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

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.