Hi Bruce and Lawry,
(BL)
<<<<
I share you personal concern. I hope everything works out for your son.
>>>>
Thank you.
(BL)
<<<<
What sociological theory are you talking about?
>>>>
I'm talking of the general tenor of sociology of the last few decades
which, to generalise, says that if you get the social environment right
then all your major social problems will fall away. This obviously hasn't
been so in Australia. If you have a generous welfare state imposed from a
centre which doesn't know how to discern the "deserving" from the
"undeserving" then you not only help those who need help but you also
de-motivate many more. (In England, 15% of working-age males don't work and
are on welfare. These are not counted in the unemployment figures because
these don't register as being available for employment.) Harry Pollard's
current reply to Ed Weick is much more eloquent on this point than I can be.
Going back to the Australian fires, as we are talking of youngsters being
the cause of many of them, Lawry has thrown in a comment on this with which
I wouldn't quarrel:
(LdeB)
<<<<
Boredom? A feeling that the future has been set for them by the adults, who
have different values, without consulting the kids? A desire for true
attention? Anger at the cloying web of rules that surround kids? A feeling
of value-lessness that comes from constant exposure to commercialism?
Perhaps the real cultural criminals are the intrusive commercialisers, the
complacent parents, the absent or preoccupied parents, the boring and
unthinking robotic adults...
>>>>
I would agree that commercialism has a part in this and the lack of
discernment by a sizeable part of the population who have been badly
educated (and who are now carrying huge credit card debts, among other
things). More specifically, it is a fact that so many of our young (males
particularly) are kept at arms length by adult society -- much as
apprentices were in medieval society for several years, except that in
modern times many youngsters are not learning those job skills which, at
the end of a definite period, means that they can then be fully initiated
into adulthood.
So, instead of using the "welfare state" as the general cause I could have
used "education" equally validly. They're both involved. Here's a quote
from David Hargreaves ("The Mosaic of Learning", Demos, 1994) (Demos is an
independent think-tank, but directed by an ex-Marxist and, if anything, is
slightly to the left of centre.):
(DH)
<<<<
If one wanted to create a separate teenage culture, if one wanted to make
adolescents feel cut-off from adult responsibilities, the best way would be
to do as we now: segregate them for most of their lives outside the family
with those who happen to have been born in the same year.
>>>>
Keith
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________
