"People who grew up in financial hardship more likely to be NEETs."
"People diagnosed with ADHD or autism in childhood more likely to be NEETs."
"Teens with depression and anxiety more likely to be NEETs."
"Kids who were chosen last for school team sports more likely to be NEETs."
"Children who spend breaktimes alone more likely to go on to be NEETs."
NEETS - people, especially those aged 18-25, who are Not in Education, Employment, or Training - are a persistent fretting point for politicians, and a frequent hand-wringing focus in the media.
Almost every week, we see yet another "X type of child more likely grow up to be NEET" headline. It seems as though there are so many social problems causing people to shy away from paid employment, higher education, or worthwhile training pursuits. So many problems, that need so many schemes and organisations set up to address the problems (often by Friends of People in Whitehall...whom I'll henceforth be referring to as "FPWs", and, for People in Whitehall, as "PWs"), that society is just overwhelmed by all these NEETs, the problems that create them, the problems they have, and the problems they cause, and whatever shall we do about them all?
But The Productive Pessimist's belief and practice is that, while there may be many problems, there is almost always just the one answer.
The more headlines I come across about "what type of children" are "more likely to end up as NEETs" I read, the clearer the single answer that solves all the various "problems" of those not in education, employment, or training becomes.
While the media and FPW make profits, and PW make hay and arguments across the Floor of the House that would shame a pack of the worst teenage schoolkids over "all the problems" of NEETs, the single answer becomes increasingly clearer, and more obvious.
What causes people to experience enduring exclusion and hardship throughout their lives is other people deciding, and being allowed, to treat them cruelly.
If teachers were required - not expected, not encouraged, not "supported to move towards", but actually required, as a mandatory performance measure - to ensure that children were not permitted to exclude or behave cruelly to others, without defaulting to the even more harmful tactic of simply forcing children to be friends with other children, with no regard as to whether the children in question have even the slightest interests in common that would facilitate people without the strength of adult social skills to begin building mutually respectful relationships, if parents didn't support their children behaving cruelly towards and excluding others, if cruelty and exclusion were held to be a choice made by the children who engage in them, and not the blame of those who experience them, if what was rewarded consistently throughout childhood was how many people someone didn't initially like they welcomed into their circles, and fully supported, then we might see the beginning of the change that society claims is "so needed" for NEETs, but which it would prefer not to bring about if it requires that entrenched attitudes - that some people just "don't fit in", and that those people "deserve" cruelty, as though not being like the majority were a crime which required as harsh a punishment as possible - are changed.
The business of changing, from earliest childhood, the way people interact with those they don't instantly feel a connection to is also the answer to many other problems.
It solves the problems of loneliness, for all genders.
It solves the problems of "what happens to those who don't marry or have children when they get old?"
It begins to address some of the problems of the UK's lack of social care.
It solves the problems of people feeling they're having to "live without a village."
It creates wealth - because when people have care for more people, they buy more gifts. When people have more people they choose to celebrate, they spend more in hospitality sector venues. When people feel included and happy, they often choose to spend more.
It saves the Exchequer, because people with a community around them do not see GPs, pharmacists, A&E, or social service support as their first port of call. People who are included are more likely to either be employed, or supported privately, reducing calls on the welfare state. Creating a genuine, cultural-norm disdain for excluding people or treating them cruelly - rather than bringing in yet more "guidance" and "mandatory requirements" which, logistically, can't be enforced, and only ever cause resentment reduces high-cost, low-solution challenges to societal cohesion such as depression, anxiety, and stress; it may even reduce the impact of autoimmune and chronic conditions.
Anti-social behaviour reduces.
People naturally co-operate in keeping the appearance of their local areas to high standards.
Crime rates fall.
Streets become safer - more people in more supportive social groups have a lower need for individual vehicles, meaning there is less on-street parking, which frees up sight lines, and fewer vehicles being driven by resentful, exhausted, frustrated people, and thus fewer accidents.
When people have done nothing other than "not be like you", what, exactly, do you or society benefit from engaging in deliberate cruelty and exclusion towards them?
This isn't about "making everyone like everyone else - that's a consent violation!" - you don't have to like people in order to not be cruel to them. It is entirely possible to be inclusively neutral - to behave with consideration and courtesy, but without affection. To not talk badly about people, whilst still not holding them in much esteem.
Wondering how a zero-cruelty position could be made a cultural norm without legal coercion? Drop us an email at theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com, and schedule a session to work through what the process could look like in your organisation.
"People diagnosed with ADHD or autism in childhood more likely to be NEETs."
"Teens with depression and anxiety more likely to be NEETs."
"Kids who were chosen last for school team sports more likely to be NEETs."
"Children who spend breaktimes alone more likely to go on to be NEETs."
NEETS - people, especially those aged 18-25, who are Not in Education, Employment, or Training - are a persistent fretting point for politicians, and a frequent hand-wringing focus in the media.
Almost every week, we see yet another "X type of child more likely grow up to be NEET" headline. It seems as though there are so many social problems causing people to shy away from paid employment, higher education, or worthwhile training pursuits. So many problems, that need so many schemes and organisations set up to address the problems (often by Friends of People in Whitehall...whom I'll henceforth be referring to as "FPWs", and, for People in Whitehall, as "PWs"), that society is just overwhelmed by all these NEETs, the problems that create them, the problems they have, and the problems they cause, and whatever shall we do about them all?
But The Productive Pessimist's belief and practice is that, while there may be many problems, there is almost always just the one answer.
The more headlines I come across about "what type of children" are "more likely to end up as NEETs" I read, the clearer the single answer that solves all the various "problems" of those not in education, employment, or training becomes.
While the media and FPW make profits, and PW make hay and arguments across the Floor of the House that would shame a pack of the worst teenage schoolkids over "all the problems" of NEETs, the single answer becomes increasingly clearer, and more obvious.
What causes people to experience enduring exclusion and hardship throughout their lives is other people deciding, and being allowed, to treat them cruelly.
If teachers were required - not expected, not encouraged, not "supported to move towards", but actually required, as a mandatory performance measure - to ensure that children were not permitted to exclude or behave cruelly to others, without defaulting to the even more harmful tactic of simply forcing children to be friends with other children, with no regard as to whether the children in question have even the slightest interests in common that would facilitate people without the strength of adult social skills to begin building mutually respectful relationships, if parents didn't support their children behaving cruelly towards and excluding others, if cruelty and exclusion were held to be a choice made by the children who engage in them, and not the blame of those who experience them, if what was rewarded consistently throughout childhood was how many people someone didn't initially like they welcomed into their circles, and fully supported, then we might see the beginning of the change that society claims is "so needed" for NEETs, but which it would prefer not to bring about if it requires that entrenched attitudes - that some people just "don't fit in", and that those people "deserve" cruelty, as though not being like the majority were a crime which required as harsh a punishment as possible - are changed.
The business of changing, from earliest childhood, the way people interact with those they don't instantly feel a connection to is also the answer to many other problems.
It solves the problems of loneliness, for all genders.
It solves the problems of "what happens to those who don't marry or have children when they get old?"
It begins to address some of the problems of the UK's lack of social care.
It solves the problems of people feeling they're having to "live without a village."
It creates wealth - because when people have care for more people, they buy more gifts. When people have more people they choose to celebrate, they spend more in hospitality sector venues. When people feel included and happy, they often choose to spend more.
It saves the Exchequer, because people with a community around them do not see GPs, pharmacists, A&E, or social service support as their first port of call. People who are included are more likely to either be employed, or supported privately, reducing calls on the welfare state. Creating a genuine, cultural-norm disdain for excluding people or treating them cruelly - rather than bringing in yet more "guidance" and "mandatory requirements" which, logistically, can't be enforced, and only ever cause resentment reduces high-cost, low-solution challenges to societal cohesion such as depression, anxiety, and stress; it may even reduce the impact of autoimmune and chronic conditions.
Anti-social behaviour reduces.
People naturally co-operate in keeping the appearance of their local areas to high standards.
Crime rates fall.
Streets become safer - more people in more supportive social groups have a lower need for individual vehicles, meaning there is less on-street parking, which frees up sight lines, and fewer vehicles being driven by resentful, exhausted, frustrated people, and thus fewer accidents.
When people have done nothing other than "not be like you", what, exactly, do you or society benefit from engaging in deliberate cruelty and exclusion towards them?
This isn't about "making everyone like everyone else - that's a consent violation!" - you don't have to like people in order to not be cruel to them. It is entirely possible to be inclusively neutral - to behave with consideration and courtesy, but without affection. To not talk badly about people, whilst still not holding them in much esteem.
Wondering how a zero-cruelty position could be made a cultural norm without legal coercion? Drop us an email at theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com, and schedule a session to work through what the process could look like in your organisation.
Comments
Post a Comment