Abstract
An emerging body of theory, research, and practice literature places empathy, social support and social capital as intersectional and the cornerstone of sustained citizenship and youth action in general, but particularly around issues of social justice. While there is now an acceptance of the importance of young people exercising their voice, participation, and agency as part of their positive and personal development, equally this also requires opportunities and avenues for them to do so. Also argued here is that the ongoing advancement of positive youth development theory to reflect voice and agency needs further elaboration and more in-depth research.
Introduction
While there is now an acceptance of the importance of young people exercising their voice, participation and agency as part of their development, equally this also requires opportunities and avenues for them to do so. Not least the ongoing advancement of positive youth development theory to reflect voice and agency needs further elaboration and more in-depth research. For example, the assumption that community based youthwork programmes by themselves are a panacea for positive youth development needs further consideration (McGregor and Dolan, 2021). Despite the benefits that accrue from such interventions, young people don’t live in programmes and for many, it is the core familial, school and community relationships which exist outside of youth service systems which are the core mechanism by which they develop and thrive (Canavan et al., 2016).
Similarly, the importance for youth of their informal social support networks, human and economic social capital systems and opportunities to be civically engaged is now well established as theoretical underpinnings which contribute to understanding their developmental process (Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2016). However, the connection between social relationships and mechanisms for attaining support and the underpinning foundational role of reciprocal empathy and compassion in particular needs greater elaboration (Rossi et al., 2016). Even more so, the connection between young people activating their empathy through acts of compassion manifested through their civic action needs further consideration. In the interest of furthering scholarly debate, youth policy formation and applied practice in this field, a tentative intersecting model which connects active empathy, social support, social capital and youth civic engagement is forwarded in this paper. The intention here is to move from static theory and concepts to an actionable and useable framework for youth development.
The challenge of understanding youth development
Adolescent growth and development has been defined as ‘the life span period in which most of a person’s biological, cognitive, psychological, and social characteristics are changing in an interrelated manner from what is considered childlike to what is considered adult-like’ (Lerner et al., 2005: 3). This occurs within multiple contexts for a young person that are internal such as physical growth and maturation, cognitive development the ongoing process of regulation of emotions. It also occurs in the context of socialisation including, external changes between the young person and his/her family, movement within peer groups and the selecting and deselecting of friendships, as well as a changing landscape of community ties and involvement (Mak et al., 2018). In the past, the period of adolescence was portrayed more negatively as a time of turbulence or storm and stress (Freud, 1969; Hall, 1904), during which each young person had to negotiate life events successfully in order to attain a fulfilling adulthood. This presented a picture of adolescence as occurring across episodes of adversity and termed by Lerner (2005) as a deficit model.
However, from the mid 1980s, with the emergence of a more positive view of adolescence, for example, seeing young people as having their own agency and self-efficacy, a strengths-based perspective evolved (Saleeby, 1997). More specifically, since the 1990s building on the pioneering work by Lerner and others Positive Youth Development (PYD) theory has come to the fore among scholars, teachers, policymakers and youth workers (Lerner, 2005). This was founded on the fundamental belief that youth are a resource to be developed, and not as a problem to be managed (Lerner, 2005). PYD puts emphasis on working on the strengths of youth who have internal and external assets in their lives which contribute to their health and are a benefit to themselves their families, communities and civic society.
This positive perspective of youth development was further developed by Benson in his 40 Developmental Assets framework which highlights the role of a positive social network membership working in the interest of the young person and notably so through local community actors (Benson et al., 2011). Although less utilised in research when compared to the PYD model, the assets framework which comprising 20 internal assets and 20 external assets available to the young person in his/her life has been found to be a useful assessment and practice tool among the youthwork community.
The Five C’s Model was initiated in 2002 and identifies five core components and constructs for PYD, these include competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring/compassion (Bowers et al., 2015). Whereas the 5 C’s are often seen as being of worth singularly and the bedrock for PYD, Lerner has suggested that it is the culminative impact that is key which can lead to the sixth ‘C’ of ‘contribution’ (Lerner and Chase, 2019).
However the PYD model does assume or at least imply that the sixth C of contribution can emerge, exactly how this occurs is somewhat of an unknown. As Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2016) have identified, while the 5 Cs and PYD has been well researched, most notably through the well-known and frequently cited 4-H Study, there remains several limitations to our knowledge on efficacy of this model and similar programmes. They point to the lack of rigorous programme evaluations and clear evidence meaning that certain features and claims continue to be unsubstantiated (Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2016). As yet there is not a unified set of features proven to support PYD, but that said, they have identified promising features which are worthy of further consideration. Specifically there are eight promising features of PYD programmes including:
Physical and psychological safety
Appropriate structure
Supportive relationships
Opportunity to belong
Positive social norms
Support for efficacy and mattering,
Opportunities for skill building, and
Integration of family, school, and community efforts (cited in McDonough, 2021).
However as McDonough (2021) highlights in her study of incarcerated youth and the role of sport as a tool for self-efficacy, very often the issue for young people who are marginalised is not any one adversity that they must navigate but multiple stressors coming into play at the same time. This is important as the mere factor of basic coping and getting through each day can be a challenge for youth who are troubled and is a direct concern for them (Pinkerton and Dolan, 2007). So, for many youth it is not just about coping with multiple problems, but the mere fact that they come at the same time which can ultimately overwhelm the young person to the extent that despite their having the 5 Cs in their lives, this can be lost for them in the urgency of a crisis (Coleman and Hendry, 1999). If the stressors are neither lessened nor addressed even over a short space of time, the result can be further impairment in the young person’s development.
However, even in terms of understanding the theory and practice of Positive Youth Development, enabling a young person successful access to the 5 Cs requires constant engagement with their formal and informal social networks. This enables youth to mobilise positive sources of help as assistors to a successful pathway to adulthood. Understanding how these sources of support function is a key starting point. This applies firstly in understanding the automatic support functions of parent(s) siblings extended family, close friends and school and community ties (Dolan and Brady, 2014). For many youth the support they receive occurs automatically to the extent that it may not be even noticed, yet crucial for them. If you were to ask a young person how many times they were brought by their parent(s) to school, sports training or community event, they will not know the answer as it is support which is automatically derived. Second, for youth who are experiencing adversity and/or who face a crisis, understanding the ‘the stress releaser function’ of social networks is key, particularly with a view to the longer-term goal of enabling a young person’s positive development.
In terms of the importance of the sixth C Contribution in PYD, it could be argued that apart from its value as a collective bonus within the model, it does speak to a more youth inclusive focus and orientation. Not least it implies that it implies youth using their own agency and voice for self, others and for social good, and importantly as a method for those in need to demonstrate their own resiliency. It also fits well with newer models of youth interventions for example the use of Youth as Researchers as a method for innovative young person led research to address what young people deem to be social issues of concern to them (Dolan and Brennan, 2022; Kennan et al., 2022; Odera, 2018). Within the model of PYD and a strengths-based approach rather than focusing on deficits, contribution speaks to a move away from seeing youth as problematic and in need of some form of social repair by adults to one where youth can be emancipatory in creating solutions to their problems.
Social support
Social support is crucial to the successful self and interpersonal functioning of youth and is core to their transition to adulthood. Having support available at times of crisis and in everyday living contexts is a key part of a young person’s coping system. Importantly their family (nuclear and extended), friendships, school and community contacts play a central role in this regard. They are the first port of call for accessing help when it is needed. Even at the wider chrono level of a young person’s social ecology, civic society can be supportive to young people in terms of their social inclusion, positive engagement and leadership development (McGregor and Dolan, 2021). Having support from a responsive social network membership that is available and enlistable is a proven ‘buffer to stress’ and enables a young person to cope (Frydenberg, 2018).
The support that a young person perceives to be available to him/her can be as important as that which is accessed at any given time (Cutrona, 2000), so social support is truly in the eye of the beholder. It also essential that support is reciprocal, as youth aiding others is as important to them as receiving help. Reciprocity enables their sense of agency and self-efficacy. Through the basic transaction of accessing regular help from their social network members, and where it is possible in turn providing support to others, this exchange process is vital to a young person’s overall development including their sense of better wellbeing.
In terms of our basic understanding of the types of support that youth need, Dolan and Brady (2014) neatly describe the functional requirements as comprising a triad of ‘TEA’, that is tangible, emotional and advice support. While it may be assumed that youth access assistance in a very normative and typical fashion, for example by accessing financial support from parents, or seeking advice from friends on coping with ‘first dates’ issues, it is not always straight forward or plain sailing. The process of enlisting emotional support in times of stress can be particularly complicated. For example, a young person seeking help from grandparents with ongoing tensions occurring with parents. As Coleman highlights there is no set menu for social support acquisition for young people and over time patterns deviate (Coleman, 2021). And there is overall a distinct difference in social support between young people who cope well and those who are marginalised in some way and struggle with a weaker network. That said, it should not be assumed that youth who are marginalised will not overcome adversity. They can still have strong agency and actually (if not ironically) by not being over-reliant on others for support, can select and deselect differing types of supporters from their weaker networks at different times and in different contexts. Developed by Antonucci this is known as social support banking and transacting (Antonucci et al., 1990).
The key issue for most youth is not the current number of supporters they have, but rather the amount of support they can enlist at any given time or context, so quality counts (Dolan and Brady, 2014; Osmane et al., 2021). Even in terms of closeness to others, there can be barriers for youth which stops them accessing assistance such as the very basic embarrassment of having to ask for help. Similarly, underlying issues such as poor mental health, or living with a disability; or even more simply a belief that help is not available for the individual, even though the supporter is more than willing, can impair support enablement.
For all young people, regardless of whether they are encountering difficulties in their life, it is crucial that they do not feel demeaned or beholden to others because of seeking support and this is important for a number of very basic reasons. First and foremost, they will feel less like they owe something to others, if they believe they can ‘give back or return a favour’. This can also enable a young person to be more flexible in giving and getting help in the first place. Through the process of giving and receiving social support, over time, youth realise that their having an issue and needing assistance is not unique to them. This provides them with some solace and comfort.
Even for youth who may have toxic relationships within their networks including a lack of support from family and friends, there can still be hope for them. It has been well-established that where they have at least one reliable alliance to whom the young person feels close and who is an active supporter, singularly this can enable their capacity to be resilient. Through this positive supporter’s network, the young person can also create new relationships leading to him/her accessing the support they need, but which is not available from their own core network. Support accessed through this new source albeit an indirect route has been termed convoyed support by Levitt (2005). However, whereas this may seem an easy solution, for a young person isolated and in need, there are still two very real risks. First the youth should not overuse the goodwill of the support network of others and equally he/she needs to be cognisant of reasonableness in terms of any request for help.
For many professionals including teachers, youth workers and community organisers, seeking to provide support to youth in need, very often the simple issue of ‘timing’ is overlooked. For example, during a bereavement, as with many adults, some young people may not be ready for the emotional support on offer in the immediate aftermath of their loss. Conversely, other young people may expect and be disappointed with the lack of a more immediate support response from those close to them. The key issue is the strength and nature of the relationship between the young person and the support donor, which if robust, the latter should be able to judge when, where and how best to support. All in all, social support is a natural function between sets of people but cannot be assumed or taken for granted (Levitt, 2005). That said, the underlying benefits of social support is that it is a key mechanism for coping in life.
Social capital
Social capital is not something that a young person owns or can fully determine and direct in life, but is rather something that is present in his/her social ecology, is non static and like social support waxes and wanes over time. At a basic level social capital is the ability of people to secure advantages by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998). The benefits of social capital both human and economic are wide ranging and are tangible and measurable, such as living in a safe neighbourhood; a sense of health and happiness; engagement in democratic systems and access to economic prosperity (Herrero, 2018).
For our purposes here, while social capital theory can be best measured and understood through the analysis of the social relationships between adolescents and their families (Rothon et al., 2012), it does however need to be framed within a wider context and is multifaceted. The importance of positive community-based engagement for youth and the benefits that accrue from such relationships serve as a source of family support for youth, a basic benefit that may be sometimes overlooked. For example the connection between strong familial ties and community connection are known to positively impact on youth in terms of their mental health, school performance and wellbeing (Redmond and Dolan, 2016).
Having both bonding social capital (getting by) and bridging social capital (getting ahead) are key factors for positive youth development (Portes, 1998). Specifically for youth, the importance of their having both forms of social capital can be crucial to their growth, their personal development and the ability to get ahead not just in their education and community, but across all of their social network settings. While bonding capital enables young people to get by and cope, bridging capital affords them the context and opportunity to get prosper in life and this can be best demonstrated through their capacity to be resilient in the face of adversity.
Bridging capital for a young person is sourced through others; including those who act as a link bridge between communities, groups and organisations. For instance, whereby the young person with his/her parents and the school principal and staff work together and metaphorically bridge the family to the school in the interest of the young person (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004). A direct bridge can occur where the young person becomes engaged in extracurricular programmes after school in the school. An indirect link may be where the parents engage in fundraising for the school or support their son/daughter with homework completion. Portes (1998) reminds us of the basic function of social capital which involves ‘the ability of actors to secure benefits by membership in social networks or other social structures’ (p. 6). While Axel Honneth associates social capital as being in the possession of robust, respectful social networks with enduring relationships of mutual recognition (Houston and Dolan, 2008).
Schaefer-McDaniel (2004) suggests that social capital in youth consists of three interrelated components. First, a young person’s capacity to enlist support from a social network which includes the ability to discern between help that is usable and dependable as opposed to obstructive relationships. Second, their ability to hold the trust for and with their network membership through genuine reciprocal support as part of their ‘human currency’. Third, the extent to which a young person has a sense of belonging to place and others is crucial as it grounds their capacity for self-efficacy and agency. This is not just important to their identity formation but where young people retain a sense of attachment and feelings of belonging, personal benefits are more likely to accrue for them. For example, they are more likely to make and retain friendships as well as having a better capacity to negotiate solutions with family and others.
Civic engagement
Whereas Flanagan and Levine (2010) strongly connect youth civic engagement to citizenship they also highlight its connection to social support. In particular, the connection between youth reciprocating support and their positive citizenship through social exchange with others. So, civic engagement of youth involves a process whereby there is ‘give and take’ of support with other non-familial relations most typically in school, sports and leisure settings and other community organisations (Ekman and Amná, 2009).
While when given the conditions to demonstrate their leadership and become civically active even within their families for example as a young carer, youth very often do so, it cannot be assumed that such support is automatically available. For example, the burden of caregiving for a young person may hinder inside family engagement while their lack of social contacts including friendships may impair their outside family involvement.
To understand a framework for youth civic engagement, Dolan and Brennan (2016) highlight that most typically young people participate within a civic space and across for four types of activities. These include:
Political Civic Engagement – This occurs where actively participate in local regional national or international forums to have their voice heard and advocate for the betterment of self and others, often through specific political causes.
Social Civic Engagement – Most typically this includes youth engaging in providing tangible social support to help family, peers and local communities through action programmes and projects for local social good.
Economic Civic Engagement – While this has been under-researched other than in the contexts of child/youth labour abuse, the role of youth as contributors to the local economy needs greater exploration. There are contexts where their appropriate involvement in familial or local farms and industry can be of reciprocal benefit, not least in increasing a youth’s sense of self-agency and self-efficacy.
Ethical/Moral Civic Engagement –While youth having a very strong innate sense of social justice has been well documented, their ethical and or moral engagement represents a framework for their moving to taking a civic action. This often culminates in their seeking to ‘undue a wrong’ or pursue the upholding of the rights of others.
However, while these four typologies help to provide us with a framework for classifying youth civic engagement, they can also be somewhat limiting. Particularly so if the four types are viewed as silos. For example, it may well be that a young person’s decision to become civically active may initially come from a sense of social justice or moral engagement, which then leads them to engage politically (for their cause) for social good. Additionally, there are very specific factors which may accelerate or impair a young person’s desire to engage. It has been well established within the literature that youth differ in terms of age and maturity; their academic ability; gender and ethnic backgrounds (Schulz et al., 2010). These factors very often ‘interplay’ for youth and along with external issues such as family relationships or negative recent life events (Compas et al., 1986), can supress his/her capacity to become engaged. This subtle difference between a young person being ‘unwilling to engage’ as opposed to being ‘unable to engage’ is important not least in terms of how social media often unfairly judge youth.
Similar to the typologies outlined above, youth engagement has also been classified as individualised ‘citizenship orientations’ including, social interest, prosocial ability, reflective thinking and assertiveness (Silke et al., 2018). In addition to these orientations, two knowledge domains namely, societal knowledge and interpersonal knowledge are seen as key and underpinning components in a young person’s sense of citizenship. The four orientations coupled with the two domains have been utilised as a tool for youth civic engagement measurement in the form of The Citizenship Competences Questionnaire (Dam et al., 2011).
Importantly, in understanding youth political civic engagement, young people tend to identify with peers rather than parents and particularly so during late adolescence. This is a form of horizontal political socialisation. Similarly, this peer influenced approach to youth engagement can typically be found within models of youth leadership (Redmond and Dolan, 2016). This is not to say that parents are without influence. There is also vertical political socialisation, whereby parents who are politically active and vociferous in relation to local regional or national issues, also influence their adolescent offspring who often follow a similar political orientation and route.
Empathy and compassion
Regardless of how frequently we use expressions such as ‘understanding the plight of others’ or ‘heartfelt compassion’, often confused with sympathy, empathy can still be a somewhat complex term. It can also be one one that people frequently grapple with generally and particularly so in the context of understanding empathic processes in youth. Most simply as Silke et al. (2018) describe empathy it is ‘the ability to understand another person’s emotional state’ (p. 423).
As Berardi et al. (2020) highlight, even in relation to researching empathy as theory it is covered by multiple disciplines including biology, psychology, education, medicine, and neuroscience. So all in all, while it is commonly used as a word and a very popular topic for research, empathy still has somewhat of a ‘lack of consensus’ in terms of its meaning and this could be regarded as one of its weaknesses.
However, the presence of empathy in our lives is crucial to our ability to negotiate hardship when it occurs and is the tool by which we show compassion and care to others. While empathy is defined and described as understanding and identifying with the emotions and situation of the other or even more simply as being able to ‘walk in the shoes’ of another person to understand the adversity he/she faces, this may be too simplistic (Berardi, 2020). Empathy and more particularly social empathy as described by Segal (2011) involves both affective and cognitive aspects. This incorporates one’s capacity to have the ability to perceive another person’s emotions and thus innately identify with them and the situation or adversity they face. At a deeper level of engagement, one develops the ability and desire to understand the other person’s emotions and thus be able to cultivate one’s own empathy towards that person (Segal, 2011). But at the strongest level of engagement as a human-to-human response, one can demonstrate full empathy by having the ability to not just perceive and understand the situation, but to go further and emotionally connect on a personal level and thus, ‘feel’ for the other person.
Although the media very often suggest that young people don’t care and are narcistic, this is perhaps an unfair misrepresentation. A systematic review of the literature on youth empathy and social values (Silke et al., 2018), indicates that it is not so much that youth don’t care as that they don’t have the opportunity to show that they care. The simple ‘empathy recipe’ applies to all ages and all cultures, which can have the cumulative impact of seeing, understanding and emotionally connecting with others, by moving from an ‘innate empathy capacity to a create empathy capacity’. This leads to active rather than passive responses from one person to another. This is crucial at an individual level but also at a wider ecological context which can enable social good between people communities, countries and right across civic society (Berardi et al., 2020).
That is not to say that a young person’s capacity to be empathetic is either static or non-dependent on other factors. Indeed just like a youth’s capacity to offer and receive support from others can wax or wane so also the ability to be empathetic fluctuates and may be dependent on other life events and issues that are ongoing for the person. For example past negative life events such as living in poverty or the loss of a loved one suddenly, or being subjected to domestic violence can impinge on a young person’s capacity to show compassion. Or even more simply, not being able to cope with stress at any given time of the day or week will lessen one’s ability to show care to and for others (Frydenberg, 2018). So, in thinking about empathy as something that is vibrant and active and dependent on other factors including life events, culture and community contexts; we can see one’s ability to show empathy to others as differing and dependent. In considering these complexities and differing scenarios, Decety and Lamm (2006) map this out as ‘the ability to experience and understand what others feel without confusion between oneself and others,’
Interestingly, in recent years empathy development during adolescence has also come to the fore within neuroscience and what Coleman (2021) describes as part of the social brain development of young people. So having a capacity or lack of capacity for empathy towards others is not a ‘static given’ from birth which cannot be changed. The good news is that empathy can be learned in late adolescence as shown in recent research by Berardi (2020). She identifies four clear components in empathy education for third level students which can enable increased levels of ‘self and other’ compassion. First there is the underlying ability for a young person to perceive typical emotions or ‘social cues’ in any given situation. This leads to the second factor which connects to the ability to respond in an appropriate way by accurately perceiving someone else’s emotions. The third component relates to having the capacity to understand emotions as it occurs in the here and now of the interaction as it is happening. While the final element in empathy education focuses on the ability to separate how one is feeling (one’s own emotions) from that of another person. The interplay of these four factors represent the core framework for developing empathy education.
Like the ground-breaking work of Silke et al. (2021) and Berardi et al. (2020), in relation to the core curriculum for second and third level students and youth attending schools and/or community based youthwork programmes a four-step guide is used in a programme founded and developed by the author and colleagues at the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway entitled Activating Social Empathy (ASE) and internationally at the UNESCO Chair’s Programme at The Pennsylvania State University, USA. The schools programme in Ireland has also been tested to the highest level of evaluation namely a randomised control trial with encouraging results (Silke et al., 2021). The programme involves four simple and key stages and components as follows:
Understanding Empathy
Removing the barriers that impinge empathy
Practicing empathy to learn how to be more empathic and,
Activating empathy through acts of compassion towards others.
Regardless of the programme or intervention once enabled increased levels of empathy have been well proven to have very positive effects and outcomes for youth their families and communities. For example effective empathy education for youth is associated with an increase in prosocial behaviours and better peer relationships (Eisenberg et al., 2006). It is also associated with greater academic achievement in schools and enhanced social competence. In terms of more negative behaviours empathy education is known to mitigate for prejudice and enables less externalising behaviour as well as reducing aggression (Eisenberg et al., 2006).
Intersecting framework
While Kimberle Crenshaw the ‘creator of intersectionality’ rightfully reminds us that its origins over 30 years ago related to the overlapping of identities one can have and how rather than being labelled by any one identity, these intersect with each other and therefore one should not be ‘pigeonholed’ (Carbado et al., 2013). To understand the plight of another all aspects of the person’s identity and his/her experience of multiple forms of discrimination is crucial. Understandably, there has been criticism the intersectionality has been misused or used out of the context for which it was intended (Hill Collins, 2019). Patricia Hill Collins goes further and suggests that intersectionality comprises three core components which need to be understood. First, it is a metaphor for a ‘central station’ where aspects of identity converge in one place. Second, it is a heuristic for social action to address discrimination and or oppression. Third, within the context of critical social theory intersectionality enables the possibility for a paradigm shift where coming together a culminative effect can ensue for a person or group (Hill Collins, 2019).
In considering the influence of a respectful and very tentative variation from ‘intersectionality’ to that of ‘intersecting’ across the components on youth development being forwarded here, the range of components are presented and then constructed within a framework. In considering empathy, social support, social capital and civic engagement in the lives of youth it may be an over-simplification to think of them as simply combining as factors to enable better well-being or conversely as disablers of mental health and coping capacity. We also need to consider how these four components intersecting to enable positive impact on the lives of youth and their families and communities.
Returning to the good, intended outcome for PYD through the sixth C, contribution and working back via the actionable aspects of each component, a connected framework which connects activated empathy to youth civic engagement emerges. This is now described through a set intersecting points
Most simply, such intersecting with a view to enhancing contribution can be viewed as ranging from being a dormant (negative) to vibrant (positive) influence for a young person. So for any young person where their receipt of empathy from others is very low and passive; coupled with their availability of social support being weak or not enlistable; and then their access to human and economic social capital is at best poor or worse non-existent, their capacity to engage civically and contribute is minimised. Conversely, where a young person sees others as actively empathetic towards him/her, situated in a responsive social network of family and friends, operating in a positive and connected school and community environment, this sense of belonging and being cared for as much as being cared about, will emerge.
However, these two conditions from ‘negative dormant’ to ‘positive vibrant’ are also subject to any context for a young person and at any given time. During everyday living and coping with what Compas et al. (1986) describe as daily hassles although ostensibly minor in their nature, can still cause stress for youth and their families and may require differing responses to a crisis or more severe life event situation. It can be that social networks members only become engaged active empathisers in times of emergency and are far less available. Similarly, in terms of social capital, it can also be that community contributors only enable human social capital during a crisis, for example, if a young person has a close family bereavement or the onset of a sudden and serious illness. That said, it can also be argued that the positive move from what is dormant to positive and active help is based on the young person having already established relationships of worth and noting the importance of his/her own agency to create the availability of empathetic responders when needed.
Conclusion
This paper has highlighted the importance of positive youth development theory and explored the need for a better understanding of youth contribution through a participation enablement model for young people. Combining underlying theories of active empathy and compassion, enlistable social support and bridging social capital a model for youth civic engagement has emerged. Intersecting these within a conceptual framework has been tentatively forwarded as a way of considering youth contribution into the future. In sum, the intersecting model proposed here seeks to recognise the core connection of youth having empathy for others which leads to their being better civically engaged.
Just as our understanding of how young people negotiate their social world is everchanging and with speed, research on youth development, coping and thriving cannot afford to remain static or unchallenged. Much of the learning to come will test not just what has been forwarded here in terms of enabling and better understanding youth as contributors to civic society. Perhaps the most comforting aspect of this changing landscape is that young people are now active informants and participants on the process of understanding better how to support them.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.