Social change has developed through a state of natural pregression. The term ‘youth workers as agents of social change’ implies that youth work exists to assist the young people and help to meet their needs in a healthy environment which will allow them to develop. It will allow the young people to participate in their society which would enable them to take an actve approach in challenging the problems and tasks facing youth.
The term ‘ youth work’ really first came to light in the Albemarle Report in 1960. It can be interpreted many ways. It can be described as the transmission of positive values to young people, to prepare them for society, to show them their possibilities and limits. Youth work can also be defined as “ a planned programme of education designed for the purpose of aiding ad enhancing the personal and social development of young persons through their voluntary participation, and which is complementary to their formal, academic or vocational education and training; and provided primarily by voluntary youth organisations.” (Youth Work Act 2001) However, the youth work that came to light in the 1950’s is contrasting to the youth work nowadays. It has matured to become a broader, wider concept. However, the foundations and basis for most of the youth work today was set in 1960 in the Albemarle Report.
The Albemarle Report (1960) could be seen as the beginning of the development of the modern youth service. It recognizes peoples’ abilities to set their own values and lifestyles and affirms the need for young people to accept their place in society. It deals with this conflict by establishing the value of social education through leisure activities. The report provided youth work with a very influential rationale and framework – and was a key element in substantially increasing funding for youth work.
The committee responsible for this report was chaired by the Countess of Albemarle and was appointed by the Minister of Education in November 1958. This was a time when “ The climate is particularly turbulent with the sense of increasing violence and destructiveness among sections of the young” (Cited in Lecture Pack – Albemarle Report). These violent and destructive sections of the young were labelled in many ways and many reasons were given for it. However, one that sticks out for the causes of delinquency is that the “ …ethos of society is moving away from Christianity – especially teenage culture.” (Cited in Lecture Pack) Basically, what that statement is saying is that teenagers and Christianity don’t come hand in hand. So from that aspect the Albemarle Report was adapting a status of social control for youth workers.
The Albemarle Report was saying that the youth were a problem. That the youth were upsetting the natural order of things. That the youth were becoming more irresponsible. However, what it was not recognising was that at the time, there was a distinctive and recognisable adolescent lifestyle. The youth were beginning to grow and adolescence was not ‘ a sickness which the young person should recover from’. The very fact that the youth were described as upsetting the natural ‘order’ of things was very clear in that Albemarle wanted the youth workers to be agents of social control.
The raw foundation for youth work was introduced in the Albemarle Report. The four principle recommendations really got the ball rolling. However, one of these recommendations states that the Minister of Education should take the steps to increase the exiting force of full time leaders. What this is saying is that youth workers should lead my force and not through understanding, empathy trust etc. This is summed up by the way that an army graduate was straight away qualified as a youth leader. That whole idea boils down to one simple aspect, discipline. If a young person is disciplined then it will fulfil the role that society expects from them.
The argument above states that the Albemarle Report quite obviously veers towards youth workers being agents of social control, however, it recognises that a change is needed.
A contrasting view comes from the Milson-Fairbairn Report. This report was sceptical of the extent to which community schools could represent the full range of community interests. The aim of the report reads, “ It is the critical involvement of young people in a society which seeks to be compassionate and participant.” (Lecture Pack). The report acknowledges that there have been significant changes since the Albemarle Report and there are still debates concerning many issues. Milson and Fairbairn argue that the failing in the youth service is because there is too much emphasis on the age group of 14-20. They argue that young people at the top of that age range have very little identity with the people at the bottom end of the age range.
The Milson-Fairbairn report states that the primary goal of youth work is the social education of young people. Youth work should be seen to be present in many places, being concerned with relationships between generations and between young people and their community. From the statement that the primary goal should be social education, it is fair to say that Milson and Fairbairn argue that youth workers should be agents of social change. Many points in the report back up this argument. Milson was very critical of the youth service and as well as arguing that it was a service for children, he argues that the neediest were not being served. This goes back to the point that youth workers as agents of social change need to assist the young people and meet their needs. Milson feels that this is not happening and he suggests that the skills of the youth workers, therefore, need to be raised. If the skills of the youth workers were to be raised then their capacity to help others will be raised and this will have a knock on effect on the young people, which would result in their needs being met, and being able to have a participative role in society.
The Milson-Fairbairn Report believes that the youth service should be more than buildings and organisations. It should be more than discipline and control. It should be about helping the young people, allowing them freedom and not structuring them. It should be about the youth workers helping the young people in what they want rather than what society wants and expects of them. Milson feels the youth service should offer care and inspiration towards the young people and he identified 5 skill areas that are necessary for any training course. Even though this report was in 1970, the skills identified have a basis for youth work today. These skills include administration and management skills right up to community development.
From the arguments above I think that the Milson-Fairbairn report was suggesting that youth workers should be agents of social change.
The third and final report was the Thompson Report (January 1981). First of all, Thompson was complimentary of the two previous reports. He feels that the Albemarle Report “ …did an immense service to the youth movement.” However, he later identifies that the report left a lot of loose ends that would cause major problems in the next ten years. Thompson believed that the Milson-Fairbairn Report gave a momentum to the linking of youth working in community development.
Thompson carried out some research before his report was completed and he discovered that young people were not getting the opportunities that they expect. The gap between expectation and reality was widening. This could be because the youth workers are not fulfilling the needs of the young people and this can be linked to the loose ends left by Albemarle.
However, Thompson believed that the young people would get their greatest sense of identity through personal development. He believed that the young people would learn things by doing them and participation was a huge concept for Thompson. He makes a point that I feel is very important. He says that a youth worker is different from a teacher, a parent or other carers. This is because they have non-directive relationships with the young people. What I think he means by this is that the parents and teachers etc have a structured way in dealing with the young people and there is a slight agenda there. Whereas, youth workers are free to help the young people and fulfil their needs in a more relaxed manner, which will benefit the young person as they will have a contrast in relationships.
Thompson believed that the goal of any society is “To create well informed, well motivated and actively participating communities.” (WHO 1996) Participation was central to his argument. He believed that participation would give the young people a sense of belonging, sense of identity and skills, confidence and assurance needed to participate not only in a club but also in society.
I think that the Thompson Report is neutral in the aspect that youth workers should be agents of social control or agents of social change. There are arguments that can go for both sides but there is no underlying stance on either.
The argument can be said that the Albemarle Report was crucial to the development of youth work and youth workers, however, it was based too much on social control and it did not fulfil the young peoples needs.
The Milson-Fairbairn Report can then be said to be too concentrated on social change and basing everything on the needs and fulfilment of the young people. Because of this stance it was quite clear that this report would be rejected.
However, the Thompson report has a fine balance. It does not veer too heavily to either side. It recognises both the need for youth workers to be agents of social control and agents of social change. His report is central to participation and citizenship. The participation coming from both the young people and the youth workers.
After looking extensively at the three reports I don’t believe that youth workers can be either ‘just’ agents of social control or ‘just’ agents of social change. I feel that at the beginning of youth work, yes, there was an added emphasis on youth workers being agents of social control, however, as time has progressed and the youth have grown and different generations have come through I feel that we have passed the stage of youth workers being agents of one or the other. There is an element of youth workers being agents of both. My argument for this is that there will always be expectations from society and there will always be a structure, however hidden it may be, but there is also the need to always try and meet the needs and expectations of the young people. It has been this diversity that has helped the youth service grow and become as big as it now is. The emphasis now is to try to help the young people to participate and have a more active role in society while acknowledging that there are expectations and rules and discipline to be followed.
Finally, I feel that overall youth workers should be agents of social control AND agents of social change. This is to help the youth workers be as effective as possible and to facilitate the young people to the greatest of their ability.
Bibliography:
Benson J – Working More Creatively With People
Andy Furlong - Sociology and Social Change
Lecture pack
Albemarle Report
Milson-Fairbairn Report
Thompson Report
Haralambos M – Sociology: Themes and perspectives
References:
Andy Furlong – Sociology and Social Change
Lecture Pack
Albemarle Report
Milson-Fairbairn Report
Thompson Report
“Youth Workers – Agents of social change or agents of social control?”
By Chris McManus
