The Youth Of Today

“The youth of today…”  How often do I hear those four words begin a bemoaning of youth.  Often in the same speech can be heard words such as “In my day…” or “When I was that age…”  So, I thought I’d find out what the image of youth is.  I did a little research into some newspaper headlines.  Here are just a few:

1. Police Punched, Cars Kicked in Melbourne.
2. Boy, 16, Is Caught After Jail Break.
3. 4 teenagers Seized in Death by Kicking.
4. Modern Youth: Morals and Short Skirts.
5. Morals of Youth: Judge Stresses Need for Education.
6. Youth Crime Gangs Increasing.

Nor is it limited to headlines.  Looking at a couple of editorials we find examples such as:

1. The young are our internal enemies.
2. (There is a) dramatic Increase in (youth) disorderly behaviour.

Yes, it seems that young people are; immoral, out of control, disrespectful, violent and in need of education.

But, before we start lamenting the past and complaining about the young of today let’s take a closer look at those headlines.

Number 1 is a headline from the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 12 November 1975.  The second comes from the New York Times on 3 July 1944.  The third, again from the New York Times, this time in August 1954.  The fourth one you might have expected to be from the 1960s, but is actually 5 December 1928 in The Advertiser (Adelaide).  The fifth headline appeared in a Rockhampton newspaper (Morning Bulletin) on 28 February 1940.  The final headline, about the increase in gang activity, is from the Examiner of 6 August 1949.

As for the two sentences from newspaper editorials, the first was written in May 1964 in the Birmingham Post (UK) about the fighting between mods and rockers.  The second comes from well over 100 years ago, a British newspaper of 1898.

So, before we (the older generation¹) bemoan the youth of today, let us recall that our parents said the same of us, as did their own parents before that. 

Nor is bemoaning the youth of today a recent phenomenon.  Many of us may have come across this quote before:

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

It is attributed to Socrates (c. 469 BC – 399 BC), although it has been given a more modern vernacular.  It sounds so up-to-date though doesn’t it?  Here are a couple of more quotes from many years ago:

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behaviour and dress."  - Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274

"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect
their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently
inhabit taverns and have no self control."

That last quote is an inscription found on an Egyptian tomb, 6,000 years old!

There’s nothing new then in the older generation berating the younger generation.  Let’s step back before doing so and not be harsh on youth.  Let us recall our own youth.  Let us remember what it was like trying to live in a world created by the older generation that often doesn’t make sense.  Let us rekindle our common inter-generational humanity.

1. I am one of those “older generation” having been born in the middle of the post WW II Baby Boom.

When Are We Going To Get It?

There is a very old saying that “all’s fair in love and war.”  It comes from the 16th century, attributed to John Lyly, an English poet and playwright, who wrote: “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.”

Although we quote it, somehow, we in the Western world seem to think that there should be some fairness in warfare and that we should be deserving of that fairness.

The recent case of the British soldier killed in the streets of London is an example.¹  There has been an outpouring of emotion and grief.  Rightfully so, we all must grieve for our dead.  But amongst the outpouring has been a cry that “it’s not fair.”  Not fair?  This man was a soldier, he was a fighter in a war in Afghanistan.  Do we (in the Western nations) seriously believe that a war in which we are engaged is going to stop at the borders of the countries we are fighting in?  Do we think, as in many children’s games, that when we reach “home base” we are immune from any further attack?  Such thinking is nonsense.

When are we going to get it?

If we fight in wars, then we must accept that those we fight against are not going to play by the rules of fairness.  And, it must be admitted, when it comes to war, nor do we.

Another saying that comes to mind is that coined by Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918: “The first casualty when war comes is truth.”  The second casualty, I propose, is innocence.  There is no such thing as an innocent party when it comes to war.

If we engage in warfare, no matter whether we are a private soldier, a Brigadier General or a nation state, none of us are innocent.  We continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence.  We contribute to senses of injustice (in ourselves as much as in those we fight against).

No combatant can step back from warfare and claim to be innocent of contributing to death and destruction.  None can claim innocence in perpetuating violence.

When are we going to get it?

When are we going to realise that war is not fair, that no-one is innocent?  When will we understand that participation in war only perpetuates the myth that violence solves problems?

When are we going to realise that war has no borders?  It has no geographical borders and it has no borders in our own psyches.  We cannot claim to be fighting in a war over there but not in here.

Ceasing war is not merely a case of calling a halt to hostilities.  If we truly want to halt the cycle of violence then the best place to start is at the point on the circle that we occupy.  We must come to an honest realisation that it is ourselves that we must change (and can change), not the other.

When are we going to get it?

1. On 22 May 2013 a British soldier was killed near his barracks in London.  The accused said that it was in retaliation for British soldiers killing Muslims.

The Value of Volunteers

photo: hto2008
(Creative Commons)

Community Development is one of perhaps only a few professions in which volunteers make up a large proportion of those undertaking tasks.  A volunteer is someone who donates their time, money, energy or expertise to some cause or project without the expectation of reward.  Mostly, what this means is that volunteers gift their time to a cause without pay.

Volunteers are not paid.  Someone once told me that volunteers are paid nothing, not because they are worthless, but because they are priceless.  So true.

A few years ago I undertook a survey of community groups into their organisational health.  I looked at a number of components, including that of the voluntary input into the organisations.  I’d like to share some of the comments from respondents regarding volunteers and the voluntary effort that they put in:

“They are an amazing team of people”

“They are GOLD!” “They are hugely impressive people prepared to make a difference.”  

“Most of our volunteers have the same or similar socio-economic background as those our services are targeted at helping - i.e. volunteering itself is considered to be one of our services; empowering people.”  

“We see our volunteers as a key role in our organisation. They are vital for us and we couldn’t do what we do without them.”  

“People learn from each other, but mostly they already have the knowledge required.” 

What the survey also showed was that most volunteers undertake the work they do from self-motivation or because of the purpose of the organisation they are working on behalf of. Many find the acknowledgement that they get from the organisations they work with also to be motivating. Whether the work they undertook was interesting was of lesser importance in terms of their motivation. This suggests that the primary motivators behind volunteers in community work are twofold: to work for something of greater importance than themselves and to be recognised as being of value by their peers.

The survey tended to dispel (in part) the myth that it is mainly older or retired people that volunteer their time. Certainly I found that the proportion of older persons volunteering was greater than their proportion in the population generally. In New Zealand, around 16% of the population are aged 50-64, yet 24% of volunteers came from that age group. For those aged 65 and over the proportions are 13% and 21% respectively. However, interestingly the survey found that the percentage of volunteers in the 25-49 year age group was just over 36%, compared to their percentage in the population of 36%. The group that are under-represented amongst those who volunteer are the under 25s. Not surprising really, considering that this group includes children, students and those trying to find work or adapting to their new role in society as adults.

Where there was a clear difference in proportions was that 61% of the volunteers were women, only 39% men. C’mon men, time to join the helping professions.

It should be pointed out that this survey was conducted within established community organisations. There are many forms of volunteering that this survey did not cover, e.g. those caring for elderly parents or those who care for children with disability, or perhaps the friendly neighbour who is always willing to lend a hand to feed the pets or clear your mail while you are away.

Yes, let’s value the volunteers.   

The Spirit Level documentary

A couple of times on this site I have made mention of the book “The Spirit Level”¹ and also the upcoming film documentary based on the book.

The content of both the book and the documentary should be something that every worker in the community development and social justice fields should be considering.

The film is well on it’s way towards being completed.  A trailer for the film has recently been published.  Here is a link to that trailer.  Please watch it and give it serious thought.

 

http://vimeo.com/64995158

1. Wilkinson, Richard & Pickett, Kate, The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone.  Penguin, London, 2009, 2010

Thinking About Community

During my time working within Community Development when I asked people what their community was they would often mention a place, usually a suburb.  However, if I asked who they related with or what groups they were involved with then I got all sorts of responses.  People relate with others through their sports clubs, their church, their art society.  People relate via their ethnic background or cultural identity.  People congregate together to play sport, read poetry or (as teenagers in particular are wont) to hang out at the local shopping mall.

Many join “communities of interest.”  Indeed, it is highly likely that (at least in Western nations) people have a greater sense of participation in a community of interest rather than a community of place.¹

As Community Development workers we must be wary of how we think of community.  It can be very easy to fall into the trap of thinking of community in terms of place, location or neighbourhood.  It can be.  But that is not where our thinking should stop.  Rather, it’s just somewhere to start thinking about community.

Let’s take a step back and look at the roots of the word community.  Before arriving in the English language it passed through French and Old French, and before that, Latin.  It’s Latin source is revealing.

The word derives from two Latin words: com meaning “with” or “together” and munus meaning “gift.”  Thus, at it’s root community suggests “with gift” or “gifting together.”

With this understanding it is possible to find two interconnected features of community that allow individuals to feel a sense of belonging to a community.  First, as individuals we obtain benefits from belonging to communities.  Second, we are able to contribute to communities thus enabling them to develop and flourish.  For us as individuals communities provide us with gifts and we gift back to our communities.²

Two further words often get mentioned when academics and others talk about community: Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft.  Ferdinand Tönnies coined the terms in 1887.  Gemeinschaft he thought of as community with a cohesive “unity of will”, whereas Gesselschaft was society of self-interest.

It is our role as Community Development workers to think widely about what constitutes community and to facilitate community development so that:

• communities benefit members as well as providing space within which members can contribute,
• communities recognise the unique gift that all members have and allow those gifts to be shared,
• society might move from self-interest (Gesselschaft) to a “unity of will” (Gemeinschaft).

How do others think of community?  Is it even important what we think of as community?  I’d welcome your thoughts.

1. In the city in which I last worked as a Community Development Adviser the annual residents survey asked exactly this question.  Consistently, over 80% of respondents indicated that “community of interest” was of greater importance in their lives than “community of place.”
2. Recognising that within communities are individuals with gifts is a key ingredient of Asset Based Community Development (ABCD).

Democratising The Fourth Estate

In 1787 the House of Commons of Great Britain was opened up to the Press for the first time.  Edmund Burke is reputed to have remarked that, although there were three Estates in Parliament, “…in the Reporters gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important by far than they all.”

Since Burke’s time the media (now commonly referred to as the Fourth Estate) has indeed become all pervasive and all powerful.  Until recently the media was viewed as the means by which parliament and politicians were kept accountable.  The Fourth Estate was the checks and balances of democracy.

But the world has changed dramatically since Burke’s time.  Less and less are our public decisions being made by parliaments.  Much of private life and public life have become dominated by big business and economic globalisation.  And the Fourth Estate has joined in.  Not to act as public watchdog, but rather as one of the dogs we need to be wary of.

For example; the market value of Time Warner is $53 billion, of News Corp $70.6 billion and that of Walt Disney over $100 billion.  Through takeovers, mergers and acquisitions media corporations are now amongst some of the largest transnational corporations (TNCs) in the world.  In 1983 there were 50 media companies that controlled 90% of the US media market.  Today (just 30 years later) just six corporations have captured over 90% of the market.  The Big Six: Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, News Corp, CBS and NBC Universal.

The media TNCs are controlling more and more of what we view, read and hear on our televisions, in our newspapers and on the radio.  Furthermore, fewer and fewer individuals control the news.  Just 232 media executives run the Big Six media TNCs – they’re not called “media moguls” for nothing.
Nor is it just media moguls influencing the news.  Increasingly, big business is taking an interest in the media.  In Australia, for instance, the mining magnate, Gina Rinehart (the worlds 2nd richest woman) is now the largest shareholder (at 19%) in Fairfax Media.¹

The Fourth Estate today is part of big business and the domination that is economic globalisation.  Far from being the watchdog on governments and keeping the populace informed, today the Fourth Estate tells and shows us what to think, do and believe.

It’s not all bad news though.  Perhaps ordinary citizens and local communities are taking back control of information.  The Internet has provided us all with the opportunity to share stories that give alternative takes to those provided by the media TNCs.  We can now get local stories via YouTube, alternative analyses from independent bloggers and from networks such as Indy Media.  Then there are the myriads of small, local newspapers being produced in communities world-wide.  The Fourth Estate may be giving way to a democratised media.

What of the other three Estates?  In Burke’s time they were all contained within Parliament:  the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.

The next democratising step on the ladder towards true democracy must be parliaments and governments themselves.

1. Fairfax Media own two of the largest daily newspapers in Australia: the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne) along with a number of radio stations.  Gina Rinehart has notoriously used her media status to imply that Australians could work for $2 a day.

Can’t Buy Me Love

“Can’t Buy Me Love” the Beatles sang in 1964.  Maybe not, but can it buy happiness, or life satisfaction?

Many commentators and social justice writers have suggested that, above a certain level of income, increasing income has very little bearing on well-being or happiness.

A recent paper by two researchers at the University of Michigan¹ purport to refute this thesis. They claim that although the thesis is “… intuitively appealing, it is at odds with the data.”

Their paper is 24 pages long, with 30 graphs, 3 tables of statistical data and a page of references.  It looks scholarly, and impressive.

But wait!  Hang on!  Let’s be careful about how their conclusion is used by those of us working in the field of social justice.

It is easy to imagine that the conclusions of this paper will find enthusiastic supporters amongst those who would claim that increasing incomes is the way to happiness.  What is disturbing about this possibility is the potential claim that it is acceptable to continue to make higher and higher incomes because this will bring more and more happiness.  Some may even argue that this research shows that widening income gaps are reasonable and that all that is required is for those on low incomes to “catch-up.”

Let’s look at the paper – particularly at the graphs.  The researchers have chosen a logarithmic scale for the income axis and a linear scale for the “life satisfaction” scale.  The effect of this is to make it look as if a degree of difference in life satisfaction corresponds to a similar degree of difference in income.

Using the logarithmic scale gives the impression of a steady and regular correlation between life satisfaction and income – a straight line correlation.  What happens, however, if we plot the data so that the scales are linear on both axes.  See the two graphs below.

Graph 1 shows the graph as portrayed in the paper.  The x-axis shows GDP per capita (in thousands of dollars) and the y-axis shows the satisfaction ladder score (as determined in World Gallup Polls in 155 countries).  The red line is the regression line – think of it as the “line of best fit".  The x-axis uses a logarithmic scale (as can be seen by each regular interval calibration being a multiple of 2 times the previous one.)  The y-axis uses a simple linear scale (the scale that most people would be familiar with),

Graph 2 is the same regression line, but this time plotted using linear scales for both axes.

Graph 1.

Graph 2.
  As can be seen, the two graphs give a very different visual picture.  looking at Graph 2 we can see that as income rises from below $10,000 to around $35,000 satisfaction levels also rise fairly rapidly from around 3.7 to around 6.7.  That’s significant.  But then, things begin to flatten, just what the researchers are wont to claim does not happen.

The paper goes on to analyse similar data for the US itself.  The results are similar, and so is the alternative picture.

If anything the data from the US are much more disturbing, as the income levels range from under $10,000 to over $500,000. 

No!  This research does not convince me that the disparity between an income of $10,000 and one of half a million dollars is warranted because higher incomes lead to greater life satisfaction or happiness.

Indeed, there is evidence to show that greater social well being is facilitated by reduced income inequality.  The greater the inequality the less the social well being.²

It just goes to show that we must be careful when dealing with statistics and graphs.  Sometimes the choice of presentation style can hide an underlying reality.

1. Stevenson, Betsy & Wolfers, Justin. Subjective Well-Being and Income. Is There Any Evidence of Satiation? University of Michigan, April 2013.
2. See Wilkinson, Richard & Pickett, Kate. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. Penguin, 2009, 2010.