Concerns on low voter turn-out, worries about social cohesion and a decreasing political interest in general, have fueled the will to maintain and nurture democratic culture in Western Europe. In this discussion, special attention is directed towards the civic education of young people. Not only because these trends are evident among young people, but more so because youth marks an important formative phase and is a defining period for future political orientation and civic participation in adult life (Flanagan, 2008; Harris 2009; Kavadias et al., 2018).  Civic education usually taking form as active citizenship in formal educational settings with the learning of civic knowledge and the acquisition of the necessary skills and in nonformal settings with an emphasis on participation through volunteering or community work (Biesta & Lawly, 2006). Although important initiatives, this approach reflects a functionalistic, individualist and socialization conception of civic education for future participation (Biesta, 2016; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). Conceiving civic education as a socialization educational task has, paradoxically, a depolitizing effect. With citizenship becoming a positive, identifiable identity, thus creating the idea of the 'good participating citizen' (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004).  This article proposes to view citizenship not as something that can be learned individually for future participation, but rather as a constant transformational and relational process within the democratic experiment. This has two consequences. First, it is important to broaden the scope of spaces where young people learn and experience political participation. Youngsters tend to be deeply involved in a wide range of social and political issues but have other, less institutionalized, ways of participating (Roholt et al., 2013). Participation is often rooted in daily life with very concrete individual experiences.  These experiences on the micro-level interact inform the views on macro- and meso-level of states and institutions (Huegle, 2020; Roholt et al., 2013). If political experiences of youngster are to be taken seriously it is necessary to understand those actual, lived political experiences. Second, it is important to question what is considered to be political in civic education. Most civic education initiatives focus on the political socialization of young people. In contrast Biesta (2016) and Isin (2008) highlight the importance of subjectification and actual political participation. Being a citizen does not only mean adhering to the ideal of the good participating citizen, but more so by creating political subjects through a process in which private troubles are transformed into public issues and structural inequities are questioned (Biesta 2014; Isin, 2008; Sim & Chow, 2020; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).  This means moving from teaching for democracy for future participation to learning through democracy in current lived experiences of young people (Biesta et al., 2009). A dynamic process that can take place in formal, non-formal and informal learning settings. The focus of this research is to explore the dynamics at play informing young people's view on democracy and political participation in the context of youth work. Youth work is chosen as a relevant nonformal and informal learning space, as youth work has historically always been considered an important educational and pedagogical space for young people next to school and family (Lohmeyer, 2019). Research has shown that participation in youth work is linked to higher levels of civic participation in adult life , becoming thus a favorite site for civic education initiatives (Kavadias et al., 2018). The research questions following from this are: first, in which circumstances does youth work offer opportunities for political participation for young people, political participation understood as subjectification? Second, how do young people experience these events, which elements make it political significant for young people?

In order to answer these questions, qualitative research has been undertaken in 2020 in a neighborhood of Brussels, Belgium. The case study takes place in a district of Brussels facing socio-economic difficulties, a young population, a high youth unemployment and a high migrant population. The study has been in close cooperation with a youth organization. The organization is considered to be a social youth organization. Youth work in Belgium is divided between ‘classical leisure time’ youth work and youth social work, mirroring social-economic divides. Youth social work is characterized by open forms, with less attendance obligations, organized by professional youth workers and targeting socially excluded youngsters (Walle et al., 2011). The youth organization holds political participation and democratic inclusion as one of their main values. The type of political participation they aim at aligns with the notion of subjectification: considering young people as political subjects, taking their views seriously by supporting them in developing and expressing their own political views. Wishing to gain more understanding in the dynamics and effects of their efforts, a research trajectory has been put up in different phases. In a first phase five focus groups have been organized. Two focus groups with a total of 11 youth workers to understand the conception of what is deemed to be political relevant actions. Another three focus groups have been organized with 16 frequent young participants of the organization. Semi-structured interview have led the discussion, starting by identifying the main societal challenges according to the youngsters and narrowing down to their experiences within youth work. In a second phase 15 individual semi-structured interviews have been undertaken with less frequent participants using similar questions. After this, a last focus group in the form of a workshop has been organized with 11 youth workers in order to reflect on the findings. All focus groups and interviews have been recorded, transcribed with InqScribe, labeled and analyzed using MAXQDA. The first phase informed and guided the second round of interviews enabling a further elaboration. Analysis took place on different levels as each focus group or interview was taken as a case study and labeled accordingly. This did not only inform thematic labelling later on, but also provided insight on the individual experiences and dynamic processes regarding the experiences and the role of the context of youth work. A research rapport for the organization has been written and presented in November 2020.

The study confirms that young people, also socially excluded youngsters, are deeply invested in society and hold strong views on different political and social issues. The youngster interviewed where quiet distrusting regarding the intents of formal political institutions. They often felt forgotten and excluded due to an interplay of several elements: their socio-economically situation, their migrant background and the fact of being young. Surprisingly this didn’t turn them politically apathetic but was rather a motivational factor in order to be socially and politically involved in several informal and nonformal ways. Often their opinions and views on institutions and society were informed by local and personal experiences. Personal experiences with racism for instance were projected on society as a whole. Many of the examples given took place in their neighborhood or immediate interactions and less from formal political events. Striking was the fact that a majority of the youngsters felt that the participation in social youth work have helped them to express themselves and channel their political mistrust and anger into engagement. They felt unwelcomed at classical youth work such as scouting, but due to the flexible nature and open character of the organization, together with the fact of been taken seriously that offered them the supportive framework to develop political subjectivity. The actions took many forms, from initiating discussions with relatives, to organizing events and even starting an own youth organization based on their own political convictions in order to be heard. It shows the political importance of informal and nonformal places and organizations in which youngsters can express themselves without predetermined goals. Gaining insight on how daily events shape their political being. Civic education should thus not only be regarded as the learning of skills but also about offering spaces in which young people can act politically.

Biesta, G. (2016). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future (G. Biesta Trans.). Culemborg: Uitgeverij Phronese. Biesta, G.; De Bie, M. & Wildemeersch, D. (2014). Introduction: Civic Learning, Democratic Citizenship and the Public Sphere. Dordrecht, Springer Biesta, G.; Lawy, R. & Kelly, N. (2009) Understanding young people's citizenship learning in everyday life: The role of contexts, relationships and dispositions. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197908099374. Biesta, G. & Lawy, R. (2006) From teaching citizenship to learning democracy: overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36:1, 63-79, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490981 Chow, T. & Sim, J. (2020). The Development of Civic Participation Among Youth in Singapor. In: Peterson A., Stahl G., Soong H. (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Flanagan, Constance. (2008). Young people's civic engagement and political development. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Youth and Young Adulthood: New Perspectives and Agendas (1st ed., pp. 293 - 300). Routledge Harris, A. (2009). Young people, politics and citizenship. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Youth and Young Adulthood: New Perspectives and Agendas (1st ed., pp. 301 - 306). Routledge. Harris, A & Wyn, J. (2009) Young People's Politics and the Micro-Territories of the Local. Australian Journal of Political Science, 44:2, 327-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140902865308 Huegle, N. (2020) Supporting Active Citizenship Among Young People at Risk of Social Exclusion: The Role of Adult Education. In Peterson, A.; Stahl, G. & Soong, H. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education. Palgrave Macmillam Kavadias D., Nohemi Jocabeth E.V., Hemmerechts K. (2018) Inequality, Civic Education and Intended Future Civic Engagement: An Examination of Research in Western Democracies. In: Peterson A., Stahl G., Soong H. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Lohmeyer, B.A. (2019). Informal Educational Infrastructure: Citizenship Formation, Informal Education, and Youth Work Practice. In In: Peterson A., Stahl G., Soong H. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Roholt, R. V., Baizerman, M., & Hildreth, R. W. (Eds.). (2013). Civic youth work: Cocreating democratic youth spaces. Lyceum Books. Walle, Tineke & Coussée, Filip & Bie, Maria. (2011). Social exclusion and youth work – from the surface to the depths of an educational practice. Journal of Youth Studies. Westheimer J, Kahne J. (2004) What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy. American Educational Research Journal. 2004;41(2):237-269. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237