As the Internet has grown to be a hegemonic feature of the lives of most people in the developed world, we have come to hear a great deal about the need to protect the online privacy of young people. The specter of pedophiles and others that supposedly seek to prey on children is invoked to justify yet more onerous restrictions on the right of young people to take advantage of the many positive opportunities for friendship, education, and entertainment that the Internet affords to people of all ages. These restrictions, we are told, will protect young people from potentially sharing incriminating information about themselves that could hurt them with employers, educators and admissions officers in academic programs, and others. We are also informed that these restrictions protect young people from adults (like the aforementioned child predators) or other young people (like students at their school who may wish them ill) who may seek to harm them in some way.
Parallel to this development is another interesting trend taking place. This trend is not discussed in the same tone of public concern and outrage as that expressed by those talking about the former issues, although it is far more pervasive and I would argue more damaging in many cases to young people because it involves a breach of their trust by people they should ideally be able to rely upon. The trend to which I refer is that of parents sharing damaging and confidential information about their children online.
The Liza Long incident, which has generated widespread public interest, is of course an extreme example. Few parents take to the web to compare their children to mass murderers. But all too many parents, including those who love their children and claim they wish to protect them, take an all too casual attitude to sharing embarrassing or even damaging personal information about their children online. Because the children have no choice in who their parents are; because they have no legal recourse to demand that these violations of their privacy cease; because many members of the public do not even acknowledge the harm accruing to these youth - I would argue that this is a far more oppressive phenomenon than the ones typically brought up when our society discusses issues of young people's online privacy.
Much of what we see parents doing to violate their children's privacy rights does not strike us as all that problematic at first glance as it has become increasingly common due to the rise of online forums, social media websites, blogs, and the like. Nonetheless, if we attempt to see things through the eyes of the child, we would rightly find much of this appalling. No one would want pictures of them crying while getting a shot at the doctor's office, for example, shared widely on Facebook with people that are no more than mere acquaintances of their parents. No one would want people they live with and rely upon for emotional, financial, and other types of support to share anecdotes about them on a blog which paint them at their worst.
It seems to me that our society has struck fundamentally the wrong balance when it comes to protecting young people's rights online and it is a balance that, as it stands now, has far more to do with controlling youth than with protecting young people from the most serious breaches of confidentiality and some of the most problematic types of harm. Through age restrictions on social media websites, Internet filters, and the like we impede the ability of young people to make new friends, learn new things, and derive enjoyment from the online world. At the same time, we allow parents and other adults in a child's life (some, although by no means all, teachers will take to social media websites to share unflattering information about their students) to potentially damage their children's reputations and betray their trust while we sit idly by. This is the wrong calculation.
Social media can be a wonderful tool for parents. They can share pride in a child's accomplishments and with that child's consent, both parent and child can enjoy the positive feedback they get from friends, relatives, and others. They can help their child to keep in touch with family friends and relatives around the world who can develop a connection with the child as he or she grows up that would have been impossible in days past. All of these things are positive developments for people of all ages and this blog post is by no means an indictment of them. However, when sharing information about a child that could be potentially damaging or embarrassing or that simply divulges information the child does not want shared with whomever it is being shared with, we need to respect that boundary. We talk a lot about protecting children from random people on the Internet. Perhaps we need to talk a lot more about protecting children from their web savvy parents. Until we are willing to do so, it is obvious that we are much more interested in controlling young peoples' online interactions than we are in protecting them in any meaningful sense.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
A Response to "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother"
Perhaps many of you have seen a post that has recently gone viral in the wake of the heartbreaking and senseless tragedy in Connecticut. The name of that piece is "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" and the author of the piece is self-described "anarchist soccer mom" Liza Long. (Contrary to normal policy at this blog I am not linking to this piece as I do not want to give this woman another forum to publicly bash her child and violate his privacy.) As the actual Adam Lanza's mother was killed in a horrible act of violence by her obviously troubled son, this is of course not an article that truly reflects the perspectives of the mother of a mass murderer - it is instead a relatively unknown blogger's attempt to capitalize on the tragedy that has befallen this family in order to tell a story about her own family. While it is impossible to say without knowing much about either Lanza's family or this woman's son what similarities do or do not exist between the two situations, it is obvious from a youth rights and a disability rights perspective that there is a great deal that is problematic within Long's family and a great deal of it has to do with Long herself. While it is easy for many people (especially parents) to sympathize with the perspective that Long endorses, reading the article while keeping in mind her son's perspective makes it obvious that Long's words about her son may be less than reliable.
The essay begins with what the author dubs an "affable, reasonable" request to dictate to her son that he wear the color pants of her choosing. When her son objects to this request, a request that most adults would find bizarre and offensive if made to them under similar circumstances, he lashes out at her in a way that she uses to bolster her claim that her son is mentally ill. She then proceeds to tell her son he is "grounded from electronics" and when her attempts to dictate his in no way socially unacceptable use of his property inspire further (I would say quite reasonable) anger in him, she chalks it up once again to her son being "mentally ill."
Before we analyze this article any further I would like my adult readers to contemplate for a moment that an arbitrary authority figure in their lives sought to dictate to them what color of clothing they could wear or when and how they could use their property in socially acceptable ways. For us, our belligerence would be deemed reasonable and appropriate but for this young man it bolster's his mother's claim that he is mentally ill. Clearly a sense of personal boundaries and a desire for self-determination is seen as a healthy sign of self-respect in adults but in young people like Michael (the name of the young man in the article) it is interpreted as a sign that he is off the deep end. (As the article continues, we even hear of the mother's taking her son to a mental hospital against his will.)
The article continues with the mother proffering more proof of her son's supposed mental illness. Some of this, if true, is compelling. For example, she states that at one point he attempted to pull a knife on her. She also goes on to state that various psychiatric and neurodevelopmental diagnoses have been tossed around, including Autism, to ostensibly explain her son's violent outbursts. This is where we learn that the individual writing this piece is operating from a place of not only ageism but ableism.
While it is worth noting that Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability/difference as opposed to something which makes people into mindless killers, Long states at one point that her son has a "sensitivity to sensory stimuli." This is common for many people on the Autism spectrum. I tend to think that it is quite possible that Michael is simply a bright young person trapped in an oppressive situation with a controlling mother that refuses to respect his basic autonomy, that takes away his only outlets for self-expression and letting off steam (like videogames), and that doesn't respect his needs for the kind of sensory environment that his disability may entail. In a similar situation, many of us would likely feel trapped and lash out too, perhaps even violently. Just reading this article makes it obvious that there may be more to the story than Michael being a violent, irrational lunatic as his mother portrays him to be. Certainly if my mother compared me to mass murderers and sought to impose arbitrary restrictions on my perfectly acceptable behavior, I could be reasonably expected to lash out.
Another obvious concern is the fact that, if Michael is as troubled as his mother claims him to be, it seems highly unethical for her to be sharing his psychiatric problems with the wider public at all, especially since she is not using a pseudonym for herself. If this young man is so imbalanced that he requires the type of psychiatric help she claims that he needs, surely he cannot be helped by having his mother compare him to mass murderers to a wide internet audience of strangers. Medical and mental health professionals are bound by a code of ethics to keep their patients' medical and psychological issues private. Certainly we should ask the same of parents dealing with their children's private emotional turmoil. While I can choose my doctor or therapist and choose to interact with them as more or less a free agent, I cannot choose my parents and therefore one could argue that the moral duty upon parents to keep their children's medical and psychiatric histories private is a duty even more incumbent upon them than it is upon doctors, nurses, therapists, and the like.
For all of this, the most damning evidence about the character and unreliability of Long comes in other posts she makes about her children, posts which have nothing to do with mental illness or the issues raised in "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother." In one post entitled "The Room of Doom" she begins by talking about the difficulties attendant in natural childbirth. The relevance of this is at first blush hard to determine except that it gives her one more occasion to rant about the grief the four children she chose to have have brought into her life. She tells prospective parents to get a puppy instead of having children because "the puppy won't grow up to be a teenager." You see, Long doesn't wish to accommodate the needs of an autonomous human being so she would rather have a dog. She goes on to bash her son (whether the same son she speaks of in the Lanza piece or another son I could not tell). She goes through his room, attempting to throw away possessions of his that he found to be of value and then speaks ill of him for his support of President Obama. Her patronizing attitude towards her teenage son is summed up in this gem of a quote: "Liberals, by the way, are not silly. At least not the ones I know. In an election season that is already shaping up to be one of the ugliest on record, I think we all need to focus on bringing respect back to the public debate. It’s okay for reasonable people to disagree about politics, and I am grateful for the perspective my liberal friends share with me (but you’re WRONG! Big wasteful disincentivizing government is not the answer! Sorry, couldn’t resist. And yes, for the record, I stuck my tongue out). Teenagers, however, are not reasonable people." You see, because her son is a teenager nothing he has to say is of value unlike the supposed wisdom spouted by Long's adult friends.
So, my friends, keep in mind as you look for essays and articles to help you make sense of the tragedy in Connecticut that this is not what Long is offering. She is instead a child-hater and a teenager-hater, someone whose words give one the impression she deeply resents having children and probably should not have had them, someone who does not wish to respect her growing children's autonomy, and someone whose underlying assumptions about disability are deeply problematic. She is a third rate writer and a fifth rate parent (as anyone is that publicly bashes their children on the internet) capitalizing on a tragedy in order to find a greater platform in order to bash her children some more (something she was doing long before the tragedy in Connecticut occurred). Don't give her this platform. While the Adam Lanza article touches on many important aspects of our nation's mental healthcare system (and this is definitely a conversation worth having as a society) certainly we can find a better catalyst to discuss these issues than an embittered individual who wishes to use a nation's horror at violence against children to vent her rage at her own.
The essay begins with what the author dubs an "affable, reasonable" request to dictate to her son that he wear the color pants of her choosing. When her son objects to this request, a request that most adults would find bizarre and offensive if made to them under similar circumstances, he lashes out at her in a way that she uses to bolster her claim that her son is mentally ill. She then proceeds to tell her son he is "grounded from electronics" and when her attempts to dictate his in no way socially unacceptable use of his property inspire further (I would say quite reasonable) anger in him, she chalks it up once again to her son being "mentally ill."
Before we analyze this article any further I would like my adult readers to contemplate for a moment that an arbitrary authority figure in their lives sought to dictate to them what color of clothing they could wear or when and how they could use their property in socially acceptable ways. For us, our belligerence would be deemed reasonable and appropriate but for this young man it bolster's his mother's claim that he is mentally ill. Clearly a sense of personal boundaries and a desire for self-determination is seen as a healthy sign of self-respect in adults but in young people like Michael (the name of the young man in the article) it is interpreted as a sign that he is off the deep end. (As the article continues, we even hear of the mother's taking her son to a mental hospital against his will.)
The article continues with the mother proffering more proof of her son's supposed mental illness. Some of this, if true, is compelling. For example, she states that at one point he attempted to pull a knife on her. She also goes on to state that various psychiatric and neurodevelopmental diagnoses have been tossed around, including Autism, to ostensibly explain her son's violent outbursts. This is where we learn that the individual writing this piece is operating from a place of not only ageism but ableism.
While it is worth noting that Autism is a neurodevelopmental disability/difference as opposed to something which makes people into mindless killers, Long states at one point that her son has a "sensitivity to sensory stimuli." This is common for many people on the Autism spectrum. I tend to think that it is quite possible that Michael is simply a bright young person trapped in an oppressive situation with a controlling mother that refuses to respect his basic autonomy, that takes away his only outlets for self-expression and letting off steam (like videogames), and that doesn't respect his needs for the kind of sensory environment that his disability may entail. In a similar situation, many of us would likely feel trapped and lash out too, perhaps even violently. Just reading this article makes it obvious that there may be more to the story than Michael being a violent, irrational lunatic as his mother portrays him to be. Certainly if my mother compared me to mass murderers and sought to impose arbitrary restrictions on my perfectly acceptable behavior, I could be reasonably expected to lash out.
Another obvious concern is the fact that, if Michael is as troubled as his mother claims him to be, it seems highly unethical for her to be sharing his psychiatric problems with the wider public at all, especially since she is not using a pseudonym for herself. If this young man is so imbalanced that he requires the type of psychiatric help she claims that he needs, surely he cannot be helped by having his mother compare him to mass murderers to a wide internet audience of strangers. Medical and mental health professionals are bound by a code of ethics to keep their patients' medical and psychological issues private. Certainly we should ask the same of parents dealing with their children's private emotional turmoil. While I can choose my doctor or therapist and choose to interact with them as more or less a free agent, I cannot choose my parents and therefore one could argue that the moral duty upon parents to keep their children's medical and psychiatric histories private is a duty even more incumbent upon them than it is upon doctors, nurses, therapists, and the like.
For all of this, the most damning evidence about the character and unreliability of Long comes in other posts she makes about her children, posts which have nothing to do with mental illness or the issues raised in "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother." In one post entitled "The Room of Doom" she begins by talking about the difficulties attendant in natural childbirth. The relevance of this is at first blush hard to determine except that it gives her one more occasion to rant about the grief the four children she chose to have have brought into her life. She tells prospective parents to get a puppy instead of having children because "the puppy won't grow up to be a teenager." You see, Long doesn't wish to accommodate the needs of an autonomous human being so she would rather have a dog. She goes on to bash her son (whether the same son she speaks of in the Lanza piece or another son I could not tell). She goes through his room, attempting to throw away possessions of his that he found to be of value and then speaks ill of him for his support of President Obama. Her patronizing attitude towards her teenage son is summed up in this gem of a quote: "Liberals, by the way, are not silly. At least not the ones I know. In an election season that is already shaping up to be one of the ugliest on record, I think we all need to focus on bringing respect back to the public debate. It’s okay for reasonable people to disagree about politics, and I am grateful for the perspective my liberal friends share with me (but you’re WRONG! Big wasteful disincentivizing government is not the answer! Sorry, couldn’t resist. And yes, for the record, I stuck my tongue out). Teenagers, however, are not reasonable people." You see, because her son is a teenager nothing he has to say is of value unlike the supposed wisdom spouted by Long's adult friends.
So, my friends, keep in mind as you look for essays and articles to help you make sense of the tragedy in Connecticut that this is not what Long is offering. She is instead a child-hater and a teenager-hater, someone whose words give one the impression she deeply resents having children and probably should not have had them, someone who does not wish to respect her growing children's autonomy, and someone whose underlying assumptions about disability are deeply problematic. She is a third rate writer and a fifth rate parent (as anyone is that publicly bashes their children on the internet) capitalizing on a tragedy in order to find a greater platform in order to bash her children some more (something she was doing long before the tragedy in Connecticut occurred). Don't give her this platform. While the Adam Lanza article touches on many important aspects of our nation's mental healthcare system (and this is definitely a conversation worth having as a society) certainly we can find a better catalyst to discuss these issues than an embittered individual who wishes to use a nation's horror at violence against children to vent her rage at her own.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The Problematic Nature of Viewing Parental Rights as Individual Rights
In the context of the upcoming Supreme Court case addressing the issue of same-sex marriage, there has been a large degree of speculation about how Justice Anthony Kennedy could be expected to cast his vote. In an article from the Los Angelos Times Kennedy is quoted as saying that he is a strong believer in the rights of individuals to "make personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." This quote was passed off in the article as a testament to Kennedy's belief in the rights of individuals to make decisions about their life free from government interference and nothing more. And while to most of the article's readers it likely seemed fairly unproblematic, the level of Orwellian doublespeak in such a statement is actually quite striking if one simply takes a moment to examine it critically.
It is truly bizarre that in our political culture as well as in the wider society, choices about "child rearing and education" are seen as individual rights of a sort with the choices that an individual makes about her own lifestyle, family, relationships, and body. While the decision to marry someone of the same sex or to use contraception are truly personal choices that chiefly affect the individual in question (as well as other individuals who have freely consented to be a part of these decisions), choices about child rearing are choices imposed on an individual - a socially, politically, and economically powerless individual - by others. Framing choices about how one raises her children as individual rights of the same sort as the others that Justice Kennedy mentions inverts the concept of individual rights. It is indeed the antithesis of individual rights because it involves allowing some individuals state-backed power over other individuals.
I by no means intend to single out Justice Kennedy for this problematic statement. It reflects a mentality that is all too common among educated and intelligent individuals across the political spectrum. Nonetheless it is a deeply wrong-headed mentality.
With such a statement, Justice Kennedy highlights all the ways in which minors are viewed by the law and the wider culture as parental property and mere extensions of the adults in their lives without liberty and justice interests of their own worth protecting. Minors may have an interest in avoiding religious indoctrination foisted upon them by the adults in their lives. They may have an interest in avoiding the type of education their parents wish they would pursue. They may have an interest in making medical decisions their guardians disapprove of. They may have an interest in associating with individuals their family would prefer they not associate with. All of these possibilities are erased by Justice Kennedy's conflation of the individual right of someone to engage in sexual relations with the partner of their choosing, for example, and the right of a parent to force a lifestyle choice of any sort (like attending a certain school) upon their children without the child's autonomy interests being taken into consideration.
Choices about parenting are not "individual rights" of the sort that we cherish in this country and other free societies. They are a denial of the rights of the most powerless members of our society. Even if one does believe that children are best served by a certain level of paternalism (a position I object to but that is beyond the scope of this post) it is best that one be honest about his belief that this is what is best for a child and that he be willing to set more stringent parameters for when that assumption can be overridden as opposed to framing almost any choice a parent makes on behalf of another person as an "individual right."
It is truly bizarre that in our political culture as well as in the wider society, choices about "child rearing and education" are seen as individual rights of a sort with the choices that an individual makes about her own lifestyle, family, relationships, and body. While the decision to marry someone of the same sex or to use contraception are truly personal choices that chiefly affect the individual in question (as well as other individuals who have freely consented to be a part of these decisions), choices about child rearing are choices imposed on an individual - a socially, politically, and economically powerless individual - by others. Framing choices about how one raises her children as individual rights of the same sort as the others that Justice Kennedy mentions inverts the concept of individual rights. It is indeed the antithesis of individual rights because it involves allowing some individuals state-backed power over other individuals.
I by no means intend to single out Justice Kennedy for this problematic statement. It reflects a mentality that is all too common among educated and intelligent individuals across the political spectrum. Nonetheless it is a deeply wrong-headed mentality.
With such a statement, Justice Kennedy highlights all the ways in which minors are viewed by the law and the wider culture as parental property and mere extensions of the adults in their lives without liberty and justice interests of their own worth protecting. Minors may have an interest in avoiding religious indoctrination foisted upon them by the adults in their lives. They may have an interest in avoiding the type of education their parents wish they would pursue. They may have an interest in making medical decisions their guardians disapprove of. They may have an interest in associating with individuals their family would prefer they not associate with. All of these possibilities are erased by Justice Kennedy's conflation of the individual right of someone to engage in sexual relations with the partner of their choosing, for example, and the right of a parent to force a lifestyle choice of any sort (like attending a certain school) upon their children without the child's autonomy interests being taken into consideration.
Choices about parenting are not "individual rights" of the sort that we cherish in this country and other free societies. They are a denial of the rights of the most powerless members of our society. Even if one does believe that children are best served by a certain level of paternalism (a position I object to but that is beyond the scope of this post) it is best that one be honest about his belief that this is what is best for a child and that he be willing to set more stringent parameters for when that assumption can be overridden as opposed to framing almost any choice a parent makes on behalf of another person as an "individual right."
Friday, August 31, 2012
Remembering Shulamith Firestone and Carrying Forth Her Youth Rights Feminist Vision
In the space of the thirty pages of the fourth chapter of The Dialectic of Sex, entitled "Down with Childhood," Firestone begins by seeking to prove that childhood as we know it is a social construct designed to serve patriarchal ideals. Drawing heavily on the work of historian Philippe Aries, Firestone traces the advent of contemporary notions of childhood to the rise of schools and the nuclear family. She then lays out the case for children as an oppressed class - she decries the age segregation and repression of educational institutions, bemoans children's economic powerlessness, laments children's sexual repression, and lambasts the educators, psychologists, social workers, and other adults tasked with managing children and their lives. She sees children as an oppressed class - one whose oppression rests in both their physical limitations and their enforced subservience to adults. Finally, Firestone connects the oppression of children to the oppression of women. She attacks the ideology of motherhood which stipulates that children are delicate flowers in need of constant supervision and identifies this view as serving the interests of the patriarchy, not the interests of mothers or children. She contends that the supposedly special bond between women and children is "no more than shared oppression."
Against the backdrop of a feminist landscape in which childfree feminists frequently resort to ageist attacks on children to justify their choices while other people tell women they're unfit mothers if they're not having natural births, breastfeeding for years at a time, and wholly giving themselves over physically and psychologically to their role as mothers, Shulamith Firestone's vision is needed now more than ever. In a world in which children are increasingly cut off from the rest of the world, where legislation and school zero tolerance policies affecting youth grow more restrictive and confining, and where the socially prescribed demands on mothers grow more onerous, where most American feminist activism on behalf of children both here and abroad is more concerned with paternalistically controlling young people than liberating them, Firestone's vision of an anti-sexist, anti-ageist society is a light in the darkness, showing us that there is a better way than the visions of childhood and the family presented to us by both the mainstream culture and the majority of third wave feminism.
Because of her radical vision of freedom for children and women (as well as poor people and people of color) Firestone will always be someone I have the greatest respect and admiration for. She was a part of the generation of feminists who bequeathed a legacy of greater reproductive freedom, more opportunity in the workforce, and a less constraining image of what it means to be a woman to people of my generation. While that work is far from over, we have come a long way from where we were and Firestone and many of other women (and a few men) from that generation are the main reason why. But youth rights is the unfinished business on Firestone's agenda where we haven't come that far at all - in fact, in most ways we have gone backward and it hurts not only children but parents (especially mothers) as well. That is the agenda of this blog and the cause I am the most passionate about.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
How Ageism Destroys the Family, How Youth Rights Can Heal Our Broken Family Bonds
When we speak of youth rights and the benefits that will accrue to people of all ages when we live in a more anti-ageist society, we tend to focus mostly on the many horrible abuses against youth that will be prevented. Teachers won't be able to abuse their power so easily, violating the rights of their students and sometimes even jeopardizing their futures. Parents will no longer be legally allowed to assault and batter their children. Youth will be able to consent to or refuse medical care of all kinds on their own terms. People will no longer be arrested for consensual sexual activity simply because of their age or the age of their partner. Young people will no longer be denied the right to work and keep their own money. Governments and parents will no longer unilaterally dictate to youth where they must attend school. This list could go on and on and on.
All of these things are good and important. All of them are a major part of why I am a youth rights supporter. But I'm not just a radical youth liberationist because I believe that the worst abuses against youth will be curtailed in a society with less ageism. I am also a radical youth liberationist because I believe that youth and adults, parents and children, teachers and students - will have more meaningful, sincere, loving, and respectful relationships in a pro-youth society than they currently do today.
In this particular post I want to focus on the the parent-child relationship although much of what I say could apply to other adult-youth relationships. But I am focusing here on this particular relationship because it tends to be lifelong and of paramount importance to all involved. Therefore, it will also be the adult-youth relationship most dramatically affected by a reform in society's attitudes towards childhood and adulthood.
This satirical article from The Onion caused me to begin thinking about all of the ways in which ageism hurts children and their parents as individuals and as a family unit. While I laughed at the piece, it brought up some uncomfortable truths that I have noticed my entire life. Although we tend to see these trends as normal, we shouldn't - they are a symptom of ageism and the dysfunctional relationships that ageist ways of thinking produce.
Personally, I have always had a close relationship with my parents and my aunt (who has lived next door to my parents my entire life and has been much closer to a third parent than a relative where I'm concerned). They know about my friends, my romantic relationships (with both men and women), my political views, what hobbies I enjoy, the people in my life I can't stand, and my aspirations for the future. When I go to the doctor I want their input about what questions I should ask him. I like them knowing my friends and the people I date. I even like them knowing that I've made some choices they wouldn't make themselves and that I believe some things they don't agree with because I want the people in my life that I'm closest to to know and love the real me.
Over the years I have realized that such a relationship between parents and their children is incredibly rare once children reach their teenage years and that the relationship rarely fully recovers even once the child is an adult. This should sadden us greatly - most people that choose to have children don't do so because they want a distant relationship with people they know little of substance about. They enter into such a relationship with the best of intentions, only to watch themselves and their children grow more distant from each other as the years pass.
Since graduating from high school and becoming a legal adult, I have watched people I otherwise respected and admired go to pathetic lengths to avoid their parents finding out things that even casual acquaintances knew about them. One ex-boyfriend went to considerable trouble to hide his sexual relationship with me from his parents despite the fact that we were both extremely responsible about preventing pregnancy and STDs, were well into our twenties, and had dated for quite a while. One friend has refused to tell her parents that she is a transsexual despite having taken hormones for years and looking in every way like the woman she has worked hard to become. Other friends have taken pains to keep their parents from knowing that they hold religious, political, or other views which their parents do not share. These families are by no means extraordinarily oppressive or abusive - they would be regarded by most people as normal families and yet in the context of any other important human relationship, keeping secrets of this nature from people one loves would be seen as extremely problematic, even dysfunctional. So why does this happen and why are we, individually and collectively, willing to tolerate it?
Almost every institution in our culture sends parents and children alike the message that their relationship is supposed to be an adversarial one. Parents are supposed to perform parenthood by laying down rules, punishing their children when they transgress them, and generally seeking to "keep their kids in line." Children are supposed to perform their role (both as minors and later as adult children) by attempting to subvert these rules, sneaking behind their parents' backs to do things their parents disapprove of, and keeping secrets from their families. If parents and/or children aren't following this script, we perceive something as being somewhat "off" about them despite the fact that the script itself is inherently oppressive to both parties and makes no sense if the goal is to foster open, honest, loving relationships among parents and children.
This is where youth rights comes in. Youth rights supporters do not believe in double standards - a list of things it is necessarily okay for adults to do but necessarily wrong for younger people to do. We do not believe in a parent-child relationship where parents have to give permission for everything their child does as a minor and then give approval for the child's adult decisions only if it matches the parents' expectations. We don't believe that children are quasi-property whose decisions always reflect on their parents. We do believe that the hypocrisy, cynicism, and disingenuous nature of the current model of parent-child relationships serves neither parents nor children.
Basically our society tells young people that they're weird if they have more than an acquaintanceship with their parents. If they really let their parents in on their feelings and beliefs as they do with their friends, they're doing something wrong. Similarly, parents are taught that if they aren't freaking out at even the slightest suggestion of sexual activity, drinking, drug use, swearing, anger, or disagreement of any kind coming from their offspring (often even after the children are adults themselves!!!) they are failing to perform the role of parenthood responsibly. This model, while widely prevalent in American culture, sets children (including both minor and adult children) and parents alike up to fail. It encourages repression and insincerity in what should ideally be a relationship forged around the concept of unconditional love. The good news is that, as dismal as the situation is, we can do better.
Young people, when possible (and I know it always isn't), have to insist that their parents love them for who they really are, not who they pretend to be around their families. This, of course, is not by itself enough. That is because in our society parents still have the power, money, and social capital that their children lack. So it is chiefly up to them to unlearn the antagonistic model of parenting taught in our society and instead begin to see their children of all ages as equals - people whose choices they may not always agree with but whom they are prepared to love, accept, respect, and support anyway.
It is important to note that there is a precedent for radically reinventing family relationships in our society through a combination of political/legal/economic and sociocultural reform. Feminism did not destroy the relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, whatever certain individuals on the far right may claim to the contrary. Instead it made these relationships more mutual, more voluntary, and perhaps in many ways more loving. Similarly I believe that the youth rights movement will ultimately strengthen parent-child relationships as opposed to destroying them.
As a youth rights supporter, I believe in abolishing guardianship because it is a terrible injustice when youth are forced to stay in family situations that prove unfulfilling or even intolerable simply because of a legal construct known as custody. I want youth in abusive and oppressive situations to have the option of getting out of those situations without being forced into something worse. I also want youth in positive family situations to know that even then they have rights over themselves that no adult, including their parents, can violate. These legal and political changes will be important, but they aren't the whole story.
I also want these legal/political changes to be accompanied by changes in attitudes that ensure that parents would be less oppressive and abusive towards their children, even if they could, because their consciences would tell them that this is wrong and the messages they received from society would be that their children should be treated with respect for their autonomy. The same social changes which would make it easier for children to distance themselves from their families would also hopefully make this distancing less necessary.
As a radical youth rights supporter, I don't just want to demolish guardianship, minority, compulsory education, status offenses, and all of the other evils blighting the lives of youth. I also want to replace them with more sincere and loving connections between parents and children, students and teachers, adults and youth in general. As movements for the rights of women, people of color, LGBT people, senior citizens, and disabled people have learned again and again over the years, it isn't enough to change laws. We must also change hearts and minds. Sometimes this may be easier than changing laws and other times it may be harder. But it will always be necessary if we truly want to create a society where neither adults nor children are oppressed and both are free to pursue the healthiest relationships that they can, including across generational lines and within the family. Youth rights is both child liberation and parent liberation.
All of these things are good and important. All of them are a major part of why I am a youth rights supporter. But I'm not just a radical youth liberationist because I believe that the worst abuses against youth will be curtailed in a society with less ageism. I am also a radical youth liberationist because I believe that youth and adults, parents and children, teachers and students - will have more meaningful, sincere, loving, and respectful relationships in a pro-youth society than they currently do today.
In this particular post I want to focus on the the parent-child relationship although much of what I say could apply to other adult-youth relationships. But I am focusing here on this particular relationship because it tends to be lifelong and of paramount importance to all involved. Therefore, it will also be the adult-youth relationship most dramatically affected by a reform in society's attitudes towards childhood and adulthood.
This satirical article from The Onion caused me to begin thinking about all of the ways in which ageism hurts children and their parents as individuals and as a family unit. While I laughed at the piece, it brought up some uncomfortable truths that I have noticed my entire life. Although we tend to see these trends as normal, we shouldn't - they are a symptom of ageism and the dysfunctional relationships that ageist ways of thinking produce.
Personally, I have always had a close relationship with my parents and my aunt (who has lived next door to my parents my entire life and has been much closer to a third parent than a relative where I'm concerned). They know about my friends, my romantic relationships (with both men and women), my political views, what hobbies I enjoy, the people in my life I can't stand, and my aspirations for the future. When I go to the doctor I want their input about what questions I should ask him. I like them knowing my friends and the people I date. I even like them knowing that I've made some choices they wouldn't make themselves and that I believe some things they don't agree with because I want the people in my life that I'm closest to to know and love the real me.
Over the years I have realized that such a relationship between parents and their children is incredibly rare once children reach their teenage years and that the relationship rarely fully recovers even once the child is an adult. This should sadden us greatly - most people that choose to have children don't do so because they want a distant relationship with people they know little of substance about. They enter into such a relationship with the best of intentions, only to watch themselves and their children grow more distant from each other as the years pass.
Since graduating from high school and becoming a legal adult, I have watched people I otherwise respected and admired go to pathetic lengths to avoid their parents finding out things that even casual acquaintances knew about them. One ex-boyfriend went to considerable trouble to hide his sexual relationship with me from his parents despite the fact that we were both extremely responsible about preventing pregnancy and STDs, were well into our twenties, and had dated for quite a while. One friend has refused to tell her parents that she is a transsexual despite having taken hormones for years and looking in every way like the woman she has worked hard to become. Other friends have taken pains to keep their parents from knowing that they hold religious, political, or other views which their parents do not share. These families are by no means extraordinarily oppressive or abusive - they would be regarded by most people as normal families and yet in the context of any other important human relationship, keeping secrets of this nature from people one loves would be seen as extremely problematic, even dysfunctional. So why does this happen and why are we, individually and collectively, willing to tolerate it?
Almost every institution in our culture sends parents and children alike the message that their relationship is supposed to be an adversarial one. Parents are supposed to perform parenthood by laying down rules, punishing their children when they transgress them, and generally seeking to "keep their kids in line." Children are supposed to perform their role (both as minors and later as adult children) by attempting to subvert these rules, sneaking behind their parents' backs to do things their parents disapprove of, and keeping secrets from their families. If parents and/or children aren't following this script, we perceive something as being somewhat "off" about them despite the fact that the script itself is inherently oppressive to both parties and makes no sense if the goal is to foster open, honest, loving relationships among parents and children.
This is where youth rights comes in. Youth rights supporters do not believe in double standards - a list of things it is necessarily okay for adults to do but necessarily wrong for younger people to do. We do not believe in a parent-child relationship where parents have to give permission for everything their child does as a minor and then give approval for the child's adult decisions only if it matches the parents' expectations. We don't believe that children are quasi-property whose decisions always reflect on their parents. We do believe that the hypocrisy, cynicism, and disingenuous nature of the current model of parent-child relationships serves neither parents nor children.
Basically our society tells young people that they're weird if they have more than an acquaintanceship with their parents. If they really let their parents in on their feelings and beliefs as they do with their friends, they're doing something wrong. Similarly, parents are taught that if they aren't freaking out at even the slightest suggestion of sexual activity, drinking, drug use, swearing, anger, or disagreement of any kind coming from their offspring (often even after the children are adults themselves!!!) they are failing to perform the role of parenthood responsibly. This model, while widely prevalent in American culture, sets children (including both minor and adult children) and parents alike up to fail. It encourages repression and insincerity in what should ideally be a relationship forged around the concept of unconditional love. The good news is that, as dismal as the situation is, we can do better.
Young people, when possible (and I know it always isn't), have to insist that their parents love them for who they really are, not who they pretend to be around their families. This, of course, is not by itself enough. That is because in our society parents still have the power, money, and social capital that their children lack. So it is chiefly up to them to unlearn the antagonistic model of parenting taught in our society and instead begin to see their children of all ages as equals - people whose choices they may not always agree with but whom they are prepared to love, accept, respect, and support anyway.
It is important to note that there is a precedent for radically reinventing family relationships in our society through a combination of political/legal/economic and sociocultural reform. Feminism did not destroy the relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, whatever certain individuals on the far right may claim to the contrary. Instead it made these relationships more mutual, more voluntary, and perhaps in many ways more loving. Similarly I believe that the youth rights movement will ultimately strengthen parent-child relationships as opposed to destroying them.
As a youth rights supporter, I believe in abolishing guardianship because it is a terrible injustice when youth are forced to stay in family situations that prove unfulfilling or even intolerable simply because of a legal construct known as custody. I want youth in abusive and oppressive situations to have the option of getting out of those situations without being forced into something worse. I also want youth in positive family situations to know that even then they have rights over themselves that no adult, including their parents, can violate. These legal and political changes will be important, but they aren't the whole story.
I also want these legal/political changes to be accompanied by changes in attitudes that ensure that parents would be less oppressive and abusive towards their children, even if they could, because their consciences would tell them that this is wrong and the messages they received from society would be that their children should be treated with respect for their autonomy. The same social changes which would make it easier for children to distance themselves from their families would also hopefully make this distancing less necessary.
As a radical youth rights supporter, I don't just want to demolish guardianship, minority, compulsory education, status offenses, and all of the other evils blighting the lives of youth. I also want to replace them with more sincere and loving connections between parents and children, students and teachers, adults and youth in general. As movements for the rights of women, people of color, LGBT people, senior citizens, and disabled people have learned again and again over the years, it isn't enough to change laws. We must also change hearts and minds. Sometimes this may be easier than changing laws and other times it may be harder. But it will always be necessary if we truly want to create a society where neither adults nor children are oppressed and both are free to pursue the healthiest relationships that they can, including across generational lines and within the family. Youth rights is both child liberation and parent liberation.
 |
| Mama and me. |
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Roundup
There are so many important youth rights stories I have seen circulating recently, I wanted to publish a new edition of The Roundup ASAP.
First of all, if you haven't seen The Adult Privilege Checklist you should check it out. It really puts youth oppression in black and white.
The Little League World Series is going on and ESPN's coverage has been extremely respectful and non-ageist as far as these young athletes are concerned.
This story about a young transgender man now ten years old (who first came out as a toddler) shows us that even our youngest youth know what they need to be happy, healthy, and successful if we adults are willing to support them. The article says that this young man's mother got a "lesson in love." I think it should also provide an equally important lesson in respecting the identity and bodily autonomy of people regardless of their age.
This mother of an Autistic young person understands that non-disabled parents' interests are not always the same as that of their disabled children. Although she doesn't talk about this in the article, the same could be said of all parents and all youth.
These pictures of youth on leashes underscores both the dehumanization and obsession with control attached to youth by their adult guardians in an ageist society.
First of all, if you haven't seen The Adult Privilege Checklist you should check it out. It really puts youth oppression in black and white.
The Little League World Series is going on and ESPN's coverage has been extremely respectful and non-ageist as far as these young athletes are concerned.
This story about a young transgender man now ten years old (who first came out as a toddler) shows us that even our youngest youth know what they need to be happy, healthy, and successful if we adults are willing to support them. The article says that this young man's mother got a "lesson in love." I think it should also provide an equally important lesson in respecting the identity and bodily autonomy of people regardless of their age.
This mother of an Autistic young person understands that non-disabled parents' interests are not always the same as that of their disabled children. Although she doesn't talk about this in the article, the same could be said of all parents and all youth.
These pictures of youth on leashes underscores both the dehumanization and obsession with control attached to youth by their adult guardians in an ageist society.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Roundup
It's been awhile since I've posted - I've been dealing with some medical issues and watching the Olympics. However, I'm back and ready to bring y'all some more radical youth rights theory. I'm starting right now with links to some important youth rights stories, including those celebrating our nation's youngest Olympic heroes who defy the demeaning stereotype that young people are incapable of the focus needed for serious achievement.
Olympic gold medalists in gymnastics Gabby Douglas (16), Jordyn Wieber (17), McKayla Maroney (16), Aly Raisman (18), and Kyla Ross (15) show the amazing accomplishments young women are capable of despite living in a society that denies them their full civil and human rights. These amazing individuals all began training in elementary school.
Katie Ledecky (15) is an Olympic swimming champion and the youngest Olympian in all of Team USA.
Missy Franklin (17) is another amazing Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer.
On a less inspiring note, Virgin Airlines is providing an example of what I mean when I talk about age apartheid.
My friend and an incredible youth rights theorist, Katrina Moncure, has written an excellent blog post problematizing the ageist social panic surrounding young women supposedly reaching puberty earlier.
A small but to my knowledge largely unprecedented step in the right direction on youth rights from the Canadian legal system.
Disability rights activist Lydia Brown, who I got to meet for the first time recently, has written a beautiful blog post about her disability rights advocacy which sums up a lot of my own feelings about my advocacy on youth rights issues. Lydia is a brilliant theorist when it comes to disability rights issues and I encourage all of you to check out her blog.
Olympic gold medalists in gymnastics Gabby Douglas (16), Jordyn Wieber (17), McKayla Maroney (16), Aly Raisman (18), and Kyla Ross (15) show the amazing accomplishments young women are capable of despite living in a society that denies them their full civil and human rights. These amazing individuals all began training in elementary school.
Katie Ledecky (15) is an Olympic swimming champion and the youngest Olympian in all of Team USA.
Missy Franklin (17) is another amazing Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer.
On a less inspiring note, Virgin Airlines is providing an example of what I mean when I talk about age apartheid.
My friend and an incredible youth rights theorist, Katrina Moncure, has written an excellent blog post problematizing the ageist social panic surrounding young women supposedly reaching puberty earlier.
A small but to my knowledge largely unprecedented step in the right direction on youth rights from the Canadian legal system.
Disability rights activist Lydia Brown, who I got to meet for the first time recently, has written a beautiful blog post about her disability rights advocacy which sums up a lot of my own feelings about my advocacy on youth rights issues. Lydia is a brilliant theorist when it comes to disability rights issues and I encourage all of you to check out her blog.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Parenting Is Not a Qualification for Talking About Youth Rights Issues, It is a Conflict of Interests
Since becoming involved with youth liberation, I have encountered an attitude from a number of parents that has consistently left me baffled. They have expressed this attitude in a variety of ways that probably sounded like fine rhetoric to the person making the statements but which has consistently struck me as either disingenuous or betraying a deep lack of understanding of what youth liberation is really about. Here is a sampling of the sort of statements to which I refer: "As a parent I am on the frontlines of advocating for children while you are dealing with theory." (This might be less disingenuous coming from someone that attempts to put some sort of youth autonomy-centered philosophy at the core of their parenting, but alas this person was not such a parent.) "As a parent, I can speak to my child's need for boundaries and discipline." "You'll feel differently when you are a parent." These statements are not only a prime example of the authoritarian impulses of the people making them, they are also patently absurd upon reflection. This is because parenting is not a qualification for discussing the rights of youth, it is a conflict of interest.
One is often seen as bolstering his case when he takes a stand despite having interests to the contrary. This is why the millionaire that supports higher income tax rates, the poor person that doesn't believe in government assistance for people like himself, the white person speaking out in favor of affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and the person of color who opposes affirmative action programs tend to be seen as either a.) lacking a true appreciation of their own self-interests or b.) acting from a higher and more noble set of values than immediate self-interest but never as c.) deeply corrupted by their own interests.
There are also individuals who come to make a judgment about a situation as a more or less neutral party with nothing that she personally stands to gain or lose depending on the outcome of the situation. We think of the ideal judge and jury in a court case as having interests of this type. Their very neutrality can bolster their claims about a situation.
Parents advocating for their "right" to arbitrarily punish their children and control their lives are not taking either type of stand. They are not taking a stand that goes against their self-interests and they are not coming to a decision about their values from a place of neutrality. Guardianship and minority give parents power at the expense of their children. There is therefore nothing especially noble or wise about parents arguing for the maintenance of these institutions in their current form - it is simply one example among many of powerful people attempting to protect their interests at the expense of those they have power over. Saying "As a parent I know what is best for my child" is no more noble than saying "As a slave owner I know that emancipation doesn't suit the Negro" or "As a logging executive I know that we don't need environmental regulation." Even if the statements were valid, we would be right to be highly suspect about the motives of the person making the claim.
When we hear someone speaking of his or her role as a parent as a justification for beliefs about youth that many youth themselves would likely find oppressive or even abusive we should never accept that as good enough and we should never defer to their judgment on those grounds alone. If anything, that person's status as a parent should make us more suspect about his or her motives for supporting youth oppression. When discussing youth liberation, parenting is not a qualification. It is a conflict of interest. It is important that no one ever trick us into thinking of the position of a parent as necessarily pro-youth or even neutral. We cannot be bullied into silence by those whose class position vis a vis youth betrays their true motives for advocating for their continued oppression.
One is often seen as bolstering his case when he takes a stand despite having interests to the contrary. This is why the millionaire that supports higher income tax rates, the poor person that doesn't believe in government assistance for people like himself, the white person speaking out in favor of affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and the person of color who opposes affirmative action programs tend to be seen as either a.) lacking a true appreciation of their own self-interests or b.) acting from a higher and more noble set of values than immediate self-interest but never as c.) deeply corrupted by their own interests.
There are also individuals who come to make a judgment about a situation as a more or less neutral party with nothing that she personally stands to gain or lose depending on the outcome of the situation. We think of the ideal judge and jury in a court case as having interests of this type. Their very neutrality can bolster their claims about a situation.
Parents advocating for their "right" to arbitrarily punish their children and control their lives are not taking either type of stand. They are not taking a stand that goes against their self-interests and they are not coming to a decision about their values from a place of neutrality. Guardianship and minority give parents power at the expense of their children. There is therefore nothing especially noble or wise about parents arguing for the maintenance of these institutions in their current form - it is simply one example among many of powerful people attempting to protect their interests at the expense of those they have power over. Saying "As a parent I know what is best for my child" is no more noble than saying "As a slave owner I know that emancipation doesn't suit the Negro" or "As a logging executive I know that we don't need environmental regulation." Even if the statements were valid, we would be right to be highly suspect about the motives of the person making the claim.
When we hear someone speaking of his or her role as a parent as a justification for beliefs about youth that many youth themselves would likely find oppressive or even abusive we should never accept that as good enough and we should never defer to their judgment on those grounds alone. If anything, that person's status as a parent should make us more suspect about his or her motives for supporting youth oppression. When discussing youth liberation, parenting is not a qualification. It is a conflict of interest. It is important that no one ever trick us into thinking of the position of a parent as necessarily pro-youth or even neutral. We cannot be bullied into silence by those whose class position vis a vis youth betrays their true motives for advocating for their continued oppression.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Youth Rights 101: How to Analyze Issues Through a Youth Rights Lens
Previously I have posted about how youth rights is primarily a framing device as opposed to a set of hard and fast positions (i.e. youth rights supporters believe in this or youth rights supporters think that is wrong). As a framework for understanding issues related to young people, youth rights may not always give us a lot of easy answers (although sometimes it will) but it will lead us to ask certain types of questions that help us to understand an issue more clearly that we otherwise might have. This blog post isn't going to tell you how to come to the "youth rights position" on a given issue (as if there was only one!) but it will help you to learn to analyze everything from media representations of youth to legal issues involving minors to situations you observe in your daily life through a youth rights framework.
First, ask yourself how young people are being framed in a given context. Are they portrayed as delinquent troublemakers up to no good? As helpless victims in need of adult guidance and supervision? As autonomous human beings with their own beliefs, values, and personality? Do youth speak for themselves or are others (parents, teachers, experts, etc.) primarily speaking for them? Are we being led to give the things young people say about themselves credence or are we being led to disregard their perspectives in favor of what someone older has to say ostensibly on their behalf? Documentaries in which adults speak about children without allowing children to speak for themselves in a way the viewer is led to believe are just as credible as adult viewpoints are an example of a problematic framing of youth in the media.
Ask yourself if the solutions being proposed to deal with problems affecting youth deal with the systemic forces that endanger youth by depriving them of autonomy or if they simply reinscribe the adult supremacist logic which creates many of these problems in the first place. The vast majority of books, movies, television news reports, legislation, etc. that aim to tackle the problem of youth on youth violence and harassment (euphemistically termed "bullying") do little to solve the problem and sometimes even do a fair amount to make it worse. This is primarily because these "solutions" fail to take into account the structural forces which conspire to put youth into oppressive situations which they cannot choose to walk away from. Almost all adults have found themselves in a situation where they experienced alienation and unhappiness with the people around them whether it be at a university, a job, a place of worship, a community organization, or even an entire town. The reason that this sort of thing rarely drives adults to take their own lives or to resort to violence against others is not primarily because adults are more mature than youth are - it is that adults are more or less free to leave these situations and move on to one they are happier about. So "anti-bullying" programs which do not seek to ameliorate the lot of students by giving them greater control over their educational environment do little to actually address the problem.
Another prime example of this phenomenon is how the issue of LGBT youth homelessness is framed, particularly within the context of the LGBT community. When LGBT people and their supporters speak about the tragedy of youth who are homeless due to rejection by their families on the basis of their sexuality and/or gender identity, the villain is always spoken of the in the vaguest possible terms. It's "homophobia" or "religious fundamentalism" or simply the fact that the young person's parents are bad. All of this is true, but it does little to address the problem of LGBT youth homelessness itself. There will unfortunately always be homophobes and religious fanatics among us. Hopefully there will be fewer of them in the future, but they are unlikely to become extinct any time soon. The reason that LGBT youth are in such a vulnerable position is not simply that many of them have parents who are bigots and fools. That is also true of plenty of LGBT adults who seem to do just fine for themselves. It is because of the legal, political, social, cultural, and economic forces which conspire to make young people without an adult patron essentially helpless in our society. There are almost no jobs where a young person without a diploma can earn a decent living. There are few social services that she is able to access on her own. Due to her age, she may not be legally allowed to sign the paperwork necessary to rent an apartment even in the very unlikely event that she comes into enough money to afford one. It is the evil of ageism even more than the evil of homophobia which works to incapacitate homeless LGBT youth and keep them in a dire situation. And what is worse, focusing solely on homophobia while ignoring institutionalized ageism virtually assures that the problem will never go away.
Ask yourself if the discourse in play revolves around essentialist notions about young people. Statements about the supposedly immutable, universal, and and essentialist characteristics that youth of a certain age possess are nearly everywhere in our society. They are so taken for granted in our culture that most people rarely if ever question them and will go so far as to label any deviation from these stereotypes as pathological - a child is "socially stunted" or "extremely gifted" for example. On the other hand, we take for granted that there is a great deal of variation when it comes to say, twenty-five-year-olds. Some are ready to have children of their own; some are not. Some are seasoned professionals in their chosen field; some are not. We don't pathologize these differences - we recognize them as a part of human diversity. We should apply this same attitude to youth and we should be highly skeptical in those instances where we see that it is not being applied. (For a great analysis of this phenomenon by a radical young person, check out this blog post.)
Asking yourself these three questions is by no means all that it takes to analyze a discourse through a youth rights lens. For most of us interested in these issues - those of us who have read, researched, talked, and thought a lot about them - asking ourselves these questions is not something that we do intentionally when we hear someone make a comment about their children or watch a sitcom where youth are featured. It is rather akin to an automatic reflex. When you begin thinking about youth rights issues and using youth rights as a lens through which to analyze issues affecting young people, you will find that the opportunities to do so are endless. You will also find that most discourses centering on youth would make a lot more sense and do a lot more good if youth rights was a part of the average person's frame of reference.
First, ask yourself how young people are being framed in a given context. Are they portrayed as delinquent troublemakers up to no good? As helpless victims in need of adult guidance and supervision? As autonomous human beings with their own beliefs, values, and personality? Do youth speak for themselves or are others (parents, teachers, experts, etc.) primarily speaking for them? Are we being led to give the things young people say about themselves credence or are we being led to disregard their perspectives in favor of what someone older has to say ostensibly on their behalf? Documentaries in which adults speak about children without allowing children to speak for themselves in a way the viewer is led to believe are just as credible as adult viewpoints are an example of a problematic framing of youth in the media.
Ask yourself if the solutions being proposed to deal with problems affecting youth deal with the systemic forces that endanger youth by depriving them of autonomy or if they simply reinscribe the adult supremacist logic which creates many of these problems in the first place. The vast majority of books, movies, television news reports, legislation, etc. that aim to tackle the problem of youth on youth violence and harassment (euphemistically termed "bullying") do little to solve the problem and sometimes even do a fair amount to make it worse. This is primarily because these "solutions" fail to take into account the structural forces which conspire to put youth into oppressive situations which they cannot choose to walk away from. Almost all adults have found themselves in a situation where they experienced alienation and unhappiness with the people around them whether it be at a university, a job, a place of worship, a community organization, or even an entire town. The reason that this sort of thing rarely drives adults to take their own lives or to resort to violence against others is not primarily because adults are more mature than youth are - it is that adults are more or less free to leave these situations and move on to one they are happier about. So "anti-bullying" programs which do not seek to ameliorate the lot of students by giving them greater control over their educational environment do little to actually address the problem.
Another prime example of this phenomenon is how the issue of LGBT youth homelessness is framed, particularly within the context of the LGBT community. When LGBT people and their supporters speak about the tragedy of youth who are homeless due to rejection by their families on the basis of their sexuality and/or gender identity, the villain is always spoken of the in the vaguest possible terms. It's "homophobia" or "religious fundamentalism" or simply the fact that the young person's parents are bad. All of this is true, but it does little to address the problem of LGBT youth homelessness itself. There will unfortunately always be homophobes and religious fanatics among us. Hopefully there will be fewer of them in the future, but they are unlikely to become extinct any time soon. The reason that LGBT youth are in such a vulnerable position is not simply that many of them have parents who are bigots and fools. That is also true of plenty of LGBT adults who seem to do just fine for themselves. It is because of the legal, political, social, cultural, and economic forces which conspire to make young people without an adult patron essentially helpless in our society. There are almost no jobs where a young person without a diploma can earn a decent living. There are few social services that she is able to access on her own. Due to her age, she may not be legally allowed to sign the paperwork necessary to rent an apartment even in the very unlikely event that she comes into enough money to afford one. It is the evil of ageism even more than the evil of homophobia which works to incapacitate homeless LGBT youth and keep them in a dire situation. And what is worse, focusing solely on homophobia while ignoring institutionalized ageism virtually assures that the problem will never go away.
Ask yourself if the discourse in play revolves around essentialist notions about young people. Statements about the supposedly immutable, universal, and and essentialist characteristics that youth of a certain age possess are nearly everywhere in our society. They are so taken for granted in our culture that most people rarely if ever question them and will go so far as to label any deviation from these stereotypes as pathological - a child is "socially stunted" or "extremely gifted" for example. On the other hand, we take for granted that there is a great deal of variation when it comes to say, twenty-five-year-olds. Some are ready to have children of their own; some are not. Some are seasoned professionals in their chosen field; some are not. We don't pathologize these differences - we recognize them as a part of human diversity. We should apply this same attitude to youth and we should be highly skeptical in those instances where we see that it is not being applied. (For a great analysis of this phenomenon by a radical young person, check out this blog post.)
Asking yourself these three questions is by no means all that it takes to analyze a discourse through a youth rights lens. For most of us interested in these issues - those of us who have read, researched, talked, and thought a lot about them - asking ourselves these questions is not something that we do intentionally when we hear someone make a comment about their children or watch a sitcom where youth are featured. It is rather akin to an automatic reflex. When you begin thinking about youth rights issues and using youth rights as a lens through which to analyze issues affecting young people, you will find that the opportunities to do so are endless. You will also find that most discourses centering on youth would make a lot more sense and do a lot more good if youth rights was a part of the average person's frame of reference.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Youth Rights 101: Why I Focus on Youth (Hint: They're Our Society's Most Oppressed Subject Class)
Some people may wonder why I focus so disproportionately on youth issues. After all, young people are not the only people oppressed, either collectively or individually, in our society. Structural forces and individual prejudices often conspire to keep women and people of color from being as successful as many white males. Heterosexism is still inscribed into our nation's law codes and animates the belief systems of many people. The situation of disabled and elderly Americans bears many similarities to that of youth (albeit with some key differences). People of size are increasingly scapegoated under the guise of a "war on obesity" that conveniently doubles as a war on them. Rural people are oppressed both by the condescending attitudes of non-rural people and the very geographic realities of rurality. The poor economy is an increasingly oppressive force in the lives of more and more Americans, including those who would have once been known as middle class or even wealthy. And individuals of all demographic groups are oppressed by the military, medical, and prison industrial complexes as well as social mores which prize conformity over critical thinking and individuality. So why focus on youth?
I focus on youth because minors are the only group of individuals in our society that almost everyone - left or right, religious or secular, educated or ignorant, authoritarian or libertarian - is openly comfortable treating as a subject class. Youth are the only group of people in the United States for whom there is widespread consensus that segregating them from the rest of society, denying them legal rights, keeping them economically dependent, and turning arbitrary authority for them over to other people is not a necessary evil but the best possible way we individually and collectively can hope to relate to them. I focus on youth because the ills of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, sizeism, rural oppression, poverty, and the military, medical, and prison industrial complexes are complicated and exacerbated by the status of minority. I focus on youth oppression because it is taken for granted and therefore invisible despite its ubiquity.
I focus on youth because the critical theoretical eye that has problematized the idea of biologically essentialist gender roles and racial identities has not problematized much of the ageist pseudoscience surrounding discourses about child development. I focus on youth because those who decry the warehousing of our elders and people with disabilities in nursing homes and assisted living facilities do not draw parallels with the warehousing of our youth in schools and other institutions. I focus on youth because most libertarians see no contradiction in talking about arbitrary and oppressive state power on the one hand and using the phrase "parents' rights" on the other. I talk about youth because a commitment to human liberty and social justice demands youth liberation and those who claim to support human liberty and social justice rarely acknowledge this. I focus on youth because there is a more organized effort in our society to extend liberty and dignity to animals than to human children. I focus on youth because ageism is one of the greatest unexamined black marks on American society in the early twenty-first century. I focus on youth because if I don't few people will. And as long as all of these things are true I am a radical youth liberation supporter first, last, and always.
I focus on youth because minors are the only group of individuals in our society that almost everyone - left or right, religious or secular, educated or ignorant, authoritarian or libertarian - is openly comfortable treating as a subject class. Youth are the only group of people in the United States for whom there is widespread consensus that segregating them from the rest of society, denying them legal rights, keeping them economically dependent, and turning arbitrary authority for them over to other people is not a necessary evil but the best possible way we individually and collectively can hope to relate to them. I focus on youth because the ills of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, sizeism, rural oppression, poverty, and the military, medical, and prison industrial complexes are complicated and exacerbated by the status of minority. I focus on youth oppression because it is taken for granted and therefore invisible despite its ubiquity.
I focus on youth because the critical theoretical eye that has problematized the idea of biologically essentialist gender roles and racial identities has not problematized much of the ageist pseudoscience surrounding discourses about child development. I focus on youth because those who decry the warehousing of our elders and people with disabilities in nursing homes and assisted living facilities do not draw parallels with the warehousing of our youth in schools and other institutions. I focus on youth because most libertarians see no contradiction in talking about arbitrary and oppressive state power on the one hand and using the phrase "parents' rights" on the other. I talk about youth because a commitment to human liberty and social justice demands youth liberation and those who claim to support human liberty and social justice rarely acknowledge this. I focus on youth because there is a more organized effort in our society to extend liberty and dignity to animals than to human children. I focus on youth because ageism is one of the greatest unexamined black marks on American society in the early twenty-first century. I focus on youth because if I don't few people will. And as long as all of these things are true I am a radical youth liberation supporter first, last, and always.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Youth Rights 101: What Is Ageism?
Youth rights supporters talk a lot about ageism as it pertains to young people. Ageism affects the elderly as well (sometimes in similar ways, sometimes in different ways). Ageism, like all other prejudices, doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is gendered, it is sexed, it is raced, it is classed, and it is experienced differently by people according to body size, disability, and physical appearance. It manifests in different ways depending on the cultural context of an individual's community (i.e. ageism looks different in India than in the United States; it looks different for a rural Southern youth than it does for one in New York City). However, ageism is a universal feature in the lives of young people because it is systemic and institutional. It is also a nearly universal feature of most individuals' conception of the world in most societies. But what is ageism? How do we know it when we see it? How do we name it when we experience it? How can we identify ageism so that we can take steps to purge ourselves of its influence on our words and actions?
Ageism, like almost all other prejudices, manifests itself in different ways. Much as there are
different ways to be sexist, racist, ableist, classist, sizeist, and heterosexist, so
there are various ways to be ageist. Much as racism or sexism, to take the most
familiar examples, are not just one thing but many things and may manifest in
different ways in different contexts, so ageism has many dimensions. These
types of ageism may overlap with one another in places but they are all
distinct enough phenomena to deserve mention. For the purposes of this post I
will only focus on the ways in which these types of ageism affect young people
but many and possibly all of them could be applied to senior citizens as well.
·
Normative ageism – Normative ageism is
perhaps the simplest kind of ageism to understand. It is much like garden
variety sexism and racism in its manifestations. It is simply the assertion
that individual capabilities, interests, strengths, weaknesses, and the ability
to exercise rights is tied in an uncomplicated way to age. Generalizations
about “all teenagers” or “typical children” as well as statements prescribing
normative behavior solely on the basis of age (i.e. “preventing teen
pregnancy,” “stopping underage drinking,” etc.) fall into this category.
·
Cultural ageism – Cultural ageism involves
the attitudes taken by members of one generation towards another generation
which devalue their mores, technology, pastimes, entertainment, etc. only because it is different than that
which the previous generation is used to. Instead of judging generational
differences based upon universalizable values and/or standards of quality
(which can be a healthy hedge against relativism) cultural ageism judges one
generation by the standards of another in such a way that the one being judged
always comes up wanting. Examples of cultural ageism include complaints by
older people about the popularity of video games or the common trope that young
people today are too sexually promiscuous. Another side of cultural ageism can
involve valuing the pastimes typically associated with younger people less than
those typically associated with older people simply because the pastimes of
older people are deemed more respectable and mature. For instance, taking a
middle-aged man’s collection of stamps more seriously than a child’s collection
of toy cars could be a form of cultural ageism.
·
Paternalistic ageism – Paternalistic
ageism is the idea that minors (and sometimes even young adults who have
outlived minority status) require older adults to make choices for them and to
dictate their actions because, the thinking goes, they are too immature to
exercise their own judgment and their autonomy is not worth respecting. Laws
and practices forbidding people under a certain age from choosing their own
home environment, watching “too much” television, fraternizing with the
individuals of their choice, and choosing what academic subjects to pursue are
examples of paternalistic ageism.
·
Pedophobic/ephebophobic ageism –
Pedophobic ageism denotes a fear and hatred of children while ephebophobic
ageism denotes a fear and hatred of adolescents. These types of ageism
encompass the ideas that young people are perpetual troublemakers, dangers to
their communities, always up to no good, and a burden on their teachers,
parents, law enforcement officials, and the rest of their communities. The
ideas that teenage hormones are out of control, that gang violence perpetuated
by youth is a constant menace to all communities, that young people dress too
provocatively, that small children are unruly and in need of constant
supervision no matter what their behavior suggests, and that utilizing any
means necessary to control and instill obedience in youth is a worthy goal are
common manifestations of pedophobic and/or ephebophobic ageism. Perhaps the
most pointed and notorious example of ephebophobic ageism is the existence of
“troubled teen” residential facilities (also known as gulag schools, torture
schools, behavior modification facilities, and youth residential programs).
Young people sent to these facilities are generally subject to extreme
psychological and physical abuse directed towards them with the intention of
making them more obedient and amenable to adult authority. The ideology driving
these programs is that of youth as dangerous miscreants who must be turned
around and made to respect adult authority by any means necessary.
·
Economic ageism – Economic ageism refers
to the myriad ways in which young people are discriminated against in the labor
market and in terms of government assistance. Economic ageism affects minors
but also those in their twenties and sometimes even those in their thirties.
Economic ageism is a complex phenomenon which is worth discussing in far more detail than I can cover in a post of this nature. However, it is worth pointing out some
key examples here. The prevalence of unpaid internships for young people as a
substitute for meaningful employment, the skyrocketing costs of college
tuition, laws forbidding individuals under a certain age from working, laws
keeping young people from controlling the money they earn, and the push for
more and more formal education in order to break into the middle class are all
examples of economic ageism.
·
Scientific ageism – Scientific ageism
denotes the ways that biology, psychology, and psychiatry are used to perpetuate
ageism. For example, studies on the “adolescent brain” which perpetuate
stereotypes about teenagers as being impulsive, foolish, and immature are a
form of scientific ageism. Research on the “developmental stages of children” also often fall
into this category, as does much of the social panic surrounding the contested
idea that young people are reaching puberty earlier than before and that this
is necessarily harmful as it supposedly causes them to mature beyond what is
“appropriate” for their years. Psychiatric diagnoses which seek to pathologize
the behavior of young people (i.e. attention deficit disorder, oppositional
defiant disorder, etc.) are examples of scientific ageism as is the currently
faddish obsession with childhood obesity. Scientific ageism uses the discourses
of science to legitimate a political project aimed at denying young people
their civil and human rights. This has precedent in the ways in which scientific discourses have been used to provide justification for sexism, racism, heterosexism, sizeism, classism, and ableism (issues discussed in more detail in this post).
·
Puritanical ageism – Puritanical ageism
is often (although not exclusively) religious in nature and its chief aim is
preventing young people from engaging in the use of intoxicating substances,
having consensual sexual experiences, or consuming media with violent, sexual,
or other controversial themes. Recently, with the new obsession with childhood
obesity, puritanical ageism has expanded to encompass a concern with what foods
young people choose to eat. Puritanical ageism is a phenomenon of both the left and the right.
·
Sentimental ageism – Sentimental ageism
is sometimes marked by the overly romantic ways in which many adults view
youth. Children are seen as innocent, sensitive, closer to God and nature than
adults, pure, asexual, and cute. Sentimental ageists often tend to view
children as less complex than other people and to see them as fundamentally
“other.” Sentimental ageism is harmful in large part because it involves
discounting the actual thoughts and feelings of actual children in favor of an
idealized version of children and childhood. Sentimental ageism of this variety
is not as commonly directed at adolescents. However, it sometimes manifests in
the sentiments of adults who find teenagers to be necessarily more creative,
playful, and able to learn than older people. Sentimental ageism is also
operating any time someone refers to childhood as “a golden age” or “a carefree
time” or to adolescence as “the best years of one’s life.” In addition to the
utter falsity of these statements – as evidenced by the fact that many
individuals are quick to acknowledge that their youth was not among the best
years of their lives – such statements serve the purpose of delegitimizing
youth oppression and trivializing the concerns of young people. Sentimental
ageism of this sort is perhaps the most pernicious variety of ageism because it
generally serves as an excuse for not acknowledging young people as an
oppressed class due to the logic that children and teenagers are on the whole
content with their lot and that the double standard actually serves their
happiness.
·
Personal ageism – Personal ageism
denotes an attitude held at the individual level which places more value on
relationships with and opinions held by older people than those held by younger
people. It can manifest outside of the family by ignoring or negating the
contributions of younger people in a variety of business, educational, and
volunteer settings. It can also involve a refusal to form friendships based on
equality and mutual respect with younger people. It can manifest within the
family when family members take the preferences of older family members more
seriously than they do the preferences of younger family members. Personal
ageism involves the attitude that the only proper relationship between a minor
and an older person is that between an authority figure and a subordinate or
between a mentor and a mentee. It precludes the possibility of genuine respect
and reciprocity across generational lines.
·
Institutional ageism – Institutional
ageism refers to the ways in which educational, legal, familial, religious,
political, social, cultural, medical, economic, and other entities discriminate
against young people on the institutional level. The status of minority,
guardianship, compulsory schooling, the juvenile justice system, status offenses, legal age
restrictions, and behavior modification facilities are all manifestations of
institutional ageism.
Ageism is a complicated phenomenon and these are just a few of the most common ways in which it manifests. However, when you see these types of ageism in action you can rest assured that ageism is indeed the phenomenon that you are observing.
What do you think? Are there other examples of ageism you can think of? How do various forms of ageism work to legitimate the oppression of youth? I can't wait to hear your observations in the comment section!
Monday, July 9, 2012
No One Has All the Answers But At Least We're Asking the Right Questions
When one chooses to publicly identify with a cause that most people do not support or even have much understanding of, she will find that others frequently begin asking her where exactly the borders of her philosophy are and on what side she would come down concerning various complicated hypothetical situations. This is frustrating to youth rights supporters because none of us have ever claimed that we have all the answers about anything. To paraphrase Richard Farson, it is impossible to be a truly great parent in a society fundamentally organized against youth and parenting, like all other human relationships, is a dilemma to be lived as opposed to a problem to be solved. While youth rights supporters can propose many more concrete solutions in the realm of politics, economics, and the law than in the realm of intergenerational relations, there are still controversial issues which pose a challenge to youth rights theory and call into questions the limits of support for youth liberation. This is true of all ideologies and belief systems (think of the hand wringing within the feminist movement about how the movement should handle the issue of sex selective abortion). It in no way fundamentally discredits youth rights as a philosophy or a movement. So while none of us has all the answers, what I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt, what all of us know as youth rights supporters, is that almost no one outside of our movement is even asking the right questions about the ways our society has chosen to relate to young people.
Every major framework that our society uses to understand young people is deeply flawed. These frameworks may have some redeeming features, but they are fundamentally beyond reform. This is because what all of these frames share in common is the idea that children and adolescents are passive entities who exist in any meaningful sense only in relation to the adults in their lives. Whether they are there for adults to "educate" or "protect" or "punish" or "control", they are not perceived as autonomous agents in their own lives and interpersonal relationships. They are always painted as profoundly other. Where almost all adults are concerned, things are done to and for youth, rarely done with youth, and never done by youth (unless they are teenagers and they are doing drugs or playing hooky from school or engaging in sexual activities that adults disapprove of, in which case they are a social problem to be pathologized and controlled and this goes double for female youth, poor youth, and youth of color).
What does this have to do with the kind of questions that most adults are prone to asking about youth as opposed to the questions that youth rights supporters of all ages ask about youth issues? Well, the frame through which we analyze an issue greatly affects the type of questions we will ask regarding that issue. Thanks to the LGBT rights movement, the frame for dealing with LGBT people has gone from "How do we cure homosexuality, transsexualism, and bisexuality?" to "How do we support individuals with minority sexualities and gender identities?" There are plenty of similar parallels in other movement histories and you are probably thinking of some right now as you read this.
One of the most striking examples of this dichotomy is within the realm of mainstream education policy discourse. The questions that experts in the field primarily ask treat students in the K-12 school system as the absent referent in a policy discussion which one would think would center their voices, concerns, and lived experiences. However, this is the exact opposite of how most discourses in education policy deal with young people. Very little critical analysis is paid to the effect of zero tolerance policies, the lack of due process, and other forms of oppression faced by almost all youth within American schools. (You can read more of my work on student rights here.) Very seldom do those in the education policy world ask themselves how teachers, administrators, and others can help students to learn the information that is most relevant to them in a setting that feels comfortable to them. Instead all of the questions asked are about how to raise test scores, how to handle "disciplinary problems," and how to get parents (never the students themselves) more involved in determining the direction of the student's education.
Another example of this phenomenon at work is in the realm of the sensationalized treatment of the "school bullying" issue. Now, were the behavior many "bullies" direct at young people directed at adults it would be termed "assault" or "battery" or "harassment" and so the term itself is infantilizing. Additionally, the frames proposed by adults (and some youth) to deal with the problem of school harassment and violence overlook the structural features of the environment which create the problem in the first place. Youth on youth harassment and violence within the K-12 school system is systemic. It is not an outgrowth of normal child development or supposed adolescent immaturity. It is an attempt by members of a subject class to exert control within the context of a deeply oppressive environment. If you put most adults into a situation they did not choose to be in, with people they did not choose to be with, doing things they did not choose to do, with no due process rights, without a financial incentive in the foreseeable future, with authority figures they had to constantly grovel before in order to gain permission to eat, drink, use the restroom, or get up from their desks, I would be shocked if their behavior was much better than that of many youth within our school system. There is a simple solution to youth on youth harassment and violence within our schools. It is to make our schools less oppressive and restrictive and to allow students a choice in the matter of whether or not they go to school and where they go if they do choose to attend. It involves doing this in a way that is sensitive to the unique needs of poor, rural, inner city, disabled, LGBT, and other marginalized youth. It would be quite an undertaking, but it would solve the problem in time. Instead politicians, principals, parents, and even some youth propose hokey school assemblies on why it's wrong to make fun of people in wheelchairs or why reaching out to those who are left out of the popular clique is the right thing to do. While this is ineffective, it is rarely very harmful. However many people concerned with this issue actually make the situation worse by proposing zero tolerance policies against "bullying" that are so vague that they penalize youth acting in self defense, make the schools more oppressive and dangerous places to be, and strip students of even more due process rights. Confronting the problem of youth on youth harassment and violence requires a radical paradigm shift that most parents and teachers are uncomfortable with so they fall back on "solutions" which reinscribe the oppressive circumstances they were ostensibly set up to ameliorate. Hence adults ask how to force students to by nicer to one another as opposed to asking why adults are forcing students to be around people they don't want to be nice to in the first place.
So as you can see, youth rights supporters don't have all the answers to problems affecting young people in our society (although we have come up with some fairly good ones). What we are doing is the difficult work of deconstructing ageist paradigms which lead us to make unwise assumptions about youth and to make harmful decisions on their behalf.
Every major framework that our society uses to understand young people is deeply flawed. These frameworks may have some redeeming features, but they are fundamentally beyond reform. This is because what all of these frames share in common is the idea that children and adolescents are passive entities who exist in any meaningful sense only in relation to the adults in their lives. Whether they are there for adults to "educate" or "protect" or "punish" or "control", they are not perceived as autonomous agents in their own lives and interpersonal relationships. They are always painted as profoundly other. Where almost all adults are concerned, things are done to and for youth, rarely done with youth, and never done by youth (unless they are teenagers and they are doing drugs or playing hooky from school or engaging in sexual activities that adults disapprove of, in which case they are a social problem to be pathologized and controlled and this goes double for female youth, poor youth, and youth of color).
What does this have to do with the kind of questions that most adults are prone to asking about youth as opposed to the questions that youth rights supporters of all ages ask about youth issues? Well, the frame through which we analyze an issue greatly affects the type of questions we will ask regarding that issue. Thanks to the LGBT rights movement, the frame for dealing with LGBT people has gone from "How do we cure homosexuality, transsexualism, and bisexuality?" to "How do we support individuals with minority sexualities and gender identities?" There are plenty of similar parallels in other movement histories and you are probably thinking of some right now as you read this.
One of the most striking examples of this dichotomy is within the realm of mainstream education policy discourse. The questions that experts in the field primarily ask treat students in the K-12 school system as the absent referent in a policy discussion which one would think would center their voices, concerns, and lived experiences. However, this is the exact opposite of how most discourses in education policy deal with young people. Very little critical analysis is paid to the effect of zero tolerance policies, the lack of due process, and other forms of oppression faced by almost all youth within American schools. (You can read more of my work on student rights here.) Very seldom do those in the education policy world ask themselves how teachers, administrators, and others can help students to learn the information that is most relevant to them in a setting that feels comfortable to them. Instead all of the questions asked are about how to raise test scores, how to handle "disciplinary problems," and how to get parents (never the students themselves) more involved in determining the direction of the student's education.
Another example of this phenomenon at work is in the realm of the sensationalized treatment of the "school bullying" issue. Now, were the behavior many "bullies" direct at young people directed at adults it would be termed "assault" or "battery" or "harassment" and so the term itself is infantilizing. Additionally, the frames proposed by adults (and some youth) to deal with the problem of school harassment and violence overlook the structural features of the environment which create the problem in the first place. Youth on youth harassment and violence within the K-12 school system is systemic. It is not an outgrowth of normal child development or supposed adolescent immaturity. It is an attempt by members of a subject class to exert control within the context of a deeply oppressive environment. If you put most adults into a situation they did not choose to be in, with people they did not choose to be with, doing things they did not choose to do, with no due process rights, without a financial incentive in the foreseeable future, with authority figures they had to constantly grovel before in order to gain permission to eat, drink, use the restroom, or get up from their desks, I would be shocked if their behavior was much better than that of many youth within our school system. There is a simple solution to youth on youth harassment and violence within our schools. It is to make our schools less oppressive and restrictive and to allow students a choice in the matter of whether or not they go to school and where they go if they do choose to attend. It involves doing this in a way that is sensitive to the unique needs of poor, rural, inner city, disabled, LGBT, and other marginalized youth. It would be quite an undertaking, but it would solve the problem in time. Instead politicians, principals, parents, and even some youth propose hokey school assemblies on why it's wrong to make fun of people in wheelchairs or why reaching out to those who are left out of the popular clique is the right thing to do. While this is ineffective, it is rarely very harmful. However many people concerned with this issue actually make the situation worse by proposing zero tolerance policies against "bullying" that are so vague that they penalize youth acting in self defense, make the schools more oppressive and dangerous places to be, and strip students of even more due process rights. Confronting the problem of youth on youth harassment and violence requires a radical paradigm shift that most parents and teachers are uncomfortable with so they fall back on "solutions" which reinscribe the oppressive circumstances they were ostensibly set up to ameliorate. Hence adults ask how to force students to by nicer to one another as opposed to asking why adults are forcing students to be around people they don't want to be nice to in the first place.
So as you can see, youth rights supporters don't have all the answers to problems affecting young people in our society (although we have come up with some fairly good ones). What we are doing is the difficult work of deconstructing ageist paradigms which lead us to make unwise assumptions about youth and to make harmful decisions on their behalf.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The Roundup
This is a new regular feature that will highlight recent content (and sometimes content I've just recently discovered that might be older) from around the web that has a youth rights angle.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the following posts may or may not reflect my own views in whole or in part. My views may or may not in whole or in part reflect the views of the authors whose work is presented below.
Now let's get to the roundup!
This piece in Politico by youth rights intellectual Mike Males offers a wonderful critique of the recent Supreme Court decisions Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.
Good news about internet privacy for students in Delaware.
Strong words from a millennial about the oppressive social and economic circumstances faced by members of her generation.
A great example of the way in which anti-drug hysteria and ageism collide to endanger youth.
Hooray for strong, capable six-year-olds.
A German court does the right thing by defending youths' right to bodily autonomy.
A piece detailing some of the horrific ways parents violate their children's privacy by using new technology.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the following posts may or may not reflect my own views in whole or in part. My views may or may not in whole or in part reflect the views of the authors whose work is presented below.
Now let's get to the roundup!
This piece in Politico by youth rights intellectual Mike Males offers a wonderful critique of the recent Supreme Court decisions Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.
Good news about internet privacy for students in Delaware.
Strong words from a millennial about the oppressive social and economic circumstances faced by members of her generation.
A great example of the way in which anti-drug hysteria and ageism collide to endanger youth.
Hooray for strong, capable six-year-olds.
A German court does the right thing by defending youths' right to bodily autonomy.
A piece detailing some of the horrific ways parents violate their children's privacy by using new technology.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Ageism: A Pillar of Ableism
Disability rights advocates have long sought greater rights and autonomy for all people with disabilities, including individuals with cognitive and communication impairments. They have challenged our entire society, especially the institutions set up by the non-disabled to manage people with disabilities, to view disabled persons as being as deserving of autonomy and dignity as everyone else no matter what mental or physical limitations or differences they may possess. In doing so they have not only greatly improved the lives of disabled people, they have also laid the theoretical groundwork for a compelling defense of youth liberation.
Disability is a complicated issue. There are various types of disabilities and there are various frameworks for understanding the rights of disabled people and even disability itself. However, every serious advocate of disability rights will agree that centering the autonomy of disabled people is important and that all too many people believe that an inability on the part of disabled people to function according to the standards of non-disabled individuals justifies their lifelong infantilization. Of course, the reason that many people feel comfortable with denying rights and autonomy to persons with disabilities on these grounds is that we already have a widespread precedent within our society of using this as a pretense to deny rights and autonomy to children.
The implicit assumption behind the actions and belief system of every judge that casually turns over guardianship of a person with cognitive disabilities to another adult, of every parent who believes they have an undisputed right to make medical decisions for a disabled adult son or daughter, and of every legislator who defends the corralling of disabled individuals into oppressive and even abusive institutional settings are not only ableist (although they are that). They are also profoundly ageist.
The way our society treats minors has set the precedent for what we believe is the ideal way to relate to those whom we perceive (rightly or wrongly) as lacking the capacities of the average adult human being. We deny them bodily autonomy. We ignore their needs and preferences in the realm of education. We segregate them in various institutions where they are rarely permitted to interact in a meaningful way with the rest of the world. We deny them the right to their sexuality, either alone or partnered. We turn their decision-making authority over to various institutions and family members without asking them what they prefer in the matters which affect them most. We deny them opportunities for meaningful work. Finally, we expect them to react with gratitude for the nearly endless oppression they live under because first and foremost we view them as a burden who should feel fortunate that anyone wishes to fool with them at all. No wonder so many people believe that relating to disabled individuals this way is the best that can be done for them. It is the only way our society believes that we can relate to minors. Thus nearly universal acceptance of the oppression of youth opens the door to tolerance and even admiration of the oppression of disabled people of all ages. Of course, no one calls it oppression even though by any reasonable definition it is.
It is important for disability rights advocates to recognize the link between youth and disability oppression. Ageism does much of ableism's heavy lifting and it is important to recognize that in order to combat the pernicious influence that ableism plays in the lives of disabled individuals. It is also important for youth rights advocates to recognize that support for youth liberation logically necessitates support for the disability rights movement. Allowing anyone in our society to be denied liberty, justice, and equality sets a precedent whereby doing this to any other group of individuals becomes much more widely accepted. We best protect youth and people with disabilities when we protect their rights and not when we pretend to protect them from themselves.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Why People That Ought to Know Better Condone Youth Oppression
As a youth rights supporter, one notices that many otherwise intelligent, right-thinking people are deeply and often casually ageist. While sometimes this is couched in quite possibly sincere concern for youth well-being (however problematic that may be) much of it actually expresses open hostility towards children and older youth. Many wise people who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered radical youth liberationists have said that you can tell a lot about the character of a person or a society by how they treat children. What one quickly realizes is that for all of our talk of liberty, justice, and equality, most Americans are still quick to mistreat those with no social, political, economic, or legal power simply because they can.
The reasons for ageism towards youth are nonetheless more complex than simply noting that power and privilege corrupt adults. Refusing to acknowledge ageism serves many practical and psychological purposes for adults. In this post I am going to explore these purposes in more depth in order to help all of us recognize them when we fall into these erroneous patterns of thinking.
First of all, denying young people the full measure of their humanity makes life much easier for the adults tasked with taking care of or otherwise involving themselves with the youth in question. When adults convince themselves that young people don't really know their own minds or are incapable of experiencing meaningful emotions or cannot express concrete preferences about things that matter to them, it makes the job of a parent or teacher or babysitter or nanny much easier. Instead of engaging in the difficult task of helping youth to make wise decisions about the world that take their needs as well as the needs of others into account, this way of thinking allows adults to simply manage young people. In a society as profoundly organized against youth (and to a lesser extent mothers and other people caring for children) it can be profoundly difficult to adequately meet the needs of the very youngest youth in particular. This type of objectification of children is a way for parents, teachers, and others to feel okay about the decisions they are tasked with making on children's' behalf.
Secondly, denying the ways in which ageism oppresses children is a way for most adults to avoid facing the traumas and injustices of their own youths. When one recognizes the extent of the injustice that most of us faced as youth at the hands of teachers, parents, relatives, and other adults it is almost always profoundly distressing. We are forced to recognize that at best some of these individuals were deeply misguided while others were perhaps downright sociopathic. In order to preserve our pristine image of these individuals, we pretend as if our suffering did not matter or that it was even for our own good. Many adults thereby perpetuate the cycle of youth oppression because they refuse to acknowledge that the injustices that affected them when they were younger were indeed injustices that ought not be repeated.
Another reason that many otherwise intelligent, reasonable people believe that ageism is acceptable (while most other types of prejudice are not) has to do with the ways in which the psychiatric, medical, psychological, educational, political, artistic, and legal establishments legitimate ageist attitudes. This is not to make the bizarre claim that these institutions are actively conspiring to oppress youth. It is to say that even the well-educated and successful among us are formed by their social context and thereby usually perpetuate narratives about childhood and adolescence that are taken seriously primarily because they confirm the prejudices of most people in our society. The myth of the "teen brain" (which has been refuted in depth by psychologist Robert Epstein) is just the latest in a long line of attempts to justify the oppression of subject classes with pseudoscience. Today it is primarily fat people and young people whose bodies and minds are deemed deficient as a pretense for denying them rights. In days past (and to a lesser extent today) it has been women, people of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, poor people, and LGBT people. The idea that children are somehow deficient in their reasoning capacities, that children go through distinct developmental stages that are tied in an uncomplicated way to age, and that young people lack the cognitive capacity for self-determination serves a political agenda that makes our society in some ways more convenient for adults to live in with children but less just for children themselves.
So, having seen the fallacies which cause otherwise intelligent, just people to embrace ageism, how do we give up our convenient fictions about young people and embrace a more just social order? Does giving up ageist prejudices mean that the lives of adults will become unlivable? Not at all. The mother who worries herself sick because of the idea that her children need constant supervision, the school teacher who is fed up with playing the role of police officer as much as the role of educator, and the million other adults charged with the task of playing the proverbial judge, jury, and executioner to young people would all be more and not less liberated than they are today under a radical youth rights regime. But in a society in which adults are charged with total responsibility for young people, objectifying and oppressing them makes carrying out this responsibility much more convenient. The current regime which oppresses youth and the adults in their lives is also not a norm that one can unilaterally opt out of, making the current cycle of youth oppression so vicious and difficult to break.
However, whatever our age or relationship to youth, we can begin pushing for a society that is less oppressive for youth, parents, teachers, and everyone else with a stake in the welfare of young people. We can recognize that the impossible choices we are forced to make in our dealings with young people are primarily the consequence of an unsustainable and irrational social order. We can recognize the psychological and practical needs that our prejudices towards youth fulfill and we can then choose not to give in to them. If we are currently (or previously have been) subjected to ageist oppression we can learn to see this as a reflection on our society and not on ourselves. But only by recognizing where the appeal of ageist discourses and beliefs lies can we begin to undo the fabric of ageism and age apartheid.
The reasons for ageism towards youth are nonetheless more complex than simply noting that power and privilege corrupt adults. Refusing to acknowledge ageism serves many practical and psychological purposes for adults. In this post I am going to explore these purposes in more depth in order to help all of us recognize them when we fall into these erroneous patterns of thinking.
First of all, denying young people the full measure of their humanity makes life much easier for the adults tasked with taking care of or otherwise involving themselves with the youth in question. When adults convince themselves that young people don't really know their own minds or are incapable of experiencing meaningful emotions or cannot express concrete preferences about things that matter to them, it makes the job of a parent or teacher or babysitter or nanny much easier. Instead of engaging in the difficult task of helping youth to make wise decisions about the world that take their needs as well as the needs of others into account, this way of thinking allows adults to simply manage young people. In a society as profoundly organized against youth (and to a lesser extent mothers and other people caring for children) it can be profoundly difficult to adequately meet the needs of the very youngest youth in particular. This type of objectification of children is a way for parents, teachers, and others to feel okay about the decisions they are tasked with making on children's' behalf.
Secondly, denying the ways in which ageism oppresses children is a way for most adults to avoid facing the traumas and injustices of their own youths. When one recognizes the extent of the injustice that most of us faced as youth at the hands of teachers, parents, relatives, and other adults it is almost always profoundly distressing. We are forced to recognize that at best some of these individuals were deeply misguided while others were perhaps downright sociopathic. In order to preserve our pristine image of these individuals, we pretend as if our suffering did not matter or that it was even for our own good. Many adults thereby perpetuate the cycle of youth oppression because they refuse to acknowledge that the injustices that affected them when they were younger were indeed injustices that ought not be repeated.
Another reason that many otherwise intelligent, reasonable people believe that ageism is acceptable (while most other types of prejudice are not) has to do with the ways in which the psychiatric, medical, psychological, educational, political, artistic, and legal establishments legitimate ageist attitudes. This is not to make the bizarre claim that these institutions are actively conspiring to oppress youth. It is to say that even the well-educated and successful among us are formed by their social context and thereby usually perpetuate narratives about childhood and adolescence that are taken seriously primarily because they confirm the prejudices of most people in our society. The myth of the "teen brain" (which has been refuted in depth by psychologist Robert Epstein) is just the latest in a long line of attempts to justify the oppression of subject classes with pseudoscience. Today it is primarily fat people and young people whose bodies and minds are deemed deficient as a pretense for denying them rights. In days past (and to a lesser extent today) it has been women, people of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, poor people, and LGBT people. The idea that children are somehow deficient in their reasoning capacities, that children go through distinct developmental stages that are tied in an uncomplicated way to age, and that young people lack the cognitive capacity for self-determination serves a political agenda that makes our society in some ways more convenient for adults to live in with children but less just for children themselves.
So, having seen the fallacies which cause otherwise intelligent, just people to embrace ageism, how do we give up our convenient fictions about young people and embrace a more just social order? Does giving up ageist prejudices mean that the lives of adults will become unlivable? Not at all. The mother who worries herself sick because of the idea that her children need constant supervision, the school teacher who is fed up with playing the role of police officer as much as the role of educator, and the million other adults charged with the task of playing the proverbial judge, jury, and executioner to young people would all be more and not less liberated than they are today under a radical youth rights regime. But in a society in which adults are charged with total responsibility for young people, objectifying and oppressing them makes carrying out this responsibility much more convenient. The current regime which oppresses youth and the adults in their lives is also not a norm that one can unilaterally opt out of, making the current cycle of youth oppression so vicious and difficult to break.
However, whatever our age or relationship to youth, we can begin pushing for a society that is less oppressive for youth, parents, teachers, and everyone else with a stake in the welfare of young people. We can recognize that the impossible choices we are forced to make in our dealings with young people are primarily the consequence of an unsustainable and irrational social order. We can recognize the psychological and practical needs that our prejudices towards youth fulfill and we can then choose not to give in to them. If we are currently (or previously have been) subjected to ageist oppression we can learn to see this as a reflection on our society and not on ourselves. But only by recognizing where the appeal of ageist discourses and beliefs lies can we begin to undo the fabric of ageism and age apartheid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)