Occupy Wall Street: Some Explanations

In the spirit of the random, seemingly incomplete, and sporadic nature of this blog, I figured it is probably the perfect place to discuss my feelings on Occupy Wall Street (OWS).

I have avoided this for quite some time, as I wanted to get a good feel for the movement. I also wanted to allow sufficient time for some commentary voices to emerge (i.e. West, Hardt and Negri, and Zizek). After much conversation among colleagues and philosophical cirlces I am involved in, I have decided I feel adequately prepared to offer some thoughts on the movement for those struggling to understand it with a Christian lens.

First, we must understand the movement on its own terms. Many people are asking good questions, and as such I will format my blog in a Q&A type of pattern. I will not address too deeply my feelings about the movement as a whole (they are probably obvious), but I hope in the near future to write about what a Christian response to OWS might look like.

What exactly is Occupy Wall Street?
According to Adbusters (the group of "culture jammers" that called for the Occupation), "#OCCUPYWALLSTREET is a leaderless people powered movement for democracy that began in America on September 17 with an encampment in the financial district of New York City. Inspired by the Egyptian Tahrir Square uprising and the Spanish acampadas, we vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy..." This definition, though loose, is perhaps one of the best definitions given thus far, and its strength lies in its succinct ambiguity. I will, however, try to expand the definition a bit further from my understanding.

OWS is leaderless. Though the Adbusters crew has taken the reigns here and there, and though there have been "demands" published, the movement remains radically democratic. Sociologists tend to assume a leader will eventually emerge in any newly formed group, and perhaps this will occur, but as it stands the movement is a loose confederation of a multiplicity of perspectives and as such it is unable to be subsumed underneath the labels or goals of one person or particular set of ideas (i.e. communism, socialism, capitalism, conservative, liberal, etc.).

OWS is people powered. The eschewing of party-lines and specific, established doctrines allows OWS to retain its autonomy outside of the usual political agendas we have heard bantered about for quite some time. Its loose set of frustrations and general attitude of invitation and openness allows for plurality to emerge. It does not take its cues from existing hierarchical structures or parties (like the republicans or democrats) but from its gathered members.

OWS is a movement for democracy. Experimenting in new practices of sovereignty and dialogue within the Occupations themselves shows that the movement is attempting to articulate a more radical democracy than the current representational one. The use of General Assemblies, social media, and inclusion (often privileging) of marginalized groups is a move toward a more egalitarian understanding of the body politic. As philosophers Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue, this movement is, if nothing else, "powerfully expressing the aspiration for a 'real democracy.'"

OWS is against the monied corruption of democracy. If there is any unifying factor to be found at OWS outside of promoting a more radical democratic process it is a shared suspicion of current economic practices. Though the protestors are certainly not uniform in their articulation of an alternative (indeed, many are admitted capitalists, communists, socialists, Christians, nihilists, etc.), the articulation of the problem(s) appears to be, by and large, the same: economic sovereignty has replaced and subjugated political sovereignty, and it must be stopped.

Who exactly is Occupy Wall Street?
Much has been made in the media of attempting to apply a general label the protestors at OWS. Everything from Nazis to hippies has been suggested. Right-wing media tends to perceive them as liberal gnats buzzing around, annoying hard-working people for no real reason other than nostalgia, stupidity, and laziness. Left-wing media tends to perceive them as glorified democrats, hoping for them to back Obama ASAP so we can get on with real politics. Though these are generalizations, I find these to be helpful and, I would venture, not particularly far off. Both, of course, are far too simple to really grasp the situation that is OWS.

So who is running the show here? One would not be totally incorrect to suggest a group of mostly left-leaning young people (though "left" must not be softened into "democrat" or "liberal"--it is much more radical than that, for better and worse), though, as I mentioned above, this is not the ultimate descriptor and does not reflect the total population. Perhaps it would be best, in the spirit of OWS, to define this group by using negatives rather than postives. That is, who are the protestors not? They are not hippies. They are not idiots. They are not stupid. They are not Nazis, lazy, bored, childish, or dreamers. (Surely one could find several individual protestors that fit one or more of these categories, but we must be careful not to be so quick to judge the whole based on the part--indeed, if we do this, then we best give up Christianity before anything else!). Whoever they are (and "they" are, again, a multiplicity of particular individuals), they are not easily reduced to favorite talk-show buzz words or McCarthy-style demonizations.

Where is all of this headed?
This, I must admit, is the question I cannot answer. I have speculations, of course, and especially hopes, but I do not have answers. Several have been posed, and you are invited to search the links provided at the end of this post to come to some conclusions yourself. I have never confessed to having the gift of prophecy, so I will not start now. However, I hope to work out some of my hopes and interests in the next post discussing OWS more personally.

So to summarize,
OWS does not want the government to expand to redistribute wealth (like democrats or socialists), nor does it suspect the market to bring itself to equilibrium or justice once freed from the chains of state authority (republicans or conservatives). OWS is not a unified group of individuals with the same intentions. OWS is not looking for hand outs (indeed, they protest the bail outs--the ultimate hand outs, and to the wealthy, no less). OWS is looking for justice. Whatever that is and how it can be obtained are yet to be determined. But at the very least, OWS is looking to open up channels and spaces to start having these discussions--to figure out what exactly is going on so we can figure out what approximately might be done.

Whatever we say about OWS, one thing is clear: it is not as easy to dismiss or rally behind as popular media would like.

Here are some philosophers discussing the issue:
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri
Slavoj Zizek

A few general articles:
Bernard E. Harcourt on Zizek and Badiou in relation to OWS.
Wikipedia's timeline of OWS
NPR has a series of articles on OWS
The Pope and OWS

Videos
Cornel West at OWS
Cornel West interview
Slavoj Zizek at OWS

There are many other videos and photos of the movement as a whole. A simple YouTube or Google search will yield results.