One of the reasons for an increase in the incidents of youth delinquency is
the power relations which operate in relation to them. Rebellion comes from
alienation: it is an alternative method of control ie through grafitti art,
crime, music etc. One reason why this rebellion is so visual is the fact
that young people have little control over political/educational/vocational
etc decision-making processes. To take a Marxist angle, young people are
alienated. Rebellion is a means of asserting that control and power
categorizes that alternative model of control as criminal as a means of
silencing it or disarming it.
I'm not saying that increasing youth participation nis the answer but it
certainly is an important consideration.
DS
At 06:19 PM 7/28/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Vunch challengs us to think about
>
>'the problems of massive high school dropping-out', and 'so much
>violence in the first place'
>
>
>In talking about human beings we have this strange romantic notion of
>what is normal. We imagine an idyllic condition and think that is
>standard for human beings and somehow we are currently off the gold
>standard as it were. It may well be that the massive high school
>not-dropping-out of a previous era ( when? ) was the oddity, not present
>conditions. and anyway, is attendance at high school an indication of
>the health of a society or simply its prosperity or rate of
>unemployment?
>
>I am as much against violence as anyone, indeed my life has been
>seriously affected by it, but I would challenge anyone who thinks that
>violence isn't the norm in our society. Indeed Foucault examines
>Clausewitz's aphorism that war is diplomacy by other means, and reverses
>it: diplomacy/law is war by other means: the bottom line is who can
>hurt who more. He says that the law is ultimately founded on the ability
>to kill. (Power/knowledge, two lectures, I think) I think what is the
>recent difference is the media attention to forms of violence among the
>poor, and there potential for affecting the not-poor. Most crimes are
>committed by the poor against the poor, and these are not frankly what
>schools or vigilante societies worry about. But the threat to people of
>property is heavily played up.
>
>The emphasis on dropping out/crime/unemployment amounts to a kind of
>package of goods which young people particularly are being sold in order
>to keep them in line, under supervision in schools, or jobs, and has an
>impact on parents and teachers as they struggle to help their little
>charges avoid a fate worse than death. In fact when I reflect on the
>phrase I just used, the process is exactly the same as the Victorian way
>of keeping women under control by the threat of exclusion.
>
>I think that perhaps what is new is the effect of technology; where once
>young working class men could be effectively reduced in number - and
>had some value to their society/govt - by sending them off to war, the
>existence of nuclear weapons makes this an unattractive option, so these
>poor sods have no use at all. Factory owners usually prefer women
>because they are more docile and cheaper. We have a high suicide rate
>for young males, but the effect on the problem is minimal. Maybe Dean
>Swift had the right idea.
>
>
>Nesta
>
>
the power relations which operate in relation to them. Rebellion comes from
alienation: it is an alternative method of control ie through grafitti art,
crime, music etc. One reason why this rebellion is so visual is the fact
that young people have little control over political/educational/vocational
etc decision-making processes. To take a Marxist angle, young people are
alienated. Rebellion is a means of asserting that control and power
categorizes that alternative model of control as criminal as a means of
silencing it or disarming it.
I'm not saying that increasing youth participation nis the answer but it
certainly is an important consideration.
DS
At 06:19 PM 7/28/98 +1200, you wrote:
>Vunch challengs us to think about
>
>'the problems of massive high school dropping-out', and 'so much
>violence in the first place'
>
>
>In talking about human beings we have this strange romantic notion of
>what is normal. We imagine an idyllic condition and think that is
>standard for human beings and somehow we are currently off the gold
>standard as it were. It may well be that the massive high school
>not-dropping-out of a previous era ( when? ) was the oddity, not present
>conditions. and anyway, is attendance at high school an indication of
>the health of a society or simply its prosperity or rate of
>unemployment?
>
>I am as much against violence as anyone, indeed my life has been
>seriously affected by it, but I would challenge anyone who thinks that
>violence isn't the norm in our society. Indeed Foucault examines
>Clausewitz's aphorism that war is diplomacy by other means, and reverses
>it: diplomacy/law is war by other means: the bottom line is who can
>hurt who more. He says that the law is ultimately founded on the ability
>to kill. (Power/knowledge, two lectures, I think) I think what is the
>recent difference is the media attention to forms of violence among the
>poor, and there potential for affecting the not-poor. Most crimes are
>committed by the poor against the poor, and these are not frankly what
>schools or vigilante societies worry about. But the threat to people of
>property is heavily played up.
>
>The emphasis on dropping out/crime/unemployment amounts to a kind of
>package of goods which young people particularly are being sold in order
>to keep them in line, under supervision in schools, or jobs, and has an
>impact on parents and teachers as they struggle to help their little
>charges avoid a fate worse than death. In fact when I reflect on the
>phrase I just used, the process is exactly the same as the Victorian way
>of keeping women under control by the threat of exclusion.
>
>I think that perhaps what is new is the effect of technology; where once
>young working class men could be effectively reduced in number - and
>had some value to their society/govt - by sending them off to war, the
>existence of nuclear weapons makes this an unattractive option, so these
>poor sods have no use at all. Factory owners usually prefer women
>because they are more docile and cheaper. We have a high suicide rate
>for young males, but the effect on the problem is minimal. Maybe Dean
>Swift had the right idea.
>
>
>Nesta
>
>