also to feel guilty for not being adequate, or to rely upon his/her proactivity, if not altogether good luck. The crisis is not interpreted through any “political” categories and the respondents use “biographic” ones instead; there is no idea of the future, only the present exists and there is no consistency, but rather flexibility and open-mindedness:

An individualized interpretation of their situation prevails, requiring personal and situational tactics: you have to focus entirely on your ability to solve “your own” situation, rather than aspire to social transformation. These elements confirm the argument proposed by Amalia Signorelli:

When expressly asked about the crisis, one would say that for the young respondents the crisis is an ordinary situation: it is not an exceptional condition you have to handle, it is not an emergency; rather, it is a situation in which you have to live.

Like all phenomena that have become ordinary, the crisis has also become “natural” and “inevitable” – it is not something that need to be explained and understood, but something that “explains” and “justifies” many other factors: it explains why you don’t find a job or a house, why you cannot form a family or you have to postpone important decisions …

It is a situation that, not being an “expert”, you decide not to understand; you prefer to rely upon your resourcefulness instead and to nurture the idea that since the world is changing one has to adapt to it.

In the fourth part of the questionnaire administered to high-school students we asked them to associate five words to the notion of crisis.

The words chosen by the respondents can be said to fall into five main semantic fields.

The prevailing one is the one we could define as being, strictly speaking, related to the economy, i.e.to unemployment, poverty, indebtedness, the banks’ responsibility. In their representations this theme is associated, at times, to the suicides of bankrupt entrepreneurs or to elderly people who are driven to steal in supermarkets out of necessity. This semantic field describes reality as it is presented by the media, just like it is, unfiltered and without comments. It is very generic, it reiterates common-sense words and discourse [Baretta, Nizzoli 2016]. The following strings are an example of it:

This semantic field is based on the removal of the cultural dimension. As Amalia Signorelli [2016] wrote, one of the limits of the current explanations is naturalistic reductionism, i.e. a description of the crisis in purely economic or even financial terms, which results in cancelling the cultural and human dimensions and consequently avoiding any reasoning on the political responsibilities and tasks. The fact that the crisis is viewed only in terms of data is at the same time a consequence and a cause of this inability to plan for the future.

The second recurrent semantic field relates to corruption, i.e. corrupt politics, tax evasion, bribes and lack of values. The following expressions recur: greedy politicians, corruption, scandals, “magnamagna” (over-eagerly procuring money, used for illegal or at least dodgy practices), thieves. The tones used here are less neutral and more polemic, often bordering on the vernacular. The following strings are an example of it:

The fact that respondents blame corrupt politics can be read as a marked tendency to relieve individuals of their responsibility: if the politicians, the corrupt, the multinationals, the previous generations are to blame, then young people are relieved of responsibility for their actions and there is nothing they can do to improve the situation:

It is interesting to note the widespread sense of the uselessness of individual protesting and of the meaninglessness of individuals, which is based on some sort of recognition that society prevails over individuals:

This attitude actually nips in the bud the individuals’ ability to take action and does not suit the notion of democratic participation the network is supposed to provide. Young people seem to lack the repertoire of metaphorical, symbolic and organizational tools required to “take the floor” and claim a recognition through the language of political participation. They also seem to lack the landmarks required to organize some form of dissent or reaction.

Moreover, out of the 700 young respondents, only four have heard of and more or less know something about the notion of degrowth. When asked «If you do not know it [the notion of degrowth] what do you believe it refers to?», the expression degrowth is mostly associated to demographic decline, to a condition of psychological instability, to a general malaise within society. For almost all of the interviewees the lacking or declining economic development immediately drives people to a negative evaluation. The logical connection these youngsters continuously repeat is the condition of unhappiness and negativity that the lack of economic growth and of access to consumption inevitably entails. Happiness is linked to progress and progress in turn, is linked to consumption whereas the lack of progress and of consumption results in uncertainty and fear.

The third semantic field is related to the family under two slightly different aspects. The family of origin is deemed to be the only resource to survive; the future family young people wish to have one day is difficult to form. This semantic field emphasizes the affective dimension stuck between one’s family of origin, which is “always supportive”, and the fact that “it would be risky to start a family”. This is a recurring statement exemplified by the following strings:

The fourth semantic field represents the crisis from an emotional viewpoint: desperation, immobility, absence of any expectations, impossibility to find a way out. The young vent their feelings and the discomfort they feel. This semantic field expresses the situation of anguish and immobility, described as having no solution:

The fifth semantic field is focused on the young seen as being particularly penalized by the situation. Recurring expressions are: penalized youngsters, useless formal education certificate, young people without a future. This semantic field hinges on the contrast between generations. Choosing a ticket abroad is viewed as the only possibility of redemption. The following strings are an example:

There is a sixth, more limited, tendency which includes namely those who deny the existence of the crisis and downplay it or maintain that it is a hype, a plot: «I firmly believe that this crisis does exist and will continue to exist because someone wanted it as it is necessary to pursue certain goals» (M, Italian, Liceo biologico); «many not-so-severe situations are exaggerated and inflated» (F, Italian, Liceo sociopsicopedagogico, father is an IT engineer, mother is a free-lancer); «at times the media profit from the most tragic aspects of the crisis and emphasize them» (M, Italian, training school, father is a tiler, mother is a bartender); «if there really were a crisis, how could you explain all these i-phone sales, designer garments, expensive cars on our roads?» (M, Italian, Liceo scientifico, father is a teacher). The following strings are typical:

In our group of students only eighteen out of seven hundred proposed a reactive and proactive vision which suggests some ability to use resources and strategies of innovation. In the five words used to describe the crisis there are also some reactive and proactive elements.

Let us read the word change: «without change it is not possible to leave the crisis behind us» (M, Italian, Liceo sociopsicopedagogico, mother is a clerical worker); the crisis is an «opportunity to change» (F, Italian, training school for social work, parents are clerical workers) something we «have to get out of quickly» (M, Italian, Liceo artistico, mother is a teacher, father is an IT programmer).

The semantic field of “reforms” has come up: the interviewees mentioned the «need for effective reforms to tackle the crisis» (M, Italian, Liceo scientifico, mother is a teacher); innovation «each young person should react thinking of the possible innovations of the economic system in which he/she lives» (F, Italian, Liceo scientifico, mother is a teacher, father is retired), but also a possible revolution «we should say enough is enough and start changing things our way» (F, Italian, training school for graphic designers, mother is a housewife, father a blue collar worker).

The terms “courage” and “commitment” have come up: it takes «courage, strength to stand up again» (F, Italian, Liceo scientifico, mother is a housewife, father is a clerical worker); «the crisis can stimulate young people to put themselves at stake, to make efforts to really get out of this situation of instability» (F, Italian, Liceo classico, mother is a teacher, father is a free-lancer); «only the most skilled and the smartest will survive. It takes a huge commitment» (F, Moroccan, training school).

The interviewees mentioned also solidarity and simplicity: «helping the others and working every day in view of future recovery» (F, Moldovan, Liceo scientifico, mother is a housemaid, father is a blue collar worker); «a positive aspect of the crisis: buy less and be content with what you have» (F, Italian, Liceo sociopsicopedagogico, mother is an employee, father a driver).

As for the features of these innovators: most of them are females, almost all of them attend a Liceo (15 out of 18) and come from families with a higher cultural capital. All of them want to attend university and their families approve and support this choice. They go to the same places where their peers go, share the same passion for images and the same language relating to minor consumption, but they also master the communication skills required to write a well-reasoned text and were able to express themselves clearly and knowingly in our questionnaire, defining their position without shunning discussion.

As Appadurai [2004] reminded us, one of the worst forms of poverty is the lack of resources to set up a protest, be able to express one’s point of view, be listened to and hence aspire to a better future and have this aspiration recognized. Indeed, the capacity to aspire generates a future in daily life: it unties us from a dull present so that we can see problems as resources instead.

While this capacity is characterised by a practical aspect (in order to aspire to something you actually need to have a plan and determine how to implement it), it also has a cultural aspect because when planning the future one takes part in the image that society, or the part of it in which one identifies oneself, has of the future, of what is feasible and permissible to ask for.

In the current situation young people are evidence of the symbolic dominance of the present: the difficulty to set their own individual wishes and collective aspirations beyond the present, in a political dimension.

Italian society has brought about a sense of lack of alternatives and a need for adaptation which are still being transmitted to people; as a result, planning activities have been considerably reduced. Hence the acceptance of life uncertainty, the belief that merits are scarcely taken into consideration, the widespread relief from responsibility [Agnoli 2014; Antonini 2014].

Moreover, this capacity to aspire is combined to and at the same time is the expression of «a society of adults that appears not to need the ideas and energies of the young»^[5] [Bettin-Lattes 2002, 11].

Since we have recorded the difficulty young people experience in recognizing themselves in the traditional channels of political participation and in working out new forms of expression through the use of technologies, it would be useful to question the role society assigns to the young generations and the space made available to them to participate and intervene [Boeri, Galasso 2007). A lot of educational experiences have been transformed into confined spaces which generate scientific competences, but do not generate social skills that can be spent elsewhere; the languages of school education are closed-ended, often focused on the mechanical transmission of competences but not apt to provide new terms and new perspectives. As such, these languages are not able to help the young enhance their capacity to consider themselves active players with an appropriate level of agency.

In this research we have verified that the mere knowledge of a pattern of thought that is different from the dominating (economic) pattern – obviously not a niche one, but widespread and broadly debated by now – is completely ignored (including by young people attending high schools with an emphasis on social and pedagogical studies) ^[6].

While it is true that individual and generational identity in times of crisis is formed through the ways we respond to uncertainty, the general picture we are faced with appears to be deeply worrying in all respects: the young seem to be stuck between two opposite images, i.e. the lack of certainty and the precariousness on the one hand and the unilinear evolutionist paradigm, the myth of progress, which conceives happiness in terms of build-up of assets, knowledge and relationships on the other hand.

The young are telling us that a society of uncertainty is coming into being, one where inconsistency, ability to adapt and resourcefulness are increasingly perceived as being necessary to survive, whereas consistency, stability, memory of the past and strong planning have become untenable and inconvenient values if not actually dangerous obstructions. It is no use to be consistent:

Agnoli M.S (ed.) 2014, Generazioni sospese. Percorsi di ricerca sui giovani Neet, Milano: Franco Angeli.

Antonini E. 2014, Giovani senza. L’universo NEET tra fine del lavoro e crisi della formazione, Milano: Mimesis.

Appadurai A. 2004, The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition, in Rao V., Walton M. (eds.) 2004, Culture and Public Action, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 59-84.

--2013, The Future as Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition, London: Verso.

Augé M. 1992, Non-lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité, Paris : La Seuil.

Bagnara S., Mesenzani M. 2010, Lavoro e formazione nella società della conoscenza, «Scuola Democratica. Learning for democracy», 1: 92-120.

Baretta P., Nizzola L. 2016, La rappresentazione, «Osservatorio Europeo sulla Sicurezza, La Ricerca della Gioventù perduta. Un futuro, oltre la paura. IX rapporto sulla sicurezza e l’insicurezza sociale in Italia e in Europa», Marzo: 15-20.

Beck U. 1986, Risikogesellchaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt: Suhrkarnp.

Berger J. 1972, Ways of seeing, London: Penguin Books.

Bettin-Lattes G. 2002, Prefazione in Caniglia E. (ed.) 2002, Identità, partecipazione e antagonismo nella politica giovanile, Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino.

Biscaldi A. 2009, Un figlio è sempre un figlio. L’immaginario degli adolescenti lombardi sulla generazione e sull’aborto, Cremona: CISU.

Biscaldi A. 2013, Etnografia della responsabilità educativa, Bologna: Archetipo.

Boeri T., Galasso V., 2007, Contro i giovani. Come l’Italia sta tradendo le nuove generazioni, Milano: Mondadori.

Bovone L., Mora E. (eds.) 1997, La moda della metropoli, Milano: Franco Angeli.

Bovone L., Lunghi C. (eds.) 2017, Resistere. Innovazione e vita quotidiana, Roma: Donzelli.

Cavalli A., De Lillo A. 1988, Giovani anni 80. Secondo rapporto Iard sulla condizione giovanile in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino.

Cesareo V. 2004, Comportamenti di consumo, identità ed esperienza lavorativa nella società contemporanea: una relazione complessa, «Sociologia del lavoro», 93: 31-45.

--2005, Ricomporre la vita. Gli adulti giovani in Italia, Roma: Carocci.

Codeluppi V. 2002, La sociologia dei consumi: teorie classiche e prospettive contemporanee, Roma: Carocci.

Colombo E., Rebughini P., Leonini L. (eds.) 2017, Giovani dentro la crisi , Milano: Guerini e Associati.

Deriu M. 2015, La capacità di aspirare nell’epoca del precariato. Le nuove generazioni tra senso di irrilevanza e nuovi modi di stare al mondo,«Animazione sociale», 289:14-27.

Di Nallo E. 2004, Il consumo come area esperienziale, «Sociologia del lavoro», 93: 71-81.

Douglas M., Isherwood B. 1979, The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, New York: Basic Books.

Duranti A. 1997, Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giovannini G. 2004, Età, autonomia e responsabilità , «Itinerari», 1: 11-22.

Jenkins H. 2006, Convergence culture: where old and new media collide, New York and London: New York University Press.

Lanz M., Tagliabue S., Marzana D. 2013, Transizione all’età adulta e relazioni familiari in Bacchini D. (ed.) 2013, Il ruolo educativo della famiglia. Essere genitori nella società contemporanea, Milano: Erikson, 109-129.

Latouche S. 2006, L e pari de la décroissance, Paris: Fayard.

Lazzarini G. 2004, Discrasia. Patologie di un rapido mutamento sociale , Milano: Franco Angeli.

Livi Bacci M. 2005, Il paese dei giovani vecchi, «Il Mulino», 3: 409-421.

Marta E., Marzana D., Alfieri S. 2013, Clima familiare e impegno dei giovani: quali connessioni?, in Istituto Giuseppe Toniolo, 2013, La condizione giovanile in Italia. Rapporto giovani, Bologna: Il Mulino, 49-71.

Norris P. 2007, Political Activism: New Challenges, New Opportunities, in Boix C., Stokes S. (eds.) 2007, The Oxford Handbook of Comparatives Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.

Paltrinieri R. 2004, Consumi e globalizzazione, Roma: Carocci.

Pasqualini C. 2011, Mobili e/o bloccati? Il (non) tempo delle giovani generazioni, «Studi di sociologia», 3: 275-290.

Rizza R., Maestripieri L. 2015, Giovani al lavoro. I numeri della crisi, Milano: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.

Rosina A. 2006, Com’è duro essere giovani in Italia, Lavoce.info, 17 luglio.

--2011, Un’idea di Italia diffusa, «Il Mulino», 2/4: 217-225.

Signorelli A. 2016, La vita al tempo della crisi, Torino: Einaudi.

Tylor C. 2007, A secular age, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.