Treasuring, but not measuring: Personal and social development – Tony Taylor

In theory, I’m about to have a quiet August, largely free from maintaining the IDYW website, responding to Facebook and twittering. Obviously, you will be devastated at the news, but never fear find below the link to the latest article on the rejuvenated Youth & Policy platform. By chance, it’s a piece of mine, something of a rant about my deep misgivings about the contemporary, neoliberal obsession with measuring the immeasurable and its insidious impact on youth work. I know it’s hardly holiday reading, but if you do get round to glancing at its sparkling prose, comments however caustic welcomed.

Treasuring, but not measuring: Personal and social development

Perplexed as usual – Ta to Justin Wyllie for photo

Tony Taylor of In Defence of Youth Work (IDYW) was invited by the Centre for Youth Impact (CYI) to debate with Paul Oginsky at a conference ‘Measure & Treasure’ held on March 16th, 2017 in London. The following is a version of what he would have said if time had allowed. It is structured around the five questions posed in advance of the conference by Bethia McNeil, the CYI’s director.

I begin:

As you might expect there are differing interpretations of what we mean by PSD, but all aspire to be holistic, to be concerned with the whole person, their values, their knowledge, their skills, their emotions and desires. Fascinatingly, from a youth work perspective, half a century ago in 1967, Bernard Davies and Alan Gibson, in repudiating the common-sense idea of an incremental adolescent journey to adult maturity, argued that the fundamental purpose of PSD should be to help young people acquire the social skills of cooperation and comradeship, to develop a commitment to the common good. In stark contrast today’s dominant version of PSD is deeply individualistic, leaning for sustenance on developmental and cognitive psychology with their behavioural impositions of stages, roles, traits and norms upon young people growing up. For my part, I remain committed to the version espoused by Davies and Gibson, later to be summed up in a 1977 Wigan Youth Service Programme of Action as ‘personal, social and political awareness’. Or, indeed, if I am mischievous, PSD is a matter of ‘consciousness’, the very mention of which poses insoluble dilemmas for those wishing to calculate its existence.

Along the way I muse:

My comment on neutrality takes me to a final point regarding the idea of character itself. The pioneers of youth work, the likes of George Williams, Lily Montagu and Baden-Powell, would warm to its re-emergence, confident in their concern to nurture young men and women of good Christian or Jewish character. Explicitly they engaged without embarrassment with two inextricably interrelated questions, which, if we are similarly honest, we cannot escape:

In what sort of society do we wish to live? What are its characteristics?
And, depending on our answer, what sort of characters, do we think, are best suited to either the maintenance of what is or the creation of something yet to be?


In terms of being challenged about what they’re up to, whilst researchers, workers, funders, politicians may want to stand outside of the social relations they are seeking to influence, this is impossible, if oft wilfully ignored. Being involved in the process of personal and social development is not a laboratory experiment. If you wish to measure the resilience of a young person, if you wish to make a judgement on their character, the very same measurements and judgements ought to be asked of yourself, of funders, of managers, of politicians. In my opinion, it takes some cheek for politicians, not notable for their collective honesty and integrity, to pontificate about what they see as the appropriate form of PSD for young people. The same goes for all of us. As they say, we’re all in this together. All our characters are up for grabs.

I conclude with a couple of questions:

Are you measuring how successful you have been in manufacturing an emotionally resilient young person who will put up with the slings and arrows of outrageous social policies, accept their lot, and believes there is no alternative?

Or are we evaluating how successful we have been in creating, albeit tentatively, a critical, questioning young person, who seeks to change their lot in concert with others, who continues to imagine that a fairer, juster, more democratic society is possible, that the present calamitous state of affairs is not the best that humanity can do?



  1. As you would expect I have very little to argue or disagree with you. However in the spirit of comrade lying debate. Once again, you like me, are at pains to try to bridge the gaps between the reformers, labour or tory, who believe the state and its mate the voluntary sector i.e.funded by the state are the way forward whatever its flaws. Well I have definitely reached the end of my in and against stylee. The only way forward is independent of any national bodies, local authorities or voluntary sector organisations. We need grass roots responses funded by and involving those who believe not those who want to look good. Their is no room for manoeuvre for measuring anything its a neo-liberalism concept and rotten to its core and even on the periphery. I am sick of the apologists for tory, labour, voluntary, etc. The old model is ignored by the marketeers and we should do the same. Structurally, politically and economically it is broke and mending it will just maintain a status quo. Why not ditch the model take a risk and try a different approach. I am not defeatist. I am a conscious realist with a belief in the power of the majority to overthrow the minority and their protectors be they labelled middle class, tory voters, etc. etc. We may be wounded, ideologically brain dead, misguided, unemployable, told to work or die, educate or die, live in dangerously clad buildings, watch the minorities be killed by the state but don’t worry proper youth work can resurrect itself and give the youth a consciousness. It’s never too late but please start doing it outside the establishment because otherwise you are perpetuating a myth that youth work now is worth it. It’s not you are not maintaining a status quo, you are not keeping people from danger, you are not educating young people. YOU ARE PEDDLING NEOLIBERALISM AND IT’S BULLSHIT. LEAVE UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN NEOLIBERALISM AND IT’S AUTHORITARIAN UNDERCURRENT COMING TO THE FORE WHERE YOU ARE. WE KNOW SOME OF YOU REVEL IN THE LEADERSHIP AND POWER, THE TARGETS AND DEADLINES, YOU ARE SICK AND HAVE NO PLACE WORKING WITH VULNERABLE YOUNG PEOPLE. LEAVE NOW DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT AND PAY. Meanwhile if you believe this is no life after youth work think again. Apparently unemployment is going down = plenty of jobs to pay the bills. Don’t bother with a foreign holiday or two, drop to one car, save, economise, use the spare time to build resistance in your community. Yes I am utterly mad and this rant, if you got this far, is just some stupid, badly thought out and not proper piece of writing. Bollocks the time for discussing the death of youth work and its resurrection is over. It will rise from the grave if the people want it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.