The current social and political tension in many European countries and the US can be seen as a challenge to democratic politics. Because democracy requires certain levels of support and participation from citizens (Behrouzi, 2005; Dahl, 2001), many studies have looked at adolescents’ interest, trust and participation in, attitudes toward and knowledge about (formal) politics (for example Pattie et al., 2004; Fieldhouse, Tranmer & Russell, 2007; White et al., 2000). Despite a decline in conventional forms of political participation among youth, several studies refute the claim that today’s youth are apathetic and unengaged in politics (Flanagan, 2013; Sloam, 2007, 2012; Tonge et al., 2009; Zukin et al., 2006).

But even though politics is a central topic in subject areas such as social studies, we know little about how adolescents understand the concept of ‘politics’.

Based on the research question ‘How do Norwegian 16-year-old students perceive the concept of politics?’, this paper explores how Norwegian 16-year-olds conceive of the concept of politics and discusses some implications for citizenship and social studies education. The study is based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with nine students from five different upper secondary schools in the east of Norway.

The analysis of the student data was informed by political theory, focusing on different conceptions of politics and the political. Most scholars agree that politics contains an element of disagreement and pluralism, the major disagreements are related to where to draw the lines of what does and what does not constitute politics. At one end of the spectrum, according to Held (1991), we find views that see politics as more or less co-extensive with the whole range of human activity, and at the other end are conceptions linked more directly to the state. Leftwich (2004) distinguishes between politics as a process and as an arena. The arena approach can be seen as a narrower one, focusing on governments’ goals, policies and binding decisions. Those who support the process approach see politics as a much wider phenomenon whose processes are not limited to certain institutional arenas.

This kind of debate has led many theorists to try to delineate the concept of politics and create criteria for its use. Another motivation is to bring politics out of disrepute, as it is often considered a “dirty” word related to power struggle and deception (Crick, 2000; Held, 1991). Mouffe (1993; 2005), in attempting to clear ‘politics’ of this reputation, argues that in pluralist democracies Schmitt’s (1996) friend – enemy distinction should be replaced by the notion of ‘adversaries’. An adversary is an opponent “whose existence is legitimate and must be tolerated”, not an enemy to be destroyed (Mouffe, 1993, p.4). Mouffe’s solution is to show how antagonism can be transformed to make available a form of we/they opposition compatible with pluralist democracy (Mouffe, 2005, p.19).

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Crick, B. (2000). In defence of politics (5th ed.). London: Continuum. Fieldhouse, E., Tranmer, M., & Russell, A. (2007). Something about young people or something about elections? Electoral participation of young people in Europe: Evidence from a multilevel analysis of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Political Research, 46(6), 797-822. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00713. Flanagan, C. (2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Held, D. (1991). Political theory today. Cambridge: Polity Press. Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Forrest, S. (2005). Uninterested Youth? Young People's Attitudes towards Party Politics in Britain. Political Studies, 53(3), 556-578. Journell, W., Beeson, M. W., & Ayers, C. A. (2015). Learning to Think Politically: Toward More Complete Disciplinary Knowledge in Civics and Government Courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 43(1), 28-67. King, N. & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Leftwich, A. (2004). What is politics? The activity and its study. Cambridge: Polity. Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. Pattie, C., Seyd, P. & Whiteley, P. (2004). Citizenship in Britain: Values, participation and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press White, C., Bruce, S., & Ritchie, J. (2000). Young people's politics: Political interest and engagement amongst 14-24 year olds. York: York Publishing Services. Sloam, J. (2007). Rebooting Democracy: Youth Participation in Politics in the UK. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 548-567. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsm035 Sloam, J. (2014). New Voice, Less Equal: The Civic and Political Engagement of Young People in the United States and Europe. Comparative Political Studies,47(5), 663-688. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453441 Tonge, J. (2009). Revitalising Politics: Engaging Young People. Representation, 45(3), 237-246. doi: 10.1080/00344890903129418 Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2153/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183177.001.0001/acprof-9780195183177