Sam Graham-Felsen and Youth

Let me begin by noting that I have several responses to Sam Graham-Felsen’s comments, and although I have tried to give them a sense of order, they are scattered. That said, I begin.

I really enjoyed Auditus’ response to what we read. Along similar lines, I think that Graham-Felsen asks his readers to play the game of social action on his terms. Namely, we are to assume that “real” social action is protest. Have we not all heard that it was eroding corporate support related to a flagging economy that ended Vietnam, not protests? Thus, should we not be dubious as to the impact of mass protests on at least these two levels? I know this is a standard academic response—analyze and criticize—but I am just not satisfied with the false dilemma being presented: protest or acquiesce. There are other ways to change the political order, and we may be witnessing the birth of some new ones—thank you Auditus.

On the other side there is the paucity of choices given to youth, both on the political and cultural level. First, in a two party system where the difference between candidates is less than one would like, apathy seems like a reasonable response. Many young people may wonder just how they could change the system when the alternatives all seem so similar to what they are trying to escape.

Second, unlike the sixties where one could “drop out” with little repercussion, we are now being monitored and tracked from high school to cemetery. Our grades follow us, our credit card debt finds us, and our police history is a threat to any future endeavor. How can we ever form a counterculture when we are so worried about our place in the greater culture? Until we reevaluate the situation where the individual is a commodity with saleable attributes and a history of past success and failures, engaging the system may require a courage few possess.

Third, the university environment is nothing like it was in the Sixties; when was the last time one of us heard of a faculty member making her/his classroom into the utopian environment regime change is assumed to bring? Really, we aren’t even that liberal ourselves: we all give grades, hold office hours, and maintain a particular distance from our students. Thus, if the incubators for social change are offline, why should we be surprised if social action is slow in coming?

Fourth, I ask why every flawed military conflict must be likened to Vietnam? Should we not ask if Korea makes a better comparison, or even our unethical involvement in Central America? Not all events in American history, even those truly unjust, sparked protest.

In sum, I think there is danger in applying old forms to current contexts. Moreover, our current political conditions are not providing engaging alternatives. Maybe what is needed most is a new cultural vision before youth can engage in dissent. If we ask our youth to repeat the actions of their grandparents, while knowing what their grandparents became in the years post protest, what are we really telling them? I feel we need to ask our youth to envision their ideal worlds, and then prompt them to undertake fitting action to realize these worlds. Saddling them with the expectations and behaviors of previous generations seems to be yet another injustice heaped upon the strained shoulders of those who are too often commanded and too infrequently considered.