In my last post I wondered where the arts had gone wrong in not only attracting young people but also our culture as a whole.
My students informed me that the arts (particularly visual art which is my field of study) couldn’t hold a candle to either participating or watching sports because:
Playing sports is an adrenaline rush
Playing sports builds sportsmanship and character
Playing sports stresses the importance of working with a group towards achieving a goal
Playing sports is a great form of exercise
Playing sports could get you a college scholarship
Playing sports could lead to a professional career and the opportunity to make lots of money
Watching sports is a great form of relaxation
Watching sports provides an opportunity to follow your favorite team or player
Watching sports builds friendship
Watching sports is just exciting
(Numbers 1, 5 and 6 in boldwere the responses most often given.)
What do you think of their list? Is it a list that should be expected from high school students? Would a list from adults be different?
I sit in my classroom listening to my high school students talk passionately about sports: favorite players, beloved teams and the most recent game. I listen to their big dreams of getting scholarships to play in college and (because of their street-born skills, of course) moving on to play professionally. In light of the harsh statistics associated with the actual percentage of students who really go on to play professionally, I remain sorrowfully (and silently) skeptical of such dreams. But, you never know what the Lord has in store for anyone.
While listening in recently, I found myself questioning why sports and not art. If I merely go off what my students tell me, it’s sheer boredom. Art can’t compare to the excitement received from playing football, basketball or baseball. Nor does it compare to watching sports. But is that all there is to it?
Before I posit my thoughts, I’m wondering if this post sparks any thoughts for you?
As I reflect upon the resounding (and expected) victory of Barack Obama in his bid for the Presidency, I am piggy-backing upon my thoughts from my last post. I commented that there was a high degree of emotionalism that drove Obama’s campaign both in political and popular circles. I want to undergird that statement with a couple of other thoughts on why I think Obama so resoundingly won.
First, I think Republican hubris played a huge role in the Democrat (and Obama’s) rise to power. Beginning in 2006 with losses in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans began their steady downward spiral to where they are today. They squandered their opportunity when they were in the same position that the Dems will be in after January. They, ironically, conducted themselves as traditional Democrats and increased the size of government, violating that and other core conservative values. They appeared to believe themselves untouchable. Sadly, they found out they weren’t.
George Bush, in his last four years in office, also squandered much (though hampered in the last two years with an oppositional House and Senate). He simply didn’t do much to further conservative thought and remained, in my mind, aloof as the figurehead of the Republican party. The public’s view of him as everything wrong with our country (not a fair estimate, but understandable) hurt any chance for a Republican to take office. (Ironically, we’ll see how the Dems spin the fact that they have control of both Houses and the Presidency but ALSO have such low approval ratings—even lower than Bush’s.)
Second, and most importantly, I believe the election of Barack Obama had much to do with the failure of the Church to effectively communicate its message to it’s own people. Yes, I didn’t say communicate its message to the World, but to its OWN people—both black and white. While I recently heard that polls indicate that the African-American vote helped Obama, it didn’t put him over the top. There wasn’t a significant increase, overall, in the number of black voters (with the increase coming from in younger voters). Rather, it was white independents and moderates who elected Barack Obama. Nevertheless, I find two points interesting.
First, the African-American community as a whole votes very traditionally on issues such as family and abortion. Ironically, they selected a candidate who is anything but traditional. Did the A-A community know Obama’s stances and voting history on these core moral issues? Or, was it more that they chose to overlook it—much like most of America—in favor of economy and the prize of having a black President? My own experience in urban education leads me to believe that they abdicated their role as salt and light to the World in favor of race. That’s a harsh statement, but, as I indicated, it holds true to what I hear consistently in my all-minority school.
As I indicated previously, polls show that moderates and independents won this election for Obama. Most of those were white. The present state of the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches also shows a clear willingness to PUT ASIDE mandates about life and the family in favor of progressive politics. After all, in their view, times change and the Word of God is a book written by men that must be revisited as society evolves.
I wonder what would happen if evangelical churches made their focus—over the next four years—one of educating their congregations about the core values of the Christian church. Because the Church has a different vocabulary—a different way of looking at the World—our account of life and meaning is vastly different. I have to agree with Robert Lewis Wilken:
Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture, because in recent generations this culture has become dangerously thin. At this moment in the Church’s history in this country (and in the West more generally) it is less urgent to convince the alternative culture in which we live of the truth of Christ than it is for the Church to tell itself its own story and to nurture its own life, the culture of the city of God, the Christian republic.
I can’t help but wonder what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections if the Church was grounded in this way.
I’ve been reflecting more earnestly these past two weeks as students have been talking more openly about their reasons for voting for Obama. Obviously, I’ve been listening for quite some time now, but the past two weeks—the last few days in particular—have been particularly poignantly. Frankly, I’ve listened (and read) Obama’s words and been intrigued as to what is so new and hopeful about him personally and his message professionally.
If you do a cursory examination of ads and political paraphernalia from the recent past, you’ll notice that during the recent past principles such as “hope” and “change” are dominant. This has caused me to ponder why this particular candidate has infused such words with so much more meaning as to win the election with so little experience and such damaging rhetoric.
It’s the conversations I’ve listened in on and participated in that has given me my answer and that answer rests in pure emotionalism. I know that sounds simplistic but the complicated answers about the sensibility of his political stances don’t make sense. No, I ground my argument not in politics because, frankly, the average American doesn’t care much for politics. I think it’s also clear just from the complexity that we’ve allowed our political systems to become mired under. After all, who has time to research all that the candidates truly stand for? Even the sites which purport to be nonpartisan fact-checking sites are proving to be less than genuine.
Rather, my argument is founded in pop cultures’ fascination with the image and the new. When my students go off about Obama, the point is clear that they’re not interested in answers as to why I can’t vote for him. Rather, they are more keen on emotionalism and vitriol. Once again, this spirit isn’t new with this election. Our election process has become all about promises that neither candidate can deliver on.
And, it’s the emotionalism of today that has people flocking to Obama instead of reflecting on the potential damages his policies will be for generations to come.
Is it just me or is it really just hypocritical that people get bent out of shape over NCLB (No Child Left Behind) whereas the SAT has been around for (seemingly) forever? Ok, NCLB is about federal funds but the principle remains the same, right?
It all comes down to a single test being the defining piece of information about your ability to perform well in college (and, to some, life).
Has anyone wondered where the arts went wrong?
Subscribe to My Blog
