An ethical question for Youth Work

Many of the assumptions that we make about youth work and the practice we deliver are based on experience developed over decades, e.g., tried and tested models of practice, informed research, discussion and debate, experiential learning, theoretical underpinnings, and so on. However, given the findings from years of research in the field of neuroscience, does this new knowledge make our existing knowledge and experience redundant?

From training delivered to Youth Work Students, before and after, and inside and outside of University, to the curricula delivered in all settings across statutory, voluntary and community sectors, very little attention has been paid to the field of neuroscience and its longer-term implications for Youth Work practice.

Does the knowledge we ‘implant’ and embed in youth work students lend itself to effective practice or is now out of kilter with that which neuroscience has taught us in recent times and is essential for modern-day practice? Do youth work syllabuses in Universities or any other training institutions properly equip practitioners more fully to understand how individuals ‘work’ or function, or to put it more simply, do we know enough about the brain in order to perform our roles as effectively as possible?

In all my time involved in Youth Work, be that locally in Northern Ireland or internationally via Youth for Europe, YOUTH, Youth in Action and now Erasmus+, I can’t recall seeing a training programme or seminar, that wasn’t largely geared towards any of the following: a theme-based issue, promotion of a model of practice, developing new methodologies and/or exploring and examining policy; as opposed to anything promoting new knowledge from the world of neuroscience.

A multitude of themes has occupied non-formal education, and in recent years, the theme of Mental Health and Well Being has become more prominent and now figures prominently in policy, as demonstrated in the most recent EU Youth Strategy.

Much of the current approach though is about responding to symptoms rather than examining the very organ that dictates every facet of human interaction but it is of course the one that we as a profession and a community know least about, yet is ultimately the one we should know most about.

In recent years, the rise of right-wing ideologies, populism and neo-conservatism has sent shockwaves through traditional assumptions that were borne out of the trauma of two world wars, i.e., democratic values brings peace, stability, security and underpins our commitment to pluralism, equality, inclusion and so on.

Trump, BREXIT, National Front, Orban and Neo-Nazism among others have challenged the established political order and thinking, and as we desperately search for reasons to explain why this has happened we endeavour to formulate solutions to try and respond accordingly. When we try to make sense of those that, at least on the face of it, articulate ill-informed, irrational and absolutist arguments for questioning and denigrating those values that have all but effectively underpinned stability in Europe for almost 70 years, we are left aghast, but should we be?

If we have been taught anything by neuroscience, is that we should not be surprised. Our collective rationale, i.e., a good upbringing, sound education, the stability and security of a job, surrounded by the positive influence of friends, family and other influential adults and living in a peaceful society leads to fine upstanding citizens is arguably flawed.

Neuroscience has taught us that the personality and character traits of humans is all but predetermined before we leave the womb, in fact, is almost pre-determined by whom our parents are when we are conceived. Therefore, when we are faced by those who espouse values that at worst, blatantly discriminate and at best only tolerate, we should not be surprised – it was to be almost expected.

Non-formal education has, among many things, taught us that we should challenge discrimination, prejudice and intolerance wherever we see and hear it, and of course we should continue to do so.

Yet, if as neuroscience has demonstrated, we are largely predetermined before we are born, and many of us are born with a pre-disposition to certain traits and behaviours then no end of rationalising, persuading and negotiating will suffice. Research has shown that engaging in discussion and debate has the opposite effect, i.e., it only serves to reinforce existing beliefs.

Discoveries in neuroscience is now challenging us to not only rethink how we approach the more specific challenge of the rise of the right-wing/neo-conservative/populist ideologies on both sides of the Atlantic, but probably more importantly, how we respond to those who in the face of facts and overwhelming evidence choose not to reconsider their opinions and beliefs?

The reality that we might not actually be able to convince or persuade those we really need to convince or persuade, is the challenge that Youth Work really faces. We might need to consider how effective our practice has been, how effective we can be and if in light of findings from the world of neuro science, and are we ill equipped to face this most pressing of challenges? Do we need to become more politically minded? Do we need to become more politically minded? Do we need to throw off the coat of impartiality and adopt much clearer pro-active positions in response to the Trumps, and Orbans of this world? This question could be the greatest challenge to youth work yet.