-
Chapter Fifteen: Latino Youth Activists in the Age of Globalization
- University of Notre Dame Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
f i f t e e n Latino Youth Activists in the Age of Globalization M a r i a d e l o s A n g e l e s T o r r e s The relationship between youth and nation building has long been a concern of political philosophers. In The Republic, Plato wrote about the social impact of children’s education, particularly on those who would grow up to be future rulers, so as to ensure the creation of a just society (Plato 1941). During the next centuries philosophers would debate the nature of childhood and how to best educate children (Gay 1964; Rousseau 1956; Kant 1960). Eventually, childhood would emerge as a social category (Aries 1962; Stone 1977). Modern nation-states tied their political processes to the actions of citizens and therefore became preoccupied with developing the “good citizen.” Children were the key to this social experiment. Children’s education came to occupy center stage in the early 1900s as social the orists advocated the idea that without good citizens, democracy could not be constructed (Mann 1965; Dewey 1916). Modernism placed children at the center of political debates because they were viewed as the future of society. Not surprisingly therefore, society’s protection of 403 404 ■ Maria de los Angeles Torres children increased. In spite of their protected status, however, children per se were not given political voices. As much concern as there has been about the role of children and their education in nation-building projects, democratic theory does not contemplate a role for children in the public arena (Kulynych 2001). Indeed, some have vehemently opposed a public role for children, claiming that the privacy of their world should be protected (Elshtain 1995). It was not until the 1960s that social scientists began asking how children viewed politics. They found that children do have a political life that, in part, begins with a sense of place, usually the nation, and includes feelings about authority figures and knowledge about political processes and issues (see Greenstein 1965; Hess and Torney 1968; Easton and Dennis 1970; Sigel 1969). Children’s political development is closely tied to their overall development (Piaget 1932). There seem to be certain stages of development in political attitudes, although these vary for youth of different backgrounds and nationalities (Jahoda 1963). In addition, a variety of socializing agents from parents, to teachers and peers, influence their political behavior (Jennings and Niemi 1974). Class differences can change the ways in which political socialization unfolds (Hirsch 1971), and some traditions matter (Connell 1971; Jennings and Niemi 1981). The seminal studies of children’s political lives were conducted at a time when the modernist paradigm influenced the definition and the operation of both politics and childhood. The practice of politics was organized primarily within the borders of nation-states, and it had meaning in many people’s lives, including children’s. In his study The Political Life of Children, Robert Coles (1986) relates how a few dozen children from seven different countries construct their political world. He found that the children constructed political worlds that were different from country to country and suggested that a child’s political life was influenced by national political cultures. In addition, children are assumed to be innocent, living in a world that is still somewhat demarcated by limited access to information. In his view, adolescence is a transition period to adulthood that society must carefully monitor. Since then, important economic and cultural changes in the world have affected the structure of politics and identity and consequently our notions of childhood (see Cannella and Kincheloe 2002; Kaufman and Latino Youth Activists in the Age of Globalization ■ 405 Rizzini 2002). This new age of postmodernity is characterized by the declining ability of nation-states to bind our economies, cultures, and, to a certain degree, our politics. Economies, cultures, and people cross borders. In the Western Hemispheres the most important movement of people is from Mexico to the United States. In addition, innovations in transportation have made it easier to travel from one part of the world to another increasing contact among people of different backgrounds. Changes in technology have radically changed the ways that information is presented and distributed, as such changing the boundaries that contained childhood (Postman 1994). Our notions of racial and ethnic identities—so integral to the political process itself—are also in flux. More youths, for example, now embrace multiple identities. The place of youth and our concerns...