The negative feedback loop and other theories
This post looks at the adolescent demographic, and then explains some theories on the importance of youth to be fully integrated into civil society, and, indeed, the benefits that such involvement could bring.
In 2005, our world held 1,111,762,000 youth aged 15-24. It is predicted that this number will rise to 1,149,180,000 by 2015. The majority of these young people (85 percent) are located in less developed nations. China, India, and the US are the three countries with the largest youth populations, respectively. Life expectancy for the world’s youth for both sexes is 57.5 years. See this presentation to verify these numbers and more.
Adolescents (15-24) make up over a sixth of the world’s population. In addition, the majority of these youth are located in what are arguably the three most powerful countries in the world. Youth being such a massive portion of our species, their political participation is critical for society on many fronts. John Helgerson, a former deputy director of intelligence for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, has claimed that ‘the inability of states to adequately integrate youth populations is likely to perpetuate the cycle of political instability, ethnic wars, revolutions, and antigovernment activities that already affect many countries.’
While Mr. Helgerson's remarks were referring mainly to the fact that bulges in youth population can increase the likelihood that a country will experience armed conflict, his statement can be applied to a broader evaluation of society’s construction of youth identity and how this shapes their attitudes and behaviours throughout their lives, thus shifting the balance of citizen participation which could result in the effects Mr. Helgerson describes, as well as other less dramatic, but possibly equally destructive, effects.
Young people need to have the chance to influence the structure of society. Hartmann and Trnka, in their book Democratic Youth Participation in Society: A concept revised, argue that by postponing the possibility of young people’s participation in the relevant structures of society, ‘there is the danger of a negative feedback loop which limits societal development to the historically approved codex of past generations, whereas the ideas and beliefs of the young as a reaction to the needs of the present society are hidden in educational institutions at the margin of society.’
In other words, societal innovation and advancement is limited in the absence of youth involvement.
Indeed, the inexperience of youth has the potential to add much needed vitality and innovation to political systems. Karl Mannheim, in his classic essay ‘The Problem of Generations,’ argued that youth had a ‘fresh contact’ with their social order, seeing it from new perspectives. He argued that youth are less likely to have responsibilities like marriage, children and permanent careers, and feel less bound to social responsibilities and roles than do their elders. Therefore, he said, they are freer to explore ideas, values, and political views.
In 2005, our world held 1,111,762,000 youth aged 15-24. It is predicted that this number will rise to 1,149,180,000 by 2015. The majority of these young people (85 percent) are located in less developed nations. China, India, and the US are the three countries with the largest youth populations, respectively. Life expectancy for the world’s youth for both sexes is 57.5 years. See this presentation to verify these numbers and more.
Adolescents (15-24) make up over a sixth of the world’s population. In addition, the majority of these youth are located in what are arguably the three most powerful countries in the world. Youth being such a massive portion of our species, their political participation is critical for society on many fronts. John Helgerson, a former deputy director of intelligence for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, has claimed that ‘the inability of states to adequately integrate youth populations is likely to perpetuate the cycle of political instability, ethnic wars, revolutions, and antigovernment activities that already affect many countries.’
While Mr. Helgerson's remarks were referring mainly to the fact that bulges in youth population can increase the likelihood that a country will experience armed conflict, his statement can be applied to a broader evaluation of society’s construction of youth identity and how this shapes their attitudes and behaviours throughout their lives, thus shifting the balance of citizen participation which could result in the effects Mr. Helgerson describes, as well as other less dramatic, but possibly equally destructive, effects.
Young people need to have the chance to influence the structure of society. Hartmann and Trnka, in their book Democratic Youth Participation in Society: A concept revised, argue that by postponing the possibility of young people’s participation in the relevant structures of society, ‘there is the danger of a negative feedback loop which limits societal development to the historically approved codex of past generations, whereas the ideas and beliefs of the young as a reaction to the needs of the present society are hidden in educational institutions at the margin of society.’
In other words, societal innovation and advancement is limited in the absence of youth involvement.
Indeed, the inexperience of youth has the potential to add much needed vitality and innovation to political systems. Karl Mannheim, in his classic essay ‘The Problem of Generations,’ argued that youth had a ‘fresh contact’ with their social order, seeing it from new perspectives. He argued that youth are less likely to have responsibilities like marriage, children and permanent careers, and feel less bound to social responsibilities and roles than do their elders. Therefore, he said, they are freer to explore ideas, values, and political views.
Comments