💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gustav-landauer-youth-s-suicide.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:35:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Youth’s Suicide Author: Gustav Landauer Date: 1911 Language: en Topics: youth liberation, Germany Source: *Anarchism in Germany and other essays*. https://libcom.org/files/gl2.pdf Notes: Translated by Stephen Bender and Gabriel Kuhn
Nothing in our time—not the crises of the poor, privation, hunger or
homelessness— is so terrible and ominous as the ever-increasing rate of
youth suicide. It’s bad enough that young people are compelled—thanks to
the church-inspired moral platitudes of their parents, teachers, of
their entire milieu, which envelops beautiful and natural things in a
haze of self-satisfied deceit—to pursue, in a stark and dreadful way,
sexual gratification by way of a prostitute, where many contract
syphilis and choose to die as a result of the desperation, the illness,
and supposed sin. This is dismal enough. Even some among those who avoid
infection from their sexual experiences, whether by virtue of heredity
or inurement, nevertheless fall so sick and weaken so that they can no
longer bear life. The most gruesome reality is that more and more youth
settle on suicide, not because they are physically or mentally ill, not
because they are incapable of meeting the demands made of them at
school, but rather because they are too talented, too unique.
Let me be clear. There exists a distinction between sickness and health;
and as for sickness, there are those who bear a measure of
responsibility. There also exists, however, the norm and deviation from
the norm. The school system sets up certain standards that must be
attained. Parents send their insufficiently proficient children to the
academic schools with the expectation of particular societal benefits
and associated status. The child is incapable of fulfilling the
prescribed role, falls ill, becomes despondent and commits suicide.
Against these children a crime has been committed: by the society, by
the parents, and by the teachers.
However, others stray from the norm in other respects. In the later
grades, they outgrow the school experience; they yearn for free thought,
free expression, useful endeavors, and the pursuance o f an
inexpressible life of the senses, body, and spirit through love, art,
achievement, and work. Held captive as they are by the gruesome dullards
who administer their prison, they find neither love nor understanding
nor freedom.
They do exhibit feelings of superiority toward some of their fellow
students and later particularly towards their teachers. And why not?
Perhaps the sense of their own talent and individuality will wane; for
now however, they have the genius of youth, their heart is worn on their
sleeve, their fists grasp the scepter, and the world is theirs.
At 8 or 9 they’ve already memorized it, but no one ever bothers to
explain what it means; no one encourages their right to wildness and
boun dlessness. For us adults, freedom means order and self-discipline,
for youth, at least for a time, it is allowed to mean something else,
even if it means passion and impetuosity. How all that, often at home
and always at school, is brought low and dissolved by the murky backwash
of insipid Philistinism !
Ludwig Gurlitt, one who has frequently written about che crisis of the
schools, with robust words and an energetic air, has now published in
the Berliner Tagesblatt of April 4 the gripping letters written by
friends of three gymnasium students who had shortly before killed them
selves in Leipzig. Here are a few passages: ‘I am certain that Friedrich
Hammer would still be living today had he not faced the prospect of
setting foot inside that school again, as the thought of returning to
school was the final scraw in precipitating his act. Everyone knows the
kind of strain involved when one has to resume this enforced work. He
too was coerced, as his own readings drove him to grasp for different
values...’’Werner Naundorf was and remained the personified opposition
to the humanistic Gymnasium...what he wanted was meaningful work that
challenged him, even if to the point of exhaustion. For him, this
related to issues of the national economy...what he hated was the
frittering away o f time, which the school required him to endure. He
was active in the Social Democratic movement, more attracted to its
ideals than to its practical consequences, since they challenged his
privileged self...he realized that at the core of the maelstrom of
terminology to which we are subject lay a reactionary spirit. He yearned
for useful work and as a result became fully alienated from the school
curriculum.”
‘Erich Poschmann seemed to me a victim of the dilemnas chat come with
home and school. Protest! His family was conservative, the school
reactionary, and he a thoroughgoing modern. Erich worked in school only
in order to please his parents; for himself he delved into art history.
He wanted to be an architect. The work he did for the school was only a
concession to its authority. As he himself said, it hurt him deeply that
he lacked the strength necessary to make his parents acknowledge his
aspirations and to make known to the school his contempt as he had to
us.’
Professor Gurlitt’s suggestion to shorten by one year the duration of
schooling in the higher institutions of learning misses the target; it
is a shabby, inconsequential expedient.
Those who wish to push their proposals on professors, school boards, and
government agencies would be clever to demand specific measures.
However, from such overtures, I await nothing decisive. To be clear, the
worst of this situation is not that it is as it is, but that it causes
the effects it causes. The worst of the students suffering is caused by
the state of our society. Said differently, in other eras, among other
peoples the response to such oppression would be resistance; the
consequence of sterile tyranny would not be sickness, infirmity, and
meek escapism, but rather virile rebellion.
In the writings of the schoolmates of the dead, one thing turns up
repeatedly, it is th at which we recognize all too well in this young
generation : an illusory maturity and objective self-awareness, a
certain tone of selfcentered melancholy reminiscent of a coquettish
pose. We know this stagnant youthless youth, whose numbers continue to
climb. These young people are not only the product of reactionnary
schooling, but also modern literature. The schools could well be less
miserable than they are, if only those artists and novelists, who were
products of them, didn’t remain so alienated from the people and public
affairs.
Where are those who were once in these schools, over whom a shudder
still runs when they recall their school days? Where are they when the
time comes to fight against this school system and that which sustains
it? Where are they when the time comes to create something new? Where
are they when the time comes to bring joy to the young generation in
these schools?
Students, artists, writers, working men and women must join together and
devote themselves to the young men and women, in word and deed, in
conduct and in friendship. Parents, even the best among them, are not
enough; youths require comrades and alliances. I’m not demanding the
foundation of the 1001^(st) club or reform group, but rather solidarity
with the youth so that they can escape their individual torment and can
therefore elevate them selves into participation in public life. No
government and no police force can hinder our sparking a strong youth
movement. Not only do young people need the public sphere to help them
in their struggle to grow up and to draw on the exhilaration o f life,
but it is also the public sphere that needs youth and its wild and great
exuberance. Howelse to leave behind the swamp of reaction, the scheming
and empty quarrels of rudderless political parties, and the languishing
state of these evermore artful and artificial weaklings, so that we may
regain our original briskness and healthy daring.