Today we in the youth movement remember and give thanks to those who came before us; whose dreams will live on for generations to come. We continue the effort against the “defenders of the status quo” and their “offensive to impose their own schedule of change.”

From Why We Can’t Wait:

As in these two revolutions, a submerged social group, propelled by a burning need for justice, lifting itself with sudden swiftness, moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger, created an uprising so powerful that it shook a huge society from its comfortable base.

• 0 Comments

Angus Johnston of studentactivism.net has posted some questions in response to the first two articles in my Lessons Learned from Sociopolitical Movements series. These are some great questions, so I am going to take a crack at answering them here.

Why “Movement” rather than “Movements”?

It’s not obvious to me that all of the groups Bondelli is talking about fall under the same movement. I’d be interested in hearing why Bondelli conceptualizes them that way — where does this impulse come from? What kinds of analytical benefits does it offer? How, if at all, does he see that decision as risky or problematic?

A number of the organizations I mentioned fall under different movements. For example, the Energy Action Coalition is part of the environmental movement and Campus Pride is part of the GLBT movement. I have grouped these organizations together as part of a Progressive Youth Movement because they all seek to increase the civic role and electoral strength of youth in the United States with the goal of bringing progressive change. The one exception to the progressive change component are the pure non-partisan orgs, but I explain why I include them in a later answer.

Why the organizational focus?

In his second post, “Composition of the Youth Movement,” Bondelli describes the PYM as being made up of “different types of organizations.” Does he mean to exclude activists who aren’t part of organizations from his conception of the movement, or is he just using the organizations as examples of different movement tendencies? If PYM is a movement, in other words, what makes it a movement? How can you tell whether someone’s a part of that movement or not?

I tend to use organizations for a few reasons. First, they provide concrete examples and are easier to analyze. Second, my personal work has focused more on movement organizations and organizational theory than spontaneous organic movements, and many organic movements have evolved into organizations throughout history. Third, my goal of this series is to help youth organizations learn from history, hence many of the lessons learned will come from movement organizations in the past.

Under my definition any activist that works to engage youth in civic participation would fall under the movement. However, I tend to take an organizational approach and write for an audience that is mostly involved in organizations.

3. What are the ideological boundaries of the PYM?

Bondelli includes non-partisan organizations in his list, and I’m curious as to why. (I’m not saying he shouldn’t, just wondering why he does.) He states up front that he’s excluding right-wing groups, but he doesn’t say anything about where the leftward frontier of his movement lies, and I’d like to hear how he approaches that question.

This was the most difficult part of defining the movement. I included non-partisan organizations because of their overlap with the mission of the Progressive Youth Movement. While non-partisan registration/youth voting organizations register and promote turnout of conservative youth, they also register and turn out progressive youth. Since the ideological composition of the Millennial Generation is overwhelmingly progressive, I felt that it made sense to add them. They function more as complementary organizations to the movement.

4. Which big groups, if any, fall outside the PYM?

Bondelli states up front that his list of organizations shouldn’t be taken as comprehensive, but I was struck by the fact that three high-profile activist groups — United Students Against Sweatshops, the Campus Antiwar Network, and Students for a Democratic Society — are absent from it. Do each of these three groups fall under the PYM umbrella, in Bondelli’s conception of it?

This was the danger in listing groups in the post. I used the organizations as examples of the different types based on how familiar I am with the organizations as they operate today, not as a complete breakdown.

United Students Against Sweatshops would be a student-based, progressive, issue/cause organization. The Campus Antiwar Network would be a student-based, progressive, issue/cause umbrella organization. Students for a Democratic Society would be a student-based, progressive organization. SDS will definitely be seen in my posts since they were extremely important in both the history of the youth movement as well as in other movements.

5. What about youth vs. students?

Some of the organizations Bondelli cites are youth groups, and some are student groups, but he refers to the movement as a youth movement. The distinction between youth movements vs. student movements is a blurry one, but an important one, I think. I’d be interested in whether he agrees, and if so how he understands the difference.

This has been one of the big debates about youth movements. In my view, student movements are youth movements. While technically older people can be college students, the vast majority are youth, and those involved in student movements tend to be young with very few outliers. That being said, all students are youth, but not all youth are students.

I identified the organizations based on their focus. For example, College Democrats is only for college students. Young Democrats is for anyone under 35, including college students. I identify organizations like the League of Young Voters and the Hip Hop Caucus because they focus on engaging non-college youth, since the membership of general youth organizations tends to be students or college graduates.

I actually think the blurriest distinction that has been made in the history of youth issues is children vs. adult youth. I focus primarily on adult youth (16-35), though issues such as K-12 education are still relevant to young adults starting families ant that is the context in which I look at them.

I hope this mostly answers the questions. To give a bit of an idea as to where I will be going with these posts, here are a few themes.

• Strategies and tactics used by organizations in the past – For example, the Congress of Racial Equality’s techniques for chapter building during the Civil Rights movement.
• Challenges faced in the past – organizational struggles, disagreements, leadership problems, etc.
• Organizational cooperation – how organizations have joined together for a specific initiative
• Philosophies – the organizational philosophies of past movement orgs.
• How to build a movement – the different successes and failures in movement building throughout history.

That is a sample of some of the topics that will be coming up. As you can see, there will be a lot of focus on organizations.

• 0 Comments

Before we can properly apply the lessons of the past to the Progressive Youth Movement we need to take a look at the different types of organizations that make up today’s movement. It is important to note that many organizations fall under multiple categories. This analysis excludes conservative and Republican organizations, though includes non-partisan organizations that work with both parties. There are many more youth organizations than those I discuss below as examples, so don’t take this as a comprehensive list.

Partisan, Progressive, and Non-Partisan

Youth organizations fall into one of three categories: partisan, progressive, or non-partisan.

Partisan organizations identify with and promote a specific political party. College Democrats of America and Young Democrats of America are Democratic partisan organizations, while Campus Greens is a Green Party partisan organization.

Progressive organizations don’t directly identify with a specific party, but supports progressive issues, candidates, and causes. Examples of progressive youth organizations are the Bus Federation, Campus Progress, League of Young Voters, and Young People For.

Non-partisan organizations work with all political parties and ideologies, and often focus on young voter registration and empowerment, as well as general youth and student issues. Examples of non-partisan youth organizations are Rock the Vote, Mobilize, HeadCount, and the United States Student Association.

Youth Component Organizations

Youth component organizations are youth arms of general organizations. Examples are the Sierra Student Coalition (Sierra Club), Student Conservation Voters (LCV), Greenpeace Student Network (Greenpeace), Campus Progress (Center for American Progress), NAACP Youth and College (NAACP), Young People For (People for the American Way), and the College Democrats of America (DNC).

The Young Democrats of America, while in some ways being like a component organization of the DNC, technically has not been since its separation with the DNC in 2003.

Umbrella Organizations

Umbrella organizations, most notably the Bus Federation and Energy Action Coalition, are organizations made up of a number of smaller groups.

Issue/Cause Organizations

Issue and cause organizations mobilize youth in support of specific issues and causes. Examples are the Energy Action Coalition (environment), United States Student Association (student issues), Campus Pride (LGBT), and the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (voting rights).

Constituency Organizations

Constituency youth organizations tend to focus on the youth of a particular constituency group. Examples are Campus Pride (GLBT), Voto Latino (Latino/a), NAACPYC (African-American), and Running Start (women).

Student, General, Non-Student

Traditionally youth groups throughout history have focused on students, since they are the low-hanging fruit of the organizing world. Today there are organizations that focus on students, focus on youth in general, and those that specifically reach out to non-college youth.

Student organizations are still the most prevalent, including the College Democrats of America, Campus Pride, Campus Progress, USSA, SAVE, Student PIRGs, and most of the environmental component groups.

General organizations work with students as well as young workers and professionals. Examples are the Young Democrats of America, Bus Federation, Rock the Vote, and Young People For.

A few organizations take the initiative to undertake the admirable task of reaching out specifically to non-college youth. The League of Young Voters is an example, as is the Hip Hop Caucus, which reaches out to youth in low-income urban areas. Some of the constituency group organizations also do a great job of this, including Voto Latino.

Voter Registration Organizations

These organizations tend to be non-partisan and work to register young voters and encourage them to turn out at the polls. Rock the Vote is the biggest name in this category, but there are a number of organizations that engage in this work, including HeadCount and Student PIRGs New Voters Project.

Candidate Organizations

Candidate organizations tend to be temporary since they are organized around a particular campaign. The pioneer in this category was Generation Dean, which paved the way for the 2008 candidate organizations like Hillblazers, Generation Obama, and SFBO.

Leadership Development Organizations

Leadership development organizations focus on recruiting, training, and supporting young leaders. Examples are the Young Elected Officials Network, which works with young people that have been elected to office, Running Start, that works to encourage and support young women running for office, and the New Leaders Council, which trains emerging young leaders to become “political entrepreneurs.” Young People For also provides progressive leadership development.

• 2 Comments

This is the introductory article in what will most likely be a large series entitled “Lessons from Sociopolitical Movements” that will run alternatively here and on Future Majority.

The series will be based on research I have done over the past few years on social and political movements throughout American history.

To start off the series I want to talk about what the Progressive Youth Movement has in common with other sociopolitical movements, as well as its unique differences.

What We Have in Common

All of the social and political movements in American history have operated within the same political, social, and legislative entity: the United States. American social movements have fought battles in the same political and legal system, faced the multiple facets of local, state, and national government, and have sought and/or continue to seek change in those systems.

Movement organizations have largely dealt with similar issues of logistics, management, coordination, organizing, funding, outreach, education, lobbying, and communication.

Most movement organizations tend to represent a particular demographic of people with causes and issues that often overlap with those of other organizations.

In essence, the Progressive Youth Movement faces the same challenges that are inherent to movement-building and advocacy in American society, and it would be a waste to not learn from the history and experiences of the movements and organizations that came before us.

How We Are Different

The most fundamental difference between the Progressive Youth Movement and other social movements is the unavoidable fact that our activists and the young people we represent will eventually “age out” of the movement and the demographic.

This quality is unique to youth movements. Most movements throughout history have been based on racial, sexual, or gender identity; qualities that members retain their entire lives. With senior citizen organizations, one must age into it, but once you do you are there for the rest of your life. Members of the labor movement tend to identify with their union even after retirement. Low-income worker movements technically could have members “wealth out” of the demographic, but it is not as likely as we would hope and not inevitable. Without exception every young person in the country today will cease to be young, whether from getting older or tragically perishing.

This mercurial quality of youth poses unique challenges for youth movements.

1. Leaders age out of the demographic and the movement, making youth organizations more prone to institutional amnesia and can result in leadership vacuums.
2. It is more difficult to get people to identify with the movement, since they are not permanently members of the demographic.
3. Membership has to constantly be refreshed. Youth organizations face an attrition rate drastically higher than other movements.
4. Youth is difficult to define. Some definitions say under 30, some say 35 and younger, and some even go as high as 40.

Another key difference of the Progressive Youth Movement is that it is based on identification with a political ideology. While other social movements have been lopsided toward one ideology or another, it is not a part of the identity. The Progressive Youth Movement is actually the ideological side of a larger, non-partisan youth movement.

Lessons from Sociopolitical Movements

In this upcoming series of articles I will look at these movements and apply the lessons learned from their successes and failures to the Progressive Youth Movement, keeping in mind the similarities and differences of the movements.

In Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation, one of the best books of analysis on the GLBT movement and a frequent source for this series, author Urvashi Vaid states:

“In the gay movement, activists rarely know, much less credit, their predecessors; our movement’s history has barely been written. Every generation thinks it is facing things for the first time. In a literal sense, that’s true, but in a historical sense, most movement battles are repetitious. In addition, to bolster the urgency of their current work, activists often play down, discredit, or simply ignore efforts that came before.”

Not only should movements learn from their own histories, but from each other as well.

• 0 Comments