Pharyngula just wrote this blog entry about experiments done a few years back where couples (who all seemed to be amateur street acrobats) had sex in an MRI tube to help researchers understand how all of those parts fit together. The research is definitely fascinating, but the experimental method is utterly hysterical. Thank goodness for viagra, right?
When i posted about the teen walkout, i wanted to highlight how excited i am that students are speaking out for something that they believe, for something that they know is wrong. Embedded in my post was my disdain for HR 4437, but i did not fully articulate my own views. The comments that followed made it clear that i need to explain why i oppose HR 4437.
The status of undocumented workers in this country is very tricky. Over the years, we have looked the other way as immigrants enter our country illegally and work doing the most grueling labor that no citizen will do. We have turned a blind eye because our economy depends on that cheap labor. Some employers have taken this to a new level and slavery in this country is at an all-time high. The abuse of immigrants is atrocious. There are no labor laws to protect them, no social security, no social services. In most places where undocumented workers live and work, there is a social contract: behave, work hard, and no one will turn you in. Undocumented workers stay because, even with these atrocious work conditions, their lives are better here than where they came from; their opportunity is greater.
Our approach is not sustainable, nor is it morally just. Thus, the question emerges: what do we do about the 20 MILLION illegal aliens living in the United States? This question is both a moral and a practical question.
Many of these people have been living in the United States for decades. They no longer have homes in their country of origin. They have children who are citizens of America. They have obeyed the laws, paid taxes and worked harder than most of us can imagine. There is nothing morally just about treating these individuals as criminals and expelling them. They have done their time, they have paid their dues. And we have always treated them like the trash of the earth.
Some people argue that these people don’t deserve to stay because they did not get visas, did not follow the rules and that it is unfair to legal immigrants. Unfortunately, this argument misses the class dynamic that is critical to the story of undocumented workers. The American visa system is set up to welcome wealthy, educated individuals into white collar jobs. Take a look at how many people get visas to work on farms, in meat packing factories or as janitors. These are not the visas that we offer; most undocumented workers are not eligible for the visas we do offer.
Once an individual is in the United States illegally, it is very difficult for them to begin the process to become a citizen. You cannot apply for a green card if you are here illegally. Thus, there are people who have been here for 20 years and have not taken the steps to become citizens; they have simply worked hard to remain undetected because they do not know of a better way.
HR 4437 is not the answer. While the adjustments to penalties for child abuse and other atrocious acts are logical, what makes HR 4437 problematic is actually its adjustments to employment. By requiring mandatory employment identification, people who have been working in this country for decades will be forced out of jobs with no recourse. This section aims to starve out the population, to force law abiding undocumented workers to leave. Certainly, there will be an even darker underground and many desperate undocumented workers will be forced to turn to more dangerous work in an attempt to stay in the country. There is no doubt this will also increase gang activity and other illegal activities. Racial tensions will rise and violence will erupt, all because of desperation.
I can respect that we need to move to an above ground market, but we cannot turn our backs on those who have been working hard for years. We need to provide ways in which law abiding undocumented workers can come forward without fear of expulsion and apply for citizenship and visas. As we move towards an above-ground system, we need to temporarily forgive undocumented workers for certain crimes committed out of desperation to stay in the past (such as social security number fraud).
I am also very concerned about the sections on “gangs.” What is the legal definition of a gang? It worries me greatly that people can be deported or refused admission for presumed association with gangs. It also worries me that the Attorney General can designate any group or association as a street gang. (Why do i have a sneaking suspicion that i would be considered a gang member for my affiliation with Burning Man?) I completely understand why the government wants to deport people for illegal activities, but i worry about the guilty until proven innocent framing of this section of HR 4437. And i really worry about the guilt through association implications. Didn’t we learn anything from the McCarthy era?
People ask why it is so significant that teens walked out. These teens are legal; they are citizens. They are speaking out for a population that is silenced, a population that cannot be visible. They are doing so on school hours because that makes the most impact. Even with the knowledge that they will be fined and given detention, they walked out. Frustrated teachers argued that this is foolish, that their parents came here to give them an education and they aren’t even trying. While these teachers have the best intentions, students have a better grasp on reality. They know that their parents are at risk of being deported. They know that they are mostly not eligible for good jobs that depend on an education; they are going to do the kinds of work their parents do. They are living a working class reality and are completely alienated from it. It is the saddest aspect of our failed education system and our unacknowledged class hierarchy.
Unfortunately, this political regime is doing an amazing job of approaching world politics with brute force and xenophobia. HR 4437 is no different. No wonder the world hates us. I am glad people are thinking about how to handle undocumented workers; i just wish that folks would have more compassion and understanding of the dynamics and lives of people who have worked fucking hard to fatten our privileged asses. Most undocumented workers are not criminals and they should not be treated as such. They are good people, trying really hard to make their lives and the lives of their families better.
On a personal note, i spoke with a neighbor about this bill. She’s been here illegally for almost a decade; she has two small children that she works hard to support. When i brought it up, her eyes got wide with fear. I told her not to worry, that i am on her side; this gave her much relief. It is clear that she’s very scared. She told me she didn’t understand this bill. She pays taxes, she works hard, she obeys laws, she is trying really hard. She doesn’t know what to do. I wish i could tell her not to worry, that everything will be OK. But i have to admit that i’ve lost faith in the humanity of this country.
In college, many of my friends worked at teen outreach programs. They helped kids who were on the street, suicidal, struggling with addiction, working as prostitutes, or engaging in self-harm. Often, they got money from the city or state to distribute condoms and clean needles, do prevention education and do outreach social work.
With sites like LiveJournal, Xanga and MySpace, many teens are expressing similar kinds of out-of-control behaviors. Are there any digital teen outreach programs? Are any social workers or therapists reaching out to teens who are clearly battling tough issues? I recognize that these websites are not the best place to do actual therapy, but neither is the street. A huge part of what teen outreach programs do is help direct teens to places where they can get help. Are there any such outreach programs on the web?
Unfortunately, it seems like the only people reaching out to these teens are friends who are scared by what their friends say (this is not a good way to do outreach). There are organizations who have set up help websites, but they rely on people to find them via search. Wouldn’t it be great if concerned social workers and outreach organizers could hop onto MySpace and reach out to some of the teens who clearly need help?
I’ve also seen religious organizations do outreach. Some is simply missionary work – reaching out to convert teens. Unfortunately, though, the bulk seems to be religious individuals approaching queer teens to threaten them with damnation. 🙁
First, it lost all of its SMSes. Then it started shutting off on its own mid-IM (requiring being plugged in to turn back on). Then it started flickering, changing all sorts of colors and making all sorts of 1950s-TV style line static. And then it crashed completely, leaving behind those crazy colors on its screen (even when off).
I’m going through severe withdrawal. Anyone who knows me knows that i start twitching without that toy in hand.
When is the Sidekick III gonna be released? Eeeek. Must replace toy. Can’t handle withdrawal. Must replace toy…. Thank goodness for a particular gadgety gal who is kindly going to lend me her II until it comes out. Cuz seriously, toy death is way way way too sad.
I just finished taping a segment for tonight’s O’Reilly Factor talking about MySpace. I am actually surprised at how calm the conversation was. Relatively controversy free. Of course, it’s still about the scary side, but i think it came out OK. O’Reilly even introduced the town square metaphor for me, helping me explain that teens are doing what they’ve always done in public spaces.
Anyhow, if anyone watches it, tell me how it came out since i won’t get a chance to see it live.
Update:
I still haven’t seen the show, but some folks took pictures and put them up on Flickr which lets me at least see what i looked like (cuz i didn’t get to see anything during filming). Apparently i’m a cultural anthropologist! I don’t quite know how i got that label, but it is indeed an ist! Anyhow, i’m really rather humored by all of this. My mother, brother, aunt and grandparents are equally humored. I managed to survive one of the most conservative and controversial TV figures unscathed. Who would’ve guessed?
Update 2: I just put a copy of my segment up on You Tube. Enjoy!
In a bulletin on MySpace, Tom Anderson wrote a very simple message:
it’s interesting to see how people are using myspace to organize for political causes. 🙂
there was a report on NPR about it today
He pointed the flood to NPR. Two minutes later:
NPR.org is currently unavailable due to technical difficulties, but we are currently working to restore service.
I feel bad for the tech admins over at NPR. But i have to admit that it’s kinda funny how fast a MySpace link can destroy a big website.
For good reason, many Americans are outraged by HR 4437, a House bill that will stiffen the penalties around illegal immigration. Over the weekend, protests began with over 500,000 people taking to the streets on Saturday. Online, teens wrote bulletin board posts on MySpace, encouraging their peers to speak out against the bill. On Monday, instigated through MySpace postings, thousands of teens across the country walked out of school and marched in protest. In Los Angeles alone, 36,000 students walked out and took to the streets. Throughout the country, thousands of teens walked out in protest.
I am in awe of what these students did. As a population, teens are silenced by society, ineligible to vote. And yet, they took to the streets to stand up for what they believe in. They used the digital public to rally each other, to spread information and encouragement even though most knew they faced disapproving schools. They stood in solidarity, speaking out for an oppressed population that resides in this country. How amazing is that?
What disappoints me the most is how school officials, law enforcement and the press handled the situation. We bitch about how young people are not politically engaged, but when they speak out for something that hegemonic society disapproves of, they are slapped down. Ah, the irony.
Public officials and school administrators spoke out against the students’ actions. Quoting these figures, the press gave the impression that administrators were concerned for the safety of their students. The discussions on MySpace painted a different picture as students discussed how schools would be docked $50 for each student who did not attend. In admonishing the students, administrators told the press that kids should return to school where they can have conversations about immigration in a “productive” way. The tone was quite condescending, arguing that a school day is more important than this political act. When LA Mayor Villaraigosa spoke to the young protesters, he said: “You’ve come today, you registered your commitment to your families, your opposition to the Sensenbrenner legislation, but it’s time to go back to school.” I am particularly bothered by Villaraigosa’s statements given his activist history and stance on immigrants.
In some towns, teens were charged with truancy for participating in the protest. Many students are faced with detentions and other punishments for their participation.
And people wonder why teens don’t engage politically…..
Of course, what is most depressing is how the press covered the story. The first coverage i heard was from NPR where they had soundbytes of youth stumbling, trying to explain why they were protesting. The coverage made them look stupid and naive and the commentator talked about how the youth were uninformed.
Now, not all of the protesting youth fully understood what they were speaking out against. Yet, most did. At the very least, they understood that something was gravely wrong about the bill. Yet, many students were quite informed. Articulate students spoke about how the bill represented a form of racist oppression that would permit racial profiling. Other spoke about the fundamental problems with the economic system, about how Mexicans are a critical labor force that is systematically oppressed. Other kids talked about how their parents came to this country to give them a chance. They crafted banners and posters, brought flags to signify the diversity of cultures that people came from, chanted about Cesar Chavez and human rights.
And still, the press talked about how the students were just looking for a day off school. Almost every story covered that aspect. There is no doubt that some students were looking for exactly that. Then again, there were plenty of adults protesting the war so that they didn’t have to go to work. Yet, the news never talked about truant adults.
By trivializing the youths’ participation, the press failed to capture the significance of this political act. How long has it been since so many students took a public stance? Has it been since Vietnam?
What is gained by belittling the students, punishing their act, and pooh-poohing their engagement with the public sphere? Sadly, this is yet-another act of ageist oppression meant to silence the youth when they stand for something that contradicts hegemonic values.
…..
One of the things that really bothers me about how this story played out concerns the issue of race and class. I wonder how a protest would be handled if privileged white kids all took to the streets backed by their parents. By listening to these teens speak out, it is clear that anti-Mexican sentiments are running high in this country.
The issue of illegal immigrants is raw with racism and injustice. On one hand, we are a land of immigrants (who decimated the native population). On the other, we have a fucked-up attitude about who has the right to be here. And that does not include people who come to do manual labor or people who speak a language that threatens English dominance.
To complicate matters, a huge portion of the economy of the southwest and California depends on illegal immigrants. Who picks the strawberries that you eat? Who works in the meat factories? Who cleans the toilets? How often do officials look the other way during harvest only to violently deport the immigrants once they are no longer needed? I often hear people bitch about how illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans and use up our precious tax money. Of course, these people fail to recognize that most Americans refuse to do the jobs that illegal immigrants do and that this population deserves some dignity and access to resources for what they contribute to this society.
I’m quite curious what will happen to privileged society if all illegal immigrants are deported. Will there be a food shortage? How much will the cost of everything rise?
Unfortunately, i doubt that this bill will do anything to help the people who are the backbone of American manual labor. I doubt it will improve labor conditions and it certainly won’t improve race relations. This is quite unfortunate, because i definitely don’t think that the current approach to immigrants is just. Where is Cesar Chavez when you need him?
………
Update: NPR has a great short piece on the issue of students walking out.
It’s actually really good to hear the principal in this segment talk about her conflicted feelings – she makes it very clear that she needs to keep the students in school for the money (Fresno loses $30 a day for each absent student). What adminstrators are offering students as an alternative (write letters to your representatives) is not nearly as empowering as walking out. IMHO, the students aren’t stupid – they know that walking out of school will get the press attention and make the issue far more visible than writing letters. They also know that doing it on a school day instead of on a weekend will make it very clear that youth care and that they aren’t just there because of their parents. They were written out of the stories of Saturday’s protests (even though they were very present). By making their own, they are saying loud and clear that this isn’t acceptable to the younger generation.
I have no idea if this is for real, but it made me smile all the same.
(For those who need more info before clicking fun links – imagine what happens when your mom wants you to get married and you tell her you already are so that she’ll stop bugging you… and then she wants to meet your wife. The answer is obvious, right? Find a fake bride.)
(Tx Scott)
I used the phrase “super publics” in my essay last night. I hadn’t introduced it before, although you’ll probably see me use it more and more as my dissertation emerges because i crafted it to help me work through a few things theoretically. I was asked about this term in various emails and i realized that i should probably do some explaining. I’d give a proper definition, but it’s still a work in progress, so instead, bear with me as i take a stab at what i’m going for.
Historically, we have talked about the public, as in the public sphere (Habermas). Implicated in this singular is the idea that there is a coherent entity that one could address or visit. More recently, academics have talked about publics, recognizing that there is no coherent public, but a collection of intertwined publics. In other words, a public in London is not the same as a public in Hong Kong. “The notion of a public enables a reflexivity in the circulation of texts among strangers who become, by virtue of their reflexively circulating discourse, a social entity” (Warner). Translation: publics are made up of strangers who are connected by information and, thus, share a coherent position as receivers of that information. For example, when Mayor Bloomberg speaks of addressing the public, he means all of New York. If he uses his “local” paper (the New York Times) to address his public, the audience who is part of Bloomberg’s public is arguably much larger (especially given the number of folks who see themselves to be New Yorkers). Yet, Bloomberg cannot speak of addressing the public in a global sense because he is not addressing the poor farmer in Kenya. Likewise, that Kenyan’s notion of a public doesn’t include New Yorkers when he speaks in his town’s public square.
Public is also used as an adjective. When it references government (“public services”), it is explicitly limited in scope by the scope of the relevant government – there is no universal public service. As an adjective, it can also connote qualities of exposure typically attributed to addressing an audience of strangers. For example, a public act is one that is visible to an audience of strangers, connected by exposure to that act (a.k.a. a public).
Digital life has really screwed with the notion of public, removing traditional situationism (Goffman) that connects strangers. If the Kenyan farmer is connected to the Internet and reads English, he can be a part of Bloomberg’s public via the New York Times. Yet, this does not mean that the New York Times would conceptualize him in their public, nor does it mean that his public acts would be equally visible by other constituents of the Times.
Digital architectures alter the structure of social life and information flow. Persistence, searchability, the collapse of distance and time, copyability… These are not factors that most everyday people consider when living unmediated lives. Yet, they are increasingly becoming normative in society. Throughout the 20th century, mass media forced journalists and “public” figures to come to terms with this, but digital structures force everyone to do so. People’s notion of public radically changes when they have to account for the Kenyan farmer, their lurking boss, and the person who will access their speech months from now. People’s idea of a public is traditionally bounded by space, time and audience – the park is a public that people understand. And, yet, this is all being disrupted.
In talking about “super publics,” I want to get at the altered state of publics – what publics look like when they are infused with the features of digital architectures. What does it mean to speak across time and space to an unknown audience? What happens when you cannot predict who will witness your act because they are not visible now, even though they may be tomorrow? How do people learn to deal with a public larger and more diverse than the one they learned to make sense of as teenagers? How are teenagers affected by growing up in an environment where they can assume super publics? I want to talk about what it means to speak for all time and space, to audiences you cannot conceptualize.
A reporter recently asked me why kids today have no shame. I told her it was her fault. Media is obsessed with revealing the backstage of people in the public eye – celebrities, politicians, etc. More recently, they’ve created a public eye to put people into – Survivor, Real World, etc. Open digital expression systems coupled with global networks took it one step farther by saying that anyone could operate as media and expose anyone else. What’s juicy is what people want to hide and thus, the media (all media) goes after this like hawks. Add the post-9/11 attitude that if you hide something, you are clearly a terrorist. Should it surprise anyone that teenagers have responded by exposing everything with pride? What better way to react to a super public where everyone is working as paparazzi? There’s nothing juicy about exposing what’s already exposed. Do it yourself and you have nothing to worry about. These are the kinds of things that are emerging as people face life in super publics.
I want to demarcate super publics as distinct from publics because i think that they need some theorizing. In other words, i think that we need to understand the dynamics of super publics, the architectures that enable them, and the behaviors and cultures that emerge because of them.
People keep asking me “What went wrong with Friendster? Why is MySpace any different?” Although i’ve danced around this issue in every talk i’ve given, i guess i’ve never addressed the question directly. So i sat down to do so tonite. I meant to write a short blog post, but a full-length essay came out. Rather than make you read this essay in blog form (or via your RSS reader), i partitioned it off to a printable webpage. If you are building social technologies or online communities, please read this. I think it’s really important to understand the history of these sites, how users engaged with them, how the architects engaged with users, and how design decisions had social consequences. Hopefully, my essay can help with this.
Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad?
I do want to highlight a section towards the end because i think that it’s quite problematic that folks aren’t thinking about the repercussions of the moral panic around MySpace.
If MySpace falters in the next 1-2 years, it will be because of this moral panic. Before all of you competitors get motivated to exacerbate the moral panic, think again. If the moral panic succeeds:
- Youth will lose (even more) freedom of speech. How far will the curtailment of the First Amendment go?
- All users will lose the safety and opportunities of pseudonymity, particularly around political speech and particularly internationally.
- Internet companies will be required to confirm the real life identity of all users. At their own cost.
- International growth on social communities will be massively curtailed because it is much harder to confirm non-US populations.
- Internet companies will lose the protections of common carrier which will have ramifications in all sorts of directions.
- Internet companies will see a massive increase in subpoenas and will be forced to turn over data on their users which will in turn destroy the trust relationship between companies and users.
- There will be a much greater barrier for new communities to form and for startups to build out new social environments.
- International companies will be far better positioned to create new social technologies because they won’t have to abide by American laws even if American citizens use their technology (assuming the servers are hosted outside of the US). Unless, of course, we decide to block sites on a nation-wide basis….