AMERICAN YOUTH AND YOUTH WORK IN THE 1980'S
Charles L. McGehee, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, Washington 98926 U.S.A.
August, 1985
Abstract
American youth of today have particular problems and fears which come
not only from blocked mobility but also fear of downward mobility.
Redistribution of world production and capital has made this a real threat
for the first time in American history. While the world their parents created
in the 1960's made important progress, today's youth have experienced the
consequences of that world and both take it for granted and are disillusioned
with the results. The battles of the past, for the most part, are no longer
relevant for today's youth. Their struggles will be less with social policy
than the search for meaningful jobs, declining natural resources,
environmental pollution, and global economics and international relations
related to maintaining their lifestyle. Although demonstrating and protesting
are not meaningful strategies as in the 1960's. Youth are, for the moment at
least, content to carry out their struggles in the traditional American way,
that is, through the free enterprise system. They have little knowledge or
understanding of world developments.
While youth are not angry, many adults are angry at the loss of
traditional values, independence and self-determination. Because America's
problems are more and more being determined by external events not
subject to internal sentiments, it is likely American youth will come to share
this anger as they grow older.
Youth work in the United States is divided between the private and
public sectors. Groups organizing free-time activities for youth are usually
private. Public schools and community recreation departments are the
primary public agencies offering free-time facilities and activities for youth.
The state is more concerned with controlling and treating deviant behavior
of youth, however, and most state youth work is concerned with combating
delinquency, drug abuse, and the like.
Although delinquency rates have been declining in recent years, public
frustration with youth is increasing and laws are being changed to treat
juvenile offenses more strictly, but also to offer youth more legal protection.
In this regard, youths are increasingly being treated more as adults. Youths
can no longer be arrested or held by the authorities for behavior which
would not be against the law for adults. Running away from home, for
example is no longer an offense, and the state is relatively powerless to deal
with it.
Much experimentation in treating juveniles is taking place, in both
content and form. The state frequently contracts with private agencies to
provide treatment. Private agencies are more flexible and innovative than
state agencies. Their results are not necessarily better than those of state
agencies, but they are usually cheaper.
Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that the courts, the
government, and the "experts" are not effectively dealing with youth. The
result is that parents have become more directly involved in dealing with
problems of youth. Parents are actively working to improve the school
system and to combat drug abuse.
AMERICAN YOUTH AND YOUTH WORK IN THE 1980'S
I. AMERICAN YOUTH IN THE 1980'S.
One hears it said that youth in the 1980's are "different", that they have
become more conservative than the preceding generation. Some people
become upset when they hear this and act as if the world were about to
come to an end. If they are somewhat older -- a member, say, of the
post-World-War-II "baby-boom" generation -- they often think back to the
1960's and the days of the Vietnam War, the heated debates, the peace
marches, and the riots. Youth today are not doing the same things, and they
wonder what has happened.
In order to try to understand the issues involved in these concerns I
would like to ask five questions: (1) What is being talked about when
people refer to the conservatism of today's youth? (2) What is the evidence
that the attitudes of youth are changing? (3) What might be the origins of
these attitudes? (4) What does the future look like for today's youth? And
last, but not least (5) What youth are we talking about anyway? Can a
single description adequately describe the situation of all youth?
I hope that the reader will understand that an analysis of the state of
youth is less a matter of hard facts than it is of interpretation of social
history, trends and fragmentary evidence from a variety of sources. What I
will say is, to a great extent, a matter of my own. It should not be
considered "truth" in any absolute sense. It is my intent only to stimulate
thought and discussion.
What is being talked about when people refer to the conservatism of today's
youth?
I have no clear evidence that today's youth are especially different than
other generations. Oh, I hear television journalists discuss it and read
commentaries on it in the press [1]. And I hear people talk about it -- my
colleagues at the university, for example, who are forever criticizing today's
students by comparing them unfavorably with those in "the good old days"
of the 1960's and 70's.
What do they mean when they say today's youth has become
conservative? For them, conservatism is the same thing as not
demonstrating, not fighting with the police, and not criticizing the
government's foreign and domestic policy. Aspiring for career success,
wanting to earning money and to acquire material goods are also said to be
conservative.
The charge of conservatism, which, incidently, is not shared by all
commentators [2], seems to describe a perceived reversal of all of the
"progress" of the 1960's and 1970's. The critics of today's youth, it seems,
are usually from the parental generation of the youth being criticized, and
were part of the activism of the 1960's and 70's. They think that which they
created now is being systematically dismantled by the present government,
and they see their own children as supporting, or at least not objecting to it.
The term "conservatism", then, may be seen as a code-word for the
dismay which parents feel when they see their own children not only turn
out differently than they had planned, but also reject their, the parents',
values as well -- and that hurts. The criticism of youth, it seems to me,
reflects hurt feelings, resentment, and a lack of understanding of how the
problems of today's youth differ from those of youth 10 to 20 years ago.
To criticize youth as being conservative, implies, of course, that the critic
is different. But I am not convinced that, in spite of the loud voices and
violent behavior, the youth of the 1960's and 70's had genuine revolutionary
values or that they were really more radical than their own offspring.
I remember well the Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty.
Indeed, I helped organize communities for "the betterment of mankind" and
sang "We Shall Overcome" along with the rest. We ate "Soul Food" (food
slaves used to eat which became popular in the 1960's among Blacks who
could afford to eat steak) with the supposed poverty-stricken and drank
cocktails with their wealthy patrons. We held "Teach-in's" against the
Vietnam War and we marched for peace. It was an exciting time, and one
had a heady feeling of being taken seriously, maybe for the first time in our
life. We criticized "evil" and would not let ourselves be ignored. We felt
righteous.
But is simply wanting to be taken seriously, criticizing "evil", and feeling
righteous the same thing as being radical? I think not. Is merely wanting a
job, preparing for a career and openly stating that one wants to earn money,
the same thing as being conservative. I also think not. Simplistic labels
merely divert attention from social reality and the conditions with which
people must come to terms.
In my view, today's youth are not, in many regards, very different from
the youth of the 1960's and 70's. They, too, were concerned to get jobs,
make money, and acquire material goods. While they may have criticized
the system, they were not interested in throwing it out. On the contrary,
they wanted to be let into it and to be permitted to enjoy it to the fullest
without regard to race, gender, or style of life.
Permit me to digress from the topic for a moment to explain the situation
of the parents of today's youth when they were young. For them, the
problem was threefold: (1) they were part of the great population explosion
which took place between 1945 and 1964; (2) the economy expanded
dramatically from 1945 to 1970 and promised success for all; but (3) access
to that society was limited by (a) the previous generation which occupied
the decision-making positions and (b) traditional values which defined
appropriate characteristics for full participation, and (c) the competition
from the very large number of young people seeking access.
World War II was followed with an economic recession which was
resolved, at least partially, through mergers and reorganization of industry
which, though providing affluence for the middle classes, also left nothing
for the younger generation to look forward to but a future of affluence
through bland conformity and subordination.
With their nihilistic philosophy, unorthodox lifestyle, and commentary on
the pointlessness of the world, the "Beatniks" of the 1950's announced the
coming of this new world. Movies, such as, The Man in the Gray Flannel
Suit, starring the noted actor Gregory Peck, dramatized the desperation of a
society in which the only point of living was to be found in the corporation.
The yearning for "togetherness" expressed the emptiness of the modern,
well-organized life. Sociologists, such as William H. Whyte, Jr., described
the problem, and at the same time the Zeitgeist, in scientific terms in his
treatise on The Organization Man [3] which described the archetype of
modern man whose entire life was lived in the mammoth business enterprise.
The effect of this development on youth was described pointedly by the
social-philosopher, Paul Goodman, in his now-classic book Growing Up
Absurd [4] in which he described the plight of modern youth in a world
devoid of value, a world wherein there is no longer, in his words, any "man's
work to be done." The mood and feelings of youth were captured and
expressed in films, such as, Rebel without a Cause, starring James Dean,
whose life came to embody the frustrations of postwar youth. Music, one
of the few means of active expression in this highly organized world,
abandoned the easy sound and banality of the World War II era, and
released the pent-up energies of youth-denied through the raucous tones
and sensual rhythms of black and poor white America which were
legitimated for the white middle-classes by Elvis Presley as and other
popular performers as "Rock and Roll".
This building frustration boiled to the surface in 1964 in open criticism of
bigness, impersonality, superficiality, and lack of self-determination in
modern society. The Berkeley Free-Speech Movement, the most visible
expression of this sentiment, opened the path for new social mobility for a
whole generation. The leaders in Berkeley were teaching assistants who
served the needs of entrenched older Professors. The assistants were not
free too teach their own ideas and the students were not free to learn. The
future looked bleak. [5]
They, and those who followed, began to break up the structure of the
past by expressing forbidden ideas and doing forbidden things. They
criticized their parents and their parents' society publically, they let their hair
grow long, they talked back and disobeyed, they said dirty words in public,
they smoked dope and they engaged in free sex.
These were the very youth who had had all of the opportunities and
benefits middle-class society had to offer. Indeed, they often had personal
bank accounts and credit cards in their pockets. They had education and all
of the opportunities for success. The target of their hostility was not an
alien or higher social class. It was, instead, their own middle-class origins.
Simply stated, they rebelled.
These affluent rebels were the products of the post-war development in
which the university system was expanded greatly and large sums of money
were invested in facilities and stipends to help returning soldiers reintegrate
into the society. The expanding educational system promised realization of
"The American Dream" to everyone who studied. The mushrooming
economy promised everyone a home in suburbia and a new car every year.
The key to success lay in what youth saw as mindless conformity. They
didn't like the dream when they saw it realized.
At the same time the racial integration, which had been experienced in
the military and the industrial effort of the World War II, the dramatically
increased purchasing power of Blacks, as well as key Supreme Court
decisions which broke down legal barriers to racial equality, encouraged
Blacks to redefine their own existence and to seek full access to the society
which they had helped create. They, too, rebelled, and out of their rebellion
came the Civil Rights Movement.
These were the circumstances under which President Kennedy began to
open up the society for increasingly frustrated youth. His slogan "Ask not
what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,"
sounded very self-sacrificing and altruistic and liberal and set the stage for
vast social reforms. In fact, however, these liberal sentiments were realized
by well-financed programs, known as "The New Frontier", and which gave
meaningful jobs to vast numbers of these rebellious young people. President
Lyndon Johnson continued Kennedy's promise of a new future with the
"Great Society", which promised to eliminate poverty, racism, ignorance,
urban blight, and a host of other social ills. While clearly altruistic goals, the
"Great Society" actually poured billions of dollars into programs which were
run by even larger hoards of eager young white college graduates and
aggressive, upwardly mobile minority persons. The practical consequences
of these huge sums of money was the creation of thousands of new careers
in government and industry.
The Vietnam War threatened to destroy the future for those who had
come to see success and affluence for themselves. Those already in careers
saw their careers threatened by the costs of the war which, although
Johnson promised both guns and butter, increasingly strangled the "Great
Society" programs and economic development. Those who were studying
and preparing for careers saw both reduced federal programs and
compulsory military service as threats to their futures.
They criticized, they demonstrated, and, at times, they even became
violent. What did they want? They wanted to be the directors, not the
directed. They wanted to enjoy the society, not be sacrificed by it for ends
not their own. The battles of the past were not their battles, and they were
not about to be dragged into them.
They ultimately got what they wanted. The war was ended, and they
entered the system on their own terms, full of critical ideas and with long
hair. The money and activity of the 1960's and 70's did not change the lives
of poor people much, but the lives of many in the middle-class were
changed dramatically. Careers were built and affluence was assured.
What happened to the radicals of the 1960's and 70's? They became part
of the government they once criticized. They are now respected employees
of the multinational concerns they once boycotted. They are prosperous
and successful. They are the so-called YUPPIES, the Young Urban
Professionals, about which much has been written [6]. They are the parents
of today's middle-class youth.
It is my contention that that which was called radicalism in the recent
past, was merely a different form of expression of that which is desired by
today's youth, that is, personal success and material well-being. And with
that, I wish to say that today's youth are not fundamentally different than
their parents.
There is a saying which is worth remembering: The apple doesn't fall far
from the tree.
What evidence is there that the attitudes of youth are changing?
After having said all this, I wish to say that I do not disagree with my
colleagues and the journalists: youth today are different from their parents
in many respects. The most fundamental difference I have noticed is that
they are afraid. They are especially afraid of not getting a job, a good job
which will allow them a style of life at least equal to that of their parents.
Work itself is not the problem. They could find factory or menial work
easily enough [7]. Rather, they are afraid of downward social mobility. For
the first time in American history, an entire generation is facing the danger
of having a permanent standard of living less than their own parents. [8]
It is quite true that they are not interested in demonstrating, whether it
be for peace or anything else. In spite of minor protests about Central
America or South Africa, about which one reads in the newspaper,
American youth are not very concerned about American government policy,
foreign or domestic. (Most present protesters seem to be over 30.)
I hear the "old radicals" saying, that what hurts them most is that youth
today don't know anything about the "good old days", the "struggles" of the
1960's and 70's. Moreover, they aren't interested in learning. They don't
know anything at all about the Civil Rights Movement. Oh, they may have
heard the name of the Black civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., but
probably only from a street name or perhaps because their elementary
school had been named for him. They probably don't know who Dick
Gregory was (Dick Gregory was a popular Black comedian of the 1960's
who became a political activist), or who the Chicago Seven were (seven
radicals who were prosecuted in the late 1960's for demonstrating). All they
know about the Vietnam war is what they may have seen in popular movies,
such as, the surrealistic Apocalypse Now, or more recently Rambo. They
probably know about the Miranda Civil Rights Decision of the Supreme
Court (a decision which restricted arrest and interrogation practices of
police), but only because it has come to play such an important role in
television police dramas.
On the other hand, my friends and colleagues of the 1960's and 70's are
very happy that their children do not challenge them as parents challenge
them as parents as much they did their own parents. They are also pleased
that their children seem less likely to strain at the bonds of the family and are
more content to seek a traditional lifestyle than their parents did in the
1960's and 70's. Youth of high school age (13-18 years) also seem
somewhat more likely to be turning away from drugs compared with youth
a decade ago [9].
There are some hard data, however, which describe the attitudes of
youth today. One study of high school students reported in the news
magazine U.S. News and World Report in April of 1984 [10] found them
getting along better with their parents and seeking a more traditional
lifestyle than those asked ten years earlier. 54% of 1983's students planned
to attend college whereas 10 years before only one-third did. 75% reported
having no serious problems with their parents whereas 10 years ago only
50% felt that way. More than three-fourths said they shared their parents'
negative feelings about drugs while only half said that in 1974. Nearly half
named drugs as the single worst influence in young people's lives. 65%
reported going to church regularly, compared with only 25% of the students
questioned in 1974.
On the other hand, the same group expressed little fear for the future of
the world in that problems of environment and overpopulation, the top
concerns of 1974, were hardly mentioned in 1983. The greatest worry in
1983 was "nuclear disaster", yet that troubled only a third of those
questioned.
Another study, this time of college students, also reported in U.S. News
and World Report in April of 1984, indicated similar sentiments in that less
than one-third of those questioned believed that a nuclear war would come
in their lifetime [11]. Research of the University of Michigan's Social
Research institute, which polls high school students nationwide, also found
that about 30% of its respondents worry often about war [12]. And a
survey of teenage girls (13-19 years of age) published in September, 1984 in
the magazine Seventeen indicated similarly that about one-third of those
responding thought there would be a nuclear war in their lifetime [13].
This same survey indicated, however, that these girls' worst fears were
primarily personal in nature. While nuclear war was second in the list,
everything else was a matter of personal loss, such as, death of a parent
(their greatest fear), doing badly in school, divorce of parents, being a crime
victim, having a car accident, and being alone.
I don't want to bore you with statistics, but a few more will help describe
young people's attitudes today. In the study of the young women just
mentioned, there was little support for legalization of marijuana: just 14%
were in favor. On the other hand, there was strong sentiment for
gun-control, over two-thirds of those responded supported it, and about the
same number supported the death penalty for murder. Well over 75% said
they would vote for a qualified Black for president, and an even greater
number, 90%, said they would vote for a woman for president, if she were
qualified.
The same young women, however, indicated some ambivalence towards
women's issues. Although they were overwhelmingly supportive of a
woman for president, and nearly 100% for equal pay for men and women if
they perform the same work, only a little over half (56%) thought there was
a need for the women's movement and only about the same level (53%)
were in favor of abortion remaining legal. Less than half, 41%, were in
favor of the much debated Amendment to the Constitution which would
guarantee equal rights to women, and only about 20% were in favor of
drafting women into the military if there should be a national draft again.
While this and other studies indicate somewhat less interest in drugs
among high school students, the drug trade as a whole, though, has become
a $60 billion [note to translator: $60 plus nine (9) zeroes] a year industry.
By 1983 marijuana consumption had increased to an estimated 13,800 tons
and cocaine had developed a massive market among the middle class even
into the high schools. Alcohol, however, still remains the drug of choice
[14]. So, as far as drugs are concerned, at least, if there are differences
between today's youth and their parents, they are not great.
If the polls are any indication, the sexual revolution, which was heralded
in the 1960's and 70's as the ultimate liberation, may also be over, or at least
severely curtailed. Whereas a fourth of college students questioned in 1976
said they were virgins, in 1983 a third said they had never had sex. Studies
of high school students show similar changes. Another study of college
students indicated that rates of premarital sex had stabilized. After rising
sharply to 62% in 1977, by 1982 they had increased only to 64% While sex
remains popular, it seems to be less casual. Monogamous relationships
appear now to be more the rule, perhaps as the result of the oft heard belief
that commitment should be the basis for a relationship, perhaps as a result of
the fear of sexually transmitted diseases, such as, genital herpes or AIDS,
which were unknown in the 1960's. In any case, marriage is once again
"in". A record number of marriages were recorded in 1982 (2.5 million),
up 16% from 1975, and the divorce rate dropped slightly in 1982 for the
first time in twenty years. [15]
What are the origins of these attitudes?
When trying to understand any human generation, one must remember
that the world of children is different than that of adults. Adults, who
themselves are former children, struggle to solve problems of the world as
they experience it. Children participate only passively, if at all, in this effort.
But the struggles of the parents are not necessarily the struggles of the
children.
For instance, children may take for granted the hard-won progress of
previous generations, such as, national independence or social welfare, and
they may not appreciate the struggles and sacrifices which were necessary to
bring these benefits about.
But children must also live with the consequences of adult errors, wars,
for example. They also must bear the burden of accumulated history, such
as, the exhaustion of natural resources or accumulation of poisonous
industrial wastes. The benefits of the past, of which parents may be proud,
may also mean hidden burdens for future generations. For example,
increasingly large number of retired persons who are living longer increase
demands on the social state in the form of pensions, old age assistance, etc.
It falls to the younger generation to pay the bill.
And whereas the parents may have experienced the excitement and
reward of creativity, risk, and even danger in creating their world, their
children may be left only with lore and the tedium of managing that world.
Youth experience daily the world their parents actually have made, not
the world their parents wanted to make. They experience the same world
differently than do their parents, and these experiences determine, to a great
extent, their attitudes and values. If we keep this perspective in mind, it will
be easier to understand why the youth of today are they way they are,
however that may be.
Asking a few rhetorical questions may help us understand the
experiences of youth.
Take for example, the question of political activism. Today's American
youth does not protest, or at least very little. But then, why should they
protest? Against whom and for what? The activism of the 1960's and 70's
loosened up the social structure and provided new opportunity not only for
those who protested, but also for the youth of today. If youth experience
problems with the future, it is not a function of their lifestyle, thanks to their
parents' efforts 20 years ago.
The military draft is no longer a threat, and there is not much interest in
protesting against the arms race, since untold millions of people are
supported by the armaments industry. Voluntary military service is once
again accepted, even on college campuses, and is seen as a good way to find
a job and gain some status. Nuclear weapons and military confrontation are
not widely discussed, except perhaps by older remnants of the days of the
Vietnam war. The visible aspects of nuclear confrontation are quite foreign
to everyday American life, much more so than in Europe, for example,
where they are experienced immediately in the form of nearby political
boundaries, foreign troops and opposing forces. From the very beginning,
America has been very isolated from the world, both physically and
intellectually, and, in spite of modern communication and transportation
technology, it still is. Besides, due to severe educational deficiencies, many
American youth do not even know where Europe is. [16]
One can ask why youth today should be concerned with continuing the
"War on Poverty" as it was conceived in the 1960's and 70's? Why should
they be concerned, for example, that state support for social services is
being cut? Certainly, if they had been planning on a career in social science
or social services, they might see little chance of finding a position. But
otherwise they may know of massive fraud committed in the name of
helping the poor and how large amounts of money intended to help the poor
actually has gone into the pockets of the middle classes. They may have
personally witnessed in the grocery store how food stamps, which are
intended to provide basic food needs for the poor, are used to purchase
delicacies which workers can hardly afford. They may know how children
of affluent parents have declared themselves independent and poor in order
to qualify for college aid or food stamps intended to supplement the income
of the poor. They may believe they have good reason to think that
government intervention has made the problem worse, and, if they are not
tempted to do the same, they may be angry about it.
Why should they work actively to insure civil rights for persons charged
with crime, a popular issue in "the good old days"? While they may want to
protect their own rights, they probably know from first-hand experience
how the legal system has been taken advantage of and how clearly guilty
criminals have gotten off free. They may have also experienced how
convicted criminals have received a college education as rehabilitation at
state expense, whereas a worker would have to pay dearly for it, or how
serious offenders have been released naively on probation only to offend
again, perhaps even more seriously. When the legal system is seen to fail,
capital punishment may seem like the best solution for crime, as the girls in
the Seventeen study indicated.
Why should they be staunch supporters of civil rights for minorities when
they may have personally experienced great corruption and injustice in the
implementation of laws to equalize the races. They themselves are by this
time products of a racially totally integrated system which they may well
have experienced as corrupt and incompetent merely because of the blind
pursuit of an abstract goal. They may not be racist as such, and they may
support racial equality in the abstract, but they most surely are suspicious
when anyone does anything to equalize the races in the name of justice. [l7]
Above all, why, they ask, should they be concerned to redress grievances of
generations past and situations not of their making when that redress, in the
form of preferential hiring, for instance, may well cost them their own job?
They are not opposed to improving the situation of Blacks. But they are
not willing for it to be improved at their own cost. [18]
One can also ask why young women question the need for a woman's
movement or a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee women's rights.
That women can choose to have a career is a fact of life for young women
today, thanks to the efforts of their mothers. That equal pay for equal work
is close to being realized is also a fact. [19] That many, many legal barriers
to equality have fallen is also true. Many ask, therefore: Where's the
argument? If so much has been accomplished without the trouble of
changing the Constitution, why bother? Why is activism still necessary,
when the problems have been largely overcome? [20]
Besides, many are now expressing concern about unanticipated
consequences of the gender revolution, specifically as regards the
relationship between men and women. Many of my female students have
expressed dismay that something in the male-female relation has been lost.
Men are often afraid of criticism or accusation of being sexist, or worse, of
sexual harassment or rape, when they simply thought they were doing what
was expected of them. It has gone so far, I hear some arguing, that a man
who wishes a close relationship with a woman, should first make a
contractual agreement with her in order to protect himself. In the opinion
of some, the spontaneity and beauty of gender relations has been severely
damaged. They are not sure whether they should be happy about it or not.
In any case, one likes to think that individual qualities of creativity and
performance are more important in today's world than are historical
"trivialities" such as race, gender, and parental authority. This is not to say
that all problems have been solved, but much improvement has been made.
The "Great Society" programs of the Johnson era have left permanent
changes on the face of America which youth today take for granted, such as,
social support and medical care for the disabled, and aged; slum clearance
and urban renewal; abolition of legal racial discrimination in housing,
education, employment, and voting; and unprecedented legal protection and
access to the legal system, to name just a few. As a result, the battlefield
has shifted from the streets to courtrooms, legislatures, and responsible
institutions throughout the land.
Why, then, we must ask, must youth know the name of Dick Gregory?
Dick Gregory is as irrelevant for them as Henry Wallace was for their
parents (Henry Wallace was a prominent politician of the 1930's and 40's).
Youth, then, -- American youth, in this case -- may have reason to
question the world they have inherited. They also have reason to question
their future in that world. Although the chances of college graduates
finding work are not bad, the possibility of realizing the American Dream
does not look particularly good. Due to high interest rates and high
building costs, owning one's own home -- a basic element of the American
Dream -- is now all but impossible for most young families. Monthly house
payments today amount to about 40% of the median family income while 10
years ago it was closer to 24%. [21]
Even a new automobile is no longer in the near future for many young
people. The average cost of a new car today is equal to about 22 weeks of
median family income, or about 5 weeks more than a decade ago. For this
reason the average car on the road is now 7.4 years old, compared with 5.7
years in 1973. [22]
Because of higher costs, it is no longer uncommon to find young people
moving back in with their parents after completing college and entering the
job market. At home they can live cheaper. Many parents are not happy
about this, and new stresses may be expected.
Citizens of countries where private housing is limited, automobiles
expensive and hard to get, and where children often live with parents, may
find it difficult to understand how this future can be disturbing. They
certainly cannot be expected to sympathize with American youth.
The issue is one of relative deprivation. People judge their success in life
not only relative to the well-being of others, but also relative to where they
have been and where they anticipated they would be. When one loses that
to which one had become accustomed, and especially when one had
expected to improve one's situation, disappointment -- even anger -- may
result. America has long been independent, perhaps the most independent
all of nations. But it is no longer, and the transition from independence to
dependence is painful.
Still, first year college students are optimistic about the future. In 1982 a
survey found that 70% felt their chances were good of finding work
whereas in 1972 only 57% gave that reply. [23] But as they get closer to
the job market, the prospects dim. A 1984 survey of 160 colleges indicated
that job offers had dropped by one-third from the 1982 level, and it is
believed that over the next few years colleges will produce many more
graduates than are needed in their chosen fields. Many graduates will likely
have to take jobs for which they are overqualified. [24]
What does the future look like for today's American youth?
One response to a difficult life situation is to change one's lifestyle, and
that is the case in the U.S. Already double-earners in young, as well as
older, families are quite common and becoming more so. Increasingly
smaller families, even families with no children at all, are likely. Smaller
homes, smaller automobiles, more limited leisure activities, all become more
likely as natural resources become more limited and the world's wealth and
production becomes redistributed.
Still, hope persists. In spite of everything, white, middle-class young
people still seem to have a great deal of confidence in the free enterprise
system and the principle of "where there's a will, there's a way". One reads
continually in the newspapers of successes of innovative young people,
especially in the area of electronics and computers. The founders of Apple
Computers, for instance, young men with little money who started the
company in a garage, are continually celebrated as examples of the virtues
of free-enterprise and the hope of the future.
The American system is such that individuals can start small businesses
with few restrictions. While the failure rate is quite high, the possibility of
creating one's own future with one's own ideas and labor provides a
continuing incentive in the lives of many,. Similarly, confidence that private
means can solve problems where governments fail, and that individuals can
make a difference and create a future for themselves in the process, provides
a seemingly inexhaustible source of hope for the future. Many are also now
extending their hope beyond man's capacity to control his own destiny by
turning to religion, especially non-traditional religion. [25]
In recent years business administration and related subjects have been the
most popular courses of study in colleges across the country. [26] But the
many students of business administration may soon find that the rush to
study business has produced a glutted market. At the same time, other job
markets seem insatiable, such as, computer science. And yet others need
trained manpower desperately, natural and physical sciences and
mathematics, for example, but cannot attract enough.
Although the American tendency to do things, including planning college
studies, on a free-market basis, sometimes leads to difficulties, in this case it
will not necessarily lead to personal disaster for the affected young people.
The American system is somewhat more flexible than many European
systems, both East and West, in that it is not uncommon for persons to
work in fields for which they have not trained.
It is important to note, however, that the flexibility of the American
system, requires that, in order to take advantage of opportunities, one must
be prepared to move great distances and work under conditions which may
make family and personal life difficult.
In any case, future survival, in my opinion, is not as much as issue for
young people as is style of life. With downward mobility likely for many,
higher living costs, and more limited resources, the American Way of Life
will look quite different for today's youth tomorrow.
What youth are we talking about, anyway? Can a single description
adequately describe the situation of all youth?
Up to now the discussion has centered mostly on youth who are
middle-class, relatively affluent and going to college. This picture does not
include large numbers of minority and working class youth in America.
In general, ethnic minority youth has been going to school longer and
doing better in school than ever before. More are also going to college than
ever before. The most successful ethnic minority are the
Japanese-Americans who surpass even the dominant whites in educational
level and achievement. Mexican-Americans are rapidly becoming the largest
and most politically powerful ethnic minority in some areas, especially in the
Southwest.
But while there has been much progress among Blacks, the situation of
black youth in the rural areas of the South and the ghettos of large cities is
desperate. Most children are born out of wedlock, and few have a father at
home. The living conditions are often miserable and many families live only
from state support. Unemployment among black youth is very high, as high
as 39% recently. [27]
The Federal projects of the "War on Poverty" of the 1960's and 70's
proved useless against these conditions. They were poorly conceived and
organized and were hopelessly bureaucratic. Among other things, they built
apartment complexes for poor people which were torn down within a few
years because they were unliveable; made the federal government the largest
slum-lord in the nation through massive defaults on loans to make poor
people homeowners; and often trained poor people were for occupations
where there were no jobs. In many cases, they actually made bad situations
worse. [28]
The dearth of employment opportunities is exacerbated by poor work
skills. The American system has no systematic way of training youth for
jobs. Training is obtained either in college or universities, high schools,
trade schools, or on the job. On-the-job training is the most common form
of training for unskilled occupations. The unemployment found among
ethnic minority youth is not only caused by lack of job opportunities, but
also by poor schooling and lack of social skills necessary to get and keep a
job. Training tends to be hit-or-miss, and there is no general mechanism to
insure careful training on the job.
The problem is not entirely that work is not available -- it's often just not
in the right place. The centers of economic activity are frequently in the
suburbs, where the affluent middle classes have a great deal of money to
spend and where many high-technology firms have established their offices.
Entry level positions, in fast-food restaurants, for instance, often go unfilled
for lack of help. Employers have been known to pay premium wages to
attract labor. Attempts have even been made to bus minority youths from
the inner-city to the suburbs to take advantage of the situation, but while
successful, they are only of limited scope. [29]
Up to now, the federal government has been unwilling to take action to
alter the situation. The only Federal programs concerned with employment
for minority youth are the Job Corp, a left-over from the "War on Poverty",
and small sums of money for temporary employment during the long
summer vacation from school. Private firms have expressed little broad
interest in the problem, preferring, instead, to go outside the country for
cheap, skilled and reliable labor. In the meantime, ghetto youths are bored,
use drugs, and get into trouble.
White poor and working-class populations are not much better off,
especially in those areas hit hardest by unemployment caused by changes in
the basic industrial structure, such as, in the steel-producing areas of the
East. Because of unemployment in single-industry areas, parents have
experienced downward mobility, in that they often have had to take service
jobs at a fourth of the pay they once received in the steel industry. Still, the
future for youth from these areas looks better than for their parents or
minority youth, either. Whereas retraining older people is extremely
difficult, youth can learn another trade more easily, and if they are prepared
to leave the area, chances are better for them than for their parents or for
minority youth since white youth are generally better educated.
When youth do find work, they can earn quite a bit of money (for
youths), since the minimum wage is quite high, now $3.35/hour. But the
high minimum wage also hurts youth seeking unskilled, entry-level
positions, especially minority youth. They cannot usually produce enough
to justify such a high wage, so they are not hired. Fields which previously
used much unskilled labor, such as grocery stores, restaurants, movie
theaters, and construction, have simply changed their procedures to get
along with less labor.
President Reagan and others before him have suggested a special,
sub-minimum wage for youth to encourage companies to hire youth. But
labor unions have opposed this because they fear that unskilled youth would
be hired to replace adults. [30]
American youth in the 1980's: Summary and Conclusions
In summary, the American youth of today have particular problems and
fears which come not only from blocked mobility but also fear of downward
mobility. This is something which has become a real threat for the first time
in American history. The battles of the past, for the most part, are no longer
relevant for today's youth. Their struggles will more likely be concerned
with the search for meaningful jobs and the quality of life, declining natural
resources, environmental pollution, and global economics and international
relations related to maintaining their lifestyle. They are, for the moment at
least, content to carry out their struggles in the traditional American way,
that is, through the free enterprise system.
I do not wish to leave the impression that the atmosphere among
American youth is either depressed or chaotic. Although life in the ghettos
can be chaotic, in the rest of the land there is little to be seen of the fears I
have mentioned. Young people go to school, listen to music, engage in
sports, drive their cars, eat hamburgers and drink Cokes, and just sit around
and talk. Generally, things are peaceful. They seem content.
The fears, of which I have spoken, remain hidden under the surface.
They are seldom discussed and even less often confronted. Nevertheless
they are there. They are expressed most clearly, in my opinion, in their
music, their dress, and their art. They are also expressed in continuing drug
abuse, the growing number of teenage runaways [31], teenage pregnancies
[32], and teenage suicides [33].
Certainly this presentation will not please many European youth. Many
young Europeans may expect to hear about disarmament, Reaganomics,
imperialism, and so forth. It is, of course, possible to speak of these things,
but not -- in my opinion -- in an article about American youth. These are
simply not important topics among American youth. They have little
knowledge or understanding of the problems of Europe or the rest of the
world nor have they much appreciation of America's relation to the rest of
the world.
Americans have long been possessed by a rather undifferentiated and not
well thought-out fear of competing social systems which tends to divide the
world into black and white. For American youth, as well as for their
parents, it goes without saying that rockets and U.S. troops need to be
stationed around the world to protect American interests and those of their
allies from alien threats.
I do not believe, however, that American youth are willing to undertake
another war to defend others, as in the Second World War, unless it were
clearly in America's own interest -- if America's own borders were
threatened, for example. They do not want to go on any more Crusades.
That much they seem to have learned from Vietnam.
According to my experience, they -- and their parents, as well -- have
little understanding of world developments, such as, the redistribution of
world capital, production and labor and the depletion of the world's natural
resources. They have little insight into the emergence of new political
forces, such as, the European Community. They think that the criticism of
American foreign policy which they often hear from Western Europe, for
example, comes only from a crazy minority. They are indeed fearful that the
"American Way of Life" could be endangered, but they have no awareness
of the effect on the rest of the world of maintaining the form of the
"American Way of Life" to which they have become accustomed.
They know that they are not welcome everywhere in the world. Why
that is, though -- above all in those countries which have had traditionally
friendly relations with the U.S. -- is not entirely clear to them, unless they
blame it on a hostile ideology. American youth feel a loose and superficial
bond with other youth throughout the world, especially through their music
and clothing fashions. It is questionable, however, whether this bond will
survive when the petroleum which fuels their cars and forms the Styrofoam
packages which keep their hamburgers warm, and the cobalt for their
stereos runs out.
II. AMERICAN YOUTH WORK IN THE 1980's.
If the study of youth may be broadly construed to be concerned with the
problems which adults create for youth, then the study of youth work may,
perhaps, be said to be concerned with the problems which youth create for
adults. Adults in every society are concerned to know what to do about
youth. In the United States there is also concern to know who is to deal
with youth.
From the very beginning, Americans have been skeptical -- even fearful
-- of government, and have not been inclined to want to give the State too
much power over their daily lives. Besides, because of the geographical and
historical development of the United States, a strong central government
simply did not exist -- in the early days, at least -- for all intents and
purposes. Private initiative, apart from any ideological considerations, was
simply a practical necessity.
Traditionally, youth work in America has been a matter for private
initiative. Private youth work has taken many forms. Many of the early
collective activities, such as, religious communities, the many socialist
communities, labor organizations, and fraternal lodges, were all concerned
with, among other things, problems of youth. This tradition of self-help is a
very important aspect of American society and must be incorporated into
any understanding of youth work in America.
The organization of free-time activities for normal youth today comes
from three primary sources: the public schools and community government,
private organizations within the community, and parents.
Schools organize team sports and other athletic events, concerts and
dramatical performances, dances and entertainment; community recreation
departments provide sports and recreational facilities, organize team sports,
films, entertainment, and collective events; churches organize collective
activities related to church interests which include information,
entertainment, sports, and charitable work; parents organize team sports,
outdoor trips, picnics, and the like as well as cooperate with the schools in
providing entertainment, transportation, and other supportive work.
Other organizations, such as Boy and Girl Scouts, Campfire (an
organization similar to Scouts), and 4-H (for rural youth; the name "4-H" is
short for Head, Health, Heart and Hands and refers to their emphasis on
intellectual, physical, moral, and technical development), provide
comprehensive programs of moral and civic education which extend from
early childhood to early adulthood. Ethnic communities also often have
organizations for their own youth which attempt to maintain traditional
language and cultural ties to the home land. The variety of groups involved
in youth work is very large, and the great variety of sponsors also means
that private youth work is very diverse in its content.
Local businesses are often called upon to contribute money and other
resources to youth activities, and at least one national company, McDonald's
hamburger restaurants, has formally made youth work part of their business
plan by developing, for example, activities as diverse as recreation and living
arrangements where parents of severely ill children may stay near their
children while in the hospital. Business support for youth activities is
encouraged by laws which allow such contributions to be deducted from a
business's taxes. Service organizations, such as, Rotary and Kiwanis, also
provide support for youth activities. In general, though, financial support
for youth work is sparse. The lack of money, however, is turned into a
virtue in that fund-raising for collective activities is an important means for
developing group solidarity and esprit.
In addition to such non-profit organizations for youth, commercial
discotheques, alcohol-free clubs, and video-game arcades which cater to
teenagers have sprung up in recent years. They often have bad reputations
and are frequently seen by parents as being unhealthy environments for
youth in that drugs, sexual activity, and physical violence have been
associated with some of them. They are very controversial.
The state becomes involved in the lives of youth, however, when families
and communities fail.
A few words at this point will help the reader understand the origins of
American legal attitudes toward youth. In response to the breakdown of the
family as a result of industrialization and urbanization, the first public
schools were created early in the 19th Century to direct youth into useful
directions and prevent delinquency. The schools were not totally successful,
and thus the first systematic attempt by the state to redirect young lives
which had already gone bad came in the latter half of the 19th Century with
the "Reformatory", also called the "Industrial School".
The purpose of the "Reformatory", according to the theory, was to
reintegrate into the society those who had wandered onto the wrong path,
by teaching them an occupation. Punishment through work was, of course,
not new. What was new about this was that industrial labor was taught.
Through industrial work would it be possible not only to pay for one's own
upkeep while in prison, but also be integrated into the modern industrial
society.
Although the principles of the Reformatory movement ultimately would
extend to the entire prison system, at the outset, they were intended
primarily to deal with youth. They were intended to be used not only for
punishment, but also as general training institutions for incorrigible youth,
truants and other problem children who were having difficulty adapting to
society. Although today it is not nearly so easy to commit a child to a
training institution, the pragmatic principle of correction through useful
work still dominates youth programs.
After child labor was abolished youth unemployment worsened,
especially as the migration from rural areas to the cities and southern and
eastern Europe increased. But although the desire to protect children grew
rapidly with industrialization, there were no general social mechanisms for
protecting children in the US. The only protection for abused children was
under laws preventing cruelty to animals. Children accused of crimes were
treated as adult criminals, and children without homes or proper care were
put into asylums, training schools, or even jail for virtually any reason.
Separate court action just for children began as early as 1870 in Boston, and
Illinois passed a law in 1899 creating a special court only for children. By
1925 every state had such courts.
The purpose of the court was to act as a substitute parent, and, as a
parent, it could take charge of a child not only when it needed protection or
committed a crime, but also when it simply did not act as a child "should".
The intent was that the care, custody and discipline of a child should
approximate that given by its parents. The court could make sure that a
child attended school, learned moral principles, and generally be prevented
from traveling the paths that led to criminality. No distinction was made
between a child which was neglected, one which was rude, and one which
broke the law. All were treated the same by the court. [34]
In general, what one might refer to as "modern youth work" started in
the 1960's. Three things happened then which played an important role in
the emergence of new directions: (1) the "youth rebellion", mentioned
earlier in this paper, (2) the resulting drug abuse, running away from home,
and generally wayward existence of the time, and (3) massive amounts of
money which were made available for youth work which not only
encouraged development of new programs but also a whole occupation, that
of "youth worker".
The contra-culture which emerged at this time was not new. The
Bohemians of the late 19th Century and the Beatniks of the 1950's had led
similar lifestyles. What was new about the 1960's was that those involved
were often much younger and not usually poor. They were for the most
part the children of the bourgeoisie and were generally well-educated and
affluent. For this reason, there was, at the outset, not much interest in
helping them. They were regarded more as naughty children than as a social
problem. Nevertheless, as a result of their waywardness, drug abuse, and
unhealthy life style, genuine misery developed in their midst.
The first help was provided by private persons, often church people,
who, though equally critical of society, were generally more sensible.
So-called "open houses" were started where runaway youth could stay, and
"open door clinics" were opened where they could get free and anonymous
medical treatment for the consequences of drug abuse and sexually
transmitted diseases.
This kind of help was actually illegal in that it was against the law to
protect a child who had run away from home or to treat drug abuse or
sexual diseases without reporting them to the health authorities. In so
doing, the helpers placed themselves in danger. They were arrested
repeatedly and their "open houses" and clinics were closed.
During President Johnson's "War Against Poverty" large amounts of
money were pumped into traditionally poor areas, much of which went for
projects to help poor youth. Unemployment and lack of free time activities
were attacked through the projects of the Community Action Program, such
as, Neighborhood Youth Corp, which was primarily for ethnic minority
youth and other so-called disadvantaged youth. Large amounts of money
were also given to schools for dealing with problems of ethnic minority
youth who, up to that time, had, at most, only received an inexpensive
school lunch. Programs were expanded such that, among other things, the
poor could eat not only the mid-day meal completely free of charge but also
even get a free, hot breakfast at school. The schools came to be more of a
family substitute than ever before.
Since the children of the middle class, together with their problems,
could not be separated from the schools, they, too, took advantage of these
programs, especially those which were concerned with drug abuse, truancy,
running away from home, and family conflict. In this manner the schools
came to be an important setting for general youth work.
The 1960's and 70's were characterized by increasing rebelliousness of
youth, increasing juvenile delinquency, increasing drug abuse, increasing
spending on programs to stem the tide, and increasing helplessness and
frustration on the part of adults.
At this time talk of children's rights also began to be heard, something
which had not been an issue since the invention of the juvenile court at the
turn of the Century. Before the juvenile court came into existence, children
were held accountable for their misdeeds as if they were adults. Children
and adults had the same rights, or lack of rights, it might be said.
It was now argued, however, that the protective distinctions, which were
regarded as progressive in 1899, should be done away with. Especially
criticized was the fact that children could be deprived of their liberty by
being put in special training homes, for committing acts which were not
illegal for adults, such as, disobeying their parents, not going to school,
running away from home, sexual promiscuity, etc. (so-called "status
offenses"). It was argued that the law which presumably protected children,
was actually victimizing them in that adults were free to impose their will on
children without restraint.
In 1967 the case of Gerald Gault was brought before the US Supreme
Court to test the legal treatment of children. Gerald Gault was a boy who
was sentenced to six years in an institution without trial for making obscene
telephone calls, an offence for which an adult would have received only 30
days in jail. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that children
have the same Constitutional rights as adults.
According to this ruling, children who are accused of crimes, have the
right to due process of law, which means specifically that they have the right
to remain silent and do not have to testify against themself, they have the
right to have legal counsel, to defend themselves, to examine witnesses and
the evidence against them. It was no longer possible, therefore, to punish a
child simply because someone had labeled him. This ruling, which is in
force yet today, was simply revolutionary. [35]
After the Vietnam war ended, youth became more peaceful. However,
drug usage had more or less become a way of life and was very widespread.
In any case there was no more talk of controlling the problem by legal
sanctions against users, and the severe penalties for using drugs were
reduced, in some cases, to the level of a simple traffic violation. The "War
Against Poverty" was curtailed and less money was spent for ghetto
projects. On the other hand, more money than before was spent for projects
to deal with middle class youth whose problems finally were being taken
seriously. Money from the federal government and from the states was
poured into the fight against drug abuse, though not as much as during the
time of the "War against Poverty". The only tangible result was that police
departments received millions of dollars worth of high technology
equipment and juvenile correctional institutions were renovated.
Today, older people claim that youth is becoming more rude and
disrespectful, and it is widely assumed that juvenile crime is increasing,
although, actually, statistics indicate that it has been declining since the
mid-1970's primarily due to the declining number of youth. What is
happening, however, is that those youths committing crime do so more
frequently and more violently than before. [36]
Despite the statistical decline in youth crime, there is a wide-spread belief
that youth in general is completely out of control. Because of the Gault
decision of the Supreme Court, and several other court decisions and laws
which followed, it has become nearly impossible to expel a disruptive
student from school, control the sale and use of drugs, and make children
stay in their parents' home. The juvenile court has become more
adjudicative than parental and the atmosphere more adversarial than
educational. A child is now in a position to tell the State to "prove it".
Many believe that, because of these changes in legal procedures, children
are now encouraged to be more clever and to learn how to get away with
crime rather than learn to lead upstanding lives. A pervasive feeling of
helplessness on the part of adults has developed, one consequence of which
is that the belief that children are helpless victims of society who needs
protection, has nearly been abandoned. [37]
As a result, several states, my home state of Washington leading, have
changed their juvenile laws to make them more strict and, at the same time,
more just. In an attempt to make the courts more strict, youth may be
prosecuted in public court with names published in the newspaper. An
effort is being made to make sure that some sort of punishment is given in
every case. Punishment is also more likely to be more severe in that more
youths are being sent to institutions. Most punishment, however, takes
place in the community.
At the same time legal procedures have been changed to make the legal
process more just. In keeping with the Gault decision, an accused youth is
now assured a defense attorney. And status offences, i.e., those offences
which applied to youth but not to adults, have also been abolished. The
principle of "diversion" has also introduced. "Diversion" is a process
whereby a youth accused of minor first offences can be "diverted" from the
formal criminal justice system. Instead of being sentenced by a judge in
public court, they can be "sentenced" by citizens from the community to
make restitution and perform limited public service.
This more punitive attitude toward youth has also affected the ways in
which correctional programs attempt to change the behavior of youth.
While individual and group psychological therapy and educational programs
are still the most usual form of treatment, agencies, seeking panaceas,
sometimes do bizarre things in a desperate attempt to change behavior. For
example, in some areas young rowdies are sent to prison for a day to be
verbally abused by hardened but well-meaning criminals with the hope of
scaring them away from a life of crime. [38] Elsewhere, they are sent to
youth homes where they are verbally abused by other teenagers in order to
destroy the negative in their personality so that it may be rebuilt. [39] In
some institutions they are spanked. Even many schools are returning to
corporal punishment since the Supreme Court has ruled it permissible. [40]
Other novel, less punitive approaches to changing behavior, are also
being tried. Counseling is provided, jobs are found, trips into the mountains
and pioneer-like wagon-train treks into the wilderness are arranged so that
young city dwellers can "find themselves" by confronting nature and
overcoming hardship. [41]
Less novel are sports, which are often regarded as a cure-all and are
organized massively, as well as experimentation with living arrangements,
such as, group homes, residential treatment centers where youth live in
quasi-family settings in small cottages. In all this, though, is talk the main
therapy: youth are talked to, talked to, and talked to some more.
A new technique for dealing with incorrigible youths is now being used
widely in youth homes and private families. It is called "Tough Love".
Through "Tough Love" rules are enforced where no rules have existed;
limits are drawn where no limits have been known; responsibility required
where no responsibility has been acknowledged; drugs forbidden where
drugs have been the rule; and school attended -- successfully -- where
school has long been given up.
On the theory that permissiveness and tolerance of disrespect and
deviance has only contributed to the child's problems, "Tough Love" means
showing love by getting tough. The young people on whom "Tough Love"
is used have been so seriously damaged by their waywardness, that the only
alternative will be total disaster -- that is, prison or their death -- in the view
of the proponents of this approach. [42]
At the same time the structure of youth work has changed greatly. The
effectiveness of juvenile institutions is questionable, and besides, they are
too expensive and bureaucratic. In order to save money and simplify the
system, the states are entering into contracts with private organizations
which operate youth homes, group homes, and various therapeutic facilities
and activities. Generally, such arrangements are located in old houses in
older sections of cities. Sometimes the youth workers are not well trained
and adequate supervision and inspection is often lacking.
Nevertheless, such experiments have been operating for at least fifteen
years, and the results indicate that though no better, they are at least are not
worse than traditional institutions. [43] Although they will not replace
prisons, one thing is clear: they will remain because they are cheaper. So if
you see in the future that money for youth work has been reduced by the
federal or state governments, you should not necessarily assume that youth
work is no longer being done. It may simply be done in different ways. The
same things may be accomplished -- perhaps even more effectively -- for the
same or less money.
The reader should not think, because of the increasingly punitive
approaches being used to deal with youth, that youth are generally hated.
They are not. Still, there is antagonism, and the mood of the people is clear:
they are tired feeling terrorized by "punks" (surly, ill-mannered, and
aggressive youths), and they are speaking out. One only needs to read the
daily newspaper to sense this attitude. Not long ago a New Yorker shot
and killed four young men in the subway because they tried to force him to
give them money. He was subsequently charged simply with illegal
possession of a weapon, rather than murder. The people cheered him as a
hero, however. [44]
Is any of this effective in changing the behavior of delinquent youth?
Since all of these experiments suggest a certain lack of direction and clear
purpose, it is difficult to say whether anything useful will come of it all.
Besides, the success of social work is always difficult to measure. As
indicated above, criminal offenses of youth under 18 years of age has been
declining steadily since the mid-1970's but due to population and not
programs, and also as cited above, the use of drugs among teenagers has
declined somewhat, but, again, not for reasons which can clearly be linked
to specific drug programs.
One might also justifiably argue that innovation in the juvenile justice
system has made some problems worse. An unanticipated consequence of
some of the new ways of dealing with youth has been the number of
juveniles who are "falling into the cracks", that is to say, because of legal
and administrative complications, it sometimes happens that no help is
available for some youths or their desperate parents. For instance, in most
areas, such as my state of Washington, police will only pick up a child (a
person is a child in the eyes of the law until the age of 18) if he has broken
the law, since running away from home is no longer against the law.
(Although runaway bulletins are circulated by police throughout the state,
and police departments may hold a child for a few hours while a social
worker comes to get him, catching runaways is no longer a police mandate,
and other matters take priority.) The Department of Social and Health
Services, which is given the responsibility for dealing with family problems,
will put the child, if they can catch him, into a crisis residential center and
counsel him while trying to get the family back together. But the child
cannot be made to stay in his parents' home or foster home if he does not
want to (he may not be told this, though). If evidence of abuse or neglect
exists, the child may be made a ward of the court, which gives the court
legal control. Otherwise he cannot be held against his will unless he has
committed an offense which is also an offense for adults. While it may be
that many young people who wander the streets because they have parents
who don't care, it is, thus, also the case that many young people wander the
streets because public agencies cannot or will not intervene.
Especially problematic is the situation where children are not wanted,
either because of divorce or marital conflicts or because of the children's
own behavior. In some instances their parents have thrown them out of the
house. In other cases, the child has been abused so severely that he or she
runs away. A growing number of children wander the streets, especially in
big cities, eating what they can find and sleeping where they can. They are
vulnerable to exploitation and harm, and often support themselves by
prostitution. Frequently they end up on drugs. These so-called "throwaway
children" (the metaphor recalls the transient and trivial value of a paper cup)
may have been in and out of dozens of foster homes and institutions.
Searching for a stable home, they won't stay in foster homes where placed
and often do not respond to therapy.
In a country as large as the U.S., with its highly developed and heavily
traveled highway network, it is possible for a child to runaway and be a
thousand kilometers from home within a matter of hours. Without the
possibility of support in a strange city, problems develop very quickly. Even
if the child had no intention of staying away long, he may find himself
trapped by circumstances from which he cannot extricate himself.
In an attempt to deal with the problem, runaway shelters are being
created. The number is growing, but at present only six states allocate
funds for them. The state of Oklahoma supports 31 such shelters and
helped 15,000 runaways in 1984. The federal government also provide
some funds, as do private donations. Two national telephone hot-lines also
have been established for runaways to contact home, and Trailways, a
national bus transportation company, will provide free transportation home
for any runaway wanting it. Since June, 1984, it has transported 4,500 such
juvenile runaways. This problem, which developed seriously during the
1960's, is getting worse. It still is not receiving adequate attention. [45]
Perhaps the greatest hope for dealing with the problems of youth lies
with parents themselves. Parents are increasingly losing faith in the
"experts" and are turning to their own resources. [46] Concern for the
declining level of basic educational skills, which has been observed since
1964, has caused parental initiatives to change of school programs. As a
result, the first improvement in many years has been seen recently. [47]
First Lady Nancy Reagan has taken the initiative against drug abuse and,
among other things has organized an effort called the "Chemical People
Project" through which parents are helped to deal directly with their
children's actual or potential drug abuse. Through a well-organized
television campaign, communities have been organized and support groups
of parents for parents and of teenagers for teenagers have been created, as
well as a massive public information effort to raise the public's
consciousness about the danger of drugs, to correct misinformation, and to
give affected people an idea of what can be done to combat drug abuse.
The initial results of the campaign look promising, but in such things, one
must not make hasty judgements. [48]
Teenage pregnancies are continuing to increase and sex education,
unrestricted birth control, and abortion have not lessened the problem.
Indeed, many argue that they have contributed to the problem. Sex
education in the schools has been controversial since the 1950's, and now a
genuine war is waging over the question of teenage access to birth control
and abortion, since courts have ruled that parents have no right to interfere
in a young girl's sex life. [49]
While many parents were glad when their children chose to drink beer
instead of use drugs, teenage alcoholism is now attracting attention, as is an
increasing suicide rate among teenagers. By this time, a great deal of
experience has been developed with drug abuse which is applicable to
alcoholism, there is little experience with teenage suicide. Attention to
teenage depression and signals of suicidal intent make up the main thrust of
current efforts to deal with this problem. [50]
Some people believe that reintroduction of prayer into the public
schools, something which has not been permitted by court decision for many
years now, is the solution to problems of youth and the entire society, as
well. A massive political campaign is underway to bring this about. [51]
American youth work in the 1980's: Summary and conclusions.
Youth work in the United States is divided between the private and
public sectors. Groups providing organized free-time activities for youth
are primarily private. Public schools and community recreation departments
are the primary public agencies offering free-time activities for youth. The
state is more concerned with controlling and treating deviant behavior of
youth, however, and most state youth work is concerned with combating
delinquency, drug abuse, and the like.
Although delinquency rates have been declining in recent years, public
frustration with youth is increasing and laws are being changed to treat
juvenile offenses more strictly, but also to offer youth more legal protection.
In this regard, youths are increasingly being treated more as adults. Youths
can no longer be arrested or held by the authorities for behavior which
would not be against the law for adults. Running away from home is no
longer an offense, and the state is relatively powerless to deal with it.
Much experimentation in treating juveniles is taking place, in both
content and form. The state frequently contracts with private agencies to
provide treatment. Private agencies are more flexible and innovative than
state agencies, and usually cheaper.
Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that the courts, the
government, and the "experts" are not effectively dealing with youth. The
result is that parents have become more directly involved in dealing with
problems of youth, especially with regards to drug abuse.
American Youth and Youth Work in the 1980's: A final statement.
Preparing a paper on American society for a foreign audience which may
know American society only through the mass media is a difficult task
indeed. It is my fear that the reader will read my comments and conclude
that American society is on the brink of collapse. I do not in fact believe
that. It is clear that the future presents problems never before experienced,
but one should not jump to the conclusion that that means catastrophe. The
stresses are not nearly as great nor the future as uncertain as, say, at the
time of the Great Depression in the 1930's.
While youth in America seems not to be angry today, many adults are.
They are angry about many of the things which I have described above, all
of which center, in my opinion, on loss of independence and sense of control
over one's own destiny. The immediate focus of their concern is the decline
of traditional values and the threat of foreign trade competition, but at root
they are denying the fundamental changes which are gripping American
society, the fundamental changes which John Naisbitt calls "megatrends",
such as, the movement from an industrial society to an informational one,
from a national economy to a world economy, etc. [52] For the moment, at
least, these people are politically influential and will likely remain so for
some time to come.
Youth, of course, are not isolated from adults. Whether they will come
to share adults' anger is not clear at this time. Since the conditions
producing the anger are being driven by external events which do not bend
to internal sentiments, it is more likely that youth will come to share adults'
attitudes than vice versa.
While I have attempted here to describe the status of American youth, in
fact much of what I have described may apply to many other countries
sooner or later. Certainly this is the case in Western European industrial
nations, but also in Eastern European industrial nations as well.
Industrialization and urbanization leads to anonymity and robs people of
meaningful participation in decision-making. Consumerism leads to
materialism and interest in self, and the pursuit of personal pleasure as the
goal in life is a common result.
The rest of the world tends to identify America as the source of
contemporary problems. Perhaps it is to some extent, especially as specific
American cultural characteristics become incorporated in other cultures and
supplant their traditional ways. But large scale social problems are not
being exported by America; America, rather, simply tends to experience
social problems sooner than most other countries since its level of
industrialization is more advanced. Through the mass media America is
identified with social problems, but this is not the same thing as exporting
them. It is just a matter of time before other countries come to experience
their own versions of the same phenomena.
Beneath it all lies the problem of change -- rapid and massive change --
change which knows no ideology or political boundaries. The parents of
today's youth can no more stifle change than their own parents could when
they were children. Understanding change and directing it into productive
paths is the only alternative.
The problem for parents and leaders of social institutions, in my opinion,
lies in maintaining a steady, firm, but reasoned response to potentially
disruptive forces; being patient, fair, consistent, and reasonable; and, above
all, being available and willing to listen to youth and to try to understand the
world as they are experiencing it. Parents must not blindly insist that their
own past battles must necessarily also be their children's. Anything less will
only make problems worse and generate division between the generations.
FOOTNOTES
1. For example, "Why it's all quiet on the campus front [symposium]." U.S. News
and World Report, January 31, 1983, p. 44-46; "Reagan's youthful
boomlet." Time, October 8, 1984, p. 78; "My buttoned-down students."
Newsweek, October 22, 1984, pp. 20-21; "Ronnie's Kids." New Republic,
December 3, 1984, pp. 22-23; "Survey shows college freshmen concerned
about their financial security." Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1984, pp. 725-726.
2. See "Today's students are running scared." U.S. News and World Report,
January 31, 1983, pp.47; "Liberalism makes campus comeback." U.S. News
and World Report, March 28, 1985, p. 14; "Freshmen are materialistic but
not conservative, study finds; poll shows GOP winning students." The
Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, 1985, p. 1+.
3. William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man, New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1956.
4. Paul Goodman Growing Up Absurd, New York: Random House, 1960.
5. For a description and interpretation of the events which took place in Berkeley, see
Seymour Martin Lipset and Sheldon S. Wolin (eds.) The Berkeley Student Revolt:
Facts and Interpretations, Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor-Doubleday, 1965.
6. See "The Year of the Yuppie." Newsweek, December 31, 1984, pp. 14-20+;
"Yumpies, YAP's, YUPPIES: Who they are.", U.S. News and World
Report, April 16, 1984, p. 39; "The Yuppie generation." MacLeans's,
October 22, 1984, p. 13; "Selfishness and Sobriety." Newsweek, April 8,
1985, p. 63; for a discussion of the "baby boom generation" see Landon Y.
Jones, Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, New
York: Balantine Books, 1980.
7. "Summer job outlook: another banner season." U.S. News and World Report,
April 22, 1985, pp. 65-66.
8. "Are today's young a disillusioned generation?." U.S. News and World Report,
January 23, 1984, pp. 40-42.
9. "Teen drug use - except cocaine - falls." Science News, January 19, 1985, p.
38; "Wins - and losses - in the war against drug abuse." U.S. News and
World Report, November 19, 1984, pp. 70-71.
10. "Today's youth edge back to tradition." U.S. News and World Report, April
9, 1984, p. 16
11. "Nuclear threat through eyes of college students." U.S. News and World
Report, April 16, 1984, pp. 33-34+.
12. "Campus concern." Time, October 29, 1984, p. 78.
13. "Who are the teens of 1984?" Seventeen, September, 1984, pp. 93-94+.
14. "Wins - and losses - in the war against drug abuse." Op. cit.
15. "The revolution is over." Time, April 9, 1984, pp. 74-83.
16. For a discussion of the problems of American education, see the report of the
National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative For Reform, Washington, D.C.: The National Commission for
Excellence in Education, 1983.
17. Edmond Costantini and Joel King, "Affirmative action: the configuration,
concomitants, and antecedents of student opinion." Youth & Society, June,
1985, pp. 499-525.
18. Ibid.
19. That women earn less than men in the aggregate is due less to different pay
for the same work than it is to the fact that women have more part-time jobs
and work in jobs where the pay is lower than jobs usually performed by
men, e.g. secretary vs. truck driver. The issue of "equal pay for equal
work" has been replaced by "equal pay for comparable, work", that is, work
which, though different, requires comparable skill and training and carries
comparable responsibility. It is presently being hotly debated. For more on
this issue see "Comparable Worth [symposium]", Society, July/August,
1985, pp. 28-86.
20. For a discussion of how youth regard some of the consequences of the
woman's movement, see Mary Jo Neitz, "Resistances to feminist analysis",
Teaching Sociology, April, 1985, pp. 339-353.
21. "Are today's young a disillusioned generation?" Op. cit.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. "Are teens really turning to religion?" Seventeen, March, 1985, pp.
234-235+.
26. "Freshman characteristics and attitudes." Chronicle of Higher Education,
January 16, 1985, p. 15-16.
27. "Teenage orphans of the job boom." Time, May 13, 1985, pp. 46-47.
28. For an analysis of the problems of the "War on Poverty" see Daniel P.
Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the
War on Poverty, New York: The Free Press, 1969.
29. "Teenage orphans of the job boom." Ibid.
30. "Youth subminimal wage proposal." Congressional Digest, April, 1985, pp.
99-128.
31. "'Rat pack' youth: teenage rebels in suburbia." U.S. News and World Report,
March 11, 1985, pp. 51-54.
32. "A teen-pregnancy epidemic." Newsweek, March 25, 1985, p. 90; "Troubled
youth." Society, September/October, 1984, pp. 3-4.
33. "As cluster suicides take toll of teenagers." U.S. News and World Report,
November 12, 1984, pp. 49-50; "Teen suicide and marked depression."
Science News, October 27, 1984, p. 266; "Troubled youth." Op. cit.
34. For more on the history of the juvenile court in American, see Jack Klempner
and Roger D. Parker, Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice, New York:
Franklin Watts, 1981.
35. For more on juvenile justice and children's rights see Martin R. Haskell and
Lewis Yablonsky, Juvenile Delinquency (3rd. ed.), Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1982.
36. "The bad news about juvenile crime." U.S. News and World Report,
December 31, 1984/January 7, 1985, p. 7.
37. For a sense of the developing resentment and hostility toward criminal
offenders, see James Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime, New York; and
Samuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense About Crime, Monterey, Calif.:
Brooks/Cole, 1985.
38. See James O. Finkenhauer, "Scared straight!" and the Panacea Phenomenon,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
39. "For the good of the child", ABC Television, 1981; more generally in
Klempner and Parker, Op. cit.
40. See Terry L. Rose, "Current uses of corporal punishment in American Public
schools." Journal of Educational Psychology, June, 1984, pp. 427-441.
41. "For the good of the child", Op.cit.
42. See Phyllis York, David York, and Ted Wachtel, Toughlove, Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984.
43. See Klempner and Parker, Op. cit. for an evaluation of treatments.
44. "Low profile for a legend." Time, January 21, 1985, pp. 54-55.
45. Dotson Rader, "I want to die so I won't hurt no more." Parade Magazine,
August 16, 1985, pp. 4-7; see also "'Rat pack' youth: teenage rebels in
suburbia." Op. cit. and Lisa Aversa Richette, The Throwaway Children,
Philadelphia, Penn.: Lippencott, 1969.
46. See Jeane Westin, The Coming Parent Revolution, Chicago, Ill.:
Rand-McNally, 1981.
47. "Today's college freshmen: do they pass the test?" U.S. News and World
Report, April 30, 1984, pp. 56+.
48. See "The First Lady's drug awareness campaign: questions and answers from
Mrs. Nancy Reagan." Journal of School Health, February, 1985, pp. 79-81.
49. See George F. Will, "Teenagers and birth control." Newsweek, February
28,1983, p. 80.
50. "Teen suicide and marked depression." Op. cit.; "As cluster suicides take their
toll." Op. cit.; "Troubled youth." Op. cit.; see also "Helping hands for
nation's troubled youth." U.S. News and World Report, September 17,
1984, p. 50.
51. See Francis Roberts, "The uproar over school prayer." Parents, November,
1984, pp. 38+.
52. See John Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming our Lives,
New York: Warner Books, 1984.
Return to Publications