“Is GSU Apparel Made in Sweatshops?”: The Student Anti-Sweatshop Campaign at Georgia State University A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2002 by Takamitsu Ono Committee: ________________________________ Dr. Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, Chair ________________________________ Dr. Charles L. Jaret, Member ________________________________ Dr. Ian C. Fletcher, Member _________________________________ Date __________________________________ Dr. Ronald C. Reitzes Department Chair 1 Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….4 A Methodological Consideration………………………………………………….8 Chapter 1 Globalization……………………………………………………………..11 Clarifying the Meanings of “Globalization”……………………………………..11 Cultural Globalization……………………………………………………14 Political Globalization…………………………………………………...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 in the 1990s and Beyond…...73 Growing U.S. Campus Activism for Economic Justice in the 1990s……………73 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……………………………….92 Campaign Goals………………………………………………………….96 Campaign Rationales…………………………………………………...101 2 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 Association (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…………………………………………….184 References………………………………………………………………………………188 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 3 the Fair Labor Association (FLA)………………….………..……..239 Appendix IV Basic Descriptions of Some Flyers and Campaign Materials………….241 4 “‘Workers of the World Unite!’ will become more than just a hackneyed slogan; it’ll become the only way to survive.” – Former Representative Cynthia A. McKinney, August 20001 Introduction Seattle, Washington 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”2 or global 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 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 factories 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 1 This is from her op-ed article circulated 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. 2 I will put “anti-globalization” in a quotation mark because of my belief that most people in the movement do not oppose globalization per se. Rather, they are opposing a particular model of globalization, namely 5 wide media attention. The New York 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 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 problem 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 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 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 activists also developed an awareness of this issue as a part of the globalization process and cultivated a sense of solidarity with workers in apparel “neoliberal globalization” or “corporate globalization,” though many would say they are opposing 6 producing regions. This thesis is a sociological attempt to define this still on-going collective activity as a part of a larger global social movement. 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 visible 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 look at some effects of this anti-sweatshop movement. Second, in the context of the larger global movement of “globalization from below”3 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 delve 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 capitalism in any form. My personal preference is to call the global justice movement. 3 Brecher, Costello, and Smith (2000) define this term as the worldwide resistance since the 1970s against “globalization from above” or free market capitalism, with 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 below,” such as global Islamic fundamentalism, to create a self- determined community separate from “western globalization.” 7 hope to capture what social theorist James Jasper (1997:64-67) calls the “artfulness”4 or human creativities of the GSU campaign. I will describe and analyze how and why the GSU anti-sweatshop campaign began, 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 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 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