Peace and Environment News* April 1996
|
Peace and Environment News * April 1996 |
by Mike Kaulbars
One of the more chilling sentiments I hear all too often is when an older activist sees one or more younger activists and says "It's great to see all of these young faces taking over so that us old fogies can retire." What bothers me is the perception that as an older person they have no role to play within the movement. The idea is that older or elderly activists are token or superfluous, that only the "fire of youth" has a place in social change. What an absurd and dangerous notion!
Historically the peace movement is older than the environment movement, and peace activists traditionally represented a broad spectrum of age groups, from the student-based SAGE tour to the seniors of the Raging Grannies. In more recent years the environmental movement has attracted more of the younger people and is disproportionately made up of people aged thirty and under. In the same period the peace movement has been aging without attracting as many young people as it once did. This is not to suggest that the peace and environment movements are made up entirely of seniors and youth respectively, but I think it's fair to say that there is a bias in that direction. This phenomenon has been unhealthy for both movements, although which has been hurt more is hard to tell.
The peace movement has lost some of its fire, but it has remained active and effective because many of the "old fogies" have kept at it. Not necessarily tirelessly, and not without cost, but they have applied their skills and knowledge garnered from years of involvement in order to sustain the movement's all-too-important work. That same wisdom is a tremendous asset to the new people that the movement does attract because it means that they are able to use it to be more effective that much more quickly. Above all the older activists sustain a stable base, a foundation that the younger activists can operate from in doing the work as they learn the skills.
This is still misleading because it suggests that older activists are only of value or only contribute to the extent of their experience and knowledge gained in previous activism. I seem to be suggesting that someone who enters the social justice community as part of their retirement activities has no role to play. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I think the environment movement demonstrates this quite well.
All important and fundamental change takes time. We might organize a successful one-day paper recycling depot in a matter of weeks or months, but the work of getting a large urban centre to adopt a recycling program takes years. We can organize a protest of old-growth logging in no time, but educating people not to use virgin paper is a long-term challenge. These long-haul projects require organizations that are there for the long haul, and organizations are nothing but the people who make them up.
One of the realities of youth in our culture is that they are mobile, in transition. Depending on the age group we are talking about, they will move on to university, graduate school or teachers college, their first job or some other career move, the first home, or a bigger one to accommodate the new baby, etc. There is no question that they give unbelievable amounts of time and energy to social justice work, and often continue to do so where ever they next find themselves, but the bottom line is that many "younger people" will only be able to devote six months to two years to a particular group or campaign.
You can do a lot in two years, once you know the issue, the resources the organization has, the local networks and allies, and about ten thousand other pieces of information that are necessary to really effective organizing. Acquiring all that background takes months, even years, and it is a rare person who is able to be really effective without six or more months of heavy involvement with a given organization or issue. Thus the "effective" active life of many younger activists is even shorter than their total period of involvement suggests.
We need younger people. We need the fire, the skills, the energy, the passion and creativity that they bring. Every group, organization and movement does, but it's not enough. We also need the older activists, middle-aged and seniors. We need people whose house is paid for, kids are grown, business or career is stable, people who will be involved for five years, ten, or more. People who have had the time to learn the issues and history, have made the connections, know the networks, procedures, and plans. It is the older activists who make up a foundation that supports the younger activists' fire and energy. When either group is underrepresented, the organization or movement is in trouble.
Traditional Native wisdom always speaks of balance, the need to have all elements present in their proper proportion. That is certainly true of activists within an organization or movement. It is the balance of the different age groups working together that produces the harmony of effective activism. Seeing a group made up entirely or mostly of younger people is not a sign that there is no place for an older person and that it is time to move on. Far from it. It is a sign that the older people are desperately needed so that we can make some real progress on these issues.
Converted April 11, 2000 - Lg
To follow up on this article, contact the author or the organizations/individuals mentioned; do not contact the Peace and Environment Resource Centre - we cannot provide follow up or contact information. This article is an archival copy of the printed one in the Peace and Environment News (PEN). Viewpoints expressed should not be taken to represent the opinions of the Peace and Environment Resource Centre, the PEN, or our supporters.
