Campuses are among the most high-profile battlefields in America’s culture wars. This makes questions of identity much more than just an academic interest for communication scholars like Srividya Ramasubramanian. Navigating diversity—whether in research, teaching, administration, or activism—is both a minefield and a calling. Ramasubramanian is a media scholar specializing in identity, media literacy, stereotyping processes, intercultural/intergroup communication, and social justice. She serves as director of the Difficult Dialogs on Campus Race Relations, and convener of the campus-wide Inclusive Pedagogy Workshop Series. She has also served as the Associate Dean for Climate and Inclusion. The India-born scholar talked to Media Asia editor Cherian George about the risks and rewards of engaging with issues of social justice in a polarized campus environment.
Cherian George: The cultural turmoil that is going on in the United States—the attack on diversity by the Alt-Right and President Donald Trump—must make it both a worrying and stimulating time for people like you, who have been studying these issues. What do you think your field has been able to offer to this debate?
Srividya Ramasubramanian: Yes, I remember when Barack Obama became president; people asked me if my research was relevant anymore. Now, people don’t ask that. Everybody gets it. People see the connection right away between our research and what is happening around them. It’s also brought together people who are doing social justice, activist work. It’s given us a sense of urgency—we have to do it now, do it right away, with all the resources we can pull together. People who were otherwise not involved in this type of research are asking for resources, asking what can I read up, what can I do. So that has been kind of positive.
CG: They want to understand what is going on?
SR: Yes, to understand what is going on and how can they help.
CG: One thing that scholars like yourself do is to come up with powerful concepts that help make sense of cultural phenomena around us, and some of these concepts might not yet have entered the lay discourse. What are some of the concepts that you’ve encouraged people to use as a kind of lens through which to understand what they are seeing in the real world?
SR: Some of the terms could be things like critical media literacy, or social justice, or equity. Of course, we know some of these terms have been appropriated by the Alt-Right. There is a need to redefine them from a more critical perspective, and talk about things like power. Get away from notions like multi-culturalism, which is just focusing more on celebrating differences without really focusing on anti-oppression pedagogy.
My work is looking at stereotypes in the media and how we can counter those through conversations about them, and also examining the critical skills you need to do that. So, there is a lot of discussion about that—what does it mean to use media literacy for civic engagement? And how do we understand it as more than just knowing how to use different types of media formats?
CG: You mentioned how concepts get appropriated by the Alt-Right. Can you give me an example?
SR: Take the term “social justice.” They talk about it in terms of white victimization and how whites have been “marginalized.” There was this funny incident—actually, funny and sad—in my class. I started the class by asking, name a group that is stigmatized, marginalized, trivialized in the media. The first hand that goes up says, “white men.” At first, I thought it was a joke. I was, like, “What did you say again?” I realized they are serious. Then I said, “Can you explain more about it?” And they say, “Oh, white men, you know, they are the butt of so many jokes these days.” And another person says, “I can help to clarify further. You take white cops for example, they have been stereotyped and marginalized as people who kill black boys.”
So here I am in a classroom where, clearly, they have been listening to this language that has been appropriated by the Alt-Right and they were probably watching a more conservative TV channel such as Fox News. And so they have framed white men and white cops as people whose lives no longer matter, who’ve been victimized. They are taking the “Black Lives Matter” framework that has been created with a social justice purpose and an activist purpose, and changing it to “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter,” which refers to cops, without seeing the history behind this; without understanding the centuries of marginalization that has led to police brutality against black or brown bodies or native bodies in this country. To unpack it becomes such a challenge in the classroom because they are listening to terms I’m talking about like “marginalization” and thinking “white cops.” That’s a very telling example of the ways in which these terms have been appropriated.
CG: I was watching Fox News yesterday and there was an Evangelical Christian thinker talking about “post-truth”—but flipped on its head. Instead of referring to how faith trumps facts, his version of “post-truth” was that people who have found the truth in God’s word now have to contend with left-wing intellectuals who fudge the difference between good and evil. So in his view the Religious Right is the victim of the post-truth world, rather than a key agent of it.
SR: Yes, this is exactly how terms and concepts get twisted. Like what I mentioned earlier about white victimization. In lynchings of African-Americans, white people would stand there and smile in front of cameras. Because, clearly, they saw themselves as victims and they saw the people who did the lynching as heroes. That history is repeating itself.
CG: There is also a tendency to turn words used by the Left into pejorative terms. The term “political correctness” started out as something positive and is now used as an insult. “Social justice warriors” is now used almost entirely in a mocking way. The cycle seems to be shortening. A very short time after people like yourself come up with a concept that is meant to clarify or to empower, it is thrown back as an insult and becomes a rallying cry for people on the right. How does that affect your work?
SR: You have to think about who your audience is. I would focus on the ones more likely to listen. I think the majority of people are more in the grey area and open to understanding what do we mean by social justice warrior; what do we mean by diversity. I no longer have the energy or the desire to fight the people who are doing what you just described. My colleague, Tommy Curry, was directly attacked by the Alt-Right for something that he said that was completely taken out of context. He was misrepresented as saying that it is okay to kill white people. That’s not what he said. He was doing a media analysis of the movie Django Unchained, talking about how slaves might kill the slave-owners. He is not saying, “Kill all white people.” There was so much hate directed against him. He is now leaving US higher ed and going to Scotland. It is a huge loss for us—a world renowned scholar, known for his public scholarship on race and gender, and a very popular teacher as well. The university’s response was irresponsible, basically trying to appease the donor base which is very conservative, and probably pretty racist. I have personally been quite affected by what happened to my colleague. It is draining and emotional to fight the Alt-Right. I would rather focus on building, organizing, and creating coalitions amongst those who sincerely care for social justice and equity.
CG: Regarding the responses of the university administrations: this is a dynamic that is familiar within media circles—this whole business of self-censorship, when editors or publishers who don’t have the stomach for controversy. But one had always assumed that western universities would stand firm behind academic freedom.
SR: It felt like our academic freedom doesn’t matter. Of course, they didn’t fire my colleague, Tommy Curry, but his entire reputation was being questioned. His scholarship was being questioned, by the same university that celebrated him before that. But as soon as it became something they thought was problematic for their donor base, they turned around and asked questions like “Why did you have to mention Texas A & M?” And then blaming him, saying, “You brought this upon yourself.” Or, “Maybe you did this to get publicity for your book.”
CG: Another classic right-wing accusation.
SR: Victim blaming. Here is somebody who is getting hate mails every day. And is being blamed for it. Same as what happened with Steven Salaita in University of Illinois.
CG: We are also seeing pressure being applied on the Palestinian cause, with the anti-semitic label now being thrown about in a way that makes it very difficult in the US to talk about Israel.
SR: One of my students wanted to do a paper on Palestine and I was, like, “Good for you.” But then she kind of chickened out because of all of the things that are going on right now in terms of framing Ilhan Omar as anti-semitic, and I don’t blame her.
CG: So it is clear that these are difficult times because so many of these debates are quickly politicized within a very polarized environment. Yet, you said that there is a middle ground who can be addressed—an audience that is persuadable. Is this just something you need to believe?
SR: At some level, yes. But I do think that there was this group that was mostly apathetic, well-meaning but disengaged. More of them are coming up and saying, “What can I do?” And in the classroom, the students do come with a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. They are still quite eager to listen to you and your viewpoint. I set up the classroom as a space where we are willing to listen to one another. I honour their perspective and ask they do the same.
CG: It’s been said that professional politics in the US is more polarized to an extent that is not a true reflection of the American public. Is that your experience in the classroom?
SR: Yes, I do think so. I conduct these facilitated Difficult Dialogs on Campus Race Relations. Anybody can come to these discussions. We talk about racism. It is a difficult topic but people still come. Some of them get confrontational, they are not willing to listen. But then something shifts at the end of two hours. They are sitting with somebody who is saying, “This happened to me. This is my experience. This is my truth.” And there is a shift that happens. So, we have to create these spaces, whether it is in the classroom or outside, where we can actually meet people and talk to them, I think. And that’s happening. So, I am actually a little more hopeful. I had lost hope at some point of time, I have to say. I was very upset. Very afraid.
CG: After the November 2016 election?
SR: Right. But, over a period of time, even in a conservative university like Texas A & M, you see a thousand people show up against the Muslim ban or show up for protests in support of undocumented students. They are willing to come out and speak up.
CG: I think that is something that much of the rest of the world doesn’t see, because the headlines are grabbed by Trump and the racists. We don’t notice that the protests against the racists are consistently larger than the racist turnouts.
SR: Yes, when [white supremacist] Richard Spencer came to our university, we had so many types of protests. There was a cultural entertainment performance in the football field; there was a silent protest; there was a more verbal protest; we had a counter talk, like a teach-in moment using anti-racist pedagogy to talk about whiteness of universities.
CG: But there is an aspect of cultural politics in the US which I think non-Americans find very odd: there is a censorious approach adopted by some on the cultural left—feminists and so-called social justice warriors and so on. In Asia, we’re more likely to find free speech activists allied with feminist groups and those fighting for minorities and the marginalized. But in the US, there is this notion of “no platforming”—preventing right-wing speakers from speaking on some campuses.
SR: Yes, there have been campuses where they have said this is very hateful and we have to shut this down. I used to be one of those people on the Left saying that we need to shut these people down. You just draw a swastika in a bathroom, and it has such a negative impact. Even a small symbol like that, as communication scholars we know the impact it could have. Or using the N-word, there is a huge history associated with that word. But I have actually moved more toward saying, let them come and say whatever they have to say, but we will counter it. Let’s make that interesting; let’s make that an important educational moment. I am okay with that now.
CG: And why have you changed your mind? Why wouldn’t you advise shutting down an extreme right-wing event?
SR: Because it feeds into the white victimization that I spoke about earlier. They say, “We are silenced. We are minoritized.” Then it becomes counterproductive. I have seen posters on this campus saying “Are there people calling you racist? Are there people calling you sexist? Are there people calling you xenophobic? Then come join our group. We are here to listen to you and support you.” After seeing those things, I feel that shutting speech down is actually helping feed that sentiment.
CG: And of course allowing an event to take place need not mean endorsing it. The university leadership can still condemn it.
SR: Yes, it is important that people in authority positions send that message.
CG: Can you talk to us about your own positionality. You are deeply immersed in these debates and activism in the US context, but you are an immigrant. Does that complicate things, or give you a special insight into what is happening?
SR: I am the first nonwhite woman to be hired in my department, and to be tenured in my department, and be promoted to full professor in my department—so that should give you a sense of where we stand. We know the field of communication itself is so white. You have to just got to a National Communication Association conference to know that. It is hard because you just have so many chips that you can play with. I have to hold on to some of the cards and have to be really strategic at times and decide, is this a fight I want to pick up. That’s where the role of allies is really important—advocates who can work with you and build those relationships. Even though I am American citizen, I’ll always be seen as foreigner. But sometimes that works for me, in the sense that I would go into these Difficult Dialogs and say things like, “You tell me. I want to know more.”
CG: You can feign ignorance.
SR: Yes, you can feign ignorance. The majority of the time, when in the classroom, I am the first nonwhite person that they have ever had as a teacher. Authority and competence is something that we have to constantly establish, in the classroom or in the department or elsewhere. I have sort of learnt how to do that. But initially it was very hard. There would be lot of negative comments about my accent.
CG: From the students?
SR: From the students, and indirectly, implicitly, from colleagues. On most fields, you have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously. And a lot of the mainstream journals may not accept this type of scholarship. So, there are all these challenges that are because of the work I do, but it is also integrated with who I am. So, it affects me personally. It is very emotional doing this work because it is very personal. And I am not able to disconnect and just switch off during the weekend, because it is also happening to students. Two of our grad students faced a lot of anti-Islamic, Islamophobic and racist comments. I felt very connected with that moment because I could see myself in their shoes. So I spent hours and hours mentoring them and talking to them. They felt comfortable talking to me because they recognized that I understood where they were coming from. So, there are all of these means in which my identity helps me connect with others who are also minoritized. Even if we don’t share that exact minoritized experience, there is a lot of empathy I have been able to have because of the positionality.
CG: Let’s talk about your research agenda. You are a rare case of a communication scholar who has had communication science training but also with more than a foot in cultural studies.
SR: I would consider myself a critical quantitative scholar. We are very few and rare, but yes, I do see myself in both of those. I have also started including more qualitative research in my work now and collaborate with people from diverse backgrounds.
CG: Tell us how you situated yourself in the field. For any minority faculty member, I suppose there is always a tension between showing that you can play the dominant game, and trying to change the game. Should one try to prove that one can be up there with the big guns, doing the kind of scholarship that they do, or should one carve out a distinct area and fight for that space? What would be your advice to a person of colour coming to the US and starting a PhD? Which is the more meaningful and sensible tack to take?
SR: I was not necessarily very strategic about these things. It just so happened that I was at Penn State at a time when Mary Beth Oliver, my advisor, was my advisor and I went with the dominant quantitative media effects paradigm to study implicit racial bias, which is still very small part of that subfield. In some sense, it was still something that we had to fight for within that larger context of communication studies. But I think that I was able to publish in some of those top tier mainstream publications because I had the mentorship of people who helped me get socialized into the field of communication.
CG: And at the same time encouraged you to take the risk of studying something less conventional?
SR: Yes. They helped me to frame my work in a way that would fit, but still challenge the mainstream. I think that was my initial way into the field. More recently, past tenure—and also because the field itself, I think, is changing—I have tried to carve out spaces for people to bring in work that would not be considered traditional, is more innovative, and questions or challenges dominant discourses. Be it through organizing symposia or conferences or pre-conferences, to get those people together, creating networks of support and mentoring for those who might not have that.
I spend a lot of time reading drafts, giving feedback, suggesting where to submit a piece and so on. Also, I sometimes write to the communication journal editors saying you need to be more open about accepting these other types of scholarship. So, using your positionality as a more senior person who has established yourself and who knows what it takes to get there but also trying to push the boundaries to make it much more inclusive.
I am writing a piece on critical media effects and the need for intersectionality analysis of power and structure and agency in these works. Because I am familiar with different methods and approaches to media studies, I am trying to bridge across sub-fields as much as I can. That’s some of the work I am trying to do: to push media effects scholars towards more critical reflection, more nuanced thinking.
With my students, I tell them, whatever methods work best for you, go with that. Do excellent work and we will find a way to position it. And what is excellence can be, should be, redefined to make it more inclusive. I keep fighting against this notion of what is a “top-tier” journal, using metrics or impact factors or citations and so on to evaluate junior scholars.
CG: I think, ironically, there are universities in Asia that probably have a narrower vision of what communication is.
SR: I have noticed that.
CG: But you think it is no longer such a stark choice between being true to yourself and trying to make it in what is still a very Western dominated field? One can actually do both?
SR: There is this book that I read while I going up for tenure that was a life saver—The Black Academic’s Guide to Winning Tenure Without Losing your Soul. That was very important to me. I am not going to change what I am, like my social justice activism. But I think that multiple methods can help you make a better case for that change, depending on who is willing to be persuaded by what type of data or by what type of story or argument. We have to use everything possible towards the goal that we want. With that in mind, I will collaborate with people who are different from me. Because I think from very diverse people or perspectives is where innovative research is going to happen, and then actual change, we can push for it.
Additional information
SRIVIDYA RAMASUBRAMANIAN is Professor of Communication at Texas A&M University.