RAD YOUTH LIB: Dismantling the roots of all oppression.

Chapter 1. Why we need radical youth liberation theory.

Chapter 1.

"Why we need a radical youth liberation theory"

"We are all creative, but by the time we are three or four years old, someone has knocked the creativity out of us. Some people shut up kids who start to tell stories. Kids dance in their cribs, but someone will insist they sit still. By the time the creative people are ten or twelve, they want to be like everyone else"

-Maya Angelou.

Universities today are no longer uniquely the preserve of white men. Inequalities persist, but academia has been an instrument of liberation for many oppressed groups. We have critical race theory and gender studies. And much more. But not for children. University has been an instrument of liberation even for elderly people, and discrimination against them has been theorized. Children only have the "new sociology of childhood". It helped somehow; Pease added an "adultism" chapter in his second edition of "Undoing Privilege" thanks to childhood sociologists' research on prejudice against children. But there are so many problems tied to it. First of all, it's adult-led and adult-dominated. Children do not research; they do not write papers or edit books. They can't, because of the inherently ageist structure of the university. There has been discussion on the problems of researching children as an adult with power over them and of their participation in the research process. But it's always limited, and ultimately it will be the adult to take credit for the work done. We don't need to say anything more than pointing out that the researcher often needs to seek permission from the children's owners, their parents and guardians, to conduct research on them, not from the children themselves. How could anyone contest that children are property when adults ask permission from other adults to act in ways that impact the children? I couldn't imagine anything more objectifying and degrading than two people discussing their right to do something to me. Honestly, I can't imagine anything more objectifying and degrading than a field of knowledge about a group of human beings' position in society that doesn't center them as producers of said knowledge. But that is the legislation on "minors". We can't fault childhood sociologists for something they have no control over. But we can fault them, for example, for giving any credit to the words of parents and teachers about the children they oppress when they should always be treated with suspicion. We can fault them for speaking in neutral ways as if they weren't researching the most disfranchised group of people on the planet. That's one of the main problems; what makes childhood sociology so unnerving to me is the lack of anger. Childhood sociologists produced a wealth of research contesting perceptions of children as unagentic becomings; it's the very first discipline to challenge developmentalism. Qvortrup named childhood sociology a "conceptual liberation of children". But they were swift to reassure anxious adults that it wouldn't have presented a threat to them, "it is worth to remind ourselves - and perhaps also to reassure politicians and public audiences - that a conceptual liberation of children does not necessarily imply their economic or political liberation" ("Children in Families: Research and Policy", eds. Brannen, O'Brien). Phew! Danger averted! Of course, how could anyone imagine that adults who were obviously hard-working and obedient during their whole school years and who are now educators, the important kind, the kind who teaches other adults, not stupid children (proximity to children is perceived as inherently debasing - hence why mothers and teachers, despite their oppression of children, are oppressed by more powerful adults, fathers and principals, who have less direct contact with children, because they belong to more dominant groups, men and wealthier people), would want anything to improve for them? They likely view childhood sociology in a very different way than how scholars of, for example, women's studies, view their field of study. They view it as an exercise that will hopefully bring them more prestige, not a political commitment. It's no wonder that challenging voices get shut down quickly, and adultism gets justified. In comparing the movement for children's rights and feminism, the fact that women have advocated for themselves rather than relying on men to effect any change while children haven't had this possibility is recognized. But the problem is that this asymmetry is perceived as natural while it's clearly not. Children absolutely can advocate for themselves; they're just not allowed to do so. Adult supremacy asks us to close our eyes to children behaving in ways that contradict adultist stereotypes, and I refuse to do so. Am I just supposed to ignore the most important anti-adultist organization to have ever existed, Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor, which young people led? Am I just supposed to ignore the fact that children advocate for themselves every day of their lives but are brutally repressed by family, school, police, and state? Now there is, of course, no possibility of claiming that every human being under the age of eighteen is incompetent without forcing yourself to doubt the reality in front of you. Still, adults will try to make you sound illogical for telling them that. Of course, children could form a movement similar to feminism no matter what adults' delusions are. They could obviously hold university chairs, but they never will. Because until universities exist, youth liberation will remain illicit, universities, as schools, could never permit the presence of children and youth liberationists in positions of producing knowledge. University implies the existence of lower grades of school, and the first, probably the only, thing you learn in school is that adults and children are not equal. Schools exist for the purpose of making children conscious of the depths of their inadequacy in the face of adults and drill into their heads that they know nothing and adults know everything, that the culture they produce is of no value, that they are empty vessels to be filled, and that they shouldn't aspire to anything more than assimilation in the adult world. Schools penalize dissent and reward obedience; going "against the grain" is the greatest sin (possibly a crime, depending on race and class) a student could commit. If you not only survived school but were so enthusiastic about it that your dream is to teach at a university, it's highly likely you won't be a youth liberationist. Even if you used to be, school sucked it out of you. In addition to that, universities aren't so different from children's schools. Adult students may not be as dehumanized as children are because of the modern recognition that all adults share fundamental equality, but they are by no means afforded all this respect by professors, and conformity remains of the utmost importance. Every original idea has to be suppressed if one truly seeks academic success. It's sometimes evident in childhood sociology writings that scholars with liberationist sympathies would like to bring themselves a bit forward. They feel the need to hold back not to undermine academic orthodoxies. Childhood sociology remains a neglected field partly because it's tricky. It apologizes for itself constantly to avoid the danger of an adult reader "misinterpreting" and believing that what is implied is that adults and children are equal. Childhood sociologists need to reaffirm its legitimacy as a discipline by aggressively denying its' liberationist roots and ethos. This is, of course, possible only to a degree; liberationists will continue to point to childhood sociology writings as theory. But we shouldn't tolerate this, the need for a radical youth liberation theory is stronger than ever, and it needs to be detached from academia. Not only are the "interdependence" approach of Cook (which is helpful in the model it provides, but not in the way it obscures class struggle between adults and children) and the "different but equal" (only championed by sexists today when it comes to women's rights) approach of Wall (who, in his defense of children's suffrage, felt the need to reassure adults and especially parents and teachers that nothing would change in the power relations between adults and children after children gain the vote, and that is a good thing) more than inadequate, ultimately an abundance of flaws also plagues the "equal rights" approach of Holt and Farson. Byrne writes in defense of "protectionism": "That children and adults do come to the "game" with unequal resources, skills, and capital is not given recognition by Holt. [...] The game has already begun [...] the rules and standards have been constructed by and for adults. If children are to take part in this "game", they must conform to those "terms and conditions" which have been legitimized" , I appropriate this adultist argument which frames the oppression of children as inescapable and their place as in the home, portraying them as virtuous but somehow too weak to face the realities of adult capitalism and therefore "childhood" as being something positive for them to argue something else entirely. That equal rights for children are not only necessary but not nearly enough. Holt's belief that age inequality, the most ancient and totalizing form of social stratification, would simply wane after children were fully integrated as "equal" members of a system built by adults for adults is wishful thinking. First of all, as I've already pointed out, we wouldn't get there in the first place; even if by a miracle we were to, I can just see adults using children's bodies for labor and sexual gratification more unabashedly and angry adults seeking revenge for children's attack on their supremacy. We need to abolish the conditions which render it possible for adults to have this much power over children in the first place. How to do this remains an open question that can only be answered by radical youth liberation theory. Which is currently nonexistent. Radical youth liberation theory must differ from these established approaches by viewing the oppression of children as political, not as either inevitable but to be mitigated or as rooted in an adult misunderstanding of the nature of children. Children's vulnerability is socially produced, and the system is tailored to disadvantage children structurally. Radical youth liberation theory compels one to view all that currently exists as an adult conspiracy to subjugate children because it is. Radical youth liberation theory isn't painless, and it rubs salt in that wound; nothing starts looking the same to you once you see it. You can't just go on with your day or even be amused after seeing yet another parent shout at their crying child in the mall. It'll ruin your day. When you start viewing the world through those lenses, you can only get angrier any day that passes. Being an academic discipline, the sociology of childhood doesn't demand this of you and taboos anger and other negative emotions, just as schools do. Radical youth liberation theory reclaims the childish, the stomping one's fists on the ground, the tears, the screams; it doesn't fear emotions like our dull schooled patriarchy trains us to. It's the child's shout of -- "It's an injustice!" and "That's unfair!", only this time getting louder with any condescendence, patronization, or assault, rather than placating. Radical youth liberation theory is about more than stating the obvious that corporal punishment is abusive; it's the realization that all there is in this world is saturated with misopedic violence. How does something as mundane as a walk in the city feel like while knowing that if you were a child, you would have to ask permission before you were allowed (if you were allowed) to take it? How does indulging in junk food feel like while knowing that if you were a child, being discovered with your hands buried in that pack of chips could have earned you some form of punishment, including being sent to bed that night without eating? How does taking a day off work feel like while knowing if you were a child, you would have to deprive yourself of any enjoyment and pretend to be sick to avoid the aggression of the two people who control every aspect of your life and that you haven't even chosen? These are just some banal examples. Radical youth liberation theory also means looking at children's grievances of daily oppression and what they reveal. For children, life is simply a bundle of rules and the feeling of terror in transgressing them. Tommy Crow's articles "Now I Am Free" and "Missing Teenager", written for NYRA, perfectly represent what I am discussing. They're about legal adulthood seen by a radical youth liberationist who is mindful of who is left behind:"[...] With that said, many of these items point to things which are considered basic human rights, crucial for living a full life in a democracy. I cherish these rights. I've lived most of my life without them, and it was terrible, and I'm still baffled as to why that isn't a major political problem" ("Now I Am Free"), "[...] The difference is that ten years ago it was legal to hit me, vanish my relationships, and sequester me from society" ("Missing Teenager"). After you've internalized radical youth liberation theory, you start questioning highly valued concepts such as "democracy" (for whom? Children live in a dictatorship, so no state is a democracy for its children, who are excluded from citizenship), "human rights" (for whom? Under international law children only have "children's rights"), "equality" (for whom? Children are excluded by modern aspirations of equality between human beings). And you start reflecting more on the fact that those concepts do remain empty for a large number of marginalized adults as well. Radical youth liberation theory is also likely to be useful in highlighting the need for an anarchist revolution; it's abundantly clear that liberalism has for now only served the adult white man and maybe some women. The emphasis liberalism puts on "education" tells you all you need to know about how contemporary adult democracies see children; schools aren't democratic. They're authoritarian. And so is the emphasis on families, which are basically mini dictatorships. Democracies were effectively built upon the subordination of children. And the fact that the mode of governance of our lives has been a dictatorship for eighteen years makes it possible for us as adults to tolerate that democracies aren't quite so democratic for them too after all. All we can do is hope to come out of it on top. Just as for children, "their main remedy is to grow up". Is radical youth liberation theory reductionist? It could be read that way. It's Alice Miller's psychology extended beyond the personal to the political. I firmly believe those are the roots of all domination, so yes, call it reductionist if you see that fit. It's not like even the most oppressed adult to have ever lived didn't have her children to use as a punching bag for her frustrations. Children don't have anyone to punch down to except younger children. Radical youth liberation theory also makes us critical of what we consume and how we talk. It's not just about the fact that our houses are constellated of items made by the slave labor of children, but also the media we never questioned. How are children portrayed in your favorite show? If it's a show directed at adults, they are probably portrayed as little more than nuisances. How many of the heroes of the children's shows you enjoyed in the past were themselves children? Probably not many, children are encouraged to look up to adults, quite literally; how many times have you seen in, for example, an advertisement, the adult standing proud and tall and the child looking up at him (it's most often him) in admiration? And if they were, was the show's ultimate message that children should submit to adult authority, or else there would be chaos? Were you ever bothered, as a child and now, that children's media and adult media are different and, in general, by age segregation, as if adults and children were irremediably and irreconcilably opposite? Were you ever bothered that the authors of children's media are all adults? Moral panics about children watching television as if they were incapable of critical thinking? Weren't they offensive to you? And the adjectives we use - "childish", "babyish", "immature", are insults, "adult", "grown-up," and "mature" are all compliments. The etymologies of the words used to indicate "infants", "children", and "adolescents" aren't just adultist in English or Greek and Latin, but in pretty much all languages. "Kid" is equivalent to "bitch", as it's both an informal word to indicate a child and refers to a young goat. "Brat" is a derogatory term used to refer to children who rebel against adult norms. Many languages have even more derogatory slurs for children (on top of my head, I can think of a word from my language, Italian, "moccioso", which could be translated in English as "snotty-nosed kid"). Do you say them? We all do. Radical youth liberation theory suggests replacing them with neutral words and examining why they're part of our everyday language. Even the term "growing up" is troublesome, as it implies children reach a superior state with adulthood and pathologizes non-normative growth. It can only be this way because the binary is itself what justifies adult supremacy and creates a wedge between children and adults. Radical youth liberation theory doesn't give any credit to stereotypes about who children and adults are or should be. This type of binary is a hierarchy - In the words of anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1955): "The child is sexless, the adult estimates his virility by his sexual activities, the child must be protected from the ugly facts of life, the adult must meet them without psychic catastrophe; the child must obey, the adult must command this obedience". It's a thorough deconstruction of it but following a firm demand that things change once and for all, not a timid request for the UNCRC's principles to be applied with more care, which is all the sociology of childhood has done for children's rights at the moment. There's almost a disconnect between what childhood sociology sometimes argues, that children are capable and that the societal stereotype of the child doesn't do them justice, and what solutions they propose. Do academics realize how much angrier they sound when discussing inequality among adults (or children) instead of when discussing age-based inequality? It's clear that academia's vision of a liberated world still involves children in chains. It's clear that the foundational inequality is still thought to be natural even by those who reject the concept of natural outright. To twist Rekret's twisting of a famous phrase, "it is easier to imagine the end of capitalism than the end of childhood". Even antispeceism has received worthy academic treatments in recent years. It's hard not to feel like it's over at this point and suppose that maybe there's a just reason for why things are the way they are. But this is exactly the moment when we must not give up and build a radical youth liberation theory on the bedrock of unschooling that centers children's voices and refuses to cower to respectability politics. Radical youth liberation theory doesn't create a hierarchy between forms of adultism. It sees all of them as interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Fletcher theorized three forms of adultism, internalized adultism (defined by him as "the way we are all affected by adultism"), institutionalized adultism ("the way we use laws, rules, and policies to inflict and sustain adultism"), and cultural adultism ("which is the way all adults affect adultism, either consciously or otherwise"). Hopefully, as radical youth liberation theory will reach more people, the list will be expanded. Therefore, to do radical youth liberation theory is to be happily at war with the world. It's to be unwilling to compromise. That children are equal is nonnegotiable. More; that children deserve liberation is nonnegotiable. It's not a debate; it was never a debate, not for one-third of the population who has been categorically denied personhood throughout history. We were waiting for a tool to examine all that surrounded us from that perspective. And to imagine what could come after adult supremacy. That seems impossible for us because the oppression of children is one of the most important principles of the culture we are immersed in. We have been robbed of the capacity to imagine anything else. We see the void not only after adult supremacy but before too. Adult supremacy had, in fact, a starting point. Cummings and Maghakyan write, on the rise of adult supremacy: "As older adults gradually took over, so did ageism. Most cultures forgot the contributions of their child- and youth ancestors and their genetic predisposition to lead. Today's denial of youth participation in decision-making contradicts the overall human record, which largely encompasses leadership experiences of young people, not their elders. Some indigenous peoples have continued to allow children and teens to participate in decision-making. The righteous western fight to protect children from forced labor as well as physical and psychological abuses should not be extended to limit opportunities for participation and leadership among people under the age of 18" ("When Youth Ruled the Earth", Cummings, Maghakyan). Employing radical youth liberation theory in the study of history could, for instance, help us greatly in imagining the future. It could do more than spotlight all the injustice children suffered at the hands of adults for millennia. It could also revise the history of children who in the past defied adultism and provide great models for contemporary youth. Of course, radical youth liberation theory is an interdisciplinary endeavor. I feel that feminist theory is the best example of what radical youth liberation theory should look like, and studying it could benefit youth liberationists. But ultimately, radical youth liberation theory cannot be the carbon copy of anything that currently exists; it takes creativity, exactly what the school system robs us of. The oppression of children doesn't resemble any other oppression being the foundation of all of it and therefore needs to be treated differently. Because it's outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable to demand the liberation of children, radical youth liberation theory is inherently unacademic. That doesn't make it anti-intellectual; on the contrary. It makes it revolutionary.