IMPLICATIONS

Public spheres are critical for individual development because they reflect societal norms; they are spaces where public opinions are formed and presented, and where participation and discourse are encouraged, both by peers and authority figures. Through their actions, teenagers determine not only their individual proclivities, but how they fit into society and negotiate their own identities. This is probably the best argument for a certain amount of museum control and association as representing a hegemonic position. Yet we must be suspect of the “bracketing” of teen content when brought into the museum space. Craig Calhoun states,

…this bracketing of differences also undermines the self-reflexive capacity of public discourse. If it is impossible to communicate seriously about basic differences among members of a public sphere, then it will be impossible also to address the difficulties of communication across such lines of basic difference (2006, p. 272).

How is it possible to forge individual creativity and identity within a larger collective (institutional) space that also has its own firmly established identity? Warner believes this tension between both identities and spaces is necessary and productive, and that emancipation can be achieved not by reason or education, but rather by his notion of “poetic world making” that is the performative dimension of public discourse. Through the “pragmatics of its speech genres,” Warner allows for individualization, subjectivity, and “recharacterization.” Supporting the need to remain integrated into the museum institution, Warner declares,

A public seems to be self-organized by discourse but in fact requires preexisting forms and channels of circulation. It appears to be open to indefinite strangers but in fact selects participants by criteria of shared social space…, habitus, topical concerns, intergeneric references, and circulating intelligible forms… (2002, p. 106).

The many concrete values of museum teen websites include instilling a sense of community and responsibility to a larger public, both the museum institution and the largely anonymous public of the Internet. This is achieved through collaboration, dialogue, and social networking, both face-to-face and virtually, providing the valuable skills needed for a “deliberative democracy” (Asen, 2004). Both Asen and Robert Putnam (2000), in his well-known book Bowling Alone, discuss how citizenship engagement is necessary for democratic societies, formed through the acts of “generativity, risk, commitment, creativity, and sociability.” Pluralism is prized within a democracy, and respect for pluralist ideas, opinions, and backgrounds is generated by these sites that present various examples of teens’ “amateur” artwork, diverse opinions, and creative choices. Empowering youth (whom Putnam identifies as being less civic-minded) with the production of these sites, with a certain amount of control over some decisions, and with the creation of interviews, podcasts, and curating exhibitions, teaches them to become more active and involved in public acts, helping to produce a more engaged citizenry with strongly developed leadership skills.

In their recent MacArthur Foundation paper (2007), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Henry Jenkins et al. present a list of literacies that youth need for the 21st century (play, performance, simulation, appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, judgment, networking, negotiation, transmedia navigation, collective intelligence). Jenkins describes these literacies as “cultural competencies and social skills” for a participatory culture where the focus has shifted to community involvement, collaboration, and networking. Furthermore, he calls for “policy and pedagogical interventions” in order to foster these literacies, specifically mentioning schools, afterschool programs, and parents. We can add the institution of museums to this list as a space for informal learning, and one that is already engaging youth in a comprehensive manner. Jenkins states, “Everyone involved in preparing young people to go out into the world has contributions to make in helping students acquire the skills they need to become full participants in our society.”