Everyone against racism: Agency and the production of meaning in the anti-racism practices of two feminist organizations

Theory and Society

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 785-818

  Scott, Ellen K ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034346474     PISSN: 03042421     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1026781002398     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217.
2. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217.
3. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217. This is not the only body of literature that examines the production of meaning in everyday life. For example, a social constructionist approach to social problems asserts that issues come to be defined as social problems through public and interactive processes that produce new meanings for situations that often long pre-exist their emergence as “social problems." The emergence of the battered women’s and rape crisis movement is a classic example of “claims-making" and the definition of a social problem in the subjective manner proposed by Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse, in “Social Problems: a re-formulation,” Social Problems 21 (1973): 145-159, and Joseph R. Gusfield, in The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981). As I discuss in the literature review, there is also a growing body of social movements literature that takes a less deliberate view of meaning work. This paper builds on and contributes to that work. Here, I focus on frarie alignment theory as it most prominently addresses the production of meanir g in social movement contexts. The groups I studied made self-conscious attempts at social change and were classical social movement organizations, at least at their inception. In trying to make sense of the process of meaning work there n, I looked first to the scholarly work specifically on social change organizations. In this article, I intend to point out some of the limitations therein and build further on cultural approaches to meaning work in social movements. Of course, future work integrating the social problems and social movements approaches to inderslanding the emergence of meaning in group contexts would be fruitful.
4. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217. This is not the only body of literature that examines the production of meaning in everyday life. For example, a social constructionist approach to social problems asserts that issues come to be defined as social problems through public and interactive processes that produce new meanings for situations that often long pre-exist their emergence as “social problems." The emergence of the battered women’s and rape crisis movement is a classic example of “claims-making" and the definition of a social problem in the subjective manner proposed by Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse, in “Social Problems: a re-formulation,” Social Problems 21 (1973): 145-159, and Joseph R. Gusfield, in The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981). As I discuss in the literature review, there is also a growing body of social movements literature that takes a less deliberate view of meaning work. This paper builds on and contributes to that work. Here, I focus on frarie alignment theory as it most prominently addresses the production of meanir g in social movement contexts. The groups I studied made self-conscious attempts at social change and were classical social movement organizations, at least at their inception. In trying to make sense of the process of meaning work there n, I looked first to the scholarly work specifically on social change organizations. In this article, I intend to point out some of the limitations therein and build further on cultural approaches to meaning work in social movements. Of course, future work integrating the social problems and social movements approaches to inderslanding the emergence of meaning in group contexts would be fruitful.
5. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217. This is not the only body of literature that examines the production of meaning in everyday life. For example, a social constructionist approach to social problems asserts that issues come to be defined as social problems through public and interactive processes that produce new meanings for situations that often long pre-exist their emergence as “social problems." The emergence of the battered women’s and rape crisis movement is a classic example of “claims-making" and the definition of a social problem in the subjective manner proposed by Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse, in “Social Problems: a re-formulation,” Social Problems 21 (1973): 145-159, and Joseph R. Gusfield, in The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981). As I discuss in the literature review, there is also a growing body of social movements literature that takes a less deliberate view of meaning work. This paper builds on and contributes to that work. Here, I focus on frarie alignment theory as it most prominently addresses the production of meanir g in social movement contexts. The groups I studied made self-conscious attempts at social change and were classical social movement organizations, at least at their inception. In trying to make sense of the process of meaning work there n, I looked first to the scholarly work specifically on social change organizations. In this article, I intend to point out some of the limitations therein and build further on cultural approaches to meaning work in social movements. Of course, future work integrating the social problems and social movements approaches to inderslanding the emergence of meaning in group contexts would be fruitful.
6. See David A. Snow et al., “Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-481; David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 197-217. This is not the only body of literature that examines the production of meaning in everyday life. For example, a social constructionist approach to social problems asserts that issues come to be defined as social problems through public and interactive processes that produce new meanings for situations that often long pre-exist their emergence as “social problems." The emergence of the battered women’s and rape crisis movement is a classic example of “claims-making" and the definition of a social problem in the subjective manner proposed by Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse, in “Social Problems: a re-formulation,” Social Problems 21 (1973): 145-159, and Joseph R. Gusfield, in The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981). As I discuss in the literature review, there is also a growing body of social movements literature that takes a less deliberate view of meaning work. This paper builds on and contributes to that work. Here, I focus on frarie alignment theory as it most prominently addresses the production of meanir g in social movement contexts. The groups I studied made self-conscious attempts at social change and were classical social movement organizations, at least at their inception. In trying to make sense of the process of meaning work there n, I looked first to the scholarly work specifically on social change organizations. In this article, I intend to point out some of the limitations therein and build further on cultural approaches to meaning work in social movements. Of course, future work integrating the social problems and social movements approaches to inderslanding the emergence of meaning in group contexts would be fruitful.
7. David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn. JAI Press, 1988): 198.
8. Bert Klandermans, “The formation and mobilizaticn of consensus,” in International Social Movement Research 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988): 173-196.
9. David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Master frames and cycles of protest,” in Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg, editors. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 133-155. 136.
10. William H. Sewell, Jr., “A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation,” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1992): 1-29, 8; Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
11. William H. Sewell, Jr., “A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation,” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1992): 1-29, 8; Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
12. James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997).
13. Verta Taylor and Nancy E. Whittier, “Analytical approaches to social movement culture: The culture of the women’s movement, ‘ in Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 163-187, 168.
14. Sidney Tarrow, “Mentalities, political cultures, and collective action frames. Constructing meanings through action,” in Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg, editors. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 174-202.
15. James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest, and Maren Klawiter, “Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: Mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer,” Social Problems 46 (1999): 104-126.
16. James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest, and Maren Klawiter, “Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: Mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer,” Social Problems 46 (1999): 104-126.
17. See, for example, Gary Alan Fine, “Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movement,” in Hank Johnston und Bert Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 127-143; James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest; Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 3-24; Mayer N. Zald, “Culture, ideology and strategic framing,” in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, editors. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 261-274.
18. See, for example, Gary Alan Fine, “Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movement,” in Hank Johnston und Bert Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 127-143; James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest; Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 3-24; Mayer N. Zald, “Culture, ideology and strategic framing,” in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, editors. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 261-274.
19. See, for example, Gary Alan Fine, “Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movement,” in Hank Johnston und Bert Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 127-143; James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest; Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 3-24; Mayer N. Zald, “Culture, ideology and strategic framing,” in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, editors. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 261-274.
20. See, for example, Gary Alan Fine, “Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movement,” in Hank Johnston und Bert Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 127-143; James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest; Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 3-24; Mayer N. Zald, “Culture, ideology and strategic framing,” in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, editors. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 261-274.
21. See, for example, Johnston and Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements"; Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community: Cultural differences in community building among grass-roots environmentalists,” Social Problems 42 (1995): 513-534; and Ann Swidler, “Cultural power and social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 25-40.
22. See, for example, Johnston and Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements"; Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community: Cultural differences in community building among grass-roots environmentalists,” Social Problems 42 (1995): 513-534; and Ann Swidler, “Cultural power and social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 25-40.
23. See, for example, Johnston and Klandermans, “The cultural analysis of social movements"; Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community: Cultural differences in community building among grass-roots environmentalists,” Social Problems 42 (1995): 513-534; and Ann Swidler, “Cultural power and social movements,” in Social Movements and Culture, 25-40.
24. Ann Swidler, “Culture in action: Symbols and strategies,” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 273-286.
25. See Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society, and James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest. In this article. I use the term “practices" to mean quite simply what people do, the actions they take. While other understandings include textual materials, as well as other forms of discursive practice, here I intend to use the term a bit more narrowly in order to focus on action.
26. See Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society, and James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest. In this article. I use the term “practices" to mean quite simply what people do, the actions they take. While other understandings include textual materials, as well as other forms of discursive practice, here I intend to use the term a bit more narrowly in order to focus on action.
27. Anthony Gidden, Constitution of Society.
28. Steven Seidman, Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the Postmodern Era (Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998).
29. Doug McAdam, “The framing function of movement tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the American civil rights movement,” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Cultural Framings, 338-355.
30. See, for example, Maren Klawiter. “Racing for the Cure,” and James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest.
31. See, for example, Maren Klawiter. “Racing for the Cure,” and James M. Jasper, The Art of Moral Protest.
32. Marshall Battani, David R. Hall, and Rosemary Powers, “Cultures’ structures: Making meaning in the public sphere,” Theory and Society 26 (1997): 781-812, 786-787.
33. William H. Sewell, Jr., “A theory of structure,” 20.
34. Noel Sturgeon, “Theorizing movements: direct action and direct theory,” in Marcy Darnovsky, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks, editors. Cultural Politics and Social Movements (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), 35-51.
35. I use pseudonyms for all references to organizations and people within this article.
36. In the early 1990s the racial demographics of the urban center in which these organizations were located was 46.6% white, 13.9’X. Latino, 10.5% African American, 28.4% Asian, and 3% Native American, with 3% classified as “other" or “unknown.
37. Suzanne Staggenborg, “Can feminist organizations be effective?" in Myra Marx Ferree and Patricia Yancey Martin, editors, Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women’s Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), 339-355, 339.
38. A complicated and difficult history of racial dynamics and attempts to create racially diverse organizations preceded these shifts. This article provides some detail about this process. I describe this history in greater detail in my dissertation (Ellen K. Scott, Feminists Working across Racial Divides. The Politics of Race in a Battered Women’s Shelter and a Rape Crisis Center, University of California, Davis, 1997) and in “Creating partnerships for change: alliances and betrayals in the racial politics of two feminist organizations,” Gender & Society 12 (1998): 400-423.
39. A complicated and difficult history of racial dynamics and attempts to create racially diverse organizations preceded these shifts. This article provides some detail about this process. I describe this history in greater detail in my dissertation (Ellen K. Scott, Feminists Working across Racial Divides. The Politics of Race in a Battered Women’s Shelter and a Rape Crisis Center, University of California, Davis, 1997) and in “Creating partnerships for change: alliances and betrayals in the racial politics of two feminist organizations,” Gender & Society 12 (1998): 400-423.
40. Wendy Simonds, Abortion at Work. Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996); Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community.
41. Wendy Simonds, Abortion at Work. Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996); Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community.
42. I further discuss the differences between these approaches to racism later in this article.
43. David T. Wellman, Portraits of White Racism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, second edition), 5.
44. Rhys H. Williams, “Constructing the public good: social movements and cultural resources,” Social Problems 42 (1995): 124-144.
45. While there is no necessary correlation here, there is potentially a historically situated explanation for it. That is, because the individual view has been hegemonic in the United States, this “common sense" view has become, to some extent, an example of what Giddens calls the “stock of unarticulated knowledge,” and thus present though not necessarily named. Conversely, a structural view emerged in the context of social movement opposition to economic and political domination and subordination. (I discuss each of these views and their origins in greater depth later in the article.) Thus, it makes some sense that two organizations composed of leftist feminist activists might more deliberately draw or a structural frame.
46. David T. Wellman, Portraits of White Racism, 43, 42, and 25, respectively.
47. David T. Wellman, Portraits of White Racism, 43, 42, and 25, respectively.
48. David T. Wellman, Portraits of White Racism, 43, 42, and 25, respectively.
49. David T. Wellman, Portraits of White Racism, 43, 42, and 25, respectively.
50. See Steven M. Buechler, Women’s Movements in the United States (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990) and Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left (New York: Vintage Books, 1980).
51. See Steven M. Buechler, Women’s Movements in the United States (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990) and Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left (New York: Vintage Books, 1980).
52. It is noteworthy that, as the racial diversity of both organizations increased, other sites of difference and conflict (such as class and sexuality) became more salient. During the time in which the organizations were white-dominated, members saw race as the primary site of struggle. Race “trumped" other sources of oppression even if the members argued that there is no hierarchy of oppressions. However, this quickly shifted as more women of color joined the organizations and the presumed alliances among them became more problematic. Elsewhere I discuss this in greater depth, as well as the significance of the lesbian presence in these organizations (Feminists Working across Racial Divides and “Creating partnerships for change").
53. By action, I mean that the women in these organisations did not recruit and hire a racially/ethnically diverse staff in leadership positions. Here, I intend to exclude policies and other formalized discourses from this concept of action. I treat the policies and written principles as products of past action, and discursive articulations of organizational philosophy and intent, however separate from contemporary action that I observed while participating as a volunteer.
54. Philomena Essed, Understanding Everyday Racism (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1991).
55. I found it ironic that in my discussions with members about this event, everyone failed to note the exclusionary nature of a Christmas event to Jewish, Muslim, and other women not of the Christian faith who migth be staying in the shelter or working here.
56. In a forthcoming book chapter, I examine the an anti-racism groups and workshops in depth and consider more extensively their limitations in confronting racism ("From race cognizance to racism cognizance: dilemmas in anti-racist activism in California,” in Kathleen Blee and France Winddance Twine, editors, Feminism and Anti-racism: International Struggles for Justice (New York: New York University Press, forthcoming 2001)).
57. See Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1954) and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Prejudice,” in Thomas F. Pettigrew et al., editors, Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1982).
58. See Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1954) and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Prejudice,” in Thomas F. Pettigrew et al., editors, Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1982).
59. Herbert Blumer, “Race relations as a sense of group position,” The Pacific Sociological Review 1 (1958): 3-7.
60. Doug McAdam, “The framing function of movement tactics.
61. William H. Sewell, Jr., “A theory of structure.
62. Anthony Giddens, Constitution of Society.
63. Paul Lichterman, “Piecing together multicultural community,” 517.
64. Marshall Battani, David R. Hall, and Rosemary Powers, “Cultures’ structures,” 809.
65. Noel Sturgeon, “Theorizing movements." 36.