Young Australians are not apathetic, deviant, and technology-dependent

Both major political parties propagate myths about young people. These myths - "young people are apathetic community members", "young people are deviant and do not conform with social norms of behaviour", and "young people depend too much on technology" - all label young people as a community problem that needs to be fixed.

The myths are generalisations that cannot be substantiated but politicians regularly invoke them when diagnosing deficiencies in Australian society. The myths are dragged out during public debate on the supposed decline of social cohesion, the increasing crime rate, and the increasing impermanence of relationships. The cures politicians propose for these problems invariably involve stronger communities underpinned by a universally shared - that is, adult-led - value system. The distorted way young people are seen and understood is related to this adult-centred idea of "community".

"Community" is a term in politics and policy-making used during periods of alleged social fragmentation. Politicians use the term when aspiring to closer social bonds, or harking back to the "good old days" of how the world ought to be. Academic writers typically use the term "community" to refer either to a group of people in a geographic location or to a group of people bound together by a set of common interests, or a common identity.

Although politicians invoke the idea of community as an overwhelmingly positive ideal, communities based on shared location and/or shared values are not always forces for the good. Community can be coercive when a dominant set of values unites members and maintains group cohesion by excluding challengers to these dominant values. When prescriptions for strengthening community ties deny internal community differences - differences of class, gender, race and ethnicity, religious affiliation, or generation - there will be winners and losers.

Several federal politicians have engaged in the public discussion on the need to create community based on a shared value system. They include Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, Leader of the Federal ALP Mark Latham, Shadow Minister for Communications and recently anointed shadow Minister for Community Relationships Lindsay Tanner, and Member for Parramatta Ross Cameron. Their vision demonstrates that they believe the myths about young people's behaviour.

Costello, Latham, Tanner, and Cameron have all spoken extensively in public forums about community cohesion, family relationships, and the values of volunteering. All assume that we have lost a sense of community and that we need to reclaim it. They all exclude the experiences of young people as community members on their own terms.

Peter Costello argued in 2001 that Australians ought to volunteer more to reclaim a better sense of shared community:

Going outside our homes to share an experience with the volunteer organisations of society is a big part of building community. We could revive the volunteer spirit in Australia if each of us were to spend one hour a week as a volunteer.

Costello lists volunteering options - but the only ones for young people are the traditional Guides, Scouts, and Young Farmers' Associations.

Mark Latham has similar views on the need for participation and the creation of community through the organisations of civil society. In contrast to Costello, Latham focuses more on the needs of young people by suggesting that there is an interventionist role for government in service provision. However, although Latham does "include" young people, he constructs them as a social problem that needs fixing. The young people he discusses are boys suffering from inadequate male role models, or girls with eating disorders, or those who are homeless or drug-dependent.

This is not to suggest that young people don't face real inequities and difficulties - they do, and it is government's responsibility to deal with them appropriately and sensitively. However, it seems politicians only consider young people when they present a problem, and young people tend to be talked about rather than talked with. Their own perspectives and experiences are rarely included in public debate.

Take the debate that the Prime Minister initiated in January 2004: public versus private schooling and the values instilled in young people. Argument was heated but I didn't hear young people's voices in the media's relaying of the political debate. If we had heard young people, we would have heard their diverse experiences and views. We would also have heard that young people are often capable of speaking for themselves, and don't always need to be spoken for.

So why are young people barred from shaping the future? Why can't young people's own community formations be recognised on their terms?

When society understands community from the frames of reference of those with more power young people are denied the space to create, or even shape, change in society and in politics. Young people are homogenised as a group that doesn't fit in with society's expectations. This type of political discourse facilitates a conservative view that does not recognise social change. It's more about prescribing the way community ought to be, like in the "good old days", than explaining and understanding the multifaceted nature of how society is.

Analyses of social power have probably always ignored the experiences of young people but with the re-emergence of the idea of community we need to re-examine the portrayal of young people. We need to dispel the myths about young people's behaviour that are perpetuated in political discourse, academic analyses, and media reporting. We can counter them with evidence and arguments from young people's experiences.

Myth 1. Young people are apathetic community members

In his recent book Crowded Lives Lindsay Tanner characterises young people as the individualistic "options generation", arguing that they "tend to make selfish choices". American political scientist Robert Putnam also criticises young people, homogenised as "Generation X", for their lack of political and community involvement. He argues that young people fall short of the "yardstick" set by their parents: "unlike boomers, who were once engaged, X-ers have never made the connection to politics, so they emphasise the personal and private over the public and collective".

However, young people participate in a variety of collective political and social experiences. Why complain about decline in traditional forms of association, like service clubs, when environmental and human rights groups thrive and the peace movement against the war with Iraq helped to politicise a new generation? My research shows 93 per cent of young people were very involved in collective activities and have been involved in a group of some kind within the past five years. Excluding sporting and recreation groups, a still healthy 69 per cent of 18-34 year olds have participated in group activities.

I found that there were four different ways of participating:

1. activist participation: attending rallies, boycotting products, involvement with environmental and human-rights organisations
2. communitarian participation: youth clubs, church groups, volunteering time
3. individualist participation: donating money, volunteering time, membership of a sporting group
4. party-oriented participation: party or union membership, contacting an MP

This contradicts the image of apathetic young people. The one area of participation that remains low for young people, and indeed for most Australians, is membership of political parties. Rather than labelling party membership decline as apathy, we ought to see how unappealing political parties have become. And it is up to parties to involve a new generation. This might not be by way of formal membership; instead, parties might consult with young people on issues relevant to their lives.

One heartening note is that political views on young people's levels of participation are not all negative. Ross Cameron, Liberal MP for Parramatta, for one, has noticed that young people participate, but choose to participate in different ways from their parents and grandparents.

Myth 2. Young people are deviant

I watched Australian Idol over its last few nights, and the two finalists, Guy Sebastian and Shannon Noll - two young men from very different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds - were shown being interviewed on radio by John Laws. Laws concluded the interview by saying "well if all young people are like you two then we don't have anything to worry about in this country". I cringed, as yet again young people were presented as potential troublemakers who their elders need to control and/or fear.

Violent protest, promiscuous sexuality and rampant drug use are all routinely used to portray young people as deviating from community standards and expectations. The media reporting of the February 2004 "riots" in Redfern tended to focus on young people as violent participants, and as always antagonising those in power, in this case the police. There were no alternative stories from young people participating in non-violent social-change actions in Redfern.

There is little evidence that social change has led to an increase in individualistic behaviour and then to an increase in crime. There is ample evidence that neo-liberal economics and structural change affects different young people differently. While some have benefitted from increased access to university, others have faced a contracting labour market that offers casual, short-term paid work in industries where there is not a strong union presence. There is still significant youth unemployment. Young, well-educated women are less likely to have children because, unsurprisingly, they have found that it is difficult to combine family and careers. Maybe these problems should be of greater concern to society, rather than concern about young peoples' deviance.

Myth 3. Young people are technology dependent

Australians now have broad access to sophisticated information and communication technologies. Many assume that young people primarily benefit from and have become dependent on these technologies. This view sees young people as atomised individuals distanced from society and community building as a direct result of their Internet usage.

Young people use the Internet more often than their elders and for a broader range of reasons. The media has gone on to construct an "us and them", often a "parents versus children", competition. For example, the following newspaper quote has young people living in a different world, enabled by new technologies: "The overwhelming message to teenagers today is that authorities, parents and lawmakers, are impotent in the online world."

What few people recognise is that nearly 40 per cent of 18-34 year olds use the 'net rarely, if ever. The gap between those who do and those who don't use the 'net has been called "the digital divide". The idea of the digital divide is usually applied to different age groups, that is, a divide between parents and their children. But the concept can also be applied within an age group. Factors other than generation divide young people into frequent or rare 'net users. What this implies is that we should worry more about unevenness of access and class-based differences. The digital divide is between the information-rich and the information poor. People living in cities, the highly educated, those who earn more money, white-collar workers are more likely to use both e-mail and the Internet frequently. Young people differ little on what they use e-mail and the Internet for - it is generally for work, for study and to keep in touch with people.

And anyway, maybe we should see technology as liberating for young people - why shouldn't they be able to do something their parents can't? Technology is an important indicator of social change and progress, and we should worry more about whether differential access to the Internet, to mobile phones, or to computers in general, indicates a growing class divide within this generation that will shape future economic opportunities.

Young People and Community

It is time to let go of these myths. Young people have a broad range of economic, social, and political experiences. Harking back to perceptions of a cohesive community of a bygone era is a political exercise that only serves to exclude people. Instead, we need to create inclusive forms of governance that recognise and build upon different ways of making communities. Those in power need to listen to young people more, young people's diverse views and experiences need to be articulated in the media, and intellectual focus should be on structural change rather than individual blame.