Rethinking Youth Culture
Six hours worth.
(GBR) I’ve been invited to attend the “Rethinking Youth Cultures in the Age of Global Media” at the London Knowledge Lab this morning (an ESRC funded seminar series 2008-2010).
Here’s the blurb:
This seminar brings together experts in youth culture to discuss the historical development of the field, re-evaluate the legacy of youth research in the light of young people’s changing cultural experiences, and debate the new theories, methodologies and research paradigms that are emerging in response. This seminar will seek to establish a broad agenda for the series as a whole.
Live Blogging (or attempting to):
David Buckingham, Insitute of Education (who we featured in a podcast) opened proceedings with an intro about the seminar series and the future sessions. Youth culture is not a universal experience or imagined it. Focus on the changes historically and in the wider context. Mismatch between theory (although still relevant) and actual experiences. Media is and the net is a huge influence and growing focus. Not just about the ‘spectacular’ (looking at ‘ordinary’). Danger of access and bigger questions about if it has had an impact of how we perceive ‘youth culture’.
Aim is partly to re-evaluate the past body of work and is it still relevant and then to look forward and see if it can still be used and what else needs to be explored.
Professor Christine Griffin, Dept Psychology, Bath Uni exploring the moving beyond the ‘Birmingham School’—youth sub-culture field grew in the 70s and explored with a focus on collective cultural practises. Resistance through rituals presented an alternative to the ‘hippies-story’ showing the different sorts of youth groups. Heavily politicalised debate about what youth were doing in the leisure time. Work was heavily focussed on style, rituals and music plus demographics. Attempt to theorise youth sub-culture as politically significant. They focussed on loads and overlooked other groups. Had a narrow view of mass consumption and the media.
Some theories don’t work anymore. sub-cultures have expanded, diversified and dissolved. Nostalgia is endlessly recycled and technological changes have made it more and more complex. Went on to discuss the ‘neo-liberal social order’(?)—apparently its about presenting oneself in an ethical and discerning way relating to consumption (with an emphasis on ‘reconfiguration of class’). Focussed on drink culture—excess as entertainment/calculated hedonism intersected with integrated media (youtube, facebook, myspace postings).
Professor Robert MacDonald, Dept Sociolgy, Uni of Teeside, reflections on the ‘state of play’ and youth transitions. Split into youth transitions and youth cultural studies—does it still exist and does it matter? Yes. Move towards youth transitions and youth cultural focussed on ‘the few’. Went on to explore what’s wrong with transitional studies, youth work as a whole and the larger youth cultural debate.
Are we in the post-subculture era, neo-tribes, scenes, flux etc? Or is this too narrow of focus again? Lack of work and research on youth culture ‘on the street’ outside the traditional problem rhetoric. Transition still remains essential to youth studies though. As for the future, wish for a broader understanding of what youth culture can be/is. Growing ethnographic focus.
John Clarke, Faculty of Social Sciences, Open Uni reflecting on the study of youth (sub)cultures. Referenced the Resistance Through Rituals as a conjunctural intervention. Academic arguments around youth as a generational phenomenon and subcultural practices of delinquency. We need to disrupt youth as a category. Talked about rescuing concepts: repertoires of cultural practises etc.
The future and what’s different: global circuits and youth are always the signifiers of crisis for authority and futurity. We want young people to be cutting edge consumers and also the victims/perpetrators. Youthfulness is being commodifying, marginalising, problematising and practising.
Anoop Nayak, Newcastle Uni talks about youth cultural studies in a global age. Did a quick ‘rewind’ focussing on cultural/youth studies—constructing youth as a social problem. Key contributions is the rescuing of youth as a problem although there is still a perseverance of youth moral panics. Moved into globalisation and postmodernity, new technologies, flows and transnational connections (mobile phones, skype, webcams, blogs, youtube etc.). More empirical work is needed around how young people use these technologies as we usually find something more mundane.
Structure vs culture—from workspaces to cool places. There is a lack of focus on traditional spaces like the home, school, work etc. rather than just the clubs, streets, disused warehouses.
Future: already seeing the re-politicisation of youth and how moral panics are becoming global ones.Stereotypes are either of excess or not enough. Range and scope of international work and not enough effort to engage in these projects/research.
Conclusion: the seminar provided a whistlestop tour around the past research surrounding youth cultural academic discourse. Honestly, it was a hard slog with traditional powerpoint presentations, no illustrations or demonstrations of the theories discussed and very little dynanism (sorry).
Overall, there was very little debate about the ‘global media’ impact and too much focus on past texts and their critique plus a huge assumption the audience knew the research discussed with the semantics used steeped in academia.
If the attempt was to create a review from which to move forward then I guess it was achieved.
As someone who is thinking as getting back into academia with a Masters in Social Media (with a focus on youth) this has been a good experience to reintroduce me back into the big words and heavy theories. Although, I’m really hoping the next seminar in the series will actually address the social media and technology ownership impact and how it relates to youth culture.
February 18th, 2009
only just caught your tweets so missed the live blogging. Have to say that I would have got as far as this “debate the new theories, methodologies and research paradigms that are emerging in response” before switching off.
I think everyone concerned with youth development/culture/support has an obligation to make their discussions inclusive – even where its considered the debate is too ‘high up’ to likely involve young people. Its about good habits so that should those young people wish to participate they can do so without having to have previous debates patronisingly translated.
In my view using big words doesn’t make you clever – being able to get your point across in a way that everyone can understand does.
If you’re able to do some translation I’m sure there was some interesting stuff discussed though ;-)
February 18th, 2009
I agree with Mike in part, and certainly in spirit and it perhaps relates to my ‘conspiracy theory’ as to whether some businesses or orgs might deliberately resist the democracy, participation and inclusivity of an effective use of social media…people protect their territory because they like it to be ‘their club’ and it’s what they know.
Cultural change in any aspect of work or play is always a challenge and you have to have the belief and stomach for it. Maybe we shouldn’t be too harsh on the esotericism of academia, after all, young people use social media to form clubs they feel safe in, and of course will quite righty discuss adult issues without including adults…great effort DK, bet you were the only one doing it?
February 18th, 2009
That looked like a hard slog mate.
Dry, academic and not very dynamic as you say and strangely no voices from the target audience. Hmmmm
February 18th, 2009
good point Matt – we raise the issue of using understandable language with young people planning campaigns so it does work both ways. I agree too that it maybe becomes more of an issue as debates are brought into open spaces online – so with that maybe there becomes an increased responsibility. Certainly I’d say that some of the language of academia isn’t just exclusive of young people – I decided not to do a Masters in Youth Work for the very same reason – the language during the open day put me off.
February 19th, 2009
Thanks Mike. I got out of academia because it lacked impact for me personally. Nowadays I have a healthy interest in properly conducted research & evaluation, especially the gold dust of longitudinal studies against control groups, which often necessitates an HE partner. Research, evaluation and impact is so easy to question/challenge without a strict integrity and proven parameters within your methodology.
Perhaps the ‘slippage’ (in terms of converting theory into policy and/or practice) happens in part because of a lack of connectivity, collaboration and, vitally, co-ordination between sectors…and of course a rigorous & robust methodology still needs to be continually tested and adapted…social media certainly provides the tools…