The GENERATOR

[NOTE: This document was added to the blog on September 6, 2005]

I. MAYBE YL'S IDEOLOGY HAS FLAWS THAT NEED FIXING

I am currently deep in the midst of research, guided by this question: "What are the origins of artificial age lines?" The research is becoming very expansive, spanning from the time of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BCE) to the present day, 2005 AD. Currently, I am at a stage where I'm skimming books and articles quickly, experimenting with skeletons that will presumably get fleshed out later.

Today I discovered the "Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood: In History and Society" (2004. Paula S. Fass, Editor in Chief. To be referred to as ECC from here on.). In the section titled "Law, Children and the", there's an illuminating account of minors' legal status from the time of the thirteen colonies to the present day. One interesting point was that there has been a backlash towards Children's Rights gaining in strength since a high water mark around 1970. The essence of this backlash seems to bee opposition to the notion that youth should be granted the full set of adult rights.

Curious about what directions the backlash has taken, I pulled out "In Their Best Interest? The Case Against Equal Rights for Children" (1992. Laura M. Purdy.) To my surprise, Laura M. Purdy is a feminist philosopher. I've had this book on my shelf for some time -- it was obvious that I had to own it -- but I haven't gotten around to reading it, partly because I expected it to come from a religious conservative perspective. My sense now, after a brief skim, is that Purdy is against YL as it has been articulated by Howard Cohen, Richard Farson, and John Holt -- but she is nonetheless in favor of getting rid of many of the obviously unjustified expressions of adult authority (e.g. dress codes, censoring reading material). Furthermore, her analysis is adequately in-line with my own values, that I'm prone to look at her book as a contribution towards improving the YL movement, rather than as the work of an enemy.

The ECC entry says:

"[A]ge-blind" rights became the goal of children's rights advocates, who argued that children should have the same rights as adults. Indeed, some even called for the abolition of minority status, which was likened to slavery and coverture." (p. 545)

I think this is a fairly accurate description of Cohen, Farson, and Holt's work -- as well as most of my own... However, the key phrase here that the backlash objects to is "the same rights as adults". Me, for some time now I've been going in a different direction from "equality" as it's been traditionally understood -- and I think perhaps it's time for me to hash through some of the fundamental differences between myself and these seminal authors, whom I've been so inspired by.

II. YL'S BIGGEST PROBLEM: "THE SAME RIGHTS AS ADULTS" ALONE ISN'T ENOUGH

The crucial difference, perhaps, is that I don't think YL can afford to interpret "equal rights" as "identical rights". Instead, I think that we need to (1) recognize differences, (2) create accommodations for young people's actual disabilities, and thus (3) transform how we understand both adulthood and childhood.

To an extent, the YL movement should consider the civil rights movement of adults with disabilities our implicit ally. A premise of their cause is that people are not physically and mentally identical -- but by modifying the physical environment and institutional structures of society, the playing field can be leveled so that they can enjoy something like "equal rights". I do want an "age-blind" society -- but it is absurd to think that we could simply stop paying attention to the special needs of five-year-olds. We must change the practical arrangements of living: then age differences can begin to gently fade away on their own.

The strongest current incarnation of YL, the Youth Rights movement, seems to take it's inspiration from the civil rights movements of blacks and women in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. What I sense the YR activists may not be fully aware of, however, is that "equality" has been a problematic concept when it's been applied to women. Of the top of my head, I know of two books that deal with feminism's struggle with "equality": "Feminism and Equality" (1987. Ed. Anne Phillips.) and "The Equality Trap - Why Working Women Shouldn't Be Treated Like Men" (1988. Mary Ann Mason*.) I have suspicions that research into why the Equal Rights Amendment failed would also garner insight.

[*Note: I just realized -- Mary Ann Mason is the same person who wrote "From Father's Property to Children's Rights: The History of Child Custody in the United States", which I referenced in my last essay.]

The issue that I've most frequently seen discussed with regards to women and this issue of problematic equality is pregnancy. If you view the male as the standard human being, then work situations will effectively penalize women for having children. If one redesigns the workplace taking women's experiences as the norm, then one comes up with proposals regarding day care, health care, child support, and paid leaves. This is not "equality" if men get to set the standard -- but if the realities of women's bodies and lives are accommodated in the first place, a form of equally fair treatment can proceed from there. [See "The Lenses of Gender - Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality" by Sandra Lipsitz Bem, 1993, pp. 73 -79, for a discussion of androcentric laws regarding pregnancy.]

Youth are wrongly denied legal rights. We must fix this. But to simply say "treat all youth the same as adults" isn't good enough. Infants need care in order to survive; young children need to be taught how society functions; and even teens need financial support to get started in the world -- whether that be from parents, the government, or other sources. Youth need special benefits that not all adults will receive...

I believe we can deal with the issue of legal rights by appealing to the concept that youth must not be property, rather than the concept of identical treatment.

III. MY "CONCESSIONS"

The title of this essay is "Joining the opposition?" -- which I intend to be tongue in cheek. I have no intention of giving up my loyalty to the cause. But it occurred to me to try listing a bunch of the points on which I agree with our opponents.

When trying to argue our cause, I've run up against the same objections over and over. Now, you have to realize, most of the workshops I've run have been for fairly like-minded people... When I start feeling like I'm just trying to slip out of their arguments -- maybe it's time to take a couple of months or years to really try to address what they're saying. In the process of doing so, I've abandoned certain arguments -- and there are certain objections that I now anticipate, and want to dispel before they're raised. It almost starts to sound like I'm agreeing with the opposition...

So, I say to myself tonight, let's not be scared of that. Let's try listing all the points on which I'm in (a sort of) agreement with the opponents.

1) I'm for maintaining the parent-child bond. It should be a default that a child stays with their biological parents.

2) An adversarial relationship between a youth and their parent(s) is not desirable.

3) Children are different from adults. The difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is negligible -- but an infant and a 40-year-old are very different. The younger the child and the older the adult you're comparing, the greater the difference.

4) Young persons have special needs. They need to be given food and shelter, orientation in society, and financial support. Some adults also need these kinds of support in a continuing way -- but all very young children minimally need these things for survival.

5) Simply sending a young person out into adult society to fend for themselves, without any support, is a bad thing.

6) There are a variety of ways in which treating youth as legal adults could seriously harm them.

7) Young people, particularly the younger they are, may be emotionally unstable, have irrational beliefs, and lack the competence to make important decisions about their own lives.

9) Legal guardians should have authority to take care of their children.

8) There are instances of conflict between youth and their parents where the parents, in good conscience, will be compelled to override the will of their offspring. Youth don't always get to have their way.

10) Parents should be engaged with their child. One should not simply leave the youth to their own devices.

11) Youth need warmth, nurturing, mentors, and role-models they can look up to.

12) It is the government's responsibility to intercede in cases of abuse, protecting children from unfit parents.

13) A form of state-sponsored compulsory schooling should exist.

IV. HERE COME THE CAVEATS

How can I agree with all these things, given the body of my work to date? It's all about the caveats.

1) I'm for maintaining the parent-child bond. It should be a default that a child stays with their biological parents.

Plato, in "The Republic", advocated that parents should be separated from their parents at birth, and never allowed to find out who they are. I can't support this position. I think that when a woman gives birth, she has a inherent right to stay connected to the being that has exited her body. As soon as the baby leaves her, it becomes a separate being with rights of its own. However, having no discernable interest in leaving the mother at birth, the infant should be kept with her.

[In fact, to the greatest possible extent, the infant should be held against the mother's skin immediately following birth, not taken away. Studies on child abuse have shown that this is a crucial moment for the mother to bond with the child -- which can help found a warm relationship for the years to come.]

I do say "default", however. I do not think that a family should be kept together at all costs. If there is abuse, the parent shouldn't necessarily get to keep custody. Whether because of abuse -- or simply because the youth has a strong desire to leave -- if the youth wants to move out of their parents home, I believe they must be allowed to do so.

Most families *do* function adequately, though. No need to fix what's not broken! YL, in my opinion, deals primarily with giving youth more options for when things go wrong...

2) An adversarial relationship between a youth and their parent(s) is not desirable.

An adversarial relationship is not desirable -- but that doesn't mean that a youth should simply submit to parental authority. If there arguments in good faith need to happen, then they should happen. And if the parents exercise their authority unjustly, then the youth should fight back. Domestic peace mustn't be founded on either subordination or squelching dissent.

3) Children are different from adults. The difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is negligible -- but an infant and a 40-year-old are very different. The younger the child and the older the adult you're comparing, the greater the difference.

However, even if adults have more extensive abilities than youth, it is wrong to cultivate a feeling of superiority. Adults should be humble about their abilities, acknowledging all that they are *not* capable of -- and honoring the honest struggles of youth to manage their own life with the facilities that they do possess. Rather than yanking young people's lives out of their hands, adults should do all that they can to maximize young people's self-determination.

4) Young persons have special needs. They need to be given food and shelter, orientation in society, and financial support. Some adults also need these kinds of support in a continuing way -- but all very young children minimally need these things for survival.

Youth did not ask to be born. For imposing existence upon a youth, parents owe them at least the means for survival, without an reciprocal obligation of labor or obedience on the part of the youth. The parents' burden of support should be lessened by society, which should provide socialized services as a safety net that all citizens (including youth) can benefit from in times of need.

5) Simply sending a young person out into adult society to fend for themselves, without any support, is a bad thing.

Youth need caring assistance -- particularly during their earliest years. However, when a youth takes it into their mind to go out and explore, they should be enabled to do this. With regards to most rights issues, I am in concurrence with John Holt that rights should be made *available* to youth, at the asking.

6) There are a variety of ways in which treating youth as legal adults could seriously harm them.

There are several varieties of age-lines, some of which are problematic with regards to youth welfare. I've written about this elsewhere so I will merely synopsize here. (see "Exploration: Ageless Being - A Thought Experiment", section 5, from 12.20.04)

A) Skills required for communal safety
B) Minimal intelligence required for communal decision-making
C) Regulating the impact of vice
D) Assessing responsibility for someone's criminal actions
E) Identifying and empowering persons vulnerable to exploitation

At present, I don't think that YL has adequately addressed all of these types of age-lines. Particularly with regards to sexual exploitation, it is irresponsible in my opinion to simply erase age lines at present. I'm not happy with the age of consent on principle, but don't have a better solution. ...It's OK for us to not have all the answers yet.

7) Young people, particularly the younger they are, may be emotionally unstable, have irrational beliefs, and lack the competence to make important decisions about their own lives.

However, it is absurd to presume that youth are incompetent to control their own lives until they are 18. Rather subordinate youth to their guardians' will, guardians should strive to merely assist youth in following their own will. Standing in the way of a youth's will should be a grave matter, an action of last resort. Furthermore, the areas in which a parent *is* justified in overriding a minor's will should be clearly spelled out.

Parents predictably fear that young children will put a fork in an electrical socket, put a marble in their nose, run into the street, touch a hot stove burner, and eat nothing but cookies. Intervening in situations where there will be unintentional and immediate physical damage is justified -- punishment for these errors is not. [With regards to the cookies: why has an environment been created where these cookies are so available to begin with?]

With regards to teens, parents predictably fear drug use, teen pregnancy, gang involvement, and tattoos. If the behavior in question is criminal, then a parent has a legitimate dilemma about what to do. However, for issues where the teen is altering their own body -- e.g. through sex, pregnancy, dying hair, getting tattooed -- the parent can voice their personal opinions, but not try to veto. There may be serious consequences -- but none of them are the end of the world; they can all be dealt with.

It is more important for a young person to be able to have their own mistakes and be able to learn than for a parent to impose what they believe to be right. It is more important for a young person's sense of control of their own life to be respected than for them to be shielded from all negative consequences.

9) Legal guardians should have authority to take care of their children.

Parents or other legal guardians need freedom and flexibility in taking care of their children. However, there is a whole list of areas that parents should conscientiously, and in advance, decide that they will not control. The most fundamental principle that must be respected is that a youth is not their parent's property; the youth owns their own body and life.

[I have notes for "a new parent-child contract". See "Exploration: Youth As Their Own Property", from 10.06.04. ...I hope to expand upon this idea of an actual contract, or perhaps a "within-family youth bill of rights", in the near future.]

8) There are instances of conflict between youth and their parents where the parents, in good conscience, will be compelled to override the will of their offspring. Youth don't always get to have their way.

The younger the child, the more likely this is to be. For instance, you might go to a park with a child at 1pm, with a commitment to someone else to meet at 2pm. If the youth stubbornly refuses to leave at 2, then the conscientious parent has a dilemma. A conscientious parent can do a great deal to minimize the likelihood of having to overrule a child -- and I think there's a burden upon the parent to go out of their way to make concessions to the dependent youth -- but there will be unfortunate times when conflicts occur and the parent sees no other way out. It is forgivable.

However, come the teen years, overriding the will of the youth should be unheard of. If it comes down to a matter of criminal behavior such as drug-taking, the parent's choice is more or less to allow the behavior, or turn the child over to the police. This is the same choice the parent would face if they discovered one of their adult friends was using drugs.

10) Parents should be engaged with their child. One should not simply leave the youth to their own devices.

Generally speaking, young children want (kind) parental attention. Give it. Just because you don't stand in the way of youth freedom doesn't mean that you can't be interested in the youth and participate in their lives! Work to have a strong, meaningful relationship. Treat the youth with dignity, respect, and compassion. People, all people, tend to be attracted to someone who treats them this way.

But, if a youth wants privacy, or to have a life independent of you -- respect that wish.

11) Youth need warmth, nurturing, mentors, and role-models they can look up to.

All people, including adults need warm and nurturing people in their lives. It doesn't matter who they are. It could be two parents, a single mom, two married gay men, a familial collective -- so long as there's a strong personal connection with someone, it doesn't matter who. It just has to be someone who cares about you, and can listen and talk with you compassionately.

By the same token, we all need mentors and role-models. They can be people of our own age -- it doesn't matter. The point is that we need people we can learn from, and someone in the world who we respect and think is worth emulating. If a parent can provide this, that's great! But parents don't *inherently* offer these things, simply by virtue of having given birth.

12) It is the government's responsibility to intercede in cases of abuse, protecting children from unfit parents.

Youth need to be able to remove themselves from abusive situations at will, without having to go to an advocate that will then speak for them. This does not mean that adult-run child protection agencies should be shut down. Child protection agencies should remain in place -- and they should be adequately staffed and funded, which is not the case now. Very young children are generally unable to initiate self-defense measures. Older youth, however, should be given the tools to remove themselves from danger immediately -- and perhaps as well a knowledge of physical self-defense techniques.

13) A form of state-sponsored compulsory schooling should exist.

Compulsory schooling -- because it is compulsory -- is problematic for YL. There are three worthwhile courses of action here: (1) unschooling should be promoted as an option, (2) more alternative schools should be founded, and (3) mainstream public schools should be radically democratized. I am against abolishing schools altogether because they offer an important means to extract youth from a potentially abusive family situation, where they may be trapped. It is a bad thing for youth to be trapped in a tedious, degrading, or dangerous school situation, too. Yet, it seems to me that there must be some juncture where parents are legally required to allow their children to make contact with the public sphere. School seems like the best way to do that.

I also believe that education is important to the health of a democracy. To the extent that youth receive a benefit that adults do not, being given free education, I would like to see things equalized. I would like there to be some sort of system that gives people of all ages a means of furthering their education without expense. At higher-levels, this might deal with a system of scholarships... I've heard about programs that sound even-handed, but am not up on the topic enough to be able to reiterate how they work exactly.

V. A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO YOUTH JUSTICE

The YL proposals of Cohen, Farson, and Holt suffer from an appearance of impracticality. Their lists of equal rights sound good in principle, but when you try to imagine what their world look like in practice, it's difficult to really picture oneself as a youth using all these rights. ...You only use the rights that you need. Most of us just sort of slide along in life... And this picture of the world doesn't necessarily feel very well suited to very young children (say, 7 and under).

A few concluding notes about a practical approach to youth justice -- including how we get from here to youthtopia:

• Write a new parent-child contract, founded on ownership of one's body. The contract places specific limits upon the parent's areas of veto power. The contract is entered into voluntarily by the parent, but could also be the rallying point for radical parents who support the YL cause.

• Develop social services that enable youth to escape from harmful situations under their own power. Make assault on youth ("discipline") illegal; train youth in physical self-defense; eliminate curfews, truancy laws, and prohibitions on running away; fund public transportation; create more youth hostels / shelters / collective living units; establish scholarships for school.

• Promote unschooling. Support founding new alternative schools -- particularly based on the Sudberry Valley School model. Work to radically democratize public schools: try to win youth real control over hiring, firing, funding, and curriculum decisions

• Accomplish "Children's Rights" work through youth activism. The demand for change is most credible and compelling when it comes from the people who are actually effected.

• Strengthen the youth community. Without community forums where youth learn about the history of adult-youth relationships and come to identify with youth as a group, there will be no pool of activists to replace the ones who are constantly aging out.

• Work to educate youth about the rights that they have currently, how to recognize when those rights are being violated, and how to navigate a grievance process.

• Help youth activist organizations move from simply protesting wrongs (e.g. the curfew) to engaging with legislators at the city, county, and state levels. Propagate knowledge about the practicalities of who the officials are, where and when they meet, and how to get a chance to speak. Talk about how to research laws and propose alternatives.

• Work to address issues surrounding each of the different types of age-lines separately. Eliminating artificial age lines remains our ultimate goal -- but we need to address each type with sophistication, rather than lumping them all together. Our rhetoric is undermined if we argue for absolute equal rights but noticeably ignore the problem areas. This is theory work that we haven't completed yet.

• Don't pretend youth are identical to adults. Instead, build upon the work of the people with disabilities movement. Dismantle the model of parent-as-owner. Replace it with parent as physical care-giver / provider of social orientation / financial patron. Work to deal with each of these roles separately, eliminating the mystique of the paternal protector.

• Among adults, promote a new vision of what it means to be an adult, what a good family looks like, and our goal of wiping the last vestiges of persons-as-property from the face of the Earth.