Introduction

How to balance flexibility and security? This question has been the implicit or explicit topic of the seven research projects presented in this volume, and it concerns one of the most central questions in current social debates, be it on the level of social policy in general (which kind of welfare state[s] do we need?); be it on a theoretical level (how can social constellations in general and young people's transitions in particular be conceived in the context of late modernity?); or be it on the level of practice (what kind of support do young people need?).

Flexibility in such debates is almost always equated with more freedom – a presupposition that is rarely explicated, and that connotes the idea of something to be achieved easily; that is, as soon as structures allow for more flexibility, freedom will automatically be enhanced. Apart from illustrating a rather limited understanding of freedom, this expresses perfectly the dominant one-sided view of flexibility, with the nexus of security constantly obscured.

The search for a balance between freedom and security is closely related to the history of modernity, as Zygmunt Bauman reminds us in his latest book, The individualised society (2001, p 55):

Applied to the practical level of transition policies, the relation between flexibility and security at first glance seems to be a dilemma: apparently, there is a broad gap between those who complain about a lack of institutionalised transition structures (especially with regard to the system of education and training), and who therefore call for more standardisation in order to increase the security of trajectories; and those who criticise strongly formalised and normalising systems as overpowering and rigid and who therefore call for more flexibility.