Gender and Activism in a Free Space: Acceptance of Pamphlets as Gender Role Performance

Gender and Activism in a Free Space: Acceptance of Pamphlets as Gender Role Performance

Alex Dzurick

Angela Mitchell

Benjamin Sherman

Sociology 2950

James Thomas

Fall 2010

University of Missouri-Columbia

Dzurick, Mitchell and Sherman Gender and Activism 2

ABSTRACT

Gender is a social construction, and the interactions present in the unique space of

Speaker's Circle offer a unique opportunity to view gender through the lens of activism.

Theoretically, this research is rooted in Goffman's theory of dramaturgy and the related

theories of gender performativity and intersectionality. Research was conducted using a

complementary strategy, using quantitative statistics supplemented by qualitative

observations. The research question was as follows: To what extent does gender effect

whether or not a person will take a pamphlet from an activist at Speaker’s Circle? The

data shows that females are, in general, more likely to accept pamphlets from activists in

the Circle, with few exceptions, which is perhaps due to the construction of femininity as

polite. Males are typically more likely to accept only in cases where the content of the

activism is expressly masculine. Other interesting trends also appear when the qualitative

field notes are analyzed, such as the impact of incentives, activist apathy, race, and the

presence of other activists in the circle.


Early in the semester, our team decided to conduct research in Speaker's Circle.

Located in a major artery of campus foot traffic, we felt sure that we would have an

ample sample size. Speaker's Circle is an entirely unique space because it is constructed

as a 'free speech zone' by university policy (Cho et. al. 1987). The Circle is also a hub of

the MU campus and is characterized by outlandish displays from the people who frequent

it. A very organic research topic in this space would have been affect. However, with the

limited time we were able to spend in the field, a study of affect would have proven much

too daunting.

Given the close relationship between free speech and political causes, we felt that

activism would be an appropriate concept to study. After much deliberation, we decided

to add the dimension of gender to our project and study its relationship to activism.

Because the campus is a heteronormative space, we felt it would be appropriate to study

gender in terms of the associated sexes “female” and “male,” though we address the

limitations of the gender binary.

As students attending the university, we decided that our research question ought

to reflect the dynamics of Speaker's Circle from the point of view of the average student.

Though many people spend large amounts of time in or near the Circle, most simply pass

through on their way between classes and do not directly participate in activism. Based

on the personal experience of team members, we jointly concluded that for the average

student, interactions with activists in Speaker's Circle are limited to being offered a

pamphlet promoting the cause of the day. Given these things, we decided on the


following research question: To what extent does gender affect whether or not a person

will take a pamphlet from an activist at Speaker's Circle?

Using qualitative and quantitative methods complementarily, group members sat

along the edges of Speaker's Circle and observed interactions there during high traffic

hours. Our data was collected using a simple tally system, supplemented by extensive

field notes. Once our field research period ended, we coded and analyzed our data,

synthesizing our findings in this document.

The epistemological framework of this project bridges the gap between positivism

and the interpretivism. The bulk of our data was gathered through a quantitative method

of tallies, which is well in line with positivism. These tallies allowed us to gather basic

statistics. Our interpretivist leanings come in the form of qualitative field notes, which

were taken to supplement potential shortcomings in our quantitative method. Our field

notes were used to help code and analyze our statistics and to draw conclusions on

anomalous data points.

The ontological focus of our research lies well within constructionism, the idea

that the meaning of a situation is defined and constructed by participants in a society.

This is highly relative to our project because of the way gender is constructed in our

society, feeding into the notion of gender performativity.

Given our use of a cross sectional design rather than a random sample, the

internal validity of our study may be weak. Since we were not seeking to measure

causation, the effects of this are somewhat mitigated, though we acknowledge the


possibility of bias from this technique. Our research may also exhibit low levels of

external validity due to the unique functions of the space. However, the project’s

ecological validity is likely high, as each student on the campus serves to affect the

construction of gender roles and the role of activism. Seeking to explain how the two may

be interrelated is a highly relevant point of research in the discussion of a vibrant campus

community.

For the purposes of reliability, we observed only during the peak hours in the

middle of the day, from 11 am to 3 pm. Based on prior experience in the space, we felt it

was reasonable to expect a significantly large amount of subjects to observe during these

hours. We feel that our findings are reliable, to an extent. We were unable to generate

enough data to feel comfortable making broad generalizations, though our data did show

some clear trends that might be a useful starting point for future research.

Though the results may be generalizable to some extent, we are studying a unique

space. As such, our replicability will be strong insofar as it relates to Speaker's Circle,

and we feel that in theory our results are likely generalizable to comparably sized and

gendered universities with free spaces located in major foot traffic arteries. While

Speaker's Circle is indeed peculiar, it is not entirely unique.

The relevant literature on gender performativity notes that in every interaction, we

construct a gendered role. Gender is a social construction, and as such, its existence is

based solely upon its manifestations in performances by individuals. Additionally,

activism is a performance and the definition of any particular activist act relies on the


various social constructions of the activist and the audience, among them gender. The

relationship between gender and activism is likely to provide some insight into the

complex forms of social construction that take place on college campuses.

LITERATURE

Social Constructionism

In its basic form, social constructionism is the notion that social actors are

constantly recreating their environment through social behaviors. The theory has a firm

foundation in the ontological position of constructionism. Gender is considered a social

construct under the theory because it is guided by the sociocultural characteristics

associated with our biological sex (Crooks and Baur 2008:47). That is, participants in

contemporary Western culture gauge levels of masculinity or femininity based on socially

constructed processes.

Symbolic Interactionism

Our research is theoretically based in symbolic interactionism (SI). The term was

coined by Herbert Blumer after significant discussion to the theory was contributed by

Mead, Cooley and Dewey. Symbolic interactionism has three main ideas or premises.

First, SI theorists believe that our actions toward things are based on the meanings we

ascribe to those things. Second, those meaning arise from social interactions we have had

with others in our society. Finally, those meanings are modified via an interpretive

process during our encounters with things (Blumer 1969).


Symbolic interactionism is, at its core, a theory about how humans relate to the

social world in which we reside, and it provides a skeletal framework for understanding

the act of interpretation which is omnipresent in social interactions. It forms the basis for

many other theoretical constructs, including social constructionism.

Dramaturgy

We learn to identify with our gender roles during a long process of social learning

during childhood and adolescence based on the cultural and social norms with which we

come into contact. These interactions largely come from within families, friends and peer

groups. In constructing our views of gender, we are subject to the pressures of pre-

constructed gender distinctions from the social world in which we are immersed;

furthermore, these constructions stem from the performances we see in our social

interactions (Crooks and Baur 2008:57-61).

Pioneered by Erving Goffman, dramaturgical theory uses theatre as a metaphor

for social life. In this metaphor, actors unwittingly use symbolic scripts in their role

performances, and life is seen as the play that results when characters enter and exit

public scenes. Kivisto and Pittman (2007) note that the central idea to dramaturgy is the

premise that the maintenance of reality depends upon social actors presenting an image

thereof (p. 272). Thus, an actor’s role contains the sense of self that the actor intends to

portray to the world.


Gender Performativity

Based on Goffman’s dramaturgical framework, Judith Butler’s theory of gender

performativity rests on the notion that gender is a performed identity and is constantly

recreated by actors in the course of their everyday lives (Felluga 2003). Given that gender

is based in social and cultural norms, this ties in well with social constructionism. Gender

performance is an ongoing process; gendered behavior and appearance make up a large

part of social life. It is performed in bathrooms, free spaces, and anywhere else actors

happen to find themselves. Our conclusions rest on the premise that our subjects

unwittingly follow these scripts.

By adopting conventional roles, individuals can easily step into character. For

instance, by portraying one’s self as active, confident and aggressive, a person’s character

is viewed by others as masculine. On the other hand, emotion, understanding, and the

need for approval are traits most associated with a feminine character role (Crooks and

Baur 2008:66). These stereotyped characters are proliferated by many factors in the

contemporary social world, such as one’s parents, peers and religious groups, or the

media one consumes (Crooks and Baur 2008:67-71).

Gender Box Structure

The gender box structure, as laid out by Crawley et al. (2008), is important to our

project because it accounts for the ubiquitous male/female gender binary. Extremely

simplistic, the box structure provides an easy understanding of gender--biological males

are associated with masculinity while females are associated with femininity. This


polarity is problematic because it does not allow for deviation from the two categories.

Even though we are among other scholars who take issue with the box structure (Crooks

and Baur 2010), we must acknowledge that it is useful: it accounts for the notion of

heteronormativity, which defines gender norms in our society, campus, and free spaces.

Moreover, it ties in with the notion that gender is constructed and performed. Despite the

issues of the complexity of gender, we used the gender box structure in order to separate

our sample into two representative groups.

Free Spaces

To fully comprehend the roles one undertakes, sociologists have also looked at the

stage upon which those performances occur. Any space can serve as the stage for a social

performance. For a theoretical perspective on spaces, we drew from the work of

Francesca Polletta, who theorizes about the relationship between activism and what she

terms “free spaces” which she defines as, “small-scale settings within a community . . .

removed from the direct control of dominant groups, are voluntarily participated in, and

generate the cultural challenge that precedes or accompanies political mobilization”

(1999:1).

Polletta defines multiple types of free spaces. Relevant to our study are what she

calls “prefigurative spaces,” which are those spaces assigned a specific purpose and

characterized by social reciprocity (Polletta 1999:11). Speaker’s Circle is a ‘free speech

zone’ characterized by an equal use right, functioning as a space which facilitates those

challenges that Polletta claims accompany mobilization. This mobilization, in our


research question, deals with activism of the sort that involves the distribution of

information.

Manifest and Latent Functions

It is not only activism which is performed in Speaker’s Circle, however. The

theories of Robert K. Merton (1949) on manifest and latent functions give us the structure

to understand what else occurs during this activism. While the manifest (expressed)

function of Speaker’s Circle is ostensibly to promote free speech, as defined by

University policy, it also has other latent (unintentional) functions. The relevant latent

function of Speaker’s Circle for this study is the space’s ability to promote and recreate

gender norms.

As members of the campus culture, activists and passersby continue to participate

in the reconstruction of gender norms during their stints in the circle. One goal of our

research is to uncover how the manifest function of this space helps to facilitate the latent

function through observing how social actors either perform or transgress gender norms

in their choice of accepting a pamphlet from an activist.

Activism

Activists in Speaker’s Circle represent a variety of social movements. Since the

space is located on a college campus, we expect many of those movements to cater to the

interests of college students. Theories of activism have traditionally been rooted in

Marxism and the theory of class inequality, but Buechler argues that today’s social

movements have expanded to encompass a wider variety of themes, among them gender,


sexuality, politics, culture, race and ideology (1995:442). Students enrolled at this

university have convictions about many of these themes, and activists at Speaker’s Circle

are attempting to provide tools to empower and mobilize those students.

In seeking a definition of activism, we were confronted with broad generalizations

such as that of Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary: activism is defined as a “doctrine or

practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to

one side of a controversial issue” (2010). This broad definition of activism seemed too

much for us to study in our limited timespan, so we narrowed our focus, determining for

the purposes of this project that activists would be only those individuals who handed out

some kind of concrete, tangible information (such as a pamphlet) to support their cause.

Intersectionality

Further contributing to our literature background is Patricia Hill Collins’

conception of intersectionality: the notion people are socially multifaceted and represent

multiple traits (1990). Though she did not coin the term, intersectionality is popularly

associated with Collins, who used the concept in her work on black feminism. In her

1990 book, Black Feminist Thought, Collins argued that the dimensions of race, class and

gender are interrelated and cannot be completely differentiated. Any facet of identity will

have unmarked and marked manifestations, and Collins notes that in particular, black

identity and female identity are the marked constructions of race and sex (p. 221-238).

What remains to be discovered is just how one’s performance of gender can be

seen through participation in activism. Our research seeks to answer this question by


defining the rates of participation in a particular kind of activism by those who appear to

exhibit masculine or feminine traits.

METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

When we began our project, we wanted to be sure that the activists we observed

would be diverse and representative of the types of activism normally carried out in

Speaker's Circle. This was problematic because of the nature of activism in this space.

There are no prerequisites for its use. Activists are not bound by formal rules, such as

permits, and may conduct activities at their own discretion. There are no records of which

people use the space or when they use it.

Based on anecdotal evidence from team members, we predicted that two types of

activists would be particularly prevalent, the first of which is religious activists. Many

religious groups, all of which were Christian when we conducted our research, use

Speaker's Circle as a venue to try and convert people to their brand of faith through

various means. It is worth noting that in the four weeks we spent conducting our research,

no team member observed a conversion.

We also predicted that we would see a large number of political activists. Team

members all reported seeing political activists in the space consistently during the school

year, and many such groups were observed utilizing the space. It is also worth noting that

midterm elections occurred during our observation period. Given that team members

observed political activists touting ballot-specific messages, we feel comfortable claiming


that political activism was greater than it would otherwise have been; this should be taken

into account if further research on activism in Speaker's Circle is conducted.

Given the flexible and informal nature of the space, accurately predicting what

activists would be present in Speaker's Circle on any given day is an impossibility. As a

result, our team was unable to determine an accurate probability or quota. Instead, we

utilized a non-probability convenience sampling technique for our research. Simply put,

we showed up and people-watched. Team members were posted in Speaker's Circle at

times when activists were likely to be observed, and we recorded information on the

activists that were present.

This too was problematic, but our schedules prohibited us from conducting any

other kind of sampling procedure. We attempted to minimize the impact of time on our

project by conducting our observations between 11 am and 3 pm, as anecdotal evidence

suggested that these hours provided the most foot traffic and, therefore, the best

opportunity for activists to spread their messages. This ended up being convenient for

team members, as we were able to make time to observe during our schooldays.

Speaker's Circle is an unusual space. By law, it is a free-access space where both

individuals and groups can advocate any idea protected under the First Amendment.

Because there are no legal restrictions on the use of the space for speech acts, it not only

presents an interesting research setting but also does most of its own work in minimizing

bias. Any group, at any time, can use the space. Legally speaking, no group is justified in

monopolizing the space.


We quickly found that we were limited in our ability to observe multiple activists.

On some days, scheduling conflicts prevented more than one team member from

observing in the Circle at a particular time. This became problematic when one team

member observed during times when many activists were present, particularly at times

when students were likely to be transitioning between classes and on days with warmer

weather when more activists were present.

Because of this, we established a procedure for choosing which activists to

observe when there too many for one person to accurately observe. The activist located

the northernmost point in Speakers' Circle was prioritized. Approximately equal traffic

patterns exist from all directions in Speaker's Circle, according to the observations of

team members, so choosing one direction randomized our selection process. If it was

possible to view and tally multiple activists during a given field session, team members

recorded as many activists as they could, so long as they did so accurately. They also

noted the total number of activists and which ones were observed to supplement the

tallies, along with notes on the weather and other characteristics of the space during a

given observational period.

In a small number of cases (about twice per week), the northernmost activist

would change locations mid-observation or leave Speakers' Circle entirely. If an activist

altogether left the circle mid-observation, the their time of departure was logged. If an

activist changed position within the Circle when it was crowded with passersby,

continued observation was left to the discretion of the observer, who logged the move. In


cases where an activist left but was replaced by another from the same group, their switch

was logged and observation continued. In cases where the replacement activist was of a

different gender than the previous, a new tally was begun.

For several reasons, we believe that our decision to place an emphasis on the

northern end of the Circle had a minimal impact on our sample. People pass through

Speaker's Circle from all accessible directions. Speakers' Circle represents a nexus on the

campus and is close to many buildings that students utilize daily. We were unable to

determine a correlation between gender and where a person may have been coming from

on campus. We acknowledge that this may affect the validity and replicability of our

findings, though we suspect the bias is minimal. We recommend that future research in

this space take this procedure into account and investigate alternative ways to randomize

the observational process.

Another rule we established was that in situations where activists at tables

competed with activists that were standing, we would observe the standing activist. We

did this because of a team member's suggestion that observing standing activists would

provide more data, as group members had all noticed that standing activists tend to

interact with passersby with greater frequency than their stationary counterparts. Standing

activists are mobile and are able to approach passersby in order to gain their attention.

We feel that our sampling procedure functioned well in minimizing bias and

helped maintain the replicability of our study. The people and groups we observed were

dictated by protocol rather than personal preference. This was particularly important


considering that our research involves observing activists. As participants in the campus

culture, each team member had a unique stance on the issues at hand. While we felt it

unlikely that a group member would intentionally miscount data, we attempted to remain

cognizant of personal bias.

There is one bias that must be addressed: our categorization of gender. For the

purposes of our study, we divide gender into the culturally accepted female/male binary.

This was done for two reasons, the first of which arose out of practical concern. We

wanted our data to be simple to analyze, because our time in the field was limited.

Secondly, a large majority of people on the campus register within the binary, which

simplified the process of coding subjects. Moreover, by identifying gender as a binary, we

were able to crosscheck our data with records from the registrar's office, which gave us

an idea of how our data compared the gender makeup of the university as a whole.

Our use of the gender binary is a double-edged sword, since empirical evidence in

sociology indicates that gender cannot be defined quite so simply. The binary fails to take

many people into account, such as transgendered or intersexed folk who may not even

reflect a distinct biological sex much less the stereotypical gender roles that match with

sex. That said, we feel justified in using the binary in our research. The university's

campus is a heteronormative space. Though we have no way of measuring precisely how

many people identify within the binary, the populace as a whole seems unconcerned with

issues of gender nonconformity, as evidenced by the small population affiliated with the

campus LGBTQ organizations. This is also reflected by university policy. For instance,


the registrar's office separates students only in terms of male and female, and the vast

majority of bathrooms on campus reflect the same.

The binary is indeed alienating, but by using it, we were able to compare our data

to official university demographic records, allowing us to more effectively analyze our

field data. The binary distinction is inherently flawed, but given our limited time and the

advantages of its use, we felt that using the biological categories of female and male to

describe our perceptions of gender would be a worthwhile compromise.

RESULTS

Upon returning from the field, the data was input to SPSS for analysis. The

calculations are based solely on the quantitative data while the categorizations were

dependent upon the qualitative field notes.

Some definitions are in order for the data table presented below. An activist’s

affiliation is the group with which he or she was affiliated while performing activism at

Speaker’s Circle. Some groups are not identified by name because their exact affiliation

was unclear. In cases where multiple observations of the same group exist, the data is

combined for analysis. Rates of acceptance are presented by noting the percent of those

who accepted that appeared to be female out of the total number of acceptances for each

given group, and each is rounded to the closest whole number percentage.

We have made special note of the data marked with asterisks (*), as it exhibits

anomalies that will be explained in the analysis.


Activist AffiliationTotal # of

Acceptances

% Acceptance by

Females

FEMININE CAUSES

ZTA sorority (breast cancer awareness) 52 59%

Unknown breast cancer awareness group 122 71%

Pi Phi (sorority philanthropy) 56 52%

Black Men’s Initiative (breast cancer awareness) 30 46%*

GENDER-NEUTRAL CAUSES

Voter registration 9 56%

Anti-taser coalition 7 43%*

College Republicans informational booth 10 50%

Student government election campaign 43 56%

Baptist church recruitment 90 68%

Baptist Student Union 23 43%*

DKMS (bone marrow registry) 8 63%

Campus radio concert series 170 48%*

Local coupon booklets 14 64%

Off-campus housing promotion 150 56%

MASCULINE CAUSES

Movember (prostate cancer awareness) 60 47%

Football ticket drawing for rivalry game 64 42%


We feel justified in these categorizations of causes into their gendered cases.

Research into women’s health has suggested the breast cancer movement is led by and for

women (Blackstone 2004). Prostate cancer similarly trends as its masculine counterpart.

According to Adams, Anderson and McCormack, participants in sports frequently

use discourse that facilitates aggressive displays of masculine power (2010). This

emphasis on masculinity led us to consider sports a masculine-gendered category.

We feel that our cases of coupons, student housing, concerts and bone marrow

donation reflect no specific gender and are a likely fit for the gender-neutral

categorization. Here we also included religion, since data from The Pew Research Center

(2007) shows that the proportion of males and females that participate in various

religious traditions hovers around the proportion of males and females in the sample size.

This is the same proportion of genders that exist on the campus, according to the

registrar’s office, so we feel confident in claiming religion to be gender-neutral as well.

The most contentious placement of any activism into a gendered category was

politics. Our definition of political activism for the purposes of this research was activism

which was directly and expressly related to a ballot measure, election or candidate; since

many issues raised in Speaker’s Circle have political ties, we needed to separate them

from those issues which were expressly about politics.

We had considerable debate as how we should categorize governmental political

activism. It was hard to determine if this form of activism would be categorized as

masculine or gender-neutral. Our original conception was that politics would be


traditionally considered masculine, due to the sheer numbers of males compared to

females currently active in our government. (The 111th Congress is made up of 447 men

and only 93 women.) We also considered that perhaps while females do participate, as a

sex, in governmental politics, in doing this they are compromising their femininity by

accepting male characteristics of power and dominance.

However, after further consideration, we decided to code governmental political

activism as gender-neutral. Noting our team discussion as evidence that contention exists

over the gender categorization of political activism, we concluded that a gender-neutral

categorization would be more likely to provide our research with conclusions. There is

certainly evidence for politics being considered a masculine field, and as conclusions

emerge from the literature, this categorization is the most likely to shift should we or

others perform this study again.

DATA ANALYSIS

Immediately emergent from looking at the statistics is that in the vast majority of

cases, females were more likely to accept pamphlets than males overall. This is likely due

to the feminine characteristic of politeness; according to Sara Mills in her book, Gender

and Politeness, “politeness is already gendered, classed and raced, so that stereotypically

it bears a signature of middle class, white, femininity” (Mills 2003:197).

This cultural tendency for women to exhibit a more caring, kind and polite

attitude explains why females would be more likely to accept a pamphlet from an activist.


In an attempt to make themselves appear socially feminine, these females adopt the

stereotypical feminine characteristic of politeness, particularly its manifestation in

accepting information.

There are data that trend negatively toward that conclusion, however, and they

need to be explained. For instance, the data table clearly shows that males were the sex

more likely to accept pamphlets on prostate cancer awareness and football ticket

drawings--proof that they seek to exhibit a masculine character role by accepting

masculine-gendered pamphlets from activists.

Another outlying case is that of the campus radio promotion. There were multiple

activists of both genders roving about Speaker’s Circle dispersing fliers. We had four sets

of field notes on these activists, which we combined into one. In some of these cases,

more women would take fliers, and in others, more men did. The data does not show a

significant effect of the gender of the activist on the acceptance rate. We are forced to

consider this an outlying point at this stage of our research, though the activists being

apathetic might have affected it, as detailed below.

We expected to see data trending by gender, with females situated in feminine

roles and males situated in masculine roles. In addition to discovering such a trend, we

also encountered a number of unexpected patterns or scenarios in the field. First,

regardless of sex, some standalone activists made a conscious effort to attract attention to

themselves and their cause, using two methods to do so. Some resorted to practically

yelling at passersby, yet the more common, subtle, and effective method was to


physically approach a target while holding out their hand silently offering a pamphlet.

Their more apathetic counterparts often spent a majority of their time in the Circle

talking to fellow group members. This was more common with table-based activist

groups. In one instance, a table for the College Republicans was staffed by one male and

two females. They spent the entire hour talking to one another. Moreover, the two female

activists spent about forty minutes sitting on the ground and spent no effort trying to

promote their cause, demonstrating another latent function of the Circle: socialization.

Another notable example of activist apathy occurred on Election Day. We

observed a group of standing activists for “Yes! Prop 2., Taser-Free Columbia.” The

group consisted of middle aged activists, one female and two males. They took turns

holding up a large banner to promote their cause. They held it up periodically, only to

take it down in frustration because nobody seemed to want their pamphlets or even speak

to them, which we suspect may be related to their age. This probably resulted in the low

number of pamphlets given out by the group, which makes the calculation of percent

wildly subject to chance. If one more female had taken a pamphlet, it would have created

an even 50% split of acceptance by gender, and the low sample size for this particular

observation causes such wild variability.

Perhaps the most notable thing we observed in the field occurred while two

groups jointly promoted a cause: breast cancer awareness. The first group, a sorority,

consisted of what would be considered attractive white women. The second group was

the Black Men's Initiative. There was a central table, but most of the activists were


standalone. All the activists were disseminating the same pamphlet material and sold

awareness pins for a dollar.

This was noteworthy for several reasons. First, it was an example of men

transgressing gender norms by promoting a feminine cause. Second, and more

importantly, a male activist was approached by a male uniformed police officer, who

declined to purchase a pin, and left. Fifteen minutes later, he returned to the Circle and

was approached by a female activist. She too asked him if he would like to purchase a

pin, and this time he bought one. Moreover, we observed far more people take pamphlets

from white sorority girls rather than black men.

This was an excellent example of intersectionality in play. While people were

more than willing to accept breast cancer awareness material from white females, they

were are clearly hesitant to approach black men who were no more threatening than any

other activists we observed in the field. Race, not just gender, played a factor in a

potential recipient’s willingness to accept a pamphlet. The effect of race may have even

overshadowed what we would expect to see; while women seem to be more likely to

accept information about breast cancer from an activist, the effect of race messes with an

otherwise clear distinction.

Without more information from other activist groups, however, we cannot make a

generalization about race. For instance, we have no data for black male activists

promoting a masculine cause, and thus cannot claim the same kind of scenario would

occur. This is worth further research and would provide interesting information on which


of gender or race plays a larger role in determining the acceptance of pamphlet from an

activist, or whether each has an independent effect.

PROBLEMS IN THE FIELD

We encountered multiple instances of more than one group active at the same time

while conducting our field observations. Because they vied for the same people, there

was some competition between them. Moreover, many were distracted by the fiery

rhetoric of the many evangelists who frequent the space. This may have distracted

passersby, keeping them from accepting a pamphlet, or scared them off altogether.

In one instance, a table of activists were promoting Movember, which advocated

the growth of facial hair to support prostate cancer awareness. Their table was staffed by

four males and one female; all wore fake mustaches. There was a great deal of traffic

coming through Speaker's Circle, but very few stopped at the table. Simultaneously, a

fiery evangelist was yelling about this group, relating cancer to to theological dangers.

This may have influenced potential recipients not to stop at the table so as to avoid

attention from the preacher. This sort of interference exemplifies how the presence of one

group can affect another.

Another unexpected scenario occurred twice. On these two occasions, incentives

were given with the pamphlets. On one occasion, a church group handed out free

hamburgers with materials, and there was a wait time of about five minutes for each


hamburger to be cooked. We also saw an activist handing out fliers stapled to bags of

sweets, of which two-thirds were taken by females. Of note is the fact that this activist

was a black man. Based on this, we suspect that white college students are more willing

to approach a lone black man, as opposed to a group of black men. Given that he

distributed candy, we are hesitant to make any broader generalizations from this. The

impact of these incentives on the pamphlet acceptance rate was likely significant.

Finally, we observed an activist that simply refused to tell recipients about the

nature of the material. Notably, this only occurred with religious activists. In one case, an

activist approached a group member, hand outstretched with a pamphlet. Hesitant to

waste paper, the team member asked what was in the pamphlet. The activist replied that,

“You’ll hear a shocking message”, to which the team member responded, “No, seriously,

what is it about?” The activist repeated his line. Finally, the group member asked, “Is this

about Jesus?” and the activist nodded. We are unsure of the significance of this encounter,

though we felt it worth including.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that female students at the university displayed feminine

characteristics – namely, politeness – in the public space of Speaker's Circle. Male

students were also involved in taking pamphlets, but at a rate less than that of females

unless the activism was related to a masculine cause.

In this way, students at this university utilize the free space of Speaker's Circle not


only for its manifest function of activism, but as a space in which to perform their

assumed gender roles. As a public space on a heteronormative campus, Speaker's Circle

is a location where we would expect to see exactly those performances by students. Thus,

our research does much to confirm the existence of gender roles insofar as they exist as

social constructions which are reinforced upon every interaction. Each interaction of an

activist and a passerby reflected something about the gender roles of college students.

The study also raised interesting questions about intersectionality as it relates to

race. We found that people were far more willing to take material from a single black

man offering candy than a group of black men promoting a popular cause. This is

something our group wishes we had more time to explore.

Overall, we found that Speaker’s Circle was an excellent place to conduct

research. It consistently provides a large sample size of foot traffic and activists, and

there are enough people passing through that few people notice they are being watched,

limiting the Hawthorne Effect. As a free space, Speaker's Circle is a gathering ground for

activists of all kinds. We feel that our research, though limited in scope, was useful to the

understanding of the relationship between gender and activism in free spaces on a college

campus.

Given the opportunity for future research, we have established a number of

modifications we would make. First, we would have observed only a single activist at a

time so that we could accurately log the number of people that declined to take a

pamphlet. There may be interesting trends that prove themselves when the


complementary data set from these refusers are included. Additionally, we would have

established a careful form for recording the field notes so that consistency was

maintained between each of our team members. Collecting overall data about the usage

of the space (Who uses the space for activism? How many people travel through in a

day? What are the peak times for usage and do rates vary across time?) would provide a

stronger background on which to view each interaction.

Furthering the emphasis on qualitative data, we would also like to obtain

interviews with both activists and passing students to gain insight into the motivations

behind giving out and accepting pamphlets. Understanding the existing social constructs

would allow us to see to what degree they are being upheld or transgressed by users of

Speaker's Circle.

Perhaps most importantly, we can conclude from this study that Speaker's Circle

is both a unique space and a microcosm of society in which gender roles are upheld in the

overwhelming majority of interactions between activists and students.


REFERENCES

Adams, Adi, Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack. 2010. “Establishing and Challenging

Masculinity: The Influence of Gendered Discourses in Organized Sport.” Journal

of Language and Social Psychology. 29:278 -300.

Blackstone, Amy. 2004. “‘Its Just about Being Fair’: Activism and the Politics of

Volunteering in the Breast Cancer Movement.” Gender and Society. 18:350-368.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Buechler, Steven M. 1995. “New Social Movement Theories.” The Sociological

Quarterly. 36:441-464.

Cho, Hyunsan, Nick Paretsky, Susana Sottoli and Larry Williams. 1987. “Universities

and Social Movements: The Case of the Shantytown Movement.” Unpublished

manuscript.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the

politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Edwin Hyman.

Crawley, Sara L., Lara J. Foley and Constance L. Shehan. 2008. Gendering bodies. USA:

Rowman & Littlefield.

Crooks, Robert and Karla Baur. (2008). Human sexuality. 10th ed. Belmont, CA:

Thomson Wadsworth.


Foushee, H. Clayton, Robert L. Helmreich, and Janet T. Spence. 1979. “Implicit Theories

of Masculinity and Femininity: Dualistic or Bipolar?” Psychology of Women

Quarterly. 3:259.

Felluga, Dino. 2003. “Modules on Butler: On Performativity.” Introductory Guide to

Critical Theory. Purdue University. Retrieved December 12, 2010

(http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/genderandsex/).

Kivisto, P. & Pittman, D. 2007. Goffman's Dramaturgical Sociology. Retrieved December

12, 2010. Available: Sagepub.

Merriam-Webster Online. 2010. ‘Activism.’ Retrieved December 11, 2010

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/activism).

Merton, Robert K. 1949. “Manifest and Latent Functions.” Pp. 307-312. Social Theory,

vol. 4, The Multicultural and Classic Readings, edited by Charles Lemert.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2007. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.

Retrieved December 14, 2010 (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports).

Polletta, Francesca. 1999. “'Free spaces' in collective action.” Theory & Society, 28:1-39.

Retrieved October 1, 2010. Available: JSTOR.

Purdue Online Writing Lab. 2010. Formatting in Sociology (ASA Style). Retrieved

December 15, 2010 (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/583/1/).

Gender and Activism in a Free Space: Acceptance of Pamphlets as Gender Role Performance

Documents

Transcript of Gender and Activism in a Free Space: Acceptance of Pamphlets as Gender Role Performance