Week 9 -- Saggy Pants

Young people and clothes

For this week’s assignment we reflected on the “cultural meaning” of clothing and fashion. We read another entry from the People’s History (note to self: not so great quality – content spotty, bad grammar, misspellings, etc.) and watched a mashup video made from a JC Penney’s catalog. YouTube, always so helpful, suggested another video of a Montgomery Wards catalog that I watched as well. This one has great disco music and far less editorializing that the other – it also shows a broader range of 1970s clothing. In all, I had a better experience with this video since it wasn’t entirely mocking what was actually a period of time I experienced. And of course, wore all those bad clothes.

Memory

The Monkey Wards video is from 1976, which was a very memorable year for me as I spent the summer in NY where my father was working at the Democratic Convention. I was 12 years old.  It was the Bicentennial, we were celebrating the country’s 200^th birthday. Everything was red, white and blue. The leisure suit was everywhere, as were loud plaid pants on men. Pop-ish, modern styles with a commercial edge were in.

I remember all of those clothes, all of those styles. I was raised on those high waist-ed pants and struggle with today’s much, much lower waist-ed fashions. You can see the past – conservative and traditional, fighting with the present – dancing away from the hippy as counter-cultural fashion icon, to the very imminent future of full blown disco. Three’s Company, Dallas, the Six Million Dollar Man, Charlie’s Angels, Starsky and Hutch. It all seems so mild now, but it was a huge shift from the mainstream 60s styles -- highly fitted, conservative, conventional (except for the pop, mod stuff).

Relevance

Besides the trip down memory lane, this week’s investigation cues up an issue near and dear to my heart: how adults’ perceptions of young people are so quickly triggered by clothes and fashion. 

One of my standard training “take home points” is that adults misinterpret young people’s appearance (largely clothing and fashion choices) as disrespectful, when instead they are simply doing what they are supposed to be doing – figuring out who they are, who they want to be and what they think is good, appropriate and right for themselves. Who am I? The search for identity.

But for adults, it becomes yet another instance of moral panic. Bra straps that show! Bare mid-riffs! Piercings! Sagging pats!

A PR nightmare – coming from my background, this is my primary concern. And so the scope of my work (and that of my colleagues) is to educate others about adolescent development, encourage the viewing of young people through a developmental lens. But we consistently run into this challenge and it goes well beyond negative stereotypes, tsk-tsks and eye rolls.

Adults continue to legislate appropriate adolescent dress and behavior in ways that directly interferes with adolescent development. But we do it for the best of reasons! Right?

Back in the day

It was about long hair on boys. Certainly our history celebrates many men with long hair – from our distant past. But the hippies pushed it, the production of Hair celebrated and the gay community sustains it. These days, were more likely to see young men with extremely short hair or no hair. Fear of long hair on boys isn’t dead though – as evidenced in this news story from just last year about a young man – great student – who is threatened with suspension and termination of after school activities – if he doesn’t cut his hair. The rationale: it’s in the dress code. And the rationale for the dress code? Long hair inhibits learning? Disruption of social norms? Interference with the goal of conformity? I was touched to read a single comment about this article, and the lone perspective of (usually the chief villain) a parent:

Posted by simpleman | 10 months ago

i have the same issue with my 10 year old son. the wills point school has continued to punish him with detentions and ridicule for having hair so long as 2inches in the back. as his father i am against long hair (i shave mine), however he wants his to be what i call scruffy just like the teen role models the we see on tv and in music bands. he is a staight "A" student and one awsome kid. when the school told hime they would punish him for not looking like what THEY wanted him to look like i gave him the choice to either stand up for what he believed in or do what they wanted him to. he decided to stand up for himself with my total support. treating someone different because of the way they look is discrimination. research martin luther king and you'll figure it out. none us us have any right to tell anyone you have to look a certain way and punish them if they don't. that's criminal.

this wills point school has even went so far as to have my son write about this as part of his punishment and complied to the point when they told him he had to write a written apology for looking the way he does and he DID NOT comply to that order. he said"im not saying im sorry for my hair".

who does anyone in the world think they are to say YOU CAN'T LOOK LIKE THAT?

i am now looking for a way to fight for my sons right to freedom. i thought my father, uncles and grandfather had already fought this fight for me.

Saggy Pants

From the inordinate amount of attention it warrants, one would think that the real threat to student achievement is the wearing of saggy pants by young men. This is a fashion choice largely made by young African-american men (but far from exclusively) which means that race enters the discussion in a big way. Adding to already suspect attitudes toward young people are the always present notes of racism – making this a volatile debate.

This topic is in the news a lot, and recently some coworkers were discussing the ways our local schools are coping (which I gathered wasn’t very well). My cursory investigation for this assignment pointed me towards Florida, where lawmakers are, once again, trying to legislate solutions to adolescent development.

Saggy Pants and School Suspension

The bill currently circulating in the Florida State Senate would make the wearing of baggy pants, worn at a level that reveals underwear, forbidden in public schools or while students are on any part of school property, this would include buildings and playgrounds.

Elsewhere, laws are considered that go beyond the school yard – making it illegal to wear baggy pants anywhere!

American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, News Release

February 8, 2005

Legislation Dictating Clothing Style Goes Too Far

Bill banning baggy pants interferes with personal liberties, targets hip-hop culture

The ACLU of Virginia is asking state senators to vote down a bill banning pants worn too low. The bill, introduced by Delegate Algie Howell imposes a $50.00 fine on anyone who “intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner.” It passed the House of Delegates earlier this week by a vote of 60-34.

Sure, this is an older article, but Google can point to lots of these stories all the way to today. Interestingly, both the ACLU and the NAACP have entered this fight. Common cause, as it were.

Siplin's Low-Riding Pants Bill Gets Beat-Up

posted by John Kennedy on Mar 21, 2008 4:35:19 PM

The Florida NAACP and allied organizations Friday opposed Orlando Sen. Gary Siplin's bill to ban schoolkids from wearing their pants too low, saying it could lead to more legal trouble for black male students.

"In essence, it will criminalize the wearing of saggy pants and thereby provide a new avenue of interaction between young people and the criminal justice system," Nweze said.

Siplin's bill (SB302) was approved 28-11 last week by the Florida Senate. Although it calls for no criminal sanctions, it would prohibit students from wearing pants low so that they expose undergarments that, in turn, expose sexual organs -- covered or uncovered.

Violators would receive a warning for a first offense and suspensions from school for each subsequent infraction, under the legislation…

But the NAACP, ACLU and Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C., social advocacy organization, said the proposal is directed primarily and black males and could lead to arrests. Jim Freeman, an attorney with the Advancement Project…called the legislation "a huge overreach," and is part of a growing number of harsh disciplinary penalties aimed at youngsters for generally minor offenses.

"The penalties for normal adolescent behavior have been ratcheted up," Freeman said.

Before reading this article, I had not even considered the “profiling” possibilities created by laws like this. But I’ve run into the equivalent. One of the communities my organization worked with passed law that made it a crime for more than four teenagers to gather together in a public place – to address gang activity, you know. In actuality the youth serving and social justice folks recognized that it was simply a way for police to target largely adolescent Latino boys. As a result, the community made it illegal for kids to play at a playground or play a game of soccer. "Penalties for normal adolescent behavior" indeed.

There are reasons to consider laws differently for youth and adults. They do need greater protections in many cases. But the double standards in this area are shocking. Again, a point my coworkers are fond of making. When asked: why are girls so violent? They would answer:  Why are adults so violent? Why are we at war? Why do we have a death penalty? Isn’t is a sociological fact that we apply different standards to “others” than we do for ourselves? 

A commenter from the NAACP article make the case humorously:

If you can get arrested for sagging pants, does that mean that tourists can get arrested for going around in their skimpy shorts, no shirts, etc? Can people get arrested for being on the beaches in skimpy bathing bikinis?? Where would this stop?

Posted by: winsurTsa | September 29, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Even President Obama (as candidate Obama) had (more reasoned thoughts) on the issue:

Nov 3 2008 1:45 PM EST

Barack Obama Weighs In On Sagging-Pants Ordinances: 'Brothers Should Pull Up Their Pants'

By Chris Harris, with reporting by Sway Calloway

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama may not necessarily support lifestyle legislation — including state bans on low-slung, sagging trousers — but that doesn't mean he thinks dudes should be showing off their skivvies.

What a tight-rope he must walk! But I appreciate the reporter’s (MTV!) phrase “lifestyle legislation” – I wonder what else belongs in that category. Interestingly, this quote was from a interview MTV conducted with then candidate Obama as part of their own youth action/advocacy campaign: Think MTV

But interestingly, even Mr. Obama perceives the baggy pants style as disrespectful:

There are some issues that we face that you don't have to pass a law [against], but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people. And, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them.

Debate it

Frankly, I don’t want to see people’s underpants either. I’m even more horrified by seeing a young girl’s thong peeking out of her low-rise jeans.

But I don’t mind the pink bra strap sitting next to the tank top strap sitting next to another tank top strap. And those male models with the pants sitting just a little too low with just a hint of underwear? Who am I to object?

Yes, I consider it a distraction at times. And I’ve had to instruct young people on what was and wasn’t appropriate “professional” attire, what was expected of them in a given situation, etc. And maybe it was because of my own struggles with “conformity” I was always careful to frame my comments in terms of other people’s perceptions. That while how they dressed was their choice, they frequently had no control of how other people would perceive them based on those choices. So – being aware of those perceptions and being intentional with how one dealt with them – was a key ingredient for success (and survival).

Ultimately, this is the debate I wish we were having – how best to support young people’s development. There are challenging things they’ll be exploring which require us to restrain our own moralistic judgment – instead using a developmental standard to guide our actions. It’s not that I think young people should be encouraged to dress in ways that could ultimately harm or limit their success. I think that as adults, we need to appreciate that it is their right to do it – to defy our standards with their own -- and their responsibility to work out – successfully – a place for themselves in the world. In the process of finding that place they’ll learn and experience – with our help and because of our not always kind judgment -- what it takes to fit and succeed in the world: the standards, dress codes and expected behaviors of their community. At the same time, their ideas, perceptions, fashion choices, will slowly re-shape and evolve the community they join.

What world are we offering them? What does the “world” or “community” look like to them? Do they see possibility? Potential? Hope? Every time we think to judge their early identity-related decisions (like how to dress) I want us to see it as a reflection of the options we make available to them. We own that part of the puzzle, so what are we doing to change it?

Week 8, Barbie™ Beauty

This week’s assignment focuses on toys and their cultural meaning.

We were provided with a brief history of toys – at the people’s history web site. Great site/resource and now a new bookmark in my brower’s “tools” folder.

Quite the trip down memory lane! Frightened by the fact that many of the toys I remember enjoying as a kid came from the 30s, 40s and 50s was a bit of a shock. Sure, I’d believe Monopoly was that old, but Clue? The history dates it to the 40s!

And that I was born the year GI Joe was introduced! Confession: I did rent the terrible GI Joe movie. Sad. Chalk one up to the power of branding and efficacy of cross merchandising. The readings, and most of the criticism focuses on how marketers use the powerful relationship between kids and toys to sell stuff. But how about using that same relationship to target the “grown up” kids like myself. Nostalgia marketing. I’m a sucker for it. Note to self: look into the connection between GI Joe and the Vietnam war.

Interesting coincidence that the 40th Anniversary of Sesame Street has been all over the media the last few weeks. This cultural icon came up in another class once, where I read about just how they considered and tested every single thing they did. Made big contributions to communications research, etc. Did it ever bridge into mainstream education, I wonder? One of the points the creators discussed was that they never allowed any of their characters to be used in merchandising commercial products to kids. But isn’t Big Bird in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade? Sure, he’s not selling Big Macs, but …

The other provocative reading for this week was 10 of “the most racist toys ever made.” Just when you think you’ve seen the worst, you come across something like the examples shown here. The comments were possibly more horrifying. What happened to our “post-racial” society? The list reminded me of the Halloween costume conversations on the feminist blog about how offensive it is to dress up like people of a different race. Not to mention the high level of sexualization in costumes for young girls.

A week later there is Jon Stewart doing a segment on “black face” where his “Senior Black Correspondent” reports that there is absolutely no circumstance where black face is appropriate (unless you “have a black face”), until confronted with images from America’s Next Top Model where Tyra’s model contestants were challenged to represent bi-racial women.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Blackface Ever OK?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

From black face to blue eyes

It makes a good subhead, but it is also where the question of the week leads me.

I liked dolls. Lots of girls do. I owned several Barbie™ Dolls, Skipper and Ken. My brother’s GI Joe was frequently appropriated for double dating. I coveted the Barbie townhouse (but alternately was appalled when we discovered one, still in active use, in the closet of a seventh grade girl friend).

In college, one of the few non-“old dead white guy” course in the English Literature major was “Women in Literature” and our professor assigned Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye (published 1970, I read it in ’83?). Blew my mind. It so richly, horribly and beautifully depicts the insidious ways racism is perpetuated by our culture, celebrated in our icons and artifacts. In the book, the protagonist Pecola Breedlove wants more than anything to have blue eyes. They will make her beautiful because only the blue eyes of white girls are beautiful – that’s what the world tells her and that’s what she believes. And she’ll never have blue eyes, she’ll never be beautiful and she’ll always despise herself. I remember thinking how bizarre it was that these girls only had white dolls to play with, white movie stars to admire or white girls as role models of beauty.

But it’s only a toy

Pecola’s experience is not unique. In fact, the link to critical real-world, life-changing events is a direct one.

Brown vs. the Board of Education is one of the most significant pieces of legislation intended to address the problem of racism – or perhaps, intended to address our country’s legacy of slavery, or perhaps intended to address the human instinct to create the “other.” It failed in the state, but the Supreme Court agreed that “separate but equal” wasn’t really possible, in the context of our constitutionally dictated “right to equal protection under the law.”

Key to their case was research (go academics!) by education psychologists conducted with – you guessed it – dolls. They presented African American children with a white baby doll and a black baby doll, asking which they liked better, which was “good,” “bad,” and most like them. Suffice to say, the kids reflected popular cultural attitudes – preferring the white babies, describing black babies as bad -- and the court believed that segregation was contributing to this harmful and limiting self perception. These African American children were not receiving equal treatment. Thus de-segregation.

A few years ago, I ran into a video by 17-year-old film student Kiri Davis. Through her after school video program, she produced a short documentary film that explored African-American attitudes toward their skin color. She also reproduced the “doll test” from 1954.

Her results were consistent. And her documentary captures on film the painful conflict etched on the eyes of these children who believe that babies who like them are “bad.” 

The documentary is personal, her bios and news articles described her own struggles with her “color,” dominant attitudes about beauty, her parents’ struggles to find positive representations of girls of color – where are the black princesses? The adolescent girls she interviews talk about “good hair” that naturally looks like white hair, the importance and advantage of being “light skinned.”

Barbie™, 2009

I’d like to blame Barbie™, but for me, she’s more of a symptom than a cause. I’m confident that the toy makers at Mattel™ are aware that Barbie™ has had a PR problem and a visit to their web site confirmed that they are making some effort to broaden their presentation of beauty and femininity; their definition of the role of girls and women. That’s the nice way to say it. It’s probably equally important that they have actual markets for non-blonde, more than a princess Barbie™.

I must respect the Barbie™ brand though. I go to the site and wait for their fancy graphics to load and instead of a boring “loading” bar, I get a tube of Barbie Pink lipstick slowly reveal to track my download. Never mind all the sexual connotations, I’m a perverted adult. It was cute! And gross. Gotta have some lipstick to be a girl, you know.

I can’t help but notice that Barbie™ is a Musketeer. Yes, it appears that she always aspired to be one, then ran into three other gals (one of whom appears to be a girl of color, although I find no specific labeling as such) who share her dream. Actual copy from the video:

Can this dare to dream team use their girl power to save the prince?

OK, they still look like princesses. They still have 14” waists. I’m sure there’s much tittering and giggling. But this is a pretty substantial fairy tale role reversal!

Another line that made me laugh was, “Don’t mess with the dress!” – which later I realize is actually promoting a feature – the hem of her long dress is detachable and converts into a cape. “Includes a matching sword accessory.” I’m only a little deflated that Barbie’s bold retreat from gender stereotypes ends up featuring violence.

I also check out the “I can be” Barbie™ line. Girls can chose to be a Pre School Teacher, New Born Baby Doctor Babysitter, SeaWorld ® Trainer (cross merchandising!), Dentist, Pet Vet, Bride, Gymnastics coach, Kid Doctor, Race car driver, Rockstar, Ballerina. I don’t think these examples come close to balancing out the 23 “fashion doll products”  or 40 “Disney Princess doll products.”

In this line, the New Born Baby Doctor (love how they keep the occupation titles age-appropriate) is offered as a White and an African American doll. A few other lines included African American and White doll options. I found no “Latina” or “Asian” dolls.

There is an entire section (with it’s own navigational call-out) of African American Barbie Dolls – the “So In Style™” line. Of these some are a character and her little sister (and there is a white equivalent). Three of the “SIS” dolls are featured as being about hair styling – and apparently have a special type of “style-able” hair. Of course, none of them have natural African American hair. None of them are particularly dark, but there are a few different skin tones. 

I didn’t have to work too hard to find these examples. That said the Barbie web site’s home page is pure pink, blonde and white. There is no escaping what image “Barbie” conjures up. It will never change entirely, although it may evolve. Barbie beauty is forever blond, blue-eyed and light skinned.

Mattress Ticking

I was raised by caring, generous, enlightened and creative parents. They made me all sorts of amazing toys, including a hand-made “doll house” where the dolls were tiny animal couples, all dressed up. It had a very impressive ballroom with a wall of mirrors and a grand piano. And I wanted a Barbie townhouse?

My mother also made hand sewn dolls and stuffed animals. One still sits in my bedroom – ok, the closet – I am 45 years old and must show some restraint. 

This doll came with a number of dresses, again, all hand sewn. I remember loving changing her dresses. I still have two of them.

The unusual thing about this doll was that her main fabric is mattress-ticking – a rugged, light canvas texture, eggshell-ish color with denim blue stripes running through it.

I can remember as a kid being kinda conflicted about her “skin.” It didn’t look like me, or like anyone. Was she “pretty?”

Like most girls, I struggled with comparing myself to the Barbie™. But as I explored this topic, I can't help but wonder if  my love of her – and her unusual looks – diminished the impact of Barbie™ defined-beauty? Or more importantly, the role my parents played -- making this doll, modeling a different beauty standard, encouraging me in sports, learning, expressing my opinions.

Sadly, girls like Pecola -- and so many others -- may never have those powerfully counter-balancing influences and supports. So Barbie™ wins, again.

 

Week 7, Food Glorious Food

Titled Popular Culture and the Dark Side of Food, this week's reading from "Tooning In" (White and Walker) offered an excellent overview of some ugly truths about how media and popular culture have twisted our relationship to food.

I was particularly struck by how the authors present the entanglement of female identity and food. That the creation of processed, packaged foods, fashion trends, war, economic forces and feminism seemed to form a perfect storm that served to both empower women and ruin their relationship with a powerful part of our identity: food.

Naturally, this discussion, like many of those presented in this class (feminist salute to Prof!) is personal and political because of my own participation and perceptions – as a woman, as a feminist foodie who shares most American women’s weight issues, as a marketing communications professional turned adolescent health advocate.

During election madness my favorite blogs just weren’t cutting it for me and I started reading female and race oriented blogs.

Feminste
Feministing
Racialicious

My fascination with reading comments has been well-served in these places! But more importantly I appreciate the different lens through which they view the media and popular culture. As such, the feminist blogs inevitably draw attention to media coverage perceived to be “fat-hating” or “fat shaming.” Examples include a recent PETA ad and, more recently and topically: Media criticism over the body size of Dr. Regina Benjamin for the US Surgeon General position.

Here’s a short bio of the woman being discussed in the video below.

Regina M. Benjamin, M.D., M.B.A., is founder and CEO of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic in Bayou La Batre, Ala. She is the immediate past-chair of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, and previously served as associate dean for Rural Health at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine. In 2002, she became president of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama, making her the first African American woman to be president of a state medical society in the United States.
(Reuters, 10/30/09)

Not surprisingly, this was from FOX news (My path to this video: feministing, picked up by TPM, then pamshouseblend, who seemed to have found it at TPM (Talking Points Memo).) (To the world: this crappy commercial in front of the video—this is where we are going. it’s the only way they can pay for this stuff unless they start charging us.)



But – wow! I really couldn’t even watch the entire thing, so I offer it as an illustration of the authors’ point that for women “education and ability are less important that physical appearance (p. 134, referencing Manton).

In fact one of the “comments” flame wars was very hot and heavy about the poster’s similar assertion, except that she stated it that women pretty much exclusively get judged on appearance (case in point: Dr. Benjamin) and men never. This overstatement was deemed inappropriate (and sexist, I’d add for myself.) But then the criticiz-er was challenged for inserting a “it happens to us menz, too” (I discovered this was now a name for the phenomena), back and forth, largely over tone and ettiquette and, frankly, stubbornness.

But what a unique example! Not only in reference to gender, but race, as well. The authors discuss a finding often included in public health discussions about girls and body image – that many women of color have healthier body images and are therefore less prone to eating disorders. Culture can be protective, it is argued. I had not heard the finding that increases in eating disorders tracks to the increase of women of color competing in the professional job market (p. 137). Scary.

I was surprised that the authors focused mostly on the not-eating side of the equation because “Healthy Weight (previously: obesity)” is hot, hot, hot in the public health world, adolescent health particularly. In fact, right here at the University of Minnesota are some of the foremost researchers on adolescents (largely girls) and food. Project Eat includes a lot of researchers, Mary Story and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer are frequently cited in the news. They’ve looked at family meals, eating breakfast, weight teasing, body image connection to unhealthy behaviors and lots of quantifying the problem.
http://www.epi.umn.edu/research/eat/index.shtm

There’s a lot of interest in the school system’s role in addressing this problem. More and more schools are giving up their Coke machines, at the same time tax payers are less and less willing to fund them adequately. Public health systems continue to discourage the vending machines and a la carte offerings, but never seem to realize they are fighting a battle that can’t be won. Food to be desired is as portrayed in popular culture through the media – snack foods, processed foods, fast foods and soda.

Given my own background, food marketing’s role in the problem fascinates me. My formative “assignment” at the advertising agency was on a packaged-goods account – the Blue Diamond Almond Growers. I had gotten some insight on this world from even earlier days (as a secretary at Y&R) from multiple Clorox account: Hidden Valley Ranch Salad Dressing, KC Masterpiece Barbeque Sauce and Fresh Step Kitty Litter (nice combo, huh!).

Packaged goods marketers have it down to a science. Talk about evaluation – with the way their distribution venues (grocery stores) track data, these folks know exactly what kind of media weight it will take to increase sales in a given market. They know exactly when to start working on brand or line extensions, new flavors, new market segments.

They will never change their product or their marketing practices – until their customers demand it. Today’s “green” trend makes the point. The 2003 Dove "Real Beauty" campaign is another. (Teachers, check it out -- great teaching materials.)

So for me, the question of the week is: how do you turn the ship? What does it take to shift popular culture’s perspectives? Priorities? Sure, marketing can play a role, but when promoting pro-social interests, we’ve got to consider the competition. We’ll never compete, on TV, with Coke.

For tobacco prevention, the law suits, regulations and policies turned the tide. Arguably, alcohol prevention has attempted the same strategies, but with less success. But when it comes to food marketing, and its relationship to obesity, folks are having a harder time finding high-impact policy solutions. Getting coke machines out of schools is one thing. But mandating alternatives to bad fats? (San Francisco does it) Requiring a per unit calorie labeling on fast food products? (DC does it) Labeling attentive for high fructose corn syrup? Or, taken further, withdrawing subsidies that with ultimate limit its production? Again, the corn syrup people have lots and lots of resources (but so did the tobacco companies) -- I’ve already seen broadcast ads from their trade association advocating against these new policies.

There was also an ill-fated attempt to sue McDonalds for obesity/health related issues by two teen girls in Bronx. The case focused on “whether McDonald's is responsible for their obesity because it did not provide the necessary information about the health risks associated with its meals.” According to the NYT: “ If their lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, makes it to trial with the suit, he hopes to turn it into a class action on behalf of all New York children under age 18 who claim health problems they say resulted from eating at McDonald's.”

Does this defense sound familiar?

''Every responsible person understands what is in products such as hamburgers and fries, as well as the consequences to one's waistline, and potentially to one's health, of excessively eating those foods over a prolonged period of time,'' the lawyers wrote in their motion to have the case dismissed.

And of course, what web ad was placed next to this article? Again, compliments of the new advertising environment on-line and more evidence to support our authors' observations.

While big picture, I think it comes down to social change – demonstrated through our policies, regulation and funding, for young people, the answer is fairly straightforward. As this entire course (and “Tooning In”) proposes, young people need developmental support – whether that’s through “social efficacy” or “social and emotional learning” or any of the other buzz words -- we need to make meeting these needs a priority.

To develop their cognitive skills, cope with body changes, process their sexual feelings and awareness, try out and form their own identity adolescents must be able to critically evaluate popular culture and the media. At the same, time, we should empower them to participate in and create it – in new, positive and productive ways.

Week 6, Another Brick in the Wall.

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave those kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave those kids alone
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

(Pink Floyd: Waters, Rogers)

Break down the wall. Let the kids out of the classroom and into the world in which they will live, lead and create.

I want to re-frame the assignment. The question isn't "why should we bring popular culture into the classroom?" The question of the week really is, "why isn't the world the classroom?"

Social efficacy, taken to it's logical end means that classroom bound, textbook driven, ideologically based TEACHING must give way to some sort of open, critical, inquiry driven system. Taken to an extreme? That if we can figure out how to support the developmental needs of children and young people, we can not only offer every kid a chance to meet their own amazing potential, we can energize and inspire culture and society today.

As much as I agree and cheer the authors of this week's readings, and pretty much all of the educational/social-reform oriented writers we've encountered in this class (strongly recommend for my own community) I don't believe they go far enough.  The social studies classroom, or science classroom or gymnasium is not the proper context for an adolescent. The world is.

Why don't we let kids out of the classroom? Dr. Moravec's innovation future of education (cite and web site) ties this freedom from blackboards to world-changing web 2.0 and beyond technologies. (His class, this lecture has inspired this thinking) 

Society 3 0

View more documents from John Moravec.

He also, and I laughed when I heard this, claims that to society (parents) today, the school's primary value is as baby-sitter -- a semi-productive and safe place to put kids during the work day. I found his perspective cynical until MEA week where "no-school" days during the work week caused havoc with a project schedule that impacted me -- and I don't have kids!

The bottom line, even among the youth serving, health and education communities, is that engaging young people this way is a major hassle. It's not part of my core responsibility as a professional, or outside the context of being a parent or aunt, so it is simply not a priority. "Youth engagement" in general and specific strategies like "youth action research" are hot, hot, hot in the public health community (Is there an equivalent in the education field? I'm probably just not engaged in it deeply enough, but I haven't seen comparable approaches.

Even these readings (thinking of media literacy, too) -- pretty radical to the mainstream system --  neglect the idea that involving youth in the decision making, programming, system that impacts them is the right (effective and "just"). I point this out because it impresses me that the public health community, even some segments of the broader research community are at least heading in the right direction. That said, adoption of these strategies is weak, at best. It's hard. We don't necessarily have the skills. Too busy. Lots of excuses for the fact that it just isn't a priority.

But it should be.

And the subject of popular culture is a particularly fruitful area to explore  what's possible when we look at how young people are engaged, taught, included.

Fact of the matter is that in the US, kids largely interact with the world through popular culture. The opportunities we offer them for broader interaction with the world are limited -- except for popular culture. After all, if school is a babysitter, what is TV? Describe another societal institution where young people are integrated with adults! Shopping? Arguably popular culture. Entertainment? Surely popular culture. And the areas where youth are segregated? Work. Education.

School and family just can't, by definition, meet all the developmental needs of a young person. Consider Gisela Konopka's requirements:  Where does a kid explore their own identity? Where are conflicting values discussed? Where are they likely to express themselves? Communicate their  feelings? Experience art? (GK).

The "popular culture in education" apologists point out (as do media literacy advocates, education reformers and technology enthusiasts), as the youth-serving community knows all too well, that young people meeting their developmental needs largely through popular culture is a very scary proposition. Moral panic! SEX! Bad health habits. Commercialism. SEX! Lack of consequences. SEX! We resent the impact that popular culture has in our lives, yet we, as adults, seem powerless to change it.

I believe that when it comes to popular culture and the media, young people have the power to change it.

Because isn't popular culture largely youth-driven?

Yet created by adults? Shaped by corporate interests? Framed by our experiences from a time that is past, compared to a the time that is now?

Engaging young people in the process of directly interacting in the world -- directly creating popular culture -- is and will be the only way to break through the cycle of sameness and repetition that is our mainstream media. What will happen to this vast echo chamber when 100 voices are chiming in, creating new, specialized echos that maybe don't reach everybody, but speak really well to a specific group?

This is already happening, to large degree, on the web.

But on TV or radio (only remaining large scale intrusive media) it's mostly the same old same old. Opportunity exists -- cable with all the specialized, interest oriented channels and programming. The fact that now we have entire news networks dedicated to different party affiliations is both disturbing and potentially thrilling. If I can find a political blog that matches my exact political interests and needs, why not a broadcast news program. Or the fact that community access TV makes it possible for an eighth grader's documentary on her experiences with race appear two channels away from the acclaimed CNN special?

Understanding, creating and redefining the content, priorities and methods of popular culture's media is the perfect setting for youth learning and enagagement.

Selling it.
I haven't entirely hijacked this assignment, have I? We were to write our defense of popular culture in the classroom, but I rejected the classroom, so ...

The second part of the assignment was to actually walk the walk, incorporate popular culture into your teaching/training.

I've had some experience with this, teaching media literacy to kids in school and afterschool programs, to adults through my professional trainings.

But the real questions for me in terms of application, and for my professional community, is 1) how to sell it and 2) how to implement effectively.

The rant above is the outline for the sales pitch. The popular culture advocates make a strong case, but I'm trying to find a compelling reason that actually benefits the larger community. Something that speaks to them. As it is, my "improve media" case will probably only interest those in the industry, which is a good start but not broad enough.

What would convince you -- reader -- to put 10% of your work time into guiding, training, mentoring, teaching a kid (that isn't yours) in your field, job, area of expertise, interest?

I suspect that its about more than a single message or training. I suspect that our own underlying attitudes toward young people get in the way. And that our funding systems and processes simply make it impossible, right now.

The idea that my coworker and I are pursuing is along these lines. In lieu of a lesson plan, here's the rough idea.

Use of web 2.0 technology is problematic for the public health community because of the steep learning curve, negative adult perceptions, lack of resources. Biggest barriers are internal policies which prohibit use!

As a work-around, we are proposing to micro-fund a project in a state or two that would engage young people (college aged?) through a youth-serving agency to collaborate with the health department on ways to use technology to reach their adolescent health goals. Besides funding, we'd assist with the collaboration and add a strategic overlay with our public health and communications backgrounds. We'd be looking at it as a big professional development project, where all the parties are learning to work well with each other and building each others' capacity. Imagine young people teaching public health professionals how to blog? Or creating a "What's hot on the web this week." The idea of a 18 year old instructing a gray-haired epidemiologist thrills me.

At the same time, it would be a proving ground (we hope) for viable youth engagement in public health -- it could change administration/management attitudes and perceptions that could open up new opportunities to support it at a systemic level.

Like state funding for similar projects.
Like requiring youth engagement for grantees.
Like re-evaluating technology policies.
Like re-considering the belief that young people have nothing to contribute.

We don't have to be another brick in the wall.

Week 6, Another Brick in the Wall.

Readings, Week 5

More adventures in technology! For this week's assignment, we were to explore the world of avatars, or as referred to when used in educational instruction: pedagogical agents or conversational agents or some combination of the two (depending on intent).

We were instructed to a web site to create our "agent"  http://www.gizmoz.com/  I visited the site and was, frankly, disappointed (we were warned!) with the technology. I looked at other people's projects and was not impressed. I tried to make my own and got a million errors. So I bailed and went to Second Life, which I was vaguely familiar with, and worked on an avatar there. Part of my dissatisfaction with gizmoz is probably because Second Life is my frame of reference with avatars.

I did have an interest trip down the wormhole of the web in using gizmoz, tho. I wanted to create a mini-news clip about framing teen pregnancy or teenagers so I did a YouTube search for videos about teenagers. The horrifying teen pregnancy commercial from the UK popped up. (Trying to embed this video was my first "forget it" moment with the application. Later, when I read the journal article that described how the kids' (and adults) would say mean things to the CAs/PAs when then couldn't be helpful, I totally empathized). That commercial -- yikes!

Aside:  It was part of the Leicester Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Partnership's, paid for by NHS Leicester City which appears to be part of the UK's public health system. Absolutely, positively horrifying and just plain wrong. I'm providing a link against my better judgment; I must focus on this weeks assignment and will postpone my rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRGgWBROuWs&feature=related

I'd been to Second Life http://www.secondlife.com because I saw an amazing presentation at a conference about uses of web 2.0 technology in the public health realm. Rachel Kuchar, who works in the AIDs/HIV prevention group, is also a web 2.0 specialist and she reviewed many different approaches, including CDC's "Island" in Second Life. What really got me interested was a project she described to teach kids about how germs/the flu gets spread. Someone would get infected and pass it along when they talked to someone else. The could only get rid of it by going to see a virtual nurse or doctor. I was impressed by this teaching method because it seemed to actually embed the learning into the kinds of things kids would do in Second Life instead of just "slapping on" some content about it (which is typically the case).

This "slapping on" of content is where we are at in the adolescent health community. If we just create a video, web site, whatever, we're "doing the web." This is far, far from realizing the potential of the technology so I'm always on the look out for truly innovative strategies.

I'm really too much of a novice to comment on how good or not good Second Life is, but the features and capabilities for creating your own avatar are really impressive.  Here is Gladys Zeminoba the avatar I created. I picked out the avatars name, gender, race, body size and shape, clothing, facial feature, hair style. I also did her make up, using some sort of special add-on I managed to collect somewhere a long the line. I spent A LOT of time on Gladys' hair and makeup. I honestly wanted to make her look good!

It was an interesting process because the reason I am creating the avatar is to represent myself. Each decision is somewhat of a reflection on how I want to appear, what I am about. When I visited the "Helping People Island," I ran into a lot (10?) of other people there. They all looked very well put together and more real than my own character and I felt a little embarassed about how I looked! Also because I don't know how to function that well and they all seemed competent. People wanting to chat with me finally drove me out.  I tried to visit the moon, but needed a space suit and didn't want to buy, or spend the time to find a free one.

This experience points to how this virtual world exploration (using an avatar, interacting with others) is not a ciick and play operation, yet. I'm fairly competent and parts of it were too challenging for me. The amount of time I'd need to invest to really figure it out and feel comfortable enough to take advantage of all Second Life has to offer doesn't seem worth it. A low ROI, as it were.

This gets back to the question of the week: Are pedagogical Agents (avatars, virtual selves) on the Cutting Edge of Teaching or a Big "Not"?

And the underwhelming answer is:  It depends.

In both of the journal articles assigned for this week's class research studies attempted to answer this question as well.

Doering, Veletsianos, Yerasimou's "Conversational Agents and Their Longitudinal Affordances on Communication and Interaction" explored 'which features of virtual characters may influence learning by examining students’ multiple interactions with and responses to conversational agents over time, as well as the effects the students believe these agents had on their learning."

Results: Not so good. Interesting findings about what the participants liked about the technology, but lackluster results specific to the task (educational students trying to create on-line portfolios). This highlights what I believe is the central tension with this technology (and maybe all advances?): what we want or need it to do tends to be based on replacing something we already know or do. And the technology can't do it the way we are currently doing it, so it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny/evaluation. Sometimes the technology catches up and we can shift towards or use the technology replacement. But mostly, I believe the goals are wrong. This orientation limits the potential of the technology. Where is the innovation?

In "When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent" University of Minnesota scholars Veletsianos, Scharber, and Doering tested a pedagogical agent application with middle school students. It was to assist them with a Google Earth activity. What the kids did instead with the application shocked the heck out of the researchers. Seems like some of the kids were more interested in having Grand Theft Auto style interactions with the agent that getting help with their assignment.

On one hand, this shouldn't be all that surprising. Especially when your agent is a female character interacting with adolescent males. The authors even point out that the development of identity and sexuality is a natural part of adolescence. Even the adults (arguably, older adolescents given the participants' demographics) had semi sexual interactions with the female avatar. In the focus groups at least one reported hanging out with his buddies "talking" to the avatar and there was "chuckling" over this topic. Doering also noted in the Conversational Agent research that the participants wanted to "customize" their avatars based on their own attractions. Hmm. Not hard to imagine students creating their own Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt avatars. And will that encourage or support their learning or engagement?

These findings all made me curious about how how the avatar looked impacted the interaction. Particularly with the younger participants, I wanted to know how they demographically compared to the avatar that was used.

Does this agent look like someone a teenage boy would respect? And what if that boy was Latino? Or African-American? Why the pearls? A host of cultural competence questions came to mind.

Most readers of the Veletsianos article were probably appalled by the teenagers' behavior and their negative perceptions of teens reinforced. The knee jerk reaction would be to indict the entire use of the technology and/or insist on teacher monitoring. While I'd agree that there needs to be accountability for bad behaviors, on-going monitoring both defeats some of the purpose of the technology and could ultimately restrict how the kid interacts with it so much that again, the purpose is defeated.

The study made me excited to think about how the teen pregnancy prevention community that I work with could probably program/design excellent content/interactions to  deal with sexual inquiries. It would be amazing to be able to convert the kind of inappropriately presented sexual questions/banter into a learning moment about respect, relationships, sexual orientation, gender overall. Instead of an agent that responds "I'm too young for that" when the teenager asks "Are you virgin?" I envision  a discussion on what it means to be a virgin, why one decided to have sex, when sex is appropriate, why being a virgin matters, and so on. The teen pregnancy prevention community is already working on web site sex education advisors, even texting based applications. Why not reach into this area? Collaborate with education/instruction technology creators?

My conclusion (based solely on this week's reading and some prior research) is that the avatar technology isn't there yet or we haven't found the right applications yet. I wouldn't go as far as labeling it a "big nothing," but I'm not yet impressed. However, this investigation did inspire one application for me professionally.

Thinking about how AWFUL video, audio and web conferences are, I wondered about ways to use avatars to address the lack of interaction and engagement. The programming capabilities of Second Life and those described in the journal articles seemed impressive. Would it be possible, I wondered, to design a very easy to use application that allows participants in on-line trainings to create simple avatars and populate a virtual classroom or meeting space? Each participant would be able to "speak" through some sort of moderation system and more importantly, respond with non-verbal cues to the speakers and/or other participants. As a participant I could "look" interested, confused, maybe even a little bored.

Having this kind of control would engage the listening participants (which I believe is the big downfall of these apps right now -- so BORING! There's nothing for me to do or engage with so I end up multi-tasking and getting distracted) and give the speaker instant feedback. Again, the ROI question would need to be addressed. The amount of time it would take me to get set up, create my avatar and learn how to use (or as a trainer -- set up the entire system!)  would need to outweigh or at least be counterbalanced by how much satisfaction I got from using it. That said, the application I propose here addresses a very real user problem/need and that, in an of itself, might be the key. For the applications discussed in the article, a real alternative exists: ask a real person!

Readings, Week 4

Adventures in homework.


Started when I decided to print out this week's reading to take on the plane to Seattle. I know, ecologically very unfriendly. And it gets worse. As usual, crunched for timing, multitasking I'm printing and realize  the queue isn't moving and I'm cursing and annoyed because I think Firefox has sent some bad stuff and crashed the printer (it happens quite a bit, actually. very frustrating) but it turns out the printer is out of paper and what I expect to be 8-10 pieces of paper is a 1.5" tall stack. And there's more to come. In printing the article:

Genderplay: Successes and Failures in Character Designs for Videogames

Posted April 16, 2003 by jane

I ended up printing 1.5" of the comments that accompanied her 5 page write up. A further indictment of my lack of imagination in printing the darn thing -- the article is chock full of great links worth pursuing. I am continually amused by my own habits and routines and how clearly they label me as the digital immigrant that I am. I did feel guilt, for what it's worth. I'm still more comfortable with paper. Go figure.



The article I killed a tree to print was written by Jane Pinckard in 2003  for her gender-attentive blog: Game+Girl=Advance. Apparently she got her blog's name from her frustration and fan appreciation for the "Game Boy." As a woman, Jane is a unique figure in the gamer world and according to this MTV bio and interview, she has worked (and might still) for a bunch of big deal gamer magazines (GamePro and Xbox Nation) and hi-tech publishing giants Ziff Davis and the CMP Game Group.

Women Working In Games: Game Girl Advance's Jane Pinckard Talks Lara Croft, Male vs. Female Gamers

Posted 12/11/07 8:46 am ET by Tracey John

I had a hard time figuring out what Jane is doing right now, but it she might be working on a new game. I had better luck tracking down the "man" she discusses in her article, who is also the blog's Managing Editor, Justin Hall (hasn't posted at the blog since 2006, tho). But he, too, seems to have some real significance in the gamer world from my cursory research. I'd heard of MMORPG: Massive multiplayer on-line role-play games but his team made a "passive" version using the Firefox browser. Intriguing, but retired now. Now they've got a FaceBook based game. His bio mentioned that he "created one of the early extensive home pages, “Justin’s Links from the Underground” in January 1994. In 2004, the New York Times Magazine referred to him as “the founding father of personal bloggers.”" Suffice to say, they are both digital natives.



It is amazing to be able to do this much research so quickly. Thank you, google. Granted, far from complete, but it is so satisfying to get a picture of the author, their experiences, orientation, perspective. I consider this a critical part of the media literacy required for our young people. As digital natives it could all too quickly become just a seemingly innocuous background -- the pretty set decorations or landscaping that you take for granted until you realize that they've been so cleverly constructed to lead you one way or another, make you interested in one path or another. Which is why I always research the people behind the stuff I read. Notice my new interest in embedding the links that I find. Such a small step, but I'm proud!



Jane's criteria for evaluating genderspace were awesome - and I want to see her basic definition "The way gender is prgrammed (sic), incorporated, and manipulated describes a "gender space"" included in the media literacy guidelines in some way. And as Jane herself points out, gender is only one consideration in this genre -- race is also a prominent area of concern.



Because who creates the content matters. Content is created with purpose, content is created intentionally.  There is no such thing as an innocuous background. It all has intent.



Which is why I always read comments -- someone always offers a joke or insight or snark that creates a new way to see or understand what I just read. It's a window on the temporary members of a conversation -- what they think and who they are. So many audience insights! So I find it fascinating and hilarious to read (ok, skim) that 1.5" stack of comments.


((The addition of comments to on-line news and blogs is one of my personal favorite web 2.0 innovations. I often find the comments better than the article, as if the article is just the appetizer and the comments the actual meal. Certainly this is a comment on me, my voyeurism, my love of debate, my fascination with hearing different perspectives -- my desire to understand how people frame the issue so that i can find a compelling way to sell my (product) agenda, meet my goal. So they are like mini-research projects in themselves and wouldn't it be great to find the time to quantify responses!))
 
And it seems that Jane's perspective is, despite it's geeky-gamer-thinker-innovator substance, still gets the largely male gamer community all riled up and so obviously in need of the tolerant and strategic Jane.

"Criticizing them (BG:DA and Tomb Raider) as if they're evidence of some pervasive air of exploitation in gaming is like holding up some schlocky teen comedy movie as an example of why American movies are immature. It's taking the rare (and rarely popular) exception and calling it a rule. They're fun to mock, but they're not really evidence of a serious problem."

 Translation: We're not involved in sexism. It's not a problem in our (male dominated) society.

"I was glad to find a link to an article about women in video games that isn't just ignorant vitriol, though. It's been awhile since I've seen an article like this that doesn't make outrageous complaints, like complaining about a scantily clad girl in a video game when one of the other playable characters is an impossibly muscular young man with an intense hatred of upper body clothing 

Translation: I'm equally hurt by their stereotypes/sexism. Feminists are bitchy and stupid.

"It's also nice to hear that pinup games like DOAXVB aren't a sexist male conspiracy that will send planet Earth into a vicious spiral of rape, murder, and, somehow, also racism. The world, and especially this discussion, could use more people with an "it's not my bag, but it's okay if it's yours" attitude."

Translation: I have absolutely no idea that gender = privilege. And I got nothing against you gals.

Posted by: DarkZero on April 17, 2003 01:11 PM

Sadly, DarkZero's perspective was not in the minority. Many comments qualified their defensive denials, they seem to like Jane and how she thinks, but it is not an issue for the majority and they are offended by the idea of it. I think they don't see it, don't think about it critically, just reflexively. For them genderspace is just a backdrop, scenery. I am relieved to know that Jane's voice is out there - calling attention to it by her presence and words.



Jane makes her case clearly, as do three generations of feminist scholarship on the topic. Our digital native youth know that they can create their own content at one level, but the highest levels of creative, artistic expression in this genre -- as is true in the motion picture and music industry -- are male dominated. I saw this myself at the advertising agency. Male creative teams were typically considered much stronger than the female teams, different product was expected from them -- work that was more out-there, explosive, cutting-edge, risky -- and this approach also reflected the essential value system of the agency: do what is new, edgy, ground breaking to win us awards and prestige. In trying to find Jane, I was sent to Foundation 9 Entertainment (gaming co.). Check out their staff page. Wanna guess how many women are there? Still couldn't find Jane, BTW. Spot-on humor from the comment's on Jane's article:

go play with your dolls. and make me a sandwich!

Posted by: manly mcman on April 17, 2003 01:35 PM

The concern over genderspace (who creates it?  with what agenda?) in video games -- and all media -- intersects with the question of the week:  Is, and if yes, and what role video games should/can/do play in the education of young people?  I wouldn't consider myself a gamer, but I've played enough to have a clue. I also appreciate the magic of programming and the art that is computer graphics.



Negative perceptions of this genre abound, and most of the public discussion focuses on the dark sides (our critics document them in the health journals that are popular among my professional acquaintances). It was interesting to see the article by Jane included in our readings and identifying a "dark side" that is only tangentially attended to by the adolescent health community. We are way more interested in obesity right now, thanks.


Both of the other readings offered the sunny side, both made a compelling affirmative case, both made some practical suggestions. I share the authors' orientation and have a vest interest in the success of their advocacy. Too often we true believers are stooped in a posture of defensiveness.



IMHO, the best sell job came from the posting at Henry Jenkin's blog "Confessions of an Aca-Fan." Jenkins is Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). The article is written by Scot Osterweil, creative director at the Education Arcade at MIT, part of the partnership that created the learning game -- "Labyrinth" -- which this article describes. In describing the game, there is much attention paid to learning styles, adolescent development, popular culture and classroom culture. I was particularly impressed at the developers dedication to the plight of the teacher and how clearly they made ease of incorporation in the curriculum a priority. It was satisfying, given my advocacy work, to see clear references to adolescent development. I cheer their recommendations for reversing the "teacher transmission of knowledge to student direction" as a way to further engage and empower the students, change/enhance the teacher's perspective of the student, and address the teacher's own time crunch issues.


The other article, The Classroom of Popular Culture: What video games can teach us about making students want to learn, James Paul Gee in this Harvard Education Letter outlines a good case for the inclusion of games in the classroom. Gee is an linguist with professional affiliations at Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Apparently gaming is a relatively newer interest of his. The parallel between achieving mastery in a video game and education was well drawn and compelling. His reporting of how video game designers were so successful at creating and using strategies that allow the player to gain skill and enjoy themselves, and the idea that it could transfer over to the classroom was impressive to the teacher on my blog chat tonight.



I resonated with his idea  "It is ironic that young people today are often exposed to more creative and challenging learning experiences in popular culture than they are in school" and find it both frightening and thrilling.



Frightening, because those popular culture learning experiences come with a price tag (in the form commercial motivations). Are these trappings just an innocuous background to young people? How critically do they examine it?



Frightening because even those wonderful gamer geeks have a hard time seeing sexism or racism in their community.


Thrilling because today, more than even before, young people can actively engage in creating that popular culture and it's content. And that can change everything.