Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

Creating a Positive View

By Ellen D.B. Riggle, PhD

As an academic researcher, I have typically taught and written  about things that would depress and scare ordinary people (actually, these things depress and scare me too):  depression and anxiety, psychological abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, violent attacks, discrimination and everyday prejudice.  I discuss these topics in the context of the stresses that people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) face and have to cope with.  It seems that in my academic training, I was taught to focus on negative issues.  Implicitly I was taught that if nothing is “wrong” then everything must be okay, and we don’t need to talk about that.

Focusing on “what’s wrong” is important.  For example, the current focus on the violence and psychological abuse associated with bullying is essential to providing all children and adults with a safe environment for living their lives.  We are all responsible for solving this problem so we all need to be talking about it.  But in focusing on what’s wrong, sometimes we forget to also focus on “what’s right.” 

 “What’s right” are stories that often get ignored or that just aren’t seen as interesting enough to make the news.  A case in point:  my friends, two women who have been partners for decades and are devoted parents and now grandparents, spend their time and energy acting as mentors and positive role models for young LGBT people and their allies in the pursuit of social justice -- they don’t make the news.  The Rhode Island Catholic Bishop who opposes marriage equality by stating that “homosexual activity is immoral, an offense to God, a serious sin” – he makes the news.  This creates an imbalance in the messages that we are exposed to and impacts the stories that come to mind when we think about LGBT lives.

If we are to successfully address issues such as stigmatization, bullying and other public health risks for LGBT people, we must create a culture that, on a regular basis, celebrates instead of denigrates LGBT lives. How do we change this imbalance of messages and create a celebratory culture?  One way to address this challenge is to share the positive stories of LGBT lives.  In our research with over a thousand LGBT people, we have heard stories of personal growth and life lessons that can benefit us all.  We have heard stories about the benefits of living an authentic life and how that brings people closer to their family and friends.  We have heard stories from many people about the importance of being flexible and creative in relationships with their partners so that both partners flourish.  We have heard about how people develop compassion for others and engage in work or volunteer activities to support and benefit people in need.  All of these actions come from positive qualities that people associate with their LGBT identities. 

Our personal stories have power over how we define our own lives and they have power when we share them with others.  Talking with others about the positive aspects of LGBT identities, recognizing the benefits of these identities in individual lives and the life of our communities, is an important part of creating a celebratory culture.  Sharing stories of LGBT lives will help to re-balance and re-focus the conversations that people have. 

Ellen D.B. Riggle is Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies and Political Science at the University of Kentucky.  She is co-author of A Positive View of LGBTQ: Embracing Identity and Cultivating Well-Being.  For more information about her research, go to www.PrismResearch.org.

The Mind and its Minders

By Michael J. Reznicek M.D.

The history of psychology is littered with fads and fallacies: the four humors of Hippocrates, phrenology, Freudianism and behaviorism to name a few. More recently we’ve seen the “biochemical imbalance” theory of emotional problems, which has led to a robust pharmaceutical industry to “treat” imbalances.

These seemingly disparate movements share a similar perspective on mental life, namely, that the mind is controlled by mechanistic forces. Whether the forces are hormones, genes, unconscious dynamics, reflexes or neurotransmitters, human consciousness has always been viewed as a byproduct. According to the theory, you may think you’ve been making independent decisions in life, but in reality you’ve been a marionette, performing a scripted dance.

In college I remember thinking that many psychological theories bore an uncanny resemblance to Marxism: reductionistic explanations of human behavior followed by grand prescriptions that seemed to benefit the theorists more than they helped the stated beneficiaries. Centrally-planned economies fail because they misjudge human nature. Creativity and productivity flourish only when there is political and economic freedom. When people feel they can control their destiny, they begin to create it.

Modern psychology is on the cusp of a scientific revolution, and it’s long overdue. Neuroscience has recently shown that the brain is highly plastic and constantly changes to meet the demands that individuals place on themselves. Challenge yourself mentally or physically and your brain will adapt to improve your efficiency and accuracy.

The field of genetics is also undergoing a revolution. Both thoughts and behaviors can open access to genes, which then send instructions throughout the body to reinforce whatever it is we are doing. This heretofore unknown function—what we call “epigenetics”—appears to mediate the plasticity we find in the brain. It’s now more accurate to say that the mind controls biology, rather than vice versa.

In my book, Blowing Smoke: Rethinking the War on Drugs without Prohibition and Rehab, I address one area of old-school psychology—the disease model of addictions—and argue that it neither fits nor helps the problem of drug abuse. Neuroscience and the Berlin Wall teach us something important about the human condition: people thrive when they are not held back. After working with many substance abusers, I’m convinced most of them would move toward moderation if we quit telling them they are diseased, and instead give them their freedom.

Michael J. Reznicek , M.D., is a clinical psychiatrist in Washington state with over 20 years of experience. He has practiced in the military, in hospital-based community settings, in prisons and in state hospitals. He has been a guest on numerous talk-radio shows at the local, national, and international levels to discuss drug abuse.

Addicted to Addictions

By David J. Ley

A few weeks ago, a woman came up to me after a presentation I had given, on why I believed sex addiction was a dangerous myth. She was in tears, as she told me about her son whom she had lost about a decade ago to the ravages of alcoholism. She told me that near the end of his life, her son was in a very expensive private-pay treatment facility, and called her up to ask if he had ever been sexually abused.

As this mother told me this story, and disclosed this part, a look of anguish creased her face. “I told him that I didn’t think he ever was, and he told me that at the facility, therapists had told him that not only was he an alcoholic, but that he was a sex addict as well. And that his sex addiction must have come from being sexually abused.”

The lady’s son sadly died a few weeks after that, from complications related to his severe substance abuse. For a decade, this poor woman has lived with tremendous fear and guilt, guilt that her son might have been sexually abused, something she didn’t prevent, or even know about. She was anguished that the unknown abuse, and her apparent unknowing neglect, might  have contributed to her son’s tragic life and loss.

I was the first person this woman ever heard, who said that sex addiction was a myth, a moralizing and unsubstantiated label that people throw around callously and casually. I gave her some peace, she told me, because for the first time in a decade, she could see that her son probably hadn’t been abused, and wasn’t addicted to sex. These therapists were merely riding the train of sex addiction, throwing that diagnosis at anything they could lasso with it, regardless of the consequences. If they could convince her son that he wasn’t just an alcoholic, but a sex addict too, what did they get out of it? Who knows? Maybe money. Or maybe they just saw every problem in the young man’s life as a form of addiction, and threw that label around to impress themselves.

A few decades or so ago, therapists believed they could recover memories of abuse, uncover buried memories of sexual, physical and even satanic abuse, in their patients. Because they saw symptoms they thought were related to a history of abuse, it didn’t matter that the patient said “Hey, I wasn’t ever abused.” But it turned out the patients were right and the therapists wrong. Lives were ruined, people went to jail and families were devastated because of the therapist’s well-intended arrogance.

They thought they were helping. But hundreds of lawsuits and settlements have now shown that those therapists hurt people. The myth of sex addiction hurts people too. This is why I’m challenging it every chance I can get. To demand that these therapists be responsible with the power they wield over people’s lives and fears.

David J. Ley is a clinical psychologist in practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He provides clinical and consultative services in numerous other states. Dr. Ley currently serves as Executive Director of a large outpatient behavioral health agency in Albuquerque and maintains a current caseload of clients. He is the author of The Myth of Sex Addiction and   Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them.

Religious Freedom and the Obama Contraceptive Mandate

By Stephen V. Monsma

An on-going controversy concerns the Obama administration’s attempt to mandate that under the new Affordable Care Act employers’ health insurance plans must include contraceptive coverage.  And contraceptive coverage is defined broadly enough to include sterilization procedures and what some consider abortifacients.  This has aroused the strong opposition of the Catholic Church—which has long opposed artificial birth control as a violation of its religious beliefs—and some evangelical Protestant groups, largely on the basis of the inclusion of what they consider abortifacients. 

Those who oppose the contraceptive mandate are claiming their religious freedom rights are being violated, since the mandate would require them to act in violation of their deeply-held religious beliefs.  Others claim that this a public health issue, not a religious freedom issue, since  assuring that contraceptives are readily available will protect women from unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.  As a recent columnist in the New York Times wrote, “[T]he provision of preventive services without a co-pay does not interfere with a religious practice or ceremony.” 

This controversy—which has generated much heat and is likely to continue to do so throughout this election year—largely turns on one’s understanding of what constitutes a religious organization or a religious practice.   We all cringe at the thought of a government edict telling St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York how it is to celebrate the mass or who may or may not officiate at the mass.  We all recognize this would be a violation of the religious freedom rights we all hold dear.  The organization in this example (St. Patrick’s Cathedral) is clearly accepted by all as a religious organization and the practice (the celebration of the mass) as a religious practice. 

 But this agreement breaks down and the controversy explodes when the organization is not a religious congregation in the traditional sense and the practice does not involve a religious ritual or ceremony.  What about a nonprofit spouse abuse program that was begun by an evangelical Protestant church, is still largely supported by church members, and explicitly states that it is providing services in obedience to Jesus Christ and in his name?  Is it a religious organization?  And are the volunteers and staff who counsel with and offer help to women who have been abused and preyed upon engaging in a religious act? Or what about a Catholic college that takes its religious commitment seriously and seeks to understand the world within the context of historic Catholic thought and reflection?  Is it a religious organization?  And is a professor who seeks to apply Catholic social teaching in her sociology course engaged in a religious act?

As I explain in my book, Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organizations in a Democratic Society, for historic reasons Americans, and especially the educated elite, tend to exclude as religious organizations and religious practices organizations and practices outside of religious congregations and their core religious rituals and ceremonies.  But such a narrow view of religion is untenable.  It is inaccurate to say that when the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., led African American demonstrators out of their churches and into the streets in defense of racial justice he changed from a religious leader to a secular leader.  An official statement the National Association of Evangelicals testifies to its belief that its faith not only encompasses acts of love and mercy but demands them: “Jesus said that those who do not care for the needy and the imprisoned will depart eternally from the living God.”  The nature of religion as extending beyond the confines of church and synagogue was clearly summarized by Robert Bellah and his associates in their classic, Habits of the Heart, when they wrote:  “Yet religion, and certainly biblical religion, is concerned with the whole of life—with social, economic, and political matters as well as with private and personal ones.” 

To me, this means that when a governmental edict clashes with faith-based organizations’ thought-out, long-held, religiously-based beliefs and practices, our public policies should do all they can to accommodate those beliefs and practices.  This is what protects the pluralism and diversity to which we as a society claim to aspire.

Coming back to the current controversy over the contraceptive mandate, this means no church should seek to force its view of contraceptives onto all of society; no government mandate should seek to force faith-based organizations to provide contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs.  Religious liberty and religious freedom rights are indeed at stake here.  We as a people have long lived together with our deepest differences by each group respecting those with whom it does not agree and allowing them, to the fullest extent possible in keeping with public health and safety, to follow their beliefs.  My book mentioned earlier suggests that we need to renew this commitment and broaden it to include the host of educational, health, and social service faith-based organizations that continue to contribute much to our life together.

 

About the author:

Stephen V. Monsma is a senior research fellow at the Henry Institute at Calvin College and professor of political science emeritus at Pepperdine University. He is the author of numerous works for faith-based organizations and church and state relations, including Faith, Hope, and Jobs and Putting Faith in Partnerships.

Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss!

Oh, the Thinks You Can Think!

Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Seuss by sharing a great book which explores the philosophical and moral dilemmas often found in his stories. 

Since Theodore Geisel published his first children's book in 1937 under the pseudonym Dr. Seuss, children and adults alike have been captivated by the charming and laconic tales of whimsical characters and imaginative worlds. But Dr. Seuss' stories are more than just catchy poems; they often wrestle with serious philosophical and moral dilemmas, whether it is Horton discovering the very essence of life or the Lorax teaching us about morality. Dr. Seuss and Philosophy Oh the Thinks You Can Think! explores philosophical concepts such as the nature of the good life in Oh the Places You'll Go, the nature of knowledge in McElligot's Pool, Postmodernity in On Beyond Zebra, business and the environment in The Lorax, and moral character in How the Grinch Stole Christmas, among many others. Anyone who loves Dr. Seuss or is interested in philosophy will find this book to be intriguing and enlightening.

Learn more about the book, here.

The Messages in President Obama’s Spotify Playlist

By Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper 

Now that 2012 is upon us, so is another presidential election. Barack Obama is seeking a second term as the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, and four candidates are currently vying for the Republican Party nomination. There are many strategic decisions which these politicians make to promote their candidacies, including crafting inspiring speeches, offering eloquent answers to interview questions, and creating patriotic backdrops at campaign events. For as long as there have been American presidential elections, one of the candidates’ quadrennial considerations has also been selection of the right music.

President Obama made news on February 9th when he announced his campaign’s Spotify playlist. For those not familiar with Spotify, it is an online music service that streams songs to members of the website. President Obama released his playlist in 2012 in much the same way that he announced his iPod playlist during his 2008 candidacy. Playlists such as this can send powerful messages to the electorate, as they can transmit political ideas or associate a candidate with a notable musical celebrity. With this in mind, let’s have a look at a few of the 28 songs on President Obama’s Spotify playlist.

One of the more notable selections is Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.” President Obama previously sang the first few bars of this song at an appearance in the Apollo Theater in New York City on January 19th. Although originally written as a romantic song when first released by Green in the early 1970s, the song’s title and hook offer a powerful message from an incumbent president to the voters: vote for me, so that we can mutually continue along the path we are on now.

A second song choice by President Obama that musically asks for another opportunity to serve the country is U2’s “Even Better than the Real Thing.” In multiple places the overarching message is that the listener will be satisfied by giving the singer one more chance. The song goes on to refer to its audience as the real thing and even better than that. This can be interpreted as a way to “pump up” supporters of the President. Again, like “Let’s Stay Together,” the lyrics of “Even Better than the Real Thing” were clearly originally written with romantic intent, but the key catchy parts of the song can be co-opted to express relevant political messages.

REO Speedwagon’s “Roll with the Changes” exemplifies another important political theme for President Obama. The title of this tune harkens back to one of the President’s major campaign slogans from 2008: Change we can believe in. The lyrics go on to tell the listener that the singer is available when the listener is ready to move along with the changes that lay ahead. The lyrics also tell the listener that the tables have turned, and they imply that the darkest hour has passed. Certainly, one could see this as a message from President Obama that the economy is on the mend and things are getting better because of the changes he has implemented.

The songs a campaign chooses can also be used to thwart the message of the political opposition. One song on President Obama’s playlist that does this is “No Nostalgia” by Ages and Ages. Recently, Republican candidates have expressed a message that the country is on the wrong path, and only they can restore America to its past greatness. The hook of “No Nostalgia” takes aim at this notion, claiming that instead of looking to the past we should concentrate on the promise of what our country is now and can become in the future.

Of course, one must be careful not to read too much into these lyrics and song choices. Still, there is no doubt that President Obama and those working on his reelection campaign thought long and hard about which songs to release. Ultimately, song choice is an important consideration for presidential campaigns. The right song can become a memorable way to express important political messages. On the other hand, the wrong songs can muddle a campaign message, and key song omissions can lead to hurt feelings among those who were musically snubbed.

____________________

About the authors: Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper are the authors of Don't Stop Thinking about the Music: The Politics of Songs and Musicians in Presidential Campaigns.  Benjamin Schoening is Assistant Professor of Music at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and music director of the Red Cedar Choir in Rice Lake.  Eric T. Kasper is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and the municipal judge in Rice Lake.

The “College is For All” Debate: Addressing a Lot of Maybes

By Frank Burtnett, author of the Bound-for-Career-Guidebook and Bound-for-College Guidebook.

Maybe college…maybe not…maybe a 4 year college or university…maybe a 2 year community or technical college….maybe right after high school…maybe not until later in life. There are a lot of “maybes” that need to be tossed into the “college for all” discussion.

President Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan weighed into the discussion a while back by stating that the nation’s ability to compete on a global playing field requires an increase in the awarding of college degrees. The President has set a goal of sixty percent of Americans earning a postsecondary education degree by 2020. Counter arguments, however, are being bantered about saying that college graduates are finding it difficult to find jobs in current economy and students should be more focused on workplace knowledge and skills training that are immediately adaptable and marketable for the current and future crop of jobs. They argue that many of those careers and jobs simply do not require college.

What does this conflict in mission mean for American education? Should our schools place greater emphasis on the preparing students to succeed in postsecondary education? Should “college for all” be the mantra of the times? Should career and workplace skills receive greater attention? Can K-12 education do both?

The experiences of the economic downturn and recession have added fuel to the incendiary debate as many are saying that the college degree is no longer as attractive as it may have been five or ten years ago. Allow me to argue for education. Regardless of what the high unemployment figures are telling us, the fact remains that college graduates are less likely to be unemployed or underemployed and stand the best chances for achieving their career aspirations when the recession is finally over. They even fare better in other demographics like physical and mental health.

Allow me to suggest a middle ground. Schools, in my estimation, should be about the business of helping students achieve their full educational and career potential. No more….no less. Of utmost importance is the need to recognize and facilitate individual differences. College immediately after high school, whether it is the transition to an Ivy League college, a public university or a local community college, is a reasonable step for many who are enrolled in our schools. Others may wish to work and engage in more self-awareness and option exploration before taking that crucial next educational step. Quite possibly a stint in the military can serve to clarify the future and point the graduate in the right direction. There are multiple educational routes to the world of work and K-12 students need to learn about the viability of all of them.

In many respects it is about helping young people outline options while getting a better handle on the characteristics and traits that define each individually. When you have a better understanding or who you are and a clearer view of the future and the options it affords you, you’re better equipped to make good educational and career decisions.

K-12 education needs to prepare students with a kind of “readiness” for future study and entry into and about the workplace. Make no mistake---education is going to be a part of that future. Knowledge and skill acquisition will be necessary for everyone prior to their entry into any occupation or career in the workplace, and will be just as important for maintenance and growth in one’s work and the mobility to move about their chosen career.

Americans cannot escape the inevitable fact that one day, for many---sooner than later, they are going to find themselves in a college classroom. Stopping out of education after high school is the equivalent of career suicide. But let’s consider the outside chance that some of our current K-12 students never find themselves on a college campus. Is being “career and college ready” not a great parenting skill, one that they might utilize with their own children?

Essential to being “college or career ready” is a sense of self-awareness and being able to comprehend all of the options that lie before you. Equally important is having a life plan---a set of short and long term goals that will lead step-by-step toward a goal or set of goals out there that will become clearer with each move forward.

Teachers, counselors and all educators, along with parents, can play a critical role in helping students set realistic educational and career goals and then take the action steps that are needed to make those aspirations come true. Students need to have experiences in school and in life that will help them structure their exploration and decision-making and more effectively engage them in the transitions that take them from school-to-college and school-to-work.

The more students know about the educational and career development process---the more “ready” they will be to control those parts of it that are the most controllable. There are no “one size fits all” solutions or answers. There are just a lot of “maybes” that need to be addressed, today, tomorrow and way off in the future.

____________________

Dr. Frank Burtnett, President and Principal Consultant of Education Now, splits his life between Rockport, Maine and Fairfax County, Virginia. He is the author of the Bound-for-College Guidebook and Bound-for-Career Guidebook (Rowman & Littlefield Education).

____________________

This message appeared originally in the Portland Press Herald on July 3, 2011. It has been modified for presentation here. FB

 

 

A Night at the Supreme Court with fellow Courtwatchers

By Darcy Evans

Wednesday night was an eventful night for Rowman & Littlefield. Our Senior Executive Editor of Political Science, Jon Sisk, was recognized on the floor of the Supreme Court. No, he wasn’t presenting an oral argument, but he was there to hear one, or at least the reenactment of one. In celebration of our recently published book by Clare Cushman, Courtwatchers, and as part of the third annual Frank C. Jones Reenactment lecture, Mr. Sisk and about two-hundred of D.C.’s legal elite, watched as Justice Antonin Scalia presided over the reenactment of Texas v. White, a Supreme Court case from 1869 that dealt with the complicated issue of the legality of secession and the legitimacy of Confederate governments during the war.

                                       R&L's Jon Sisk, Darcy Evans, and Lynsey Weston

While the court case was intriguing, the book party afterwards is where all the fun was had. Clare was there to sign copies of her book which was sold at the Supreme Court gift shop. People were buying two or three at a time. That is exactly what her humble publisher likes to see! The party was very well attended. Sandra Day O’Connor even dropped in for a while. I suspect some people were there for the wine and fabulous food, but hopefully they bought a book as well, or at least thought about buying a book and will buy it later.

                               Darcy Evans, Gregory P. Joseph, and Jon Sisk

We are indebted to the Supreme Court Historical Society, not only for all their help with the book, but for putting on a wonderful event. Pictured here with Darcy Evans and Jon Sisk is the president of the Organization, Gregory P. Joseph, who was kind enough to present Justice Scalia and the Court with a copy of the book. Perhaps we will find the Justices reading it between cases.

Courtwatchers is now available. Click here to learn more.

X Factor? Or American Idol redux?

By Amanda S. McClain, Ph.D.

     The new American version of X Factor debuted this fall on FOX.  While it purports to be a different show than American Idol, for all intents and purposes it might as well be called “American Idol: Fall Season.”  The differences between the two programs are minimal: on X Factor there are contestants as young as 12, group auditions are permitted, and competitors may be age 12 and up (and up…).  The similarities abound: a focus on attaining your dreams, awful auditions, and a lucrative prize.  While other disparities may exist, the similarities dramatically overshadow the contrasts.

     One difference, which casual viewers may not notice, is X Factor’s lack of American emphasis.  Throughout American Idol, flags wave, iconic American cities are visited, the lighting is red, white, and blue, and the dialogue consistently references the American Dream.  On X Factor, the contestants discuss attaining their own dreams, with no mention of America, or hint of patriotism.  In a way, this personal emphasis is American as well.  After all, the traditional American Dream is to attain success through your inherent talent and skill, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.  While the X Factor contestants may not explicitly label their dreams American, by dint of appearing on an American Idol knock-off, they may as well.

     Of course, Simon Cowell is one crucial element X Factor’s first season shares with the first eight American Idol seasons.  On American Idol, Simon represented the Other, the caustic Brit unfamiliar with American civil norms.  On X Factor, his Otherness is absent and his caustic comments are expected.  Indeed, he hasn’t been nearly as scathing as in the past.  His timidity and lack of astringency have made him boring.  He’s no longer novel and audiences have grown accustomed to nasty reality TV characters.  Instead, the interactions between wacky Paula Abdul and moody Nicole Scherzinger are more interesting, as are L.A. Reid’s references to past pop hits he helped to cultivate.  In fact, L.A. Reid appears to be more like bland Randy Jackson, or Randy Jackson’s more articulate and boring relative, missing Randy’s flavor while adding more gravitas and heavyweight music industry experience.  No name-dropping Journey from this new guy.  Instead, he name-drops contemporary stars like Justin Beiber.

     Like American Idol, X Factor offers a sundry mixture of contestants: country and urban, black and white, male and female.  Like American Idol, the X Factor contestants are the most fascinating element of the program.  Over the years, American Idol featured more and more of the contestants’ back stories, strengthening audience connections with the participants through shared elements: poverty, families, and religion.  While already following the American Idol format, it behooves X Factor to follow Idol’s lead in this as well.  While Simon may have been the original draw, the contestants are what make the program worth watching.   The contestants represent America, in all its forms, and audiences enjoy watching versions of us.  The contestants on X Factor are us at home: hopeful, anxious, awed, and determined.  And American.

     What do you think?  Do you watch for the judges or the contestants?  Is one show more compelling than the other?

 

Amanda Scheiner McClain is assistant professor of communications at Holy Family University in Pennsylvania.  She is also the author of American Ideal: How American Idol Constructs Celebrity, Collective Identity, and American Discourses available now.  Learn more by clicking here. 

 

 

The Political Branding of Country Music: 10 Years Post-9/11

By Elizabeth Barfoot Christian

Some argue the sound of country music has become nearly indistinguishable from today’s pop---that it has lost in soul what it has gained in fan base over the last quarter-century. And that may be true when you listen to crossover country artists like Taylor Swift and Lady Antebellum (as well as rockers like Bret Michaels and Bon Jovi’s recent countrified-rock albums). Like many boundaries in postmodern culture, the lines between popular musical genres have been fading for quite some time.

But boundaries are a funny thing. Just when you think we’ve gotten past the need for labels… just when you think it’s OK to be a little bit country and a little bit rock ‘n roll, someone strikes a chord so offensive that lines must be drawn.

That boundary was recast in steel by country music following the world-altering events of Sept. 11, 2001.

As the molten metal of the Twin Towers melted, many hearts in the U.S. hardened. A new, angrier country was born. And from it emerged a new, angrier brand of country music as well.

Perhaps in hindsight “angry” is not a fair term to describe the artists who put to lyrics the pained, raw emotions that millions of Americans were feeling immediately after 9/11. Toby Keith, already branded a country outlaw, reportedly penned his No. 1 hit “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)” in about 20 minutes as his response to the 9/11 attacks on America. Keith’s father, a U.S. military veteran who taught him the importance of patriotism, had died unexpectedly just six months before the terrorist attack, and Keith took out his anger at both events in song. One for honor, the other, ire.

Keith was not alone. Country music saw a huge and almost immediate economic windfall following 9 /11. County Music Television sponsored the first Freedom Concert one month after the attack and raised $5 million for victims. Keith and Alan Jackson, who wrote and recorded “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning”), both achieved worldwide recognition for their patriotic ballads.

Jackson and Keith, already two of the more traditional country artists, were instrumental in returning country to its more populist, working-class roots. The sound of many of today’s popular country artists may not carry the same twang it did back in the day of Haggard and Jones, but 10 years post-9/11 the message is as political and patriotic as ever—and more Americans than ever are listening.

And while the musical qualities between country and mainstream pop many have merged somewhat, the message couldn’t be more distinguishable in post-9/11 America. If you don’t believe me, just ask Natalie Maines, whose career as darling of country radio took a drastic downhill slide with one poisonous political remark. While the Dixie Chicks—whose name you dare not speak in Lubbock, Texas—will forever be outcasts to true country fans, the group has experienced a rebirth in a more mainstream market with a much more liberal-thinking fan base.

Country has definitely come to town, and people who had never listened to it are listening to and loving it on both crossover and pop radio stations in growing abundance. Country stars have swarmed the Grammys. The last two entertainers of the year have been country singers. Both top finalists in this year’s American Idol were country singers, and the quasi-partnership with Fox News, the most popular cable news channel, which continues to host annual Freedom Concerts nationwide, isn’t hurting things either. Many of Fox News’ commentary programs regularly feature country artists singing and oftentimes offering personal political opinion.

The Hollywood left entered the political arena decades ago. The “Mom and apple pie” patriotic crew is catching up through the medium of country music and conservative cable news.

Elizabeth Barfoot Christian is assistant professor of journalism at Louisiana Tech University and the editor of Rock Brands: Selling Sound in a Media Saturated Culture.

Next blog: Has MTV helped kill the music industry?