Principles 4 страница

Bonnichsen (2002, 5) identifies adultism as an ideology founded on family and governmental control of youth:

The government echoes the structure of the family: adults, and only adults, get to make the rules. The breadth of rule-making power that adult government grants itself is almost unlimited. It elevates traditional pa-rental authority to law, giving youth a status much like property. Yet, when the state does take an interest, parents’ rights of private ownership are superseded, with the justification that youth are property (‘‘re-sources’’) collectively owned by *all* adult citizens.

Adultism is the inherent belief that adults are the ultimate experts on young people—their issues, dreams, anxieties, and abilities. It places adults in the position of decision makers and arbiters of all policies, programs, and services regarding the young. What makes adults such experts on youth? Since adults have all been through the key developmental stages associated with this age group, their experiences, both positive and negative, have provided them with a perspective usually associated with being on the outside and looking in. Adults conduct research, write scholarly articles and

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION

books, gather and report the news, and generally are in positions of au-thority regarding all aspects affecting the lives of young people. Thus, why shouldn’t they also be in a leadership position for achieving social changes that involve social conditions particularly applicable to young people?

However, Felix (2003) asserts that adult problems and responsibilities burden today’s youth, unlike their own parents’ generation. For example, high-stakes testing, illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, labor-market shifts re-sulting in minimal upward mobility, lack of health insurance, low minimum wages, and new and very powerful illicit drugs combine to create an envi-ronment that best can be described as challenging, if not toxic, for young people. Felix notes that the previous generation did not grow and develop within this much more difficult context. The failure of many, if not most, adults to be aware of and sensitive to such profound differences in contexts exacerbates adultist attitudes and actions.

Thus, it is irresponsible to discuss youth and cultural competence without addressing the deleterious role of adultism in the lives of young people (W. T. Grant Commission 1988). For example, HoSang (2004, 5) notes some of the other ways that adultism is manifested in subtle and not so subtle forms:

Psychologists and other social scientists often refer to adolescence as a rehearsal of sorts, a ‘‘not quite’’ transitory period between the unqualified dependency of childhood and the full charge of adulthood. A natural temptation exists to assess youth organizing efforts from this same van-tage point—a ‘‘not quite’’ dry run in anticipation of a more bona fide effort to build ‘‘real’’ power as adults.

As a result, one of the most significant challenges facing youth organizers is obtaining the respect of adults and ensuring that their contributions to the community and the larger society are acknowledged. The reader may argue that respect always must be earned; however, when this fundamental social need is absent from the very outset based solely on age, the deck is stacked against young people, who must earn that respect by proving their worth to the very adults who doubt their capacity to think and act independently and efficaciously. This is a quintessential catch-22 situation. Adults are in the powerful position of defining and determining the types of decisions and actions that are ‘‘worthy’’ of respect, yet the youth whom they are judging frequently are not given sufficient responsibility to ‘‘prove themselves. ’’ Meanwhile, there is no relationship of reciprocity whereby those same young people have the power to make such judgments about the commit-ment, competence, and comportment of their elders.

Bell (1995, 1) makes a similar observation as that of HoSang (2005) when stating: ‘‘To be successful in our work with young people, we must understand a particular condition of youth: that young people are often mistreated and disrespected simply because they are young. ’’ The process of adults’ ‘‘discovering’’ and effectively addressing the consequences of adult-ism in the field of youth services represents the cornerstone of any effective

32 SETTING THE CONTEXT

social interventions involving adults as consultants or co-collaborators with youth (Delgado 2006). Adults in youth-led initiatives must be able to step back and trust that youth can be responsible, yet not tune out because they are in a position to provide support (Wheeler 2003). There is an underly-ing tension between usurping authority and stepping aside! Nevertheless, youth-led community organizing, like other dimensions of the youth-led movement, requires adults to assume roles that are secondary to young people; further, these roles in collaboration with young people are determined by young people themselves, and not the other way around.

It is necessary, however, to point out that the concept of adultism is not universally accepted in this society. Some of the most common arguments against its use are: (1) youth is a biological state that has permanent and immutable characteristics; (2) youth is a temporary legal status; (3) age is a continuum that differs by race, ethnicity, and subgroups; (4) youth is a universal state; (5) young people are part of families and thus are in part-nership with adults, rather than outsiders; and (6) the young eventually become adults and will assume positions of authority, unlike some groups based on race/ethnicity, gender, and disabilities (Notepad 2003).

Our position is that discrimination of any kind, regardless of its transi-tory or temporary state, never should be tolerated in a democratic society that embraces values and principles of social and economic justice. The pain, as well as the social and economic consequences resulting from these ex-periences, will shape the long-term worldview of those being discriminated against and also the outlooks and attitudes of the perpetrators of such oppression. This behavior is not justified simply because a society has the ‘‘right’’ or power to exercise control over some group because of a time-limited characteristic (Nagle et al. 2003). A humanitarian perspective on youth must not differ from that on sexual orientation, race, and gender, regardless of the fact that this condition is not a permanent state. Thus, the common reasons about why adultism is not a true form of oppression sim-ply have no legitimacy.

Adultism can manifest itself in overt and covert ways when adults dis-cuss youth. Statements such as ‘‘You are so smart for your age, ’’ ‘‘You are not old enough to understand, ’’ ‘‘We know what is best for you, ’’ ‘‘Act your age, ’’ and ‘‘What do you know about life? ’’ all represent the undermining forces of adultism at work, to one degree or another. Blaming youth for the challenges that they must overcome, without regard to the circumstances (barriers) that adults have created for them, is irresponsible, yet it is a com-mon example of adultism in action.

Dysfunctional rescuing is another attitude that either has adults believ-ing that youth cannot help themselves or that serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, providing assistance to young people that limits their abilities to act independently and efficaciously (Community Youth Development Program 2005). Embracing a ‘‘rescue fantasy’’ effectively disempowers youth, further questioning their competencies. As a result, human service

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION

professionals and educators must guard against ‘‘the need to rescue youth from themselves. ’’ When adultism intersects with other oppressive forces such as racism, classism, sexism, ableism, mentalism, and homophobia, the social situation is compounded. This can result in young people’s experi-encing further loss of self-esteem, hope for the future, and disengagement from the community, to list but three consequences for self, family, com-munity, and society.

One youth organizer made this poignant point to show how adults tend to take over (LISTEN, Inc. 2004, 15):

[A]dults are just so quick to speak for young people. They’re quicker to speak for us than we’re able to speak for ourselves. So we can’t speak for ourselves. Everybody wants to represent youth. Everybody wants to be young. These are hard times for young people. We’re too busy trying to be adults and adults are too busy trying to be young. That’s a problem.

This statement articulates the ambivalence adults feel about youth. We envy them, yet we do not trust them! But the argument based on experi-ential and theoretical expertise neglects to take into account the fact that adults were young during another time period, when circumstances and challenges were vastly different.

Adultism can manifest itself in countless injustices and social dynamics; however, the term does not explain why this phenomenon exists. The Na-tional Youth Rights Association (2003) identified three key manifestations of adultism: (1) youth inequality, or the failure of adults to share humanity with young people, resulting in stereotypes and discrimination; (2) lack of youth power, tied to a long history of viewing the young as human property, with adults holding the right to command obedience; and (3) repression of youth culture by adults who view it as a threat to stability in society. The consequences of adultism for youth and the larger society are far-reaching. Young people lose self-confidence, develop feelings of powerlessness, and ultimately may give up their dreams for a better tomorrow, effectively limiting the potential contributions they can make to their families, com-munity, and society. They also are more inclined to treat others with the same disrespect. Disillusioned young people enter adulthood without the desire and repertoire of competencies necessary to play active roles in their communities and in society in general.

Kim McGillicuddy (2003, 1), a young community organizer, summed up the importance of youth participation quite well:

I think that for many people our commitment to youth organizing is because of both the personal and community transformation it brings. For example, the skills youth (and adults) get from organizing are endless. . . . Youth organizing teaches young people not only a large set of very important skills together, in a way that’s immediately relevant to people’s lives, and that gives it special strength.

34 SETTING THE CONTEXT

As a result, young people are thrust into positions of helping and teaching not only one another but also adults, which can be quite empowering.

Essentially, competencies cannot be separated from values and commit-ment, since each addresses current needs while also serving as a foundation for future actions within a democratic society. Nevertheless, for youth, the value of immediate gains far outweighs potential benefits that may accrue at a later time, when they become adults. This focus on the present may appear minor; however, as will be discussed later, this stress on immediacy is critical to understanding how youth-led community organizing operates, and often dictates, the manner in which campaigns unfold and individual youth organizers function.

It is quite fitting to end this section with a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt (1940), who poignantly raised youth/adult power relations for scrutiny: ‘‘I wish we could look at this whole question of the activities or youth-led organizations from the point of view of the wisest way for old people to help youth. . . . We must go and deal with them as equals, and we must have both courage and integrity if we expect respect and cooperation on the part of youth. ’’

Youth Rights

A rights perspective invariably is associated with a legal definition and the role of the courts in determining who has rights and if, and when, they are violated. Nevertheless, when applied to youth, a legal perspective usually has served to disenfranchise this age group, not grant them the same rights and privileges given to adults. Youth rights usually refers to a philosophical stance that focuses on the civil rights of the young (Golombek 2006). This is counter to the more traditional perspective held by child rights’ advocates that emphasizes youth entitlements, a viewpoint that usually rests on a paternalistic foundation (Wikipedia 2006). In fact, youth rights organizers seek equal rights with adults by having young people play central roles in crafting their own strategies and campaigns to change their status. The National Youth Rights Association calls the youth rights movement the ‘‘last civil rights movement. ’’

It always is so much easier for adults to view youth as victims—needy, reckless, and out of control—and also as markets for goods and services. Considering youth as resources, social capital, citizens, and partners with adults represents a radical departure from the existing norm. In effect, this latter position requires a shift in paradigms. Any paradigmatic change away from the prevailing view is bound to cause a severe reaction from those in positions of authority (adults), who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Viewing youth as a constituency with inherent rights and privileges represents a significant challenge to the negative forces associated

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION

with adultism. A youth rights movement, otherwise called youth liberation, places the status of youth within a social context and proponents can expect to encounter numerous speed bumps on the road to equality for all, re-gardless of age (Watts and Serrano Garcia 2003).

Edelman (1977), like many other scholars, argues that children have much in common with African-American/black people and women— namely, each has historically been regarded as chattel in society and rarely has shared the rights and privileges enjoyed by the dominant group. O’Kane (2002, 701) identified three social domains for a child/youth rights perspective that have direct implications for youth-led community orga-nizing:

The principles of child rights programming are based on the principles of human rights, child rights and childhood development, namely: indivisi-bility/holistic: consider all the children’s development needs; accountability: children are rights holders and adults are responsible for child rights; equity: ensure non-discrimination and inclusion of all children (age, gen-der, ability, ethnicity, religion, origin, etc); participation: promote chil-dren’s rights to participate and to have their views considered; and best interests: always consider children’s best interests and be accountable.

A rights perspective on social and economic justice serves to broaden this concept to include a wide variety of undervalued groups (Youth Liberation Program 1977a). For example, civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, dis-ability rights, senior rights—all have currency in most fields of practice. However, youth rights has not been widely accepted, as argued by Holt (1974, 1977), Farson (1974), and Parson (1977) over thirty years ago.

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child often is credited with popularizing youth rights across the world. Besides Somalia, the United States is the only nation out of 193 countries that has not ratified the outcomes of this conference (Males 2004). More recently, the United Nations Ad Hoc Working Group for Youth and the Millennium Develop-ment Goals (United Nations 2005) has cast further global attention on the importance of tapping the human capital represented by 1. 2 billion (ages 15 to 24) young people and on developing mechanisms to increase their par-ticipation in decision making.

Youth rights as a guiding tenet for social justice has been underappre-ciated and ignored in a fashion similar to the failure to acknowledge the important role of young people in helping shape U. S. history. Em-bracing a youth-rights perspective helps politicize the existence of young people and the issues that they confront. This shift in perspective easily finds a home within a social and economic justice framework. Affirmation of youth rights is an excellent mechanism for bringing attention to the status of youth within this society, raising consciousness within their own group, and setting forth an agenda for social change to rectify their disenfran-chisement.

36 SETTING THE CONTEXT

A Declaration of the Rights of American Youth, promulgated on July 4, 1936, at the American Youth Congress, still holds significant meaning more than seventy years later and provides an excellent example of how social and economic justice can guide a youth-led agenda (American Youth Congress 1936, 1–2):

Today our lives are threatened by war, our liberties threatened by reac-tionary legislation, and our right to happiness remains illusory in a world of insecurity. Therefore, on this Fourth Day of July, 1936, we, the Young Peo-ple of America, in Congress assembled, announce our own declaration— A Declaration of the Rights of American Youth. We declare that our generation is rightfully entitled to a useful, creative, and happy life, the guarantees of which are: full educational opportunities, steady employ-ment at adequate wages, security in time of need, civil rights, reli-gious freedom, and peace. We have a right to life. . . . We have a right to liberty. . . . We have a right to happiness. . . . Therefore, we the young people of America, reaffirm our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With confidence we look forward to a better life, a larger liberty and freedom. To those ends we dedicate our lives, our intelligence and our unified strength.

This declaration of youth rights is quite powerful in conveying the be-lief and principles of an agenda of social and economic justice that is just as relevant today as it was in the 1930s. Edelman (1977, 206), although speak-ing almost thirty years ago, raised the specter of a youth rights movement: ‘‘It will probably never be a ‘movement’ in the mass-action sense that the civil rights, the women’s, and the peace movements have been. Even so, the growing effort is showing enough potential strength and effectiveness that it may soon be worthy of the term. ’’ A rights point of view conveys respect and a set of societal expectations that cast youth as citizens with privileges, including the right to organize for social change.

Roche (1999) introduced the language of citizenship as a means of raising the status of youth by examining how a sector of society effectively is disenfranchised of its rights. Youth citizenship generally refers to young peo-ple having access to and exercising the rights and obligations for civil rights, political rights, and social rights. This multifaceted perspective broadens youth participation within all aspects of society and provides a framework for assessing their status. As a result, the denial of youth citizenship is an excellent handle for young people organizing campaigns, particularly ones that they lead.

Ginwright and Cammarota (2002), in turn, commend youth organizing by taking the position that a social justice-driven model makes at least three direct contributions to the field of youth development: (1) shifting from an individual and psychological modality to a community/society focus provides an ecological perspective on better understanding and addressing youth issues; (2) young people are empowered to address environmental

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION

concerns through opportunities to achieve positive social change; and (3) critical consciousness and collective action results in a social justice agenda by recognizing societal inequality and encouraging change efforts to alter conditions and power relationships. We, however, believe that Gainwright and Cammaroa’s stance brings youth-led community organizing more into the youth-led field and away from youth development.

The youth-led movement, it must be acknowledged, has raised the po-litical consciousness of youth who occupy marginalized positions in society. Increasing numbers of young people understand that their situation and identity are very much based on inequalities in social and economic justice. As a result, many youth are drawing on their politicized identities to or-ganize collective action to achieve social and economic justice for them-selves and their communities (Ginwright 2003). One youth organizer’s vision for organizing operationalizes a social and economic justice agenda quite well (Transformative Leadership 2004, 3– 4):

Driving youth organizing is a vision for economic and racial justice. Youth organizers and their adult allies believe that regardless of race, gender and socioeconomic status, people should be treated with respect and have equal access to a decent quality of life. For low-income, of color, and other disadvantaged populations, inequality and discrimination are persistent barriers to achieving this vision.

Thus, it is not surprising that the goal of achieving social and economic justice has become a central part of the youth development, and particularly the youth-led, field. For example, Brown and colleagues (2000, 33) argue that community youth development (CYD) is a method for creating positive social change that harnesses the power of youth: ‘‘No community can be considered ‘developed’ if relations between individuals or groups are based upon social injustice or an imbalance in power relations. As such, social jus-tice [must be] the bedrock of all forms of community development. Com-munity Youth Development is no exception. ’’

The Social and Economic Justice Agenda

The youth-led community organizing field has its marching orders, so to speak. Concepts such as social justice, adultism, and youth rights set the stage for this form of social intervention. Commitment to a social and eco-nomic justice agenda, without question, is alive and well with this country’s youth, particularly those who are systematically marginalized. Weiss (2003, 6) summed up this point quite well:

[O]ver the last two decades, youth have joined the ranks of ‘‘favorite scapegoat’’ for politicians and news pundits. . . . This crackdown on young

38 SETTING THE CONTEXT

people is based on a change—both real and imagined—in who youth are, grounded in two interrelated factors: (1) demographic shifts among young people; and (2) stereotypes of youth among elected officials, the media, and society as a whole.

The interplay of demographics and stereotypes identified by Weiss (2003) has helped shape a youth social and economic justice agenda for action and change, and has set the stage for a movement that will apply well into the early part of this century. A total of sixteen key issues for the youth rights movement have been identified in the literature (Wikipedia 2006):

Drinking age

Voting age

Age of candidacy

Curfews

Emancipation

Age of majority

Age of consent

Gulag schools (schools for youth

with behavioral issues)

Unschooling

Corporal punishment

Zero tolerance

Student rights

Ageism

Driving age

Child labor laws/right-to-work

Adultism

The above youth-rights issues are the foundation for a social and eco-nomic justice agenda in youth-led community organizing. However, the average adult undoubtedly would have great difficulty acknowledging any of these issues for youth; and this epitomizes the struggles youth have in achieving their civil rights in this society. Thus, this points to the need for a youth-led community organizing model that places youth in charge of a social-change agenda based on their worldview and voices.

The set of beliefs, values, and principles associated with the concept of equity, an important element of youth rights, no doubt will continue to benefit from the input of young people, as noted by one youth organizer (LISTEN, Inc. 2004, 2):

The whole [youth] generation is going to change what the whole social justice movement does. . . . I think that there is a new spirit of sort of militancy and rebellion to a certain extent that’s coming up everywhere, across the country. That’s going to rejuvenate and revitalize the social justice movement in this country, and some of the tactics—the lack of fear, the use of hip hop and culture—is incredible and beautiful.

Youth must define ‘‘equity’’ in their lives, and we as adults must be prepared to accept this definition, regardless of how narrow or broad that definition is. Adults must determine what role they are willing to accept in helping this youth-led, social justice–influenced agenda progress in this country. Youth, it is important to emphasize once again, will determine if, when, and how adults are a part of youth-led organizing!

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION

Youth-led community organizing must be a social intervention that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. A philosophical commitment to diver-sity must play a central role in any youth-led social and economic justice agenda (Velazquez and Garin-Jones 2003). The reader will see these and other social and economic justice values prominently represented in the guiding principles for youth-led community organizing and the analytical framework presented in chapter 4.

The acceptance and celebration of diversity must be backed by a similar commitment to action, often forming the foundation for initiatives em-bracing social and economic justice. For example, gender diversity neces-sitates that youth organizing efforts must reach out to women, creating an organizational climate that confronts patriarchy, provides opportunities for leadership and high visibility, and addresses social and economic issues of great relevance to women (Weiss 2003). Anything short of these goals will ultimately compromise any legitimacy that young people gain in their social-change efforts.

The sexual orientation of youth also takes on an influential role in dic-tating organizing initiatives (Hagen 2005). Youth who are gay can organize on the same general issues as straight youth, such as with regard to edu-cation, but they will do so with a special focus on their population group. This issue specificity highlights broad educational matters of inequality, but it also seeks redress of particular concerns of interest to that group (Weiss 2003). Commitments to other underrepresented groups require similar sets of values and actions. As a consequence, youth who are organizing on spe-cific issues, must endeavor to identify how their interests and concerns in-tersect with other issues and organizing groups. There must be a strategic determination about when they can unite and when they must go their sep-arate ways (Sears 2005).

Conclusion

The philosophical foundation upon which youth-led community organizing rests will help young people frame their perspective on social and economic injustices, provide them with a language to use, and be the base for their plans and social action campaigns. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to identify and arrive at consensus definitions for the key principles and belief systems for social and economic justice that underpin this organizing effort. Such challenges are not restricted to youth; they are a common problem when anyone attempts to delineate the philosophical and theoretical roots of any social intervention. Nevertheless, it is essential to explore the basic premises and operating principles that animate youth-led community or-ganizing.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒