@cohenCountryBlindYouth2000

(2000) - Phil Cohen, Pat Ainley

Journal: Journal of Youth Studies
Link:: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/136762600113059
DOI:: 10.1080/136762600113059
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialHistory #Britain #CulturalStudies
Cite Key:: [@cohenCountryBlindYouth2000]

Abstract

In this paper we look at the history of youth research and cultural studies in Britain, and consider the relationship between these two very different intellectual trajectories and traditions. W e argue that the youth question is potentially at the cutting edge of interdisciplinary enquiry in the human sciences, that it has an im portant role to play in reconstituting the problem atics of identity and modernity and that it serves to focus policy debates around a strategic nexus of social contradiction in post-colonial Britain. But we also suggest that until we transcend the narrow empiricism of most youth transition studies, and the theoreticism that continues to characterize the study of cultural texts, the youth question will continue to remain a side-show. The article concludes by outlining one possible approach that m ay help build bridges between youth studies and cultural studies in order to advance research beyond these limitations.

Notes

“look at the history of youth research” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 79)

“suggest that until we transcend the narrow empiricism of most youth transition studies, and the theoreticism that continues to characterize the study of cultural texts, the youth question will continue to remain a side-show” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 79)

“The youth-as-transition approach not only implies a linear teleological model of psychosocial development, it is premised upon the availa bility of w aged labour as the `ultimate goal” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 80)

“`transition’ as a rite of passage between developmental stages of psychological maturity and immaturity, complemented by a sociological transition narrowly restricted to (vocational) maturity and (nuclear) family formatio” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 80) Why do so many sociologists treat and complicate the notion of transitions to avoid a direct linear relationship- for example how cohabitation is treated as separate from that of marriage in models.

“The invention of adolescence as a distinctive stage of the life cycle was part of the same discourse that challeng ed the dead hand of tradition’ brakin g the engines of progress’ .” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 89)

“Social scientists are going to have to learn to grapple with the emotional intricacies of the `interview transference’ if they are going to put som e biographical ̄ esh on the bare bones of youth policy analysis; just as hardened number crunchers are having to experiment with the Internet to develop new sampling strategies” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 93)

“Teachers and youth workers will need to play a key role in de® ning and implementing this research process, especially by working it into the curriculum.” (Cohen and Ainley, 2000, p. 93) As history tells us, a decentralised model of teacher led power within the educational system creates non-uniform results.