Youth Politics and Intergenerational Relations
Youth Politics and Intergenerational Relations
A Youth Network Seeking for Development and Empowerment in Recife
Full PDF Download:
www.iss.nl/content/download/6519/60186/file/Cordeiro%202006.pdf
A Research Paper presented by:
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro
Brazil – rui@cidadania.org.br
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for Obtaining the Degree of:
Master of Arts in Development Studies
Specialization:
Politics of Alternative Development (PAD)
Members of the Examining Committee:
Dr. Kees Biekart (Supervisor)
Dr. Linda Herrera (Second Reader)
The Hague, The Netherlands
17 November 2006
Full PDF Download:
www.iss.nl/content/download/6519/60186/file/Cordeiro%202006.pdf
______________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Since the 1950s, development researchers and practitioners have been focusing on understanding ways to overcome poverty. During this process, many actors and issues have been identified as crucial for development, such as the women and the environment. Youth comes along such process, mostly as a perceived issue (youth development), but also as social actors (the role of youth to achieve development). This paper adds a contribution to literature and policies analysing intergenerational power relations between youth-led actors and non-youth-led actors in society. The case in point is the Network of Solidary Resistance (herein mentioned simply as RRS), a youth-led network based in one of the most unequal cities of Brazil, Recife. Its political agenda towards society is contrasted with the society’s agenda towards the youth, exposing some traces of discrimination from society towards the youth, as well as some tiredness and resistance from the youth towards its external society. The central question behind this research has to do with the level of influence of organised segments of youth in society. Such influence is revealed to be higher within the communities the youth in case work with and for, rather than within macro structures of power in society, where the root-causes of the communities’ problems are reported to come from. In addition, this research brings attention to the differences between youth policy and youth politics and the need for more agency based approaches toward the youth, beyond the typical needs and rights based approaches. The empirical data is constantly contrasted with clusters of knowledge within the literature, specifically in Political Science and Sociology. The main theories used here fit within youth and society, and power and development literatures. The main arguments to study the quality of intergenerational relationships as a mean for achieving development is due to [a] the fact that youth is the only character that crosscut the whole society and change of “category” (the youngsters of today will soon become the adults of tomorrow), and [b] the phenomenon of poverty and inequality in Latin America is persisting during many generations already, from parents to offspring, creating an intergenerational poverty circles that must be broken in order to stop poverty and recover development. In the last chapter, the paper also stresses the need of further research referring to the paradoxical locus of intergenerational and agency based approaches for long-term sustainable development.
Full PDF Download:
www.iss.nl/content/download/6519/60186/file/Cordeiro%202006.pdf
Foundations and Youth in Local Development
The Hague, 01/Nov/2006 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
The Role of a Private Foundation in Helping Communities to Engage Youth in Processes of Local Sustainable Development
(Or the role of a private foundation in helping youth to engage communities in processes of local sustainable development?)
Private foundations have many roles actually. Their especial condition, of being among the more autonomous and independent types of non-profit organizations nowadays, makes of them very special and unique. Furthermore, foundations are organizations that usually gather very special kinds of leadership, like servant leaders (Greenleaf and Spears 2002), what turn them to be natural servant organizations (Greenleaf 1977). To explore this uniqueness in relation to youth and development, let us start in the beginning of the development thinking.
Since the 1950s, development researchers and practitioners have been focusing very much on finding and understanding ways to overcame poverty and promote justice in our unfair world scenario. Along the process, many obvious actors and issues have been identified as crucial for development, such as the women and the environment. Youth comes along such process, mostly as a perceived issue, but also as social actors. As an issue, the youth is seen as target of development, an age-group that must be protected and prepared for a healthy and productive adult life; as actors, the youth uses its agency to promote its political agenda and interests within society, from youth’s own understanding about development.
The uniqueness of working with the youth for development ends, is that youth is the only character that crosscut the whole society [image 1] and change of “category”; all those who are young today will, under normal conditions of life, become adults tomorrow. Other actors live their uniqueness stuck in lesser changeable conditions (even though, not frozen for sure), being it of gender, ethnicity, culture or whatever. This more changeable condition makes the youth a segment that is very important to transmit changes (from local to structural ones) throughout generations, once those who experience high levels of empowerment while young, will certainly pay more attention to the youth-adult relationship in the coming generations. Another important factor still is that along the time, poverty [like wealth] is passed on from parents to offspring, creating an intergenerational poverty circle (Morán and Aldaz-Carroll 2001; Morán 2004; WKKF 2005a; Thompson 2006a) that must be broken in order to stop poverty and recover development. Once again, the transitory condition of being young is perceived here as an essential mean to fight poverty and achieve fair and just levels of development.
Furthermore, the role of youth in development seems to be changing rapidly. After feminism (1950s and 1960s), environmentalism (1960s and 1970s), democracy (1980s and 1990s) and security (2000s), youth seems to be the brand new issue blossoming in development practices and studies in the 2000s. Some evidences are found within a large spectrum, from our global governance system to grassroots. For instance, after big conferences and festivals about youth and development held in Senegal, Portugal and Panama, in April 2005 the United Nations launches its report “Youth and the Millennium Development Goals” (UN 2005b), followed, just six months latter, by its “World Youth Report 2005: Young people today and in 2015” (UN 2005a). Soon after, in September 2006, it is the World Bank that launches its World Development Report 2007, entitled “Development and the Next Generation” (WB 2006), completely focused on youth’s education, employment, health, families and citizenship. Apart of those big inter-governmental organizations, more independent developmental NGOs are also paying more attention to the youth in society, like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and its youth partnership program in Latin America (Tancredi 2005; Thompson 2006b), and Oxfam Australia with its International Youth Parliament (Oxfam 2000/2003), among some others. Yet, international academic institutions are now recognizing the importance of the field of youth and development. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Institute of Social Studies (www.iss.nl), together with other institutions, had already created an “International Centre for Child and Youth Studies”; moreover, it is now launching its brand new master program in “Children and Youth Studies”. Even though mixing children and youth issues, it is already a clear indicative of the raising public interest about youth and development.
When analyzing these new approaches, an important difference arises especially between inter-governmental organizations and developmental NGOs: the first group is still focusing primarily on youth as a targeted group to be transformed and protected by society; while, the second one seems to be investing in youth as a real actor capable of positively transform society. Furthermore, together with the first group, we can easily add governments and their public policies towards the youth, which only target youth as a age group, not taking into account youth politics, a distinction we will make clearer latter on in this essay.
It is key to clarify here that such conclusion comes from the analysis of WKKF and Oxfam Australia only, two quite more independent organizations; therefore, it cannot be generalized for all developmental NGOs. Indeed, many are still treating youth as target groups only or even do not see any need to work with/for the youth at all, especially those more dependent of government aid money to exist. It is important to stress that this may represent a natural clear signal of the differential role that more independent organizations, such like private foundations, may have in the field of youth and development: the way it perceives and tend to relate with the youth, as a partner actor within society [image 2].
One way or another, the importance of youth in development appears to be changing rapidly, but through the hand of non-youth actors. If the youth itself wants to have some agency or influence in this scenario, it will need to dig more into it. Some possible explanations for this change may lay in different reasons; among many others, we can allude to these: The current demographic “youth bulge” is one of the possible reasons: “today, 1.5 billion people are ages 12-24 worldwide, 1.3 billion of them in developing countries, the most ever in history” (WB 2006:4); as over 86% of the youth population is located in developing countries, as from the above numbers, the intergenerational poverty trap/circle (Morán and Aldaz-Carroll 2001; Morán 2004; WKKF 2005b; Thompson 2006a) is almost certainly to persist; a considerable number of incidents have been unfairly and generally attributed to young people in the recent years, like for instance: the last French youth upraise in October/November 2005 (Cordeiro 2005a); the stereotype of young male Muslims as primary suspects of terrorism (Sullivan and Partlow 2006); and in November 2005, in Recife, the youth upraise against the increased city’s public transport fare (Silva 2005); the increasing number of youth-led organizations (Queiroz 2004), and the changes in the political behavior of the youth (Abramo and Venturi 2000; IBASE and Pólis 2005; Tommasi and Brandão 2006); and the realization of the youth as a potential actors to promote positive change and to address both youth issues and the development of society as a whole (Oxfam 2000/2003; Rocha et al. 2005; Tancredi 2005).
This difference of perceiving youth as target group, and not as actors in society, may camouflage another important distinction within the field of youth and development: youth policy vs. youth politics. On the one hand, youth policies tend to target young people, either within a needs based approach or a rights based approach. This is observed not only in governmental youth policies, but also in civil society policies towards the youth. On the other hand, the political agenda of youth-led actors goes far beyond youth policies and usually privileges societal issues and problems, instead of youth related issues and problems only. This is due to the fact that youth, as a clear actor in society, is far from being self interested in their on youth issues. Their condition of being changing categories (from youth to adulthood), make them to worry about much broader and societal issues, like the environment, peace, economical processes, politics in general and so forth (Cordeiro 2006b). That is why youth-led movements always need a complement for their names, like: youth movements for peace, youth movements for the environment, even youth movements for the youth, and so on.
To make it even clearer, let us distinguish now between pro-youth movement and youth-led movement. The first one is composed by any (young or not) person or any (youth-led or not) organization that share the common objective of fighting for pro-youth policies and for youth rights, while the second one is composed by young people (as individuals) and youth-led organizations that fight for a variety of issues in society. The youth-led movement is diverse in its own essence; its nature and political agenda is equally diverse, but also complementary; and it is somehow engaged in a bigger claim for change from local to global societies (Cordeiro 2005b). The constituency of the youth-led movement has its basis on young activists, and on youth-led groups, organizations and networks. Furthermore, the spontaneous appearances of youth-led movements are means the youth has found to build up its own empowerment as actors in society [image 3]; apart of this, only participation approaches have been attempted by non-youth-led actors to try to empower the youth.
The dichotomy between empowerment and participation is brought to illustrate the difference between the society’s approaches towards the youth and the youth’s approaches towards society. In Brazil youth protagonism (Costa 2001; Costa and Vieira 2006) is the principal strategy used by non-youth-led civil society actors to implement youth right based approaches; although, still focusing on youth as target of their educative actions. Their final outcome is to change their targeted youngsters into protagonists of their own lives in society; being this an end in itself. Youth participation, hence, has been used as one of the most important tools for young people to become protagonists. As a result, many NGOs and even governments are opening more and more spaces, with their own agenda, and inviting young people to participate on them; mostly to discuss youth issues like education, health, employment, sexuality, family related problem and so forth. Many times, even well intentioned, such invited spaces become mere spaces of consultation, and sometimes of unintended tokenism and manipulation, as one can see observing two, among many, ladders of participation [image 4 and 5].
On the contrary, higher levels of youth participation in society are observed when empowerment comes first; youth-led actors – especially the more organized ones – are not necessarily willing to attend such invitations to participate in other one’s agendas; neither they are focusing on being targeted by other actors or on discussing youth related issues only. Their concerns aim the way society is structured, especially the communities and neighborhoods they live in (Cordeiro 2006b). In contradiction, youth-led actors prefer to create their own spaces of empowerment, to discuss their own political agenda towards society, rather than accepting external invitation to participate in spaces to discuss other one’s agendas (ibid.). For them, restlessness and associativism are revealed as the main baseline strategy to build up their empowerment (ibid.); furthermore, this is the way they find to actively participate in society’s life upon equal power relation with other actors in society [image 3].
Restlessness is the main characteristic demonstrated by many young individuals. The main source for such individual agitation lay especially on their concerns against the deprived social, economical and political situation of themselves, their families and neighbors. Naturally, it generates a strong impetus for doing something within those individuals, specifically against the abstract and constructed image of what for them represents the system behind the Brazilian social order: an apparent set of institutions and power holders that are able to take decision that affect their very lives, predominantly represented by big private companies and governments in general (Cordeiro 2006b). When they realize they are not alone, youth-led groups are created, above all spontaneously with no external actor facilitating the process (ibid.). These groups are linked by friendship and/or identity ties, and when they achieve more clear objectives and proposals, in a seek for more organization, they cross the blurred borderline into a youth-led organization (Rocha 2006).
Networking is the following natural step, with other youth-led organizations working in very different subjects, but still with a complementary role to come together in more strong ties of collective action. It is important to mention that all this observed process is followed by two crosscutting processes, the development of their political agenda towards society and the strengthening of their technical capacity building to act upon society with effectiveness and concrete results. Nevertheless, even with a quite clear political agenda and technical capacity for action; usually youth-led actors are still focusing to provoke change in their communities of origin, as a step for their own strengthening. A good strategy in which a private foundation could be helping this youth process is through supporting youth forums, which are usually defined as youth-led spaces to discuss the political aspects of the societies and communities they live in, in which youth may act upon to exercise some influence for the good will of the whole community/society. Youth forums may gather all kinds of youth actors together, from individuals to movements, for them to discuss their agenda towards society. Complementarily, they can also trigger the process of spontaneous youth associativism, where there is an absence of it. Ultimately, it can also achieve some desired results of this youth-led process: youth empowerment, youth participation and a youth agenda for the development of local communities.
In my view, this may represent a much more legitimate, effective and appropriated way of liking youth and development, because its main source of action lays on the restlessness of young actors that use their agency to bring about renewal to civil society as whole; moreover, it is a spontaneous processes that contribute to the political and technical development of all those involved, as a real exercise of citizenship and political attitude towards society. Furthermore, it is grounded in collective action and aims to social movement action, a needed force for the checks and balances between societies and governments. At last, but not at least, it represents the legitimate and empowered way that youth may participate in society, helping to break vicious problems circles that are lasting throughout generations in Latin America (Morán and Aldaz-Carroll 2001; Morán 2004), from the old and well known poverty and inequality gaps to the new phenomena of political apathy and disillusionment.
But it is not enough. Alone, the youth cannot be charged of solving the problems of society because their unique transitory condition. Partnerships are strongly needed, especially here intergenerational ones; otherwise, unwanted conflicts may emerge. On the one hand, intergenerational partnerships have been by far more proposed by non-youth-led actors, according to their own agenda, usually aiming the youth. On the other hand, conflicts become an unwanted resultant of this relationship, when there is little space for youth-led actors to carry on their own agenda aiming society. To avoid it and to build more youth trust towards non-youth actors, we can try to build more partnerships based on youth’s agendas. In the end, equilibrium between both agendas is needed and necessary, but it is time now to balance this equation [image 6], and non-youth actors have a decisive role for this.
On the youth-led actors’ side, if they want to provoke real structural change in their society, they will certainly need to partner with non-youth-led actors. I am pretty sure you have heard already this famous and public catchphrase “think globally, act locally”. The youth has proven to me its natural, legitimate and unique power to invert this catchphrase equation. From local to global, from micro to macro; youth-led actors may contribute to change it into something like think locally, act globally. For that, youth-led actors should use their spontaneous associativism, together with community networking and youth forums to create local intergenerational pacts proposed by youth-led actors to exercise influence over both micro and macro structures, wherever lays the main root-causes of their local community problems, and build up a new and sustainable present [image 7].
Back to the role of private foundations I strongly believe, due to their unique conditions of being servant and more independent and autonomous organizations, a private foundation that address development should seriously pay attention to the changing role of youth for development, and to context specific youth politics. As a consequence, they should not only help communities to engage youth in processes of local sustainable development, but further and beyond, they should also help the youth to engage their communities in these processes. As a consequence, this equilibrium of roles may culminate in distinctive and long-term intergenerational partnerships between such unique actors, a servant and autonomous foundation and the empowered youth, in cooperation for the sustainable future of their communities. Furthermore, due to the numerous progressist governments currently in power in northeastern Brazilian states after the general elections in October 2006, there seems to be a positive political momentum that, at a first glance, seems to be opening space to politically overcome the condition of young people as a target group into a real social actors (UFF 2006a, 2006b). Time will tell, of course, but any help from independent private foundations will be of great importance to trigger it, through supporting youth associativism and local development. Altogether, I believe these are all essential conditions to break our generational poverty circles in Latin America.
Images
Image 1 – Possible representation of society and the youth (Cordeiro 2006a, 2006b)
Image 2 – Trends in the way one deals with the youth (Cordeiro 2006b)
Image 3 – The challengeable way of creating legitimate youth empowerment (Cordeiro 2006b)
Image 4 – The ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969)
Image 5 – The ladder of youth participation (Hart 1992; Marx et al. 2005)
Image 6 – Trends of agenda setting flow in intergenerational partnerships (Cordeiro 2006b)
Image 7 – “Poltergeist youth theory towards society” (Cordeiro 2006b)
Reference
Abramo, Helena and Gustavo Venturi (2000). Juventude, Política e Cultura. In: Teoria e Debate, Vol. 45 (Jul/Aug/Sep 2000). http://www.projetojuventude.org.br/html/Juventude_Politica_e_Cultura.doc (10-Jun-2006)
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: JAIP, Vol. 35 (4). Pp. 216-224. http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html (10-July-2006)
Cordeiro, Rui Mesquita (2005a, 9 November). Be young and shut up? Youth Uprisings: from 1968 to 2005. Rio Branco: SEJA. Retrieved 24 April, 2006, from: http://www.ac.gov.br/juventude/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=8.
Cordeiro, Rui Mesquita (2005b, 22 June). Existe um Movimento Juvenil? Rio Branco: SEJA – Secretaria Extraordinária de Juventude do Acre. from: http://www.ac.gov.br/juventude/noticias/existeummovi.htm.
Cordeiro, Rui Mesquita (2006a, 21 July). Tensions and Challenges between Youth and Civil Society. The Hague: Essay for course 4319 at ISS, the Institute of Social Studies.
Cordeiro, Rui Mesquita (2006b). Youth Politics and its Influence in Society: A youth-led network seeking for development and empowerment in Recife. PAD – Politics of Alternative Development. The Hague: ISS – Institute of Social Studies. Vol. Master of Arts in Development Studies: 70.
Costa, Antonio Carlos Gomes da (2001). Tempo de servir: o protagonismo juvenil passo a passo; um guia para o educador. Belo Horizonte: Universidade.
Costa, Antonio Carlos Gomes da and Maria Adenil Vieira (2006). Protagonismo Juvenil: Adolescência, Educação e Participação Democrática. Salvador: Fundação Odebrecht. http://www.ftd.com.br/v4/detalhado.cfm?item_cod=12690105
Greenleaf, Robert K. (1977). Servant Leadership in Foundations. In: Robert K. Greenleaf and Larry C. Spears (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New Jersey: Paulist Press. Pp. 215-230. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0809105543&id (21 October 2006)
Greenleaf, Robert K. and Larry C. Spears (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New Jersey: Paulist Press. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0809105543&id (21 October 2006)
Hart, Roger (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Innocenti Essays No. 4. New York: UNICEF.
IBASE and Instituto Pólis (2005). Juventude Brasileira e Democracia: Participação, Esferas e Políticas Públicas – Relatório Final. Rio de Janeiro: IBASE & Instituto Pólis. http://www.polis.org.br/download/105.pdf (10-Jun-2006)
Marx, Maxwell; William Finger and Hally Mahler (2005). Youth Participation Guide: Assessment, Planning, and Implementation. Arlington: Family Health International. Retrieved 10 July, 2006, from: http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNADC995.pdf.
Morán, Ricardo (2004). Escaping the Poverty Trap: Investing in Children in Latin America. Washington: IDB Inter-American Development Bank. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1931003564&id=DTznCaPc0Q8C&dq=Escaping+the+Poverty+Trap&hl=en (15-Sep-2006)
Morán, Ricardo and Enrique Aldaz-Carroll (2001). Escaping the Poverty Trap in Latin America: The Role of Family Factors. In: Cuadernos de Economía, Vol. 38 (114). Pp. 155-190. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-68212001011400003&lng=es&nrm=i&tlng=en (15-Sep-2006)
Oxfam, Australia (2000/2003). International Youth Parliament: “Youth Building a Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable World”. Sydney: Oxfam. Retrieved 15 September, 2006, from: http://www.iyp.oxfam.org/.
Queiroz, Tereza Correia da Nóbrega (2004). Juventude é Atitude, Qual é a Sua? Recife: Fórum das Juventudes Recife/PE.
Rocha, Ana Angélica B. de M. (2006). Desafios e Perspectivas para as Organizações Juvenis. In: Fábio Deboni, Juventude, Cidadania e Meio Ambiente: Subsídios para a elaboração de políticas públicas. Brasília: Brasil – Governo Federal, Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Ministério da Educação. Pp. 123-126. http://www.protagonismojuvenil.org.br/portal/Noticias/noticia.asp?not=381 (25-Aug-2006)
Rocha, Ana Angélica B. de M.; Antonio Lino and Leandro David (2005). Juventude: parceira estratégica para o desenvolvimento local. Recife: Academia de Desenvolvimento Social.
Silva, Louise Caroline Lima e (2005, 25 November). Revolta do Buzão e Repressão em Recife. São Paulo: CMI Brasil / Indymedia Brazil. Retrieved 16 September, 2006, from: http://brasil.indymedia.org/pt/blue/2005/11/339372.shtml.
Sullivan, Kevin and Joshua Partlow (2006, August 13). Young Muslim Rage Takes Root in Britain. Washington: The Washington Post Newspaper. Pp A01. Retrieved 16 September, 2006, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201036_pf.html.
Tancredi, Francisco (2005). Opening Speech from the Kellogg Foundation 75th Anniversary Conference. São Paulo: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved 08 June, 2006, from: http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid=121&CID=297&ItemID=5&ExtraID=37&LanguageID=0&NID=178.
Thompson, Andrés (2006a). Partnering with Youth to Build the Future. In: Andrés Thompson, Partnering with Youth to Build the Future. São Paulo: Peirópolis & WKKF. Pp. 9-19.
Thompson, Andrés (2006b). Partnering with Youth to Build the Future. São Paulo: Peirópolis & WKKF.
Tommasi, Lívia De and Marcílio Brandão (2006). Juventude Brasileira e Democracia: Participação, Esferas e Políticas Públicas – Relatório Regional Recife. Rio de Janeiro: IBASE & Instituto Pólis. http://www.ibase.br/userimages/Regional_Recife.pdf (10-Jun-2006)
UFF, Observatório Jovem (2006a, 22 October). Entrevista com Rafael Pops (Juventude PT). Niterói: UFF – Universidade Federal Fluminence. Retrieved 23 October, 2006, from: http://www.uff.br/obsjovem/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=5&PHPSESSID=3740417243ef1e3177bfd10f2d2c33c0.
UFF, Observatório Jovem (2006b, 22 October). A juventude nos programas de governo de Alckmin e Lula. Niterói: UFF – Universidade Federal Fluminense. Retrieved 23 October, 2006, from: http://www.uff.br/obsjovem/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=5&PHPSESSID=3740417243ef1e31.
UN, United Nations (2005a, October). World Youth Report 2005: Young people today, and in 2015. New York: United Nations Report of the Secretary-General from: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/wyr05.htm.
UN, United Nations (2005b, April). Youth and the Millennium Development Goals: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 15 September, 2006, from: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/youthmdgs.pdf#search=%22UN%20report%20on%20youth%20and%20development%22.
WB, The World Bank (2006). World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation. Mamta Murthi (Ed.). Washington: The World Bank Group. 317p.
WKKF, W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2005a). Associando-se à Juventude para Construir o Futuro. São Paulo: WKKF. Retrieved 25-Aug, 2006, from: http://www.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF_DmaItem/ViewDoc.aspx?fld=PDFFile&CID=145&ListID=28&ItemID=5000219&LanguageID=2#search=%22associando-se%20com%20a%20juventude%20para%20construir%20o%20futuro%22.
WKKF, W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2005b). Partnering with the Youth to Build the Future in Latin American and the Carebbean: Framing the issue, a working draft. São Paulo: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. http://www.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF_DmaItem/ViewDoc.aspx?LanguageID=0&CID=145&ListID=28&ItemID=1450046&fld=PDFFile (08-Jun-2006)
Tensions and Challenges between Youth and Civil Society
Tensions and Challenges between Youth and Civil Society
The Hague, 21/July/2006 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
NGOs and Civil Society Building | ISS
Introduction
This essay deals with the relationship between the youth and civil society, trying to find tensions
and challenges of this interaction, especially with some types of non governmental organisations
(NGO), latter on specified. To start with, we initially clear the picture, defining society as a whole,
and youth as a power structure within society, with all its dichotomies and comprehensions.
Right after, we live society and focus on civil society specifically, stressing the main forms of
interaction between the youth and some types of NGOs. As a result, two main challenges are
exposed in this relationship, in terms of empowerment and participation. Such challenges are
discussed in the last part of this essay, where we elaborate more on these challenges and point
out some conclusions and considerations.
The Society and the Youth: Clearing the Picture
Alain Touraine says that the youth is just a reflex of society itself (Touraine 1996), being at the
same time its coming (a source of change and evolution) and its menace (a source of trouble
and threat). This is an interesting view that elucidates how diverse and contradictory society is in
itself, and so is the youth just the same. Both society and youth represent a collective of diverse
and heterogeneous actors, being the youth part of society’s realm.
As a result, defining society is an exercise of looking and understanding its diversity. Many try to
open up the box and to reveal the internal differentiations and variations in social structures,
like: 1. primary social relationships of identity and solidarity among kinship groups, ethnic
groups, primary groups and territorial groupings (Parsons 1961a); 2. economical relationships of
production and maintenance, like capitalists, labourers and the division of labour (Smith 1961;
Weber 1961), the ownership of private properties (Pollack and Maitland 1961), the household
micro-economic system (Play 1961), and the macro-economic development (Schumpeter 1961);
3. relationships of stratification and social mobility, like class stratification and struggle (Marx
1961); 4. relationships of social organisation, authority and power (Parsons 1961b); and lastly, 5.
relationships of religious beliefs, systems and society (Durkheim 1961). Overall, I usually define Rui Mesquita Cordeiro (9553) ②
society myself as the sum of the relationships and processes between all individuals and
organisations in a given space, time, and culture.
Within society, the main actors vary in many categories. I see five broader categories,
including the state machinery, the marketplace realm, the civil society space, the families (and
households), and the individuals (citizens and non-citizens). Besides, there are numerous other
crosscutting categories, like the youth, the men, the women, the elderly, the children, the
adults, classes, casts and so on, depending the cultural aspects of the society. These
crosscutting categories are all around those broader categories, populating part of them
[graphic 1]
.
Each one of them forms a variety of different relationships with the youth, and all other
crosscutting categories; therefore, any deep study on youth and society should analyse each of
these interactions. As an individual, a young person is subject of rights and duties towards all
broader categories of society, sometimes also subject of lack of rights also; within the family or
the household, a young person is usually exposed to power relations that make her/him
dependent of the relatives’ will; in the marketplace, young people are usually seen as consumers
and as labour force, many times cheap ones; in civil society, the youth is mostly seen as target
group, but some already see it as actors; and within the state, the youth can also be a target
group, subject of rights and duties, but as citizens it can also exercise an import political role in
societal and public affairs.
Defining youth implies the same level complexity. All above differentiations also apply to it, as it
is part of society itself. Additionally, the word ‘youth’ may suggest very different meanings, and
the simple exercise of looking at a dictionary revels to us the general public comprehensions
about it, like for instance: “1. the time of life when a person is young”; “2. the quality or state
of being young”; “3. (often disapproving) a young man:
[illustration]
the fight was started by a
gang of youths”; and “4. (also the youth) young people considered as a group” (Oxford
University 2001). These four definitions expose some of the important dichotomies
surrounding the relationship between youth and society. These main dichotomies, from my
own standpoint, are:
1. Youth as unity, youth as diversity: Youth, even in the singular form of the word, should be
understood as pure diversity and plurality, just like the word society is, otherwise, we
would always have to refer to societies (in its plural form). The most common perceived
differentiations within youth are: rural or urban youth (Carneiro 1998) (Ballinger 2006); poor,
middle class or rich youth (Tommasi 2005, 1-Nov); included or excluded youth (WEF 2000);
student and non-student youth (Dayson 2006); gendered youth and sexuality (male, female,
heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and so on) (Edwards 2004; Russell 2006);
and different religious youth (Webster 2006); among others.
2. Youth as a biological age group, youth as a social constructed identity: The two first
meanings on the dictionary are part of a classical dichotomy within youth and development
studies, between youth as a biological age group and youth as a social constructed identity. Rui Mesquita Cordeiro (9553) ③
Youth is a concept usually related to a certain age group; therefore, to a biological concept.
The UN system, for instance, defines youth as the group of people between the ages of 15
and 24 (UN 2005); however many other definitions are available, like those by Nicola Ansell
and Ben White
[table 1]
, but there’s no common agreement on these definition; moreover,
there are many inconsistencies between the academic world, the policy making world and
the real world when applying a biological approach to define youth. Many countries have
different official definition of youth for their youth policies: for El Salvador it is between 7-18
years of age, for Colombia between 12-26 years, for Costa Rica between 12-35, for Mexico
12-29, for Argentina 14-30, for Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and the Dominican Republic 15-24,
for Guatemala and Portugal 15-25, for Chile, Cuba, Spain, Panama and Paraguay 15-29, for
Nicaragua 18-30 and for Honduras it is between 0-25 (Reyes 2004). This biological
understanding is counter argued by the idea that youth is also understood as the state of
being young; being therefore a state of mind, or a state of spirit, that varies from culture to
culture (Côté and Allahar 1996). This is a social constructed approach, and as such, anyone,
being of any age, could be considered of youthful or non-youthful behaviour. As a matter of
fact, it is usual to find older people that still keep a strong youthful attitude towards life and
the world; while, on the other hand, it is not difficult either to find youngsters which
behaviour and attitude are far from being considered youthful. Another idea upon social
constructed approaches towards youth is the cultural concept of generations and
generational conflict (Baskir 2006).
3. Youth as a problem, youth as a solution: The third Oxford Dictionary’s meaning for youth
reveals the taboo already stressed by Alain Touraine (1996) of youth as a problem and
youth as a solution; but unfortunately, the dictionary only brings about the more
conservative side of this dichotomy, looking at youth is as a problem. Indeed, there are
many defenders of such an idea, and many existing organisations dealing with it. Three main
approaches are seen within this logic: youth as thugs, as user and as victims (Jeffs and
Smith 1999); furthermore, others analyse predictive and preventive factors to avoid the
“problem” (IYD 2003). The main critique to this view is about the negative label of marginal
or rebel given to the youth, and therefore the conservative response that automatically
comes in forms of control and punishment (Foucault 1975). From another perspective, more
progressist views point to youth as source of solutions, and sources of renew. Many
conferencesi
have been held and many websitesii
created to debate and to spread solutions
coming from segments of the youth, both toward the youth itself and society in general.
Recent ideas on partnering with the youth (Rocha et al. 2005; Tancredi 2005; WKKF 2005)
show that the youth has an important role to bringing society more alternative solutions.
4. Youth as future, youth as present time: From the previous dichotomies, it is easy to
develop the question whether the youth is owner of the future or of the present time. There
is still an important concern stating that youth points to the future of society; nevertheless, it
is very importantly to realise that many young people stress that it is not only the future that
belongs to them, but as they are “natives of the present” (Margulis and Urresti), they need to
be heard and to be taken into account right now, with no delay, both in terms of youth rights
and in terms of youth empowerment.
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro (9553) ④
5. Youth as target group, youth as actor: The last Oxford Dictionary’s meaning for youth
exposes yet another dichotomy, on youth as target group or youth as group of action.
Depending how one finds herself/himself over the previous dichotomies, she/he will relate in
a very different way to the youth. On the one hand, more conservative understandings on
unity, age, problem and future may open space for treating the youth as mere target groups.
On the other hand, more progressist understandings on diversity, identity, solution and
present open space for treating the youth as an actual actor in society; therefore, realising
that the youth should be considered and should participate in all levels of decision making in
our current society, in a true intergenerational dialog. Targeting the youth is still necessary in
some circumstances, some will argue, especially in cases of poverty, delinquency, lack of
rights, and so forth; but, my main point here is to argue that the youth today faces a similar
problem that the women faced (and unfortunately still face) of being sub judged by other
actors in society, the adults. This youth-adult relationship can be a source of conflict (Baskir
2006), but also a source of partnership (Tancredi 2005) and more equalitarian relationship
(Rocha et al. 2005). The more visible circumstance where this target/actor dichotomy occurs
is probably in formal and informal educational processes, when the relationship between
young people (usually as the educated ones) and educators become a power relation (and it
usually does) (Rocha et al. 2005).
To partially conclude, I stress that it does not stop here, simply understanding youth as social
actors; in addition, we will need to differentiate the different levels of power that youth actors
can achieve, in order to exercise more influence within society. As said before, we will focus on
the relationship between the youth and civil society, not forgetting about all other ones.
Civil Society and Youth: Forms of Interaction
To be considered as a real social actor, the youth must be understood as a power structure
within society, with social, economical and political roles to play. For such, we need to overcome
the notion of youth from an individualistic outlook (young person or young people power) and to
deal with the notion of youth collectives (youth groups, youth organisation and youth led
movement). This is due to a simple assumption, that collective youth action is the most
effective and important basis for political youth action and empowerment.
By youth collective I mean any kind of youth group or organisation, being it formal or informal,
legal or not, professional or volunteer, revolutionary or reformist, composed by two or more
young people (of any age), that shares any common identity or objective. From this definition,
of course, I exclude those youth agglomerations that do not necessarily share any identity or
objective. Youth collectives are the baseline for what I call youth led movement; however,
there are few, definitions for youth led movement. If we apply social movement theories, it is
easy to get to misleading conclusions that there is no such thing as a youth led movement.
Both my understanding and my experience tell me to define it through the empirical
observation of the phenomenon, rather than through social movement theories. Through the
realisation of such impressive social phenomenon, its presence becomes undeniable and
oblivious, even though still not very much recognised, especially in the field of development.
There is a key question to help understand the phenomenon: what does the youth movement
seek to achieve? And the answer may be very tricky. Two similar, but different, things should
be distinguished: a pro youth movement and a youth led movement. The first one is composed
by any (young or not) person or any (youth or not) organisation that share the common
objective of fighting for pro youth policies and for youth rights, while the second one is
composed by young people (as individuals) and youth collectives (groups and organisations).
The youth led movement is diverse in its own essence; its nature and political agenda is
equally diverse, but also complementary; and it is somehow engaged in a bigger claim for
change from local to global societies (Cordeiro 2005). The constituency of the youth led
movement has its basis on both young activists and, mainly, youth collectives. The main
aspect to differ a bunch of youth collectives and the youth led movement is the political aspect
of it; the more politicised the agenda of youth collectives is and the more open to society they
also are, the more part of the youth led movement they are perceived to be.
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro (9553) ⑤
How does this youth led movement fit into civil society? Civil society represents the vast scope
of thinking in relation to the relationship between state and society. My definition of civil
society is an adaptation of White’s (1994) definition iii
: civil society is an intermediate
associational realm between private and public interest, populated by organisations which are
separate from the state, the market, the family and individuals, with autonomy and are formed
voluntarily by members of society to protect or extend their interests or values. In between
the private and the public interest, there is a whole spectrum of half private/public interest,
composed by many groups of interest and organisations. On the one hand, the only pure
private interest is the interest of the individual himself/herself; while on the hand, the closest
to a real public sphere in the contemporary society is the state. However, a deeper
comprehension about the topic is vital, because civil society is a multi-dimensional concept.
Kees Biekart (1999) shows the material, the organisational and the ideological dimensions of
civil society; in addition, he differs economical society (inhabited by private for profit ventures)
from civil society and draws the boundaries of the relationship between the sate and civil
society through the called political society (Biekart 1999). The two main actors within civil
society are social movements and non-governmental organisations (NGO).
Within civil society, social movements are “collective challenges, based on common purposes
and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (Tarrow
1998). From a social movement literature perspective, the youth led movement does not
perform as a social movement in a constant flow; nevertheless, which movement actually
does? The life circle of social movements is very fluid and dynamic, which helps it to be
constantly renewed and reinvented. In this paper, the reader should not mix up the ideas of
social movement and youth led movement. To simplify, the youth led movement can behave
as a social movement, accordingly to context specific situations, but it is not compulsorily
characterised as such in its fundamental nature.
Yet still, NGO is at least a vague term that needs to the always better explained. Academically,
its broadness is also accepted and taken into consideration; therefore, there is a need to
narrow the concept in sub-divisions of NGOs. In the 1990s, the academic fever lied on the
strongly economical “third sector” explanation of the phenomenon (Salomon 1994), a very
broad and contested concept. Usually, the term brings about ideas of being private
organisations, therefore non-governmental; in addition, they do not seek for profit, being
therefore non-profit organisations, what differ them from private corporations. Still another
refinement, the term Civil Society Organisations (or CSO) is also largely applied. By CSOs,
some aid agencies mean those NGOs concerned with influencing public policies, excluding
those other ones concerned with service delivery (Biekart 1999 p.39). Another key aspect
while looking at NGOs is in terms of ownership; more popular organisation, like membership,
community and grassroots organisations, are significantly more accountable to their
constituency than others NGOs (ibid.). NGOs also differ in their agenda and context, thus it is
always useful to add adjectives to quality what kind of NGO you are referring to; for instance,
northern NGOs are different from southern NGOs, donor NGOs differ from recipient NGOs, just
like advocacy NGOs are dissimilar to their service delivery counterparts.
To illustrate the relationship between civil society and the youth, let us look at some different
kinds of NGOs (southern NGOs, donor NGOs and youth led NGOs) and their approach towards
the youth. The indicators I will use are in relation to their intervention, organisation,
accountability, power relation and level of influence; all of this based upon my personal
experience as a development practitioner and young activist from within the youth led
movement in the north-eastern region of Brazil between 1995 and 2005
[table 2]
.
Local NGO Donors NGO Youth Led NGO
Definition
Here we refer to local based
NGOs, usually dependent on
external resources, dealing
with youth issues in their
political agenda.
Here we refer to NGOs which
fund projects of local NGOs in
relation to youth issues. They
are usually based in the
northern developed
hemisphere; although, the
number of local donor NGOs is
slowly growing in Brazil.
Here we refer to youth
collectives which opt for a
legal and official status to
operate and to be able to
receive funds for their projects
and agenda.
Intervention
(Korten 1987)
Oriented either for service
delivery or for lobbying. In the
first case, they are usually
targeting young people to
deliver education, health of
capabilities for employment.
In the second one, they are
usually seeking and lobbying
for the creation or the
implementation of youth
rights and citizenship. Most of
these NGOs in northeast Brazil
do both things in their youth
projects.
Funding is usually given to
local NGO for them to achieve
and delivery projects for the
youth, establishing an vertical
aid chain (Biekart 1999).
Rarely they establish direct
partnership with the youth,
but there are initiatives
(Tancredi 2005).
Most of them address a
diverse spectrum of issues,
and only few of them address
youth issues alone. Even
though, they easily establish
real horizontal partnerships
with other youth collectives.
Organisation
(Fowler 2002)
Usually dependent of strong
leadership and vertical
relationships with donors.
Undoubtedly, they try to
overcome traditional forms of
market-like organisation, but
frequently they fall in the trap
of inefficiency and internal
crises.
Many of them are very
traditional and vertical, but
with room for innovation,
especially among donors less
dependent of the market.
Those constituted with market
money tend to be more
business-like.
Usually they are very
horizontal and practitioners of
collective leadership, being
very similar to membership
organisations. However,
sometimes this generates a
lack of practical needed
leadership. There is a
tendency of internal tension
when the initial leaders
become older in relation to the
other members.
Accountability
(Edwards and
Hulme 1995)
Typically, they are more
accountable upwards, to their
grant makers than inwards or
downwards, to their
constituency.
Like the local NGOs, they are
also mostly accountable
upwards, to their funders,
especially northern
governments.
There is a tendency of being
more inwards accountable,
rather them up or downwards,
especially because when they
do, they manage very small
budgets.
Power Relation
(Lukes 1974;
Foucault 1975)
They exercise some power
relations towards the youth,
especially to young people as
individuals in the case of
service delivery local NGOs.
Either conflicts or dependence
are easily created in such
cases. In the case of lobbying
local NGOs, the power relation
is different, less incisive, but
still few open space of the
youth to voice their need.
Commonly adults, experts on
youth issues, set the agenda
for the youth.
Indirect via local NGOs, but
they are typically some open
for youth consultation to
better organise their program;
rarely does it go beyond
consultation towards real
participation.
When youth led NGOs deal
with youth issues, they are
generally establishing more
horizontal power relation, by
the natural identification
process that happens between
them and the targeted young
people.
Influence in
Society
Their level of influence is very
variable, depending on the
networks on which these local
NGOs operate. Those working
with lobbying are in some
advantage.
Very high, not only because
they concentrate economical
power, but especially because
they are able to assemble
public opinion leaders as staff
members or as consultants.
Still very low, due to the lack
of recognition in society. The
natural way to achieve some
influence is via mobilisations
and manifestations.
Drawing from this simple analysis, at least two elements seem to be weak in this interaction
between NGO actors and the youth within civil society, the level and the quality of youth
participation in NGOs and the question of the youth empowerment itself. As crucial elements,
they are going to be especially analysed below, in order to understand the challenge, so
needed for the development of our local and global societies.
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro (9553) ⑦
Challenges of Youth Participation and Empowerment in Society
Participation and empowerment are two close concepts, once participation is ultimately about
decision making and for that empowerment is needed. Even being related, there is no causality
between one and another. On the one hand participation is understood as both means and
ends for the people to directly participate in political, economical or social decisions in issues
that affect their life; on the other hand empowerment is meant as the ability of individuals,
groups and organisations of achieving some autonomy and independence, as well as “the
structural conditions which affect the allocations of power in a society and give access to its
resources” (Breton 1994). For civil society, empowerment is also seen as complementary to
empowerment, as a way to encourage people to assume their rights and to strengthen popular
organisations, trough cognitive, psychological, political and economical dimensions (Molyneux
and Lazar 2003).
The challenge for the youth and its relationships within society lies on the connection between
both, as foreseen by Sherry Arnstein (1969), when she clearly defines participation as citizen
power; furthermore she differentiates the participation in a qualitative scale, the ladder of
citizen participation (ibid.)
[graphic 2]
.
GRAPHIC 2 – The ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969)
This quality of participation/empowerment is today really important for the youth in society,
due to the low quality of participation and empowerment, as observed in table 2 before. Non-
participation and tokenism are still present on this relationship between youth and civil
society; therefore, this initial idea of the ladder evolved into a new ladder, of youth
participation, by Roger Hart
[graphic 3]
The current level of interaction between NGOs and the youth is, with few exceptions, still
around the steps four, five and six of the latest ladder. Both ladders are important tools to
analyse the qualitative level of participation and empowerment; however, they may lead the
reader to the misleading perception that to achieve higher levels of participation it is needed to
climb the entire ladder up, step by step from the bottom to the top in a causality function,
what may not be necessarily accurate. As any other social process, participation and
empowerment are flexible and unpredicted processes, and factors like political will, power
relation and awareness are essentials to determine the movements of the quality of
empowerment and participation.
Anyhow, the challenge is to achieve higher levels of citizen’s control and youth initiated
initiatives sharing decision with adults, for a more equitable relation between youth and society.
For that, we propose more awareness about the youth internal reality and associativism, by
civil society organisations; moreover, we also suggest more awareness by the youth about the
relationships among themselves and the rest of civil society, especially about their political role
in society, as they might perceive it. From more awareness, inter-generational partnerships (or
conflicts) may result, depending on how problem is perceived and addressed by the different
actors, with their different powers. With more empowerment, the youth will be more able to
change the society in the way they perceive it, finding its place in the difficult paths of
development.
Be young and shut up? Youth Uprisings: from 1968 to 2005
Be young and shut up?
Youth Uprisings: from 1968 to 2005
The Hague, 09/Nov/2005 | By Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@cidadania.org.br
Thirty seven years after French student riots in Paris (May 1968), new riots take place in France.
May 1968 represented a great historic point for social movements in Europe and the whole world. Youth, as students, started an insurrection in France that quickly gained force and for little did not take revolutionary proportions. It started with protest for “the closure and the threatened expulsion of several students”[1] at the University of Paris at Nanterre. This generated students’ strikes through universities and schools, and soon it became also a worker’s strikes, all over France, stopping from half to two-thirds of French workforce at the time.
They were calling attention for something wrong happening in the world: personal frustration, wars, unemployment, poverty, inequality and others (see what was shown in slogans and graffiti by the end of this document).
Peaceful students’ and worker’s strikes soon became violent, after state (through police) intervention in occupied university and workplaces, under de Gaulle orders. But instead of controlling the riots, state intervention helped to sensitise others to join protests and strikes.
Art played a very import role in 1968 riots. It was a youthful way to protest against what was wrong. Many posters, like the ones used in this paper, represent the artistic and peaceful youth movement.
The movement gave space to discussion about development and freedom. Around the same historical moment, others new player movements were also taking place. John Friedman[2] (1992: 1) talks about “the new social movements of ecology, peace and women” and the “Paris student uprising of May 1968″ as part of the origins of Alternative Development thinking.
History seems to be ironic. Or so are human beings.
After 37 years, the same problems are still in place: personal frustration, wars, unemployment, poverty, inequality. Not only in France, but worldwide. After two young French died on 27 October 2005, new youth riots starts over Paris and France. The deaths happened after a police chase or a “tragic misunderstanding”[3], according to French authorities.
The dead young men were French citizens, but sons of immigrants. They used to live in the suburbs of Paris, and as many immigrants and decedents, excluded from the same social life that is common for “pure” French citizens.
That was enough to reveal again the youth voice that was hidden under the curtains of our world social structure. And new youth riots started again, over days and weeks in France!
And like in 1968, this time it was only started by youth. It is not only this suburban youth which is suffering of exclusion, but also their families and adults neighbours. Quickly it is becoming a riot in partnership among youth and other excluded, basically muslins and immigrants.
Mr. de Villepin, French Prime Minister, has copied Mr. de Gaulle in 1968, and asked police intervention, what again only stimulated further protests. I wonder whether french authorities remember or not their own history. As a direct result of police intervention, youth protests quickly are spreading over Paris and in many other cities in France, where immigrant population suffers of similar problems. Even other rich countries in Western Europe started to fear that similar youth riots could also take place there, given the social problems.
All over the world, similar social and economical problems generate youth restlessness and further action. But it is only in times of crises, when youth tries to use some hard power instead of their usual soft power, that media and governments pay attention to youth action, manifestation and initiatives. And the worse is that it’s always labelling youth as bad persons, productive less, vagabonds and anarchists (in the wrong meaning of this word).
There are lots of youth organisations, all over the world, addressing and stressing many different issues in society. They use their soft power all the time to fight inequalities. And like in 1968 they are also using art to deliver their message. Have you ever heard the real Hip-Hop expression?
When is the adult world stopping to really listen the youth? There is an inter-generational conflict installed since a long time ago. We just close our eyes to it!
Youth can bring very good answers. Actually they bring answers! Take a look on the websites below and be surprised with the quantity and quality of grassroots work youth is leading all over the world. Some of these websites have the same intention of the 1968 posters. Be aware that the great majority of the current youth organisations do not maintain website on the internet. This is just a simple and small sample of the whole greater picture.
Latin America:
http://www.movimentojuvenil.org.br/
http://www.iica.org.uy/redlat/
http://www.joveneslac.org/
North America:
http://www.youthmovements.org/
http://www.takingitglobal.org/
http://www.youthradio.org/
Europe:
http://www.ojala.nl/
http://www.unoy.org/
http://www.cje.org/oje/
Africa:
http://www.azapo.org.za/
http://www.mysakenya.org/
http://www.youthmedia.org.zm/
Asia:
http://www.game4change.org/
http://www.takingitglobal.org/resources/orgs/view.html?OrgID=4896
http://www.takingitglobal.org/resources/orgs/view.html?OrgID=7537
Youth is not shutting up! Youth is speaking up! And it is bringing alternative forms of development and hope for society. But it seems that the adult world is not interested and consequently not partnering with youth to (re)build the present.
A tension is installed and from time to time it just blows up! That’s what is happening again in France, an explosive mixture of social injustice and intergenerational tension.
Both riots did not happen because youth is violent, but because the world is unfair. Much more violent were/are politicians and their greed. They created wars and the current unequal social structure we have.
And how about the future? How many riots like these we still need to wait in the future? The turbulence in France will pass, but what about injustice? Will it too?
Youth uprisings of 1968 changed French and western societies in many ways: culturally, sexually, intellectually and even politically.
Will this new youth upraise of 2005 change society again somehow? Will we realise that the biggest challenge and problem we face today in our planet is inequality? This is what youth is claming now! Will we listen to them?
I believe we (as society) have two paths to follow: listen youth through their soft power or through their hard power. Which one we choose, will give us very different consequences.
________________________________________
Slogans and graffiti one could see on French streets and posters in May 1968[4]:
L’ennui est contre-révolutionnaire.
Boredom is counterrevolutionary.
Pas de replâtrage, la structure est pourrie.
No replastering, the structure is rotten.
Nous ne voulons pas d’un monde où la certitude de ne pas mourir de faim s’échange contre le risque de mourir d’ennui.
We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom.
Ceux qui font les révolutions à moitié ne font que se creuser un tombeau.
Those who make revolutions by halves do but dig themselves a grave.
On ne revendiquera rien, on ne demandera rien. On prendra, on occupera.
We will claim nothing, we will ask for nothing. We will take, we will occupy.
Plebiscite : qu’on dise oui qu’on dise non il fait de nous des cons.
Plebiscite: Whether we say yes or no, it makes chumps of us.
Depuis 1936 j’ai lutté pour les augmentations de salaire. Mon père avant moi a lutté pour les augmentations de salaire. Maintenant j’ai une télé, un frigo, une VW. Et cependant j’ai vécu toujours la vie d’un con. Ne négociez pas avec les patrons. Abolissez-les.
Since 1936 I have fought for wage increases. My father before me fought for wage increases. Now I have a TV, a fridge, a Volkswagen. Yet my whole life I’ve been a chump. Don’t negotiate with the bosses. Abolish them.
Le patron a besoin de toi, tu n’as pas besoin de lui.
The boss needs you, you don’t need him.
Travailleur: Tu as 25 ans mais ton syndicat est de l’autre siècle.
Worker: You are 25, but your union is from the last century.
Veuillez laisser le Parti communiste aussi net en en sortant que vous voudriez le trouver en y entrant.
Please leave the Communist Party as clean on leaving as you would like to find it on entering.
Je suis marxiste tendance Groucho.
I am a Marxist of the Groucho tendency.
Soyez réalistes, demandez l’impossible.
Be realistic, ask for the impossible.
On achète ton bonheur. Vole-le.
Your happiness is being bought. Steal it.
Sous les pavés, la plage !
Beneath the cobblestones, the beach!
Ni Dieu ni maître !
Neither God nor master!
Godard : le plus con des suisses pro-chinois !
Godard: the biggest of all the pro-Chinese Swiss assholes!
Soyons cruels !
Let us be cruel!
Comment penser librement à l’ombre d’une chapelle ?
How can one think freely in the shadow of a chapel?
À bas la charogne stalinienne ! À bas les groupuscules récupérateurs !
Down with the Stalinist carcass! Down with the recuperator cells!
Vivre sans temps mort – jouir sans entraves
Live without dead time [ie. work-time] – enjoy without chains.
Il est interdit d’interdire.
It is forbidden to forbid.
Dans une société qui a aboli toute aventure, la seule aventure qui reste est celle d’abolir la société.
In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society.
Et cependant tout le monde veut respirer et personne ne peut respirer et beaucoup disent ” nous respirerons plus tard. ” Et la plupart ne meurent pas car ils sont déjà morts.
Meanwhile everyone wants to breathe and nobody can breathe and many say, “We will breathe later.” And most of them don’t die because they are already dead.
L’émancipation de l’homme sera totale ou ne sera pas.
The liberation of humanity will be total or it will not be.
La révolution est incroyable parce que vraie.
The revolution is incredible because it’s real.
Je suis venu. J’ai vu. J’ai cru.
I came. I saw. I believed.
Cours, camarade, le vieux monde est derrière toi !
Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!
Il est douloureux de subir les chefs, il est encore plus bête de les choisir.
It’s painful to submit to our bosses; it’s even stupider to pick them.
Un seul week-end non révolutionnaire est infiniment plus sanglant qu’un mois de révolution permanente.
A single nonrevolutionary weekend is infinitely more bloody than a month of permanent revolution.
Le bonheur est une idée neuve.
Happiness is a new idea.
La culture est l’inversion de la vie.
Culture is the inversion of life.
La poésie est dans la rue.
Poetry is in the street.
L’art est mort, ne consommez pas son cadavre.
Art is dead, don’t consume its corpse.
L’alcool tue. Prenez du L.S.D.
Alcohol kills. Take LSD.
Debout les damnés de l’Université.
Arise, wretched of the University.
Même si Dieu existait il faudrait le supprimer.
Even if God existed he would have to be suppressed.
SEXE : C’est bien, a dit Mao, mais pas trop souvent.
SEX: It’s okay, says Mao, but not too often.
Je t’aime! Oh! dites-le avec des pavés!
I love you! Oh, say it with cobblestones!
Camarades, l’amour se fait aussi en Sc. Po, pas seulement aux champs.
Comrades, people are making love in the classrooms, not just in the fields.
Mort aux vaches!
Death to the cows (police)!
Note: All pictures were taken from Mark Vallen’s “Art for a Change” website:
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Paris/paris.html
[1] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Events of May. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_student_riots#The_Events_of_May | 09 November 2005
[2] Friedman, John. Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1992.
[3] BBC News. The deaths that set Clichy ablaze. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4399070.stm | 06 November 2005
[4] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Slogans and graffiti from May 1968. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_student_riots#Slogans_and_graffiti | 09 November 2005
The Meaning of Social Incubation
The Meaning of Social Incubation
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro
rui@cidadania.org.br
Recife, PE – Brazil, June 04, 2003
Between October and November 1998, I attended an OBJ[1] course, held in Rio de Janeiro, on Youth Public Polices. It was particularly very inspiring for me and for what shortly would become the Social Development Academy Institute[2], a non-governmental organisation that I helped to establish in June 1999 in the city of Recife/Brazil. It was there when came up for the first time in mind the idea of social incubation.
But what is exactly a social incubator? Trying to decipher this concept, that has many and distinct meanings, we need to understand the origins of the first incubators, the business incubators, where everything had begun. The concept of business incubation has its origin in the 1950′s, in the United States. These business incubators are understood as organisations that would offer a set of facilities for a certain number of new small businesses, sharing services, equipments and space, receiving support from the incubator itself on accessory, training and access to other information resources that normally they would not find as easily as if they were starting their activities by themselves on the extremely competitive and voracious market.
Business incubators gained public visibility in the 1980′s. On this time the first Brazilian business incubators had emerged, stimulated and strongly supported by Brazilian universities in some cities known by having good scientific and technological infrastructure, qualified human resources and proximity of industrial areas, such as São Carlos/SP, Campina Grande/PB, Florianópolis/SC and Rio de Janeiro/RJ.
During the 1990′s the business incubator model suffers its first great mutation. That happens when the first incubator of cooperatives appears in Brazil, in 1995, in Rio de Janeiro. The incubation process looks as if the business incubator’s one, however the incubated projects would have to be built from a cooperative and associativism model, and to be extensive to low-income popular segments. This new kind of incubator appears among a context of strong social exclusion, increasing of unemployment rate and dismantlement of the old labour protection forms, in which Brazil was inserted in this period. In this sense the cooperative movement, in an economy of solidarity background, gains force as a real alternative to the formal employment crisis, in a specific collective work and self-management ideology, being a true counterpoint to the capitalist logic and means of production, in which are perfectly inserted the business incubator model.
The first incubator of cooperatives created in Brazil, in 1995, was the Technological Incubator of Popular Cooperatives[3] of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, developed after discussions carried out by university work and income generation study groups[4]. Currently there are tens, or even hundreds, of incubators of cooperatives spread out all over Brazil and even in other countries and continents.
So far these are the only incubation models taking place out there, the business incubator and the incubator of cooperatives. Within two antagonistic economic development logics, the first one full of capitalist values and the second one full of solidarity values.
And what the meaning of social incubation has to do with this? The fact is that the concept of social incubation flees from a model of economic development only. The concept of social incubation has to do with a model of social development, in other words, a model of civil society, and its social relations, development. That means a second mutation of the initial model of incubation appeared in the 1950′s. They would be incubators that would not incubate productive and economic oriented organisations, such as private companies or cooperatives, for example, but not for profit organisations, coming from the civil society and its social movements, such as NGOs (non-governmental organisations), community associations, class entities, social, cultural or environmental projects, and others. Organisations who have a key role in the new international order we’re facing today. Organisations that act mainly locally but that usually act integrated to other similar organisations, building networks and partnerships, playing fundamental roles in a diverse spectrum of social intervention: the individual, the family, the community, groups of interest, minorities, excluded etc., as well as influencing politics and economy.
So that it is actually a third model of incubation. The social incubation, that since that course on Youth Public Polices in 1998, the Social Development Academy Institute is studying, arguing and trying it, so that, finally in July 2002, supported by W.K. Kellogg Foundation[5] and the SEBRAE[6], the first social incubator of Brazil, and the world, has been officially launched in the city of Recife/Brazil, the Social Incubator towards Youth Action. The quarrel and experimentation process that culminated in the creation of the first Social Incubator was led considering some concepts and values, beyond the concept of incubation itself. Concepts such as civil society, social movements, social development, social management, leadership, social entrepreneurism, social protagonism, youth, fidget and social change, as well as values such as participation, solidarity, collectivism, cooperation, democracy, love and peace also are token into consideration in the whole process.
The Social Incubator towards Youth Action aims to support young social entrepreneurs seeking to change their society, and to build institutional bases in places where institutions are not quite strong yet. In January 2003 the first 16 projects were incubated. On this incubation model, youth groups have the opportunity to initiate or to expand their proposals of social, cultural or environmental intervention, built from a legitimacy bases with their end public, with no competitive nature or profitable ends. The support offered to these groups are very wide, from a shared office completely equipped for use until a mentoring system, that involves accessory and evaluation, as well as training courses on social management and networking. All focused to provoke cycles of local social changes from the groups and projects incubated, if possible integrated in a bigger proposal of sustainable local development, based on a multidiscipline network.
But the truth is that this new incubation model is still under development. And the debate about the social incubation concept is also something very new. As said initially, the concept itself has many and distinct meanings. And perhaps the better thing to do at the moment is a plenty and vast debate on the concept, coming from different actors, as the existing incubators, NGOs, social movements, universities, governments and others, therefore the social incubators can become a true motor and catalyst instrument for social development, not only in Brazil but worldwide.
________________________________________
Published in Portuguese at:
http://www.protagonismojuvenil.org.br/portal/Noticias/noticia.asp?not=228 | 04/June/2003
http://www.fermanconsultoria.com.br/acervo_artigos_news08.php | 12/June/2003
http://www.movimentojuvenil.org.br/home/arquivos/incubadora-social.pdf | 14/September/2004
[1] OBJ: Organização Brasileira da Juventude (Brazilian Youth Organisation), www.obj.org.br
[2] Academia de Desenvolvimento Social (Social Development Academy Institute), www.academiasocial.org.br
[3] Incubadora Tecnológica de Cooperativas Populares (ITCP), www.coppe.ufrj.br/coppe/incubadoras.htm
[4] PEREIRA, Almir Rogério. In “Aspectos econômicos das experiências de desenvolvimento local”.
[5] W.K. Kellogg Foundation, www.wkkf.org.
[6] SEBRAE: “Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas” (Brazilian Service on Supporting Micro and Small Business), www.sebrae.com.br.
From Social Protagonism to Social Entrepreneurship
From Social Protagonism to Social Entrepreneurship
Rui Mesquita Cordeiro
Recife, Brazil, 17/April/2003
Since 1995 I work as an activist young people in youth social movements, along these eight years I have perceived, with great satisfaction, that many NGOs have been aiming their programs to stimulate youth protagonism. In this beginning of century, I perceive that a part of those adolescents from the 1990s who had participated in such programs, today are conscientious adult young people aware of their surrounding world, and they go further beyond protagonism itself, being true social entrepreneurs, intervening directly within society through their own proposals, provoking and inspiring changes at their surrounding social relations.
But what does being a protagonist mean, in deed? The word protagonist is formed by two Greek roots: “PROTO”, the first one or the main one, and “AGONISTES”, the fighter. In the Aurélio dictionary, it is given this definition: “person who plays or occupies the first place in an event”. From this, we can better try to understand youth protagonism.
According to Grupo Interagir[1], from Brasilia/Brazil, “youth protagonism means, technically, young people to participate as the principal actor in actions that do not say respect to their private, familiar and affective life, but to problems in relation to the common good, in the school, the community or the society as a whole. Another aspect of protagonism is the notion of young people as source of initiatives, of action; as source of freedom, of option; and as source of commitments, of responsibility”.
This perception that the youth can and must carry out actions in front to their world and their own reality is very important, mainly for being a mean of awareness and education that happens not from teaching, through books and words, but from hand-on learning, with the youth occupying a central position in the process.
Amongst these young social protagonists, some act as true catalysts for social change. This generally occurs, from what I have observed, when they, from their critical awareness and vision of world as social protagonists, start to create real proposals for social intervention, that generally are materialized in new groups, initiatives, social projects or organisations, proposing new methodologies for intervention, in the most different fields of social realm (the family, the quarter, the culture, the environment, development, and so on). For their critical temperament towards previously established standards, for their restlessness, creative capacity and spirit to promote transformations, I perceive that these young social entrepreneurs are actually contributing for real changes in social relations.
This transition from being a ‘social protagonist’ to being a ‘social entrepreneur’ is something subtle and hardly perceived or discussed with clarity, including among the same NGOs that stimulate youth protagonism. For such there is still a lack of programs aiming to support young social entrepreneurs, now at this beginning of century. The term ‘social entrepreneurship’ is also not very spread and discussed among NGOs and social movements, and its interpretation is sometimes confused and misleading. The practices adopted by the Social Development Academy Institute, NGO which I dedicate myself and that I helped to establish back in 1999, in the city of Recife, may be highlighting that this kind of young people that surpassed the social protagonist profile towards a social entrepreneur profile already find a support program for their social transformation initiatives, although still on its embryonic form.
But what does being an entrepreneur means? And what about social entrepreneurhip? In the common sense, to be an entrepreneur is associated with the creation of private businesses in the market, but this is a poor form of if applying such term. “The term ‘entrepreneur’ originated in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In French, it means someone who ‘undertakes’, not an ‘undertaker’ in the sense of a funeral director, but someone who undertakes a significant project or activity” [2]. Since then, the term has been basically used through a mere economical outlook, with strong bias toward the generation of economic value and the exploration of market opportunities.
According to Gregory Dees[3], “social entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector”. In this sense, the notion of social entrepreneurship does not imply in economics bias; otherwise, as the own term points out its bias is social, rooted in the society’s and social relations matters. E is exactly in this field that the social entrepreneurs act with its groups, initiatives, projects and organizations. That’s the action field for social entrepreneurs and their groups, initiatives, projects and organisations.
Dees highlights five basic, common characteristics to social entrepreneurs: 1) “Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value)”; 2) “Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission”; 3) “Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning”; 4) “Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand”; and 5) “Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created” 3.
While reading such characteristics we can better perceive the differences between being a protagonist and being a social entrepreneur, and even establish some points to evidence some differences.
A great social protagonist characteristic is her or his high level of awareness toward the world and her or his surrounding reality. Despite this fact, protagonists do not necessarily enjoy a central and explicit social mission in their life, or in their group’s life, as it normally occurs with social entrepreneurs.
Another important characteristic of social protagonists is their active participation in the society, through the existing means already handy, in the most varied social instances (the family, the school, the quarter, the city, the country, similar group, on so forth). Social entrepreneurs, in addiction, beyond participating in the existing means of participation also seek to create new means and ways of participation; furthermore, they also look forward in helping other people to actively participate in society, always on track to serve their social transformation mission.
On the one hand, social protagonists do not necessarily dedicate full-time and full-energy on their participation, awareness building and social mobilisation; many times they divide this performance with a parallel professional activity, generating their financial and material maintenance. On the other hand, social entrepreneurs generally seek not to divide their time and energy in parallel activities. Even though such parallel activities might exist at specific moments for survival reasons, social entrepreneurs’ focus is to be able to sustain their basic necessities through their work to achieve their social mission, together with their group, without material accumulation greed.
Altogether, I realise that all the social entrepreneurs are also social protagonists, while the opposite is not necessarily true. Social entrepreneurs, besides carrying out important roles in society, also provoke true social changes from their restlessness while human beings.
Despite the fact that today we can clearly identify some people as social entrepreneurs, in very different fields of social action and very different geographic places around of this planet, there is still a lot to be discussed and actually built toward initiatives and programs to support young social entrepreneurs, starting from the debate itself on the subject, which still generates many controversies and doubts. Another starting point is the observation of the rare initiatives that exist today to support this part of the youth that go beyond its protagonism and start to undertake social change project, in a search for building a new, fairer and more solidary world.
Published in Portuguese at:
http://www.protagonismojuvenil.org.br/portal/Noticias/noticia.asp?not=215 | 23/April/2003
http://www.terceirosetor.org.br/noticias/noticias.cfm?ID=1484 | 23/April/2003
http://www.enlacesbrasil.org/discus/messages/74/692.html?1077058971 | 31/October/2003
http://www.lead.org.br/article/view/392/1/186 | 19/March/2004
http://www.movimentojuvenil.org.br/home/arquivos/prot-juv-empr-soc.pdf | 14/September/2004
http://www.obj.org.br/site/revista/noticias.asp?id=139 | 10/March/2005
http://www.portaldovoluntario.org.br/site/pagina.php?idartigo=15&idmenu=46 | 09/April/2006 (last viewed date)
[1] Grupo Interagir is a youth group from Brasilia, in Brazil: www.protagonismojuvenil.org.br, portal@protagonismojuvenil.org.br.
[2] Dees, Gregory (2001). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Stanford University. http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/Dees_SEdef.pdf | 09/April/2006
[3] Dees, Gregory (2001). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Stanford University. http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/Dees_SEdef.pdf | 09/April/2006
