…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.

“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. […] Overturning one town’s curfew law builds a movement better than 10,000 well written pamphlets. […] 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.”

…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.

“Sven may argue that a good number of people do understand the liberation model, but they are generally all on the hard left. […] 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.”

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.

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. […] Their beliefs and behavior are called into question, not their existence. […] No, we have to stress the idea that ageism is the enemy, not adults.”

*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. ]

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.