No More Thoughts and Prayers: What the Performance of Youth Protest In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSN 2040-2228 Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2020 Drama Research: international journal of drama in education Article 6 No More Thoughts and Prayers: What the Performance of Youth Protest in Real-World and Online Communities Might Tell Us About the Future of Theatre for and with Young People in the United States of America. Amy Jensen National Drama Publications www.nationaldrama.org.uk/journal/ [email protected] www.nationaldrama.org.uk Drama Research Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2020 No More Thoughts and Prayers: What the Performance of Youth Protest in Real-World and Online Communities Might Tell Us About the Future of Theatre for and with Young People in the United States of America. _____________________________________________________________________ Amy Jensen Abstract In this paper I consider where we as drama and theatre educators and youth theatre professionals place our bodies and with whom we build our affective ties. This desire grows out of my observation that institutionally we make more theatre for young audiences than we do theatre with young people acting as co-creators and full collaborators in the United States. Using the youth response to the Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018 I make the case that our institutions need to reimagine more inclusive relationships with young people in ways that value their capacities as agents of change. Key Words: Youth, Centennials, Change Agents, Co-Creation, Collaboration, Authorship, Ownership, Community, Identity, Affective ties. Article 6 No More Thoughts and Prayers 2 Drama Research Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2020 Introduction ‘We are challenged to forge connections across borders of difference within our communities and around the globe. We can no longer rely on some benign sense of ‘sameness’ to build our identities and serve as the basis of our communities’ (Rowe and Licona 2005). I am a mother of eighteen-year-old twin daughters. I am a fifty-year-old Caucasian, cisgender woman. I have a partner of thirty years. I’m a daughter and a sister. I reside in the Western United States at the base of a beautiful mountain range. Additionally, I am an academic who thinks about youth and digital media and performance. Truthfully, I have less time to think about adolescents and performance these days because I am also an administrator at my university where I spend much of my time leading college meetings and completing university paperwork. Frustratingly, those careful thoughts about young people are often at the margins of my other work. These sentences only describe some of me. I am also a part of a civic community, a religious community, an academic community, a theatre community, a hiking community, and so on. It’s from all of these contexts I have read and re-read Aimee Carrillo Rowe’s essay, ‘Be Longing: Toward a Feminist Politics of Relation’ (2005: 15-46). I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what the essay teaches me about my own belonging(s), and about our collective belonging(s) as a field of theatre educators concerned with youth. Carrillo Rowe begins her essay with the assertion that ‘[W]ho we love is political’ (she means who and love in the broadest sense), and she further articulates that, ‘The sites of our belonging constitute how we see the world, what we value, who we are (becoming)…. The meaning of self,’ she says, ‘… is never individual, but a shifting set of relations that we move in and out of, often without reflection’ (2005:16). Carrillo Rowe confides in readers that she has often resided in spaces where she has shifted and changed as a part of the environment and the people within it. However, she notes that she has still thought of herself as singular despite the adaptation in environs and people. Carrillo Rowe describes this mode as ineffective in our contemporary moment. She makes the point that we can no longer live lone and adjacent to each other. Instead she invites us to adopt a ‘politics of relation’ in which the social and political conditions that shape our belongings are more visible and intertwined. She says, ‘A politics of relation is not striving toward absolute alterity to the self, but rather to tip the concept of ‘subjectivity’ away from ‘individuality,’ and in the direction of the inclination toward the other so that ‘being’ is constituted not first through the ‘Self,’ but through its own longings to be with’ (2005:17). What matters, then, is where we place our bodies, and with whom we build our affective ties. Article 6 No More Thoughts and Prayers 3 Drama Research Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2020 Theatre for and with Young People. In this article I want to consider where we, as theatre educators and youth theatre professionals, place our bodies and with whom we build our affective ties. This desire grows out of my observation that we make more theatre for young audiences than we do theatre with young people. In the United States the Theatre Education and the Theatre for Young Audiences field has been historically populated primarily by educated, Caucasian women. While this is slowly changing, many in our field look and sound like me (especially as I described myself earlier). If we identify our collective longings for our field we state that we want to serve young people and children using theatre. For example, the American Alliance for Theatre in Education’s mission statement reads, ‘[AATE] serves and inspires a growing collective of theatre artists, educators, and scholars committed to transforming young people and communities through the theatre arts’ (see https://www.aate.com/mission-vision-values). Similarly, the TYA/USA website states that the membership organisation ‘…serves and represents the national field of the theatre for young audiences’ by promoting artistic excellence, advocating a national awareness of the impact that theatre has on children and families, and cultivating diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field (online at http://www.tyausa.org/about-tyausa/). These statements represent our desires: to make art for young people, to advocate for young people, to transform young people’s lives, but they also represent our lack. Based on our own mission statements, young people themselves border our work. We may flank them, but we have not yet institutionally intermingled our work with their work. This means that their cultural, social, emotional, and political concerns are usually not fully represented in our field and are instead filtered through our individual and collective perspectives. (To speak frankly and honestly, this article is an example of my exact concern.) I believe that we would be better institutionally and individually if we figured out new ways to primarily work with young people. To this end I hope to identify some of the qualities that Centennials, or those born after the advent of the 21st century (also identified as GenZ, iGen, digital natives, and etc.) possess and then draw some conclusions about how we might build a better collaborative coalition with them. To do this I will first outline some ways that we might learn from and draw on a portion of Positive Youth Development literature. Then I will identify how some of the questions asked within the field of Positive Youth Development might better help us to view our youth as allies in the further development of our ideas and practice. Article 6 No More Thoughts and Prayers 4 Drama Research Vol. 11 No. 1 April 2020 What We Might Learn from Positive Youth Development Models In 2006 Louise B. Jennings and her colleagues introduced a framework that identified six key dimensions of youth empowerment. The framework grew out of their analysis of existing positive youth development and empowerment action research which at that point placed value on young people’s active community participation (Kim 1998), youth gaining control and mastery of themselves within pertinent contexts (Rapport 1987, Zimmerman 2000), and adolescents receiving affirmation and reinforcement from adults (Chinman and Linney 1998). Building on these values Jennings et. al. define empowerment in the context of their framework as ‘…a multi-level construct consisting of practical approaches and applications, social action processes, and individual and collective outcomes’ (2006:32). For them empowerment refers to ‘individuals, families, organisations, and communities gaining control and mastery, within the social, economic, and political contexts of their lives, in order to improve equity and quality of life.’ (2006:32). The framework establishes six baseline attributes that lead to healthy youth empowerment within organisations and communities. The structural characteristics they include are: • a welcoming, safe environment, • meaningful participation and engagement, • equitable power-sharing between youth and adults, engagement in critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes, • participation in sociopolitical processes to affect change, and • integrated individual- and community-level empowerment …. with discussion of the measurement of outcomes, and the challenges and opportunities for empowerment in youth organisation. Within the last decade positive youth development (PYD) and empowerment scholars have added nuance to this baseline. Here are a few examples. Redmond and Dolan (2014) call on thought leaders and practitioners to more thoroughly consider environmental conditions in which youth partnerships develop. They state that: ‘Having the right environmental conditions is necessary for the development of youth leadership. This can be conceptualized as