Getting ready for the big show...

We have been sifting through and analyzing our research throughout this semester, but responding to this week’s post has refocused the picture. Even as I was writing my rough draft this past week, I felt as though my writing was directionless. I was perusing through my research and touching upon important points, but there was that incessant voice in the back of my mind asking, “Where do you want to take this paper?” I was cognizant of the fact that I wasn’t delving into my research the way I had anticipated, because my writing was steering away from quality of information and quickly heading towards quantity. So, after spending a few hours this morning spreading out all that I have gathered thus far and questioning, once again, my purpose for this project, I now feel that I’m writing with a purpose.

The first salient point that I’m analyzing is how New Life Worship Center has moved away from traditionalism and towards modernity in several ways. New Life Worship Center’s architecture is by far the most modern of all the churches I’ve seen in Rhode Island. I have already written in my rough draft how the size and exterior design of NLWC reminds me not of church, but of a building that is found in a metropolis. In the absence of steeples, crucifixes and ornate windows, NLWC doesn’t give off that traditional “church aura”, but instead emanates a new, vibrant aura. Its interior also emanates this new aura with plush red carpeting, a reception desk, an upstairs cafe and TVs in the lobby. When entering NLWC I didn’t feel like I was walking into church, but rather into a hotel. Then I traveled into the service area and NLWC efforts to escape traditionalism became even more apparent. I sat in a folding chair, not a pew, staring out at a room with a plethora of technologies. There were three camcorders to film the sermon, several projectors that hung above the stage, and a stage full of electronic musical instruments. I was impressed at how modernized this church was and thought of why this move towards modernity. I believe NLWC is sending a powerful message through their exterior and interior choices. They are implicitly stating that they are different, possibly better, than the churches of yesteryear. With the high percentage of youth disaffiliating with their parents’ denomination and/or religion, NLWC becomes a beacon of hope. I believe the modern, “successful” design of NLWC has greatly attracted youth. Americans typically equate success with size and lavishness and NLWC has exploited this notion. I feel that NLWC’s embracement of modernity is a significant finding in my research and I will continue to analyze this idea.

Another critical point that I’m analyzing in my research, is NLWC’s appropriation of popular music genres and songs. I attended a concert at NLWC a few weeks ago and was amazed at what I heard. Their youth band performed rock songs, while hip hop songs were being performed by outside, Christian rap troupes. These popular music genres, despite audience and temporal differences, are known for sending powerful messages of resistance to the hegemonic culture. But in this context they were devoid of these messages, which is clearly the church’s intent. They have retained the beat and rhythm of these genres, but have mollified the lyrics and performances that both inspire and incite youth. It is, indeed, a strategic move on behalf of the adults at NLWC, because the hegemonic culture exists so strongly within its walls. Their church leaders are America’s elite: white, wealthy, Christian males. Therefore, these leaders must expose youth to the sounds of these popular genres, but present them with a safe interpretation of the lyrics. I will surely rely on Giroux’s idea of appropriation to support this claim and I’m currently reading chapter 13 in the Epstein text to search for additional support. I also noticed that youth were invariably pumping their fists during this concert. I was bemused by this observation, because youth pumping their fists symbolizes resistance to the hegemonic culture. I don’t believe that is what it symbolized in this context, but I do think it was a release for these youth. Their behavior mirrored that of secular youth at a concert and I believe it surfaced due to their internal struggle. It is this post modern struggle between “who we are” and “who we wish we were”. I believe that by youth pumping their fists, in a church and among their elders, it is “who we are” that emerges victorious. I will be looking to bolster this idea with some secondary sources about the origins of Christian rock and rap and more information on post-modern religious youth. I believe this is where chapter 13 in the Epstein text will prove most valuable.

Alongside discussing the appropriation of music in this church, I will also analyze how youth are co-opted through media and technology. At the Friday night youth service, the youth’s web cast is displayed on a projector. This web cast, run by two youths, digitally delivers important memos pertaining to the youth ministry. There are also YouTube clips, short films, and digital images that are employed to convey the Friday night sermon. It is clear that the church is using the internet and the media as mediums to draw these youth in. Along with co-opting the youth through technology, the church also grabs their attention by appropriating the night life scene. I have written much about the atmosphere of the youth service room in my focal point and field notes, which will certainly be included in my paper. Again, I will lean against Giroux for my analytical “reading” of the youth service room.

Looking at my field site through a gender lens is another way that I’m going to be “reading” my field site. I have seen the empowerment of male youth in this church when they work as technicians and testify during services. However, female youth take on roles of less importance. They are not providing technical support nor are they testifying about God’s work in their lives. They are serving drinks behind the snack bar and as Jordan so eloquently put it, “working in less stressful jobs.” My field notes and the interview I conducted with Jordan are excellent resources for helping me analyze gender in my youth subculture, but I will also search for other secondary sources about gender in Evangelical churches. I also hope to interviewee a female youth at NLWC to hear her voice and perspective on how she sees herself within this patriarchal subculture.

So, as you can clearly see, I have my work cut out for me. There are many interesting ideas to pursue and develop in my paper and I feel like this outline has redirected me. I started this study by bringing a lot of baggage, qualms, and preconceptions to NLWC. I wrote and shared extensively about these qualms and preconceptions during the semester so I will avoid being repetitious in this post. I will say, however, that through my research these preconceptions have frequently been disrupted and blurred. I ventured into NLWC with the intention to investigate a subjective question revolving around the ethics of Christians at NLWC and validate my negative preconceptions. Since the beginning of my study, I have seen some things that I agree with and disagree with and therefore realize that my research question is relative. Therefore, I have switched gears and I’m now questioning what attracts and retains youth at NLWC. This question, I feel, is a more concrete and fair question to develop my paper around. I feel that I’ve been receiving the tools, material, therapeutic writing, and guidance that I need for this assignment and feel well prepared to finally write this capstone paper.

The Multifaceted Construction of Women

I am glad that this week's thread presents us with another opportunity to consider the gender codes, roles, and expectations that exist within our youth subcultures. It has become painstakingly obvious during the last few weeks that NLWC is a male dominated subculture. I have witnessed the young women serving refreshments, had Jordan befuddled when I asked to interview a female, and heard him make several sexist statements in our interview last Tuesday night. One of my questions to Jordan was about gender equality within NLWC and immediately he touched on the upcoming election, stating with a smirk, "God created woman to man, they are equal. But, there are different things that require some strength, you know, and different positions that, who knows, if Hillary Clinton gets elected who knows what’s going to happen." He later went on to state "Women are much, much better at personal counseling sessions and stuff like that. And they’re not as good in the top very, very high stressed situations." The notion that women cannot be seated in stressful, decision making positions, but rather in positions that require mostly consoling and nurturing was stressed in Jordan's response. Women fulfilling their domestic duties (probably sexual duties as well) was also mentioned in his response, "And yeah, so the same thing in the home. Men and women were created to be married and have children. And in the home, have different jobs that are able to cover for each other’s weaknesses."

Jordan's words illuminated what I had noticed over the last few weeks and I felt that glimmer of hope disappear. I was hoping that the members of NLWC were different from the other Christians that I have known, seeing gender inferiority as an erroneous notion. But I was wrong. Women still don't possess the "balls" that the males have in Madison's youth subculture and other male dominated subcultures. They think irrationally under stress and are better suited for mindless household duties. What is even more disheartening is that Jordan is the Pastor's son! I have already scanned the interview transcription a few times trying to distinguish his words from his father's (so difficult), but regardless, if these weren't his father's exact words, they were surely a reflection of his beliefs. Unfortunately, this means that the notion of gender inferiority is constantly being propelled, whether explicitly or subtlety, throughout the church. Sadly, Jordan's sexist remarks didn't stop at vocation. They also were made when discussing modesty, "You walk into church, you walk into anywhere with a mini-skirt, we preach about that. Do not." This disapproving statement was delivered in a harsh tone and all I could think about was what about muscular young men who wear tight shirts? Are they being modest? What about young men whose plaid boxers are almost entirely out of their pants? But Jordan obviously didn't think males had a problem with modesty, however, that common condemnation of mini-skirts was necessary to defend the animalistic inclinations of young males.

His responses to gender related questions reminded me of the Dove clip. Not in the sense of distorted beauty, but in how women are being manipulated and smothered within the church. As I have recently noticed and Jordan so eloquently pointed out, there are positions both in and outside of the church that are designated solely for women. There is also inappropriate attire for women and if they don't heed this warning, well then, they have brought it on themselves. So while NLWC is not transforming women cosmetically to appeal to men, they are making women docile and suitable for marriage. The construction might differ between the Dove clip and NLWC, but they share a common purpose: to produce women who are satisfying to men.

Is Femininity Here to Stay?

On Friday evening I drove to NLWC in hope of scheduling an interview with Jordan before the youth service began. I entered the church and spotted Jordan conversing with another young male in the lobby. He acknowledged me with a nod and stated in a friendly tone “hey man, what’s up”. I presented him with an interview consent sheet, while simultaneously explaining that I need to conduct three interviews for my field study. He was excited that I was asking to interview him and without hesitation he agreed to the interview. After we resolved on Tuesday night for the interview, he told me “I know a few other people who would be great to interview”. I told him that I would greatly appreciate suggestions for youth to interview, as I am unacquainted with the majority of youth who attend this church. Jordan began rambling off a multitude of names and to be honest the only name I remember is Pastor Marco (the youth minister). I may not remember the name of every individual Jordan recommended; however, I did hear a pattern in these recommendations. Every individual that Jordan recommended was a male! I thanked Jordan for his recommendations, but inquired if there were any girls that I could interview. Jordan gave me a quizzical look and I followed up my inquiry with, “It helps my field study if I can hear from both male and female interviewees.” Jordan’s quizzical look had vanished and he now looked at me suspiciously, “Hm. Well, I’ll see who I can find and I’ll get back to you on Tuesday.” Jordan’s response was both unsettling and revealing about the gender roles within the subculture I’m studying.

I began my post with this anecdote because it displays the patriarchy that exists within the subculture I’m studying. What I have witnessed thus far in my subculture are girls performing servile tasks like pouring drinks and heating nachos, while the males provide technical support and read scripture into a microphone. I constantly hear young men testify on Friday nights of how God is working miracles in their lives, but I have not yet heard a young woman testify. On Sunday mornings I see women lead the congregation in praise and worship and then stand obediently in the Pastor’s shadow while he delivers the sermon, which is being recorded by the men operating the tripods. In both the Sunday morning service and Friday night youth service, females neither handle electronics nor read scripture. It is likely believed that they are incapable of handling complex electronics and the idea of a woman reading biblical scripture is preposterous. A Christian woman cannot speak the word of God or testify of his greatness, because the Pope is still a male, right? Even in the 21st century women still don’t have the authority that a man holds within this patriarchal religion and that is frightening.

Jordan was shocked that I wanted to hear from a girl within the subculture probably because he believed a girl’s words are valueless. A female could provide me with information regarding the snacks served at the snack bar and/or possibly sing me a song of praise, but she surely couldn’t pontificate on the works of God. The women in this subculture differ from women in the punk subculture in every way imaginable. The women in the subculture I’m studying follow femininity to a tee; they dress female, look female, talk (or don’t talk) female, and act with female propriety. Females in the punk subculture spit on femininity and tear apart “the female”. The tension in the subculture I’m studying rises or doesn’t rise out of female servility and silencing, whereas tension arises within the punk subculture out of challenging masculinity. The subcultures are polar opposites when considering the power that females hold within them, but both, through their own tension, illuminate that femininity continues to steadily throb in our society.

Marching Towards Education

Leif Gustavson’s “Youth Learning on Their Own Terms” has also found a spot on my summer reading list after reading Lawrence Baine’s informative review. It appears as though Gustavson’s text wants us to envision an educational system that is permeated with compassionate teachers and student voices. Gustavson’s educational paradigm is indeed a hopeful one for many educators. It is hopeful for the teacher cognizant of the external factors that invariably erode students’ spirits; who are mindful of the fact that academics becomes of tertiary importance when a high school student must financially support his siblings and mother. It brings hope to the teacher who wants students invested in their education and to take ownership of their learning. It’s inspirational for the teacher who doesn’t only proclaim that education should have relevance to a student’s life, but who believes that relevance is everything. His paradigm gives hope not to the merciless imparters of knowledge, but rather inspires educators who realize our students give us a generous amount of knowledge. Gustavson’s text certainly carries hope to these teachers and it undeniably serves as a means for all educators to re-evaluate the educational system. Why do we willingly distance ourselves from our students and believe an education solely means covering an academic curriculum? Why do we constantly select texts that don’t bare the slightest resemblance to our students’ lives? Most importantly, why do we persist in believing that we are educating students when we have not even connected with them?

As ambitious educators, we must first become tuned in to the likes, dislikes, struggles, and joys of our students before meaningful learning occurs. Once we gain insight into our students’ lives and chose to use this newly acquired knowledge, we begin to reach them both supportively and academically. I’m not suggesting that we directly incorporate material into the classroom that our society deems problematic such as graffiti and edgy Hip-Hop tracks. In fact, Gustavson warns against bringing this type of material into the classroom, “The marginal status of these creative practices—the fact that they are not appreciated in the mainstream—is what, in part, gives the practices power. The subversive nature of these art forms contributes to the interest youth have in them. A pedagogical stance where these practices are viewed as units of study, objects to be examined, takes this power away and can render the practices lifeless in the classroom. (p. 23)” This genius notion reminded me of Pretty in Punk and how the punk subculture doesn’t want their hair and tethered garb accepted by mainstream culture. Mainstream acceptance of their aberrant image contradicts their ethos and renders them powerless. Therefore, educators should both acknowledge and welcome the talents of powerful lyricists, spray can artists, and zany hairstylists through constructing lessons that don’t scrutinize these talents, but rather require them. Baine’s review makes this text sound beneficial for any educator who wants to educate. I cannot wait to read this one!

We all acquiesce, don't we?

"Is the choice of returning to the sect made in an entirely free manner?" This is the overarching question to muse on when considering what makes these youth resolve on remaining Amish. Why would a youth want to continue living a life of suppression after they have reveled in their basest desires? It is indeed perplexing to think of why a sixteen year old chooses a rigid, stifling life after a liberating rumspringa experience. But an experience is exactly what rumspringa is. These youth are ensconced in a hegemonic culture of “moral imperatives, biblical precepts, and complex sets of rules that the sect has imparted to them in their homes, at church, and in school.” They spend sixteen years of captivity within their conservative communes before they are turned loose for a few days. How does rumspringa allow Amish youth to make a choice of freewill? Is it possible to reconcile sin with purity? I would argue that it doesn’t allow for choice but rather ensures docility.
A taste of American mainstream culture is as much exhilarating as it is harrowing. The youth have taken in our mainstream culture’s propaganda and they are disenchanted when they experience this culture. There is freedom attached to mainstream culture, but there is also individualism, loneliness, confusion, coldness, and despondency. These characteristics of our mainstream culture are stirred together and youth are left sedated with fear. Illuminating this fear is the unfathomable suicide rate among American youth. Life is to daunting and messy for a youth to navigate and understand on their own. They need guidance from someone who has turned the bends and trekked the winding path. Americans dump youth onto this shrouded and ominous road, whereas the Amish keep a hand, albeit forceful, on their youths’ backs. The Amish live childhoods that “are far more sheltered (and structured) than those of our own children” and isn’t this what all children want? Don’t educators foster warmth and order, not coldness and chaos in their classrooms? Even that youth don’t explicitly ask for help don’t we instinctively know they are always in need? Why would the Amish youth want to leave this refuge? They trade freedom for security, like we trade love for financial security (open marriages). I would certainly contend the “free choice” a sixteen year old has in regard to returning to the Amish church, but I do see their logic. After all, acquiescence is not a foreign concept to any American.

A Strategic Move Indeed

So after composing my research proposal and ruminating on the beginning of Epstein's text I was forced to revisit a query that has plagued me during the last few days: why does the subculture I'm studying appear content, almost docile within the adult sphere? We have thus far discussed this semester the teen rebellion that grinds against the hegemonic culture. Youth subcultures come to be defined, in a rudimentary sense, as reactionary groups opposing the dominant social, economic, and political ideologies. They cannot coexist with adults, because adults are the pillars of these oppressive ideologies. These ideologies have demonized youth by arbitrarily placing them on the negative side of a binary. At a basic level, it becomes adult versus youth, with everything virtuous and moral listed under adult and everything problematic and detestable projected onto youth. Hedonistic desires, nihilism, freedom from being politically correct, and any other aberrant adult desires are thrust onto youth. Youth become the repository for the liberties adults pine for and adults react with disdain towards their suppressed selves.....I mean, react with disdain towards youth.
This is the great irony; adults must appear appalled and outraged at the youth that corrode our society, yet they really are pleased and stimulated at the emergence of their suppressed selves. I have started to once again poke around the surface of the war that rages on between youth and adults, but I swear it has a purpose. As I mentioned earlier, I have difficulty finding sites of resistance within the subculture I'm studying and I was initially bemused by their complacency and docility. This binary surely exists so why are youth not outraged at the ideologies that have marginalized and misrepresented them? Then it hit me. These youth are being heavily co-opted. The appearance of this church is modern, vibrant, and suffused with a youthful energy. There are electrical guitars, keyboards, and drums that produce the beats present in youth's music. Youth services are delivered through the assistance of the Internet in a room that emanates a nightclub vibe. Coca-Cola and Nachos are grudgingly digested by adults worried about their figure, while youth voraciously devour these items. In a multitude of ways there is appropriation and co-optation of youth within New Life Worship Center.
They do not leave the youth marginalized, left to feel denigrated and othered by this binary. Instead, they embrace youth through appropriation and co-optation. There are many negative labels that popular culture applies to Christians and more specifically to religious fanatics a.k.a Evangelists (Saved!, Jesus Camp, Friends of God, Mike Huckabee and his acoustic, etc) to name a few examples. However, youth are empowered by the adults within the church and feel a security and acceptance that allows them to I suppose withstand the secular heat. Within this church it appears as though the battle between the ages is temporarily frozen and that by doing so the adults have recruited an important demographic into their panoply: the youth.

A Warm Invite

There is certainly a plethora of terms and theory crammed into Epstein's introduction, which prepares us for a text steeped in theory. I still feel uncertain of some terminology and believe that a more solid understanding will occur after a class dissection and examination of these terms. However, the latest post made me revisit my fieldnotes and conceptualize what I noticed and recorded in regard to Epstein's introduction. My first, formal field observation was conducted on February 15 at 7:00. This was inconvenient for me, but a strategic move to maintain the purity of the church's youth. This is an ideal time for a youth service because during this time on a Friday night temptation and sin run rampant in the streets. Aside from my apparent gripe with the time, I was awestruck by both the facility and number of youth in attendance. Everyone was approaching me and inquiring about why I was here and how I learned about their church. I could easily give a vivid account of the jovial youth, their heavy and costly reliance on technology, and snippets from my skeptical, internal monologue, but I won't for several reasons. What I will share is the lack of "resistance" among these youth. They were not angered, boisterous, rebellious, calloused, etc. They didn't appear judgemental and eagerly approached me; excited that another prospect had stumbled upon their church. The few that I conversed with spoke in a respectful, almost revered tone for their pastor. They also talked highly of other church elders and didn't disclose any grievances they had agaisnt adults. In fact, the way in which I overheard thirteen year olds facetiously conversing with twenty something year olds accentuated this accepting, welcoming subculture. I could not detect any resentment or reservation among these teens. I felt as though they viewed adults not as their enemy, but rather as their ally. This is plausible once I saw how the youth interacted during the sermon. They were empowered and given voice when they were handed the microphone. Two youth read scripture and one even proceeded with a short oration! The minister also acted as though he was having dialogue with a youth, albeit, the youth simply acquiesced by repeatedly nodding his head. Even so, sitting down with a youth, breaking bread with them (nachos and soda), and then closing the conversation with a tight embrace helps persuade the youth that the adults are on their side. They didn't feel excluded from the adult world, but instead included. This involvement in the adult world is a rare occurence and certainly would alter one's feelings towards adults. We can certainly debate whether they are innocently included or included as part of a greater scheme, but this debate and the adults' intent is irrelevant to this issue. What is relevant, however, is how youth are invited into the adult realm and feel appreciated rather than rejected by adults. This welcoming approach is how adults can pull the wool over eyes and mollify resistance. They become our friends, not our foes.