The Role of an Icon

by Alexus Torres

What is the goal of a social movement? In the 21st century, social media has allowed us to witness several social movements like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and Occupy Wall Street first hand through videos and vast media coverage. When we think of social movements, we envision protests, walk outs, and now even hashtags, but do we really know what a social movement is or what it seeks to achieve? When the word social movement is brought to my mind, I envision the collective. A collective hurt. A collective struggle. People who are wounded banding together to seek a change that will soothe their suffering. The collective is the agent; the people are the cause.

However, just as bands have a lead singer, social movements are always going to have a face. Whether it be a singular fictional face like Rosie the Riveter, a cultural feminist icon representing the women who worked in factories during World War II or the multitude of real people who became the faces of the #BlackLivesMatter movement after they were slain by police officers.

Although these two examples function differently as icons in the contexts of their respective movements, icons like Rosie the Riveter are utilized to uplift movements and stand as symbols of empowerment while the faces of the #BlackLivesMatter movements hold different sentiments by bringing light to police brutality, and also remembrance of life within the Black community, they are both faces inseparable from their movements. When recollecting a social movement we automatically associate a specific person with said movement. I say Civil Rights, you say Martin Luther King Jr. I say the Suffrage movement, you say Susan B. Anthony. Just like there would be no Queen without Freddie Mercury, social movements also contain their icons who are inseparable from them.

Sometimes becoming an icon in a social movement is dependent on public perception of your involvement in said movement. Writers like Kimberlé Crenshaw and Particia Hill Collins are solidified icons in the intersectional feminist movements because of their influential writings on the topics and their commitment to educating others on the topic of intersectionality. Other times, becoming an icon simply involves being an avid supporter of a social movement like Muhammad Ali and Jane Fonda who became faces of the anti-Vietnam war movement due to actively speaking out against the war. Either way a person becomes an “icon” within their social movement, their iconic status is solidified once it is perceived by the public.

Everything icons speak will be a reflection of the movement. People who are not actively participating in the movement form perspectives about it based on the actions of icons. They gain an awareness of the goals and wants of the collective by looking towards what the icon is saying. These discussions and transaction of information from the icon to the public is usually through the media.

In the 21st century, the media overwhelmingly controls what information is accessible to you. We only know what is going on in the world if the media decides they want to

inform us. Our knowledge of social movements is facilitated through a specific lens catering to specific demographics and “clickability” depending on where we get our information from. We have extensive ways to encounter these perspectives and formulate our opinions about them. Many of the social movement icons of today are active on social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter where information is given to us directly from the source. For example, famous social movement icon, Angela Davis, utilizes her social media platform to provide information about activist activities to people of the new Information Age. As she states “I’ve come to the conclusion that our work as activists is always to prepare the next generation. To create new terrains so that those who come after us will have a better opportunity to get up and engage in even more radical struggles,” and this is achieved through social media. Between newspaper publications and Twitter, we are living in the Information Age where it is easier than it has ever been to interact with icons of social movements.

With this easy access to information through media, there also comes downsides to the following of a movement through an icon.

Icons of social movements garner a lot of attention from the media. News outlets and social media love to place a face to a collective. It’s easier to keep track of and easier to place blame upon. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the leaders of the pandemic task force was blamed for the mishandling of the pandemic multiple times, despite being one of several members of the task force.

In order to better comprehend, we envision that there is a leader. A person to answer when things fall apart. Social movement icons receive hyper attention because there needs to be someone who encompasses what the movement is about and who conducts their life as a reflection of the goals of the collective.

Media coverage of social movements shifts from what the goals of the collective are to what the scandals of

design by Katherine Mara

the icon are. For example, in the feminist movement Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has recently exemplified this phenomenon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, referred to by her initials AOC, is currently the U.S. representative for New York’s 14th congressional district, a position she has held since 2019. AOC ran her campaign on being the “New Face of the Democratic Party” due to her implementation of feminist ideologies. AOC was seen as an outspoken radical feminist who was on her way to make change in one of the highest places in government. Her outspoken advocacy made her a feminist icon overnight and the media latched on to the new face of feminism. So when she slipped, it was a slip for the collective.

AOC came under fire in 2021 for attending the Met Gala donning a dress that had the words “Tax the Rich” written on it. People pointed out the hypocrisy of the situation by highlighting how a ticket to the Met Gala cost around $30,000. People who supported Ocasio-Cortez were disappointed by the situation. They were particularly upset about her continued defense of the situation and the capitalization of the slogan available in sweaters, t-shirts, mugs, and tote bags on her official shop website.

Not only were the feminists who supported her disappointed at AOC’s actions and the nonchalant attitude she showed to the backlash, but also media utilized this event to criticize feminism as a whole because of AOC’s status as an icon and a reflection of the movement. AOC’s actions were deemed performative and anyone who has ever supported her or reflected her sentiments were deemed performative as well. Through one person, a whole collective gets called “fake feminists.” AOC’s role as an icon in the feminist movement allows any opinion and ideology she has to be interpreted as that of the collective feminist opinion and ideology. This allows for an easy twisting of meaning and mockery of the movement by conservatives to encourage people who may not be well versed in feminist idea to oppose the movement as a whole.

The media completely shifted on AOC and, in turn, the feminist movement. What was once a story of how a women was leading feminism through the House of Representatives has turned into a campaign against “extreme feminists,” “radical feminists,” and “performative feminists.” Although we can recognize AOC’s actions as performative and counterintuitive to a movement that seeks to represent and advocate for marginalized individuals and goes against feminist ideology, we can also acknowledge the role that media played in further tarnishing the feminist movement. The media tells people to look at AOC as “The Feminist” and puts feminism in a category where all can be judged by the actions of one.

AOC exemplifies the way that icons are held to the highest standard. Icons are not people, they are icons. People are allowed to make mistakes, icons are not allowed to make mistakes. Once you become an icon and a leader, you must uphold a certain degree of righteousness that is reflective of the collective movement. If you look at the icons of the #BlackLivesMatter movement you can see this trend take place; Black people killed by police brutality are investigated for their past behaviors as if they deserved to be unlawfully slaughtered by police. For example, in the murder of George Floyd, a 46 year old Black men killed by cops in 2020, there was countless media coverage surrounding his drug use as a way to justify his murder. Like Floyd, the icons of the #BlackLivesMatter movement must uphold the image of perfect law-abiding citizens to maintain their icon status and provide credibility to the movement.

There is an argument to be made that perhaps icons signed up for this role. When you took on the face of leadership in something as important as a social movement, you signed up to be the face of the collective. You became the representative for the whole.

It is your job to be that person who can answer the questions and represent the movement strongly and proudly to others. If you misrepresent the movement, it becomes a misrepresentation of us. When you fall, we all fall.

There are several instances where icons such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony have not upheld the proper representation and goal of the movement. Martin Luther King Jr. represents the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s that advocated for the fair treatment of Black Americans in the United states, but after his passing Dr. King’s arguments and speeches have been employed by conservatives to produce rhetoric that discards race in a political sphere. This recontextualization of King’s words totally disregards the goals of King and of the movement. Susan B. Anthony is known to many as the leader of the suffrage movement, one of the first major feminist movements in the United States advocating for women’s right to vote regardless of marital status. Susan B. Anthony was also a notable racist of her time, calling into question her role as a feminist icon. Iconic representation in social movements has the potential to weaken the arguments and goals of the collective through the representation of movement ideology through a single person. Most people do not sign up to be the icon, though. Most people who become icons of social movements are just given that role because of their skills and their activism. Many icons shuffled into an iconic role because of media perception. Is it fair to people that they are thrusted into the iconic? Why can’t they live normal human lives, making mistakes, rather than be expected to conduct themselves professionally and properly the entirety of their involvement with the movement? When did the icon become more than the movement? When did their actions matter more than the actions of the collective?

The collective can also be hurt by the association of a movement with an icon. When did the collective give the reins to a single person? Who signed off on the icon being the spokesperson of the collective? Why is one voice heightened while the others reduced? At the end of it all, it is the collective. The collective is the generator of the movement. The collective decides what goes and how it goes. So is there a need for an icon at all?