A STUDY OF AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN

YOUNG ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND DECISION-MAKERS:

AN APPLICATION OF STRUCTURATION THEORY

E.W. van der Veen, Department of Social Sciences

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

The concepts of structuration theory provide a useful framework for interpreting the results of a comparative study of Australian and Canadian young environmental activists and decision-makers. Following an interpretive approach, in-depth focused interviews were conducted with thirty such young people and thirty decision-makers in each country. The research questions posed sought to explore the relationship between young people who are active members of environment organizations, and persons who are considered by members of society to be in decision-making positions. These latter persons are recognized to have some capacity of power as a resource whether in the form of authority or influence, due to their position. The relationships originate from youth’s concerns about the state of the natural environment and their desire to have an influence on the actions to be undertaken with the environment. In investigating the interactions, differences and similarities in views or knowledge towards the issue of concern were uncovered. As well, the views the young people and the decision-makers have towards each other were analyzed, as each individual’s perception of each other, based on interpretations of past interactions and mutual knowledge, among other factors, would affect those same interactions. Analyzing the basis of the concerns youth have, and the corresponding actions or changes they seek to invoke, was performed in order to determine whether the actions of youth are producing their desired effect.

Giddens (1984) has described what was involved in exploring and exposing the duality of structure that may exist based upon an analysis of the situated actions of a designated group of actors. The starting point is that action and interaction must be recognized to be situated in time and place. Social structure is created by individuals constructing continuous courses of action which become meaningful and regularized patterns. Structure exists only as long as the participating individuals take one another and the interaction into account. To determine whether the process of structuration was occurring, the ‘links’ between the situated activities of the young people and those of the decision-makers is explored (between the immediate context or region of each group). Such connections are then further considered in relation to the reproduction of the actions across time and space. This last point attempts to discover how their actions and practices relate to institutionalized practices. In other words, how structural relations are reproduced by, and sustained in, the situated contexts of action of young people and decision-makers.

There are several episodes of interaction in the study which will be explored as they relate to the ideas espoused by Giddens’ structuration theory. The interactions under investigation stem from the research questions. They include those between young people and decision-makers, and between both groups and society and the environment. Two levels to consider in interpreting the findings of the study and its relation to structuration theory are the following: there are the young people who want change and so their particular actions reflect this; by their repeated actions they may be reproducing the changes they want but perhaps only in their own reality. The duality of structure notion is uncertain in this case, or rather, structuration may not be evident in the processes of ‘new’ changes, but only once these changes take hold and are reproduced by the continued actions which produce these changes in the first place. The second level concerns whether the young people are in fact (re)producing the changes by their actions and modifying the structures, or are they simply perpetuating the existing processes of interaction and reproducing the current system by their particular agency. The same levels can be considered in the case of the decision-makers: are their actions serving to reconstitute the system in its present form or causing changes if this was the intention. The changes young people would be concerned with are in the sphere of the natural environment and for some incorporating this with changes in the wider community and/or the decision-making processes of institutions.

Considering the interaction of youth with society and with the environment, it will be shown that the concept of the duality of structure can be usefully applied to the actions of previous generations of young people, environmentalists and decision-makers, to provide empirical evidence to support Giddens’ view of the recursive relationship between agency and structure. What is central to this is the awareness among the young people of the changing and differing meanings to which the terms ‘youth’, ‘environment’ and ‘power’ have been assigned and the implications of this. These meanings are the result of interpretative procedures used in the social construction of reality, incorporating the unintended consequences of past human agency.

In the review of the literature on youth, the environment and types of environmentalists and environmentalism, various typifications can be found. Briefly, young people have been viewed as either problems or victims, the environment has been seen as either something to be exploited or preserved, and environmentalists have been typified as concerned citizens or eco-terrorists. These typifications were not only used by those who lived through the decades where the expressions came into usage, but they have been passed onto younger generations through the processes by which mutual knowledge is perpetuated. These typifications do not just remain as thought categories but become embodied in action and in everyday discourse (Schutz, 1967). They become represented in a whole range of norms, sanctions and institutional practices for the treatment of, behaviour towards and assessment of young people, the environment and environmentalists, and decision-makers. For example, institutional practices include unfavourable media portrayals of the actions of young people and environmentalists which are fictional but valid indicators because they are generated from within mutual knowledge.

The interpretation of youth as competent (knowledgeable and capable) agents is an assumption that the researcher has made and which is shown to be substantive upon analysis of the findings. The young people are considered as actors who know a great deal, discursively and tacitly, about certain social contexts of which they form a part. Giddens argued that to offer an account of one’s actions is both to explicate the reasons for them and to supply the normative grounds whereby they may be justified (1984:30). This reasoning is justified by the analysis of the views offered by the respondents. They grasp in a partial and contextually defined way the nature of their position in society. They are knowledgeable about the realities or worlds and corresponding roles in which they find themselves, such as the world of a student, an employee, an activist in the environment movement, and as a young person in Australian or Canadian society. They also have knowledge about other worlds and their position within these but these may not be complete or they may be distorted, for example the world of the State. Youth can articulate their perceptions on the judgements bestowed upon them by adults, and on power and authority relations in society, and why they react to these as they do. It can be shown how young people’s attitudes and behaviour towards the authority system of the state have certain concrete unintended consequences that affect their fate. For example, when youth vote, they facilitate the reproduction of a general feature of the capitalist, hierarchical system found in both countries, although some of them may disagree with the undemocratic nature of representative democracy.

From this and other instances, it can be shown how constraint operates through the active involvement of the agents concerned, not as something beyond their control or some force of which they are passive recipients (Giddens, 1984:289-90). Their activism displays a complex understanding of the basis of decision-making processes, yet at the same time questions it by subverting the ways it is normally expressed, for example, by not voting and by using direct action. Their activism also reflects an awareness of the meanings the environment can entail for different members of society, and they use this to challenge many of these interpretations in order for their interpretation to prevail.

The connection between their involvement in an environment organization and the corresponding actions they undertake, and the perception of a problem in the environment, was mentioned by all respondents. The young people were increasingly exposed to issues of concern about the environment, from within and outside of the movement, their views being reinforced as their length of involvement with the group increased, and as exposure to media and other portrayals of the environment continued. The theme of problems with the environment was the outcome of this reflexive monitoring and, simultaneously, the medium by which the monitoring was discursively expressed. The nature of the problem varied between respondents because, although the perception of problems was common, the nature of the problems was determined by youth’s knowledge and mutual knowledge. Youth perceived the environment as being in crisis due to a variety of reasons, such as direct and indirect exposure to environmental destruction and information gained from school and media; these provided their motivation for action. They perceived the environment as being destroyed and in need of being saved. This reasoning comprised the interpretative processes used by the young people to make sense of their activities in the organization and to sustain its rationality. It was the means by which they normatively justified their actions in view of the typifications and institutional practices associated with the environment.

As knowledgeable agents, the young people were able to monitor reflexively their actions across time-space, and to display this monitoring when discursively elaborating upon their actions. Examples of this are provided in the discussion of the types of tactics used by environment organizations, such as confrontation and negotiation. They were conscious of the detrimental and beneficial effects when applying different types of tactics. They also monitored the actions of decision-makers across time-space, and demonstrated this in their discourse about such actions. They argued that as a consequence of the actions on the part of governments and businesses, the environment was continuously being destroyed. They argued that government and business considered the environment an unlimited resource to be exploited for the benefit of humans. This was included in the reasoning they offered to rationalize the actions they undertook. Another example is provided in their account of the treatment they were exposed to by adult members of society. They repeatedly came across the opinions that youth are irresponsible, immature, inexperienced and uninformed. In this way they were able to monitor reflexively the unintended consequences of past and present conduct of other young people and themselves, other environmentalists, and decision-makers, and to monitor how this past and current agency had become transformed and reproduced into a series of everyday typifications and idealizations, and into a number of norms and institutional practices which are predicated on these typifications.

This process relates to the duality of structure as it demonstrates that there is no inconsistency between Giddens’ emphasis on the knowledgeability of actors and the idea that action can have unintended consequences, and that time and space were involved in this reflexive monitoring. The youth were able to monitor reflexively their actions in a knowledgeable manner and incorporate this with their awareness of the unintended consequences of past and present agency of youth and environmentalists, such as themselves, and of decision-makers. As well, the youth were aware of how time-space differences altered the connotations of this past agency and they made these time-space differences a feature of their discursive accounts. That is, time-space were being used by the young people as dynamic elements in their agency. Most importantly, their actions show how the recursive relationship between human agency and social structure can be made tangible and concrete. The typifications of young people, the environment and decision-makers, and the norms, sanctions and institutional practices based on them, represent the structuration of past and present human agency. This agency of young people and decision-makers becomes structured to affect future agency. The typifications become embodied as norms, sanctions and institutional practices for the behaviour towards and assessment of youth and the environment. This structure reflects and reinforces the typifications, and in this sense is itself recursively related to the agency of youth and decision-makers (Brewer, 1991).

In order to explore the occurrences of the duality of structure in this study, rules and resources must be identified. These serve to both facilitate and limit the actions of the young people and decision-makers, depending on how they are utilized. Whether a rule or resource acts as a constraint or enablement for either group of respondents will be designated. The following list is not exhaustive; future research may serve to fill in the gaps. However, a concerted attempt is made to denote the more significant rules and resources as they pertain to this study.

Before a discussion of rules and resources is undertaken, the structural properties of the concerned social systems must be outlined. Given that Australia and Canada are Western capitalist societies, a number of institutional practices or structural properties are presented. These refer to institutionalized features of social systems, stretching across time and space, such as modes of discourse, and legal, political and economic institutions. The practices which are pertinent to this study are those associated with the normative procedures of representative democracy, and of the system of capitalism, including voting and voting age which is determined by law; parliamentary decision-making processes used to determine policy; the use of advisory committees where the public’s viewpoint is solicited through submissions or direct consultation, with membership of committees and other terms of reference specified; the use of environment review processes; the market economy; the legislation applying to civil disobedience actions and protests, that is, the legality of certain direct action; the laws applying to the various uses of the environment; industry practices towards the environment; the ageist and hierarchical social order; and, the practice of lobbying (Giddens, 1984).

These properties may serve as structural constraints which, according to Giddens (1984), always operate via agents’ motives and reasons establishing conditions and consequences which affect options open to others. The formal hierarchy of the establishment incorporates modes of conduct and normative expectations that are spread across different sectors of Australian and Canadian societies, although they are influenced by a number of factors, such as age, gender and class. Authority and influence, for example, are to be found in government and business, and there are institutionalized social identities associated with politicians, bureaucrats and business executives. Their age and experiences has been translated into occupational positions, their decision-making capacity being of most relevance to this study. It can be shown that the sphere of influence of decision-makers is larger than that of youth. Refer to Diagram 1.

Diagram 1

As outlined in the discussion of structuration theory, rules can be interpreted as being the understandings which the young people and decision-makers routinely use, for example the language of everyday life. The respondents will know rules which are generally agreed upon for interaction between people. Rules refer to norms used in the constitution of meaning and perceived notions of acceptable and moral behaviour, and the accompanying sanctions, including normative rights and obligations. There are both formal and informal codes of conduct, an example of the latter being those enshrined in law, and the former being those associated with a dialogue between a child and an adult. Several rules exist with reference to the treatment and expectations of both young people and decision-makers. For example, young people experience sanctions in the form of what is considered acceptable and tolerable behaviour by the public and adults. It is expected that they will conform to these rules, which are carried forward from the agency of past generations of youth and adults. Another relevant aspect of rules is that which is associated with social roles or social identities within specific collectivities, and the position-practice relations associated with them. Giddens referred to these as ‘markers’ in the virtual time-space of structure (1984:282), arguing that ‘standardized markers’ are fundamental in all societies. In this research, the marker of age is the most significant.

The following are some of the rules relevant to this study which have been derived from discussions with respondents and from the literature. They include: a person should not break the law in whatever activity they undertake; young people should respect their elders or any form of authority because of the wisdom and experience acquired over the years by such people or organizations; youth’s views about issues are to be discounted since they are still learning about the ways of the world, but allowance can be made for mistakes; youth are allowed to question but not to challenge the system; legally, if youth have not yet attained the age of eighteen they are not to be considered adults; young people are not yet contributing members of society so they should not expect to be able to participate in important decisions or events, for example youth cannot become politicians. Specific applications of these rules found in this study and elsewhere, whether the rules are being followed or ignored, would be examples of actions, carried out by young people, which are considered to be acts of civil disobedience and therefore usually unlawful; young people standing for positions in local government elections which is only recently taking place; young people referred to as kids despite being beyond the age of 18, as evident from the language used by the decision-makers; several decision-makers espousing the regret that authority was no longer respected amongst youth, arguing that the experience and knowledge of adults and leaders far outweighed that of youth due to the latter’s limited lifespan.

A distinction can be made at times between the rules found in the world of older members of society, in particular, those of the decision-makers, and those of young people, and whether the rules of one group form part of the knowledge of the other group. Most of the rules arising from this study and the literature are those derived from older people but associated with the young people. The young people become aware of such rules through various means, such as socialization, and they identify such rules in discourse. Often they are in disagreement with the rules, this being a reason they articulate for becoming active.

Resources, allocative and authoritative, constitute the structures of domination. The former type refers to forms of transformative capacities generating command over material phenomena, while the latter to forms of domination of some actors over other actors. They are not to be considered as fixed resources, as in the case of natural resources, although the natural environment is included in the allocative type. In this study, the environment is a material resource but only because it is valued in Australian and Canadian society, although for different reasons by different people. Power is derived from the use of resources, "generated in and through the reproduction of structures of domination" (Giddens, 1984:258). Coordination of social systems across time and space, structuration, involves combinations of the two types of resources. Several resources present themselves to the young people and decision-makers of this study. In the former group, authoritative resources include: the youth’s occupation, whether student, worker or unemployed youth; knowledge of and access to decision-making processes; involvement in environment organizations; knowledge of the environment and of young people. Allocative resources include: physical age; the access to money and information; use of the environment across space; and, the tactics employed.

The issue of age is very pertinent to young people. Young people, over the age of fifteen years but under the legal voting age, are often not considered to be adults by other members of society, partly due to the fact that they cannot vote. This can be considered a constraint. However, at the same time, those considered a minor in the country’s legal system are treated differently compared with an adult if arrested for undertaking acts of civil disobedience. This has often been the case when young environmentalists are arrested at the scene of a direct action, such as blockading a bulldozer in a logging operation, and, subsequently, in court the charges, such as trespassing, are dismissed. (Mira) "You can exploit your youth to portray a certain image of innocence and sweetness. You can work especially well with environmental activists who are planning to get arrested. People less than 16 who were arrested in this protest had the charges dropped." Thus, a constraint can be used to advantage. This idea relates to the role of young people within society, and the status of the environment. The perception was articulated by some decision-makers that certain individuals in the legal profession, usually judges, were too lenient on those environmentalists who, by legal definition, had committed a crime. The perception of the judges may have been that those perpetrating the crime were only young people, that the cause, the environment, was worthy of such commitment, and that the actions undertaken were not criminal relative to other types of criminal acts. Therefore, the age of the young people, the cause they were committed to and the type of actions they performed, were all resources to the young person.

The ideas raised during the interviews, of youth being (potential) voters and consumers, proved to be potential resources for certain young people. The view that politicians were only interested in acquiring votes so that they would be re-elected was a frequently expressed sentiment amongst the young people. For those youth under the voting age, this proved to be a limiting factor since the politicians would not target these youth for specific election policy promises, that is, youth were not seen as a special interest group that required attention. Some decision-makers also agreed with this point. For those young people over the voting age, this circumstance was used as a resource. This notion of politicians soliciting votes from special interest groups is evident in the case of the environment movement, where, in the Australian federal election of 1988, it has been documented that the Labor party was re-elected with the support of this movement. Therefore, the potential exists for young people of the environment movement to use their concern for the environment, combined with their, age as a resource to cause change in institutional terms. This is an example of the dialectic of control, where some of the power of the elected official is transferred to the young people and environmentalists who, in turn, apply the transformative capacity back onto the leaders to realize intended outcomes.

The idea of youth as consumers, refers to youth being targeted because many have a larger disposal income than past generations. There were young people who felt this could be used to their advantage in that they could effect some change, for example, by boycotting certain products or demanding more environmentally friendly type products, and, subsequently, setting an example for their peers and family in using or not using certain products. This resource was enabling, aiding their exercise of power in terms of influence and control in their own world, and they would hope, subsequently, in others’ worlds. There is evidence that such economic institution changes have been achieved, for example, where the young people have convinced their parents to use environmentally friendly products, and the current availability of such products. However, other young people felt that the influence of media and advertising could be so overwhelming for persons in their age group, that, in relative terms, business had more transformative capacity in realizing their intended outcomes, which was to sell more products.

Another dimension to the interpretation of this resource, articulated by the latter group of young people, in terms of its restricting nature, was that youth did not have large enough financial resources which could impact upon a business’s sales. The economic institutions would continue to be reconstituted whether youth acted otherwise or not. This relates to the financial autonomy of young people. Many experience a lack of financial independence, being either dependent upon their parents or the government, or simply their own limited income from some form of employment. Associated with this is the idea that being in paid employment, or studying full-time and even part-time, restricts the number and type of activities that can be undertaken outside of work and study time. The dilemma caused by seeking financial resources, and hence the reduction in time that can be used for other purposes, constrains their actions. On the other hand, by not studying or working, a young person could have more time for their activism. Hence, their occupation served as a resource, providing opportunities for some and restrictions for others.

In discussions concerning the differences and similarities between young people and decision-makers, the existence of other resources can be interpreted from the comments. Some youth commented that decision-makers were humans like the rest of society, expressing emotions, and that many would have children of their own. By having feelings, the youth would interact with such a person at that emotional level, bringing to the fore emotions related to the issue being discussed. This was a resource for such young people, facilitating their actions. Also, by having children, it was felt that the decision-makers would be concerned about the future. This was used by the young people in the same way as with the emotions. By raising such concerns, the youth could relate to the decision-makers on their level, the way they perceived their world. This resource is associated with the dictum raised in the interviews that, ‘youth are the future’. However, many young people felt that the actions of the decision-makers did not reflect their concern for the future, pragmatism outweighing emotions, and that these resources served to perpetuate the view that young people were not being realistic. Therefore, raising such concerns and emotions did not always realize their intended outcomes. Instead, the current structure of domination continues to be perpetuated by the actions of the decision-makers. The duality of structure in this situation is evident, although perhaps with momentary lapses when emotions clouded the rational judgement of such persons.

The resource of knowledge was explicitly raised by the researcher but also implicitly raised by the respondents during the course of the interviews. Youth were perceived to lack knowledge and experience in the eyes of older adults, and by some of the youth themselves. A factor in this could be access to knowledge and experience, with barriers, including financial, to obtaining information and expertise, skills and practice. The acquiring of knowledge is believed to occur through education and experience. There is a belief that experience only comes from advanced years of living. Knowledge in this sense incorporates the accumulation of information about various topics, but also the learning of acceptable behaviour, and the rules that guide behaviour, which aid the person to fit into society and be a productive member. The vast majority of youth interviewed did not believe in this and through their efforts, attempted to dispute these beliefs. However, from the comments of the decision-makers, many indeed agreed with the sentiment that youth lack experience and therefore knowledge. Despite the actions of the young people with regard to the environment, they were still perceived as lacking an understanding of the ‘big picture’ of the way society functions. The young people were responsible for reproducing and reinforcing the decision-makers beliefs because they did not appear in their actions to be informed individuals. What must be considered in this case, is that the extent of a person’s knowledge is relative, and a value judgement is being made in determining this. One person’s knowledge may be someone else’s nonsense. In this sense, the level of knowledge a person has can be construed as a constraint or an enablement, depending on from whom the perspective originates.

The issue of the environment is obviously of relevance to this study. In brief, the predominant view in the West of the environment is, on the one hand, in terms of natural resources which can be translated into dollar amounts, that is, in terms of resource value. On the other hand, the environment is seen as an area worthy of conservation, but not of preservation (Merchant, 1992). Both views display a functional or utilitarian role for the environment, its value judged to be in terms of what the environment can provide for humans. The vast majority of the young people were seeking to modify these perceptions, although to varying degrees. However, due the youth’s perception of the issue, some served to perpetuate these typifications, and the duality of structure was again a relevant analytic framework.

A majority of the young people felt their knowledge of matters pertaining to the environment was beyond that of the decision-makers, because the environment had only become a major issue of concern in the lifetime of today’s youth. Their knowledge was seen as a resource to facilitate their actions but it was also used to explain the reasons for their actions. They cited the continued destruction of the environment as evidence for their belief in the decision-makers’ lack of knowledge in terms of the environment. It can be argued that a significant portion of the knowledge of each group on this issue may be different since the acquisition of such knowledge would have been undertaken in different milieu, for instance, the youth in an educational institution and for the decision-makers in the place of employment.

Other areas of knowledge presented themselves, that of decision-making processes and general matters of the institutions of government and business. The youth’s knowledge of decision-making processes was lacking, as is evident in their own discursive accounts. Many were unaware of the existence of such processes or where such processes allowed for the participation of young people, unless they had had direct experience in such situations. This then served as a constraint for those inexperienced, and, in particular, served to reinforce the decision-makers’ view that youth were not yet prepared to become part of these processes. However, those with experience were able to use such processes to advantage, to strongly voice the concerns of young people with regard to the environment, and to modify the perception of the adults involved by showing that youth are capable of interacting effectively in such situations. The decision-makers, with such exposure to youth, expressed views of youth as being responsible, articulate and informed. It could be interpreted that these young people were able to modify the duality of structure present in the accepted role of youth in society for a group of decision-makers. It remains to be seen whether changes will expand to include a majority of decision-makers so that an alteration in the structuration of these social institutions is perpetuated throughout society.

The common perception or typification by both decision-makers and young people, that the latter are energetic and enthusiastic, was used to advantage. According to decision-makers, youth are capable of carrying out activities, such as tree planting, and this was considered acceptable and useful behaviour. However, the leaders did not feel youth should be sitting at decision-making tables as they were considered to lack the capacity for responsibility since they were still young and inexperienced.

Many young people were able to use their membership in the environment organization as a resource, as an advantage in two ways. In one sense, many expressed the comment that adults looked favorably upon youth who were actively involved in the community. They were accorded respect and equal status. This was subsequently endorsed by several of the decision-makers themselves when the issue was presented in the interviews. In another sense, they were able to use the power of the group to effect change, to influence others. This was done by the recognition of segments of the public that a group existed and functioned with a purpose, that there were several members involved in such a group, and, hence, the idea of power in numbers. These ideas relate to the credibility of the organization and of the individual, this being used as a resource.

There were young people who used the attention focused on their age group by media and government as a resource, either to try to dispel the typifications or to draw attention to their concerns. In the case of media, the attention brought upon youth, as well as on the environment, was used to highlight their concerns in the eyes of the general public. As one youth mentioned, "youth are seen as a novelty." But at times, due to the nature of the activities youth undertook and as an unintended consequences of these actions, media managed to perpetuate the views that young people are naive, immature and rebellious, wasting time when they should be working, and that environmentalists are ‘crazies’ and ‘radicals’. Several young people commented how they would hear the remark from onlookers of rallies; ‘get a job’.

When youth issues were being debated by governments, some form of interaction usually occurred between government and young people. Many in the latter group often found such interaction to be fruitful to both parties in the following ways: to allow youth to voice their concerns and to inform the leaders; to encounter a leader in person; to show that both sides were human; and, to give youth an idea of what the decision-makers’ work involved. These youth felt that such dialogue would serve to change perceptions of each group, hence modifying the rules associated with each party and thus the duality of structure involved in this interaction. The decision-makers expressed the same mutual benefits. However, some youth questioned such interaction, sensing it was all too often very tokenistic, decision-makers lacking any genuine interest in the youth or the youth’s concerns, with no change resulting. The decision-makers expressed the view that no one young person can represent young people since this category of people is too heterogeneous. As a result, it could be inferred that the duality of structure would remain unchanged with young people continuing to be insignificant players in the social structure.

A variety of strategies and tactics were employed by the young people, depending on their perception of effectiveness and degree of commitment. Strategies could involve formal and informal means of interaction, one on one or one to many meetings. The tactics fall roughly into groups, those deemed conventional and those considered to be civil disobedience. In the former category, the tactics ranged from writing letters to decision-makers, collecting names for petitions, meeting with decision-makers, publishing and distributing material, holding forums and visiting other organizations, such as schools, having information stalls in malls or in exhibitions, and demonstrations and rallies. In the latter category, they ranged from protests, sit-ins, blockading, tree-spiking, not voting.

By the young environmentalists using negotiational type tactics, such as lobbying members of governments, they serve to reproduce the institutionalized practice of lobbying which they set out to change. By youth using confrontational type tactics which are meant to create concern in the public for the environment, the opposite can occur in that many members of the public may become irritated with the group and its activities, ignoring the issue of the environment. By practising tactics, such as civil disobedience, which may be seen as showing contempt for the so-called legitimate forms of authority and activities in society, the State in turn can crack down even further on persons who perform such activities, rebounding on the intended effect of desiring a greater freedom of expression. Youth in environment organizations may see another way to organize the institutions and citizens of the social system, and they will try to project this and perhaps succeed to a degree. They may be unsuccessful because they will be operating with the same constraints, sanctions and institutions. Potentially, through the use of different actions, they do and do not modify the structures although to what degree is uncertain.

Finally, the duality of structure can be seen in the typifications and institutional practices which arise from past agency in the following manner. It was shown that some of these factors constitute a constraint upon youth in their actions, that must be confronted and challenged in order to justify that their activism was a rational undertaking. However, simultaneously, as the constraints embedded in the socially constructed structure are the medium through which their activism is realized, they become enablements. It was both the circumstances with which youth had to deal and the means by which they achieved their actions. The constraints functioned as resources and rules which the young people drew upon in carrying out their actions. From this it can be seen that the activism involved both the knowledgeability of the actors and the constraining nature of structuring properties. According to Giddens, structure is the rules and resources which are used as binding or structuring properties. When these same rules and resources, that both govern and reflect other agents knowledge, are embedded in structure then the agency of youth is manifested in structure, and structure is the outcome of youth’s agency (Brewer, 1991).

By the young people and decision-makers invoking the institutional orders or structural properties, they contribute to their reproduction. As has been shown, the young people serve to reproduce some general features of the capitalist and Westminster systems. The study findings indicate how the activities of young people, within a restricted context, contribute to the reproduction of larger institutional forms. The mutual knowledge inherent in these institutional orders is not to be dismissed. Giddens argued that by reproducing such practices, they also reproduce its ‘facticity’ as a source of structural constraint upon themselves and upon others. They treat the institutions of government and industry "as a ‘real’ order of relationships within which their own interaction is situated and which it expresses. And it is a ‘real’ order of relationships precisely because they, and others like them in connected and similar contexts, accept it as such - not necessarily in their discursive consciousness but in their practical consciousness incorporated in what they do" (1984:331).

The last point to be discussed is the notion of power. Giddens argued that power has no logical connection or intrinsic relation with the realization of sectional interests and with the realization of collective interests or goals. But the size of the system organization does make a significant contribution to the generation of power. These points can be applied to environment organizations and the environment movement as a whole, as well as private and public institutions. Comments supplied by both groups of respondents exhibit the view that the movement does indeed have a transformative capacity based on the collective actions of its constituents.

Young environmentalists use their power to realize changes in their world and they hope these changes will propagate outwards to affect the worlds of other actors, in some cases, those of the decision-makers, but, commonly, the myriad of worlds of members of society. Several resources have been outlined previously and it is through the application of these resources that the young people are able to realize their power. For example, they utilize the knowledge they have gained about the situation of the environment in their exercise of power, to influence their actions and those of others. The knowledge the decision-makers have acquired with regard to the environment is bound to be different in many respects, and they use it in certain cases to discredit and dissuade these young people. They use their position, combined with their version of knowledge, to actualize an effective deterrent or inhibitor for the realization of the changes these young people desire.

From this discussion, it can be seen that structuration theory has been usefully applied to the findings, and hence that it can be an appropriate analytical framework for empirical research. Structural properties involved in the structures of signification, legitimation and domination have been identified, and cases where such institutional orders are propagated in their present form, as well as in modified forms, have been outlined.

An important factor throughout this analysis has been the recognition that each individual respondent’s perceptions must be considered when determining whether changes in the structures and social system has occurred. Changes within the realities or worlds in which the respondent is involved are more easily identified, supported by the comments of the respondent’s themselves. Their knowledge contains the past agency of other corresponding actors, of typifications of agents, and of institutional orders. They are able to use this knowledge to reflexively monitor and hence rationalize their actions. Elements within the duality of structure present in instances of interaction may or may not have been modified, depending on the respondents’ own interpretations, based on their mutual knowledge and experiences, among other factors.

From examining the literature on young people and on the environment, it can be argued that substantive changes have occurred in the treatment, assessment and behaviour towards these subjects during the post-war decades. Different norms and sanctions have been prevalent at certain times. These have been altered due to the agency of certain groups of actors. Subsequent groups of similar actors have adopted such changes and hence reproduced the changes, eventually affecting other segments of society. Within Giddens’ framework, it can be observed that certain types of young people and decision-makers believe that the structuration of the social system has occurred and is continuing.

REFERENCES