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
Money Alone Is Not Enough
by Michelle Miller-Adams
May 10, 2019
This interview with Michelle Miller-Adams, a professor and senior researcher at the Upjohn Institute, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Part One of this conversation is available here.
When you look at and consider all of your research over the years, what is your ideal version of 'free college' programs? And how do you push what you know and what you're curious about to the forefront of our national conversation around college affordability?
As we enter another presidential primary, what would you like the conversation to look like? What do you think the most critical debate around this issue should be?
That is another great question, and actually, I'm about to start thinking seriously about it, because I'm about to write a book on this topic.
While I hope the ideas in my book will influence the national discourse, I'm not holding my breath for a national program, because I just think that politically, it's a really tough lift. If you look at the history of policy innovation in our country, this is exactly how it happens. Things get pioneered at the local level, and then they spread to other local communities, and then they may jump up to the states, and then maybe eventually, they'll find their way into federal policy. I just think that even though all the Democrats are talking about this, once they get in power, and depending who winds up in the Congress, a nationwide free-college program is not a surefire outcome.
That being said, we had a proposal in 2015 from President Obama that made a great deal of sense. To me, it's still the gold standard model out there for triangulating all of those various needs. It was called America's College Promise – no legislation was ever introduced but the policy proposal was out there. It was a federal-state partnership that would make community colleges tuition free. If states opted to participate–- and there were performance requirements if they did – the federal government would foot most of the bill. And importantly, it was designed to be a first dollar program.
That leads me to your question. I especially value programs that have universal eligibility. Basically, in programs like these, everybody can take a crack at it.
In a perfect world, which we don't live in, a first dollar program is far preferable to a last dollar program, because it has that better equity impact, where low-income students also get new money, and then they can use their Pell Grants to pay part of the way of their living expenses. If you do a universal program, and you focus it on community colleges, as Obama's program did and as Tennessee and Rhode Island do – whether first- or last-dollar – you are doing some de facto targeting. You are targeting low and moderate-income students, because honestly, Tatti, do you know many wealthy students who went to community college?
Very few.
Right. There may be a few, but that might just be the price you pay. If an affluent student is headed toward an elite or even semi-elite four-year institution, they're probably not going to make the decision to go to community college to get their $2,000 a year scholarship. On the other hand, students who weren't necessarily going anywhere, or those at the margin who are stressed in terms of finances, may decide to go to community college, and students on a four-year track may decide to start at the community college and cut their costs dramatically. Students do that all the time. I teach at a large state university, and we have plenty of students who started at a community college because it's cheaper – and then transfer to the four-year school to get their bachelor's.
Two other things are really important. One powerful lesson that we have learned over the years is that simplicity is your ally in these programs. With complex programs there's just too much confusion around the messaging. New York State has a program called the Excelsior Scholarship, and it's really innovative in one sense, which is that it allows students to go to public four-year institutions, as well as two-year community colleges, which is great. However, there is so much fine print that very few students actually qualify for the scholarship.
The simpler the better. If you can say it in a couple sentences, that's a good sign. But the other important element is this question of support. Thinking seriously about what kinds of resources are needed all along that educational continuum to help students, particularly those who haven't been successful in school, access higher ed, be successful in getting there, staying there and completing is really important.
Tennessee Promise has a mentorship program, and while the mentorship component is not as intensive as it was for the predecessor local program, it marks a recognition of the value of mentorship in helping students be successful in higher ed. Tennessee also has an adult free community college program called Tennessee Reconnect, and even that has a support structure built in. It doesn't come out of public money. It comes out of the philanthropic sector. There are a lot of ways to do this, but it's important to recognize that the money by itself is not going to change your outcomes that much.
As a short digression, I've been really busy, so I haven't been very active on Twitter, but I do want to respond to Pete Buttigieg's response…
He was pretty negative about free college. He basically said there's this huge college wage premium, where people with college degrees get paid a lot more than people who don't, and that's absolutely true. And he doesn’t like the idea of people without college degrees subsidizing those who are going to get the college wage premium. I think he misses the boat on this. The point of Promise programs is to bring those people who aren’t headed for college – whether because of confusion about the process or lack of financial resources – into the process so they can go on and get some of that college wage premium. Right?
Another presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has come out with a number of big equity-based policy ideas and one of the latest is her plan for tuition-free college and student loan debt relief. Her ideas are bold and not always fully practical, but this one had an important element, which is that if we're going to make public colleges and universities tuition free, we had better also address the student loan burden. One of the challenges of free college is that if you come up with a national program, you still have all these people walking around with this huge student loan debt. So there's a real equity challenge there, if you aren't going to do something about the people who already got indebted, then it's sort of just a generational unfairness.
We're having that discussion in Michigan. Our new governor, just this week, introduced legislation for three tuition-free college initiatives, one for community colleges, one for four-year publics and one for adults, closely modeled on Tennessee, but there's no component that deals with the student debt situation, and the legislation. Because we have this very Republican Congress it's probably not going to go very far, but we'll see.
It’s a fascinating aspect of the free-college movement. A lot of money is being committed to support free-college initiatives without a lot of evidence about what they do and don’t accomplish. I know that because we sit here at ground zero of trying to generate some of that evidence, and there are many, many, many things we do not know. This is not a heavily researched, proven model where we really understand what we're doing.