Monday, October 14, 2013

Towards An Insurrectionary Critique Of Ageism

Ageism is a word you never really hear in depthly talked about in any circle of anarchist really. Folks will call it out from time to time, but, do they even know what it means? Do they know how it works even? Does anyone? These are the questions we need to ask. If we are about destroying every hierarchy, and freeing ourselves, why are youth like me an echo thrown under the bus when it comes to analysis and just general participation?

I have been in several circles. From a left-anarchist circle, to a maoist circle. In all the groups I have been in there have been re-accuring patterns. I have to debate, just to be able to be listened to. Now, this is nothing new for a teenager. because of stereotypes and such youth are seen as "dumb" or "immature" and there for their opinions and ideas are de-legitimized on the basis of intellectual pedestal placement above youth done by middle aged folks.

Don't get me wrong. Ageism is weird in the sense that, not one group is directly affected, rather 2 groups. The youth and the old. Actually old folks are treated like children. Not taken seriously, and trained to be obediant to middle aged folks and listen to them because they proclaim that they know best. They act like they have the direct authority.

I introduce a new word, well my friend did but I want to introduce it into the academic world. This word is "Medivitarchy." The word comes from the Latin/Greek words medius [middle] vita [life: our life] and archy [rule, rule of]. I use the word to refer to how the youth/young adults and elderly are ruled by those of the middle age (people around 30-55).

I propose talk and discussion about this. use this word, and think about middle aged domination. How do you yourself interact with youth and aged folks? How do you view teenagers and toddlers differantly? how about how do you view them similarly? Now apply those same questions to aged folks.

If we truely want to see a free world, then we need to analyze everything about this world. This is not a call for identity politics, rather the opposite, in a sense. For how can you destroy something that you don't know exist?

1 comment:

  1. What part of this critique is insurrectionary? I see nothing in here about immediacy, the necessity of attack, permanent conflictuality, or a rejection of mediation and activism.