10

p The scientific methodology in the study of youth problems is founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of society. In its approach to the problems of the younger generation, Marxism-Leninism regards youth as an integral part of society, a part of definite classes. The Marxist-Leninist approach to youth is, first and foremost, a class approach.

p It is not by chance that the definition of “youth” as a category, or rather, the methodological principles for such a definition are the centre of heated arguments.

p It is clear that the evaluation of youth’s role and place in society and its part in the revolutionary process depends on whether we regard youth as a homogeneous group, isolated, so to speak, from the existing relations in society and even opposed to the remaining “adult” population, or as a group, a category which reflects the class structure of society.

p The bourgeois ideological doctrines about youth are based on the desire to disprove or distort the class principle, the most important feature of the Marxist-Leninist approach, to substitute the conflict of generations for the class struggle, oppose the younger generation to the working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party, and thereby undermine the unity of the revolutionary forces in the modern world. Bourgeois ideologists regard the age peculiarities of youth as something absolute; they represent youth as a group which is primarily characterised by age and not by social conditions. In this way the bourgeois ideologists are trying to imprison the younger generation within the capitalist ideology, direct it into the channel of bourgeois politics and make it adopt the bourgeois order of things and way of life.

p The upsurge of political activity of the youth in recent years dealt a heavy blow to theories about the “sceptical” and “indifferent” young generation. Now the ideologists of capitalism resort more and more frequently to pseudo- revolutionary theories which proclaim youth as the decisive factor at the current stage of historical development, as "the third principal class and the only revolutionary force of modern times”.

p Such theories belittle the role of the working class in the struggle against capitalism. In flirting with young people 11 the bourgeois ideologists oppose them to the working class, preventing young people and students from uniting with the working class in their revolutionary actions.

p This calls for a close examination of the methodological principles employed in the study of youth problems.

p The Marxist-Leninist approach requires, first and foremost, a concrete historical analysis of youth—its place in the society’s class structure, its attitude to the ideology and policies of the various classes in the given society, its role in the class struggle at its present stage, and the sum total of all the factors which make an impact on the formation of the younger generation.

p Speaking about the participation of students in the revolutionary movement, Lenin said that "the students would not be what they are if their political grouping did not correspond to the political grouping of society as a whole".  [11•1  Lenin ridiculed all those who attempted to attribute the political aspirations of Russian students to the force of ideal motives of youth and not to the real conditions of public life in Russia.

p All this is particularly true when we mean not only students but youth as a whole whose class structure reflects that of society more fully and, at the same time, determines the political goals of young people.

p However, class affiliation does not mechanically shape the outlook of young people, but rather factors of "social being”, in all their entirety.

p Lenin wrote that "the class division is, of course, the ultimate basis of the political grouping; in the final analysis, of course, it always determines that grouping. But this ultimate basis becomes revealed only in the process of historical development and as the consciousness of the participants in and makers of that process grows. This ’final analysis’ is arrived at only by political struggle, sometimes a long, stubborn struggle lasting years and decades, at times breaking out stormily in the form of political crises, at others dying down and, as it were, coming temporarily to a standstill.”  [11•2  12 Characteristically enough, Lenin ridiculed as “super-clever” all arguments to the effect that "bourgeois students cannot become imbued with socialism".  [12•1 

p It was the course of social development in pre- revolutionary Russia and all the various social factors in their entirety that determined the formation of the student youth and led the most progressive of them, including those from bourgeois families, to the revolutionary struggle against tsarism and landlord and capitalist power.

p Today we see how more and more students in the capitalist countries, influenced by the development of the modern society and the upsurge of the revolutionary struggle, are siding with the working class which expresses the basic interests of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority in every country.

p Thus the historical stream of events and analysis of the development of the modern world corroborate again and again that the social consciousness of youth is decisively determined and shaped by the totality of social factors operating in given historical conditions. It may be said that the social portrait of youth reflects the processes, tendencies and problems of society, in which young people live, and of the times in which they grow up.

p This is precisely why the basic problems of youth are, first and foremost, the problems of the whole of society, the problems, which can be solved only within the framework of a general revolutionary process. This means that the problems of youth should be examined concurrently with the processes, events and phenomena in society and the world in general.

p There are many factors which influence the formation of youth. Therefore, if we want to establish the basic (rather than haphazardly chosen) characteristics of modern youth, we must examine the sum total or at least the most important of these factors.

p In the case of Soviet youth, researchers single out three groups of factors which influence its formation.  [12•2 

13

p Group one—factors which are characteristic of modern times. The most important of them are the struggle between the two systems, the growing influence of socialism, the upsurge of the national liberation movement and the downfall of colonialism, the mounting anti-monopoly struggle in the developed capitalist countries, and the scientific and technological revolution.

p Group two—factors related to the social system in which the younger generation grows up. These factors are determined by the dialectics of the socialist society’s development, by the laws governing this development. The principal factors are socialist social relations, public ownership, the principle of distribution according to the amount of work done, the distinctions between town and country and between mental and manual work, socialist democracy and broad opportunities for the development of the personality.

p These are precisely the factors that determine the basic new features of man in the socialist society—new attitude to work, communist conviction, collectivism and internationalism; they ensure reliable prerequisites for the development of the individual (in education, culture, management of public affairs, etc.).

p Group three—factors related to the peculiarities in a particular period of society’s development.

p The current stage of building communism in the Soviet Union is characterised by creating the material and technical basis of communism, evolution of socialist democracy, growing participation of the working people in the management of society’s affairs, and ever fuller satisfaction of the people’s growing material and cultural requirements. These factors are very important in raising Soviet youth, and provide the best opportunities for educating and developing the individual.

p At the same time we must also take into account the age peculiarities of young people. It is precisely these peculiarities that express specifically (in comparison with other age categories) tendencies and problems common for the entire society. These age peculiarities make some problems more acute and others less so. In the capitalist countries the proportion of young people among the unemployed is particularly high, and they get much less for their work than 14 senior age groups. Unemployment and unequal pay for equal work have naturally nothing to do with age peculiarities; they are the result of the social system, and can be eliminated only with the eradication of capitalism.

p Age is to a great extent responsible for such psychological qualities of youth as the desire for adventure, maximalism, emotionalism, vigour, sincerity, the desire for change.

p While we are on the subject of the age peculiarities of youth and the specific manner in which they are expressed in present-day conditions, we should like to stress once again that it would be wrong to attribute exceptional or decisive significance to these peculiarities, and even more so, to use them as the basis for the explanation of all processes or for formulating all problems. Naturally, the other extreme— that of ignoring the peculiarities specific to youth—is also wrong.

p Thus, the Marxist-Leninist approach to the study of youth problems is a dialectical approach. According to MarxismLeninism, youth, its features and moral make-up, determined by class affiliation and the laws governing the development of society, of which youth is a part, should be studied in conjunction with the age peculiarities which give "youthful colouring" to problems common to the whole of society.

p The definition of youth as an age-and-demographic group conceals the essence of the matter—the social heterogeneity of youth and the paramount importance of social factors in the formation of its world outlook.

p The definition of youth as a specific social group is also fallacious, because it substitutes the age division for the class division of society and therefore elevates age to the status of an independent social factor.

p Youth is a socio-demographic group with a social structure which corresponds to the given society; its formation is decisively determined by particular historical social conditions and by specific age peculiarities.

p At every given moment we should have scientific knowledge of the characteristic features and peculiarities of youth so as to objectively assess the results already achieved and further improve the communist education of young men and women.

15

p But the very assessment of the principal peculiarities which really characterise youth and reveal its essence, and the selection of research methods to ensure the objectivity of the collected data require greater specification of the methodological principles applied in studying man in general.

p The study of a man or a group of people, their features and traits, is first and foremost a study of society. This is because man is both the subject and the object of social relations.

p Many sciences—psychology, pedagogy, medicine, sociology, aesthetics—are devoted to the study of man and each of them has created its own image of man. Depending on the aspects under research and the level of research, the image of man is characterised by different parameters and qualities in usage in the given science. At the same time, every science which studies the moulding of man must proceed from an integral conception of man and from the determination of the role, place and relations of the “specific” image in the general theory of the individual. Consequently, no study of the features and traits of youth can be undertaken outside of the general philosophical and sociological theories which alone can give an integral image of man.

p This thesis is important in principle, because it indicates, in the first place, that the study of man and his essence always involves social research, and in the second place, it shows that the analysis of empirical facts obtained by concrete sociological studies must be based on the integral conception of the individual presented by Marxism.

p Karl Marx said that "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations".  [15•1 

p This definition of man’s generic essence indicates the dominating significance of social factors in the formation of man. But it would be wrong to extend this definition to every single man, because then the origin of man’s individual peculiarities would become obscure.

16

p In the meantime, however, every concrete sociological study deals with single individuals. "The premises from which we begin,” Marx and Engels wrote, "are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.”  [16•1 

p The task, therefore, is to use the analysis of empirical facts obtained by concrete sociological research as the basis and single out in man the typical and general features which characterise youth as a whole or some definite groups within it, and discover how the factors stipulating various qualities are related to one another and why these qualities differ for groups and individuals.

p In this connection, it is essential to formulate our conception of the individual, of the "concrete man”, and compare this conception with the definition of man’s generic essence.

p The starting point here is provided by a most important methodological principle which was formulated by Karl Marx, who said that the concrete should be regarded as the process of synthesis, as the result. The concrete is the unity of the general, the specific and the individual. The concrete man is the result of the ensemble of social relations, environmental peculiarities, individual social experience and individual psychophysiological qualities. Since we are primarily interested in the features and qualities, determined by social factors and formed under the influence of upbringing and education, the study of man in this case becomes first and foremost the study of the individual.

Since the individual is determined by the factors mentioned above (the totality of social relations, the environment, individual social experience), it objectively follows that the classification of the features and qualities of individuals, who become the subject of empirical research, should be brought into correlation with the studies of the whole of society (qualities common to the whole people and the whole of youth) and its social and demographic structure 17 (qualities which characterise one or another group of young people). What is more, generalisation, analysis and systematisation of individual social experience, definition of the right criterion for its typology, will afford an opportunity for uncovering still more subtle relationships in the determinate nature of the various aspects of personality.