Misrepresenting ‘choice biographies’?: a reply to Woodman

Abstract

This paper provides a reply to Woodman's (2009) recent argument that youth studies often incorrectly attribute the concept of ‘choice biographies’ to the work of Ulrich Beck. Drawing heavily on Beck's own words, this paper contends that youth researchers might not be making this association unduly. Consideration is paid to some conceptual issues outlined by Will Atkinson, which Woodman has not appeared to consider, that challenge Beck's rejection of the relevance of structural analysis. Further, a review of some empirical evidence countering Beck's theory of ‘individualization’ suggests that ‘middle-ground’ positions in youth sociology can arguably be justified. Finally, it is proposed that Woodman's defence of Beck is partly a reflection of an alignment of focus between Beck's theoretical repertoire and Woodman's preferred method for understanding the youth period – the concept of generation.

Keywords:

• class
• Ulrich Beck
• individualization
• youth transitions
• choice biography

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Anika Haverig and Patrick Brown for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. The use of this term is somewhat controversial. Beck acknowledges that the use of the term in reference to a social system is somewhat misleading (Beck et al. 1994, p. 6). Margaret Archer takes up the matter in greater detail to claim that ‘Beck is not discussing reflexivity at all’ and that “‘reflexive modernisation” is just a catchy phrase to capture a phase’ (Archer 2007, p. 31).

2. These phrases are again utilized in Beck and Beck-Gernsheim's later collaboration (2002, p. 3).

3. They refer to this as an ‘epistemological fallacy’. Similarly, Roberts (2001), p. 215) describes this as ‘one of the greatest illusions of modern times’.

4. This is something Furlong and Cartmel have been criticized for overlooking. See Atkinson (2007).

5. Woodman does of course note this later in his paper, but for the sake of distinction it is important to note.

6. Elliott (2002) has also offered a theoretical assessment, primarily in relation to risk. He also discusses power and domination, but the analysis presented by Atkinson is, in many ways, a deeper critique.

7. Such developments are not unproblematic. See, for example, Bottero (2004).

8. This refers to nationally recognized training that reaches the standard of NVQ Level 2 or above.

9. Other middle-ground positions are similarly constructed. See Hodkinson et al.'s (1996) careership model, in which people have ‘horizons for action’ that allow them to make sense of, but also constrain, their life choices.

10. A good example of this in UK education policy is the ‘Aim Higher’ programme. The idea is to raise the awareness of the benefits of HE ‘whatever their social background’. The result is that ‘failing’ individuals find only themselves to blame.

11. See Margaret Archer's (2007) research that explores the idea of different types of reflexivity as a causal mechanism for differentiated individual outcomes for those experiencing the same structural circumstances.

12. Indeed, te Riele (2004) found that non-linear transitions may be beneficial and represent successful attainment of adult status.