Adolescent Emancipation and Easter
Apr. 20th, 2003 12:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipWhen one takes an anarchist and a rationalist perspective they quickly become familiar with defending considered convictions against deeply ingrained prejudices, religious and pseudo-religious belief, the gross machinations of institutionalized political power and economic vested interests. Yet among all the libertarian and democratic perspectives espoused, none cause as much discomfort - or for that matter indicates the degree of irrationality in allegedly popular opinion - that those relating to adolescents and their rights.
What all this has to do with Easter will become obvious soon enough.
If you ask a zoologist, a botanist, or for that matter, anyone who's owned a kitten the question "When does a child become an adult?", the answer is devastatingly simple: "When the individual is, in principle, capable of breeding". The phrase "in principle" is used to include those who simply have a different sexual orientation that makes heterosexual breeding unlikely and for those rare individuals who due to biological misfunction are infertile.
What is not well known, or even accepted despite the empirical evidence, is these physical changes correlate exactly to mental abilities. Developmental psychologists who approach the issue cross-culturally have investigation this problem from every angle - Jean Piaget in terms of cognitive operations, Max Kohlberg in moral reasoning, George Herbert Mead in role acquisition, even Sigmund Freud in psychosexual development. In every instance, the answer is the same: In terms of mental abilities - as in biological fact - adolescents are adults.
One can rightly ask at this point if adolescents are adults then does the English language bother differentiating between them. This is a good point as it elucidates some of the conceptual and political problems through a study of language. The fact of the matter is that both terms are verb forms of the same Latin root "adolescere ". An 'adolescent' is an adult who is "growing up" whereas an adult is adolescent who has "grown up". It is another unfortunate case of the conversion of verbs into nouns, or process into things, an adolescent has already "grown up" (out of childhood), and all adults continue to grow and develop throughout their entire life. As an abstract definition of the relatively rapid physical and mental transformation that usually occurs during the early teenaged years it is adequate. As a basis of social and political rights it is fundamentally flawed. To put simply, child to adult is a precise and real distinction, whereas adolescent to adult is imprecise and abstract.
None of this is to suggest that young adults will always use their mental capabilities to their fullest capacity. Older adults certainly don't as witnessed by the performance of politicians, who are supposedly our community leaders. They, like anyone else are affected by the irrationalities cause by socialization, peer-pressure and relationships. It is however, in the height of ignorance, prejudice and even forgetfulness to suggest, as some older adults do that "teenagers aren't really adults" or "that they need to be protected [read: 'controlled']". What is disheartening for anyone who advocates adolescent emancipation is the number of times that these statements comes from very people who enjoyed a wild and wonderful teenaged period and fulfilled "adult concepts" to every degree imaginable. Such behaviour is the highest standard of hypocrisy: "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
As a teenaged woman recently wrote to me, with more than just a hint of frustration and even anger, "Of course teenagers are adults. We have the lumps, we have the bumps, we have the hormones. What we don't have is experience". Now this statement is pure genius, as it cuts to the crux of the matter. Reading, listening and being lectured at can only provide knowledge about expectations. Experience is only gained by doing - and when the social and political rights "to do" are unfairly restricted in young adults their life is damaged and distorted.
It is notable that the overwhelming majority of primitive societies, existing far closer to nature than we moderns, recognize the importance of the transition from childhood to adulthood through rituals marking the transition. More often than not, the timing of these rituals is not determined by chronological age, but on the maturity of the individual subject. Not all of these rituals are particularly pleasant of course - genital mutilation is not an uncommon brutal and unnecessary introduction to adulthood. But the point here is to recognize the timing and individualization.
The highly complex and technologically advanced modern societies are certainly capable of providing such precise individual evaluation, but this runs contrary to the interests of those who control the economic resources. It is far more "efficient", in their view, that human beings are actually more like robots, and everyone is granted the same rights at the same age, whether they were ready for it two years prior or in two years hence. The "single age of adulthood" system that we use treats young adults as machines are belittles the importance of the most significant biological, mental and social transition point in an individual's life, with the obvious exceptions of birth and death.
It is also in these economic interests and backed by popular prejudice that various legal norms are imposed on young adults. The "niggers" of the contemporary times, they cannot vote or stand for public office, they are refused equal rights of welfare and employment, they are discriminated against in housing, the opinions and feelings are treated with contempt, their access to literature and film is censored, they aren't allowed the same access to alcohol or tobacco, the sexual expression is restricted, and their children are taken away from them. The fact that there is evidence that this legal situation is getting worse, rather than better, stands in stark contrast to the fact that young adults, with the benefit of advances in health and education, are actually more capable that people of a similar age, say one hundred years ago.
One does not need a degree in sociology to work out the result of such social oppression. It generates resentment and disrespect to civil society among the young adults who have been excluded from it, it generates private and civil disobedience from those who reject the authority and legitimacy of such forces and it requires the social system to expend resources - much better spent elsewhere - on policing those who have done nothing more than assert their individual autonomy and the right of others to participate in relationships as they feel fit.
At this stage, the details of an actual strategy for adolescent emancipation do need to be elaborated. Suffice to say, the key characteristics come down to the principle that the priority of political action is freedom, that mass education is required for reform of existing institutions and if the system does not listen to reason, then civil disobedience is the only available alternative. Instead we can return to the seemingly incongruous topic of Easter, with a story that combines the most update research from qualified religious scholars. Keep in mind that vast numbers of the people who support the social oppression of adolescents, who condemn sexual relations outside of marriage as an "unpardonable sin" and so forth describe themselves as "Christian".
About two thousand years ago, a young Semitic peasant woman named Mary found herself pregnant. The following year, at aged thirteen, she gave birth to a boy who was named 'Jesus'. Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth, which mean in those days 'an unmarried woman'. However, her apparently much older partner, a carpenter named Joseph did the "right thing", to use the modern parlance, and stayed with Mary, despite the social ostracism of having a child outside of wedlock. In time, they were married and Mary and Joseph had several other brothers and sisters, the siblings of Jesus.
But the first-born bastard son didn't prove to be particularly adept at his father Joseph's profession of carpentry. He was more prone to metaphysical and moral musings and was damn cheeky as well. A the age of twelve he scolded his mother for daring to look for him after he'd been missing for days engaging in debates with members of the local clergy. Evidently he felt some remorse for this because in later times he'd argue that one should honour their father and mother.
Whilst never developing a comprehensive ethical system, nor even remarking on the institution of slavery, Jesus, speaking in parables and metaphors, emphasized the rather simple morality of love and forgiveness. Others ascribed to him miraculous powers, such as the ability to walk on water, raise the dead and feed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, which was a bit strange for someone who had trouble making a decent dove-tail joint. Some saw him as a political leader, one who would liberate the Jews from the Roman Empire and called him "Messiah", "King of the Jews". Jesus himself preferred the more cryptic "Son of Man".
But whether he wanted it or not, Jesus had become a political figure and was brought to Pontius Pilate on the allegations that he was a danger to society. With Jesus indicating no interest in political affairs or showing off alleged miraculous powers, Pilate could find no wrong with him, but left the decision in the hands of the assembled masses, who, in their bloodlust, their ignorance and stupidity demanded his crucifixion.
As Mary watched her first born son die on that cross we can only imagine the terrible mix of emotions. On one hand there would have been the terrible sadness at the situation and disappointment in her fellow persons, who had so unfairly condemned her son. On the other hand, she may have some pride, knowing that as an adolescent, she had entered sexual relations, had given birth outside of wedlock, and had raised this child who as a man became a principled and fearless individual.
And what would both of them say if they could see two thousand years into the future, witness the innumerable crimes that have committed in their name, and yet to this day, still find people who are loyal to the morning star and dedicate their lives to the principle of love and forgiveness?
What all this has to do with Easter will become obvious soon enough.
If you ask a zoologist, a botanist, or for that matter, anyone who's owned a kitten the question "When does a child become an adult?", the answer is devastatingly simple: "When the individual is, in principle, capable of breeding". The phrase "in principle" is used to include those who simply have a different sexual orientation that makes heterosexual breeding unlikely and for those rare individuals who due to biological misfunction are infertile.
What is not well known, or even accepted despite the empirical evidence, is these physical changes correlate exactly to mental abilities. Developmental psychologists who approach the issue cross-culturally have investigation this problem from every angle - Jean Piaget in terms of cognitive operations, Max Kohlberg in moral reasoning, George Herbert Mead in role acquisition, even Sigmund Freud in psychosexual development. In every instance, the answer is the same: In terms of mental abilities - as in biological fact - adolescents are adults.
One can rightly ask at this point if adolescents are adults then does the English language bother differentiating between them. This is a good point as it elucidates some of the conceptual and political problems through a study of language. The fact of the matter is that both terms are verb forms of the same Latin root "adolescere ". An 'adolescent' is an adult who is "growing up" whereas an adult is adolescent who has "grown up". It is another unfortunate case of the conversion of verbs into nouns, or process into things, an adolescent has already "grown up" (out of childhood), and all adults continue to grow and develop throughout their entire life. As an abstract definition of the relatively rapid physical and mental transformation that usually occurs during the early teenaged years it is adequate. As a basis of social and political rights it is fundamentally flawed. To put simply, child to adult is a precise and real distinction, whereas adolescent to adult is imprecise and abstract.
None of this is to suggest that young adults will always use their mental capabilities to their fullest capacity. Older adults certainly don't as witnessed by the performance of politicians, who are supposedly our community leaders. They, like anyone else are affected by the irrationalities cause by socialization, peer-pressure and relationships. It is however, in the height of ignorance, prejudice and even forgetfulness to suggest, as some older adults do that "teenagers aren't really adults" or "that they need to be protected [read: 'controlled']". What is disheartening for anyone who advocates adolescent emancipation is the number of times that these statements comes from very people who enjoyed a wild and wonderful teenaged period and fulfilled "adult concepts" to every degree imaginable. Such behaviour is the highest standard of hypocrisy: "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
As a teenaged woman recently wrote to me, with more than just a hint of frustration and even anger, "Of course teenagers are adults. We have the lumps, we have the bumps, we have the hormones. What we don't have is experience". Now this statement is pure genius, as it cuts to the crux of the matter. Reading, listening and being lectured at can only provide knowledge about expectations. Experience is only gained by doing - and when the social and political rights "to do" are unfairly restricted in young adults their life is damaged and distorted.
It is notable that the overwhelming majority of primitive societies, existing far closer to nature than we moderns, recognize the importance of the transition from childhood to adulthood through rituals marking the transition. More often than not, the timing of these rituals is not determined by chronological age, but on the maturity of the individual subject. Not all of these rituals are particularly pleasant of course - genital mutilation is not an uncommon brutal and unnecessary introduction to adulthood. But the point here is to recognize the timing and individualization.
The highly complex and technologically advanced modern societies are certainly capable of providing such precise individual evaluation, but this runs contrary to the interests of those who control the economic resources. It is far more "efficient", in their view, that human beings are actually more like robots, and everyone is granted the same rights at the same age, whether they were ready for it two years prior or in two years hence. The "single age of adulthood" system that we use treats young adults as machines are belittles the importance of the most significant biological, mental and social transition point in an individual's life, with the obvious exceptions of birth and death.
It is also in these economic interests and backed by popular prejudice that various legal norms are imposed on young adults. The "niggers" of the contemporary times, they cannot vote or stand for public office, they are refused equal rights of welfare and employment, they are discriminated against in housing, the opinions and feelings are treated with contempt, their access to literature and film is censored, they aren't allowed the same access to alcohol or tobacco, the sexual expression is restricted, and their children are taken away from them. The fact that there is evidence that this legal situation is getting worse, rather than better, stands in stark contrast to the fact that young adults, with the benefit of advances in health and education, are actually more capable that people of a similar age, say one hundred years ago.
One does not need a degree in sociology to work out the result of such social oppression. It generates resentment and disrespect to civil society among the young adults who have been excluded from it, it generates private and civil disobedience from those who reject the authority and legitimacy of such forces and it requires the social system to expend resources - much better spent elsewhere - on policing those who have done nothing more than assert their individual autonomy and the right of others to participate in relationships as they feel fit.
At this stage, the details of an actual strategy for adolescent emancipation do need to be elaborated. Suffice to say, the key characteristics come down to the principle that the priority of political action is freedom, that mass education is required for reform of existing institutions and if the system does not listen to reason, then civil disobedience is the only available alternative. Instead we can return to the seemingly incongruous topic of Easter, with a story that combines the most update research from qualified religious scholars. Keep in mind that vast numbers of the people who support the social oppression of adolescents, who condemn sexual relations outside of marriage as an "unpardonable sin" and so forth describe themselves as "Christian".
About two thousand years ago, a young Semitic peasant woman named Mary found herself pregnant. The following year, at aged thirteen, she gave birth to a boy who was named 'Jesus'. Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth, which mean in those days 'an unmarried woman'. However, her apparently much older partner, a carpenter named Joseph did the "right thing", to use the modern parlance, and stayed with Mary, despite the social ostracism of having a child outside of wedlock. In time, they were married and Mary and Joseph had several other brothers and sisters, the siblings of Jesus.
But the first-born bastard son didn't prove to be particularly adept at his father Joseph's profession of carpentry. He was more prone to metaphysical and moral musings and was damn cheeky as well. A the age of twelve he scolded his mother for daring to look for him after he'd been missing for days engaging in debates with members of the local clergy. Evidently he felt some remorse for this because in later times he'd argue that one should honour their father and mother.
Whilst never developing a comprehensive ethical system, nor even remarking on the institution of slavery, Jesus, speaking in parables and metaphors, emphasized the rather simple morality of love and forgiveness. Others ascribed to him miraculous powers, such as the ability to walk on water, raise the dead and feed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, which was a bit strange for someone who had trouble making a decent dove-tail joint. Some saw him as a political leader, one who would liberate the Jews from the Roman Empire and called him "Messiah", "King of the Jews". Jesus himself preferred the more cryptic "Son of Man".
But whether he wanted it or not, Jesus had become a political figure and was brought to Pontius Pilate on the allegations that he was a danger to society. With Jesus indicating no interest in political affairs or showing off alleged miraculous powers, Pilate could find no wrong with him, but left the decision in the hands of the assembled masses, who, in their bloodlust, their ignorance and stupidity demanded his crucifixion.
As Mary watched her first born son die on that cross we can only imagine the terrible mix of emotions. On one hand there would have been the terrible sadness at the situation and disappointment in her fellow persons, who had so unfairly condemned her son. On the other hand, she may have some pride, knowing that as an adolescent, she had entered sexual relations, had given birth outside of wedlock, and had raised this child who as a man became a principled and fearless individual.
And what would both of them say if they could see two thousand years into the future, witness the innumerable crimes that have committed in their name, and yet to this day, still find people who are loyal to the morning star and dedicate their lives to the principle of love and forgiveness?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-20 04:31 am (UTC)(emphasis mine)
You might be interested in the rest of the article, because it deals with an issue tangential to the one you've raised - the "problem" of adolescents and how they fit in to society, and in particular the extreme shortcomings of the one instition we have for them - school.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-20 06:39 pm (UTC)That's a very good essay and a damn good quote.The essay does point out some of the key features of modern adolescence that I didn't go into. My interest was to determine the analytic categories and engage in a cross-cultural and historical comparison - Paul Graham's essay examines and exposes the internal contradictions and artificiality of contemporary adolescence and that the institution of the high school. The two things are related of course - modern adolescene wouldn't have these so-called "crises" if they weren't excluded from the responsibilities that they are biologically, socially and mentally capable of participating in.
Graham's essay confirms however the problems of one developmental psychologists whom I deliberately ignored - Erik Erikson. My problem with Erikson is not so much his categories, but rather he attempts to force particular age brackets into the functional norms of advanced capitalism. According to Erikson, we form peer groups in our teens, fall in love in our twenties and thirties, become parents in our fourties and so forth. Frankly, it's just nonsense. Try telling a teenager that their sense of love "isn't real" or "not mature". Quite rightly, they'd smack their questioner in the nose. Young adults, as with any other adult, are perfectly capable of falling in love, raising children - even to the point of ego integrity versus despair, which according to Erikson only happens to people at the end of their life.
Another angle on the similar issue is the works of Pierre Bordieu, Paul Willis and Jerome Bruner who note the way that high schools replicate existing class divisions in learning methodology, culture and skills. The socialization of young adults to "accept their lot", both in their current circumstances and for the rest of their lives, is obviously very important to the system.