Abstract
As the ecological crisis grows more intense, youth research must attune itself to the ongoing climate emergency marked by mass extinction, the era of pandemics and world political turmoil. How can youth research participate in finding solutions to the dilemmas involved in achieving sustainable development and the well-being of all living things and beings, and of the planet itself? This article presents a new framework for youth research: planetary youth research. It is structured in accordance with the four pillars of the ‘global ethical framework’ outlined by the Club of Rome in 1974 in its second report, Mankind at the Turning Point: 1) One must learn to identify with future generations; 2) A universal consciousness must be created; 3) Humanity’s relationship with nature should be based on harmony; and 4) A new ethic for the use of raw materials must be created. This article outlines a new framework for planetary youth research by expanding and updating these historical pillars through the application of current trends and findings in youth research and social science research.
Introduction: Why Do We Need a New Framework?
Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). […] The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments (high confidence). […] Climate change including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes have reduced food and water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (high confidence).
ipcc, 2022, p. 9
Global hotspots of high human vulnerability are found particularly in West-, Central- and East Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, Small Island Developing States and the Arctic (high confidence). Vulnerability is higher in locations with poverty, governance challenges and limited access to basic services and resources, violent conflict and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods. […] Vulnerability at different spatial levels is exacerbated by inequity and marginalization linked to gender, ethnicity, low income or combinations thereof (high confidence), especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high confidence). Present development challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high confidence).
ipcc, 2022, p. 12
Human action has, in a short period, had a substantial and unforeseen impact on global ecosystems. This epoch has been called the ‘Anthropocene’ as well as the ‘Capitalocene’, ‘Plantationocene’ (cf. Haraway, 2015) and ‘Wasteocene’ (Armiero & De Angelis, 2017), underlining the many destructive and oppressive processes that humans have been developing on the planet Earth that have now significantly affected the biosphere. The many high confidence scenarios identified by the ipcc raise several key questions of our time: How do we take care of children’s and young people’s sustainable development now and in the future? Is humankind doomed? What kind of living conditions can we give to the next generations, and what role could youth research play in this? What kind of youth research could support the sustainable development of young generations today and in the future?
Already in 1965, Dorst was worried about what happens when people expand the territories in which they live, when they harness forests and fields for their own use and when wild animals are left to live in increasingly cramped conditions. Now, we know that this development has led to the era of pandemics; this is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ipbes) wrote about in the fall of 2020. The coronavirus (sars-Cov-2) and the influenza virus are examples of zoonoses that arise when wildlife, livestock, and humans come into contact and when microbes travel and adapt from one to the other (ipbes, 2020).
There are signals that the sustainable development of younger generations is decreasing globally. For example, the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic has become the most serious children’s rights crisis in the 75-year history of the United Nations Children’s Fund (unicef). A 2021 unicef report notes that the covid-19 crisis has resulted in a setback in all areas important for childhood development: health, nutrition, school attendance, child welfare, mental health and poverty prevention. At the same time young people’s participation rights were also forgotten in many countries (e.g. Helfer et al. 2023).
The unicef report (2021) also shows that learning poverty has risen dramatically since the advent of the pandemic. In low- and middle-income countries, 70% of 10-year-old children cannot read or understand short text. Many children—especially girls—have dropped out of school. The number of children living in poverty has increased by more than 100 million children compared to the time before the pandemic. Child mortality has started to increase for the first time in decades. In addition to these measures, it is relevant to note that, worldwide, almost one out of every five children lives in a conflict zone. (unicef, 2021.)
The ongoing climate emergency, mass extinction, the era of pandemics and world political turmoil demand solutions to the dilemmas involved in achieving sustainable development and ensuring the well-being of all living things and beings, and of the planet itself. We have a lot of knowledge about the current situation, but the real challenge is changing human behaviour. There are still relatively few frameworks that link the resolution of the crisis with the aim of promoting well-being, understanding it as a dynamic process that tries to integrate human and nonhuman well-being as well as other multiscalar considerations of well-being (jyu.Wisdom Community, 2021).
The present article thus presents a new framework for youth research that I call ‘planetary youth research’. This framework is structured according to the four pillars of the ‘global ethical framework’ outlined in 1974 by the Club of Rome in its second report, Mankind at the Turning Point (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975): 1) One must learn to identify with future generations; 2) A universal consciousness must be created; 3) Humanity’s relationship with nature should be based on harmony; and 4) A new ethic for the use of raw materials must be created. This article first formulates the historical starting points of the four pillars. Then, it explains each of the pillars in separate sub-chapters, including how they could be adopted through the application of current youth and social science research, and the types of youth research that could support knowledge production in relation to each of the pillars. To conclude, a table is presented that demonstrates the main approaches and provides examples of youth research topics for each pillar.
Historical Foundation of the New Framework: Mankind at the Turning Point
However, our current situation is so complex and to such a large extent a reflection of the manifold activities of man that no combination of technical, economic or legislative methods and means alone can produce essential improvement. A completely new way of thinking is needed so that humanity can be guided towards the goal of balance rather than growth. meadows et al., 1972, p.195
The second report of the Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975), continues and deepens the analysis of the group’s first report. The authors list four tasks that are necessary in order for the values and attitudes of individuals to turn towards global ethics. This I see as a framework for the ‘completely new way of thinking’ called for in the first report. Global ethics is necessary for humanity to survive, and these four tasks—or four pillars—form the basis of my framework for planetary youth research (see Table 1).
The four tasks are presented in different order in the original report; I restructured them to better illustrate my arguments, and the same order is applied to the structure of this article. Therefore, the first task is to learn to identify with future generations and be ready to exchange one’s personal interests for the interests of future generations (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975, p. 122). Here, I see youth research as one of the key disciplines engaged in listening to, collaborating with and studying the young generations of today, and with helping current generations to identify with future generations. The second task is the creation of a universal consciousness to help everyone understand their role as a member of the world community (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975, p. 121). Here, I will incorporate into this framework discussions related to methodological cosmopolitanism, decolonial and postcolonial approaches, and global youth research.
The third task is changing humanity’s relationship with nature so that it is based on harmony and not on the conquest of nature (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975, p. 122). Here, I will bring indigenous and ecofeminist research methods aimed at promoting Earth Democracy into the discussion. I also propose ‘Sensuous Knowledge’ (Salami, 2020) as one way to approach this third task. The fourth task is to create a new ethic for the use of raw materials, in which a lifestyle in harmony with the coming period of scarcity is supported (Mesarovic & Pestel, 1975, p. 121). In relation to this task, my main argument is that we must better understand that mental and natural burnouts go in hand in hand. Youth research needs to push towards eco-social solutions related to well-being (e.g., Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014; Salonen, 2015), and search for supportive solutions to balance action, emotional engagement and self-care (see Pihkala, 2022a) within social and planetary boundaries.
I am also convinced that we must strive to find intersectional solutions to the crises of our time. Doing so does not weaken the effort to implement one task; it supports several tasks (cf. Klein, 2022; Hill Collins, 2019). At best, these solutions help resolve several crises at the same time. There are several reasons why Finland gets a lot of space in this framework proposal, and I clearly recognise this imbalance. First, it is my home country and the country I know the best. Second, Finland has one of the most ambitious government programmes to promote a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable society.1 Third, many established social science researchers tackling sustainable welfare and planetary well-being come from Finland. Fourth, youth research is a very well-established discipline in Finland in both academic and applied research. Therefore, Finland has a unique perspective from which to promote in this framework. Still, I acknowledge that the examples from Finland are only examples, and these could also have been drawn from other countries or locations.
First Pillar: Youth Research One of the Core Disciplines to Foster Identification with Future Generations
If the human species is to survive, man must learn to identify with future generations and be ready to trade his own interests for the interests of future generations. If each generation strives to get the greatest possible benefit for itself, Homo sapiens is actually doomed.
mesarovic & pestel, 1975, p. 122
Youth research and youth studies, as a discipline itself and as a multidisciplinary field of research, plays a crucial role in fulfilling the first of the four tasks listed by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Prestel (1975). Youth research can be seen as a social interpreter of and sensitive listener to young generations—as a discipline that wants to understand the living conditions of the young people of today and tomorrow. Therefore, I argue that youth research can and should support people outside the discipline in identifying with future generations. As a scientific community, we are constantly doing pioneering work—in a diversity of ways—to collaborate with younger generations, such as identifying ways to involve young people in multi-role research and development projects. This is essential simply because decisions must be made now that young people will have to live with as adults.
In the first large-scale investigation of climate anxiety in young people globally (Hickman et al., 2021), respondents (aged 16–25 years) across all 10 surveyed countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Portugal, the United Kingdom [UK] and the United States [US]; 1,000 participants per country) were worried about climate change: 59% were very or extremely worried, and 84% were at least moderately worried. More than 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning, and many reported a high number of negative thoughts about climate change. For example, 75% said that they think the future is frightening, and 83% said that they think people have failed to take care of the planet. Respondents rated governmental responses to climate change negatively and reported greater feelings of betrayal than of reassurance. The study also found that climate anxiety and distress were correlated with perceived inadequate government response and the associated feelings of betrayal. Almost 55% of young people globally think that they will not have the same opportunities that their parents had (Hickman et al., 2021). In other studies, it has also been found how many young people feel distressed by the inaction of political or corporate leaders, the ways other people respond to their climate-related feelings, and the lack of support young people face in getting involved in meaningful climate action (Diffey 2022).
Intergenerational injustice is strongly involved in the current situation (e.g., see Macy & Johnstone, 2022; Cripps 2016). The future of the planet, including of Homo sapiens, necessitates the greater involvement of young generations in discussions and decisions about the future—their future. The youth research field has developed multiple tools to better include young people in decision making at the local, national and transnational levels. However, the underestimation of society at large towards young people must cease, and a more systematic evaluation of the effects of political decisions on youth, children and future generations, both nationally and internationally, must be conducted; in other words, strengthening globally the role of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its General Comments is a necessity.2 Here, youth research could also act as a watchdog, as its strengths are the combination of applied and academic research, and the triangulation of youth research, youth policy and practices among the youth (cf. Horgan & Kennan, 2022).
Second Pillar: Towards Universal Consciousness—We Are All Members of the World Community
It is necessary to create a universal consciousness, with the help of which each individual understands his role as a member of the world community. For German citizens, the famine in tropical Africa should be as important and as shocking as the famine in Bavaria. Every single individual must be made aware of the fact that the basic unit of human cooperation and thus survival is no longer the nation but the whole world.
mesarovic & pestel, 1975, p. 121
[Youth research is] an exercise that constitutes a form of ‘epistepraxis’: a knowledge creation endeavor underpinned by contextually relevant theory, aligned with young people’s innovative practices, in search of social justice.
cooper et al., 2022, p. 2
At the end of the handbook, Sharlene Swartz (2021, p. 606) offers a charter for reforming youth studies from a discipline that universalises Northern perspectives into one that is truly global, welcoming and being enriched by the contributions of Global South scholars on their own terms. This encouragement to make youth research more global goes hand in hand with cosmopolitan practices, for which Magdalena Nowicka and Maria Rovisco (2009) identify two analytical levels:
- (1)cosmopolitanism as a practice that is apparent in things that people do and say to positively engage with ‘the otherness of the other’ and the oneness of the world; and
- (2)cosmopolitanism as a moral ideal that emphasises both tolerance towards difference and the possibility of a more just world order.
Cultural Europeanisation was transformed into an aspiration. It was a way of participating and later to reach the same material benefits and the same power as the Europeans: viz, to conquer nature—in short for ‘development’. European culture became a universal cultural model.
quijano, 2007, p. 169
Many researchers have intensively worked on widening the knowledge from cultural Europeanisation towards more planetary framework. Quijano (2007) questions what counts as ‘relevant knowledge’ in today’s world as well as the ways in which to identify the relations between ‘western-based scientific knowledge and other knowledges derived from other practices, rationalities or cultural universes,’ as Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007, 2009, p. 193) explains, going on to state, ‘They are differences, ultimately, about what it means to be a human being’. In addition, Santos suggests a new perspective, which he terms ‘ecologies’ (Santos, 2009, p. 196), developed from the sociology of absence. With the term ‘sociology of absence’, Santos refers to attempts to expand our understanding of the true state of society in order to make visible experiences that have been made invisible by modernity/coloniality and Euro-centred views.
The Ecology of Knowledges put forth by Santos (2009, p. 196) first confront the logic of monoculture within scientific knowledge via the identification of other knowledge. The sociology of absence instead points to ignorance or a lack of culture. Therefore, moral methodological cosmopolitanism as a research practice benefits from being sensitive to the wide variety of knowledges as well as from being sensitive to the hints of a researcher’s own or an informant’s ignorance (Laine, 2015).
Silvia Moraes et al. (2021) propose the inclusion of planetary citizenship (pc) and the Ecology of Knowledges in the curricula of Brazilian universities. In their proposal, pc is described as a multidisciplinary and dialogical education ‘articulated in a variety of concrete projects proposed by different groups according to their demands and aspirations’ (Moraes et al., 2021, p. 2). Their proposal follows the Environmental Education initiative launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and adds the aspects of ecopedagogy, Santos’s Ecology of Knowledges, Edgar Morin’s (1999) concept of planetary awareness and their own studies and experience as university professors (Moraes et al., 2021).
The decolonial turn [… acknowledges] the epistemic domination rooted in Eurocentric sociology and recognize[s] significant theoretical contributions by scholars and actors from different regions of the world and from oppressed backgrounds to [the] understanding of movements both in the Global South and the Global North.
pleyers, 2023, p. 11
Patricia Hill Collins (2019, p. 118) wrote on the importance of conducting a critical analysis that has the practical intent of fostering social change: ‘Practice encourages intellectuals within resistant knowledge projects to theorize differently, drawing upon multiple sources of expertise and taking different questions than those within traditional social theory’. Here, youth research intertwines with global social movements research (e.g., school strikes, and Extinction Rebellion and its opponents). Youth research can, for example, study how such movements evaluate their strategies for crafting coalitions locally or globally. In addition, those engaged in youth research need to start working together much more, fostering connections between researchers coming from different continents, cultures and backgrounds (e.g., see Jabberi & Laine, 2015).
Young People’s Values and Attitudes towards World Community
Perhaps one of the most targeted responses to the ‘limits of growth’ identified by the Club of Rome has been the United Nations’ (UN’s) Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals,3 which aims to eliminate extreme poverty and foster sustainable development that equally accounts for the environment, economy and people. All UN member states have committed to the target programme, which has 17 main goals and 169 sub-goals. Sustainable development has a special generational political significance; when Greta Thunberg arrived at the UN Climate Action Summit at the end of August 2019, 17 sailboats representing the Sustainable Development Goals escorted her to the port—a moment of hope and positive expectations for many young people.
It is important to study young people’s values and attitudes towards world community. Using Finnish example, in the Finnish Youth Barometer 2021, sustainable development was, for the first time, a main theme, along with climate change. As part of Tuuli Hirvilammi et al.’s (2022) study, 13 of the UN’s Agenda 2030 goals on sustainable development were analysed. The results of the article reveal that the attitudes of Finnish young people (aged 15–29 years) towards sustainable development can be divided into three groups: 67% of Finnish young people take an eco-social approach to the themes of sustainable development. They have a highly critical attitude towards economic growth, and they defend social justice, climate action and biodiversity. They are the only one of the three groups who have talked with others about climate anxiety; they have actively participated in climate actions and have changed their consumption habits to be more ecological (Hirvilammi et al., 2022). Comparing our research to similar surveys conducted among older age groups (Jakobsson et al., 2018; Otto & Gugushvili, 2020), younger generations are more eco-socially aware and supportive of sustainable development. These life-sustaining attitudes towards society come close to what Macy and Johnstone (2022, p. 6) called the ‘Great Turning’ story: by becoming active participants in making changes to promote sustainable development, active hope will carry us to the new, more planetarily sustainable era.
The second group, made up of 27% of the young people surveyed, are called the ‘economy-favouring’. Their answers emphasise the importance of economic growth and, thus, the belief that such growth is the best way to achieve sustainable development (Hirvilammi et al., 2022). These attitudes come close to what Macy and Johnstone (2022, p. 6) called the ‘Business as Usual’ story, lens or attitude. The third group represents 5% of the respondents. Their values and attitudes are clearly the most negative, especially they do not see the importance of human rights. The fact that many of these young people identify themselves as a member in an ethnic minority, may indicate that they have experiences of injustice—such as racism, discrimination or exclusion in Finnish society—which causes their strongly negative standpoint (Hirvilammi et al., 2022). This comes close to what Macy and Johnstone (2022, p. 6) called the ‘Great Unravelling’ story, lens or attitude, as it underlines the degeneration in social systems, and how communities are pulled apart.
Connecting the concept of sustainable development (e.g., the UN Agenda 2030 or UN Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security) or environmental policy to youth policy has been precarious (Gorman, 2021; UN 2015). To this end, one mission of youth research is to promote and develop a better systematicity for these issues, together with young people.4
Third Pillar: Humanity’s Relationship with Nature Based on Harmony
Man’s relationship with nature must be changed so that it is based on harmony and not on the conquest of nature. Only in this way can a person put into practice what has already been accepted at the level of theory, i.e., that man is an essential part of nature.
mesarovic & pestel, 1975, p. 122
Recognizing that they are stuck at house, bored or even in some cases facing aggression of equally bored or worried adults, the [village council] encouraged elders to teach [the children and youth] whatever special skills they had—music, crafts, cooking, traditional technologies, gardening—or engage them in environmental activities like caring for trees. Kothari, 2022, p. 165
As the above example from Kothari demonstrates, planetary youth research can learn a lot of lessons from the margins. In this era, self-reliance is also about the revitalisation of local livelihoods (vs. ‘deadlihoods’, or soul-deadening places of extinction) (Kothari 2022, pp. 166–167). In addition, all the work listed above is essential also in the Western world because, as found by Panu Pihkala et al. (2022, p. 95), 76% of the Finnish young people surveyed feel sad about the decline of biodiversity and the extinction of species. From this perspective, it is highly relevant for youth research to analyse climate youth work and other eco-leisure activities by and with young people. In addition, it is important to study young people’s relationship with nature to gain a more detailed understanding of the interactions between humans and more-than-human nature, and how to live in harmony and cope with current disharmony (Nxumalo 2021).
The emergence of the concept planetary health within social and health policy also speaks to the change in attitudes towards planetary thinking (e.g., Myers & Frumkin, 2020). ‘Planetary health’ refers to the health of human civilization and the state of the natural world on which it depends (e.g., see Tilleczek et al., 2023), as it is known that vibrant and diverse nature supports human health (Tilleczek et al., 2023; Horton et al., 2014; Horton & Lo, 2015). The concept describes both human activity as an exploiter of nature that has harmful effects on people, and the (health) benefits and ecosystem services produced by the environment. Planetary health is connected to the life of every living thing and being. The health of the planet is a system; everything is interconnected and affects all other things (e.g., Myers & Frumkin, 2020). Tilleczek et al. (2023, pp. 1–2) present a youth-centred planetary health education framework including themes such as the following: 1) connections with nature, 2) equity and justice, 3) systems thinking, 4) movement building and 5) health in the Anthropocene. This newly proposed curriculum engages youth ‘not as passive recipients of information, but as active participants and agents of change in the design and promotion of planetary health education’ (Tilleczek et al., 2023, p. 2).
The jyu.Wisdom Community (2021, p. 1) of the University of Jyväskylä proposed the concept of ‘planetary well-being’ as something that can ‘recognise the moral considerability of both human and nonhuman well-being, and to promote transdisciplinary, cross-cultural discourse for addressing the crisis and for promoting societal and cultural transformation’. The aim of planetary well-being closely aligns with my proposed framework for planetary youth research. The jyu.Wisdom Community seeks to shift the ‘focus on well-being from individuals to [the] processes, Earth system and ecosystem processes, that underlie all well-being’ (jyu.Wisdom Community, 2021, p. 1). The community hopes that its concept and framework could bridge divergent worldviews and ‘enrich the conceptual toolbox to foster transformation to a world that promotes well-being more equally by unifying systems-thinking and both human and nonhuman well-being to a single, intuitively appealing concept’ (jyu.Wisdom Community, 2021, p. 6).
Sensuous, Indigenous and Ecofeminist Youth Research
In her book Sensuous Knowledge (2020), Minna Salami explores and advocates ‘sensuous’ knowing, which is an embodied way of knowing that is both emotional and intellectual: We need an approach to knowledge that synthesizes the imaginative and the rational, the quantifiable and the immeasurable, the intellectual and the emotional. She contrasts Sensuous Knowledge with ‘Europatriarchal Knowledge’, which she sees as originating with elite European men during the Enlightenment. Salami searches for improved dialogue between nature and humans from a feminist perspective. For Salami (2020, p. 36), knowledge is not static but organic. Europatriarchal tools are not functional for Sensuous Knowledge, she argues (Salami, 2020, p. 52); we need new tools for the new era. Salami encourages the decolonisation of the mind—we have to remember what Europatriarchal Knowledge wanted us to forget. We need to reclaim the values of Sensuous Knowledge, reimagining and reshaping them so that mind, soul, body, movement, plasticity and nature (including the natural and organic) are all involved in knowledge making again (Salami, 2020, p. 96).
[The Chthulucene] entangles myriad temporalities and spatialities and myriad intra-active entities-inassemblages—including the more-than-human, other-than-human, inhuman, and human-as-humus. […] One way to live and die well as mortal critters in the Chthulucene is to join forces to reconstitute refuges, to make possible partial and robust biological-cultural-political-technological recuperation and recomposition, which must include mourning irreversible losses. […] Making kin is perhaps the hardest and most urgent part. […] If there is to be multispecies ecojustice, which can also embrace diverse human people, it is high time that feminists exercise leadership in imagination, theory, and action to unravel the ties of both genealogy and kin, and kin and species. […] We need to make kin sym-chthonically, sym-poetically. Who and whatever we are, we need to make-with—become-with, compose-with—the earth-bound.
haraway, 2015, pp. 160–161
Fourth Pillar: Need for a New Environmental Ethic
A new ethic for the use of raw materials must be created, in which a lifestyle in harmony with the coming period of scarcity is created. This requires a new type of production technology, which is based on the smallest possible consumption of raw materials and the long shelf life of the products, and not at all on trying to run as many raw materials as possible through the production process. People should be proud of saving and preserving rather than wasting and throwing away.
mesarovic & pestel, 1975, pp. 121–122
With our indifference, we kill the animals and cover the bright blue sky in cloudy grayness. We are melting glaciers that should never have melted. We are razing the rainforests, i.e., the lungs with which we breathe. This is like a slow and painful mass suicide. We destroy the one thing that cannot be fixed. We are destroying the Earth. […] I try to relax and think that everything is still possible. That nothing is irrevocably wrong. However, I can only fool myself for a very short time. Countless facts remind us of their existence. Newspapers tear headlines about natural disasters and the internet is full of doomsday predictions. When the tv news gives only a passing mention of the war, I know that somewhere completely innocent people are suffering because of greedy leaders. And that’s something I can’t stand. I don’t agree to just rest my eyes on the ground, without goals and faith. I want to reach for the stars and fight.
pekurinen, 2012, pp. 32–33
As a reader, what I find most touching and compelling in this text is its powerful topicality, 11 years after it was first published. Pekurinen’s words have a lot in common with the words of Greta Thunberg, who started the Fridays for Future school strikes in 2018 at the age of 15, when she, too, was in grade 9—the same age that Pekurinen (2012, p. 33) was when she wrote, ‘The most important thing is that I myself know that I tried to change something in this world, which is not perfect’.
[Y]ounger people know, really know, what they face in a world onrushing with no imaginable exit-route towards at very least two degrees further rise above the Holocene norm within their lifetime, and they must decide: Go through the motions, as if this is all going to continue as before; withdraw, relinquish, perhaps form a renunciation community; or act. […] The author’s experience is that such choices are not only felt as very real and pressing in the lives of our students but, as one might expect, overspill into many aspects of their social and emotional being.boxley, 2022
Consuming lifestyle will burn both the planet and us. I do believe that increasing numbers of burnouts in working life and the climate change do have a connection. Intensification` and acceleration of everything all the time doesn’t fit the environment nor humans. Sustainable development could also create sustainable mental health.hooks, 2001, p.125
A recent process model of eco-anxiety and ecological grief created by Pihkala (2022a) opens up many opportunities for studying young people’s coping abilities and how these are changing in the oscillations of eco-anxiety and ecological grief, as well as supportive ways of living with the ecological crisis. Pihkala’s (2022a) process model underlines the importance of balancing action, emotional engagement and self-care. This suggests paths for future research, such as studying community responses to eco-anxiety and the role of the arts and education.
The ecologically unsustainable overconsumption of the rich has been discussed by many scholars. In general, regulatory eco-social policies focus on the distribution of both economic and natural resources and aim at influencing consumer behaviour in order to decrease the environmental impacts of unsustainable living standards, especially those of housing, food and transport (Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014, pp. 2169–2170). Tuuli Hirvilammi and Tuuli Helne (2014) has developed theorisation of ‘sustainable well-being’. The core in this theory is the so called hdlb-model (Having-Doing-Loving-Being) that bridges the gap between social policy and sustainability research and constructs an eco-social policy agenda. In their hdlb-model all four dimensions are actualised within planetary boundaries: Having indicates decent and fair standard of living; Doing refers to meaningful and responsible activities; Loving means connective and compassionate relations to others; and Being equals to need of self-actualization and personal growth (see also Helne & Hirvilammi, 2022). Again here, the wellbeing of the more-than-human nature and humans are interdependent.
The concept of a sustainable ‘consumption corridor’—that is, the space between the acceptable minimum and maximum standards of living—has been suggested (Di Giulio & Fuchs, 2014). Such corridors would be defined by minimum standards, allowing every individual to live a good life, and maximum standards, ensuring a limit on every individual’s use of natural and social resources to guarantee access to a sufficient level of resources for others in the present and in the future (Di Giulio & Fuchs, 2014).
Figure 1 presents the ‘doughnut’ of social and planetary boundaries developed by Kate Raworth and Doughnut Economics Action Lab (deal). In youth research, we have studied for decades the current situation and the possible shortfalls in the areas listed inside of the doughnut: health, education, income & work, peace & justice, political violence, social equity, gender equality, housing, networks, energy, water and food. What has not been so common is to combine the ‘overshoot’ areas with youth research. The fourth pillar of the planetary youth research framework thus encourages critically focussing on overconsumption and bringing the ‘consumption corridor’ into youth research to better understand how to support young and future generations in living between the social and planetary boundaries—that is, in an environmentally safe and socially just space in which humanity can thrive. In addition, the fourth pillar encourages the examination of how youth researchers could themselves strive to exist within these boundaries, as examples of the needed transition.
The doughnut of social and planetary boundaries by Doughnut Economics Action Lab (deal).5
Citation: Youth and Globalization 5, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/25895745-bja10027
There is a need to become Indigenous again with community-based economic systems based on local production and consumption needs. […] the model of inter-linked village communities that restores a sense of place and belonging to all people.
dixon-declève et al., 2022, pp. 149–152
Conclusions: New Framework Proposal—Planetary Youth Research
In this article, I propose a framework that I call ‘planetary youth research’. It comprises four pillars, originating from the Club of Rome’s second report (Mesarovic & Pestel 1975 [orig. 1974]). Many indicators of our time show that humankind is moving more to the opposite direction than towards these optimistic-idealistic tasks Club of Rome gave to people 50 years ago. Still, we need practices, paradigms and models of a stronger ecovision, both within academia and outside of it, for liberating the Earth, ‘because life itself is at risk when Earth is exploited in the capitalistic way, which throws the climate, the ecosystems, everything out of balance’ (Escobar 2022, 298). A planetary way of life requires people to take fast action on many levels (e.g., see Kailo, 2019, p. 15), and therefore I propose this new framework to youth research.
As much as 82% of young people globally think that people have failed to take care of the planet (Hickman et al., 2021, p. e868). Just as the social and health sectors have been awakened to thinking about planetary health, it is important for scholars in the discipline of youth studies to strive for a new way of thinking (i.e., planetary youth research). In Table 2, I propose some of the tasks presented by trailblazers almost 50 years ago as guidelines for planetary youth research.
First, one must learn to identify with future generations. Youth research, as a social interpreter, and listener and collaborator with young generations, is one of the key disciplines that will facilitate the fulfilment of this first task. Some examples of possible research themes include how to ensure that youth research supports best practices to involve young people in society, research and politics today and in the future, and that it helps society to identify with future generations.
Second, a universal consciousness must be created; to this end, methodological cosmopolitanism, decolonial approaches and actual global youth research that is more inclusive, e.g. to South-to-South youth research, need to be supported further. Some suggestions of possible research themes include the UN Agenda 2030 and UN Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security (UN 2015). In addition, we need more research that carefully analyses eco-social living conditions and social policies, and more global and local social movements research.
Third, humanity’s relationship with nature should be based on harmony. Youth research should learn more from indigenous and ecofeminist research and methods promoting Earth Democracy. Youth research should also foster planetary citizenship—that is, equal rights for all people and living beings on Earth. For this pillar, some suggestions of possible research themes include planetary and/or eco-social education, climate youth work and other eco-leisure activities, including young people’s training to face climate catastrophes (see e.g. Abdul Rahim, 2023), as studying this will allow us to gain a more detailed understanding of the interactions between humans and other living things and beings.
Fourth, a new environmental ethic must be created. We, as humans, should relearn how to balance action, emotional engagement and self-care to stop burning the planet, both for future generations and for ourselves. Climate change is an inevitable fact, and it can no longer be stopped (ipcc, 2022). However, we can try to curb it and build as fair and eco-social welfare states as possible (e.g., Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014) while simultaneously increasing universal awareness of this issue. Here, some possible research themes include studying community responses to eco-anxiety and ecological grief, as well as the role of the diversity of/in the collective arts, rituals and performances in coping with, adapting to and living with the ecological crisis.
Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritise risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors and timeframes (very high confidence). Climate resilient development is facilitated by international cooperation and by governments at all levels working with communities, civil society, educational bodies, scientific and other institutions, media, investors and businesses; and by developing partnerships with traditionally marginalised groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities (high confidence). These partnerships are most effective when supported by enabling political leadership, institutions, resources, including finance, as well as climate services, information and decision support tools (high confidence).
ipcc, 2022, p. 29
If humanity is finally to fulfil its global ethical tasks, ‘[t]he resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present and make possible a more joyful experience of the connectedness of all things’, as Naess had already formulated in 1984 (Naess, 2005, p. 68).
My planetary youth research initiative underlines intersectionality and the importance of collaboration with researchers from the Global South and North, as well as Santos’ (2007) concept of an Ecology of Knowledges, to develop the discipline of youth research in the era of planetary crises. As Hicks and Bord (2001, p. 424) posit, a true sense of empowerment comes from both head and heart, and from this kind of empowerment, planetary hope can flourish (see also hooks, 2001, p. 125). With the term ‘planetary hope’, Pihkala (2022b) encourages understanding hope as being intimately tied with finding meaning in being and taking collective action towards good, even though the future is truly uncertain (Pihkala, 2018; Moser, 2020). I hope that the framework for planetary youth research helps us to engage in ‘imaginary politics’ and other new ‘socio-climatic imaginaries’, both locally and globally (see also Milkoreit, 2017). Let’s stick to active hope (Macy & Johnstone, 2022) and together conduct fluid and organic planetary youth research.
Funding and Acknowledgements
Working facilities for writing the article during the years 2022 and 2023 came from the Finnish Youth Research Society (fyrs). The open access funding was provided by the Academy of Finland project “What works? Youth transitions from education to employment in the Middle East and North Africa” (no. 320449) where author worked 2020-2022. The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the article.
The author expresses cordial thanks to the smag (Social Movements in Global Age) community led by Geoffrey Pleyers, who discussed early version of this article and gave highly valuable feedback. Later, Panu Pihkala provided most valuable comments on the final draft. Thanks also to everyone who has given feedback on my presentations and lectures on earlier versions of the framework. I also want to thank anonymous reviewers for encouraging and constructive feedback and wise proposals.
References
Abdul Rahim, S. (2023). Nature School Pedagogy in Re-Imagining Sustainable Future of Young People in Malaysia. Presentation in the ISA World Congress of Sociology, Melbourne, Friday 30th June 2023, panel “Approaching planetary youth research.”
Armiero, M., and De Angelis, M. (2017). Anthropocene: Victims, Narrators, and Revolutionaries. South Atlantic Quarterly 116 (2), pp. 345–362. doi10.1215/00382876-3829445.
Boxley, S. (2022). Striking in the City, Making Love in the Fields: Unsnarling the Wild Pedagogies of Earth Activism. Coreopsis Journal of Myth & Theatre, Spring. http://societyforritualarts.com/coreopsis/spring-2022-issue/striking-in-the-city-making-love-in-the-fields/.
Breakey, J., Nyamnjoh, A.-N., and Swartz, S. (2021). Researching the South on Its Own Terms as a Matter of Justice. In: S. Swartz, A. Cooper, C.M. Batan, and L. Kropff Causa, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Global South Youth Studies, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 539–551.
Cooper, A., Swartz, S., Batan, C. M., and Kropff Causa, L. (2022). Realigning Theory, Practice, and Justice in Global South Youth Studies. In: S. Swartz, A. Cooper, C.M. Batan, and L. Kropff Causa, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Global South youth studies, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 2–C1.S6.
Cripps, E. (2016). Climate Change, Population, and Justice: Hard Choices to Avoid Tragic Choices. Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric 8 (2), pp. 1–22.
Diffey, J. et al. (2022). “Not about us without us” – the feelings and hopes of climate-concerned young people around the world. International Review of Psychiatry 34 (5), pp. 499–509, doi: 10.1080/09540261.2022.2126297.
Di Giulio, A., and Fuchs, D. (2014). Sustainable Consumption Corridors: Concept, Objections, and Responses. gaia – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23 (1), pp. 184–192(9). doi10.14512/gaia.23.S1.6.
Dixson-Declève, S., Gaffney, O., Ghosh, J., Randers, J., Rockström. J., and Espen Stokes, P. (2022). Earth for All. A Survival Guide for Humanity. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Dorst, J. (1979 [orig. 1965]). Ennen kun luonto kuolee [Before Nature Dies]. Helsinki: wsoy.
Escobar, A. (2022). Post-Pandemic Transitions in a Civilizational Perspective. In: B.M. Bringel and J.M. Domingues, eds., Global Modernity and Societal Contestation, London: Sage, pp. 291–298.
Gorman, J. (2021). Disobedient Youth: Lessons From the Youth Climate Strike Movement. Youth Partnership. https://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/47261800/Gorman-J.-%282021%29-Disobedient-Youth-Lessons-from-the-Climate-Strikes.pdf.
Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6 (1), pp. 159–165.
Helfer, A., Aapola-Kari, S., and Trane Ibsen, J. (2023) Children and Young People’s Participation During the Corona Pandemic – Nordic Initiatives. Helsinki: The Finnish Youth Research Network/ The Finnish Youth Research Society. https://www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi/images/childr1.pdf.
Helne, T., and Hirvilammi, T. (2022). Balancing Needs: Young Unemployed Finnish Adults’ Discourse on Well-Being and Its Relation to the Sustainability Transformation. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 18 (1), pp. 158–170.
Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, E.R., Mayell, E.E., Wray, B., Mellor, C., and van Sustagen, L. (2021). Climate Anxiety in Children and Young People and Their Beliefs about Government Responses to Climate Change: A Global Survey. The Lancet Planetary Health 5 (12), pp. e863–e873. doi10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3.
Hicks, D., and Bord, A. (2001). Learning about Global Issues: Why Most Educators Only Make Things Worse. Environmental Education Research 7 (4), pp. 413–425. doi10.1080/13504620120081287.
Hill Collins, P. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hirvilammi, T., and Helne, T. (2014). Changing Paradigms: A Sketch for Sustainable Wellbeing and Ecosocial Policy. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6 (4), pp. 2160–2175. doi10.3390/su6042160.
Hirvilammi, T., Laine, S., and Ojala, S. (2022). Ekososiaaliset, talousmyönteiset ja vastustajat. Nuorten kolme asennoitumista kestävän kehityksen arvoihin [Eco-social, Economic and Anti-social. Three Attitudes of Young People Towards the Values of Sustainable Development]. In: T. Kiilakoski, ed., Kestävää tekoa. Nuorisobarometri 2021 [Sustainable Action. Youth Barometer 2021], Helsinki: The Finnish Youth Research Society/The Finnish Youth Research Network, pp. 169–188.
hooks, b. (2001). All About Love. New Visions. New York: Harper Perennial.
Horgan, D., and Kennan, D. (2022). Child and Youth Participation in Policy, Practice and Research. London: Routledge.
Horton, R., and Lo, S. (2015). Planetary Health: A New Science for Exceptional Action. The Lancet 386 (10007), pp. 1921–1922. doi10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61038-8.
Horton, R., Beaglehole, R., Bonita, R., Raeburn, J., McKee, M., and Wall, S. (2014). From Public to Planetary Health: A Manifesto. The Lancet 383 (9920), p. 847. doi10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60409-8.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc). (2022). Summary for Policymakers. Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi10.1017/9781009325844.001.
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ipbes). (2020). Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: ipbes Secretariat. doi10.5281/zenodo.414731.
Jabberi, F., and Laine, S. (2015). Spaces of Dialogue? The Case of the World Social Forum Tunis 2013 from the Perspective of Young, Local Volunteers. Global Studies of Childhood 5 (2), pp. 178–190.
Jakobsson, N., Muttarak, R., and Schoyen, M.A. (2018). Dividing the Pie in the Eco-Social State: Exploring the Relationship Between Public Support for Environmental and Welfare Policies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36 (2), pp. 313–339.
jyu. Wisdom Community. (2021). Planetary Well-Being. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8, p. 258. doi10.1057/s41599-021-00899-3.
Kailo, K. (2019). Finnish Goddess Mythology and the Golden Woman. Climate Change, Earth-Based Indigenous Knowledge and the Gift. Lore & Loom.
Kothari, A. (2022). Self-Reliance as an Answer to the Pandemic: Hopes from India’s Margin. In: B. Bringel and G. Pleyers, eds., Social Movements and Politics Duringcovid-19, Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp. 163–167.
Laine, S. (2015). Embodied and Moral Methodological Cosmopolitanism Opposing Rising Neo-Nationalism. Microanalytical Perspective. In: P. Ahponen, P. Harinen, and V.-S. Haverinen, eds., Dislocations of Civic Cultural Borderlines. Methodological Nationalism, Transnational Reality and Cosmopolitan Dreams, San Francisco: Springer, pp. 71–85.
Macy, J., and Johnstone, C. (2022). Active Hope. How to Face the Mess We’re in with Unexpected Resilience & Creative Power. Revised Edition. Novato: New World Library.
Martins, P.H. (2022). covid-19, the Gift and Post-Neoliberal Scenarios. In: B. Bringel and G. Pleyers, eds., Social Movements and Politics Duringcovid-19. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp. 285–290.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. (1972 [orig. 1972]). Kasvun rajat [The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind]. Helsinki: Tammi.
Mesarovic, M., and Pestel, E. (1975 [orig. 1974]). Ihmiskunta tienhaarassa. Roman klubin toinen raportti. [Mankind at a Turning Point. Second Report of the Club of Rome]. Helsinki: Welin+Göös.
Milanez, F., Menton, M., and Machado de A., Souza, J. (2022). Epistemological Justice: Decoloniality, Climate Change, and Ecological Conditions for Future Generations. ids Bulletin 53 (4). https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/view/3183/3242.
Milkoreit, M. (2017). Imaginary Politics: Climate Change and Making the Future. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 62 (5), pp. 1–18.
Moraes, S.E., Moraes Arraut, E., and Moraes Arraut, J. (2021). From Global to Planetary Citizenship. A Proposal for Evolving Brazil University Curriculum. In: E. Bosio, ed., Conversations on Global Citizenship Education – Perspectives on Research, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education, New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis, pp. 45–61.
Morin, E. (1999). Homeland Earth: A New Manifesto for the New Millennium. New York: Hampton Press.
Moser, S.C. (2020). The Work After “It’s Too Late” (To Prevent Dangerous Climate Change). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 (1), p. e606. doi10.1002/wcc.606.
Myers, S., and Frumkin, H. (2020). Planetary Health: Protecting Nature to Protect Ourselves. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Naess, A. (2005). The Basics of Deep Ecology. The Trumpeter 21 (1), pp. 61–71.
Nowicka, M., and Rovisco, M. (2009). Introduction. Making Sense of Cosmopolitanism. In: M. Nowicka and M. Rovisco, eds., Cosmopolitanism in Practice, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 1–16.
Nxumalo, F. (2021). Decolonial water pedagogies: Invitations to Black, Indigenous and Black-Indigenous world making. Bank Street Occasional Paper Series, 45, https://www.bankstreet.edu/research-publications-policy/occasional-paper-series/archive/ops-45/decolonial-water-pedagogies/.
Otto, A. and Gugushvili, D. (2020). Eco-Social Divides in Europe: Public Attitudes towards Welfare and Climate Change Policies. Sustainability 404 (12), pp. 2–18.
Pekurinen, M. (2012). Maailmanparantaja [Reformer]. In: Wash My Hair in Rainwater and Other Dreams of Young People. Helsinki: Bazar, pp. 30–33.
Pihkala, P. (2018). Eco-Anxiety, Tragedy, and Hope: Psychological and Spiritual Dimensions of Climate Change. Zygon 53 (2), pp. 545–569.
Pihkala, P. (2022a). The Process of Eco-Anxiety and Ecological Grief: A Narrative Review and A New Proposal. Sustainability 14 (24), p. 16628. doi10.3390/su142416628.
Pihkala, P. (2022b). Introduction: Eco-anxiety, Climate, Coronavirus, and Hope. In D.A. Vakoch and S. Mickey, eds., Eco-Anxiety and Planetary Hope Experiencing the Twin Disasters of covid-19 and Climate Change, San Francisco: Springer, pp. v–xvii.
Pihkala, P., Sangervo, J., and Jylhä, K.M. (2022). Nuorten ilmastoahdistus ja ympäristötunteet [Young People’s Climate Anxiety and Environmental Feelings]. In: T. Kiilakoski, ed., Kestävää tekoa. Nuorisobarometri 2021 [Sustainable Action. Youth Barometer 2021], Helsinki: The Finnish Youth Research Society/The Finnish Youth Research Network, pp. 95–116.
Pleyers, G. (2015). The Global Age: A Social Movement Perspective. In: B.M. Bringel and J.M. Domingues, eds., Global Modernity and Societal Contestation, London: Sage, pp. 105–121.
Pleyers, G. (2023). For a Global Sociology of Social Movements. Beyond Methodological Globalism and Extractivism. Globalizations. doi10.1080/14747731.2023.2173866.
Quijano, A. (2007). Cloniality and Modernity/ Rationality. Cultural Studies 21 (2–3), pp. 168–178.
Salami, M. (2020 [orig. 2019]). Aistien viisaus [Sensuous Knowledge]. Helsinki: Kustantamo S & S.
Salonen, A.O. (2015). An Ecosocial Approach to Well-Being: A Solution to the Wicked Problems in the Era of Anthropocene. Foro de Educación 13 (19), pp. 19–34.
Santos, B. (2007). Beyond Abyssal Thinking. From Global Lines to Ecology of Knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 30 (1), pp. 45–89.
Santos, B. (2009). The World Social Forum: Toward A Counter-Hegemonic Globalisation. In: J. Sen, and P. Waterman, eds., World Social Forum Challenging Empires, 2nd ed., Montreal: Black Rose Books, pp. 191–204.
Swartz, S. (2021). A Southern Charter for a Global Youth Studies to Benefit the World Get Access. In: S. Swartz, A. Cooper, C.M. Batan, and L. Kropff Causa, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Global South Youth Studies, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 606–C40.S14.
Tilleczek, K., Terry, M., MacDonald, D., Obrinski, J., and Stinson, J. (2023). Towards Youth-Centred Planetary Health Education. Challenges 14(1), p. 3. doi10.3390/challe14010003.
United Nations (UN). (2015). Resolution 2250 Adopted by the Security Council at its 7573rd meeting, on 9 December 2015. http://unoy.org/wp-content/uploads/SCR-2250.pdf.
United Nations Children’s Fund (unicef). (2021). Preventing a Lost Decade. Urgent Action to Reverse the Devastating Impact of covid-19 on Children and Young People. https://www.unicef.org/reports/unicef-75-preventing-a-lost-decade.
For details, see Inclusive and Competent Finland – A Socially, Economically and Ecologically Sustainable Society. Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 2019, available at https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-programme (accessed 07 March 2023).
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called (23 August 2023) on states to take action in first guidance on children’s rights and the environment, with a focus on climate change. In the face of the deepening climate crisis, the Committee specified obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Entire General Comment No. 26 can be accessed here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-26-childrens-rights-and (accessed 16 October 2023).
See the Sustainable Development Goals here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed 03 March 2023).
The Youth Partnership between the European Commission and Council of Europe has taken ‘Sustainability and Climate Change’ as one of its main topics; see more at https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/sustainability (accessed 07 March 2023).
For more on Doughnut Economics Action Lab (deal) and Kate Raworth’s explanation of ‘doughnut’ economics, see doughnuteconomics.org and kateraworth.com/doughnut/ (accessed 17 March 2023).
