Defending the Civil Rights Model
Sven, in his usual kick-ass thoughtfulness, has written up a nice outline/essay about what he feels the limits of thinking of youth rights in terms of ‘civil rights’ and not ‘liberation’. He says:
Since the emergence of modern Youth Liberation thinking in the early 1970s, the movement has largely worked within a “civil rights” model. Winning civil rights is an important part of fighting adultism — but it is only one piece of the picture. Adult oppression also manifests on an interpersonal level, which is difficult (if not impossible) to address by just changing the law.
Organizations that focus on legal struggle are vital to the movement. However, at times they seem to suggest that rights are all that is needed for Youth Liberation. For the well-being of the movement, it’s important that they come to understand the limits of the “civil rights” model.
He then expands upon the main flaws with taking a civil rights approach:
* It ignores the need for good enforcement agencies, educating youth about how to use the complaint process, and defending good laws after they’ve been passed.
* It fails to address bigotry and defamation — which also hurts youth — because it is protected as “free speech”.
* It ignores the history of youth being treated as property and adults’ interest in maintaining the “adults command / youth obey” relationship throughout society.
* …Consequently, it wrongly identifies “youth being treated differently from other citizens” as young people’s main problem, and promotes advice that has little bearing on adultism’s real cause.
* It implies that once rights are won, permanent justice will have been achieved.
Before I begin my defense/critique I must expose some of my underlying assumptions and some of my prime motivators. From day one with my involvement in this movement I have been pragmatic minded, less concerned with theory and more concerned with actually accomplishing something. Were ASFAR to ever unlock the valuable contents of its historic list archives you could see even my earliest e-mails there stressed practical success over ideological purity. Most of my arguments to follow are based on the assumption that going out in the mud and getting that first down on the field is infinitely preferable to having the ultimate fantasy football squad.
I feel Sven defines civil rights too narrowly, and misunderstands the true strategy and objectives of groups like NYRA, and indeed of earlier youth rights figures/groups such as John Holt, Richard Farson and Ann Arbor Youth Liberation. I can’t blame him too much for missing NYRA’s more ‘liberation’ minded aspects, we really don’t phrase things that way much at all. But the ’70’s groups were dripping with it. They all referred to the movement as “youth liberation”, not “youth rights” like the strain that emerged in the late ’90s.
His main contention though is that all of these various groups depend on a Bill of Rights type format, that at some point or another ticks off various rights that youth are denied due to their age that we must change in law. Yes that is our general approach. The idea of a “bill of rights” is ingrained in our culture. It is a dominant ‘metanarrative’ as old as this nation and intertwined with our history.
I think in a practical sense it is important to describe our goals in familiar terms and settings that are instantly understandable by society. We must never lose sight of our real objectives here, and that is the popularization of our ideas. We have to do whatever it takes to make our rather radical ideas accessible to the population as a whole, not just to academics. So using common language and themes to describe our work is essential.
Sven may argue that a good number of people do understand the liberation model, but they are generally all on the hard left. Important allies and important constituents of our movement absolutely, but if we play to them exclusively we will never branch out beyond them. Considering the hard left is a small segment of society, and has been losing power for 30 years now, I think it is wise we think of things in a broader context.
As for the assumption our approach leaves out the problem of unenforced laws and the problem of general disrespect and bigotry against youth that exists outside of the law, that’s not the case at all. These objectives are implicit in our work. You cannot change the law without changing attitudes, the two work hand in hand. Whatever immediate goal or campaign we have should not be seen in isolation from other goals, everything works together. For example when the Civil Rights Movement of the ’50s and ’60s fought against segregation in small towns throughout the South, they weren’t exclusively battling for access to one particular lunch counter, or one specific bus line, they were challenging the entire concept of racism that existed in the north and the south and the east and the west.
By marching in opposition to very limited instances of discrimination at one business in one town in one state in one part of the country they were forcing white (and black) America to reevaluate their personal ideas of African-Americans and racism. To look at their own behavior in their day to day lives and interpersonal interactions and compare themselves to the caricatures of the evil Bull Connors that the Civil Rights Movement fought. By showing dignity in the face of bigotry, love in the face of hatred, peace in the face of violence, they were challenging the assumptions of an entire nation about blacks.
Sensitivity trainings and essays in obscure scholarly journals wouldn’t have accomplished that. They needed real, concrete objectives to challenge. And that’s what we need. Only through actions such as this can a movement grow and build momentum. I say this for two reasons. First is an internal measure of growth. Supporters of a movement need to see victory, even if limited and small scale, to avoid despair. Shouting from the rooftops and distributing thousands of flyers that expose the reality of oppression against youth is far less satisfying that one real, concrete victory in one small spot in the country. Overturning one town’s curfew law builds a movement better than 10,000 well written pamphlets.
With the opposition as massive as the one we face, any victory we achieve gives people hope. Renews their hope that we are doing real good for real people, not just talking about it. Changing laws are not the whole story, you are right, but they are tangible objectives that our members can point to and say “see, we did something. We changed something. We have power, we won.” That’s worth everything in the world.
The second reason is external. To be successful we need to get exposure in the media. The media like action, they like news. Essays and deconstructions aren’t news. The Civil Rights Movement realized this. Whenever they fought some small scale battle in some city in the South they promoted it like crazy and forced the entire country to pay attention, the media responded gladly and reporters followed the movement everywhere they went. If they were just giving empty speeches and not actually accomplishing something (Malcolm X perhaps), then the media is less likely to cover that. We need exposure, they want action, so we give them action.
This all highlights my problems with the liberation model. Its not actionable, its theoretical. Its all “we have to critique this” or “we have to recognize this” or “we have to deconstruct this”, its never “we have to do this.” To be a movement we need to do things. That, I feel, is a benefit of having specific goals and specific laws on the agenda.
Again, that doesn’t mean its what we do exclusively. We do care about enforcement. Heck, NYRA has even had an anti-age discrimination campaign that involved the enforcement of anti-age discrimination laws on businesses that denied access to youth. Its actually how I got my start in youth rights. Did it involve changing laws? No. But civil rights isn’t that narrow. One of our policy papers urges the strict enforcement of anti-ageism laws currently on the books, so its not at all an issue we have overlooked.
Sven raises another main point, that just talking about discrimination doesn’t address the real underlying history and motivations behind ageism. That the oppression of youth is motivated, either consciously or unconsciously by self-interest. Adults benefit by controlling youth. I agree to an extent, but I also disagree. We have two questions to ask though, is it true and does it matter?
I’m not sure it is true. Perhaps, as he said, our perspective is a glass half full one, but I generally give the public the benefit of the doubt that they really do believe they are doing what is in the best interests of youth. Not in all cases, but mostly I think that is the case. I am not yet cynical enough to believe in a grand conspiracy created to keep us down. Perhaps one day I’ll get there.
That doesn’t change of course the reality that they do benefit from youth oppression, but I’m not sure how pointing that out helps us. Like it or not, adults hold exclusive power in this society. We cannot defeat youth oppression without the support or submission of adults. Considering the very limited tools at our disposal to win their submission that leaves us with the ultimate goal of gaining adult support for our cause.
It sucks, believe me, I know.
Doing what Sven suggests and describing adults as self-interested monsters who set out to oppress us for their own benefit only turns away those who we need to convince. The many adults out there who sign on to some of our goals and try to help us in some areas would desert us if we start calling their motivations into question, and accusing them of benefiting from the oppression of youth by virtue of their age.
If this was our perspective how would we have handled Sen. John Vasconcellos out in California? Clearly he wasn’t a bona fide youth liberationist, he even sponsored anti-youth bills in the past. But he was willing to make a big push for youth voting rights that advanced our cause tremendously. I think we should support him for that, grant him the illusion that he is a friend of youth, and focus on the good that can come from it.
Having a perspective, as Sven notes that ageism is a result of a mistaken perspective is more inviting of adult allies. Their beliefs and behavior are called into question, not their existence. So any adult who feels he has shed that mistaken perspective (whether we agree or not) should be welcomed as an ally as far as is reasonable. Does that mean we roll over and refuse to challenge this ally in areas where he/she isn’t kosher? No. But it is far easier to further change their perspective if they already feel they are on our side instead of an outside enemy we point our finger at.
Furthermore to champion the adulthood-as-institution approach leaves us without any clear remedy. If adults by their nature are oppressive, then what, short of finally discovering that damn Fountain of Youth (if anyone has any leads, let me know), can they do to change it? No, we have to stress the idea that ageism is the enemy, not adults. Youth can be ageist, and adults can be pro-youth. We must fight stereotypes and prejudice and welcome allies of all kinds and ages.
Finally:
Youth Liberation’s founding thinkers described their visions of justice in the form of bills of rights. The format seems to suggest that Justice will be achieved only after all the principles that it describes have been passed into law. Once that’s done, Youth Liberation activists will be out a job.
Yes and no. Once again, as I have stated before a civil rights model does not focus exclusively on the law. There are many more changes that need to be made outside of the law, but it’s our work within the law that serves as a vehicle for changing that. So once we have a youth rights society on paper I don’t think it will be time to pat ourselves on the backs and go home. We need to make a youth rights society in people’s hearts and minds.
That of course is a murky line to draw. Some people say that the fight against racism has reached that point; others say we aren’t there yet. Its tough to say. I think we should be wary of lingering on too long past our purpose and attempting to morph our mission into new areas simply for self-preservation. At some point I do hope we will take a graceful bow and exit the scene. At what point we can be satisfied that ageism is really gone or discredited enough not to be a problem? I don’t know. Its a problem I pray to God some day I will face.
So yea, that’s my rebuttal. Not as well organized or crafted as Sven’s essay/outline, but I think I make some good points. And I realize I write really fricken slow, so after two and a half hours working on this damn thing, I’ve run out of steam and can’t muster a decent conclusion to tie it all together. So instead I’ll just abruptly say…
THE END
October 14th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
You summed it up perfectly: Less theory, more football.
October 15th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Thanks.
btw, I have one concrete example of how youth liberation isn’t condusive to action. Since Sven has been writing and publishing all sorts of youth liberation writing and theory I have been doing much less work because I’ve been busy reading, thinking and writing about it all.
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:27 am
Heh. I encourage you to not read the essays if they’re getting in the way, Alex. You’re free to not respond.
…That being said — thanks for the thoughtful and respectful response. Even if we walk away from the table disagreeing, I think we’re both clearer about our positions — which is a good thing, imho.
…Oddly enough, concern for getting things done rather than just daydreaming is one of the reasons that I’ve advocated the oppression/liberation framework. My sense has been that it’s a more action-minded (that is, activism-minded) world-view. However, you’re telling me that you’re actually getting things done — so perhaps I’m just wrong on this account. Happy to be wrong.
In terms of my personal position here — you only see me doing writing right now, not a lot of activism. That’s me, not the framework. I was an every-day-of-the-week activist for almost ten years, working on other issues. I’m not off the hook — but I hit a point where I realized that I never was going to get this writing out of my head if I didn’t take a break (and I really *needed* a break). Writers have a place in the movement too — though, lord, let us be wildly outnumbered by activists.
Actually, I would NOT argue that all that many people know the liberation model — but the ones who do are activists-to-the-core. In terms of a national organization such as NYRA, a “broad appeal” approach does make a lot of sense.
But I don’t think it’s the only approach. If there are groups out there that want to do work based on an oppression/liberation model, I think they can coexist. An organization can attempt to speak in one voice — but a movement will have many. …The contrast can even work to your favor. A Martin Luther King Jr. gathers up more supporters by sounding like the “calm and reasonable” option when you’ve got a Malcolm X scaring people. [Similar dynamics occurred when women were fighting for the vote — but I forget the names involved.]
A movement needs both the people who create a crisis, and the bridge-builders who resolve it. [And it’s hard to do both at the same time.] Without a crisis, it’s easy to ignore youths’ complaints. Without pragmatic bridge-builders, adults whose consciences have been pricked and want to do the right thing ultimately have to write-off youth as impossible to satisfy.
*Sigh…* This was a long-standing conflict in the men against sexism movement, too. Me, I think it’s liberating to see “manhood” as a construct that’s projected onto anatomy. I can refuse to aspire to being “man-like”, and instead aspire to be a human being whom transcends masculine and feminine, mixing and matching, but loyal to neither. That could look like “androgyny”, but there are other strategies too.
With regards to adults and youth, I think it’s similarly exciting to throw away trying to be an adult, and instead focus on being an ageless being. I think this is something worth talking about amongst people who care about YL/YR — it’s useful for youth to be able to imagine a different kind of “adulthood” (a sort of non-adulthood) for when they cross 21 or 25 or 30…
As for alienating adults — choose your battles, of course. I think you can talk about the history of adults treating youth as property and still get adult allies onboard. There’s a way in which you may even get a stronger commitment — because the “I’m not like those bad adults” reaction is pretty violent. …I’ve done workshops — I’ve taken the heat for saying this stuff to people’s faces, and seen the transformation that can take place (if I’m able to calmly weather the initial outrage).
Anyway… Realize that I wrote this essay fragment back in 2003. I don’t think I’d necessarily recant anything — but I confess that “oppression” and “liberation” are a lot less important in my thinking lately. They’re more like a software plug-in now — a useful add-on that you can use if you want to talk with folks from other movements that use that language.
I recognize that “liberation” in particular is a somewhat dated term… When I first started writing (long ago), I only knew how to talk about ageism/adultism in these terms. I’d like to get to the point — and think I have now — where I don’t need to reference these buzzwords at all.
[btw: It takes me a long time to write, too.
]