Bridging walls
A couple of years ago, a group of young men including myself met one morning in the church of a well-known and powerful denomination in the Philippines. The service had just been concluded, leaving the structure empty except for us.
That Sunday and the succeeding weekends saw us planning, discussing and deliberating on the founding of a youth organization for the faith community that, little did we know then, would cause a big ruckus in our parish.
Indifference was the first to meet us. We spoke of our plans to the parish leader and were told that he would not stop us from pursuing our intent. But there was no mention of any support despite the seeming inactivity of the community’s young members. Still, it was good enough for us. We wanted to be involved, we wanted change for the better, and we were trying to make that happen.
We started helping in worship services and, on occasion, even pulling life-sized statues in solemn processions. In my mind during those times, progress toward our goal seemed so slow. But it was progress, nevertheless, and I was happy.
But when progress was on the verge of gaining momentum, indifference gradually turned to hostility, especially when more and more people discovered what we were doing.
Apparently, it was my affiliations that posed a problem. Being from a state university known for its activism, I appeared to them as having ulterior political motives. As time went on, as new accusations were thrown at me almost regularly, I was confronted by an issue that is rarely discussed but is always pertinent in the life of the parish: Who wields the power?
Our group was being perceived as a threat to the comfortably existing order, and our accommodation to the system would require us to submit to the very practice against which our organization is fighting.
My intention is not to attack or bash any personality. Thus, without dwelling on too many details, I offer a humble perspective. The voice of the youth needs—nay, demands!—to be heard. Research studies will attest that a considerable number of young people are aware of the challenges facing their generation and, in response, they create and innovate to achieve positive change. The powers-that-be must not view this proactive stance as a threat to their stability but, rather, as attempts to assist what these powers are supposed to be doing, anyway—that is, serving the people.
What’s more, certain opportunities present themselves when young people are put at the forefront. Because they can relate to the peculiar experiences of their generation, they are able to formulate programs that will make sense to, and find resonance in, their peers. And there is no lack of youth movements and organizations to confirm my assertion.
Am I advocating the total independence of young people from the guidance of elders? No. The experience and resources of the previous generation are the life and foundation of any youth movement. Even so, these must be tempered with respect for the capabilities of the youth. That is to say, allow us to plan by ourselves, consult us when matters pertaining to us are to be discussed, and remember that making us feel responsible goes beyond saying that we are, or should be, responsible. Actual responsibilities must be given.
Furthermore, respect does not mean that we young people should be left alone in whatever we put our heads to doing; in cases when we are mistaken, dialogue is a better tool to convince us than a mere assertion of authority based on position or credentials. It must be remembered that age, gender, class or race is not an automatic indication of being right or wrong. No one can be wrong simply because one is young. Nor is anybody correct only because of one’s advanced years.
Cooperation is essential. When the elders offered to help us in our projects or gave us a ride to an event we had to attend, we caught a glimpse of what could happen if issues of power and mutual respect were discussed and implemented according to everyone’s resolution and satisfaction.
From what I hear, our experience is not an isolated case. It appears that this phenomenon extends even to some of the other communities of the institution. In our case, we almost gave up. Not everyone will see their plans and intentions through, leading to an irrecoverable waste of potential.
Our point is clear: People who block access for the young in important levels within institutions must cease to do so; they themselves must serve as pathways for the next generation’s hopes and aspirations.
Let walls turn into bridges.
The author, 20, is a sociology student at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City.
