Is GSU Apparel Made in Sweatshops The Student AntiSweatshop Campaign at Georgia State University A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of

1、“is gsu apparel made in sweatshops?”: the student anti-sweatshop campaign at georgia state universitya thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of master of arts in the college of arts and sciences georgia state university2002bytakamitsu onocommittee:_dr. behrooz ghamar

2、i-tabrizi, chair _dr. charles l. jaret, member _dr. ian c. fletcher, member_date_dr. ronald c. reitzesdepartment chairtable of contentsintroduction.4a methodological consideration.8 chapter 1 globalization.11 clarifying the meanings of “globalization”.11 cultural globalization14 political globalizat

3、ion.18 economic globalization.21 what are “sweatshops”?.41 accounting for the emergence of sweatshops.49 resisting “globalization from above”.58 the global anti-corporate and anti-sweatshop movements.60 some effects of the anti-sweatshop movement.67 chapter 2 students organizing for economic justice

4、 in the 1990s and beyond.73 growing u.s. campus activism for economic justice in the 1990s73 united students against sweatshops (usas).75 chapter 3 the anti-sweatshop campaign at georgia state university.88 the emergence of the campaign.88 into the campaign.91 georgia state university and sweatshops

5、.92 campaign goals.96 campaign rationales.101 campaign strategy.104 mobilizing structures and tactics.109 framing and ideology.123 representations of workers.124 representations of corporations and the global economy.131 representations of the worker rights consortium (wrc) and the fair labor associ

6、ation (fla).134 representations of ourselves as a campaign.136 representations of related issues.139 collective and individual identities.140 political opportunity structures.145 some campaign outcomes.157 accounting for the outcomes.162 conclusions.180 summary.180 prospects and concluding remarks.1

7、84 references188 appendix i e-mail interview questions.225 appendix ii basic timelines of the anti-sweatshop movement, united students against sweatshops, and the anti-sweatshop campaign at georgia state university.233 appendix iii a comparison of the worker rights consortium (wrc) and the fair labo

8、r association (fla).239 appendix iv basic descriptions of some flyers and campaign materials.241 “workers of the world unite! will become more than just a hackneyed slogan; itll become the only way to survive.” former representative cynthia a. mckinney, august 2000 this is from her op-ed article cir

9、culated by one of her staffers on the internet in august 2000. both philadelphia inquirer and los angeles times apparently rejected to run it during the republican and democratic national conventions, according to this staff person. the text is available from the researcher.introductionseattle, wash

10、ington d.c., davos, quebec city, prague, and genoa: many people have become familiar with these cities names because the cities, perhaps unhappily, hosted some of the major “anti-globalization” i will put “anti-globalization” in a quotation mark because of my belief that most people in the movement

11、do not oppose globalization per se. rather, they are opposing a particular model of globalization, namely “neoliberal globalization” or “corporate globalization,” though many would say they are opposing capitalism in any form. my personal preference is to call the global justice movement. or global

12、justice demonstrations in the recent history. how about these names: durham, madison, eugene, middlebury, tucson, and atlanta? these are some of the american cities where one can find campus-based student anti-sweatshop campaigns launched by chapters of united students against sweatshops (usas). in

13、fact, this student anti-sweatshop movement has been an integral part of the larger global justice movement and has arguably been no less important than those better known global justice demonstrations, though involving fewer participants. this student movement to improve poor working conditions in f

14、actories around the world where college-logoed apparel is produced spread like a wildfire to as many as 200 campuses across the united states and canada over the last several years (featherstone and united students against sweatshops 2002). its intensity and size drew wide media attention. the new y

15、ork times referred to it as “the biggest surge in campus activism in nearly two decades” (greenhouse 1999b). other observers said it is “the largest wave of student activism to hit campuses since students rallied to free nelson mandela by calling for a halt to university investments in south africa

16、more than a decade ago” (appelbaum and dreier 1999:71).i have been associated with united students against sweatshops (usas) since 1999, engaging in the campaign at georgia state university (gsu) in atlanta. a small group of students and supporters have been out on campus to raise awareness of the p

17、roblem of sweatshops and their relationship to the gsu-licensed apparel sold in the two bookstores and worn by some staff members and athletes of georgia state university. we have tried to pressure the gsu administration to take steps to minimize the possibility in the future that the gsu apparel is

18、 manufactured under inhumane working conditions in this country or abroad. as the current form of globalization encourages the gsu licensees to outsource the clothing manufacturing process to hundreds of factories around the world, consumers and students at gsu are linked with the people around the

19、world who sew the gsu clothing. equipped with some benefits of globalization, such as internet and e-mail, the activists at gsu have tried to institute a system at gsu so that violations of basic human and workers rights can be minimized at gsu licensees contracting factories across the globe. the a

20、ctivists also developed an awareness of this issue as a part of the globalization process and cultivated a sense of solidarity with workers in apparel producing regions. this thesis is a sociological attempt to define this still on-going collective activity as a part of a larger global social moveme

21、nt. first, i will clarify the phenomenon called “globalization” in its cultural, political, and economic manifestations. but, as the current form of globalization creates injustices, inequalities, and undemocratic governance around the world, countless people have stood up to resist them some more v

22、isible and successful than others. i will in particular demonstrate how contemporary globalization since the 1970s has generated and maintained sweatshops and how people around the world, though focusing on the ones in the united states, have resisted in the movement against sweatshops. we will also

23、 look at some effects of this anti-sweatshop movement.second, in the context of the larger global movement of “globalization from below” brecher, costello, and smith (2000) define this term as the worldwide resistance since the 1970s against “globalization from above” or free market capitalism, with

24、 varied goals and in varied forms, but unifying “to bring about sufficient democratic control over states, markets, and corporations to permit people and the planet to survive and begin to shape available future” (p. 15). it could be, however, that terms can cover conservative “globalization from be

25、low,” such as global islamic fundamentalism, to create a self-determined community separate from “western globalization.” and the anti-sweatshop movement, i will describe united students against sweatshops (usas) in some detail. after situating the national and historical context of usas, i will del

26、ve into descriptions and sociological analyses of some aspects of the campus anti-sweatshop campaign at georgia state university (gsu) from early 2000 to may 2002 to show in detail how “globalization from above” has locally been resisted. i hope to capture what social theorist james jasper (1997:64-

27、67) calls the “artfulness” “artfulness” is a state in which “people are aware of what they are doing, they make plans and develop projects, and they innovate in trying to achieve their goals” (jasper 1997:65). so, protestors “rethink existing traditions in order to criticize portions and experiment

28、with alternatives for the future, in both large and small ways. they also offer ways of getting from here to there” (jasper 1997:65). they “experiment with novel ways to think, feel, judge, and act” (jasper 1997:66). as jasper notes, this “artfulness” is not freewheeling activities. they are both en

29、abled and constrained by historical and situational contexts structures and cultures (see also hays 1994 for a discussion of the relationship between structure, culture, and agency). or human creativities of the gsu campaign. i will describe and analyze how and why the gsu anti-sweatshop campaign be

30、gan, how it has sustained itself for two years, and how it has created some effects and why. in doing so, i will look into some analytical concepts of social movements. these include: (a) mobilizing structures (a network of supporters, resources we have generated, and tactics and strategies we have

31、tried to carry out); (b) framing and ideology; (c) identities and emotions; and (d) political opportunity structures (opportunities to advance or hinder our goals in the gsu power structure). i will then identify and try to explain some effects of this campaign on the gsu community and the campaign

32、activists. i will close the thesis with speculation about the future of this gsu campaign.my argument is that the gsu campaign has not met with success in attaining its goals primarily because, despite its diligent efforts, it has to this date failed to build strong mobilizing forces on campus to co

33、mpel the gsu administration to accept or make concessions to our demands. a solid mobilizing structure could have created favorable political opportunities for the campaign to help attain our goals.i demonstrate that a number of factors have prevented the formation of strong mobilizing structures. t

34、hey include class and racial backgrounds of the gsu students, their weak identification with gsu, the commuter school setting of the campus, the lack of progressive political culture at the university, the lack of direct evidence connecting sweatshops with gsu, the lack of economic resources to invi

35、te outside speakers, and the limitation of the main organizer of the campaign. in the study of social movements, it is important to account for the “failure” as much as the “success” of a given movement. i hope that this thesis will contribute to the understanding of social movements by examining wh

36、y the gsu campaign has not been successful yet. a methodological considerationwith regard to my research method, i directly participated as the main organizer in the activities of the anti-sweatshop campaign at georgia state university. i actively participated in all of our meetings and other activi

37、ties, including informational tabling and teach-ins. this is a form of participant observation, or observing the phenomenon under study while participating in such a phenomenon. specifically, i was basically a “participant-as-observer” (babbie 1995:284), once i decided to study this campaign. in oth

38、er words, i directly observed the phenomenon under study while actively and genuinely participating in such activities as a full participant while notifying other participants that i was also engaged in research and observation. soon after i decided to research the campaign for my thesis perhaps in

39、the early spring of 2001, i notified to all regular participants and many temporary participants, but not gsu administrators we came to contact with, that i was researching on it. i did so by notifying them verbally in an informal way or/and later by e-mailing them to ask to answer questionnaires. s

40、ome may raise the question of objectivity. that is, by actively participating in a phenomenon the researcher is observing, the researcher may “go native” or identify with the viewpoints and interests of participants and lose the attitude of detachment to conduct a research objectively (babbie 1995:2

41、84). i defend my position at two levels. one is the myth of total objectivity of the researcher. as many scholars of science studies and epistemology have demonstrated, any research is always influenced by power-laden specific historical, cultural, political, institutional, biographical, and situati

42、onal contexts and practices as to what and how the researcher can(not) or should(not) “see” and report (brown 1993; daly 1997; fuller 1997; harding 1998; seidman 1996; sprague and kobrynowicz 1999; van maanen 1988). however, it does not mean that any research attitude will do just because all resear

43、ch is power-laden and not completely objective. while acknowledging the limitations, any scientific research should be conducted with an attitude of being critical, reflexive, and ethical about assumptions, behaviors, and consequences of the researcher and the research (hertz 1997). it also suggests

44、 that multiple and critically reflexive perspectives and methods can be used to generate accounts to best understand the “reality” under study since there is no method to grasp the unchanging, unshakable truth. second, i think this argument of employing multiple perspectives and methods supports the

45、 use of the direct participant observation method because it has an advantage to understand a “reality.” because of my full involvement in the campaign, it can be argued that i can construct a closer appropriation of the reality, in contrast to a researcher who does so from outside a direct context.

46、 although, as i mentioned, i revealed to other participants at one point that i was studying this campaign, i believe that the influence on the participants to change their “natural” behaviors has been minimal. it is because i have been the main figure in the gsu campaign, and because i believe i di

47、d not change myself in any noticeable way in the campaign as a researcher. in recollection, while involving in the campaign activities, i often even forgot that i was actually researching. in this sense, i suspect other participants were not too conscious of being observed to change their “natural”

48、social behaviors. it is also partly because i did not tell them that i was researching on the campaign every time i met them, or i did not post an e-mail, indicating my research every time i posted a message on the campaign e-mail listserv (i.e., i notified them only once or twice). i do not believe

49、 either that i asked formal “research questions” to the participants or even took notes solely for my research during our campaign activities so that the participants may have sensed some awkwardness and might have changed their behaviors. i also examined other primary and secondary campaign materials. they include the messages of most e-mails posted on two e-mail listservs that the gsu campai