Social Pedagogy — Building a Common Third with Young People
Jameel Hadi, University of Salford & Thure Johansen, Treehouse Associates
The Common Third promotes the agency and best interests of young people. In doing so it helps young people to express their innate and intrinsic qualities that are sometimes hidden. The Common Third provides an alternative to targeted and partial young people’s services that give priority to ‘the problem’ rather than the person and their social context and resources. This reflects the idea that young people are objects of concern, sites of human investment, or of risk: ‘future beings’ with developmental or behavioural challenges, rather than resourceful and active agents in their own lives.
The Common Third originated in Denmark as a practical expression of the connectedness between relationships and learning between people in social pedagogic practices. Social pedagogy is ‘values first’ practice that is person centred rather than instrumental in its approach. In Denmark, the term ‘client’ or ‘service user’ is a negative expression. Danish Sociologist Nanna Mik-Meyer in her book To Create a Client argued that to meet around someone’s problems identifies with these and stops them moving on. The Common Third involves two individuals or a group, sharing an activity which will often be defined by any natural opportunities in the environment or area in which the support takes place Examples include sharing time together (reading a book or watching a film together), a practical task (gardening or cooking) or creative activity (art or music). A defining trait of the Common Third in practice is that intention, shared ownership and reflection should form the basis of the motivation. One or another participant may be the teacher, as all involved can learn and grow together. The power of activity is that it creates a shared space beyond the issue or problem — a ‘third’, that brings people together creating shared values, norms and rules. This provides an alternative to therapeutic and behavioural approaches. As Danish philosopher Michael Husen explains, a social party only exists in a true sense if the individuals have shared history of activities. Viewing the ecosystem in which the relationship unfolds as a place of opportunity.
Creative and everyday activities provide a rich way of engaging the whole person, by providing meaning-making and discovering hidden possibilities. This also provides the opportunity to involve young people in identifying their own interests and priorities, sometimes in contrast with procedural forms of welfare. For example: child protection and the dominant concept of risk dominate responses to Child Sexual Exploitation; legal status and social isolation shape the experience of young asylum seekers; and young people leaving care are isolated from relationships and networks of support. In these instances, targeted services can inadvertently label, stigmatise and separate young people from their wider peer group. For example, children in care are less likely to take part in formal adult-led activities such as being members of a football team or drama club and, therefore, will often time have less contact with their peer group as a result. This results in the absence of relationships and networks of support in the community, on leaving care (Hollingworth, 2012). Despite the holistic tradition the profession offers, even youth work services are split into universal offers that predominantly involve provision of group activities and targeted case work that seeks to build a relationship between the worker and individual. The Common Third provides a way which could help reconnect with the UK tradition of association and can overcome the above separation by promoting inclusion and involving young people as both consumers and producers of services. Disrupting the relationship between young people and professionals in this way means that the person is not a recipient of services but involved in all elements of the design and planning. Young people shape the rules, roles and expectations. Most professionals who work with children and young recognize that a focus on process, not least the quality of relationships and shared experiences, can have greater and more sustained impact than the measurable objective for an intervention.
An example could be a young person’s worker who agrees to take a newly formed group of young people out on a fishing boat, whether at their own expressed wish or as a creative suggestion. The intention would be to support relationship building and to nurture a positive culture with and within the group, whilst observing, then coming away with a greater understanding of individuals and of group dynamics, hidden talents and areas of confidence. As an experiential activity that offers everyone shared learning alongside and from each other, it may not specifically cover any targets set at service level. However, the tacit experience of many who work with young people will be that it is likely to be an ‘equaliser’ within a group and create a positive foundation from which further development can take place, using the same approach. The Common Third here points to the value of shared discovery and experiences, and, seen this way, the Common Third creates the conditions for the ‘unseen’ potential of which Janusz Korczak spoke. Beyond sharing an experience and whichever learning and ownership it may enable in the ‘doing’ and ‘being’ together, it can also create some helpful insights and observations for practice going forward. These, at times incidental, elements that arise during activities are the serendipitous objective of practicing with the Common Third, and they are oftentimes uncovered with a practitioner whom can confidently deviate from a plan to pursue such an opportunity guided by the person whom they are supported. Using the ‘fishing boat’ example above, as the group are preparing fishing tackle off the coast a young, withdrawn girl might surprise the group with a particular skill and courage in hooking live bait as well as handling and fileting the fishes they pull in, whereas others may be squeamish, so the worker observes this and the changing social dynamic and status attributed to the girl and decide to suggest they unfold the explore this skill area in future work. Here the physical environment is a third educator used with relational intent and creates a shared space which values the young person as an equal (Hall & Hogan 2013).
The ‘being’ and ‘doing’ through every day activities creates self-efficacy, identity and self-esteem. These can be routine tasks such as preparing food, challenges, such as building, fixing or repairing things and creative or recreational activities. All these offer individuals and groups the potential for dialogue, meaning making, socialising and creating belonging. This equal relationship does not focus on the therapeutic or behavioural but involves young people as partners who share their passions aspirations and capabilities.
In Greece, it informs the approach to working with unaccompanied young people by promoting their ‘best interests’ (Article 1 UNCRC, 1989) and participation (Article 12, UNCRC, 1989) in contrast to procedural or legal criteria (UNCRC, 1989). Here every day and creative activities enable a young person to live in the moment while creating inclusion and belonging.
The above avoids the dichotomy between procedural definitions of welfare and voice that is a feature of Serious Case Reviews involving young people (Department for Education, 2016). In the same instance young people are said to have been exercising choice, while on other occasions their needs were invisible. Therefore, in one case a fourteen-year old’s request to leave home and ‘live some where I am cared about’, falls on deaf ears (Rochdale Borough Safeguarding Children’s Board, 2017). Here, the presumed risk when she stays out overrides her needs. In much the same way policies on CSE focus on the risk and the perpetrator rather than services that increase young people’s choices, experiences and supportive networks.
In Copenhagen, the Municipality supports Idrætsprojektet, (‘the Sports Project’), an organisation that provides sport and recreational activities for ‘socially exposed’ young people. This connects ‘looked after’ young people with volunteer mentors and introduces them to group activities, involving young people who are not recipients of services As Cæcilie, the Project Coordinator explains, “we take the point of departure as the child or adolescence’s wishes, competencies and ideas to find the right activity — the Common Third. When arranging small-scale events, e.g., a football tournament or skate work shop; we involve the children or adolescents in all project phases on equal terms. In this way, the children/adolescents feel included, heard and useful. They do not show up for help but to do activities.” The elements of pleasure, trust, potentiality and belonging are key. These activities connect youngsters with their peer group and result in bridging and bonding capital for care leavers and other ‘socially exposed’ groups who are recipients of state services. This recognises that informal relationships are more important in contrast to the dominant audit and transactional approach towards looked after children system in England.
The Common Third reflects people’s intrinsic potential to learn, share and socialise. In a district of Copenhagen, the overriding aim of youth services is to overcome the ‘Berlin Wall’ of Albertslund, a geographical divide that separates the rich south from a poorer north. This recognises that inclusion requires a dialogue, so all individuals belong and contribute to groups. Activities avoid the stigma resulting from targeted interventions because they create common ground where all are valued and contribute.
Understood in these ways the Common Third enriches and validates the role of every day and creative activities as a way of restoring the agency and belonging of young people.
With thanks to:
Søren Kayser, University College Copenhagen
Pat Petrie, University College London
Cæcilie Hansen, Idrætsprojeket
Additional Sources of Reading
Klaus Grunwald & Hans Thiersch (2009) The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and social care, Journal of Social Work Practice, 23:2, 131–146, DOI: 10.1080/0265053090292364
Hall, Kathy / Horgan, Mary (2014) Loris Malaguzzi and the Reggio Emilia Experience, London, Bloomsbury Library of Educational Thought
Langager, S. (2011). “If my friends are there, I’ll come too…” Social Pedagogy, Youth Clubs and Social Inclusion Processes. Chapter 11, Social Pedagogy for the Entire Lifespan, Volume 1, Edited, Kornbeck, J & Jensen, N, R. Bremen: EHV.
Petrie, P. (2011). Communication Skills for Working with Children and Young People (Third Edition). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Rochdale Borough Safeguarding Children Board. (2017).Serious case review: Child N: overview report. Retrieved from https://library.nspcc.org.uk/HeritageScripts/Hapi.dll/search2?searchTerm0=C6775&_ga=2.175021857.2056729258.1519145145-1750877499.1519145145.
UNCRC. (1989) https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf). Accessed 24/10/18.
