Loading...

Follow MARC | The Media Activism Research Collective on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

By Jessa Lingel

When they first hatched the idea for the event, the organizers of last night’s Conversation between Kimberlé Crenshaw and Anita Hill didn’t know how timely it would be, coming on the heels of eerily familiar testimony from a woman about a sexual predator nominated – and eventually confirmed – to the Supreme Court.  Getting to hear the incredibly insightful and sharp commentary from Crenshaw, Hill and moderator Dorothy Roberts was a privilege, a source of encouragement and also a challenge – to ask more of ourselves, our institutions and each other.  As a way of sharing their insights with a broader audience, here are some of the highlights of the conversation.
Dr. Roberts opened the conversation by noting the “Irony, paradox, and tragedy” of the similarities between the confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh and Thomas.

Dr. Hill noted that Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony should have represented an opportunity to reflect on years earlier and to expect a fair process. Yet looking specifically at the process of the hearing, depressingly little has changed. Like Dr. Blasey Ford, Dr. Hill was given a week to prepare for her testimony, which included travel time; in 1991, the Senate didn’t want a full investigation, with restrictions on witnesses, just as in 2018;  in 1991, experts in sexual harassment were ready to testify, but were excluded then, just as now. Hill went n to note that in both instances, the Senate was “more concerned about their schedule than the truth,” where the “framing of the process, and the framing of their questions were not informed by facts and knowledge, and therefore really excluded, especially in 2018, a whole body of information that has been developed.”

For Dr. Crenshaw, “the most compelling thing I noted was how much they seemed to get the memo about how the photo op needed to look.” Although the optics had shifted from the “tribunal” format deployed against Anita Hill, where Republicans were aggressive and disbelieving, while Democrats were standoffish and impartial (at best), and failed to affirm Hill or seriously critique Thomas. But although Republicans understood the need to shift the appearance of the testimony, the process itself staid the same.

The commitment to refusing to affirm women’s testimony is fierce.  Dr. Hill reminded us that during the 1991 hearing, Orrin Hatch accused her of plagiarizing her accusations based on The Exorcist, going so far as to bring a photocopied version of the text to the Senate floor.  Hill’s damning point is that men view women who make accusations against powerful men are possessed, evil. Yet Hill noted that the lack of such outlandish claims shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as an indicator of success in that the more subtle “deception of the pretext of fairness is almost as damning.”

Both Hill and Crenshaw issued difficult challenges.  In terms of whether or not the Senate was or wasn’t concerned with the truth of Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony, Dr. Hill noted that “it’s not so much that the senate doesn’t want to know the truth, it’s that they don’t want the public to know the truth.” Meanwhile, Dr. Crenshaw argued, “we have to confront the fact that patriarchy doesn’t change because we have some rights, racism doesn’t change because we have some rights.”  Looking back from 1991 to 2018, Crenshaw insisted on the need to move beyond identifying teaching moments to a process for meaningful conversation, asking “what is the lesson plan that comes out of these moments?” More specifically, Crenshaw made two points about the trials as “teaching moments”:  First, that “we have to think critically about the confirmation process, this is the culmination of a longer than 30 year campaignto install a particular profile in the judiciary.”

Second, Crenshaw noted the need to “draw out new understandings of credibility.” Movingly, Crenshaw noted that while Blasey Ford was calm, collected and believable, Kavanaugh was emotional and cagey.  For Crenshaw, this gap pointed to “the discursive capital that men have over women,” and the need for a vocabulary that names this gap because “You can’t solve a problem that you can’t name.”

Expanding on Crenshaw’s point that organizations like the Federalist Society have have powerful effects on shaping the Judiciary, Dr. Hill pointed out that while Kavanaugh had a range of institutions backing him (including incredibly powerful institutions like the White House and the Republican Party), structurally, Blasey Ford had no institutional support.  In other words, “It’s not just the behavior that we have to deal with, it’s the structures of support” that challenge accusers. With additional examples like forced arbitration and NDAs, Hill argued that these structures become part of a system that threatens civil rights collectively.

Crenshaw also issued a powerful critique of the narrative that sexual harassment is the purview of upper and middle class white women: “sexual harassment at work has been a black women’s issue since the moment we arrived on these shores.” Thinking back on Thomas’ claim that the hearing was a “high tech lynching,” Crenshaw argued, “what black man has ever been lynched for anything a black women has ever said?” When thinkers like Orlando Patterson suggest that sexual harassment is something black women should simply know how to handle, it demonstrates “a profound ignorance” and “a refusal to recognize that anti-racist efforts and feminist efforts were part of the same narrative of sexual harassment.”

Although Hill and Crenshaw traced the disheartening parallels between trials separated by 30 years, both thought it was important to note that there have also been important changes. Currently, 90% of companies have policies about sexual harassment, and while a substantial majority of the US public thought that Thomas should be confirmed, Kavanaugh enjoys no such support.

As Provost Anita Allen noted in her introduction, “The impact of these women on how we think about justice has been nothing short of profound.”  At a time when many of us feel very much in need of provocative thinking about justice, race and gender, the exchange between Crenshaw, Hill and Roberts was needed, meaningful and generative.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Along with some of my favorite Annenberg doc students and alums, I headed to Rutgers for a symposium called Media, Techno-political Action and Social Justice.  There were a lot of really terrific speakers there, presenting work on social movements, digital culture and media making. I found myself taking lots of notes during the talks, and wound up with a *ton* of books and articles to add to my to-read list. I also learned about some really exciting activist projects related to media and digital culture. Rather than a report back, I thought I’d share some of the authors and activist projects referenced during the symposium sessions. 

During her talk on media activism during armed conflict, Clemencia Rodriguez gave glowing praise to work from Merlyna Lim, who is a Canada Research Chair (CRC) in Digital Media and Global Network Society.  I wasn’t able to track down the specific talk that Rodriguez mentioned, but am excited to add the paper below to my reading list for thinking critically about space and protest.

Chris Robé gave us a sense of the extended history of video activism, and shared some of his work on El Grito de Sunset Park, which provides a platform on which to express and document the experiences of marginalized communities by encouraging civic engagement to protect human rights.  I got to know El Grito a little bit during Occupy, but hadn’t kept up with their current work, which involves (among other things) legal clinics and speakouts about police violence.

I loved Anna Feigenbaum’s opening question, what can be done with a media studies that thinks beyond taken-for-granted media devices? She made some shrewd observations about the need for communication and media studies to take a wider view of its field of study, citing geography as a discipline that has opened itself to a wide range of scholarship.  I’m looking forward to reading her book on the history of tear gas, and there’s also a great co-authored paper that introduces some of her key questions.  Feigenbaum shared her work on Riot ID, a project that helps people identify, monitor and record the use of riot control against civilians. 

Erika Polson presented work on the feminization of expat labor, drawing on fieldwork in Bangalore.  I am a sucker for research that draws on participatory mapping, so I’m looking forward to reading a paper she cited by Shilpa Phadke about differences between how men and women move through public space in Mumbai.

Remember how great Charles Tilly’s work on crowds is?  Paolo Gerbaudo does. Having followed Gerbaudo’s work on digital media, social movements and political ethics for some time, it was great to hear him synthesize some of his ideas about populism, participation and activism.

 

Partial bibliography:

Feigenbaum, A. (2016). Tear gas: The making of a peaceful poison. NewYork, NY: Verso.

Feigenbaum, A., & Kanngieser, A. (2015). For a politics of atmospheric governance. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 80-84.

Lim, M. (2014). Seeing spatially: People, networks and movements in digital and urban spaces. International Development Planning Review, 36(1), 51-72. 10.3828/idpr.2014.4

Phadke, S. (2012). Gendered usage of public spaces: a case study of Mumbai. The Fear That Stalks: Gender-based Violence in Public Spaces. New Delhi: Zubaan, 51, 80.

Tilly, C. (2000). Spaces of contention. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 5(2), 135-159.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview