interviews
An Interview with Dr. Rosemary Clark-Parsons
by Dr. Rosemary Clark-Parsons
September 13, 2018
frank: I would love to talk to you about your focus on feminist social movements and media practices. But particularly, digital media and social media, in both positive and negative ways.
Rosemary: Yeah, I'm happy to talk about that. Always.
Right now I am post-doctoral fellow in activism, communication, and social justice at the Annenberg School for Communication which is at University of Pennsylvania. I just wrapped up my PHD there over summer, and I sort of came to this research interest through a long-standing interest going back to college in gender in media. I was really interested at first in focusing my research on media representations of women, girls, and other gendered bodies.
But I found that that research area was so depressing and kind of stagnant. We know that the state of affairs when it comes to media representations of gender is pretty bad and has been pretty bad for a long time. That's where the story ends on the research side of things.
I was interested in turning toward the activists who are trying to do something with media to change the state of affairs when it comes to gender and power and representation. So, that's essentially how I got into my interest in studying activism.
frank: How did you end up combining them?
Rosemary: For me the answer came through a research method that we call ethnography which essentially involves participant observation. The data collection method comes from actually being involved in and participating in the thing that you're studying.
That meant getting involved with grassroots activist groups in the city of Philadelphia.
frank: What have you found effective in both your research and your activism?
Rosemary: A lot of my research has been focused on the fact that there are both strengths and weaknesses to using any sort of communication tools, whether we're talking about digital, or analog, or non-digital tools, for activist purposes. All of these tools have a fair amount of limitations, but a lot of the discourse in the early days of the internet was this is how the revolution is going to happen.
Twitter and Facebook, these were how we were going to change the world. But now we're seeing a shift toward identifying the fact that while there are many affordances to using these tools and we've seen some really powerful campaigns, there are also some serious limitations. I'm interested in how feminist activists are figuring out how to negotiate between those or take advantage of the good while also dealing with the downside of using some of these tools.
frank: What are those limitations?
Rosemary: One of the biggest limitations actually comes from one of the biggest strengths. Now we no longer need to have access to a big name organization, with lots of money, lots of people power, resources, and experience to launch a movement. And on the one hand, that's great. We can launch a big protest without requiring the same degree of physical organization. We don't have to be meeting for months at a time in person to organize some kind of political action whether that's a street protest or a boycott or what have you.
So, while we can launch an action really quickly, sometimes we have issues in these movements with long term struggles for social justice, with responding to new challenges as they emerge.
frank: One thing that keeps coming up in terms of effective activism is having very clearly outlined goals. With the ease of social media we can quickly gain a lot of attention but just as quickly forget the true desired outcome. How do you think people avoid that? What sort of leadership or communication does that take?
Rosemary: Yeah, that's a great question. I think that's another issue that comes from this sort of double-edged sword of doing digitally networked activism. On the one hand, if you look at hashtag campaigns, anyone can chime in and sort of bring their own personal reasons for participating to the table. I can share my story under the #MeToo hashtag, for example. But then when it comes to articulating a very clear set of, for example, policy goals, or just concrete steps toward social change, whether at the policy level or more at the cultural level, we're not seeing these movements come together to put out a mission statement. Does that make sense?
frank: Yes.
Rosemary: I think the more successful movements that we're seeing are combining the more old fashion elements of movement organizing, like meeting somehow in person together with a dedicated group of activists, organizing locally, and then also doing these sort of huge network campaigns at the same time. #MeToo is a great example of that, having both the long term struggle component led by Tarana Burke, and sort of branching off into the Time's Up movement. The Never Again movement that came out of the shootings in Florida is another great example of this as well. They're taking advantage of the participatory globally networked nature of social media platforms while also doing the difficult work on the ground to organize long term.
frank: Right. There seems to be a need for a more intense focus on the communities you're actually trying to help.
Rosemary: Yeah, I think that we especially saw this with the very impressive young activists who came out of the Stoneman Douglas shootings. You could see it play out in terms of the news coverage, the need for them to gain trust, not just within their local communities but to gain the trust of their audience. To gain respect of authorities on the issue of control despite the fact that they're these teenagers. Which was working against them.
I think trust, in terms of how you're received by the public, whether that's your immediate neighborhood, organizing for an issue on your block, or whether that's your national audience, as in the case of the Never Again movement, it's essential for social movements, and again requires some of that more old fashioned form of organizing. There were a couple of pieces written about how the teen activists in Stoneman Douglas came together and organized in the aftermath of the shooting. There's a story about them getting together at a slumber party at one of the activists houses and deciding “This is our strategy. This is how we handle the media. We cannot make mistakes, actually, because that will immediately be a reason to put us down. You know we already have our age working against us. We need to gain the trust of our audience."
Trust has always been a key component for a successful movement and continues to be. And it's become even trickier in our world of fake news and conspiracy theories circulating online. You really need to have some authority and gain the trust of your audience.
frank: What do you think about the commodification of cause? About activism as trend? I have a strong gut reaction when I see this stuff online, and think, I don't need to hear about x from you, but perhaps that doesn't matter and all voices added to the mix are important.
Rosemary: Yes, that's a great question. There are two big related changes I've seen with activism over the past five years. One is that it's becoming more mediated and the second is that it's becoming more personalized, like hashtag activism. All the people posting under the hashtag are united by the hashtag itself but they're sharing these very individualized, personalized stories or reasons for participating. That makes it really easy to coopt and commodify. When it's just this personal individual act, it's very easy to take that up and turn it into something that you can sell.
When activism becomes individualized, and personalized, it's not that difficult to make the leap between that and the acts of individualistic consumption and buying something.
We saw this unfortunately, and unbelievably to me, with the #MeToo movement. There were makeup lines branding their products with the #MeToo hashtag. We saw jewelry and clothing lines popping up around the campaign, even a whole bunch of different mobile apps. And they certainly have somewhat of a positive valance. We want to see these issues represented within popular culture, within consumer culture. But there's the danger there of suggesting that what's needed to solve a problem as big as sexual violence and sexual harassment is just this individual act of buying something rather than collectively organizing for structural change.
frank: If you have a large social presence or voice, and you want to be involved, how do you avoid personalizing everything, or avoid taking away from the movement's goals?
Rosemary: I don't think that there's necessarily anything inherently wrong in personalizing your involvement. Feminists in the U.S. have been saying the personal is political since the 1960s. The issue is keeping that connection between the personal and the political, reminding the people who are following you that your personal story is connected back to this structural issue, not just you. It's part of this, in the case of #MeToo, global issue of sexual violence.
frank: Do you feel like people, especially women who have a large voice or public presence, should feel a responsibility to contribute to the conversation, or do you think that we put too much pressure on people to fall into the categories and narratives that we would like to see them in?
Rosemary: One of the very valid concerns about the #MeToo movement, for example, is that we're putting a lot of pressure on not just women but anyone who has experienced sexual violence and harassment to come forward and tell their story. And one concern there is all of the focus is on the survivors and the victims rather than on actually holding accountable the people who are responsible for this behavior and for these assaults in some cases.
I think it can be an issue in terms of our focus on where the change and action needs to happen. We don't necessarily want to add to the weight that survivors are carrying, and we also want to be careful not to turn what is again this structural problem into some sort of media circus around individual people.
We see a lot of hype in the media, a lot of excitement, however misguided, when someone comes forward and says yet another big name renowned celebrity has committed some act of sexual misconduct, and then it becomes about the interpersonal drama.
Rather than the fact that this is huge problem that exists way beyond the scope or the story of two people. I think that there's a danger there in encouraging high profile people to continue to come forward, but at the same time, it's yet another one of these double-edged sword situations. When they come forward, they also encourage other people to feel less shame about their own experiences.
So, it's one of those sort of gray zone situations, to me.
frank: What do you think is next in terms of feminism and feminist movements? What do you think is the next big push and focus?
Rosemary: I think what seems to be on the horizon for feminism in the U.S. right now is figuring out how to take what has been for several years now a very visible surge of feminist activism that has been very much focused on the personal, on everyday fight the power and oppression, everyday encounters with sexual violence, and channeling that into more sustainable, long-lasting, efforts for social change, at the policy level, at the level of more formal institutions of power.
Because on the one hand, we're living in a moment where feminism is everywhere. We can, as we've talked about, buy feminist branded products in the store.
We live in this moment, where it's everywhere, but we also live in a moment where the reality is that Donald Trump is president and we're seeing a systematic roll back of women's rights, of civil rights, the rights in marginalized communities, on a near daily basis. So, there's a disconnect there.
Somehow, we have risen to this high level of visibility within popular culture, but we're not at the same time able to create these longer lasting institutional changes. I'm hopeful that that's going to shift, that the disconnect is going to come together a little bit more. We're seeing a lot of headlines heralding what they're calling the Year of Women. A lot of feminist candidates have been running for different levels of political office. The next big issue for these movements is figuring out how to turn that energy, turn that focus, on everyday sorts of injustice, everyday sites of power, and channel that into more institutional long lasting forms of change.
frank: What new policy for women's equality are you looking for? Or, is the change you're more interested in cultural?
Rosemary: I think we need to not lose sight of either one. I don't want the pendulum to swing too far into the direction of institutional policy and let go of some of the great work feminist activists have been doing around these more every day social forms of change. We're now more aware than ever, I think of sexual harassment as a social issue, but I think they need to be paired together. I would love to see the same amount of energy and the same amount of success in the area of shoring up our policies around sexual harassment, shoring up the resources we have for survivors who are seeking legal recourse or who are seeking some kind of transformative justice within their particular cases. We know that this is an issue that is everywhere and that's undeniable, but the question becomes now what?
We need to make sure that we're creating resources for survivors who want to hold their perpetrators accountable at whatever level, to be able to pursue that. I think that's a major issue right now.
frank: What do you feel is being overlooked right now? In terms of what your research is focused on.
Rosemary: This has been the common thread, I think, in what we've talked about already, but one point that I feel I try to make in my research is that we need to be paying close attention to this shift away from a time when big name formal organizations structured with movements which came with its own set of pros and cons. There are organizational resources on the one hand, and dedicated leaders, but then there are also all sorts of exclusion and gatekeepers filtering out who gets to participate and whose voices are heard.
We're seeing a shift away from that and towards these media platforms, actually becoming the way that movements are structured. So, whereas you might have had in the past, organizations controlling a movement's communication, today, the actual message itself, whether it's a hashtag, or whether it's a platform - these forms of media are at the center of a lot of social movements today and that comes with a whole range of affordances and limitations. I think that's a major shift that's being overlooked in conversations about the future of social organizing in the U.S. and one that I try to highlight a lot in my own work.
interviews
An Interview with Fabian Cobos
by frank
July 10, 2018
This interview with Fabian Cobos, the owner of Golden Goose Tattoo in El Paso, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Tatti: Would you introduce yourself?
Fabian Cobos: My name is Fabian Cobos. I'm the owner of the Golden Goose Tattoo here in El Paso, Texas. The first thing that people have to understand about El Paso is that it's definitely a border town. It's got that border mentality, and I think that's why you're filming and you're looking for people to talk to about this. You're going to find a lot of people who don't know what's going on, or that do know and can't really form an opinion about it, because what becomes part of that border mentality is everyone along this area, most of their families have been through some sort of process, legally or illegally to be here, and the United States immigration law is so complicated. If you're going to be tied to the law, and feel a victim to it then you're never going to get to live here. So to us, I think it’s more of immigration is just, the way it is now it's just something that it's evolved into, and it's always going to keep evolving, the laws always going to change. I don't picture it getting any easier.
Tatti: Has it gotten progressively harder since you've grown up?
Fabian Cobos: I think so. I was born here, so I haven't had to go through the process, but I know my grandfather on my dad's side made it a point to come here, become a citizen, and made sure that all his children became citizens, and it was very important to him for them to go through that process. He was very proud of it.
My dad still has the recordings of him practicing for the test, and trying to memorize the Bill of Rights, just everything, and he left a stable position in Mexico to come and be a garbage man here in the United States, and I know it means a lot to my father that my grandfather made it a point and was so proud of the whole process in becoming an American citizen, and that all his kids went through it.
He made sure that they all knew English, because he totally believed that this was the place to come to have a better quality of life, and he was right. My family has benefited tremendously by him making that decision. I have a lot of family that can't come over, and don't have money to go through the process. Then, I have family that did have the means or the resources that are now American citizens here. Fleeing the violence that was getting really bad in Juarez.
Tatti: It comes down to whether or not one is wealthy enough.
Fabian Cobos: There's a lot of factors: how wealthy, how motivated, because even if you're not wealthy enough, and I think now that's what they're trying to combat. 'Cause if you're motivated enough you can still get here. Whether you'll stay here or not is different, but that need and that want to come here and get a better life, it's a very human thing to want. Especially when the world around you is crumbling and you feel hopeless in what's your hometown.
That's why it's a touchy subject and I don't know what the right path is. I may have my opinions, but I don't know. I don't know if it's the right choice. I don't agree with a completely open border, but I do believe that there needs to be a process where it's more efficient and we are getting more of the right people in. I don't think that's the, and I may be wrong, but I don't think that's an aspect that our administration right now is looking at. I don't think they want anyone here right now, you know what I mean? Which is dangerous to us. To who we are as a country and to our economy.
Tatti: Does your business get affected when immigration laws get tougher?
Fabian Cobos: Not really, but I mean we're different. We do tattoo a lot of people coming across from the border, tattoo a lot of soldiers, tattoo lawyers, doctors. The tattoo industry, even when the recession was going on and the economy was really hurting, the tattoo industry wasn't greatly effected. People in their toughest times in life, when they're losing everything, their house, their car, and everything, will come and get a tattoo with their last dollars, because that's the one thing people can't take from them. It doesn't really affect my industry, but it does affect my neighbors and the people that I work next to, and I need them to thrive and flourish also. That's the thing is, I don't think many El Pasoans are going to dread on it, because here you really have to adapt to anything that's going on. There's so many factors.
When Juarez was going through the peaks of violence a lot of people were scared that it was going to affect El Paso business, and that people were going to run from El Paso. Which is considered one of the safest cities in America. In El Paso it's not that no one cares, it's just they don't really see that they can make a difference here. I think most El Pasoans focus in on the local government, but as far as anything federal or anything that goes beyond this area, not many people are willing to jump in to have a voice or an opinion. 'Cause we feel like it's so far from us. We don't know what's right or wrong. The media portrays it in so many different ways. It's hard to tell.
Tatti: What’s the reality of living in a border city? There is definitely a shared identity between El Paso and Juarez.
Fabian Cobos: Yeah, because if you're a born and raised in El Paso then you've definitely been to Juarez a few times, and you probably still go quite a bit. That process to us is something that we've always been a part of. It's nothing new for us.
El Paso is booming. Our economy is doing the best it's ever done. The private investment, the local investment is tremendous right now. It's an investor's dream right now in El Paso. So many opportunities, and so we're growing. We're considered one of the United States only boom towns right now, and you can see it. There's construction going on all over the place, brand new medical school. The unemployment has dropped tremendously. Everyone's got jobs. Everything is great in El Paso. I think El Pasoans are what make that happen, and it's not that we don't care. It's just when we're focusing here and we're making it happen, and making our dreams come true here, then we just kind of go along for the ride with what decisions are being made for us.
Tatti: Do you feel any emotional response, as a Mexican-American, to the rhetoric that you hear coming out of White House?
Fabian Cobos: I don't think that is has anything to do, and first of all yes I do, but I don't think it has to do with me being Mexican-American. I think it just has more to with me being human, and having compassion for what theses people have to go through. It means nothing, the fact that I'm Mexican-American, and how I feel about it. I have had family members come through legally and have become citizens legally, but yeah my compassion for those people are just based out of my heart. It has nothing to do with my race or where I'm from.
That's why they're so quick to label everything as a war now. A war on this, a war on that, a war on this, because a war is the most profitable fucking thing we can do. There's so many industries involved in that.
You have to have something to fight. Especially now because what's happening now in El Paso is the same thing that created New York and San Francisco, immigration and migration. It's always been the most central part of our borders, and now the newest hottest border is the southern border and we're right smack in the middle. So it's only a matter of time, and you see the infrastructure going at this tremendous fucking pace, and it's only a matter of year to where we're going to be just as big as New York, L.A. It's going to have to be.
Tatti: What would you ask your senators about immigration if you were speaking to them?
Fabian Cobos: I don't think I'd be satisfied, I couldn't ask them.