Youth movement . . . or not?

[Fat Old Guy]

We often hear Scouting referred to a the world's largest youth movement but is it? Is it large? Yes it is large, very large. The question is "is Scouting a youth movement?"

 

If it is a "youth movement," why is it controlled by adults? Adults control the advancement process both changes in advancement and whether a Scout advances, adults chose the uniform, adults control the funding.

 

Where do the youth come in?

[evmori]

Youth are the members. Us old farts are the ones who create all the problems!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

FOG,

 

I think you are unfairly characterizing the Scouting program. The behind the scenes business of a troop, which is directed by adults and permits the boys to participate in a troop, is not the program. Similarly, the behinds the scenes business of a boys and girls club is not the sports program. The benefit that a boy derives from a sports program, stems from his participation on the team as one of its members. Or, do you think scheduling fields, finding volunteers as coaches, and purchasing trophies constitute a healthy sports program? These things are necessary, but no boy or girl is going to learn much about a particular sport or what its like to be on a team from doing any of these tasks. Likewise, the Scouting program stems from a Scouts participation in a troop. The infrastructure supporting the troop (i.e., Troop Committee, Scoutmaster, etc.) is not the program.

 

[KoreaScouter]

I've read a reference to an incident in which, I think it was B-P, corrected someone who referred to the Scouting "program" -- he was told it was a "movement". That was FOG's first question, right?

 

Here's a working definition of movement, from the dictionary: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal".

 

The questions might be; how heterogeneous are we? To what extent do we tend toward or favor a generalized common goal? What is that goal?

 

The inherent problem with any movement is that the power of the movement tends to lessen over time. The founders are no longer around, and the things that originally empower the movement, passion/vision/tradition, get skewed. You eventually end up with a lot more tradition, but steadily decreasing passion and vision, across the membership as a whole. None of us around now were at Brownsea or Gilwell Park, so we use tradition, undergirded by dogma, rules, policies, etc., to sustain the "movement" as we think B-P envisioned it.

 

For this to survive as a movement, if that's what we want, this has to be less about policies and rules and more about personal relationships with the founder, even if it's only a personal relationship with his ideas (passion/vision). Most adults have a pretty good idea what B-P was all about, even if they can't recite his autobiography. Most youth, when pressed, can tell you who B-P was, but other than the page in their Handbooks that describe him, there's nothing else we do to tie our youth members to his vision.

 

In my opinion, to call this a movement implies that we're trying to impart the passion and the vision of the founder to all our members. Are we? Really? How can we, if most of our youth members have only a vague idea who he was? I don't know if our leadership is afraid of appearing irrelevant by having us collectively identify with a historical figure, or what.

 

Sure, our aims and methods can be traced back directly to the things that B-P wrote and said about youth and how to develop them into good citizens. But, I personally don't think we're "evangelical" enough about it to call it a movement.

 

Where do the youth come in? They'll carry this forward and deliver it to the next generation, provided they have internalized the vision and passion of the founder. That's what a movement is, after all...

 

KS

[Fat Old Guy]

KS understood the question.

 

The question still stands, if it is a "youth movement" should it be controlled by adults?

[fotoscout]

 

 

 

Movements tend to, move. The concept behind a movement is to gain a following, and promote your cause. So, in the early years and perhaps through the 1950s, you could probably categorize Scouting as a movement. I am sure that in some countries it can still be called a movement, but I think that in this county Scouting has become a Program.

 

The youth are the focus of the program, and yes to make it work the adults must control it. First just look at he vast amount of adult time it takes to make this work. Volunteers, paid staff, executive staff, could any of those functions be carried out by the youth? Could the youth carry out a national program as complex as this one? I think both answers are no. In part because the youth have a primary responsibly to attend school, and in part because few of the youth members are really up to the larger jobs. They need maturity, wisdom, experience, and knowledge. Personalities aside, we all bring those qualities to every meeting we attend. The youth just arent there yet. I am of course referring to the larger district, council, and national program.

 

If youre referring to the Troop level, my answer would be the same. How often have you had a group of boys that displayed the vision of a program, not just getting thought that particular camping trip, but he program for tomorrow, next year, and five years down the road? Thats in part the committees job, the adults. Without them the program becomes an adventure in daily, weekly, or monthly fire drills.

 

 

I'll give you an example. One of our local troops did a great high adventure trip for the older boys last summer. They canoed and hiked thought the Adirondacks for two weeks. The boys made all the arrangements, and did great job of it, but the seed plant, concept, and preliminary work for the trip was started by one of the adults. This year, that ASM is cannot do the trip, so back in September, one of the other ASMs said hed do it. This new guys concept is to wait for the boys to start asking about it. Its February now and maybe already to late to do the same or a similar trip with the boys. So what happened here, the boys will miss out on a great experience because nobody initiated the process. This story is of course about an adult, but I think that this scenario would become routine without any adults working in the background.

 

[Twocubdad]

And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day -- I said fifty people a day -- walking in, singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out? Friends, they may thinks it's a movement!

[hops_scout]

Ed said"Youth are the members. Us old farts are the ones who create all the problems!"

 

I agree! Just like:

"Baseball is a kid's game, the adults just screw it all up;)"

[WHEELER]

The youth are involved in the BSA. They are the patrol leaders and the SPL's. They are there leading---in an aristocratic mould. They earn the right of advancement through merit. They get involved in doing "leadership" duties.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but originally there was no SPL. That is what the American side added. In the B-P original law, the scout is to have complete obedience to the Scoutmaster.

 

It needs to be adult lead. Boys are boys. This idea that children need to lead and to have some say is purely the drivel of John Dewey and his marxist philosophy of education. Look at the public school systems. Ayn Rand points to this philosophy of children are just as competent as adults. They are not. They have no experience of real life and no knowledge. Not the candidates of true leadership. Wisdom comes from experience, no boy has that.

 

I think FOG just is baiting with this thread. The Boy Scouts are based on a system that Victorian England was well acquainted with and the modern American people and culture are totally ignorant of.

 

If you don't understand Victorian culture and WHERE IT CAME FROM, there is no understanding of the Boy Scouts.

[Fat Old Guy]

Wheeler opined, "The youth are involved in the BSA. They are the patrol leaders and the SPL's. They are there leading---in an aristocratic mould. They earn the right of advancement through merit."

 

That makes it a "program." If was really a "movement," the leadership would come from the group benefitting from the "movement."

[Proud Eagle]

Let me provide something to use as a comparison.

 

I think Christianity, as a whole, is more or less a movement. Yet within that movement there are programs, bureaucracies, leaders, followers, organizers, planners, and other such things. The Roman Catholic Church is certainly a part of the Christian movement, though many would argue that it is more of an organization than a movement in and of itself. On the other hand, even the modern non-denominational Christian churches have pastors and boards of directors and others that have leadership or control.

 

I think a movement can remain a movement even when it contains organization, structured programs, and formal positions of leadership. I think Scouting can be said to be an organized movement. Certainly there are no longer very many boys scrambling to buy a copy of Scouting for Boys and starting up troops and patrols all on their own. However, that doesn't mean the movement is dead. Rather the movement has changed. It has a new form. Maybe the BSA has become to Scouting what the Roman Catholic Church is to Christianity. I would argue that isn't such a bad thing. The Church has after all survived for most of 2000 years. If a bit of structure is what it takes to keep Scouting going for another nineteen centuries, I think I can live with that.

[Bob White]

I have finally found something to agree with Wheeler on.

"I think FOG just is baiting with this thread."

I can not answer this definitively since I choose not to see his posts, but if it turned out to be true I would not be surprised.

 

"The Boy Scouts are based on a system that Victorian England was well acquainted with and the modern American people and culture are totally ignorant of."

 

OK this part is rubbish, but hey nobody's perfect.

 

"If you don't understand Victorian culture and WHERE IT CAME FROM, there is no understanding of the Boy Scouts."

 

Well OK this part is really old smelly rubbish. The structure of the BSA, particularly in its original program of troop Boy Scouting, is based on a combination of the early military structure of the US Cavalry and features of the US governmental system.

 

NOT victorian culture. I agree that for some there is no understanding of the BSA. Wheeler, you are proving yourself to be one of those. I was persuaded to take you off of squelch and give you a chance to prove your wvalue to the forum. I still see none, so you are going back into the squelch zone.

[WHEELER]

You have hit on something FOG. Yes it is a movement and not a program. I will stop calling it a program from now on. Yes it is a movement.

 Definition of movement: The action or process of moving; change of position; passage from place to place or from situation to another. This is the very first definition from the Oxford Dictionary.

There is sixth definition defined thus: A course or series of actions and endeavours on the part of a body of persons, moving or tending more or less continuously towards some special end. Often with defining word prefixed, as in the OXFORD movement.

This sixth definition is the key. Of course the Boy Scouts is a movement. The Boy Scouts is about "moving" from one position to another position. It is perfect. Boys do not remain Boys; they change into something. Boys change into men. So it is the Boy Scout movement.

Because as originally envisioned as a process of moving boys to manhood.   Manhood as being "some special end".

If it is as alot opine as a place for fun and games then the Boy Scouts are a program as mentioned in the mission and vision statements and in the modern Handbook. But if the original intent was to MOVE boys to MANHOOD, THEN IT IS A MOVEMENT.

Right on FOG!!!!!!!!!   There is a major distinction between "program" and "movement".

[WHEELER]

OHHHHH FOG You hit the nail on the head. Thank you Thank you thank you!!!!!!!

 

I realized something else. It is a movement. It is to take city boys move them to be OUTDOORSMEN AND FRONTEIRSMEN AND SCOUTS.

 

IT IS A MOVEMENT. From ignorance to knowledge, From effeminacy, to hardiness, from boyhood to manhood.

 

 

IT IS A MOVEMENT. OORAH!!!!

[WHEELER]

The Scoutmaster has to be involved. The Scoutmaster leds the Senior Patrol Leader, the Patrol leaders and the Leadership Corps. These in turn, SPL, PL, LC, led the boys. Everything in Heirarchical fashion. Just like in a Republic and the Military.

 

Only the Scoutmaster can lead because he is "THE MAN". He sets the example and shows the scouts the ideal of manliness and manhood. He corrects and guides and teaches wisdom. All leadership is by example and Scoutmasters are the leadership par excellence. They have the fullness of knowledge and experience. They KNOW what needs to be done to accomplish the goal. The boy leaders are to help the Scoutmaster accomplish tasks and goals. Boys learn by example and the non-coms learn more leadership from the scoutmaster.

 

Let's not forget the principle, "YOU ARE WHAT YOU FOLLOW". If boys did all the leading, then the boys remain boys. But if the Scoutmaster was there, then the boys become men. You are what you follow!!!!!

 

Scoutmasters burn the trail. Boys follow and become their Scoutmaster. IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC!!!!(This message has been edited by WHEELER)