Educational institutions, particularly those of higher education, have increasingly positioned themselves as sites for addressing the psychological, social, and emotional challenges faced by young people commonly categorized as Generation Z. At present, a significant portion of this generation inhabits universities, poised to re-enter society upon the completion of their degrees. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that many of these students suffer from profound experiences of solitude, depression, anxiety, and existential uncertainty, in some cases culminating in suicidal ideation or attempts. In response, universities in Pakistan, guided by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and state policy, have established counselling centers and student support services aimed at mitigating these concerns.
Yet, this institutional response reveals a critical epistemic blind spot that it overwhelmingly focuses on Generation Z within formal educational frameworks while neglecting a vast and equally significant demographic that there are those young individuals who exist outside the ambit of higher education. These include early school-leavers, informal workers, unemployed youth, and those who have never entered the educational system at all. Their exclusion from both scholarly discourse and policy attention raises urgent questions about structural inequality and representational justice.
The future of any society depends on the formation of its youth, not merely as economic agents but as ethical, reflective, and socially responsible individuals.
From a sociological perspective, this divide reflects what Pierre Bourdieu conceptualizes as the unequal distribution of cultural capital. University students, despite their struggles, possess a degree of institutional recognition and access to symbolic and material resources. In contrast, non-institutionalized youth are often deprived of such capital, rendering them socially invisible and structurally marginalized. Their problems may mirror those of university students, alienation, anxiety, lack of purpose, but they remain largely undocumented and unaddressed. Philosophically, this condition resonates with Émile Durkheim’s notion of anomie that a state of normlessness in which individuals feel disconnected from the moral and social frameworks that guide meaningful existence. For youth outside universities, this anomic condition is often intensified by economic precarity and the absence of institutional support. Similarly, Michel Foucault’s critique of disciplinary institutions invites us to consider how power operates through inclusion and exclusion: while universities function as sites of surveillance, normalization, and care, those outside them fall beyond these circuits of visibility and intervention.
The consequences of such neglect are not merely individual but societal. A generation that lacks psychological anchoring and social guidance may exhibit increased tendencies toward frustration, aggression, and intolerance. The normalization of impulsive behavior, such as resorting to physical violence rather than reasoned dialogue, can be understood through the lens of frustration-aggression theory, as well as contemporary analyses of affective economies in late modern societies. What is at stake here is not only the well-being of individuals but the ethical fabric of the collective. Particularly vulnerable within this demographic are young women who, despite lacking formal education, enter the workforce out of economic necessity. Their marginalization is compounded by gendered power structures that limit their awareness of rights and access to support systems. Feminist theory, especially the work of scholars like bell hooks, reminds us that marginality can be both a site of oppression and potential resistance, but only when accompanied by consciousness-raising and structural support.
In light of these considerations, it is imperative to reconceptualize youth policy in Pakistan through a more inclusive and decentralized framework. Community-based counselling centers, skill development hubs, and psychosocial support networks must be established beyond university campuses i.e. in neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. These centers should function not merely as remedial institutions but as sites of empowerment, fostering agency, resilience, and a sense of belonging. Moreover, short-term vocational training programs, ranging from three to six months, can equip non-university youth with market-relevant skills, enhancing their employability and economic stability. As Amartya Sen’s capability approach suggests, true development lies not merely in economic growth but in expanding individuals’ capabilities to lead lives they have reason to value. Gainful employment, in this sense, is not just a means of survival but a pathway to dignity and psychological well-being. The state must collaborate with NGOs, civil society organizations, and private sector actors to institutionalize these interventions. Workplaces, too, should evolve into supportive environments that recognize the social and emotional needs of young workers. Such a multi-stakeholder approach can help bridge the divide between institutionalized and non-institutionalized youth, ensuring that no segment of Generation Z remains unheard or unsupported.
Ultimately, the future of any society depends on the formation of its youth, not merely as economic agents but as ethical, reflective, and socially responsible individuals. If a significant portion of this generation grows up without guidance, recognition, or a sense of purpose, the prospects for a progressive and harmonious society remain precarious. It is, therefore, not just a policy imperative but a moral obligation to extend care, attention, and opportunity to all young people, both inside and outside the walls of our universities.
The writer is a professor of English at Government Emerson University, Multan. E-mail: zeadogar@ hotmail.com Tweets at @Profzee