|
|
The youth of today
ACCORDING TO a survey published in November by the
children’s charity, Bernardo’s, over 50% of adults view youngsters in a
negative way. Or, as the mass media would sensationalise it, ‘adults
demonise kids’. One in ten children is estimated to suffer mental health
problems. Another charity, Parentline, says that 80% of its calls are
about violence of children towards their parents. What is the true
picture?
Last year’s UNICEF survey, Report Card 7, into the
well-being of children in rich countries, found that children growing up
in the UK suffer the greatest deprivation, worse relationships with
their parents and are exposed to more risks from alcohol, drugs and
unsafe sex than those in any other wealthy country in the world. British
children come bottom of 21 developed countries across six different
categories. The Nordic countries fared best with Netherlands at the top.
Although league tables should always be viewed with
a great deal of circumspection – schools scored merely ‘satisfactory’ by
Britain’s school inspection body, Ofsted, can provide stimulating
learning experiences for pupils – this was an absolutely damning report.
Since it was compiled, by gathering statistics and direct responses from
thousands of young people, the situation seems all the more bleak.
In the early 20th century, Lenin commented that the
measure of freedom in any society could be judged by the degree of
freedom enjoyed by women. In the 21st century, children face such an
array of problems and challenges that we could add that it should also
be judged by the way it treats its children. Although the report showed
a mixture of strengths and weaknesses in all countries, its results
increase the imperative for socialist change – for the well-being of our
children, alone.
The report found that in the most economically rich
societies there is a huge amount of poverty, measured from workless
households to low income families, and other assessments of cultural
deprivation: for example, not having a quiet place to work, or having
less than ten books in the house. In this category of material
well-being, British children scored very badly (19th), just ahead of the
USA (18th), although Ireland, Hungary and Poland fared even worse.
Despite all the funds that the New Labour government reckons it has put
into reducing child poverty, the levels remain the same. Child poverty
has stalled at around 15% – with one third of children living in
‘official’ poverty in areas of London and other cites.
This level of deprivation crucially affects
educational levels. The report placed the UK in the bottom group. In
contrast, Finland, consistently in the top group, has no high-stakes
testing and puts a great emphasis on early years provision as a key to
educational development. These are issues that socialists and trade
unionists have campaigned on for a long time. A wide spectrum of experts
have raised serious concerns about child mental health, partly arising
out of the stress of constant testing, but also the narrowing curriculum
and the regime of control both within and outside schools. It has been
highlighted that school children and prisoners are the only people who
have no choice about their freedom!
Over the years, surveys have consistently revealed
that poverty is the best indicator of educational achievement. However,
what is needed now is not more surveys but real action. The government’s
response to these horrifying facts, in the words of the children’s
commissioner, Al Aynsley Green, is to "stop demonising children". He
urges us to "to start supporting [young people] to make positive
choices". But what choices are there? Would you prefer to live in a
private rented house costing your parents an exorbitant rent, or would
you settle for bed and breakfast accommodation? Would you prefer that
your mum works full time and gives you a latchkey, or will you do
without gas or electricity this month? These are the real choices facing
families. They could begin to be addressed by renationalising the
utilities, and organising housing as a public service. Of course, that
would raise a socialist alternative to the free-market free-for-all. Not
the sort of thing Gordon Brown would want a children’s commissioner to
encourage!
Would the capitalists make a choice of upgrading the
welfare state instead of selling off huge chunks to private profiteers
and greedy shareholders? It is clear in the UNICEF report that the
countries that came out best in children’s real experience are those
that have, for the last 60 years, invested in the welfare state to
ensure that the basics of life are generally available. The social
democrats of Sweden and other Nordic countries developed the welfare
state from roughly the same starting point as Britain in the immediate
post-war period. However, where Margaret Thatcher unleashed deregulation
and privatisation from 1979 – continued and strengthened by New Labour
from 1997 – social democracy in Scandinavia maintained many of the gains
of the welfare state for longer. Like everywhere else, they are now
suffering from the neo-liberal onslaught.
It was not only material conditions that improved in
these countries. The attitudes that flow from the provision of good
public services, and the ideals of public good, led to more contented
feelings about people generally. This contrasts starkly with the
dominant dog-eat-dog culture fostered by the neo-liberal juggernauts.
The report presented a worrying picture in the UK about relationships
with friends, which are so important to children. Not much more than 40%
of our 11, 13 and 15 year-olds found their peers ‘kind and helpful’.
This is reinforced by daily reminders in the media of the dangers of
bullying, knife crime, and all manner of violence in schools and on the
streets. It is easy to see how children could emulate many adults,
becoming suspicious, isolated and prone to relationship difficulties.
Added to this are the terrible restrictions on many
children. There is now less space than ever for kids to meet, play and
hang out. It has been estimated that for every acre of land devoted to
public playgrounds there are more than 80 acres for golf – and that most
young children never go more than 70 feet from their own front door.
Figures from the Audit Commission show that each child under twelve has
a ‘ration’ of 2.3sq metres, about the size of a kitchen table. The words
‘bred in captivity’ do not apply only to the celebrity chef, Jamie
Oliver’s, caged chickens!
Concomitant with peer relations is peer pressure, a
devious route by which capitalists have identified children from birth
as units of consumption. Companies make it their business to aim
unprecedented levels of marketing at adolescents, primary age children,
even toddlers, a new market in childhood. The commercialisation of
childhood is now a fact of life, where fashion and food play a major
role. According to the chief policy adviser of Which? magazine,
companies "seek to circumvent parental authority by appealing directly
to children", selling everything from breakfast cereals to trainers. The
pressure associated with the hard sell adds to the drive to conform: be
‘cool’, or be out of the social circle. Extreme anxieties around the
need to possess and be seen with the latest gear, eat the same foods,
and chat about the same TV programmes in order to belong to a friendship
group, could all be factors in this lack of trust in peers.
If we questioned any group of teenagers in the UK
about the UNICEF findings they would likely be somewhat sceptical. Many
own ipods and mobiles, trainers and designer clothes, achieve at school
and probably consider themselves happy enough. Most say they spend time
chatting with their parents, despite the fact that they score low in the
question about ‘eating the main meal with parents several times a week’.
They have only known life under casino capitalism, reality TV and fast
food – so far. However, the world is changing for everyone. Look at how
young people in America have so openly embraced the idea of change with
the election of Barack Obama.
While this ailing capitalist system exists there is
no way to eliminate child poverty, or even reduce the stress and
anxieties children face. All those young people who, yesterday, were
answering intriguing questions put to them by well-intentioned
researchers will be posing very real questions of their own, today and
tomorrow: Why have I got a degree and no job? How can I live on such low
pay? Why are the rich still leeching off the economy? With the
assistance of Marxist ideas, these young people will not leave things at
the level of discussion. Alongside the youth and students in the other
20 richest countries, they will set about organising, and will prove to
be the best fighters for socialist change.
Linda Taaffe
|