Matching Items (12)
Filtering by
Description
Several different queer feminist zines, along with the author's experiences in queer feminist zine making, are examined using the lens of J. Jack Halberstam's The Queer Art of Failure. Particular attention is paid to zines' unique composition from a variety of unexpected sources, and their subsequent ability to act as counterhegemonic documents. Queer feminist zine makers' critical engagement with the concept of community is also discussed.
ContributorsPruett, Jessica Lynn (Author) / Switzer, Heather (Thesis director) / Dove-Viebahn, Aviva (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
This qualitative research project investigates the contemporary landscape of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) politics and activism, specifically the concept and identities of so-called "straight allies." Through 13 in-depth interviews with individuals who identify as straight allies, we explore the ways in which these heterosexuals engage in LGBT politics and activist culture. We take a grounded theory approach to data analysis, through which the concept of "passive" and "active" activism emerges as a potent framework to understand these allies' meaning making practices, as well as how they negotiate the emotional, interpersonal, and mass-mediated complexities of being straight in LGBT communities and politics. Thompson's (2005) theory of "ontological choreography" is used as an interpretive lens to make sense of the heterogeneous knowledges and experiences our participants draw upon to constitute their straight ally identities. Implications for future research on LGBT politics and straight alliance are discussed.
ContributorsBlazer, Jennifer (Co-author) / Adler, Jake (Co-author) / Grzanka, Patrick (Thesis director) / Fahs, Breanne (Committee member) / Miles, Joseph (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / WPC Graduate Programs (Contributor) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Modern American environmental social movements have strived for a better world for nearly fifty years, pushing a philosophy of careful resource use and limited consumption as an alternative to the pollution and degradation that has so far accompanied global industrialization. The reach of these movements is broad and the topic they cover is one that aligns with the values and beliefs of many; it is thus quite confusing that they've been so unsuccessful. This thesis was a response to that apparent contradiction, exploring why movements have not been as successful as both they and the public initially desired. It began by defining what social movements are and how they emerge or find success, then provided a brief history of environmentalism in America, and the different successes and failures that occurred before and after the first Earth day in 1970. Finally, it explored some of the reasons environmentalism was unsuccessful, and found that while structural barriers like politics and business interests played a role in movement outcomes, the tactics of different groups were at least partially to blame. Once this was concluded, the author used the perspectives of different activists to propose ways to enhance the quality of current movements and allow them to continue to make progress well into the future. In order to expand the audience of this thesis, the author is also working on a children;s book that illustrates many of the important themes that he hopes to convey to the public. Though drafted, the book is incomplete as of the date that documents are due for Barrett review.
ContributorsGuy, Joel D (Author) / Cloutier, Scott (Thesis director) / Josh, MacFayden (Committee member) / Department of English (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning (Contributor) / Department of Management and Entrepreneurship (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Abolitionist activism in 1850's America was divided among two groups of thought: disunionists, who understood the American Constitution to be a pro-slavery document, and political abolitionists, who believed the Constitution was antislavery. This paper traces the origins and structures of each argument, specifically focusing on the philosophies of Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison. It supplements their views with the works of other prominent abolitionists such as Lysander Spooner, Wendell Phillips and Gerrit Smith. In analyzing their rhetoric and beliefs, this paper examines the core of the contention between disunionists and political abolitionists and asserts that the chief divide between the two groups involved questions of whether the wording of the Constitution supported slavery, whether the drafters of the Constitution intended the document to condone slavery, and whether the intentions of the Constitution could be divorced from its interpretation at the hands of the American government and public. Furthermore, this paper argues that the conflict between disunionists and political abolitionists is not confined to the pages of history. It makes parallels between modern activism and the abolitionist writings of the 1850's, attempting to show that the same anti-Constitution reasoning of the disunionists permeates many present-day activists and scholars. It presents Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips and Gerrit Smith as proponents of a philosophy of radical constitutionalism which supports legal and cultural reform grounded in a respect for the ideals they believed were embedded within the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This paper advocates constitutional radicalism as the most just and effective method of American reform, echoing Douglass in his faith in American idealism and the power of law and civic duty to promote national justice.
ContributorsFendler, Austin Michael (Author) / Hanlon, Christopher (Thesis director) / Simonton, Matt (Committee member) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
This paper examines the relationship between feminism and social media and evaluates the ability of social media to function as an effective platform for the advancement of feminism's objectives. In the decades before social media became an integral part of culture, the popularity of feminism deteriorated and feminist voices were unsure that it could be revived or popularized again. However, in recent years, women have used social media as a mechanism to communicate and disseminate feminist ideas. The birth of what is called "hashtag feminism" has been a fundamental shift in the way feminism is done and advocated for in modern culture. In light of this dramatic shift in venue for feminist conversations, academic feminists are asking a series of pertinent questions: Is social media good for feminism and the achievement of feminist objectives? What, if anything, has feminism compromised in order to fit into 140 characters or fewer? This paper argues that social media has provided a platform for feminists to share their stories, which has aided in the building of feminist constituencies. This is the most important work of feminism, because it is making society more receptive to feminist principles and ideas, transforming our culture into one that can accept and fight for feminism's objectives. This paper will examine a series of case studies in which social media has hosted feminist conversations. It will analyze the impact of this social media as a venue for feminist narratives and evaluate the use of social media as a feminist platform in the movement to achieve feminism's objectives.
ContributorsGiel, Katelyn Anne (Author) / Woodall, Gina (Thesis director) / Lake, Milli (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-12
Description
This podcast highlights the voices of organizers and activists across the nation. Representatives from various organizations and individual activists provide their experiences in working within reproductive health activist spaces. By listening to their stories and expertise, the hope is for listeners to center Reproductive Justice as a point of view. The goal is to encourage the audience to join an organization, support their local organizations, or at the very least, learn about resources provided to them by local and national organizations.
ContributorsPerez, Maya Isabella (Co-author) / Adversario, Kim Alexis (Co-author) / Quan, H.L.T. (Thesis director) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
The label of “honors student,” and the status it carries, implies exceptional academic ability, maturity, and accomplishment. The notion that “honors” students are more capable than non-honors students dismisses the particular needs of intersecting identities including gender, race, and/or ability. Said differently, the “honors” designation erases identity and difference. For instance, “honors” students who live with mental illness(es) navigate social spaces and physical structures that assert notions of “success” that are informed by conditions that inhibit bodily function, communication, and educational accomplishment as set by capitalist and ableist standards. Moreover, ableist notions of “success” are always inherently racialized and gendered such that “honors” students women of color living with mental illness are forced to navigate racist and gendered overtones informing academic “success.” Focusing on how students think about and embody the labels of “honors” and “mentally ill” provides unique insight on how the systems of higher education are based in ableist ideology. In this Artist Statement, I discuss my performance Crazy/Smart, a performance that features and stages students’ narratives detailing the means by which students navigate ableism as “honors” students. Using embodied knowledge through performance allows students to decenter dominant, institutionalized narratives about ableism and higher education, speaking up to administrators as people of power and redefining personal success. In this Artist Statement, I detail the theory and method framing my performance Crazy/Smart, a performance using “honors” student stories and narratives to highlight and resist ableist ideology informing higher education more generally and “honors” education more specifically. This Statement includes four sections. First, I provide the theoretical framework that outlines ableism as an embodied ideology. Second, I extend my argument and turn to critical pedagogy to suggest a performance means to resist ableist ideology. Third, I describe the specificities informing my performance including the choices I made to stage ableism as an ideological structure organizing higher education. The fourth and final section is the attached Crazy/Smart script.
ContributorsBishop, Molly Elizabeth (Author) / Rohd, Michael (Thesis director) / Linde, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Film, Dance and Theatre (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Hugh Downs School of Human Communication (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) practitioners (including policymakers, scholars, and nonprofit leaders) in the U.S. and Canada have often focused their attention on the United Nations’ WPS initiative as a strategy for responding to conflicts abroad, particularly in the Global South. As a result of these limitations, black, Latino, and Indigenous advocates and peacebuilders in the U.S. and Canada remain largely unable to take advantage of WPS frameworks and resources. The subjectivity of the term “conflict” and the range of circumstances where it is used inspire this research. The selective application of the word “conflict” is itself a challenge to security, for conflicts can only be addressed once they are acknowledged and so named. Where does WPS intersect with contemporary Indigenous advocacy? A case study of the #noDAPL movement and the ways that nonviolence and women’s leadership emerged at Standing Rock, ND in 2016 provide a partial answer. Four challenges and recommendations are offered to WPS practitioners who seek to expand the availability of WPS resources to Indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada. These challenges and recommendations draw upon existing National Action Plans, legal and policy documents, and data from four interviews conducted with Indigenous women advocates in the U.S. and Canada in 2019. Above all, this paper seeks to encourage WPS practitioners to move beyond “gender mainstreaming” to consider not only how policies and practices impact women and men differently, but also how they may impact Indigenous people and settlers differently.
ContributorsMarques de Mesquita, Carolina (Author) / Lomawaima, K Tsianina (Thesis director) / O'Connor, Brendan (Committee member) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
This short documentary on the Equal Rights Amendment features attorney Dianne Post and State Representative Jennifer Jermaine, and it examines the fight for passage at the federal and state level. This film attempts to answer the following questions: What is the ERA? What is its history? Why do we need it? How do we get it into the Constitution of the United States of America?
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
ContributorsSchroder, Jude Alexander (Author) / Adelman, Madelaine (Thesis director) / Mitchell, Kathryn (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
In 2010, social media, being made available in Arabic, made a large impact in the Middle-East, and social movements throughout several countries exploded from those regions, using the power of social media to their advantage and creating new discussions which were not able to be spoken prior to the introduction of social media in Arabic. Besides creating new social movements, social media has resulted in the transformation and evolution of socialization and how people communicate in their daily lives.
Social media changed the system of networks and connectivity, making communication more tenacious, adaptable, and efficient than ever. Social media is often criticized as a reason for why social movements have not met desired results; however, this is not the fault of social media, rather the fault of the disorganization of people. In this essay, these ideas will be explored, and the many criticisms and misconceptions of social media will be addressed and challenged, creating a more realistic image of social movements with the added power of the new technology called social media.
Social media changed the system of networks and connectivity, making communication more tenacious, adaptable, and efficient than ever. Social media is often criticized as a reason for why social movements have not met desired results; however, this is not the fault of social media, rather the fault of the disorganization of people. In this essay, these ideas will be explored, and the many criticisms and misconceptions of social media will be addressed and challenged, creating a more realistic image of social movements with the added power of the new technology called social media.
ContributorsMoen, Anders Jacob (Author) / Ackroyd, William (Thesis director) / Keahey, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05