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 Morley Winograd and Jack MacKenzie
by Morley Winograd & Jack MacKenzie
May 28, 2019
This interview with Morley Winograd and Jack MacKenzie was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Morley Winograd is an author, speaker, Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California, and former Senior Policy Advisor to Vice President Al Gore. He is currently the president and CEO of the Campaign for Free College Tuition.
Jack MacKenzie is Executive Vice President and Market Lead for PSB’s Media & Entertainment Group, based in Los Angeles. MacKenzie is the 2015 recipient of the Market Research Association’s Impact Award for research innovation.
––––––––
Morley Winograd: I'm the president and CEO of the Campaign for Free College Tuition. I've been working the issue for about six years, trying to do something about economic mobility for the millennial generation – who I've written three books about.
Jack MacKenzie: I've read all of Morley's books and am on the strategic advisory council for Campaign for Free College. I offer up polling on the issue.
Morley, given your political background, why did free college become your focus?
MW: I've had a long career in business and politics, and my interest in public policy and American democracy's been a lifelong concern. When I turned 70, I retired from the academic world. A friend visited who I've known since high school – we were talking about what to do in our 70's. His argument was that we needed to return to the original motivation for our life's work and figure out what we could do in our 70's that we weren't able to do in our previous age.
Our lifelong issue is American democracy, and how to make it work better. What was keeping it from working better and what were the dangers and threats?
We thought about America in the 21st century and it's economic challenges. Economic mobility became more and more difficult and less and less frequent. The barrier seemed to be the vast value placed on having an education in our new information age economy. And the barrier for that, of course, was the price of getting a higher education. Unless we did something about that price, we weren't going to fundamentally address structural economic inequality in America.
We started talking about making college free. I coauthored a book called, Millennial Momentum, in the chapter on higher education, I came across the The Kalamazoo Promise. In the course of writing that subsection of the chapter, I got carried away at the end and said that some day the Kalamazoo promise should be American's promise – or will be America's promise, and that college would be free for everybody.
I re-raised that in the course of this conversation amongst people for whom that was the furthest thought in their mind. It struck a chord in the group of people we were talking to, who were politicians who had, like us, finished a career in public life and thought the notion of free college would be a very attractive one, but of course impossible, a crazy idea. One of them called me on his way home from the golf course one day, and said, “I figured it out.”
I said, what do you mean you figured it out?
He said, "I figured out how we can make college free." We reconvened everybody and he presented his ideas – half the group quit because they thought it was such a stupid thing to do. Other people in the group, like Sara Goldrick-Rab, said yeah, that's what I've been arguing for. Out of that was born this non-profit of the Campaign For Free College Tuition.
Jack, how did you get involved?
JM: Morley and I go back 15 years. This was a perfect match of both our professional interests and our private interests. I was a journalist for the first half of my career, and a market researcher in the second half. In both of those careers I’ve seen the disintegration of the middle class and the growing disparity of life success that seems to be drawn on educational lines. It didn't used to be that way because we had a different kind of economy and you could have a high school diploma, get a good job in a factory or in a number of manufacturing jobs, and do okay in America. You can't now.
People say it's a good idea but not possible. That's actually the perfect combination, which is, no one says it's a bad idea. They just want to come up with logistical reasons why it wouldn't work – money, process, whatever. People in this country need an education. I believe that 14 or 16 is the new 12 when it comes to the amount of school necessary to compete in this economy, and if that's the case then we ought to make it possible.
How does the organization operate? What are your goals for policy, specifically at the state level?
MW: In the course of our organization's history, we've kept our eye on the goal of making college tuition free, and then tried to figure out different strategies for getting there. Originally we were very focused on the federal government. We were fortunate to have president Obama decide it was a good idea also, and when he announced his idea for how the federal government could support state efforts to make their community colleges free, it became the thing we focused on for almost a year.
We made almost no progress at the federal level, but there were states like Tennessee and Oregon, that were actually going ahead and doing it. We concluded that the most progress we were likely to be able to make over the next few years would be at the state level, and that we could provide resources.
We're a 501C3, we can't do political campaigns, but we can advocate for the idea. There was a crying need for expertise, resources, information at the state level on what Tennessee was doing, what other states were thinking of doing, and what other states had actually done that fell short of the promise, but were still greatly improving college enrollment and affordability.
We decided to devote the rest of the 2016 campaign year to putting together what we called a briefing book. It was initially a policy resource center designed for state leaders. That strategy proved to be our best idea yet because since then, we're up to a dozen states with truly free college programs at some scale and level, and the universality that qualifies them for recognition from us.
The most recent one, which is always surprising to people, although it shouldn't be, is in the state of West Virginia.
The president of the senate, who's their lieutenant governor, was the prime sponsor, the republican governor signed it, and they did so on the strength of the economic development argument and providing more opportunity for West Virginians.
When I tell people that, they say no, no, no, that's not what free college is about. It's about free college for all or some other federal program. We say in reality, the idea that states should make their colleges tuition free is not a democratic idea, it's very much a bipartisan idea. The pioneer was a republican governor in a very conservative Tennessee legislature. The second one was a democratic legislature in Oregon. The governor who inherited the idea is a democrat, but really wasn’t active in making it happen. It's passed in not only red and blue states, but purple states. The Nevada legislature, which became democratic and passed it, was signed by a republican governor, so it's a purple state.
Same is true in Maryland. Democratic legislature, republican governor, easily reelected in blue state Maryland. Made their community colleges tuition free. It doesn't have any partisan perspective, it's something that almost every parent and now most children and students, are recognizing as a necessity, and we have such a hard time convincing people that it's not only a by partisan idea, but enjoys universal popularity. Universal's too strong a word for the way polling is done, but 80% of the population supporting an idea is unheard of.
JM: And that's my job. To give people the political courage and cover that what sounds like a progressive issue as an all American, everyone's in idea.
Why does it “sound progressive”? Who decided that sounds progressive?
MW: Bernie Sanders.
JM: At some point, high schools became free.
MW: 100 years ago.
JW: So we haven't talked about the government providing more education than 12 for 100 years. And in today's lingo, something that the government provides...
MW: Free.
JM: Free, generally is perceived, or at least marked with, the progressive or liberal tag. It's a question of how they spend the money.
Right.
JM: Lower taxes or do we offer free college? But they're not mutually exclusive. Morley's point that in West Virginia, the economic development storyline is what took hold, is just a different way to look at how to spend the state's resources. If you look at it as Johnny gets a free education, that feels like a government hand out. If you look at it like we're going to make Johnny a better member of society…
MW: Pay more taxes.
JM: Pay more taxes. That's an investment, it's not a cost. It’s going to take some time for those numbers to come around. It plays out over the course of years. But, the early return suggests that it's a really smart investment. More kids are getting educated, which means they're getting better jobs, they're probably staying in the state, and contributing to the economy, and not draining the economy, or not sitting unemployed, not sitting in job insecurity because they don't have the skills for the next job and the next job.
MW: A lot of debates at the state level, legitimately so, turn on the question of affordability, not the affordability of college but the affordability of a program that takes away the tuition revenue from the existing system and has the state back fill it. I wrote a piece after looking at some of the research data which continues to grow, thanks to Michelle Miller Adams and Sara Goldrick-Rab, on the impact of free college on employment and economic opportunity.
Because in the long run, if they don't do it, their individual economies will fall so far behind they won't be able to afford the kind of government, lifestyle, society and economic environment they tell their voters they're in favor of.
That's where it's come to, and it's a powerful argument. It's the reason it gets a lot of bipartisan support. Obviously, a lot of the support comes from a traditional, liberal perspective. We need to do right by people and give them opportunity and therefore we have to do this. But it has just as much power as an economic argument on the other side of the political aisle.
Speaking to people's desire to work and participate makes education a big part of that conversation.
MW: It's always been apart of the American conversation. The first major bill in American legislative history was the Northwest Ordinance. It set aside one subsection of a six mile township in all the northwest territories to be devoted to school, you had to have a free one room schoolhouse for every township. Jefferson was saying, without an educated citizenry, democracy won't work.
Education has become elitist in sentiment. Where did that come from?
JM: I think it's a politicized sentiment. It is, at the core of a lot of populism over the years, which is the anti-elites. But we're not talking about making people elite. We're talking about making people job ready. This isn't join the fortune 100, this is get a good job that allows you to pay a mortgage and live with some level of confidence, and have the belief that you can have children, and that you can set something up for them. This is really about keeping a middle class versus the elite class, and what is increasingly the growing disenfranchised.
MW: Some people have come to us saying we can't get this past a republican legislature because they don't think everybody ought to go to college, and they're not convinced college is necessary. It turns out they don't have any children college age. For the most part, anybody with kids understands the necessity of a higher education experience in order for their children to be successful. What they don't understand is how they can possibly afford it, that's why the message of free college breaks through, because it's such a startling message.
I was told by one democrat in one state that will go unmentioned, that I could come in there and talk about making community college more affordable and college more affordable, but I couldn't talk about making them free if I wanted to get republican support. I said well, you know, the name of the organization is the Campaign for Free College Tuition, not the campaign for more affordable college. It's without the message of free, and without its ability to change the culture. People think it's about the money. Money's important, we've got to have the money to pay for it.
You mean I could go to college if I just applied myself? I don't have to worry about how much it costs? The price of college is pretty high even if you make tuition free. We have to deal with those issues as well, but it begins with making tuition free, and then you can talk about everything else.
What messaging works best according to polling?
JW: What's interesting is our research and polling is with people. What Morley has to face is the difference between talking to politicians and how they might frame something either internally within their legislative bodies, or back to their consumers. What we say is, here are the things you can say if you like this idea, here are things you can say to your voters and they will respond to. What works from a messaging standpoint with people is the argument that young people can have a better life if the state does this for them. All the messages that have to do with individual gain work for people.
At the state level, inside the state houses, often times you have to couch the idea and you have to turn that into the economic development question. The economic development question is hard for an individual person sitting at their house because they've got a kid across the table, they're going, can we send you to Pasadena Community College? Can we do that? They don't care that Pasadena may benefit.
Right.
JM: They care that their child could benefit. At that point it goes into the political sphere of making the larger economic development issue.
You don't lose people at “the state should help”?
MW: No.
JM: No. These numbers are incredible. Our company polls on national issues all the time and the idea that anything debated in public discourse right now has 81% support, is incredible.
Perpetuating a debate that you say doesn’t actually exist, by framing this issue as a debate is problematic then. Because your data says there isn't a substantial disagreement on this.
JM: There is not a disagreement.
So, why does it seem like there's a disagreement?
MW: The difference between voters and politicians. If you phrase it in a very ideological way, the state owes everybody a free education, that's going nowhere. If you say students need education in order to be successful, and the state should help by making tuition free, everybody says yeah, that's right, because you're not saying it's a hand out, you're not saying it's a give away, you're not saying it's all about fairness and equality, you're saying hey, this is an economic reality out there and state's ought to do their part.
If on the ideological right, you say there's no such thing as a free lunch, therefore there can't be free college. Somebody's got to pay for it. Well, how does high school work? Now we go back into the murky world of cost versus price.
You will hear many higher education people, particularly those who are involved in the financial aid policy world, say the solution to high price is to make sure poor people get in free, and have the people who can afford to pay the high price, pay for it. That's the most equitable solution. And that's what our entire system is built around – scholarships for the needy, and then everybody else pays. Unfortunately it doesn't quite work for the middle class, because it's unaffordable for the middle class, as well as for students from poor families. The fact of the matter is it doesn't work at all. The system has been tried for 30 years and hasn't done anything about improving college enrollment for minorities or poor students.
The point is that despite its popularity, despite its practical importance, despite its political power, the institutions of existing financial aid which inhabit vast administrative desks in colleges all across the country, and those who support it like the college board, are devoted to making sure faculty don't lose out and don't get the raises they're used to or don't get a job they want. Those forces are very powerful inside the legislative process. They've been working it for 30 years.
JW: One of the challenges, and this is the God's work that Morley and his team are doing, is any state legislature has say 100 to 120 people, and they all have ideas about what's important to them. They went back to their district and campaigned on roads, or infrastructure, it could be all kinds of things. In each of those states you've got to find someone who says, yeah I want to take this on.
MW: Right.
JM: You can't just throw it out there.
MW: You need a champion.
JM: You need a champion, and you need someone who's willing to take some heat.
MW: In California the champion would be somebody you've already interviewed, Ortiz Oakley.
Chancellor Oakley, yeah.
MW: You need to find those, and it's not quite as frustrating as it sounds. It's frustrating to hear the same old debate, the same old arguments, played out.
Stale.
MW: In national media, no reference to research. People putting up theoretical reasons why it can't be done, ignoring the practicality that is has been done and has been successful. That's frustrating. But at the state level, when you find a champion it's too much fun, it's not frustrating at all.
Presidential debates are coming. This will come up in the democratic primaries. If you were to phrase your own debate question about free college, what would it be?
JW: Were you sitting with us at lunch?
I wish.
MW:
JM: A good one.
Jack, would you have the same question?
JM: It's a good one. Because people want their state to administer the program. They trust their state. It's closer.
MW: Education's local. K-12 done by a school board, universities are done by the state, everybody gets that.
JM: The idea of a federal government getting involved in a heavy handed way, brings in all of the mistrust, all of the, “my state's different than their state.” We wanted something that works for a community. The key line there is, the federal government helping states support the programs. The idea that there's a federal solution to communities that are so different is hard to imagine and in today's environment, the idea that something could get passed at a national basis, is hard to fathom. But things get done at the state level all the time.
Every single day, states are accomplishing.