interviews
Observations on Media Activism
by Dr. Clark-Parsons
October 16, 2019
Dr. Clark-Parsons is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Activism, Communication, and Social Justice at Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Her teaching and research revolve around feminist social movements in the United States and their media practices, drawing on her own participation in and observations of contemporary feminist media campaigns. She can be reached via email at rosemary.clark@asc.upenn.edu
This interview with Dr. Rosemary Clark-Parsons was conducted and condensed by frank news and originally published on 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
In Conversation with INESI
by INESI
February 22, 2019
This interview with Dr. Marla Perez-Lugo and Dr. Cecilio Ortiz Garcia, was conducted and condensed by frank news. Both are faculty at INESI. INESI is the National Institute of Energy and Island Sustainability. It is a multidisciplinary and multi-campus institute of the University of Puerto Rico (INESI) that seeks to insert the university community more effectively into the public energy policy of the country and in the resolution of energy and sustainability problems using as a basis for empirical research and academic knowledge.
Let’s talk about the work you’re doing at INESI.
Dr. Pérez: INESI is the National Institute for Energy and Island Sustainability. It was created in 2014 when we realized that the university was being excluded from the process of developing a new energy policy for Puerto Rico. It was very interesting to us because we have one of the biggest programs in electrical engineering in the nation, and we have expertise in many areas that could contribute to the understanding of what energy issues in Puerto Rico are all about.
We understand them as social technical issues, in the sense that yes, they have a technical component that involves technological development and the physical infrastructure, but also energy issues have a cultural component, and a political component.
We started INESI in trying to insert the University of Puerto Rico into that conversation. We have about 90 affiliates across the 11 campuses of the UPR system. Those affiliates represent more than 23 academic disciplines including psychology, law, electrical engineering, sociology, philosophy, art, natural sciences, and economists. One of our concerns was that most of the resources being included in the conversation were all concentrated in the metropolitan area of San Juan. For us, that was a metaphor for the concentration and the density of decision making in energy policy in general.
What we tried to do was de-concentrate the knowledge being used in decision making by including resources from the other campuses of the UPR system. Since then, we have a standard set approach, to not only the UPR, but also members and sectors of society that are being excluded from those processes. Community based organizations, grass roots movements.
We created the energy stakeholder forum. That includes about 30 organizations across the islands, that at the beginning of this maybe didn't perceive themselves as energy stakeholders. But Maria had a very important function in showing how energy is embedded in all aspects of life.
Dr. Garcia: I want to emphasize that number one, INESI as an institute, is a platform that seeks to interconnect all of the resources Dr. Pérez was mentioning across the 11 campuses of the UPR. It is also a knowledge organization. Before the institute, the way the university was organized, actually created an unequal space for the utilization of resources or knowledge in academia, to impact energy issues in Puerto Rico. By highlighting only the work associated with the technological aspects of energy, like electrical engineering, physics, and maybe economics or law, those become the only areas that can contribute to the transformation of energy issues in Puerto Rico. INESI makes a contribution in terms of energy democracy in Puerto Rico by reframing energy issues in terms of them being not only technical, but like the professor said, socio-technical. We are re-organizing knowledge.
We foster knowledge from outside academia to be mixed with scientific knowledge in order to gain an interdisciplinary view of energy.
Part of the reason this group exists is because you felt left out of the conversation by the government. Has there been a response from the government to your work?
Dr. Pérez: [laughter].
Has that relationship changed?
Dr. Garcia: That's an excellent question.
Dr. Pérez: After Maria, it has gotten worse. When Maria struck, and the electric system collapsed, it would make sense that we were the ones who had a lot to contribute to the rebuilding process, because we knew the system very well.
Dr. Garcia: That was a faulty logic.
Dr. Pérez: Yes, faulty logic. We approached our president, we approached our governor, we approached FEMA, we approached everybody. Systematically the resources in the UPR has been left out from the rebuilding process. What we’ve come to find out is that actors from the outside have been hired. They have been contributing more to the rebuilding process than the people who know the system best, and the people who are going to live with the consequences of that process. We have met universities from the States that have been contracted by our governor's office to do work for hundreds of thousands of dollars that have already been done by UPR resources.
As my colleague here says, it's a manufactured ignorance phenomenon, in which for many reasons, the local government is manufacturing ignorance in terms of the resources and knowledge Puerto Rico has, when talking to outside actors.
Why do you think that is?
Dr. Garcia: It's not that linear. It requires switching frameworks when you talk about governmental resources, or even institutional resources to extreme operating environments after Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. It's rather difficult to draw a direct line between the intentional misrepresentation of resources that one has, or does not have, for a particular resource. You are talking about different levels of decision making converging in a particular way, that make it expedient, for certain actors on the ground like the government of Puerto Rico, to behave in a certain way. One of the behaviors we are alleging is happening, is a behavior of not being transparent, with the type of resources you might have available for you to get out of this hole.
When I say, "this hole," you have to look at Maria in the context of Puerto Rico when Maria hit. Puerto Rico was already under certain legislation, and under the fiscal control board series of attacks on our society, and on behalf of US bond holders that are looking to get repaid for their investment. You have a multiplicity of actors, that virtually established a regime where it becomes logical for the Puerto Rican government to act how it acts.
Dr. Pérez:
Our constitution recognizes higher education as a societal investment. That has been an ideological fight between the constitution and the more conservative, or pro-statehood administrations. When the fiscal control board came to power, the first thing they did was to claim power over the UPR, and claim that there was too much money going into the UPR system. So the budget for the UPR has been severely cut. In fact we have experienced a budget cut of more than 50%, and some of the campuses are singled out for closing in the incoming years.
The budget cuts are increasing, and increasing, and increasing, and the tuition cost for the students are increasing as well, but not enough to cover all the UPR expenses. When you have 95% of the research being conducted in Puerto Rico, conducted in the UPR system, you are killing research, and you are killing the resources that have the knowledge to actually contribute to the betterment of Puerto Rican society.
Dr. Garcia: That's an excellent point. Hurricane Maria brought the administration to a fork in the road. "How am I going to use my research? Well I have to manufacture reality, for outsiders in order for me to be aligned with what I've been using as my policy towards the university." It’s a policy of killing. It's a policy of closing. It's a policy of minimizing.
Dr. Pérez: Exactly.
Dr. Garcia: I cannot be highlighting those same resources out in the open, because I left myself open for questions about, "Well wait a second, aren't you killing the University of Puerto Rico?" It gets really complicated. It's in a complex policy environment. And all Maria did was serve as a catalyst for all of these different pathways, the visions of Puerto Rico's reality, to come up to the surface.
What is your mission moving forward?
Dr. Pérez: We connected with municipal governments. Instead of going to the state government, we connected with municipal governments, mostly in the mountain regions that were communities that were basically identified as low reconnection priority. After the collapse of the electrical system, it was said by authorities that communities in the mountains were less likely to be reconnected because it was not cost effective. So we drew our attention to that region. While working with mountain communities, we started assembling an electric oasis, a solar oasis. So people in the town square could recharge small electronics, and store medication in small fridges.
We realized there were more than 20 universities from the States coming to Puerto Rico to do several things. To do humanitarian work. Using the disaster as the classroom in a study abroad course, or doing quick response research, rapid grants, from foundations and other funding sources. We realized that those initiatives, although very well intentioned, were disorganized. They lacked coordination. And because there was nobody looking at the big picture, most of the universities were concentrating their efforts in less than 10 municipalities. We have 78 of them. That is a problem for several reasons. From the humanitarian standpoint, if you saturate some areas with aid, but then neglect other areas, that means not everybody is able to receive the aid you’re bringing from the outside. From the scientific perspective, if you base your science in very few, and selected case studies, your science will be faulty.
We started contacting all these universities, and realized that there were teams from the same universities on the ground that didn't know about each other. We started connecting them. We started organizing virtual workshops to give them the context, and to give them the most updated information about the state of the electrical system, because we mainly focused on electricity and sustainability. After that we focused on allowing them to talk to each other, so they could start collaborating instead of competing for spaces, money, etc. Then we invited them all to Puerto Rico for a three day workshop last June to reflect on their experiences, and identify what was wrong and what was right. What can we learn and extrapolate for future occurrences? In the climate change era, these things are going to occur more often now, and in more severe ways.
What do you think the future looks like?
Dr. Garcia: Unfortunately there's many steps, and they are all going to have to be taken at the same time. There is no recipe book for doing this. But the main thing that stands out, with regards to Puerto Rico being an example for both disaster environments and interventions by federal agencies, by universities, by multiple units of government, is that we have a long way to go in learning how to organize ourselves to do better.
We have to build relations in places we know are prone to these events, so that we do not fall prey to the manufactured ignorance we've been talking to you about.
More directly for universities, even though were are not set up to be first responders, our experience with Maria has shown us that we are. We end up being first responders. We have a responsibility to look at ourselves, to get together and at least discuss what our role is as universities, in post disaster situations. This goes from how we organize our resources, to how we organize our scientific and non-scientific knowledge, and how we provide spaces of collaboration between different discipline.
Is the goal of your stakeholders forum to raise awareness but also to raise a sense of responsibility in this mission?
Dr. Garcia: Absolutely. If I was going to rank them, the stakeholder forum has been our most effective tool in fighting manufactured ignorance. Not only has it served as a sounding board, and a bulletin board for many, many, many groups who have not historically haven't been included in energy decision making, it has also allowed for an honest dialogue and an open dialogue to exist between university resources and civil society. That is very, very powerful. Especially as we aspire to higher levels of energy democracy in Puerto Rico.
We hope the stakeholder forum internally in Puerto Rico keeps on making big strides towards energy democracy in the islands. And we want to experience that with the RISE platform that can bring a better understanding of what energy democracy involves, not only inside the island, but with other localities around the globe.
To reinforce the point – global warming and climate change are global phenomenons. The relationship between human beings and those phenomenons are local. And as local phenomena, we cannot change that, or expect that one recipe is going to fix every local experience. So it's up to us, universities around the world, to embrace this fact, and to develop new relationships between ourselves and our own communities, and share those experiences between other universities and other communities. That exchange, not only of data, and of science, but also of human relationships, and communication, is the only way that we can develop true local resolutions to what are becoming very, very, wicked problems around us. And if INESI can help in attaining that, then we have been successful.