Since Thrasher’s study on gangs, adolescent culture has often
been presented by adult-controlled media as an assertion of separate existence
and a means of exclusion from adult society sought by the youth in order to
find an alternative forum of expression in self-created agencies. Coleman, in The Adolescent Society, unveils some of
the patterns of behavior that perpetuate these adolescent subcultures by
collecting data on youth perception of their attachment to parents and peers.
In the context of this scholarly venture, he uncovered a set of changes in
society that enforce an age segregation conducive to the progressive creation
of adolescent subcultures. Particularly, Coleman contends, like Bourdieu, that
schools have increasingly become a place of socialization for youth, taking on
more functions and “forc[ing] children inward toward their own age group”. The
author’s depiction of adolescents’ reclusion on their own peer group propels an
interesting perspective on youth culture, deconstructing some of the assumptions
often made by adults. Yet, by failing to acknowledge the interpretative margin
left at the discretion of readers, the author falls short of his attempt not to
cast a negative light on children whose family ties weaken significantly upon
reaching adolescence.
The Second Chicago School was focusing at the time of Coleman’s
writing on the study of deviance, culminating with Howard Becker’s 1963
publication of Outsiders. In his
research, Becker explained how the first stage in the creation of deviance is to
label certain activities as deviant, hence the crucial role of moral
entrepreneurs who persuade society to develop rules consistent with their own
interests and beliefs, endorsing certain norms in the public sphere. He argued
that "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction
constitutes deviance” (Becker, 1963). From then on, the informational shortcut
becomes too easy to be avoided and many adults are led to believe that
adolescents who seclude themselves from the adult world are necessarily
deviants who need to be treated. Adults perceive this distancing as a menace:
out of control of adult institutions and encouraged by peers into independent
thinking, youth become more critical of adult rule-makers and potentially threatening
to social order.
By neglecting to set a tone to his work, Coleman vests too
much interpretative power in readers. Depending on one’s own mindset, this
extract from the first chapter of The
Adolescent Society can become either a powerful piece empowering youth to
find their own voice through adolescent subcultures and agencies or an
additional support for adults seeking to expose the deviance of youth who break
the rules of society by setting themselves apart from it. Coleman’s opinion is
made evident in another piece where he delves more into the critical side of
his argument, condemning the special programs in schools that look for those gifted
children who shall be set apart from their peers to “rescue” them from the
negative influence of an adolescent culture nonchalant towards scholastic
matters, seen to be full of “irresponsibility and hedonism” (Coleman, 1959).
BECKER, Howard Saul: Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance,
New York, NY: The Free
Press (1963)
COLEMAN, James Samuel: “The Adolescent Society: James Coleman's
still-prescient insights” from Academic Achievement and the Structure of
Competition in the Harvard Education
Review, Volume 29, No. 4 (Fall 1959)
COLEMAN,
James Samuel: The Adolescent Society: The
Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education, Glencoe, IL: The
Free Press of Glencoe (1961)
THRASHER,
Frederic Milton: The Gang, A Study of
1,313 Gangs in Chicago, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1927)
While I understand where the author of this article is coming from regarding Coleman’s article, when I read it, I didn’t see the excerpt as interpretive at all. Instead of setting a tone of empowering youth or adult support for deviance, I viewed Coleman’s excerpt as more of an informative piece. Coleman’s article gives readers an indication for why youth behave the way they a desire to earn social respect amongst peers, or avoid disapproval from parents, for example. If anything, the excerpt explains that youth, much like adults, are in their own world that’s distinct from the next person. Even though they are distinct, youth are still affected by other outside factors. Their actions are a result of their peer friendships and parental relationships. However, I admit my interpretation could stem from the problem the author of this post pointed out, but more than anything I interpreted Coleman’s article as a set of reasonable explanations for youth behavior rather than encouraging reader to take a stance on youth subculture, .
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought the author did a thorough job in arguing her point with appropriate evidence. However there are two points I disagree with. The first is that Charlotte criticizes Coleman for not pointing out the negative aspects of children weakening ties with their families. Although I agree that Coleman should have addressed them, I also think it’s a fact of growing up that children tend to drift away from their families but in a way it is also appropriate for children to learn to act their own age. Another point I disagreed on Charlotte with is that she criticized that Coleman did not set a tone. Even though it may be difficult to understand his direction in his article, I think it is important to lay out the facts and let people make their own decisions about the way youth behave
ReplyDeleteThe author has done an excellent job in arguing her point. She presents a clear thesis supported by evidence from the text, and does so in a well-articulated manner. However, I would disagree with the assertion that the lack of tone necessarily puts children in a bad light. As has been noted by another commenter, weakening family ties is common in the progression of adolescence, and increased independence is often indicative of maturity, not deviance. This, although not explicitly stated by Coleman, is not contradicted by the lack of distinction, and many adults recognize that seclusion from the adult world is a fairly normal part of adolescence. While I agree that youth becoming critical of adult authority is often perceived negatively, I don't believe it's fair to assert that Coleman's work, specifically, allows for the notion that "adolescents who seclude themselves from the adult world are necessarily deviants." Such a conception is much more attributable to the overall perception of youth as dangerous and in need of control.
ReplyDeleteI think the author does a great job of explaining and analyzing Coleman's work from a context-based approach. We see how Coleman is concerned with going into the schools to find out what you think and what they actually do. I think it is important to note that youth will always be objects of saving and study, even though we are no longer in the progressive era. Coleman thinks we need to save youth from existing organizations and institutions which are failing them. Only this time, Coleman is taking a different approach, one that still impacts us today. I think Charlotte brings up an interesting point I had not thought of about Coleman giving too much interpretive power to the readers. I would agree, according to her support for it.
ReplyDelete