LEISURE & CULTURE

Youth (sub)culture/s What different glasses do we have from two different texts on the topic? Nilan, P. and Feixa, C. (2006), ‘Introduction: youth hybridity and plural worlds?’, in P. Nilan and C. Feixa (eds), Global Youth? Hybrid Identities, Plural Worlds, London: Routledge Clarke, J., Hall, S., Jefferson, T. and Roberts, B. (1976), ‘Subcultures, Cultures and Class: A Theoretical Overview’, in S. Hall and T. Jefferson (eds), Resistance through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain, London: Hutchinson Subcultures vs hybridity/pluralism Why for youth field is important to look at leisure&culture? Leisure&culture is a central space for young people: – Physical as well as psychological space – Separate from family, school, structures, job, public sphere which are given spaces – Space where youth can choose who they are and create their identity – Express, live, experience, create, experiment, develop – Exercise power, space of higher autonomy

Subculture vs hybridity/pluralism Subculture is much more about group identity, it is not rigid but specific, requiring full engagement and even commitment to the group. Whereas hibridity has much more to do with individualization, creativity, pastiche of available sources. There is more mobility – you can enter and exit subcultures as you wish, and belong to more than one subculture.

Critique of the discourse What are the limits and what are the opportunities attached to Leisure&Culture as THE space? – Clarke: Subculture is not emancipatory – Nilan&Feixa: Exposes the locality as drawing limits Interaction of local and global

Critique of the discourse Locate power vs do not locate power – Clarke: Locates power Dominant and subordinate – influence, interaction Class explains the power relations – Nilan&Feixa: does not locate power it is ever present and dynamic. ORGANIC process Hegemony and periphery can interact in various ways: parallel, resistance, reactionary, subordinate, co- existing

Critique of the discourse class vs socio economic state – Clarke: Class – is it useful, is it the only lense, is it a starting point Western white male perspective – Nilan&Feixa: Adresses the highly individual trajectories

Critique of the discourse What are the limits and what are the opportunities attached to Leisure&Culture as THE space? – Clarke: Subculure is not emanicpatory – Nilan&Feixa: Exposes the locality as drawing limits Interaction of local and global

Implications for policy, practice, and research – should not see youth as rigidly defined subcategories but consider all conditions. For example, class as the point of focus. Rather combination socio-economic and individual. Certain theoretical ideas become fashionable and used as a quick fix for policy making (or research and practice too). Mainstream language of navigating the field. Instead of accumulating the theories accumulated throughout the time. Leaders (acknowledged researchers and policy makers) dictating the narrative of the field. The knowledge production is affected; the approach to policy making. Interdisciplinary discourse is hegemonic discourse making others look unfashionable.

Participation and dialogue to empower young people to maintain/create THE winning SPACES for young people. Youth work, policy, and research must maintain flexibility. Is culture top down or bottom up? Youth workers and policy makers support the access (in way of competencies, technology, etc). Also participatory research can fulfill this role too.

Moral stance affects the objectivity of policy making, research, as well as youth work. Focus on understanding the reasons behind the phenomenons and behaviours, rather than describing and passing judgement. Concepts can help to understand the meaning young people give to their experience. Feixa&Nilan exposes the need to expand research tools and methods; Sensitivity to local context is important. Furthermore, having constant data in order to make use of knowledge produced over time.