2006 Volume 73 Issue 4 Pages 470-481
The purpose of this paper is to clarify problems of education through the interpretation of meanings of both the critical discourses of unstable youth and the selection of youth who seem to select an unstable situation for themselves.
Critics of Freeters (youths in irregular jobs) and NEETs (youths not in education, employment or training) have insisted that the deficiency of occupational awareness in youth resulted in its increase and suggested and conducted the new policies for career education that intend to raise the motives to work of children and youth.
On the other hand, many social scientists have argued that the structure of society such as the employment strategies of corporations or inequality between generations or social stratum are the main factors for the increase of unstable youth based on the quantitative and qualitative data. They have also suggested the policies from theoretical viewpoint toward social equality and mobility.
The latter would be understandable. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider that the criticism of unstable youth results from a 'distinction' (P. Bourdieu) desire. I don't know well whether or not it is inevitable, but it would be certain that the distinction desire would not disappear if people would know objective data, and that another distinction desire might appear after the distinction desire to Freeters or NEETs would disappear.
We must also take into consideration that disadvantaged youths tend to contact the consumption culture and to escape from labor or work. Their tendency can be interpreted as their 'resistance' to the contemporary major sense of value that demands ability and effort and that depreciate them. But they can't acquire economical or instrumental merits from the consumption culture and the escape from labor.
So it is important on the one hand to cut off the existence of the critics of Freerers and NEETs from the policies and practices, and on the other hand, to connect the existential resistance of disadvantaged youth with the economical or instrumental resistance or advantages.
Careers will become more and more 'individualized' and the employment circumstances will become more and more unstable and fluid. It will be unrealistic and impracticable for many young people to live according to plan and to enjoy the 'work' side of an occupation. We must recognize 'the second standard' that is the low level career pattern in which the couples work together in irregular jobs based not on a seniority system. We must pursue the 'better' second standard.
The purpose of education must firstly be to affirm 'the unplanned life model' accompanied with the planned life model, and secondly to emphasize the 'labor' side of an occupation instead of the 'work' side in career education (H. Arendt). For them, it is necessary for unstable youth to learn the skills and rights to 'get by', and to acquire the feeling that 'we are in the same position'.
