175DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener*
GROWING UP SLOVENIA
IN THE NINETIES
ABSTRACT
It is difficult to determine the nature of young people in the 1990s in Slovenia, since
this population seems to be socially, culturally and stylistically unformed. The 1960s
and the 1970s were years of rapid ascent and qualitative growth for youth movements
in Slovenia, along side a higher level of youth emancipation and self-confidence. The
1980s were years of expansion and the breaking up of youth subcultures into the various
alternative scenes. The 1990s, in contrast, have been marked by the regression of youth
movements, the increased social anomie of youth, and the destruction of alternative
youth cultures. The redirection of dealing with society to dealing with oneself is
characteristic of the young in Slovenia in the 1990s. Young people deal mostly with
themselves now and try to achieve as painless and risk free a path to the future as
possible. The problems which they encounter, they do not displace onto society, but
deal with them alone.
Key words: Youth, young people, transition, identity, social inclusion/exclusion,
subculture
Introduction
Conceptually, youth has been defined in the sociological literature as a stage of
socialisation and transition to adulthood. At present, however, youth is being re-evaluated
as a central and strategic phase inside the life course. This conceptual shift is required
by the growing individualisation of the process of growing up, i. e. what sociologists
call “diversification” of pathways into adulthood. Individuals determine their adult
position through a process of  “negotiation” instead of simply following paths pre-
defined by their social origin, gender or other basic structural constrains that traditionally
* Mirjana Ule is a Professor of Social Psychology at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the
University of Ljubljana and director of the Center for Social Psychology - Youth Studies.
Tanja Rener is a Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana,
teaching family sociology, women studies and the sociology of everyday life.
Both are currently working on a study of Youth at risk - indicators of vulnerability.
176 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
determined a person’ s life course. This does not mean, however, that origin no longer
matters: the individual’s capacity to negotiate successfully her/his transition is still
strongly dependent on the cultural capital and the support provided by one’s family, as
well as by opportunities and constrains related to gender and region.
In the 1990s young people in Slovenia grow up in a society which is in the middle
of a process of multiple transitions. Changes in political and economic systems also
cause significant social changes, e. g. unemployment. Slovenia was not totally unprepared
for the process of transition, the people had known for a decade that major social changes
were going on and that they would have to be fully realised. This was a society which
for at least 20 years had spoken about the necessity of  social “change”, and about the
“crisis in society”. Slovenia had been open to the world, especially to the West, more so
than the other Yugoslav republics. There was a strong and steady exchange of information
and material goods between Slovenia and Western countries. As a result, young people
had significant contact with their peers in the West and the experience of youth
movements and cultures quickly spread among the young in Slovenia. In these
movements and cultures, young people saw a model for their affirmation and
emancipation from ideological, cultural and political tutors.
 In the period of  substantial changes of Slovene society in the 1990s, young people
met with particular difficulies. One of the larger problems was the eventual
unemployment of the young and changes in the way employment was realized. The
generation of their parents did not face unemployment or an uncertain life perspective,
while young people now face both as quite a real possibility. Therefore, there is a question
as to how these young people will face the loss of illusions about a smooth transition
into adulthood, into economic independence and the danger of not fulfilling their parents’
expectations.
Young people’s problems
It is normal to expect that in a period of transition young people have to deal with
more problems with the society, than vice versa. It can also be argued that such problems
are more intense concerning the conditions of the transition to adulthood, than around
typical youth activities. In the transition to adulthood problems are related to economic,
material, and residential emancipation.
The structure of young people’s problems significantly changed in the 1990s. In the
1950s and 1960s what was significant was that young people started to form their own
life and cultural styles and to develop the main forms of the self-consciousness that
resulted in feelings that they were a socially specific and important generation group. It
was a time of sharpened generational conflict, and the most important problem of young
people was the limitation of personal autonomy by the family and adult society.
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
177DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 1
“What are the biggest problems for young people in Slovenia?”, 1985, 1993
and 1995
1985 1993 1995
unemployment 41,8 72,1 66,8
alcohol, drugs 11,9 68,6 60,6
lack of money 18,8 47,0 38,0
loneliness 7,2 31,0 22,3
problems at school 8,6 35,5 17,8
achievemnt pressure - 15,3 16,9
lack of ideals 15,4 12,3 13,8
Boredom/we do not know what to do   5,4 29,2 12,1
conflicts with adults 6,5 18,5 11,5
N = 538 N = 2354 N = 1829
Sources: Ule, 1988; Ule, Miheljak, 1995; Ule et al., 1996.
In the 1970s and 1980s the youth in Slovenia started to critically address social
problems, such as ecological and peace problems, with claims for basic democracy. In
the 1990’s the importance of such problems in relation to the personal emancipation of
youth and to political influence, is significantly decreasing.
Young people in Slovenia are sensitive to problems which jeopardise their social
emancipation (unemployment, a lack of money) and personal integrity (alcohol, drugs).
There has been a significant increase in these problems in the 1990s compared to the
1980s (see Table1). This is undoubtedly due to a rise in economic uncertainty, especially
concerning unemployment during this important transitional period in Slovenia. The
feelings of danger regarding drugs and alcohol is more an expression of an increase in
personal uncertainty and the vulnerability of the young in new situation, than an actual
threat.
It can be argued that young people in Slovenia in the 1990s do not represent a
problem to society, nor do they cause problems for society. Rather, they live caught in
a net of problems, defined by the limitations of the labour market and the limited
employment opportunities of new generations.
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
178 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 2
“Do any of the below mentioned situations threaten you or do you expect that they
will threaten you in the future and to what extent?”, 1993 and 1995
Youth ’95* Youth ’93*
It threatens It threatens
me very much % No hreat % me very much % No threat %
Inability to find a job. 32,7 16,3 52,0 11,4
Being without a flat. 27,3 31,5 35,7 29,1
Experiencing a war. 19,6 19,3 45,2 10,2
Getting AIDS. 14,4 31,9 39,3 20,1
Being poor. 12,6 30,6 28,1 22,8
Being sexually abused. 10,2 43,1 26,8 34,8
Being harassed by foreigners. 9,9 41,1 21,7 29,2
N = 1829 N = 235
* Only the end categories are shown.
Sources: Ule, 1998, Ule, Miheljak, 1995; Ule et al., 1996.
According to survey results, the 1990’s have seen an improvement regarding
consumption (clothing, entertainment, food). (Table 3) However, the conditions regarding
employment and housing - the vital sphere which enable young people to enter adulthood
- are getting worse. Slovenia is a predominantly middle-class society, with parents having
significantly high aspirations concerning their children. The younger generation in
Slovenia is mostly well-educated, which causes them to experience professional and
life development problems even more tragically.
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
179DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 3
“What do you think about the present situation as compared to previous years?”,
1993 and 1995 (in %)
Youth ’95* Youth ’93*
It is better It is worse It is better It is worse
than before than before than before than before
The food supply. 61,6 5,7 44,7 11,3
Clothing. 67,8 4,8 65,8 6,8
Solving accommodation problems. 4,5 66,2 13,0 52,5
Schooling. 31,7 19,0 30,9 24,3
Employment. 4,8 75,8 3,7 83,4
Health care. 21,8 39,6 37,6 23,7
Fun. 54,9 6,1 62,1 10,4
Traveling. 54,5 15,4 45,1 23,1
N = 1829 N = 2354
* Only the end categories are shown.
Sources: Ule, 1998.
Table 4
“Would you like to go abroad for a long period of time or forever?”, 1993 and 1995
1993 1995
I would not like to go abroad for a long period or forever 9,3 16,7
I would like to go abroad for a long period of time 45,5 57,0
I would like to go abroad forever if the conditions suited me 31,1 19,8
I would like to go abroad forever in spite of any possible problems 4,7 1,1
I have not thoughts about this 9,4 5,4
N = 2354 N = 1829
Sources: Ule, Miheljak, 1995; Ule et al. 1996.
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
180 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
The survey conducted in 1993 showed a surprisingly high percentage of young
people who were prepared to leave the country for a long period or even forever (Table
4). It would seem that this is a kind of ‘daydream migration’, a reaction to the great
changes at home, which caused fears and doubts regarding the future. The share of
those prepared to leave the country forever was significantly smaller in the survey
carried out in 1995 than in the previous surveys, which indicates that the situation is
stabilising.
Social inclusion/exclusion of the young
Social inclusion means for a person to have different social networks available,
individuals with whom one can keep company, exchange his/her own experiences and
thoughts, whom he/she can turn to for advice and help, who help shape his/her own
interests, work, friendship and intimate relationships. Some people are important to an
individual because they feel safe and can share things with their social world. The
quality of these relationships significantly co-defines a person’s self-image and his/her
place in a social world.
Historically, it is possible to portray the sociological reflection of social inclusion/
exclusion of youth  through an overview of  mataphors  which reflect the typical analysing
and understanding of young person’s interactions with his or her social milieau and
typical sequences of events between adolescence and adulthood.
The dominant metaphor for the 1960s was that of filling society’s niches, reflecting
the dominant functionalist and developmental perspective of the time. In this period
“growth task” models predominated: the fulfilment of normative tasks was seen as
guaranteeing succesful integration into adult roles and working life.
As unemployment increased, transitions bacame much more complex; post-
compulsory educatation became more common and patterns of social reproduction
became more complex. The increasing protraction of the transition from school to work
was accompanied by emergence of bridges, routes and pathways to work as dominant
metaphors.
During the 1980s the metaphor of trajectory came to the fore, reflecting structuralist
influences: the use of the term trajectory implying that labour market destinations were
largely determined by social forces and transitions were largely outside the control of
individual social actors.
Reflecting the emergence of reflexive and post-structuralist perspectives, in the 1990s,
metaphors of navigation started to emerge. Youngsters came to be seen as “navigating
perilous waters” and negotiating their way  through a sea of uncertainty. Within this
model, successful transitions came to be seen as dependent on individual skill and
capacity as weel as external risks and ability to judge them. In these circumstances
young people needed to learn to live with a calculative attitude to the open possibilities
of action. (Giddens, 1991, Evans and Furlong, 1997).
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
181DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
In Slovenia modernisation  and various processes of adaptation to liberal capitalism,
as well as to “european social and  political standards” affects the lives of all young
people and demands more and more from them but does not affect each young person
in the same way. Although many young will find their ways through life, there is a
possibility that these developments promote two contrasting groups: the winners and
the losers. Winners have social and personal opportunities by which they can benefit
from changes going on in Slovenia in the 1990s. Through their creativity, flexibility
and supporting networks they manage to make use successfully of the chances offered
to them. Young people who do not manage to adapt to the new demands of society are
prone to become losers. They often but not exclusively originate from the lower social
strata. The dynamics of modern society enlarge the risk of larger groups of youngsters
emerging who are equaly liable to become winners or losers. Winners and losers have
their fate only partly in their own hands, but winners know how to handle it to their
benefit.  Modernisation makes prediction of future developments in youth more difficult.
Modernisation impacts upon young people through family, education, employment and
leisure. Furthermore, it seems that social inequality appears to perpetuate itself  especially
in these spheres of life.
The structure of the everyday life world of youth
The secondary school and student population express an explicitly differentiated
attitude to living spheres: caring and orientation to privacy on the one hand and rejection
and dislike of the (political) public on the other. However, this polarised picture does
not totally fit the reality. The privacy which is so strongly appreciated by young people
is not necessarily a closed privacy. Moreover, the public which is refused by young
people is only one of public dimensions: young people refuse only political commitments,
politics as domination.
In particular, the student population in Slovenia is very individualised but not
egoistically directed to itself and its own interests. to a certain extent quite the opposite
could be claimed. Students express a high level of sensibility for social themes from the
immediate neighborhood. They are ready to engage themselves as soon as they find
expression in activities where the effects are immediate and visible. The above mentioned
tendency can be described as the orientation to the short and middle range lives.
Let us look closely at the structure of the everyday life world of youth in Slovenia in
the 1990s. Who are the important others in this world?
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
182 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 5
“To what extent do you trust the following?”, 1993 and 1995 (in %)
Youth ’95* Youth ’93*
Completely   Not at all Completely Not at all
Parents. 45,8 1,1 49,5 1,6
Brothers and sisters. 38,6 3,7 32,0 6,2
Teachers (professors). 2,2 10,0 2,8 32,7
School friends. 8,4 1,9 7,3 4,5
Friends. 41,2 0,5 29,7 1,9
Priests and the Church. 5,3 37,9 7,5 37,1
Political parties. 0,2 51,2 1,0 61,0
TV. 1,0 13,4 2,8 18,7
God. 19,9 38,5 17,2 35,7
N = 1829 N = 2354
* Only the end categories are shown.
Sources: Ule, 1998.
The survey results show the clearly structured every day world of the young. The
central place is occupied by the closest family members (parents, brothers, sisters) and
the most intimate friends. (See Table 5 and 6)
One of the effects of the cultural revolution of the 60s which “captured” the student
population in particular, happened at the level of private life. The achievement of  personal
autonomy of young people was strongly linked to their leaving home. This was
particularly true for young women. However, nowadays, the situation seems to be
reversed. More and more young people, and especially more and more students, live
their prolonged youth with parents. The period of  a new form of half-family life was
marked as the LAT phase (living apart together). There are many reasons which contribute
to the LAT phase: for instance, difficulties in achieving economic independence,
unemployment, housing problems, extension of schooling, etc. Subjective reasons such
as the confort and cheapness of living at home, understanding with parents, emotional
and material security with the simultaneous preservation  of a high level of autonomy
and freedom, also have to be mentioned. However, data for Slovenia show the domination
of external reasons and therefore the LAT phase seems more to be a constraint than a
choice. (See Table 7)
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
183DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 6
“How important are the following people in your life at the moment?”, youth 1993
(in %)
very important not important
father 68,8 4,0
mother 79,1 1,0
brother, sister 59,5 4,3
adult relatives 14,4 7,0
best friend 73,7 1,7
school mates 17,7 2,8
teachers 28,3 7,7
N = 2354
* Only the end categories are shown.
Source: Ule, Miheljak, 1995.
Table 7
Where will you probably live and where would you prefer to live aged
between 25 and 30? (in %)
I will most I would
probably like to
- alone in my own flat 10,1 17,1
- alone in my parents’ flat 19,4 2,0
- with my parter in my parents’ flat 11,7 2,5
- with my partner in his/her parents’ flat 7,8 0,5
- with my partenr in our own household 32,5 69,1
- elsewhere 3,8 4,7
- I do not know, I do not want to tell 14,6 4,2
Source:  Ule, Rener (eds. ), Youth in Slovenia,  1998, p. 69
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
184 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
How did it happen that after several decades of conflict between generations and
the discovery of peer networks, young people have suddenly turned back to their parents?
In the period between the 1950s and the 1970s, surveys on youth called attention to the
destruction of what had been a stable youth world, based subordination to parents and
various other authorities. The family was replaced by some other forms of socialisation
in the youth world, first school, and then more and more peer groups. To sum up, the
trend was directed away from established groups and towards the youth’s own groups,
towards the youth worlds.
From the 1980’s onward youth surveys have shown an increase in the importance of
personal paths into adulthood, paths which are not essentially attached to youth or any
other groups. This trend includes a revival of interest in the family, understood as a
community of partners, based on the principle of the equal rights of individuals of
different generations, and not as a hierarchically arranged community with age and sex
as the basis for the division of labour and roles.
This new discovery of trust among one’s closest family members means primarily
that the family is the most flexible institution of the everyday world; it has been able to
adapt to the postmodern trend towards individualisation and the subjectivisation of the
life world and life course. As such it contributes to the development of personal potentials
and needs. This also could mean that the family today is functioning as a sort of anti-
environment, as a sort of therapeutic community which mitigates stress and conflicts
from other environments, as a sort of asylum from the outside world. This might imply
that the outside world has become one-dimensional, pretentious and dangerous for young
people as well or at least  that the ouside world is being daily represented as such by
“caring parents and  concerned mass media”.
With the change of youth from a transitional to an educational moratorium, school
is becoming the main institution for advancement, and the school environment is
becoming increasingly prestigious, competitive, and stressful. The family is the place
which protects, advises, and helps, but at the same time it limits, determines aims and
tasks, and controls youth less and less. The latter has become a function of the school,
which occupies young people more and more. At the same time schooling has been
prolonged, since educational qualifications are becoming increasingly important for
the social advancement of young people and for successfully competing in the labour
market.
What about youth scenes and subcultures in the 1990s?
What is the level of identification and socialising of young people with the typical
youth groups in Slovenia? What do the youth scenes in Slovenia mean to the young?
They offer innovations in the sphere of forming life styles and life self-placement: the
creative and critical productivity of such groups, which at the same time do not assure any
‘stable’, ‘solid’ exit from the youth moratorium. Instead of continuity and stability (of
identity), they offer the contingency, relativisation, and relatedness of all identity formations.
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
185DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
In spite of sometimes strong collective experiences, youth scenes offer basically
individual solutions. No interpretation of the meanings offered by youth scenes are
complete, as no rules for behaving are ensured. Although youth scenes include individuals
to whom involvement in such groups entail a life-long commitment, the majority of
young people perceive them to be part of a transitional period. Those who follow one
such scene, often follow other scenes as well.
Table 8
“Some groups of people are known for doing something special or having particular
lifestyle. Some of these groups are mentioned here. What is your attitude to them?”,
1993 and 1995 (in %)
      Youth ’95* Youth ’93*
I am one I think
I think I sympathise I am one I sympathise
of them with them of them with them
Rockers 10,0 42,5 20,9 41,5
Sports fans 11,0 38,2 20,4 40,9
Church groups 20,2 31,9 19,7 33,2
Disco fans 10,0 33,7 18,8 27,6
Video games and pinball fans 12,9 24,4 14,9 31,2
Ecology supporters 18,7 52,1 14,7 50,1
Jogging fans ** ** 12,4 43,3
Peacenics 9,7 51,7 12,2 48,9
Computer fans, hackers 13,6 35,7 11,7 42,0
Spiritual groups 10,1 29,6 10,5 35,9
Homosexual movement supporters ** ** 9,4 6,1
Vegetarians ** ** 9,3 48,5
Women’s/feminist movement supporters ** ** 8,9 30,4
Skinheads 15,2 9,9 7,4 19,1
N = 1829 N= 2354
* Only the first two categories are shown.
** This was not asked in Youth ’95 survey.
Sources: Ule, Miheljak, 1995; Ule et al., 1996.
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
186 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
From the responses we can infer that sympathy with certain groups is much higher
than an actual participation. Young people sympathise to a large extent with (post)modern
social movements (ecological and peace movements, New age groups) as well as typical
youth subcultures (disco or video game enthusiasts etc.). Subcultural activities in Slovenia
show that youth subcultures and scenes do not tend towards social criticism and
resistance. They have become a more sophisticated means for young people themselves,
to their self-development, and self-realisation (Internet, video production, spiritual
movements etc.). Young people in Slovenia sympathise the least with violent subcultures,
such as the skinheads. (Table 8)
Relationships in youth scenes are intimate and intense, but they are not lasting. That
is why even successful scenes quickly pass out of fashion and are replaced by newer,
more currently appropriate scenes. The only stability is the stability of continual change.
Although youth cultures are of great importance for many young people, they do not
ensure any continuity in the individual’s development. They are personally productive
only for those young people who are strong enough to constructively find an exit from
the threats of unemployment, low level of education etc. Those young people who only
‘join’ a certain youth culture to spend their spare time within it, might be trapped in the
pluralism of life styles advertised by particular youth cultures.
How do young people spend their spare time?
How do young people express their youthful feelings and pressures, how and with
whom do they think about life? Some answers are provided by the results of the Youth
1993 survey. (Table 9)
Young people talk mostly about personal problems, read about them, or learn from
the life experiences of adults. To a lesser degree they write about them. Interestingly,
young girls are more actively involved in such activities; they talk more, read more and
learn more from others’ experiences. They also correspond and write about personal
feelings more.
Growing up in Slovenia in the 1990s is a more open (fictitious) space of meeting,
entertainment, and information (the internet culture, and new media), but at the same
time it provides young people less opportunity to reflect on their own growing up and
individualisation, as had been more possible in the 1970s and the 1980s. New forms of
entertainment offered by information technology (e.g.. video games, the internet) have
turned young people from a more public to a more private world, to their rooms and
computer environments. Therefore the typical environments of young people have been
reduced to the family and parental environments, which make young people more similar
to their parents (adult-oriented youth), but at the same time it makes them depend on
their parents, it infantilises them. As a consequence, young people posses to a lesser
degree those life strategies and experiences distinctive of youth in the 1970s and the
1980s, which are characteristic of moving beyond youth. The role of the alternative
scene and libertarian aspirations is decreasing.
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
187DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Table 9
“We can talk about ourselves and our life with each other in different ways.
How often do you do the following activities?”, 1993 (in %)
Youth ’93*
Very often Never
I talk with my friends about life problems. 40,5 3,2
I learn about others people’s
life stories through films or books. 25,3 5,3
Adults tell me their own life experiences. 19,4 5,1
I read horoscopes to get encouragement. 27,7 12,9
I read intimate letters in newspapers and
magazines to learn something from them. 11,5 25,3
I keep a diary. 10,3 55,4
I write to my friends about my personal problems. 7,8 39,5
I write short notes and poems about
my personal feelings. 7,0 48,6
N = 2354
* Only the end categories are shown.
Source: Ule, Miheljak, 1995.
Two strong factors prevent young people in Slovenia in the 1990s from developing
and overcoming the social infantilisation of youth and from developing less private
forms of individualisation. First, a prolonged economic and social dependence on the
family of orientation, the pressures of unemployment, and the extended process of
education. Alternative forms of employment and the part-time employment of young
people do not represent a solution to dependence on parents, since these forms are
accessible to a minority of young people and are time-limited.
The second factor is a decrease in the importance of autonomous youth scenes and
engaged subcultures which can offer young people the development of a specific
generational and subcultural identity and self-confidence. Young people are therefore,
now more than in the last few decades, left on their own and to their own ‘personal
projects’, when they face far-reaching life decisions. At the same time, dependence on
the products of the commercial culture is increasing. One of the consequences of this is
the political passivity of the youth. Actually, the situation is very similar to that detected
by researchers on youth in the 1950s and 1960s.
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties
188 DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
Because of the amorphism and social unresponsiveness of the young generation,
one gets the impression that young people today are moving away from the ideals of
post-adolescence and back towards a traditional transitory youth. We can trace a tendency
toward the ‘domestication of youth’. The main medium of activity of youth and the
primary life environment has again become the private sphere, even a close family
environment. There is also no trace of significant generational conflicts.
This shift toward the domestication of youth in Slovenia was clearly detected in the
“Youth ’93" survey. Instead of a combination of ‘social pessimism and readiness for
social engagement’, characteristic of the youth in Slovenia in the middle of the 1980s,
in the 1990s we can trace a combination of ‘social optimism and unreadiness for social
engagements’ (Ule, Miheljak, 1995). On the contrary, we expected that the modernisation
of the young detected in the surveys in the 1980s in Slovenia (Ule, 1988), would develop
further and prevent any possible social and historical regression.
The current unformed and inexpressive character of the younger generation can be
explained as the belated negative effect of the abolishment and overcoming of youth or
as Eisenstadt (1993) puts it, the “social deconstruction of the youth”. These negative
effects are not something new, but are always present. Certain youth elites maintained
a balance with their influence and example between aspirations for social anomie,
passivism and on the other hand, social radicalism and critique. This balance was very
sensitive, and was disrupted immediately after the disappearance of the social and
historical reasons for the creation of such elites. As a consequence, revolutionary
networks of youth cultures and social movements have been destroyed under the pressure
of social conformism and the neoconservative ideals of success as well.
The classification of young people into various social and generational subgroups,
cultures, and life styles, makes collective activity by youth and the homogenisation of
larger groups along the lines of common experiences, ideas, values or symbolic apparatus
simply impossible. Youth cultures and peer groups are no longer reference points in the
process of growing up. They have been replaced by others social relations, which are as
a rule insensible to age and generational differences.
One might question whether the processes of the social deconstruction of youth, as
well as the individualisation and subjectification of youth, have not at long last affected
young people, and made them more non-autonomous than ever before and aggravated
collective forms of social protest and the collective expression of their feelings and life
orientations. Current social anomie is not only a sign of the decay of the immune system
of the young generation in the face of repeated attempts at generational homogenisation
and disciplining. On the contrary, it might evidence a displacement of social critique
and protest energies from generational to other forms of social groups. This also shows
the great brittlenes and vulnerability of youth cultures. This also means that social
criticism and protest will no longer be defined by generation or age, as was the case in
the last 30 years, but will be a dispersed, particularised socio-political scene, into which
anyone can enter - young people and adults. It is expected that young people will play
a part as the “crowd”, and not as active agents, who would be able to clearly express
their demands. We can expect this to become a universal process, removing all national
Mirjana Ule, Tanja Rener
189DR, Vol. XVI (2000) 32-33
and social boundaries, since it is found in Slovenia as well as in Germany, Portugal and
Sweden (Chisholm, Büchner, Krüger, 1995).
Youth is no longer considered a period for reflexive and critical learning, but on the
contrary, a continuation of the social infantilisation of youth. Young people no longer
think of their ‘youth’ as a social frame for thinking and acting, but rather act as individuals
with their own educational, vocational, economic and other interests.
The social deconstruction of youth has otherwise abolished those viewpoints of
social infantilisation, which were bound to traditional transitory moratorium (e.g. the
social gettoization of youth in the framework of their peer groups and cultures), but it
has not abolished all opportunities for the infantilisation of the young. Individualisation
forces individuals to more than ever refer to themselves, to ‘pump’ from themselves. It
is only a question of whether they are able to do it.
REFERENCES
Chisholm, L., Büchner, B. and Krüger, H. (1995). Growing Up in Europe. New York and Berlin:
W. de Gruyter.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1992). ‘Youth in Europe between modern and postmodern society.’ In Tomasi,
L. (ed.), Young People and Religions in Europe. Trento: Reverdito Edizioni, 31-41.
Evans, K. and Furlong, A. (1997): Metaphors of Youth Transition, in Bynner, Chisholm, Furlong
(eds.) Youth, Citizenship and Social Change, Ashgate, London
Chisholm, L. Bynner, R., Furlong, A. (ed) (1997): Youth, Citizenship and Social Change, Ashgate,
London
Giddens, A. (1991): Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity Press, Cambridge
Ule, M. (1988). Mladina in ideologija (Youth and Ideology). Ljubljana: DE.
Ule, M., Miheljak, V. (1995). Pri(e)hodnost mladine (The Future/Transition of Youth). Ljubljana:
DZS.
Ule, M. (1998): The Life World of Young People. In Ule, M., Rener, T. (ed) : Youth in Slovenia.
New Perspectives from the Nineties, Ljubljana, Youth Department, 173-205
Ule, M., Rener, T. (ed) (1998): Youth in Slovenia. New Perspectives from the Nineties, Republic
of Slovenia, Youth Department, Ljubljana
Growing up Slovenia in the nineties