Reflection I

Reflection I

 

In Denaturalizing Adolescence: The Politics of Contemporary Representations, Nancy Lesko of Indiana University critiques the widely accepted characteristics that collectively defines teenagers, based on their age, as hormonally driven, peer oriented, and identity seeking. She uses rhetorical, historical, and feminist works to deconstruct the 'natural' adolescent.

One of the assumptions Lesko disputes is the idea that adolescents 'come of age' into adulthood at a standardized age, suggesting a sudden enlightenment into maturity (Lesko). A few years ago, I watched a TED Talks speech by Ken Robinson who discussed many problems with our education system. One of the ideas he criticized is how our students are categorized by age within our education system. Classifying students by age worked well at first, but the dynamics of our society, youth, and education have changed drastically over the last few decades. Ken Robinson agrees that our education system is flawed by using an age-based classification system because students excel at different subjects at different rates.

People mature at different rates, too. For example, women tend to mature faster than men and some individuals excel physically and mentally faster than others. If this is the case, then why are students classified based on age in schools? I was in science and mathematics classes with students who struggled with the basic concepts where I excelled and found the classes to be very easy. I also had little trouble reading out loud in elementary school, where other students in my grade struggled with fundamental vocabulary.

In the NHL, the players are generally between the age of 17 to late 40's. Why then, when I played minor hockey, did I have to play in a league of players who were all the same age as me, rather than skill? There are advantages and disadvantages to categorization based on age or skill, but using age to divide students academically is a barrier to those who excel in that particular subject.

The second assumption Lesko disagrees with is the biological causation model where teenagers are controlled biologically by hormones and could potentially act dangerously out of control (Lesko). An example of a biological causation model she discusses describes the unpredictability of women based on the hormonal influences caused by the state of their menstrual cycle. She argues against this point by stating that emotions and thoughts can change a woman's menstrual cycle. She then she argues the idea that teenagers have been objectified based on their physical body and that one could self reflect to provide a better understanding of physical, mental, and emotional feelings.

Hormones have a huge influence on how you act and what you think. They are part of what defines you as a person. People experiencing puberty are especially susceptible to those hormonal fluctuations, but I don't think they dominate one's choice of actions. I agree with Lesko in that one could take the time to self-reflect to gain some insight to your choice of actions. I also disagree with her because hormones have a strong influence on one's choices and can also lead to unpredictable, impulsive, gut actions or reactions that are potentially void of reason. This reminds me of Aristotle's philosophy that humans are distinct because they have the ability to reason. I think that all humans, no matter their age, have the ability to be rational, but at times can be irrational, depending on their state of mind, social situation, and maturity.  

The third assumption Lesko disputes is that teenagers are prone to peer pressure because they value friends more than anything else. She feels that it is demeaning to assume that teenagers are dangerous and need to be collectively controlled (Lesko). Lesko uses a compares how teenagers are viewed with how women used to be considered uniform and had little social influence. She points out that students are regularly recognized as being uniform because they form grade-based societies where the amount of contact with adults or younger children is diminished resulting in easy submission to peer pressure. She argues that peer pressure is a direct result of categorizing students based on age and that more research focusing on this issue is required.

I find Lesko's argument a little weak on this matter. I think that teenagers will react differently based on the demographics of the peers they are exposed to, but will succumb to peer pressure to fit in any situation. For example, teenagers can be just as easily influenced by the adults that they hang out with. They will still want to fit in and the dynamics of the peer pressure will be completely different, but there will still be part of them that wants to shape their identity based on what is collectively seen as cool by the group they are part of. Also, think about how they are influenced by the media. Media is not a form of peer pressure, but it definitely influences teenagers using messages that are often subliminal.

Even though I found one of her arguments weak, I think Lesko's concluding statements struck home with me. She says that "only those youths who demonstrate how reason, rather than hormones, rules their lives ... are deemed mature" (Lesko, 1996, p.157).

Before I read this article, I thought that a standardized age distinguishing someone as an adult was efficient, but unusual. In Ontario, at the age of 18 you can legally join the Canadian military and vote, but you cannot legally purchase and consume alcohol. Why is the drinking age 19? Aren't you mature at 18? Why 18? On the contrary, a maturity test would be extremely difficult to make efficient and fair. In that sense, I understand the need for standardizing age to introduce structure, but, I do feel that teenagers become adults when they are able to demonstrate a consistent ability to reason.

Reference

Lesko. N. (1996) Denaturalizing  Adolescence. Youth and Society 28(2): 139 ‐161