Navigating the Borderland of Scholar Activism

Abstract

While applied sociology can take on many forms, it has been argued that public sociology is very much connected to the work of social movements. In this paper, I discuss my own scholar activism within the Movement for Single Payer Health Care Reform and its implications for the grassroots mobilization of this movement. This paper is, in part, a response to the call to develop discussions about the applied sociological process to better understand the “specific kinds of engagement” that make up radical public and social change–oriented applied sociology. The role of scholar activist is another avenue through which applied sociologists can better understand the social world and promote positive social change. Scholar activists can work within social movements to build theory about social movement mobilization through an interactive and empowering process that highlights the epistemological authority of movement participants. Scholar activists also act as a medium through which the collective experiences and narratives of social movement actors can be understood and shared with a wider audience. In this paper, I unpack one part of this process by engaging in the practice of reflexivity through which I analyze my role as a scholar activist within the Movement for Single Payer Health Care Reform.

Keywords

scholar activism social movement narrative opportunity Single Payer Health Care Reform

Scholar Activism as Applied Sociology

While thinking about my work with social movements, I have often examined the idea of “applied sociology” and how this term relates to my action-oriented research within social movements. The related concepts of “applied,” “public,” and “clinical” sociology are increasingly important in sociological discourse but are still in the process of being defined in practice (Kalleberg 2012). Kalleberg (2012) explained that there are primarily four roles that sociologists fulfill—researcher, teacher, public intellectual, and expert. Although each of these roles can affect the society in which they are enacted, two of these, he argues, are of primary importance in relation to social change. Kalleberg argues that the conceptualization of the roles of public intellectual and expert need further theoretical and practical development to better understand their relationship to social change. While I agree with Kalleberg in his assertion, I would also like to add to this typology of academic roles an important position in which these four academic roles intersect—that of the scholar activist.

Scholar activism, particularly that of social scientists, has often been an important contributing force for social change in our society. Critical race scholars played an integral role in understanding, critiquing, and, ultimately, changing systems of racial oppression (Bonilla-Silva 2006; Morton et al. 2012; Perry 2012; Morris 2015). The work of feminist scholars has supported progressive changes to a gender stratified social order (Guy-Sheftall 2009; Tomlinson 2013). Radical sociological scholarship has affected the antiwar and antipoverty movements as well (Morton et al. 2012). More recently, scholar activists have also worked within the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and Pansexual (LGBTQIAP) movement to address injustices that are rooted in systems of heteronormativity (McCann 2011). Indeed, sociological scholarship and practice is uniquely qualified to understand and guide social change (Burawoy 2005; Finkelstein 2012; Quartaroli 2014; Morris 2015). Thus, detailed analysis of the role that scholar activism plays in the process of social change is an important and emergent area of study.

Just as social scientists play many roles within academia, those working within movements for social change play many roles within the social movements in which they work. They may work within the movement as a teacher, sharing their general knowledge with movement participants; researcher, collecting and analyzing data about the social movement; expert, sharing their expert knowledge of particular social institutions, social practices, or social policies; or as a public intellectual, sharing the story of the social movement with the public so that they better understand the motivation and goals of the social movement (see also Kalleberg 2012). Each of these may be used to assess movement activities and inform future action. Participating in progressive social movements as a scholar activist is an interactive process through which knowledge is shared and mutually constructed. Analyzing this process is an important and often neglected aspect of the work that scholar activists do.

As an extension of this, the scholar activist also has another important role when working within social movements—as a narrator, or storyteller, within the narrative practice of the social movement. Narrative practice is the process through which social movement actors understand and construct opportunities in their environment in ways that serve to mobilize their constituencies (see Hern 2012). As active agents within the narrative practice of the social movement, the work that scholar activists do can help to define the opportunities presented to the movement and, thus, can affect the future activities of the movement. The published works of scholar activists can also increase the “narrative capacity” (Atkinson and Cooley 2010) of the social movement by sharing the actions and outcomes of the social movement with a wider audience.

Scholar activists embedded within social movements must be aware of their contributions to the narrative practice of the movement and how these contributions may affect the actions of the social movement. They must emphasize “strong objectivity” (Harding 1995) by engaging in a process of reflexivity. During this process, they should address the ways in which their efforts as scholar activists have affected the movements in which they work. They must also include their own reactions as data within their analysis. Through this process, scholar activists will work to ensure that their final analysis is rooted in strong objectivity free from biased results.

In the following discussion, I engage in this reflexive process by examining my role as a scholar activist in the narrative practice of a particular social movement—the Movement for Single Payer Health Care Reform. I raise the question “What role have I played, as a scholar activist, in the narrative practice of the Movement for Single Payer Health Care Reform?” I also consider how I came to occupy this position and how this position affects the work that I do. To address these issues, I analyze my development as a scholar activist within the movement and unpack a few of my contributions to the narrative practice of the movement. I have been actively engaged in this movement for 10 years during which I have experienced a transition in identity from idealistic sociology student to pragmatic scholar activist. As a scholar activist involved in the movement, I have contributed to the narrative practice of the movement in many ways, which has at times affected the actions of movement participants. The role that I played in the narrative practice of the movement was fluid, as I navigated the borderland of scholar activism.

From Stalker to Board Member: Navigating the Borderland of Scholar Activism

Before I examine my role in the narrative practice of the Movement for Single Payer Health Care, it is important for me to locate myself within the movement and explain the process through which I arrived at this location. My current location within the movement is the outcome of almost a decade of involvement as a scholar activist. I learned much from academic works dealing with health care reform in the United States, but I was left with questions about what had occurred at a more local–grassroots–level. Although more recent works, which examine the Obama era of health care reform, discuss grassroots support of reform in greater detail, they still favor unpacking state-level activities rather than grassroots action in their analyses (Hacker 2009; Starr 2010; Jacobs and Skocpol 2012). I decided, based on my understanding of feminist theory and feminist critiques of knowledge production (Devault 1999; Smith 1999; Collins 2000), that I could learn more about the movement if I studied it from the vantage point of those marginalized within it. This decision pushed me to study the Movement for Health Care Reform from a standpoint that has historically been marginalized within it–that of the Single Payer Movement. The Single Payer Movement is a collectivity of organizations and individuals that share one foundational goal—establishing a nontiered system in which the state is the sole financier of basic health care. I have spent the past decade working within and studying the movement—by collecting field notes during face-to-face events as well as conference calls, conducting both formal and informal interviews, and analyzing the content of historical and contemporary documents produced by the movement during the past three decades. This journey involved my movement from outsider status to insider status within the movement and a transition in my identity from student of sociology to scholar activist.

When I first became involved with the Movement for Single Payer Health Care, in the fall of 2004, I was very much an outsider. I had never before been deeply involved in a grassroots organization, and I would not have called myself an activist. I was a new master’s student in sociology who had decided that I could best change the world through scholarship. I thought that being an “outsider” was a necessary component of “objective” research. I was also new to the issue of health care reform. The grassroots activists that I met early on were well-educated in something that I had only recently started learning about. One such expert, Julia, then president of Missourians for Single Payer (MoSP),¹ was my gatekeeper into the Single Payer Movement. Being studied was just as new to her as actually doing research in the field was new to me. At first, she referred me as her stalker. After reflexively analyzing my role as a researcher, I realized that this label of stalker was more than a jest, it was an actual assessment of who I was to her and to the organization. A stalker can be defined as someone who you don’t know and don’t trust, but who also follows you around and observes you. A stalker’s presence is at least troubling, if not frightening. According to this label, I was there to observe them, follow them, and perhaps pester them but not to be a part of them as a trusted and helpful member. At this point, I did not make any contribution to the narrative practice of the organization other than as an interesting side note as Julia’s stalker. I was also only privy to information that one might share with a “stalker” at public events.

I quickly became known and introduced as, Julia’s “shadow,” rather than as her stalker. At this point, I was not only spending more time with the organization through participant observation research but I was also becoming an expert in health care reform and social movements through my graduate studies. I was also learning more about feminist methodology and standpoint epistemology, which stresses “strong objectivity” rather than traditional objectivity (see Harding 1995). By the time that I was completing my master’s thesis in the spring of 2005, I had moved from strictly focusing on participant observation to conducting semistructured interviews with movement participants. Through these interviews I learned about organizational information not available during public meetings. During this period, I was also introduced as Julia’s shadow before MoSP meetings took place, when I stood in front of the assembled group of activists to explain my research objectives. This new label represented a significant change in the organization’s perceptions of me as a researcher participant—it represented my movement from the outside of the organization to the edge of insider. A shadow, unlike a stalker, is something that is expected to be there, following behind you. Perhaps you do not notice it all of the time, but it would be worrisome if it was not there. Yet a shadow does not do much for you, does not really participate in your life. At this time, I was a character within the narrative practice of the organization—for example, my brief introduction before meetings was included in meeting minutes—but I was not yet an active contributor to it.

I transitioned from being labeled as a “shadow” to being introduced as an “intern” after I became more involved with MoSP in a participatory way in the fall of 2005, after finishing my master’s thesis and starting my doctoral studies. An intern is someone who is an active participant in the organization but is a novice still learning the ropes. Interns are not only expected to be there but they are also expected to make contributions to the activities that are occurring. This change in status signified my movement to insider status within the organization. I took on small tasks and gave advice about certain practical issues, such as grant writing. Although I was not a technical expert in all of these issues, such as grant writing, my education and newly earned graduate degree gave me some expert credibility within the organization. I also became recognized as a valuable member of the organization. I was asked to make reports about my scholarly work, both at the start of organizational meetings and in the organizational newsletter. I was very aware of my changing role in the organization and often thought about this and considered it in my field notes. I began to more actively engage in the process of reflexivity and began to think of my research as an action-oriented project. As part of this process, I actively contributed to the narrative practice of MoSP by sharing my field notes and analysis with organizational members.

Eventually, my status within MoSP shifted again to that of an “honorary board member.” I received permission to attend board meetings of MoSP but was not elected to the board. I also began attending Health Care NOW (HCN)² meetings in person and in monthly conference calls, at first with MoSPers and then acting as a liaison between MoSP and HCN. I took extensive field notes at all meetings that I attended, and shared these with the leaders of MoSP and HCN. These notes were often shared with meeting participants and organizational members as meeting minutes. I became an integral participant in MoSP, as an honorary board member, and as a link between the narrative practice of MoSP and the narrative practice of HCN.

My most recent transition was from “honorary board member” to board member. After being in the field for almost five years, I was elected to the board of HCN, which signified my acceptance as an important insider within the national movement. At the 2009 national strategy meeting of HCN, I was nominated to be on their board. I did not have much time to consider what it would mean to my scholarship before deciding whether or not to accept the nomination as the vote was to take place at that meeting. The conventional worries about objective research and distance from participants still existed alongside the extreme pride that I felt at being included in the community of activists in this way. As this was a special election to fill four seats that had recently been vacated, I decided to accept the nomination. I was even more filled with pride and renewed energy when I was elected to the board. My first service as board member took place at the next semiannual board meeting of HCN held in the summer of 2010 at the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit. At this point, I became an insider in the narrative practice of the national movement. I am currently an active board member of HCN and contribute to the organization in many ways.

During this ongoing process, I came to think of myself not just as a scholar who does research using the methods of participant observation, interviewing, and content analysis but also as a scholar activist. I was already passionate about understanding social inequalities and learning how to address these issues in an academic setting. I was now also passionate about actively working to challenge them, not just through scholarship but also through grassroots action. This transformation was a long process that was at times supported and at times inhibited by my own location in academia, as well as by the environment of opportunity in which MoSP and HCN exist. Throughout this process, it has been necessary for me to continuously develop my self-reflexivity—to include my own experiences and reactions in my analysis—as I walk the socially constructed borderland between scholarship and activism. I must also analyze how my work within the movement affects the narrative practice and activities of the movement, which is what I turn to now.

The Scholar Activist Role in the Environment of Opportunity

The environment of opportunity in which a social movement exists is constantly changing and activists must not only recognize this but also they must adapt to it. Through their narrative practice, activists come to conclusions about multiple intersecting types of opportunity within their environment (e.g., political, economic, cultural, and grassroots)³ and make decisions about how to best act to take advantage of these opportunities. As an active participant in the movement, I also play a role in the environment of opportunity. Through my participation as a scholar activist I act as a conduit through which this narrative practice is examined and shared with a wider audience. In this way, I represent the opportunity for the message of the organization to be heard and the history of its activities to be recorded. Julia was also fond of saying “You’re gonna make us famous!” which reminded me that sharing my work with a wider audience was just as important to them as it was to me. In this section, I engage in the process of reflexivity by discussing a few ways in which I have played, and continue to play, a role as a scholar activist in the narrative practice of the movement.

Narrative Practice within the Movement Following the Affordable Care Act

Directly following the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in March of 2010, the dominant narrative of this era of health care reform within mainstream politics became one of success. An unlikely intersection between the Single Payer Movement and the newly born Tea Party Movement developed during this time. Both of these movements worked to counter the dominant narrative of success through counter narratives, which are “rhetorical spaces for challenges to power through the articulation of oppositional ideas” (Mackenzie 2011:491). The activities of these two very different mobilizations intersected due to their criticism of the individual mandate component of the ACA. As a scholar activist trained in the analysis of social policy, I shared a critique of this narrative practice with the movement.

Single-payer organizations did not introduce the wave of state-based bills designed to oppose the individual mandate component of the ACA, which swept across the nation in the summer and fall of 2010. However, there was extensive debate within the movement regarding whether or not single-payer activists should mobilize in support of these bills and ballot measures. This became a focus of the opportunity narrative practice within the Single Payer Movement. Through the practice of constructing opportunity narratives, activists tell and share stories about the opportunities that they are experiencing within the political, cultural, and economic environment—or the Environment of Opportunity (see Hern 2012). Proposition C, the “Missouri Health Care Freedom Act", was the first ballot measure of its kind to be voted upon. Single-payer activists were considering active support of this measure due to the ballot text, which was widely shared in sound bite form through national media outlets. Due to my graduate studies in social policy and location in Missouri, I was asked, by national movement leaders, to conduct a more detailed policy analysis of the full bill. My conclusion was that although single-payer supporters also disagreed with an individual mandate to purchase for-profit private health insurance, the bill proposed in Missouri and passed on to ballot by the state legislature would actually prohibit the development of a compulsory health care system of any kind—including single payer. In my brief, I concluded,

After this reading of the text, it is clear that Proposition C works against the single-payer agenda. It is a good thing that Prop. C is not binding. While the actual vote could still be interpreted as a public speaking out against mandates to buy specifically private insurance, because most of the public has only read or heard the condensed ballot text [which was misleading], and that this could be a good indication of the discontent that the public has with private insurance—the actual implementation of this measure would work against our goals for a publicly financed system.

My conclusion in the policy brief highlighted the negative impact that Proposition C as well as other “Freedom Bills” could have on the Single Payer Movement.

The issue of Proposition C, and my conclusions about it, came up in single-payer discourse and affected decisions about organizing around these initiatives. This is illustrated by the reference to my policy brief made in the following conversation that happened within a national conference call meeting⁴:

Hillary from Chicago: Not sure about what Ali said about something with the Tea Partiers. But I’m opposed to working with them because we shouldn’t find a way to find common cause with them. They’re against big government.

Kevin in Houston: Obviously we don’t want to align with the Tea Party. But the Missouri vote brings up a challenging opportunity for the movement. The vote targeted against the individual mandate by the right. But it’s hard for single-payer supporters because it sort of lines us up with them against the mandate, but we need to distinguish ourselves from the right.

Katie in New York: When you looked at the language of the Prop. C, even though the media made it sound like it was all about opposing the individual mandate, the actual language of Prop. C wouldn’t be something single-payer advocates could support as it opposes publicly funded health care completely.

During this conference call, decisions were being made about how the Single Payer Movement should, or should not, organize around initiatives that were designed to challenge aspects of the ACA. Movement leaders directly incorporated the conclusions I presented in my analysis of Proposition C into this discussion. This affected their conclusions about the usefulness of organizing around similar “Health Care Freedom” bills that were being proposed around the country.

In this example, I was asked to use my knowledge of social policy to analyze a particular policy for the movement. I concluded that the implementation of this policy would actually affect the environment of political opportunity in a way that would make it less open to the goal of single payer. By sharing this analysis and my conclusions with movement activists, I helped to affect a change in the opportunity narrative practice surrounding Proposition C. Instead of these initiatives being viewed as possibly positive opportunities for action, they became defined as actions that could result in a more negative opportunity environment for the Single Payer Movement. Through my policy analysis, I helped to redirect the focus of the Single Payer Movement away from narrative activities that could have worked against their ultimate goal of achieving a Single Payer System in the United States. This is an important outcome of my work as a scholar activist within the movement. Another important goal for me as a scholar activist is to make sure that the activities of the Single Payer Movement become a noted mobilization effort within the action narrative of the Obama era as well as future eras of Health Care Reform.

Action Narratives in the Contemporary Movement—Scholar Activist Contributions

During the most recent era of health care reform, single-payer activists were met with a complex environment of opportunity for which they developed a multifaceted narrative practice (see Hern 2012). Much has been written about the Obama era of health care reform, but the dominant action narrative of health care reform still focuses on state level, rather than grassroots actors. Action narratives involve the narrative practice of constructing a causal explanation for the actions of social actors and outcomes of activities (Uebel 2012). These narratives can be used to justify future actions. Although grassroots activists have written extensive memoirs and substantively rich accounts of their experiences during this period (see Kirsch 2012), these narratives are necessarily focused and do not fully address the efforts of single-payer activists. As a scholar activist working within the movement, I am committed to making sure that the role marginalized activists play in the process of health care reform is accounted for in the action narrative of the Obama era of health care reform.

Much of what has been shared about the grassroots mobilization during the Obama era of health care reform focuses on the grassroots groups that had ardently supported single payer during the Clinton Era of health care reform but were convinced to support the “public option” approach of the Obama Administration (Hacker 2009; Starr 2010; Jacobs and Skocpol 2012). For example, the founders of Health Care for America NOW (HCAN)⁵ had also been active supporters of single payer until the year leading into the 2008 presidential election. Richard Kirsch, organizational leader of HCAN, discussed the moment that he decided to push for a public option saying “the public option gave us the high ground with the public because it could withstand attack against the charge of a government takeover of health care” (Kirsch 2012:80). This conclusion, along with the strategy devised by Kirsch and his colleagues to convince other single-payer supporters to shift their support to the public option, was rooted in the dominant narrative that single payer is not politically feasible.

Although Kirsch wrote that he has respect for those who remained ardently in support of single-payer health care during this era, he also argued that their actions were not rooted in “reality.” Kirsch argued that although the policy goals of single-payer activists were not possible, they (HCAN) were “actually trying to get a president and Congress to pass a law that provided affordable health coverage to everyone in the United States” (Kirsch 2012:80). Kirsch also suggested that single-payer activists who continued to support single payer were not actually committed to achieving reform saying,

One other observation on the single-payer debate lies at the heart of the gap between the many single-payer activists who worked with HCAN and those who continued to criticize our approach. John Meyerson, a longtime activist who directs the legislative and political work for Pennsylvania United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1776, asked me, “Have you noticed that the single-payer or bust people all have great insurance?” He’s right. The activists on the left who insisted that only single-payer was worth enacting didn’t really have any skin in the game. (Kirsch 2012:81)

Not only did Kirsch indicate that single-payer activists were not really concerned with promoting the “politically feasible” option because they didn’t have any “skin in the game,” but he also indicated that this commitment was rooted in the ignorance of this segment of single-payer supporters saying, “I also clarified a common misunderstanding among many single-payer advocates, who often equated single-payer with universal health care” (81). The narrative presented by Kirsch indicates that unwavering single-payer supporters are not as knowledgeable about the specific dynamics of health care systems around the world as those who worked with HCAN and supported the administrations agenda. Both of these conclusions illustrate a lack of understanding about those occupying this marginalized position. It is one of my goals as a scholar activist within the movement to make sure that the publically accessible action narrative of this era includes the activities of the Single Payer Movement, as well as the complex process through which rational decisions about those activities were made.

Single-payer activists did not continue to focus on single payer rather than committing to the public option because they had “no skin in the game.” Single-payer supporters who I have interviewed all have stories that counter this claim that they do not have “any skin in the game.” Their stories illustrate the process through which they decided to support single payer to address the negative impact that the American health care system was having on their lives. For example, Julia became a single-payer activist out of “self-interest” when she, as a small business owner, realized that she could not provide adequate health coverage for her employees and be financially successful. Julia explained that, after educating herself about the different options for health care reform in the United States, she decided to actively support the push for a Single Payer System. Eventually, Julia shifted her focus from the “reward” of maintaining her business to the more universal reward of “health care for all . . . that of course is the goal and that would be the big reward.” Julia added that “there will be health care for all some day, and I think I’ll probably live to see it, and I’m sure you will.”⁶ Julia remained a vocal advocate of making health care a human right through a Single Payer System until her death in 2014. I have also spoken with many activists who became supporters of Single Payer due to their work in a medical field and related health professions. Mimi directly referenced her experience as a registered nurse trying to care for her patients within a system that “contradicted her at every turn” when explaining her reasons for deciding that there must be a better option. She then decided to push for single payer, because it is a “life and death” situation. Many single-payer activists also came to their decision to support Single Payer due to their experiences as patients. Donna Smith became bankrupt due to the health crisis that she and her husband, Larry, shared. Donna became educated and “empowered” through her involvement as a star in the film SiCKO. She eventually directed her newfound energy and political empowerment toward supporting the Movement for Single Payer Health Care. These are just a few of the stories that illustrate how committed single-payer supporters do have “skin in the game.”

Single-payer activists are also far from being ignorant of the specific technical issues of health care systems around the world. They have become very educated about these distinctions and adept at explaining them to others who often conflate these varying systems under the umbrella term of “socialized medicine.” The Single Payer Movement has strong intellectual leadership in the form of the doctors and nurses in the Physicians for a National Health Program and National Nurses United, who share detailed analysis of health care practice and policy with the grassroots Single Payer Movement and with the general public through publication in peer reviewed journals as well as media outlets. Many single-payer activists explain that they became involved in the movement because they self-educated themselves about health care systems around the world and concluded that single-payer is the best type of universal system for the United States. These activists have developed expertise in understanding and explaining health care systems and the dynamics of health care policy. Contrary to the criticism of single-payer activists stated by Kirsch, these activists often explain that they do not equate single-payer with universal health care. In fact, they became very cautious and critical of using the term universal health care several years ago because “groups are using universal and they don’t mean what we mean.”⁷ They do, however, counter the idea that systems of universal insurance based in a for-profit system are equal to universal care. This is an important theme at single-payer meetings and in documents produced by the movement. It is also a central theme in the action narratives that activists tell to explain why they joined the movement. Many of the activists who experienced hardship within this system, such as Donna Smith, were insured—but this insurance did not provide the care that was so desperately needed. Ardent single-payer supporters have concluded that having for-profit health insurance does not equal having guaranteed health care and are very critical of those who use the term universal health care when discussing systems that leave the for-profit insurance industry intact. This educated understanding is one reason why they chose to continue their support of the Single Payer Movement, rather than shift their focus to the public option supported by HCAN.

The existence of unfounded assumptions in dominant action narratives of this period of health care reform further legitimates the importance that I, like other scholars before me, place on studying social phenomenon from a marginalized position. Too often, narratives told from a position of power are the only narratives that are heard. As I collect substantial data through interviews, field notes, and content analysis and share my analysis of the Movement for Single Payer, I also challenge these assumptions that are made from the perspective of relatively powerful positions.

This analysis highlights that the process of mobilization that activists undertake through the telling of narratives is not rooted in delusion, ignorance, or not really having skin in the game but is rooted in the understanding that progressive social change in the United States requires that groups collectively act to change the reality that they face. This “reality based hope” is based in the actions of single-payer activists, rather than on the dominant understanding of the opportunity for specific types of reform. Bob, organizer of the Million Letters for Health Care Campaign, discussed the process of reality-based hope saying,

Remember our reality-based hope. We know that realistic hope is based on realistic actions of education and communications, which is what our campaign is all about: Americans knowing what the subject is and getting their questions and concerns answered. That is followed by an opportunity for an informed American(s) to participate in our massive monthly communications action(s). Keep in mind that we can and will get single-payer health care, improved Medicare for All, and that it will be the best health care for all system. Reality-based hope can help instill in you a realistic, firm belief that U.S. health care for all can and will happen.⁸

As a scholar activist, I play an important, yet minor, role in the process of creating reality-based hope through emphasizing the action narrative of the Single Payer Movement.⁹

Reality-based hope is rooted in the “realistic actions” that can affect the environment of opportunity in which activists act. This process is facilitated through the multiple forms of narrative practice in which activists participate. Time periods during which activists are realistically able to create a more diverse array of opportunity narratives, due to material conditions, facilitate the development of a more diverse array of strategies and tactics. This can then have an increased impact on further mobilization and on the environment of opportunity. Throughout our history as a nation, progressive social change has occurred because enough individuals shared a vision for a more just social order. These movements were able to reconstitute, through their actions and the development of empowering narratives, the material reality that they faced in their efforts to promote social justice. The discounting of grassroots efforts for progressive social change would be business as usual in a political and cultural context that has in the past devalued the role that grassroots mobilization has played in progressive social changes. As a scholar activist, I must continue to play a role in this narrative process by sharing the Single Payer Movement action narrative of health care reform with a wider audience.

Navigating the Borderland: Scholar Activism

Due to the structure of contemporary academia, being a scholar activist can mean straddling two worlds with their own norms and expectations. As an academic, I am encouraged to conduct and publish research that builds theory and fulfills traditional expectations of scholarship. However, as an academic, I am also able to deconstruct ideas about scholarship being rooted in objective research through building theory that emphasizes a process of reflexivity rooted in strong objectivity, while also making central the epistemological authority of activists within the movement. This process is further enhanced and complicated by my methodology, which involves participant observation as an activist within the movement. As an activist, I must also participate in and contribute to the grassroots activities of the social movement, activities which are oriented toward a specific practical goal and take time as well as energy. It is not easy to be an activist in academia, which is not only demanding of time and energy but in which there is also professional risk to holding views on issues that could be interpreted as partisan. The construction of issues as partisan can also result in the belief that research is biased, even when reflexivity is used as a tool to counteract any possibility of bias in analysis. These issues in contemporary academia support the construction of scholarship and activism as two opposing roles—with the disinterested scholar on one side and the passionate activist on the other. The construction of these endeavors as opposites serves to create a border between scholarship and activism—and a borderland (see Anzaldua 2007) that the scholar activist must navigate.

Although contemporary academia, including academic practice and academic theory, typically creates a clearly defined border between scholarship (defined as the objective pursuit of knowledge) and activism (defined as the subjective pursuit of social change), these two practices are, as detailed in my experience, mutually reinforcing and part of the same role. As a science, sociology has always had the potential to work for positive social change (Morris 2015). The construction of scholarship and activism as two separate, and oppositional, identities is a product of specific political, cultural, economic, and academic contexts. This construction serves to perpetuate the status quo by discounting the work of what Gramsci called “organic intellectuals” (Strine 1991), who arise from within everyday interactions and can serve to challenge that status quo. The practice of scholarship and the practice of activism are not inherently oppositional and can be mutually reinforcing. My activities as a scholar help me to better understand the issue of health care and the movement to reform the system. This helps me to make a difference as an activist. My passion as an activist gives me energy to continue my research and writing on the Movement for Single Payer. Thinking critically about my role as a scholar activist helps to further my theoretical thinking about the relationship between social movements, narrative, and the environment of opportunity. The scholar activist is both scholar and activist, but is forced to navigate a socially constructed borderland to be successful at either endeavor. Challenging this constructed dichotomy is another aspect of the work that scholar activists do.

Breaking down the constructed dichotomy between scholarship and activism also means recognizing that organic intellectuals do not always arise from within academia but many also arise from the grassroots experiences of everyday social movement organizing. I am not the only scholar activist working within the movement, nor am I the only scholar activist on the HCN board. For example, Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, recently joined the board of HCN and has been actively contributing to the movement through his attendance at meetings and analyses of the economic effects of proposed single-payer systems. I do not want to overstate the importance of academic scholar activists such as myself within social movements—much more of the day-to-day work, and day-to-day analysis, is done by nonacademics, and they should have the credit for the ongoing mobilization of the movement. Recognizing the epistemological authority of grassroots activists within social movement theory is not only important but also essential. Social movement theory that emphasizes the interactive narrative process through which activists construct and act on opportunity will move our analysis of social movement processes toward an understanding that is holistic and empowering (see Hern 2012). Locating the process of theory development within the experiential knowledge gained through the activist experience will also facilitate the empowering potential of social scientific scholarship.

What is the role of scholar activists in the social movement that they study? The scholar activist must fulfill not only the actions necessary to perform a valid academic study, but he, she, or ze must also be active in the organization, a status which is often challenged by academic life. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), sponsor of S703—the single-payer bill in the U.S. Senate—and Representative John Conyers (D-MI), the author and sponsor of H.R. 676—the national single-payer bill in the U.S. House of Representatives—both emphasize the importance of highlighting the Single Payer Movement in the story of Health Care Reform. Conyers has often said that “we need to record this while it’s happening, we need to write our own history.” Perhaps that is one of the most important tasks of the scholar activist. So many important changes in our society were successful in large part due to the grassroots activists that supported them. Yet in our collective memory and dominant narratives of social change, they are often forgotten, delegitimized by conservative rhetoric or, more recently, co-opted by conservatives arguing for the maintenance of American values. They are often written out of the narrative. This is detrimental to future possibilities for progressive social change. Piven and Cloward (1978) argued that reforms to the welfare state (at least in the United States) came not through top-down directives but from mobilization at the grassroots level. Aldon Morris argued that the potential of social movements to change the status quo is rooted in social disruption (Morris 2015). Their assertion that the poor or disadvantaged within the system could only gain concessions when they were disruptive on a mass scale is relevant today. If the stories about success through grassroots mobilization and disruption are not told, others may not follow in their footsteps and progressive social change may not occur. This is why my role as a scholar activist, as both a narrator of opportunities and an audience for these narratives, is vitally important to my research as an applied sociologist. This is an additional way in which applied sociologists can be important contributors to positive social change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the members of the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology (AACS) who have helped me to think through these issues at our meetings and through private discussion. I especially would like to thank Mike Hirsch, who encouraged me to become involved with the AACS and to think about myself as an applied sociologist. I would also like to thank those who reviewed early drafts of this paper-Clarence Lo and Megan Floyd, as well as those who anonymously reviewed drafts of this paper. I would like to thank the many family members (Kyle and Marie Hern and Matthew Humphrey), friends, activists, and colleagues who have helped me to develop as a scholar and activist.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Lindy S. Hern is an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Her main areas of research and teaching are social inequalities, gender, political sociology, and social movements. She has been working with and writing about the Movement for Health Care Reform for almost a decade but also studies women’s flat-track roller derby, public preparedness for and state responses to natural disaster in Hawaii, and student retention at public universities.

References

Anzaldua

Gloria

. 2007. Borderlands–La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.

Atkinson

Joshua D.

Cooley

Laura

. 2010. “Narrative Capacity, Resistance Performance, and the ‘Shape’ of New Social Movement Networks.” Communication Studies 61(3):321–38.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2006. “Towards a New Radical Agenda: A Critique of Mainstreamed Sociological Radicalism.” Contemporary Sociology 35(2):111–14.

Burawoy

Michael

. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70(1):4–28.

Collins

Patricia Hill

. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.

DeVault

Marjorie

. 1999. Liberating Method: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Finkelstein

Marv

. 2012. “Sociology’s Icebergs: Jobs, Workplace Change, and the Applied Imperative.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1):31–42.

Guy-Sheftall

Beverly

. 2009. “Black Feminist Studies: The Case of Anna Julia Cooper.” African American Review 43(1):11–15.

Hacker

Jacob S.

2009. “Yes We Can? The New Push for American Health Security.” Politics & Society 37:3–31.

10.

Harding

Sandra

. 1995. “Strong Objectivity: A Response to the New Objectivity Question.” Synthese 104(3):331–49.

11.

Hern

Lindy S. F.

2012. “Everybody In and Nobody Out: Opportunities, Narrative, and the Radical Flank in the Movement for Single-Payer Health Care Reform.” PhD thesis, University of Missouri Library Systems (Order No. 3530875).

12.

Jacobs

Lawrence

Skocpol

Theda

. 2012. Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Kalleberg

Ragnvald

. 2012. “Sociologists as Public Intellectuals and Experts.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1):43–52.

14.

Kirsch

Richard

. 2012. Fighting for Our Health: The Epic Battle to Make Health Care a Right in the United States. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.

15.

Mackenzie

Sonja

. 2011. “Dissecting the Social Body: Social Inequality through AIDS Counter-narrative.” Public Understanding of Science 20(4):491–505.

16.

McCann

Bryan J.

2011. “Queering Expertise: Counterpublics, Social Change, and the Corporeal Dilemmas of LGBTQ Equality.” Social Epistemology 25(3):249–62.

17.

Morris

Aldon

. 2015. “Sociology and Social Justice: Confronting Challenges of the Twentieth-first Century.” Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology, Annual Meeting: Keynote Address, October.

18.

Morton

Mavis

Dolgon

Corey

Maher

Timothy

Morton

James Pennell

. 2012. “Civic Engagement and Public Sociology: Two ‘Movements’ in Search of a Mission.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1):5–30.

19.

Perry

Ravi. K.

2012. “The Politics of Applied Black Studies: An Historical Synthesis for Understanding Social Science Impact.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1):53–64.

20.

Piven

Frances Fox

Cloward

Richard

. 1978. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.

21.

Quartaroli

Tina A.

2014. “Sociology at Work: Transforming ‘Change the World’ Ideals into Real-world Results.” Journal of Applied Social Science 8(2):79–84.

22.

Smith

Dorothy

. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

23.

Starr

Paul

. 2010. Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle over Health Care Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

24.

Strine

Mary S.

1991. “Critical Theory and ‘Organic’ Intellectuals: Reframing the Work of Cultural Critique.” Communication Monographs 58(2):195–201.

25.

Tomlinson

Barbara

. 2013. “Colonizing Intersectionality: Replicating Racial Hierarchy in Feminist Academic Arguments.” Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture 19(2):254–72.

26.

Uebel

Thomas

. 2012. “Narratives and Action Explanation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42(1):31–67.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB