carry on commencements

word up - it's about time for us to continue our exploration of ridiculous statements heard in graduation speeches. now that we've considered some of the implications of viewing the university experience as separate and apart from the 'real world', we can move on to other false assumptions about young people.

one of the refrains we hear almost any time someone is speaking to the importance of young people is that we are the future. that the prosperity and safety of the future rests with us, that one day we will be the leaders and shapers of society, and how wonderful it is that a college education has prepared us to assume these responsibilities...........one day. there is some truth in that the youth of today will be the shepherds of nations and the world for some time in the future, however, this type of thinking implies that we are not able to actively contribute to the rebuilding of society or directing significant efforts of social change TODAY.

there must be many factors that lead to such an assumption, so we'll try and mention at least a few of them. in the united states, it's become a fairly established cultural tradition to extend childhood as long as possible. what does that mean? well, it means that as a society, through various systems including education, mass media, politics, etc. we repeatedly tell young people that their primary objective in life is to have as much fun as they can now, because later they will have to enter the 'real' world and be responsible, hard-working adults. we can see the evidence of such an approach in the institutions of society. one example (which certainly could be investigated further to find the exact percentage) is that the overwhelming majority of people serving as members of congress (House and Senate) are 50+ years of age. that means that practically all of the people creating new laws and policies by which our country is governed represent only one generation of americans. how can our legislative institutions make decisions that are truly effective and beneficial for the entire country if the perspectives and voices of multiple generations are not fully heard? it is true that with experiece comes wisdom, and it is important that some of our public servants have seen and experienced enough to offer an informed historical perspective. at the same time, it is also important to understand that often times young people, though with less life experience but properly educated, see the challenges we face in society in another way, and may offer ideas and views that shed light on old and new problems alike. this diversity of perspective add strength to the overall understanding of the institution and insures that as many possible angles are seen and the best possible course adopted. the same principle applies in terms of the importance of having a balance of women and men represented, and racial and ethnically balanced representation.

another manifestation of the extension of childhood is the decreasing value of a standard liberal arts bachelor's degree in preparation for a career. economic recession notwithstanding, it's been getting harder and harder for graduates to find suitable career paths directly out of college. most liberal arts programs don't provide much in the way of marketable skills, prompting young people to seek more and more advanced degrees, or look for work that often is very unrelated to their major subject of study. this essentially communicates that you're not ready to work yet, you need more training. if you're needed greater training then you still have to wait to make your significant contribution to the advancement of society. closely related to this is how often most of our education is the memorization of information and theories, generally divorced from practical experience and bearing little relevance to choosing a meaningful career path that somehow serves humanity, but this concept should be further considered in future posts.

perhaps the most fundamental disadvantage to encouraging the population to carry the habits of behavior and thinking of childhood through adolescence and even early adulthood is the limiting effect it has on how young people think about themselves. if we let it, it can convince us that we lack the capacity to serve and advance our communities because we lack the necessary education, life experience, financial resources, understanding of the world, etc. as we move towards a learning approach to life, we will better understand the futility of waiting for more experience, more education, more training, more permission to take ownership for the conditions of society and begin to take action towards social transformation. the truth is that every individual has the capacity to contribute in some way to the betterment of society, and that the sooner we embrace this the earlier we can start to learn about which lines of action seem to bring the most benefit and how to refine and expand our efforts over time. NOW is the time for young people, with their vast energy, creativity, and fresh perspectives to be empowered to work in and for the community, embarking on a path that education and training can lend clarity to and enhance as we directly apply the themes and concepts to the social action in which we are already engaged.

it would be foolish to think that we've exhausted the many complexities of these social dynamics, and therefore this is an area to which we'll frequently revisit as the conversation progresses. feel free as always to share your thoughts on the matter.

PS - stop telling young people that we only represent the future. we ALL have a part to play today.

learning and problem solving

today i was having a conversation with some friends about community service and social action. as with most things these days, the approach favored by the group involves an attitude of learning. someone mentioned that a posture of learning has an opposite. this intrigued me because i couldn't readily determine what the opposite of a learning mode would be besides some form of arrogance or conceit. this friend went on to say that the opposite of a 'learning mode' is a 'problem-solution' mode. that is, if there is a problem we present the solution. for instance if the problem is you have a headache, here is some aspirin, that's the solution.

on a surface level this may seem logical, one might ask "if the aspirin alleviates the pain of the headache, have we not solved the problem?" perhaps the answer is yes, we have solved the problem. but what if there is more to this  headache than simply a bit of pain? what if there are deeper roots of this physical discomfort? what if this particular headache is just one in a series of headaches that seem to arise under similar circumstances? if our attitude is not one of learning, will we be considering these questions? might we not simply ignore the larger patterns of circumstances surrounding the headache? when we decide to adopt a learning mode, we consider the context in which the headaches arise and begin to discover the relationships between certain biological responses to physical and emotional stressors. we may notice, for example, that the pain comes after any meal in which we ate peanuts. in this way we discover more about what brings on the headaches and can modify our behavior and choices in order to prevent further discomfort, thus taking out the roots of the problem rather than simply responding once we feel pain.

there seems to be a clear connection between seeking to learn about the processes (physical, spiritual, emotional, social, etc) that affect us, and finding long term and sustainable methods of preventing various problems from arising.

we can apply this analogy to how we attempt to contribute to remedying many of the ills we see plaguing human society from AIDS to poverty to gang violence. many of us are familiar with programs that attempt to address these complex social challenges from the 'problem-solution' school of thought, and often we see that there is little success in really mitigating the severity of the situation. for example, when we hope to put a stop to gang violence we may think that solution is to confiscate weapons and lock up anybody we catch involved in violent activity. in fact, locking up young people in either juvenile detention centers (or prisons for those slightly older) is a very common so-called solution. but we must ask, as the numbers of teens locked away or in correctional camps and programs has increased, have we truly witnessed a significant decline in the amount of gang violence in the neighborhoods these young people are coming from?

returning to our learning mode, we understand that there are many factors that influence how likely someone may be to join a gang. we notice family and social dynamics. we consider the impact of mass media on the psyches of young people, and the tenuous relationship that our brothers and sisters living in these areas have with police. the role of religion, faith, and moral education can shed light on this social phenomenon, and there are surely many other elements that would increase the clarity with which we understand how so many young people come to believe in the power and benefits of gang life. this growing clarity then allows us to craft a much more elegant and comprehensive strategy in working towards long term prevention of gang violence, and keeps us flexible to respond to new realities as social factors shift around us.

these are just a few reflections inspired by that conversation. i'd be interested to hear about how others have approached challenges in their communities and what they have learned. please feel free to comment with your own experiences.