Comments on: Does Our Movement Lack a Theory? http://oneandfour.org/archives/2008/09/does_our_movement_lack_a_theory.html Alex's Blog Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:59:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Does Our Movement Lack a Theory? by: SciVille http://oneandfour.org/archives/2008/09/does_our_movement_lack_a_theory.html#comment-10755 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:57:05 +0000 http://oneandfour.org/archives/2008/09/does_our_movement_lack_a_theory.html#comment-10755 I haven't delved into any serious philosophy yet, but from what I've noticed in general, everyone seems to have a different idea of youth rights and a different motivation for supporting it. This results in very different ultimate goals and "utopias". Such is to be expected, of course. We're too small a movement to start splitting off based on long-term expectations while the short-term we're more or less of similar mind. But it is true that the short-term is a lot of fixing some bad policies here and there, while any singular goal or even motivation is unclear or scattered in the ideologies of over 9,000 youth rights supporters. Thing is, at this point, what does that matter? That doesn't really hinder us right now, though it pops up in a couple of areas, such as our ultra libertarian types thinking we shouldn't be telling behavior mod facilities not to abuse teens or we shouldn't be telling business not to limit their teen shoppers because, God forbid, anyone says a private business ever does anything wrong. Yet even that hasn't been too much of an issue. So while a concern over a specific youth rights theory is maybe a concern depending on how you look at it, it's not vital when it comes right down to it. At least not now. I haven’t delved into any serious philosophy yet, but from what I’ve noticed in general, everyone seems to have a different idea of youth rights and a different motivation for supporting it. This results in very different ultimate goals and “utopias”. Such is to be expected, of course. We’re too small a movement to start splitting off based on long-term expectations while the short-term we’re more or less of similar mind. But it is true that the short-term is a lot of fixing some bad policies here and there, while any singular goal or even motivation is unclear or scattered in the ideologies of over 9,000 youth rights supporters. Thing is, at this point, what does that matter? That doesn’t really hinder us right now, though it pops up in a couple of areas, such as our ultra libertarian types thinking we shouldn’t be telling behavior mod facilities not to abuse teens or we shouldn’t be telling business not to limit their teen shoppers because, God forbid, anyone says a private business ever does anything wrong. Yet even that hasn’t been too much of an issue. So while a concern over a specific youth rights theory is maybe a concern depending on how you look at it, it’s not vital when it comes right down to it. At least not now.

]]> Comment on Does Our Movement Lack a Theory? by: Adam http://oneandfour.org/archives/2008/09/does_our_movement_lack_a_theory.html#comment-10754 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:43:56 +0000 http://oneandfour.org/archives/2008/09/does_our_movement_lack_a_theory.html#comment-10754 A dilemma here Alex is that the YR "movement" is barely a movement at all, in the traditional sense. Because of that it lacks the cohesiveness necessary to form a basic theory relating to belief, practice, and outcomes. I believe that our collective experiments with the Student Bill of Rights proves this out: with hundreds of contributors come hundreds of opinions. Theory is generally laid down in print. In this movement, the only standardized literature about YR readily available to the 1000s of youth and adults who attach themselves to the movement comes from the NYRA website, and a lot of folks, regardless of their belief in YR, don't lend the credence to Internet publications that they should be given. That leaves people lurching around in the dark looking for any kind of guidance as to how they should philosophically, morally and emotionally frame the debate. That's not all bad: it drives many people towards Males and Holt and Llewellyn and others, and allows them to develop... their own analyses! I would also suggest that it drives more users to interact on NYRA's discussion board - eff knows there are enough conversations on there where people are trying to hack out a theoretical statue from the rough stone. Which in turn serves to differentiate the YR movement from others. Instead of having a top-heavy leadership which compels followers to adhere to a standardized company line, people are allowed and inadvertently encouraged to develop their own thinking and do their own theorization. (Personally, I believed for a long time that this was an extension of your own personal libertarianism.) The challenge of that approach is that in turn, the YR movement will always look nascent, as if it was just born from the womb of the society around it. The rewards of that approach is that it gives the YR movement the ability to appear nimble and responsive to the generation and re-generations that it sees as a constituency. A logical response to this challenge would be to write the YR manifesto that you and I have long plotted. Another would be to shore up NYRA's ability to be agile, and continue to enshrine that in the organizational framework. And that's my 10 cents. Oh, and if you're in a reading mood you should read my reply to Brent's post. A dilemma here Alex is that the YR “movement” is barely a movement at all, in the traditional sense. Because of that it lacks the cohesiveness necessary to form a basic theory relating to belief, practice, and outcomes. I believe that our collective experiments with the Student Bill of Rights proves this out: with hundreds of contributors come hundreds of opinions.

Theory is generally laid down in print. In this movement, the only standardized literature about YR readily available to the 1000s of youth and adults who attach themselves to the movement comes from the NYRA website, and a lot of folks, regardless of their belief in YR, don’t lend the credence to Internet publications that they should be given. That leaves people lurching around in the dark looking for any kind of guidance as to how they should philosophically, morally and emotionally frame the debate. That’s not all bad: it drives many people towards Males and Holt and Llewellyn and others, and allows them to develop… their own analyses! I would also suggest that it drives more users to interact on NYRA’s discussion board - eff knows there are enough conversations on there where people are trying to hack out a theoretical statue from the rough stone.

Which in turn serves to differentiate the YR movement from others. Instead of having a top-heavy leadership which compels followers to adhere to a standardized company line, people are allowed and inadvertently encouraged to develop their own thinking and do their own theorization. (Personally, I believed for a long time that this was an extension of your own personal libertarianism.)

The challenge of that approach is that in turn, the YR movement will always look nascent, as if it was just born from the womb of the society around it. The rewards of that approach is that it gives the YR movement the ability to appear nimble and responsive to the generation and re-generations that it sees as a constituency.

A logical response to this challenge would be to write the YR manifesto that you and I have long plotted. Another would be to shore up NYRA’s ability to be agile, and continue to enshrine that in the organizational framework. And that’s my 10 cents. Oh, and if you’re in a reading mood you should read my reply to Brent’s post.

]]>