Conformism, a plague that invades youth
Adolescence and youth have been traditionally defined as transit ages between childhood and adulthood. At present there is consensus to consider them key moments in the process of socialization of the individual, since in the course of these periods, the subject prepares to fulfill certain social roles of adult life, in the professional-labor activity, in their relationsWith family, couple and friends.
Youth is characterized by being a stage of consolidating the main acquisitionspheres of his life, within his activity and communication systems.
The new "objective" position that the young man occupies within the social reality, conditions the need to determine his future place in the same. To be assumed that all the preceding psychological development allows him to deline, aimed at taking actions in the present that contribute to the achievement of future goals.
In a socio -historical context in which the personality of young people develop today, the distinctive sign of the twentieUnable to stop the proliferation of highly lethal diseases, the vertiginous deterioration of the environment, terrorism and wars. A world, in which the human species is in danger of extinction and where we go to the flourish.
Technological progress has not necessarily meant social progress, but rather has led to the deterioration of the values of equality, freedom and fraternity, patiently created by humanity. The economic, social and political crisis that the world lives today, affects thought in different ways, as well as the theoretical and practical conception of culture in general, and as an unquestionable part of it, all sciences.
Now it seems obliged that any reflection on young people and politics begins mentioning the usual and repeated negative vision of the relationship that young people maintain, at least in the last three or four decades, with politics, understood in general terms. The image of the passive and selfless young man of everything that happens in the political sphere has acquired such force in the social discourse that has become one of the identity of contemporary youth identity. This perception, which sometimes seems almost unanimous among public opinion, also has its correlation in academic investigation, in which the analysis of the disaffection and youthful political disinterest in the low predisposition to participate in the political life of the political life of thedemocratic societies, using institutional channels and instruments designed for this purpose. However, if before accepting as evident the conclusions that are usually reached, we wonder about the budgets that support them and the type of analysis that are carried out, some of these ideas can begin to be questioned.
The sociology of youth, especially after the popularization of post -structuralist perspectives, has insisted in recent years on the pluralization of roads that lead young people to adult life and in the internal diversity that characterizes the youth condition in theactual society. However, both characteristics are not present in the vast majority of explanations that are built to understand the political life of young people, their speeches, interests, behaviors, etc. Put where the emphasis is placed, the background argument is usually common.
The vast majority of young people seem to relate to the world of politics in a uniform, distant and distrustful way, locked in a tangle of structural and institutional factors that escape their decision -making capacity. Of the metaphor, so currently used to refer to the youth of this beginning of the 21st century, of the young man who sails in a sea of uncertainty, negotiating his own path between opportunities and risks, we pass in the field of political to the image of aYoung who passively assume a political universe of negative and pessimistic meanings. On this scenario only a small minority would escape, exposed to very specific socialization processes.
We are, therefore, with a clear predominance of generic arguments, in which the main internal differentiation factor of the youth collective is age, well understood in evolutionary terms as a stage of the life cycle, or as a generational criterion. In both cases, the social, cultural, ideological heterogeneity of young people and their processes of incorporation into the public space plays a secondary role as an explanatory factor of the political positions of the new generations, which tend to be valued from more moral positions thansocio -political. In this same line of analysis, the usual absence of an intergenerational perspective must also be underlined that allows us to understand the features of youth political life in relation to what the citizens of the rest of generations think and make. Young people would seem, in this sense, to be isolated from the social and political context in which relationships between different generations are built.
The new conditions in which young people live their lives and their transition processes have allowed establishing a key distinction between independence (understood in terms of material situation) and autonomy (understood in terms of competence and capacity). These are two different processes that in the current moments are also different. The passage of the dependence on economic independence that in previous moments constituted the previous step for the conquest of individual autonomy, in todaymore convenient for your future. On the contrary, in the uncertain environment in which the young people of semi-independence proliferate today, in other cases economic independence is something transitory and reversible due to the continuous entries and exits of the labor market and, finally, we also find enough young people who, even being economically dependent on their family of origin, have been conquering important levels of autonomy and individual freedom in significant lands of their life such as emotional relationships, consumption patterns, lifestyles or lifestyles orcollective behaviors, etc.
That is why encouraging this generation to share their ideas, it can be a rich source of projects that lead us to the construction of a better world;Young leaders have all the energy and vitality so that their proposals transcend borders.
When a young man is empowered and supported, he is able to motivate many more to follow him and thus manage to bring relevant and great impact changes;A digital native has the ability to be heard through social networks, and finds in connectivity a valuable tool to bring his ideas to another level.
Around the world, we have great examples of how a good leader can add everyone’s well -being;Examples that reflect that what makes the difference is not to wait for others to do it: leaders who in Africa walk hours to take to isolated populations computers, and prepare teachers and children in the development of computer skills;Young people who know that children die daily for not being able to access basic products, and decide to help with passion to solve this problem, carrying food and medicines to improve the health of these communities. The examples are infinite, and lead us to feel that there is hope.
We need those young people who, with their desire to live, dreams, passions and illusions, build a better country. Young people who promote the creation of new companies, which allow access to decent work to many people, improving their quality of life and dignity;Young people who with service will do politically;young people interested in protecting the environment;Young people who integrate those who were affected by the war, or who were part of it, so that they never look back again, but see in the future of the country a source of countless opportunities.
Leave feedback