A few weeks ago, I went to a really interesting talk by Wess Daniels on Quakers and mission at the lovely Friends Church of Berkeley. Wess is a doctoral student and a released minister from Camas Friends Church in Washington. I really had not idea what to expect, other than the fact that a cross-section of Friends from a number of different Quaker Meetings and Churches would likely be there.
Wess made a number of interesting points that I'm sure other Quakers who were there will be recounting on their blogs. I wanted to focus on the part that was most relevant to me, his comparison of "participatory culture" and Quakerism.
Wess's thesis is that participatory culture can help us to better understand the role of Quakers in the role, our "mission" as seekers of the Light. As a Quaker who has spent a good part of his career focusing on participatory culture, and seeking personal direction, it was like Wess was speaking directly to my condition.
I won't try to summarize Wess's points in detail, which I won't do justice to. Wess explained some of the basic attributes of participatory culture, as described by folks like Henry Jenkins and Pierre Levy, including "remix," "collective intelligence," and "alternative social community." He then went through these attributes to explain how much these aligns with Quaker spirituality and community.
I think that Wess has many valid points and compelling arguments about how Quakers have been a countercultural force for much of our history, and how that informs how we see our own role in the world today. I found a lot of sense in his argument that Quakers have always challenged heirarchical religious authorities of the day, in a similar sense that creators of online media challenge the more centralized channels of mass media. And our communities are formed through the practice of Quakerism, which can be seen as analagous to how fanfic, machinima, or 8-bit music communities are formed through the process of media production.
That said, I think it is much less clear what lesson participatory culture teaches to Quakers about how to impact the world. Much of the new kinds of civic engagement that emerges from digital culture has to do with remixing popular tropes and products and remixing them in ways that entertain, inform and spur to action. For example, check out what happens when environmentalists produce their own videos about the Chevy Tahoe SUV using the Chevrolet company's own video creation tools! Or witness Harry Potter fans taking their love of this popular escapist fantasy and using it to spur action on real world crises like in Haiti and Darfur.
By contrast, my experience of Quakers has been of a people who are largely, and proudly, divorced from popular culture. I know many Quakers, myself included, who don't own televisions, Quakers who don't listen to current popular music, don't go to the movies except to see documentaries, don't spend much time online except to get emails from FCNL. A good example you could see among the many Quakers at Wess's talk who didn't know what fanfic, zines, or mashups were.
While these sorts of disconnections from common culture might make us smarter, perhaps even wiser, I don't know if they do much to connect us to others in our larger communities we live in. Are we literally speaking a different language that will not speak to the condition of those around us? As many of the new forms of activism and political discourse move online to FaceBook, Twitter, and the blogosphere, are we still just picketing for peace in the town square?
From my perspective as a blogger and a virtual world educator, I of course am convinced that Quakers can useful engage the world with their message through participatory culture. If anything, the current environment of participatory online culture is a much better environment for Quakers to spread their message to the world than the mass media channels of broadcast television, cinema or long-form print publications. So the question for myself becomes, how can I as a Friend help other Quakers usefully contribute to the larger online culture in ways that express our values and invite others into our radical community?
For more Quaker commentary and discussion around Wess Daniel's talk on Quakers and mission, see Wess's website, Robin Mohr's blog, and Lisa H's two posts about Quakers and remix (one and two).
I think my favorite tweet of the day was yours – about how Wess had to explain remix, zines and realized eschatology in the same session. I felt so hip and with it that I knew all the words, even if I’m not really in touch with any of them.
I think that there are Quakers who engage in more popular culture than they admit at Meeting, and there are more people who would be Quakers if it didn’t mean they had to hide their affinity for various elements of pop culture.
For me, one of the important things is the aha moment when I realize that I don’t have to take pop culture as is – that I can participate, can flip the meaning, can remix the pieces that speak to me with my own critique and enthusiasm (shedding Light on the situation, so to speak).
Rik – it was a real pleasure to meet you during QHD and I really appreciated that you are far more an insider to this stuff than even I am. Thanks for all your stimulating questions and ideas and thanks for this great review.
In terms of your last question. I guess that parts kind of for each of us in our particular settings to figure out! 😉
I think leadership in using participatory culture to impact the world is likely to come from young Friends, so I’ve been thinking lately about how that might work. One idea is “Q-Tube”: young Friends creating short videos describing why they are Quakers or exploring how the testimonies or other aspects of Quaker faith and practice guide them in their lives.
I recently served as an Quaker adult presence at a high school gathering of young Friends and was really impressed with how articulate, thoughtful, heartfelt and engaged these folks were, not to mention loving and fun-loving. I came away uplifted and inspired and much encouraged about the future of Quakerism.
I couldn’t quite tell how close to popular culture these young people are living. I didn’t stay long enough, didn’t get to know them well enough. But I imagine they’re way more involved than many of us older Friends, and that we might soon see some creative work bubbling up.
This brings to mind the early Friends as Publishers of Truth, and Wess’ mention of the sheer quantity of tracts by Quakers. I can’t remember where or when I heard that at one time 1/4 of the English were Quakers; whether or not that’s accurate, we must have been very visible.
The other times I can think of when Quakers have been very visible are:
— during the abolition and women’s suffrage movements (lots of public speaking, demonstrations, going to jail);
— during and after World War II (feeding the Germans, assisting Japanese Americans who were in internment camps, civilian service by conscientious objectors, AFSC winning the Nobel Peace Prize);
— during the Vietnam War (draft counseling, peace vigils, enough organizing and protests for the FBI to amass huge files on us).
Much of this work has involved responding to need, speaking out bravely, defying government on moral grounds, joining in coalition with people of other faiths. I think we still do these things, but more on an individual basis than en masse. Are we waiting for our meetings to approve some kind of common witness? Did we do the work I’ve listed above as meetings, or as individuals with leadings?
When else have we been visible? How are we visible now?
I think you’re right that online participatory culture is a good way to voice our concerns. But where do we need to show up to participate with others, to be mutually heard, to address real needs, to stand up in ways that make a difference?