Introduction

Civic mobilization is an outcome of complex social encounters and connections. By converging or diverging utterances and exchanges of meanings and ideas, people often balance their wishes for material and moral gains. Initially, such engagements remained intense and idealistic. Gradually, people moderate their priorities by respecting and accepting, existing opposing claims (Kihlström, 2020). However, before reaching this point, such complex social actions and purposes generate the empowerment and inclusion of certain groups. Motivated by the emergence of relative power asymmetry as well as the resources mobilized by the originally mobilized group, the excluded group responds by resisting existing or potentially emerging social platforms (Richmond, 2011).

People also engage in civic mobilization because they support vulnerable constituents and struggle for justice and inclusion in society. Under such conditions, people collectively not only deal with accessing material resources but also promote ethical responsibilities and moral concerns. Such an expression of horizontal solidarity then triggers other social agents and institutions to either support or oppose such demands of civic mobilization (Robinson, 2014).

Representatives of the corporate (the private sector) and members of the governing elites, often pursuing instrumental politics, might prefer restricting or categorically opposing tendencies of civic insistence. However, if people manage to jointly overcome existing structural and ethical limitations, civic mobilization could lead to a more stable and cohesive society. This will, in return, provide long-term solutions to prevent the powerful exclusion and suppression of lesser fortunate constituents. The privileged civic shift entails a compromise between status and entitlement. For the less powerful, the move includes moderation and adjustment of the original demands.

Civic mobilization emerges from a dialectical sociopolitical process of meaning-making social activities, leading to successive societal alignments or realignments. This is often sustained by recurring discursive and legitimation exchanges in society (Brough and Shresthova, 2012). The word “civic” implies individual and group duties in the community and public responsibilities in rationalizing, accommodating, and moderating social practices, particularly in their public discourse. In this regard, civic activity requires cautious and concerned listening, respect, and recognition of people's capabilities and willingness to understand and contribute to the common well-being of the community as well as to the wider society.

There are a plethora of unresolved issues and realities raised surrounding the activism of Robert and Mabel Williams, and their interactions with Castroism, Maoism, and Robert's relationship with Richard Gibson (a CIA informant) who stayed in contact with him in exile in Cuba, China and after his return to the United States from 1971 to 1976. My analysis of Robert Williams not only foregrounds the importance of a multifaceted representation of him but also focuses on dual themes of racial oppression and the victimization of black men and women within the overarching structure of American white patriarchy. Robert Williams’ defiance with Mabel's support against racism, advocacy for armed self-defense, moral character and conviction, and pragmatic decisions during the Cold War/Civil Rights era were executed strategically and with accountability. Williams offered a progressive vision that influenced emerging as well as future generations of activists who would insist on changes and reforms in American society and worldwide. Williams stood out as a centrally important yet often misunderstood and complex figure in twentieth- and twenty-first-century American history. Williams writings and voice were unsettling and offered disturbing criticisms about the inactions of the American government and the broader racist white voting population which continues to resonate today. The observations he made domestically and abroad about white America demonstrate a consistent pattern of resistance to and against white supremacy, racial injustice, and discrimination. This stance not only spurned a backlash among white American leaders but also caused a resurgent “new civil rights movement” with grievances among middle and working-class Black and white Americans against racism. Relevant today are Black Lives Matter movement activists dominating the scene and making visible the extent of white supremacy in America, particularly the complicity of white Americans and those ethnic groups (peoples of color) that are benefiting from the oppressive forces of racism and the denial of rights guaranteed to African Americans. Williams becomes important today since armed militias are patrolling U.S. southern borders and claiming fourteenth amendment rights since the government is not providing protection and security for its citizens. They are claiming the right to protect themselves when their justifications are unwarranted.

I used to live in a city with many universities. The women's basketball team at one of the universities was terrific, powered by a point guard who could hit any player on the team with a mid-court toss unless she felt like sinking a three-pointer from way outside instead. I attended the team's games regularly. The men's team at the same university wasn't very good. Unsurprisingly, the men played in a large arena with a fancy jumbotron and an impressive sound system. The women played in a small gym with an intermittently failing sound system. Maybe the court was full-size, maybe not.

As of 2023, both teams at this university play in the same large arena. Change is possible.

Years ago, my mother had a hard time finding an anniversary card for my wife and me that was specific to a female couple. She eventually found one in a gay neighborhood in New York City.

Our discipline was arguably founded to understand the concept of culture. And yet, over the last fifty years, culture is a formulation that has fallen out of favor in anthropological circles. This is a paradox indeed. How did we arrive at a juncture where the very subject that we study is out of fashion? But we have created an unnecessary conundrum. Let us take a step back, inhale a deep breath, and see if we can rechart our course.

Today I want to trace the genealogy of our distinguished hallmark method – the one we came up with to study that construction of culture: ethnography. We might differ on the extent to which ethnography is anthropology's to claim, or whether it matters if ethnography belongs to our discipline or is a method that is more widely used in the social sciences and even humanities, but I am inclined to call it our own. Ethnography as it has been practiced for the last century is our discipline's great innovation, our superlative methodological tool. Others may borrow it, as well they should, but in good faith they should recall where it comes from: sociologists; behavioral scientists; mass marketers; public policy experts; students of law, finance, journalism, business; education experts; development experts; geographers – all of them claim to do ethnography. But ethnography proper is ours, and I would argue that what we do with it is unique in our intent to describe, explain, and consider the dimensions of culture in action. In anthropological hands, ethnography does not simply mean “fieldwork” or conducting “qualitative interviews,” or even living with informants, for a few weeks or months, to participate and observe. It means immersing oneself within the rhythms and the pacing, the meanings and the logics, of a specific cultural setting – whether “someone else’s,” if you will, or one's “own,” perhaps, but with new lenses – so that we can know what life looks and feels like in situ.

Much as we may debate subjectivity and objectivity; presentation, representation, and self-representation; the third-person or the first-person; contestation and translation; or the epistemology of the “other,” no serious anthropologist has ever doubted the sheer and incomparable capacity of ethnography as a method to understand a cultural lens, in the sense of an on-the-ground context.

SERMON DELIVERED AT ALL SOULS’ CHAPEL UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP, MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA, SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 1956

COL. J. C.'s LAST STAND BY ROBERT WILLIAMS

Col. J. C. calls himself American. He claims Maryland as his place of birth, but it matters not where the stigma of his birth is placed; for today he dwells in many places throughout this republic. He has many aliases, such as John and Mary Christian, Lord and Lady Blueblood, Sam Tradition, and Capt. Race. There are others, many others, but we know him best as Jim Crow, Col. Commandant of other Reactionary Forces, United States of America. He claims his longevity will rival that of Methuselah, but it is too bad that he cannot read the signs of times, for they pronounce his doom. Yes, he calls himself American, a STATES’ WRIGHTER WITH A DEMOCRATIC HEART. Strangely enough, he is an American, for he, too, stood at Concord Lexington, and Valley Forge to bequeath this nation the right to be free and democratic. Old Col. Jim Crow is stubborn. He is opinionated. He was too opinionated to absorb and practice the tenets inherited in the democratic doctrines that he fought so gallantly to wrest from the imperialists who were oppressing and stifling the progress of the new world. Col. Commandant Jim Crow's prejudiced forces have won many battles in their incessant war against righteousness, liberty, and justice. He was John Brown's captor at Harper's Ferry. He held fast at Richmond. He shook the very foundation of this republic by the fury of his aggressiveness at Gettysburg. Jim Crow is a wily and rugged warrior. His legions number among them ignorance, reactionary tradition, do nothing conservatism, fear, and downright indifference. His evil forces have long prevailed against God and country, but his ranks are being slowly depleted. The populace is becoming more democratic minded. Democracy and Jim Crow are incompatible; therefore, the forces of reaction are faltering in their efforts to enlist unlimited recruits from the new generation. The young students at Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, the University of North Carolina, and A&T are snubbing their noses at him. The liberals and true Christians are turning him from their doors. He has turned to his allies, the Citizens Councils and the KKK, and together they have vowed to stand, and together they shall perish, for they had elected to obstruct the path of justice.

POEMS WRITTEN BY ROBERT F. WILLIAMS

Pearly Teeth at the White House, April 1963

Now the darkies came from miles around.

To the white folks’ White House to dance and clown

There was dark laughter and frolic in the old staid hall.

As Kennedy went slumming at this White House Ball.

Now Hamp played jazz and sounded blue.

While the House slow-dragged and twisted too,

Oh, what a ball, good times on “Slick John” and Lyndon B.

And comic books entitled, “Freedom for the Free.”

Said a racist: “We served the Nigras no brew nor wine.

For fear of brickbats and razors flying—”

Old two-faced Lyndon was full of cheer.

He gloated: “Now ain’tyall glad to be here!”

Oh, how the cats jumped, both black and white

To celebrate emancipation night.

And so, went this glorious night of nights.

Where frolicking fools drank punch in lieu of Civil Rights.

And when the climaxed, this great event.

The darkies tucked their tails and went:

Back to their dark ghetto to dwell

Back to their chains and racist hell.

Birmingham, USA, June 1963

Hear the painful groaning and the tolling of the bells.

The world looks with horror where the great white father dwells,

Hear the sound of jury in the land of the racist knave.

As thug cowards attack babies in the “home of the brave.”

Hear the brave songs of babies, martyrs eternally.

The slave tugs against his chins in the “land of the free”

The lion of freedom leaps from the bosom of a lamb

Where violence is the law in racist Birmingham.

See the pious Christian in his God damned racist world,

And the priests who bless a cop who beats a baby girl,

Oh, this I the “land of freedom” where racist Christian's dwell

The Klan will ride again tonight, and God can go to hell!

Like Pontius Pilate, the Christian denies the blame.

He roams his racist jungle devoid of human shame-

Oh, little black girl of courage, weeping child of sorrow

Joy will come to you, for you’ll be queen tomorrow.

The bell rang and I wrapped up a lecture on sexism in my introductory sociology course. I was proud of myself for having mentioned the research on how professors give men more opportunities to talk in college classrooms; I wanted my material to be relevant to the students. Two of the women in the class stayed behind to speak with me. They looked uncomfortable.

One said, “So, about professors giving guys more airtime during class …” and stopped.

The other one continued, “We decided to track the gender breakdown in who talked in class today. You know, there are two guys in the class, and twenty women. But you called on the guys almost half of the time. Did you do that on purpose to make your point?”

I suddenly felt a lot less proud of myself. I had not done it on purpose. I had not even been aware that I was doing it.

Every professor I’ve ever told this story to has their own version of it, including feminist-identified female professors. Men talking disproportionately is so normal that most of us don't notice it most of the time.

About a decade later, I ordered a Starbucks Frappuccino on a hot summer day. The barista squinted at me and said, “You do know this drink has like sixty carbs in it, right?”

I held my ground. “Do you tell everyone that, or just overweight women?”

She glared. “I’m just saying.”

I ordered the drink anyway, but I didn't enjoy it.

Visibility plays a complicated role in systemic inequality, because being visible works to our advantage sometimes but being invisible can also work to our advantage. Similarly, visibility can be problematic, but so can invisibility, depending on the context. If you’re in the socially valued group, both your visibility and your invisibility work in your favor: you receive positive attention without having to contend with unwanted attention. If you’re in the socially devalued group, both your visibility and your invisibility work against you when you are “scrutinized but not recognized.”

ROBERT WILLIAMS RESPONDS TO SENATE INTERNAL COMMITTEE's SUBPOENA

Senate Internal Committee

Upon my return to this country on the 12th of September 1969, while in custody of and being fingerprinted by the FBI, I was issued a subpoena. The internal security on the Judiciary Committee's subpoena commanded me to appear before its September 30, 1969, session in Washington. I was commanded to bring the following personal belongings: “Any and all wire or tape recordings, photographs, photographic or motion picture film, correspondence or copies thereof, notebooks, diaries, address books or lists, telephone books or lists, membership rosters or lists, or any other documents or papers now in your custody or under your control, the property of Robert Williams or Mabel Williams, having to do with the following subjects or any of them”:

• “1. Plans for revolutionary activity against the Government of the United States either in furtherance of a so-called ‘Republic of New Africa’ or in any other connection.

• “2. The so-called ‘Republic of New Africa’ or ‘New African Republic’ and any officers, representatives, or agents thereof.

• “3. Financing of a proposed Negro republic within the present boundaries of the United States of America.

• “4. The activities of the revolutionary organization known as RAM or any member or members thereof as such.”

The above-mentioned material was not available for me to take to Washington because the Committee had already had it stolen from U.S. Customs before I could take possession of it. Attorney Conrad J. Lynn of New York was only able to obtain a promised return of it after it had been photographed and the photos were presented for my identification during the first Washington session. The whole session was an invasion of privacy. Not a single senator showed up and the session was heavily based on notations from my diary, which had been stolen by the committee. Even though I was conscious of the fact that the whole affair was a brazen and sinister violation of my Constitutional and human rights, I answered all questions to the best of my ability in a vain effort to prove that I had nothing to conceal. On November 18, 1969, I appeared a second time in response to a subpoena. Sen. Strom Thurman arrived late and questioned me for a short time.

How much we matter to society turns out to matter a lot to us. It matters for our happiness, our well-being, and the opportunities we will have in life. And how much we matter has a lot to do with whether we belong to socially valued groups or not. For example, men tend to matter more than women, white people more than members of Black/Indigenous/People of Color (BIPOC) communities, heterosexual people more than lesbian/gay/ bisexual people, and cisgender people more than trans people. And this difference in mattering is at the heart of all forms of systemic inequality, which turns out to be a matter (so to speak) of valuing some people more than others and enshrining that difference in valuation through differential treatment.

But don't take my word for that. Let's consider some evidence. We’ll start with racial segregation in the United States, a powerful example of what happens when the desire of white people to live in white-only neighborhoods matters more than the desire of Black people to live in integrated neighborhoods. Historical studies of segregation demonstrate that Black people did not choose to live in segregated neighborhoods; rather, white people systematically forced Black people into housing segregation by refusing to rent or sell to them or to live in the same neighborhoods, a refusal supported by both the federal government and private citizens, and involving strategies ranging from lying to legal discrimination to violence.