Adolescent years are unique because
adolescents become more in tuned and engaged in adult-like activities such as
sports, a more in depth learning in education, understanding social skills and
responsibilities (e.g. chores, waking up on time to go to school etc.). Coleman
points out the essence of overturning “natural processes”, where parents were
the key teachers values, habits and skills geared towards societal
reproduction. Due to the shift from societal simplicity to an industrial
society we have carved out an arena of age segregation from
institutionalization of education, specialization and social systems, divesting
from the nuclear home. These years of liminality within this age group causes
“subcultures” or “social organizations” to develop, where, as Coleman finds in
his research, that friendship is the key driver of youth decision making rather
than parent’s opinions for youths at school.
Coleman states that in order for
adults to motivate youths in directions that are geared towards societal norms,
we must, like Thrasher, understand the relationships within youth subcultures.
Colman feels that by understanding the relationships between different
subcultures or social organizations within the school, there can be a shift
from a focus on individuals and move towards a shift in the whole culture of
youth itself, creating a more influential tool for passing forth values and
mores. As we learned from the socio-grams in lecture, the person with the most
ties to other people within a social group are usually the “opinion leaders”,
whose opinions can be very persuasive within that group.
This can be a strong strategy for
shifting the climate within groups in general but to leave it at that would be
too narrow. It can be argued that the climate in which this strategy
successfully takes place would be under conditions where there is some
stability at home for youths (financially, emotionally, physically etc.).
Without these conditions I would say that the first steps of this shifting
process would not even emerge because of the outside survival responsibilities
that certain youths must take on, such as their basic needs. A person who goes
without the basic needs of food, shelter and feeling safe may have many nodes
within his “subculture” or “social organization” because being resourceful,
both in negative and positive ways, can be the deciding factors of whether he
and his family will eat dinner or not. This is not to say that this type of
situation is immune to the “opinion leader” ideal, its not, but it would
definitely be tougher to deter or shift ideology that stems from survival.
Therefore, for these “at-risk”
youth subcultures there’s a need for basic living resources to alleviate the adult
responsibilities that they are faced with daily in order to begin a
conversation about their subculture and social organizations.
This was a very interesting essay. What the author seems to indicate in the final paragraph is that though those who have the most ties are considered the "opinion leaders," sometimes this perception is false. In her example, adolescent who have financial and emotional issues are more likely to make ties with multiple people and multiple groups in order to find a way to take care of their needs--be it selling drugs or borrowing money. However, I would like to raise a question that might or might not be relevant. If these adolescent were making ties for their own benefit, would that still be considered a tie, or are the nodes based solely on friendship ? It seems like the essay indicated that adolescent with family matters (financial, especially) are more likely to be working in between groups and not within a group. Though the author does not discuss in depth about the role of these adolescents, her comments did raise many interesting questions about how the background and conditions of an adolescent dictates his or her place in the school groupings.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this essay’s analysis of the Coleman reading. According to Coleman society must focus on educating youth [after having society survive/reproduce] and we have increasingly acknowledged that adolescence is a period of transition. In the modern times youth have been subject to institutional education in which they have deviated from the ‘natural process’ that formerly caused them to follow their parents’ footsteps in labor. With new social and academic systems emerging naturally youth have formed their own ‘subculture’ in which they strive to gain popularity and build social ties. I want to point out Sheng’s argument regarding the sociograms; the person (node) with the most ties (opinion leader) may or may not necessarily be the most popular kid in school, but he/she definitely has the ability to influence those around him/her. Indeed according to Coleman the term “elites” is more friend-oriented, but sociograms focus more on the social groups (cliques) that one chooses to associate him/herself with. The last paragraph’s reference to the balance and shift surrounding friends and family was interesting. I would’ve liked to see more comments regarding family’s importance in the youth’s living resources, but overall it connected the Coleman reading to the lecture as well.
ReplyDeleteSheng raises an excellent overall point by introducing Maslow's hierarchy of needs into the Coleman conversation. I think Coleman fails to address root causes of the problem of "getting youth" to understand and acquiesce to societal norms and values. How can we expect youth to wake up one morning, "excellently behaved" (of course from an adult centered perspective) when many youth, especially youth of color in large urban areas are living in poverty where they have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or whether they will get shot at on their way home? Before we can understand the relationship within youth sub-cultures, it's imperative that we are open and honest about the inequalities that help create the youth sub-cultures we are so curious about.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. has always had this "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" mentality and it's a mentality that leaves no room for further debate. With this mentality, we have justified the lack of accountability our government displays. Thrasher said something along the lines that youth form gangs or other social networks because the social structures that society has in place for youth (i.e. the church, the family, the school) has failed them. Youth form strong peer relationships because of a deeper issue. And until we not only start talking about this deeper issue, but also start implementing plans for improvement, I believe attempting to understand youth-subculture is futile because understanding youth sub-culture is merely a distraction from the greater societal problem.
In her essay, Sheng makes a good addition to Coleman's idea of social organizations and and subcultures when trying to understand youth and how they "mature" into becoming adults. Sheng agrees that it is important that we explore youth subcultures and social organizations, such as their social networks and studying the "opinion leaders" and peer groups that seem to have a significant impact on how youths behave during their adolescent years. However, she also makes the argument that this kind of study is not enough to thoroughly understand youth. She points out that such studies begin with the basis that youths grow up in a stable home environment. In order for Thrasher or even Cohen's research on youths to make sense, it is important that such basic needs of food and shelter and stability of home/ school environment are provided.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sheng makes a good point in objection to Cohen's thesis, I think Cohen does address this issue. For example, as we covered in lecture, Cohen emphasizes the importance of learning about youths' social composition of school, family economic and educational attainment, and students' sense of control of their environment in order to understand why certain youths do not seem to perform as well as others. Cohen does acknowledge that youths' behavior heavily depend on their milieu they grow up in. Although Sheng's addition to Cohen's argument is interesting, I think it is more of a re-enforcement of Cohen's research, rather than adding onto it.
In this essay the author does a good job of analyzing Coleman's argument which is that "in a rapidly changing, highly rationalized society, the 'natural processes' of education in the family are no longer adequate. They have been replaced by a more formalized institution that is set apart from the rest of society". This means that due to the demands of modernization and/or industrialization the very concepts of what it is to educate adolescents have changed. Gone are the days in which the parents essentially train their kids to follow in their footsteps by teaching them the ropes to whatever their profession or occupation may be. Instead,the institution of education has been formalized and thus has a created a new subculture in which the youth are disconnected from adult society. Their peers become just as important, and arguably more, as the parents in influencing their behavior. The author also touches on the idea of "social organization" and how socio-grams can demonstrate the "opinion leaders" within youth subcultures. However, the author brings up an interesting point when she states that certain conditions must be met for these dynamics to take place. For example, a youth suffering from socioeconomic disadvantages such as a lack of financial resources, hunger, homelessness, and/or access to overall better resources might actually slip between the lines in the subculture or might only take part by default of their being in school but they will not necessarily be engaged. Overall I feel the author did a very good job in making her argument and backing it up with good evidence.
ReplyDeleteIn order to instill values in youth as a whole we need to understand relationships in subcultures and use resources within to facilitate the instilling. To make shifts group work is needed and in dealing with groups individual needs must be met. Steps towards greater youth values instilling are make sure basic human needs are met, ensure relationships are stable, use leaders within subcultures to influence and facilitate instilling process. Author did a great job.
ReplyDeleteI feel like putting an emphasis on researching the clique dynamics amongst youth is key in understanding their actions. If we took the time to dissect why friendship lines are only draw amongst certain individuals, maybe we could find out what it is that draw certain kids to one another.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the extra curricular activities each individual participates in in their youth will dictate a lot about their future. It seems like some kids focus only on sports, rather than academics, leaving them without many options for their future. Also, those that put all their focus on sports, and use this to get a scholarship to attend college, may not be well equipped enough to keep up with a rigorous college curriculum.
This essay opened up my eyes to an argument that this idea of social nodes can be very narrow and limiting to students who are in certain financial and emotional states. I had honestly not thought about this prior. This is definitely true in that I know from my own experience how difficult it can be to focus on school and socialization when you are worried about basic things like working to support yourself or your family or even just dealing with problems at home. It can be a huge burden on an individual youth to try and balance necessities and socialization so it makes sense that youth in difficult financial situations or those dealing with difficult home life would not be leaders or have a huge following, generally. Social organization factors many attributes into the mix and I think it is very important to consider these factors previously mentioned, as well as how class, race and even potentially religion plays a key role. The minority group of the school is likely not a leader though they may be a leader in their clique.
ReplyDelete