A Sociological Examination of Children’s Participation Discourse in Community Development: Reflectivity in Urban Planning and Views of Active Children

Abstract

The field of community development stands as a key proponent of the perspective of active children in Japan. This study contributes to research on views of children by clarifying the historical context and underlying logic behind the emergence of children’s participation discourse specifically within the field of urban planning. From the practices and writings of Morio Uzuki and Isamu Kinoshita, this study reconstructs the formation of two typical logics of children’s participation discourse originating from the field and offers sociological analysis.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the field of urban planning reflected on conventional approaches and advocated for community development, thereby seeking participatory decision-making. A tendency to focus on “children” as part of the decision-making disadvantaged existed. Furthermore, within workshops as a participatory method, the realization grew that children’s perspectives and their ability to think beyond vested interests proved effective in involving adults and fostering dialogue.

In the mid-1990s, Kinoshita developed a theory demonstrating the positive cycle between community development and children’s participation, which was synchronized with domestic educational reforms and international discussions on children’s rights. By the 2000s, as New Public Management renewed approaches to resident participation, Uzuki introduced and developed participatory community development programs for children as a key to the sustainability of community development systems.

Sociologically, this history can be interpreted as the development of self-reflection within the field of urban planning. The intensifying reflexivity in urban planning since the Garden City identified resident participation as a key to this reflection, further focusing on children’s characteristics. However, compared to the development of reflexivity in child-centered education, the degree of reflection on the concept of the children is not as profound. Logically, while children’s participation may become key to making resident participation substantive, the risk of interrupting the very reflexivity inherent in resident participation itself is also present.