Age Based Rights and Social Perceptions of Youth Thomas Crafts University of Rochester Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development Professor Allen, ED 415 December 17, 2006

1

Age Based Rights

2

Studies of adolescence inevitability turn to the age ranges being discussed and evaluated. Whether adolescence is viewed as teenage years or as some broader definition, time and age are often central to the discussion of issues pertaining to adolescents, even if not explicitly stated. Not only do behaviors and attitudes separate children from adults during the period of adolescence, but age also serves as a marker to delineate groups. Further, age does not only enter into academic discussions of youth, but also has a constant impact on the daily rights and privileges enjoyed by youth in American society. As Lesko (1996) notes, “age grounds numerous social practices, such as legal statutes, age-graded classrooms, military service and voting. Thus, age (and, by extension, time) is a lynchpin that connects scientific research, historical sedimentations, and present social practices of difference in naturalized and normalized ways” (p. 456). Given the importance of age, it is one of the crucial concepts to examine in studying adolescent development and social perceptions of youth. There is no easy way to determine the ages at which children or adolescents should be socially and legally deemed “adults.” In fact, the ages constructed for the granting of privileges are in many ways arbitrary. Yet, in order to present an image of fairness and consistency, society treats age as the only just measure by which to grant rights. In reality, age-based rights often contradict one another when youth are considered “children” in certain contexts and “adults” in another. In a very famous example, these contradictions came under fierce criticism during the Vietnam War when a young man could be drafted into military service beginning at age 18 but he could not cast a vote for the representatives who declared war until he was age 21. Recognition of this disparity led to the passage of the 26th amendment in 1971, lowering the voting age to 18 (National Archives). Although this

Age Based Rights

3

modification improved the consistency of age-based policies, it clearly demonstrates the arbitrary nature of these age restrictions. Overnight, millions of 18 to 21 year olds gained the right to vote simply because of a policy change based on their age, not because they became inherently more responsible. Unfortunately, there is no other marker of maturity as fair and easy to apply as age. While ethnicity, gender, and social class are no longer considered appropriate factors for granting government rights, age remains a widely used and socially accepted measure of control because it is essentially attainable by all. Thus, age should not be eliminated as measure of granting rights and privileges; indeed, age presents a convenient marker. However, one must recognize that the emphasis on age frames the way society perceives adolescents and legitimizes the control of youth by adults. A study and critique of age-based social perceptions of youth has basis in both adolescent development literature and modern social practices. In the United States, the use of age and time as the predominant marker of development is a relatively new cultural practice (Rogoff, 2003). Prior to the late 1800s, there was little reference to a person’s age and many people did not know their exact birth date (Rogoff, 2003). The importance of clock-time and the use of age as a marker may be linked because both the study of adolescence and the modern conception of time were created at the turn of the twentieth century (Lesko, 2001). The need for consistent time to maintain efficient and profitable railroad systems during the period of industrialization presents the example of how, “temporalization of human life and growth occurred with and through numerous processes and events” (Lesko, 2001, p. 109). The concepts of ordering events according to time and determining the course of biological speciation through time spread through science and became central to the developments of the period. Soon after, these ideas centered on the

Age Based Rights

4

importance of time spread into the work of early American adolescence literature, such as G. Stanley Hall’s “construction of age-based developmental stages upon racist, evolutionary, and colonialist rankings of groups and individuals” (Lesko, 1996, p. 461). Under this early line of thinking, youth are positioned as separate and distinct from adults based primarily on their age. Lesko (1996) argues, These conceptions of adolescence rest upon a form of biological determinism, the belief that people at the bottom of the social hierarchy are there because they are naturally inferior (because of poor brains, bad genes, female gender, or whatever). Adolescents’ natural inferiority comes by way of their chronological age and associated pubertal changes, both of which are taken as unremarkable, as natural (p. 462). Adults rank themselves as superior based on age alone; development in time is used as the basis for domination to establish an inferior group (Lesko, 1996). Lesko (1996, 2001) likens the relationship between adults and youth to that of conquerors and colonized people. While the analogy may seem unsettling to adults, these conceptions and beliefs that adolescents are entirely different from and inferior to adults form the justification for restriction of rights according to age. As Lesko (1996) points out, Since children and youth are in the state of always becomingness, they do not exist in the present, and therefore we can do what we want with them. We say they are developing, which appears to give adults license to neglect and exploit them without many second thoughts. Here again is the similarity between adolescents and colonized people: they are described as wholly other, of a different time and a different psychological make-up” (p. 469). The “othering” that results from describing adolescence as a distinct stage underpins much of the post-colonial theory that grounds social perceptions of youth. Not all researchers base the concept of adolescence entirely on age. Erikson (1968) notes, “the stage of adolescing becomes an even more marked and conscious period and, as it has always been in some cultures in some periods, almost a way of life between childhood

Age Based Rights

5

and adulthood” (p. 128). He identifies adolescence as a unique stage, but recognizes that historical and cultural contexts define the stage and that it should be a fluid time period. In studying American adolescents, the emphasis on the individual stems from an ideology of autonomy, meritocracy, and individualism (Sunaina & Soep, 2004). The cultural context within which adolescence is defined serves as a “basic reminder that the notion of adolescence is an ideological construction that says as much about the society or subculture itself as it does about the trajectory of individual development” (Sunaina & Soep, 2004, p. 249). American conceptions of adolescence are linear and focus on age and time because it fits the priorities of an industrial, individual-centered society. Around the world, however, stages of development are defined by an individual’s relationship to the community (Rogoff, 2003). Indeed, “in some communities, developmental phases are not based on chronological age or physical changes. Instead, they center on socially recognized events, such as naming” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 157). Cultural context is crucial to both development and transitions between roles within a society. Rogoff (2003) further points out that “many activities that a community may treat as having a ‘natural’ point of transition are only natural given the assumptions and the circumstances and organization of that community” (p. 171). Therefore, the construction of American adulthood around the age of 18 seems normal to Americans because it is based on American institutions and social practices. Having explored the theoretical underpinnings and cultural constructions of age in American society, one must also examine aged-based rights and their impact on youth. The difficulty in evaluating aged-based rights and privileges lies in the disparity between how youth are treated in various circumstances. Even though the age of 18 is often considered the legal age adulthood, this age is not uniformly applied to other definitions of adolescent rights.

Age Based Rights

6

Instead, “teenagers are ‘adults’ when convenient for adults and ‘children’ when convenient for adults” (Males, 1996, p. 15). For example, states have passed laws to protect children from the dangers of alcohol by raising the drinking age from 18 to 21, yet have also passed laws to protect adults by lowering the age at which parents have to pay child support from 21 to 18 (Males, 1996). The lack of uniformly applied standards and the inability of youth to vote lead to neglect and exploitation of adolescents. The United States legal system provides shocking examples of children being treated as adults under the eyes of the law. It was not until 2005 that the United States Supreme Court ruled the executions of people under the age of 18 unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons). Prior to this ruling, the United States executed 300 youths under age 18, including three of the eight youths executed worldwide since 1979 (Males, 1996, p. 35). In fact, before 2005 the United States joined only Pakistan, Rwanda, Barbados, and Bangladesh in its refusal to outlaw capital punishment for youth under the age of 18 (Males, 1999). The youth court system insists that youths be held accountable for their behavior, but at the same time strips away their rights (Males, 1999). For example, “43 states have instituted legislation that facilitates the transfer children to adult courts. The result of these laws was the dismantling of a long-standing belief on the part of juvenile courts that special protections were necessary to protect children” (Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera, 2005, p. 26). Youth are increasingly treated as criminals by society. The court system and the increasing criminalization of youth unfairly target youth as the source of social problems (Ginwright et al, 2005). The concept that youth behavior must be controlled leads to restrictive laws. The right to drive carries particular weight because automobiles symbolize American individualism and freedom (Sternheimer, 2006). Driving is a key privilege commonly granted to youth at age

Age Based Rights

7

16, although some state wait until ages 17 or 18. (Again, this reflects the arbitrariness of such age-based designation.) The restrictions placed on driving reflect social perceptions of the irresponsibility of youth. Adult fears that teenagers will drink and drive has determined American policy pertaining to the legal ages for both alcohol consumption and the licensing of drivers. It is notable that adults themselves do not use these rights responsibly, but still seek to control this behavior in adolescents. Sternheimer (2006) comments, “automobiles have always represented mobility and independence, something we prize for adults but fear for young people” (p. 121). While the fears stem from common sense, they do not appear to be backed up by statistics. As Males (1999) observes: Teenagers are less experienced with alcohol and less likely to know their personal limits. They are less experienced drivers. They are thought to have poorer judgment. All these risk factors should add up to the teenage alcohol carnage everyone thinks is going on. Except that it isn’t. (p. 145) The concept that teenagers in fact practice more responsible drinking is counterintuitive and difficult for adults to accept. As Sternheimer (2006) reports based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics on drivers involved in fatal crashes, 16 and 17 year old drivers are among the least likely to have been intoxicated. Notably, only 17 percent of drivers ages 16 to 20 in fatal crashes have blood alcohol levels at 0.08 or higher. This compares to 33 percent of 21 to 24 year olds, 28 percent of 25 to 34 year olds, and 26 percent of 35 to 44 year olds. Only drivers 45 to 65 were equally likely as younger drivers to be intoxicated, at 17 percent (Sternheimer, 2006, p. 123). This discrepancy among the youngest drivers can not be written off to teenage prohibition. Teens 17 to 18 drink as often as adults do: about 50 percent of teenagers drink some alcohol in a given month (Males, 1999, p. 142). Additionally, binge drinking rates, defined as five or more drinks at one occasion, are higher

Age Based Rights

8

among high school and college students than adults (Males, 1999). Teens may be staying at friend’s houses, utilizing designated drivers, or walking; regardless, they are still practicing more responsible drinking and driving habits than adults. Although the myth of teenagers as menacing drunk drivers partially stems from adults shifting the blame of their own irresponsibility onto youth, the media also plays a role in perpetuating the myth. Teen drunk driving fatalities are sensationalized by the media, but adults involved in similar accidents do not prompt “mass assignment of ‘collective guilt’, no demands for mass restrictions on adult driving or adult drinking” (Males, 1999, p. 149). Additionally, the language in articles describes teens as “major hazards” and “extreme risks” (Sternheimer, 2006), a fact not borne out by statistics. The stereotype of the drunk teenage driver has been repeated so many times by the media that society has simply accepted it to be true (Sternheimer, 2006). As the statistics reveal, policies related to drinking and driving may be overly restrictive on adolescents and too lenient on adults. One reason policies center around the perceptions of adults is that youth under the age of 18 do not have access to the ballot box as a way to promote change. Voting is a marker of full citizenship rights in the United States. The extension of voting rights by the 15th and 19th amendments is viewed as a significant achievement for African Americans and women, respectively. Yet, since the voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th amendment, there has been little public outcry to extend voting rights further. Admittedly, an age limit must be set at some point. Few would convincingly argue that nine year olds are being oppressed through their disenfranchisement. There is no reason, however, that the age of 18 is natural except that it is socially accepted in the United States. Some argue to extend enfranchisement all the way to 14 year olds (Calvin, 2004). Youth suffrage advocates argue that many teens pay

Age Based Rights taxes, and therefore fall victim to the famous revolutionary cry of “taxation without representation.” As one 15 year old advocate for youth voting rights argued, "it might not seem all that crazy, if adults would only think about it objectively" (Calvin, 2004). The power of a youth vote could force politicians to more seriously consider issues affecting children. Organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) prove how powerful an age specific lobby can be in United States politics. For example, in 1990, average spending per poor senior citizen was $30,000, but only $2,700 per poor child (Federle, 2004). A shift in focus towards the needs of children would represent a change from current policies that indicate youth have become our lowest priorities (Giroux, 1996). Instead, “American society at present exudes both a deep rooted hostility and chilling indifference toward youth” (Giroux, 1996, p. 31). Policymakers give lip service and express concern over the future of young people, but they are not taking the steps to create positive economic and social conditions to shape young people’s lives (Ginwright et al., 2005). Leaders ignore the larger issues and try to focus on politically popular messages. The solution lies in facing up to the real issues, not exaggerating false problems. Leaders of the Partnership for Drug Free America hide from the challenge, saying, “the thought of reducing poverty, improving schools, strengthening families, and providing programs to enhance students’ social and academic skills [is] both infeasible and misguided. The two most important things… are to tell kids to ‘stay in school’ and ‘stay off drugs’” (As Quoted in Males, 1999, p.139). Currently, politicians only serve minors as constituents indirectly through their parents. If the age of 18 for voting remains firm, youth must rely on their parents to represent their interests until they are old enough to vote.

9

Age Based Rights

10

The focus on voting is not intended to limit the definition of democratic citizenship. Indeed, a narrow view of who participates in society “foster[s] citizenship passivity rather than action” and teaches youth to conceptualize “citizenship primarily as voting” which reinforces the power of dominant groups in American society (Banks, 1997, p. 4). Short of giving them full voting rights, adults must change their perception of youth in a way that positions youth as actors and agents of change. The problem lies not only in the arbitrary ages at which rights and privileges are granted to American youth, but also in theory and social perception that attempts to justify the mistreatment of youth as a group. The theories have created a system where the primary role of adults and adult institutions is to exert control over youth. As Ginwright, et al. (2005) argue: The way a society treats its young people is a vital indicator of its quality of life. If U.S. society continues to treat youth – particularly young people of color – as potential criminals and undermines their contributions to social justice, then democracy, freedom, and fairness will only be wishful ideals in times of increasing disparity and despair. Other leading educational theorists also agree with the notion that American society must reexamine the way it treats its youth. Michael Apple notes: The ways in which adolescents are treated during their teenage years can create tensions that last forever. Class, race, and gender identities are formed in interactions with institutions. If the definitions of youth that we build into our policies and programs in schools and elsewhere are as much a part of the problem as they are part of the supposed solution, then we risk creating identities that will come back to haunt us for generations to come (Lesko, 2001, p. xi). Researchers are now beginning to outline theories that would change the way youth are positioned in society. Ginwright, et al. (2005) contribute significantly to the emerging literature by outlining a social justice youth policy that gives youth the right to participate in the policies that affect them and also views youth as agents of change both individually and

Age Based Rights

11

collectively. These conceptions of youth differ from current practice and will require further research to convince policymakers of their merit. Unfortunately, creating new policies is a long and arduous process, and Americans have a poor track record for devising holistic public policies around complex social issues (Ginwright et al., 2005). As it stands, society relies on age-based policies grounded in post-colonial theory that simply try to control and punish youth. Restrictive policies and negative perceptions of youth are not advancing the goals of a democratic society. Age-based rights must be continually examined for both consistency and validity. The court system, driving restrictions, and voting rights all reveal the relatively arbitrary and unsound practice of assigning rights solely based on age. While age remains a convenient marker for granting certain rights and privileges, it must not be used as a means to justify the mistreatment of an entire group of people. Age should not be the only marker to define the rights of youth and the perception of adolescents by society. American society must work to grant adolescents fuller access to civic participation and create policies that enhance the lives of our nation’s youth. In addition, serious progress must be made in changing the public perception of youth as a problem to be solved by restrictive laws. As an alternative, a richer view of youth does not limit them to labels based on race, class, gender, or age, but instead recognizes the unique contributions youth can make to society.

Age Based Rights

12

References Banks, J.A. (1997). Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society. New York: Teachers College Press. Calvin B.C. (2004, April 25). Californians consider granting 14-year-olds the right to vote. The Boston Globe. Erikson, E. (1968). “Adoloscense” in Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton and Co. Federle, K. (2004). Why Can’t Older Kids Vote? Retrieved December 9, 2006 from Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera (2005). Youth, Social Justice, and Communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3); 24-40. Giroux, D. (1996). Hollywood, Race, and the Demonization of Youth: The “Kids” are Not “Alright.” Educational Researcher. March; 31-36. Lesko, N. (1996). Past, present, and future conceptions of adolescents. Educational Theory, 46(4); 453-472. Lesko, N. (2001). Act Your Age! : a cultural construction of adolescence. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Males, M. (1996). The scapegoat generation: America’s war on adolescents. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. Males, M. (1999). Framing youth: ten myths about the next generation. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. National Archives. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from: Rogoff, B. (2003). Chapter 5: Developmental transitions in individuals’ roles in their communities. In The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford. Roper v. Simmons. United States Supreme Court. Retrieved December 14, 2006 from:
Age Based Rights Sunaina & Soep (2004). Unites States of Adolescence? Reconsidering US youth cultural studies. In Young, 12 (3), 245-269.

13