EL ASESINATO DE UN SOCIOLOGO COMPROMETIDO

Many of the young people who I met outreach in both localities regularly commented that they wanted somewhere to shelter from the bad weather, to provide warmth and safety resonating with Meek’s (2008) research:

“Somewhere to go for free, because you don’t get somewhere indoors for free, at all, if you don’t buy something then you don’t go out, or even when it’s raining and all cold or whatever, build something for free that is nice, indoors and warm” (Female 15 Sandton Outreach-based).

This was reiterated by the young people in Rockford:

“We want an indoor skate park because it always rains” (Male 15 Rockford Outreach-based).

“It’s cold now so we need somewhere to go like where you could just sit down and watch TV and stuff like that” (Female 17 Rockford Outreach- based).

When discussing safety and security, two places were particularly significant to the young people their homes and the youth organisations that they attended. Young people’s homes in Sandton were defined as a safe place and were evidenced in the photographic activity below (see Figure 14). Similarly, the young people in Rockford also took photographs of their homes to represent safe places (see Figure 15) and would comment:

“Wait where’s me house oh there...Cos that’s home...safe place my house” (Male 14 Rockford youth-centre Interview).

The youth organisations were also identified as safe places for both groups of young people. This was especially so in Rockford, however, where the youth organisation was perceived as a place offering protection by the staff that worked there. The young people regularly commented that if it were not for the youth organisation they would be on the streets and that the staff who worked there provided safety:

Young person (YP): “Safe because of staff...these people are staff of youth organisation [sic] …It’s a safe place it’s the youth organisation...Because its the youth organisation”

Researcher (R): “Why?” YP: “Because you’re here”

R: “Because there are other people here then?

YP: “Yeah the staff they look after you. Because they won’t let you out of their sight unless you ask them...They won’t you have to ask them’ (Female 13 and Male 14 Rockford photograph method narrative).

Figure 14 Photographic Method in Sandton 'a safe place' Figure 13 Photograph Method in Rockford 'a safe place'

Figure 15 and 16 reveal young people’s conceptualisations of safety and what a safe place meant. Whilst both photographic activities included a photograph of a young person’s home, overwhelmingly the young people in Rockford took photographs of places which had ‘staff’, ‘guards’ or ‘adults’ there to protect them. The tension that exists in Rockford in the young people’s perceptions of adults - as people to be feared on the one hand (‘druggies’, ‘alcoholics’, ‘paedophiles’) and, on the other hand, as people offering protection (neighbours, youth workers and police officers) - was further reflected elsewhere:

Young Person (YP): “It really is because yesterday people tried to nick my bike and they [staff] stopped it”

Researcher (R): “So why is it safe?”

YP: “Because of the staff. Because no men or women can get in youth cafe, because no one can get inside like an adult or whatever” (Female 12 Rockford youth-centre Interview) (See figure 16).

Similar sentiments were expressed by another young person in Rockford who talked about wanting new facilities, but only if it was supervised:

“Yeah as long as like someone was watching and that like someone that owns it in case anything happened” (Male 14 Interviewyouth-centre Rockford).

However, since the completion of fieldwork in Rockford the youth organisation has been closed, leaving no youth provision in the vicinity for the young people to attend. In an already deprived and under resourced area this has left the young people feeling more marginalised and subsequently more vulnerable, particularly because the organisation was not only a place of safety, but it also provided a hot meal for the young people each night. During fieldwork one of the older young people who attended the youth organisation illustrated how important this was:

“I don’t know where half the kids would go. Like I’ve seen like both ...I wasn’t one of the kids that came in because I was starving all the time. I was quite lucky in that sense but the majority are starving. Rockford is full of people living in poverty like, not that they are like completely homeless got no money but what money they do get is not very much to live off really” (Female 17 Rockford youth-centre Interview).

Figure 15 Photographic Method in Sandton 'a safe place with friends'

The above extracts and photographic methods have illustrated how important it was for the young people in Rockford to have somewhere to go; to be safe, warm, fed and protected by adults. Research has shown that young people from deprived areas have far higher rates of ill health, death and injury from accidents, both inside and outside the home (Hillman, Adams and Whitelegg 1990; Roberts, Smith and Bryce 1995; UNICEF 2001). Therefore, in areas such as Rockford, the youth organisation was of paramount importance to young people’s well-being.

Conclusion

In both case study sites, young people felt some sense of threat from adults when out in public space. This fear materialised through young people witnessing adults in public being either drunk, or taking drugs, sometimes in places which they perceived to be for them, such as in parks. The chapter revealed how problematising groups of young people takes the attention away from adults whom in both case studies were a source of concern. This impacted upon where the young people would and would not go and increased young people’s fear of crime. However, in addition young people feared ‘other’ young people in Sandton reflecting class-based tensions. The construction of the ‘anti-social youth’ in Sandton, through the derogatory labelling of working class young people as ‘chavs’, reflected as Shildrick et al., (2009) points out historical discourses of the white working class as feckless, welfare dependent and morally degenerate.

In Rockford, a ‘stranger danger’ discourse was prevalent and was voiced by many young people who were worried about being followed, being hurt, or being taken. The fear of strangers prevalent in Rockford, affected where they did or did not go to or ‘hang out’. Parks and other public places associated were conceptualised as fearful places due to the adults who frequented them. It was only in Rockford that there was a juxtaposition of the protecting and threatening adult - as people to be feared on the one hand (‘druggies’, ‘alcoholics’, ‘paedophiles’) and, on the other hand, as people offering protection (neighbours, youth workers and police officers). Their insecurities revealed how these have been exacerbated due to the effect of recent

economic recessions and government cuts. The youth organisation in Rockford provided food and safety for the young people which now raises questions about young people’s health and well-being in already disadvantaged areas.

The young people’s differences of risk, crime, fear and use of public space are central to these debates. Places that young people in each locality deemed safe or unsafe reflected how place impacts upon safety. The divergences of young people’s experiences revealed that place (socio-demographics) impacts upon fear of crime and informs young people’s perceptions of risk. As already noted, young people’s perceptions about risk and fear derives from their relationships with their local environment (Matthews and Limb, 1999; McKendrick, 1997; Holloway and Valentine, 2001) which in turn are shaped by class (Pain, 2006). Therefore, for young people in Rockford the perceived fear of strangers who would hurt them in their locality framed their perceptions and experiences. The research findings presented here have illustrated the socio-economic differences between the young people in each case study site and how class profoundly structures their experiences (Pain 2006). How young people perceived risk to their personal safety reflected populist discourses of the ‘anti-social youth’ or ‘stranger danger’. These discourses served to skew actual risks likely to occur to young people therefore victimisation of young people becomes hidden.

Some research suggests that young people from deprived areas suffer disproportionately from forms of harm (Stephenson and Smith, 1989). Whilst this may be true, the research findings presented here cannot be generalised to all young people living in deprived areas. However, what can be claimed is that in areas where crime and social problems are above national averages, young people are more likely to witness this, accounting for the young people’s perceived fear and threat in Rockford. The impact of place therefore was influential in how young people in each case study site weighed up ‘potential risk’ of harm to their own personal safety. Young people’s perceptions about where they lived and the image that was often portrayed also added to this. Exploring youth and their experiences and perceptions therefore unveils a complicated set of contradictions within the study of young people.

Chapter Nine: Conclusions