Toward Sustainable Occupations by Amateurs: Reflections on the OWS – Shiroto no Ran Flying Seminar

Contingency is of the essence for creativity. The Flying Seminar session with members from Shiroto no Ran (Amateur Revolt), an anti-nuclear and counter cultural social movement group from Japan, and Occupy Wall Street, I think, was not an exception. What started as a rash decision by the Shiroto no Ran to come to New York to show their support to the OWS protest and to experience the heart of the occupation first-hand took an unplanned change after a chance meeting. Through a New School effort to create the time and space for deeper and meaningful dialogue, a valuable Japanese – American encounter occurred.

I heard the news about Shiroto no Ran’s visit just a day before their arrival. During their short stay at the Liberty Square, we met and talked about OWS. From our conversations, I began to realize how difficult it was for them to actually get the opportunity to really meet and get to know the people who are most engaged in the OWS movement. The activists in Zuccotti Park were too busy and things were changing too rapidly there. I realized that there was a need for creating a space that would facilitate a dialogue between these two groups of activists. A teach-in session organized by two New School professors, Jeffrey Goldfarb and Elzbieta Matynia, not only opened a door of opportunity, but also gave a concrete structure to my vague idea. From listening to their ideas about the Flying Seminar, I realized that we could have a serious conversation between these movements from different cultures. Just two days after I proposed the event, we all met, and my sense that it could be worthwhile, proved to be correct.

As a participant in both movements, I see my contribution in creating a space for dialogue as a modest one. But on the other hand, as a researcher who is working on the Japanese 1968 movement from a transnational perspective, I am especially interested. I am fascinated how such a dialogue is now possible in contrast to the impossibility of transnational – transcultural exchanges between activists in the sixties, and I think that such dialogue can have significant consequences. We learned from both our similarities and our differences.

Similarities and Differences

On capitalism: although not all participants involved in these movements are anti-capitalists, many, if not most, do consider capitalism as the source of profound problems. Both countries are in the stage of late capitalism and are currently facing the consequences of the great recession. In both countries the activists see the need for radical change.

With this in mind, both movements regard zones for alternatives as especially important. They work to create spaces where people can gather and live through an alternative life style, different from the ones which capitalism demands. For example, the urban commune filled with love and thoughtfulness at the Liberty Square and various shops in Koenji, Tokyo run by Shiroto no Ran that are organized through creativity and support from the people who share their ideas. Even though both movements believe in drastic social change and use the word “revolution” to describe their aspirations, their immediate aim is not to forcibly take over the government, but to create a “post-revolutionary” space inside of capitalism. They wish to change the society by inventing new tactics and demonstrating to the public that “another world is possible.” Persistent activity and the desire for creativity is the key to both movements. Their primary task is to expand their space and penetrate their thoughts into the existing society.

Despite these similarities, there are also important differences. In OWS, the goals are vague and also diverse. On the other hand, after the disaster of 3.11 in Japan, Shiroto no Ran is now focusing on a single issue, which is the abolition of nuclear power plants. Their tactics are also different. OWS occupies public spaces, while in Japan, since the use of public space for political purpose is highly restricted, Shiroto no Ran has rented  and runs several small retail shops, creating an alternative micro-economy to sustain their movement. Another difference is the consensus building process. Direct democracy is crucial for the OWS, but not for the Japanese movement at this moment. Lastly, judging from our discussion, principled opposition to violent action is more central for the Japanese activists than for the Americans.

Other than these differences on the level of issues and tactics of the movement, there are also the differences in the way they conceive capitalism. As I have mentioned earlier, both groups are against capitalism, but it seems that they are focusing on different aspects of capitalism. The OWS movement is struggling against the system that creates the deep disparity between the rich and the poor and the winners and losers that is rooted inside the American capitalist culture, which have become extreme especially after the great recession of 2008. On the other hand, after listening to the comments made by Shiroto no Ran’s members, it seems that their target is more toward the high mass consumption culture in everyday life that has been deeply embedded in the Japanese society since the 1970s. This difference came about partially from the impact of the 2008 recession on the labor market in each country. In the States, unemployment rate skyrocketed from 5.80% in 2008 to 9.28% in 2009. On the other hand, although the recession actually did affect the Japanese labor market, it was still within the limit of 3.99% in 2008 and 5.09% in 2009. Overall, a large part of the Japanese society is still living off or surviving from the post-war rapid economic growth reserve. Shiroto no Ran’s criticism is of the consumer culture supported by the post-war economic growth.

Hybridity: Central for Sustainable Occupation

In our global era, it is even more important for social movements to learn and be empowered by one another from both our similarities and our differences. While there seemed to be ambivalence about violence among the Americans, there was complete rejection of violent action among their Japanese counterparts. Japanese experience of the recent past accounts for this difference. Violence against the police and brutal infighting among the activists during the late 1960s and 1970s in Japan not only isolated the movement from the larger society, but it also left a deep cultural trauma, creating a negative image of social movements for almost forty years. Violence was the beginning of the end of social movements in Japan, and it seems to me this is something our American colleagues, who may be attracted to the communicative power of violent projects, should bear in mind.

On the other hand, the Japanese movement can learn a lot from the Americans about consensus building. As Hajime Matsumoto, one of the members of Shiroto no Ran, has accurately pointed out during the dialogue, it is hard to build up consensus through the open assembly in Japan. Instead problems are solved during unofficial situations such as the drinking session after meetings. Of course, direct democracy, which is practiced by the OWS general assembly, is not perfect. Words are power and people who can use the words effectively tend to prevail. Thus, we should acknowledge that there are voices that are being suppressed. However, it seems to me that the consensus building tactics practiced by the OWS is based on the notion that people are different and have different opinions and this needs to be consciously worked on through a persistent effort as the precondition of common agreement. Compared to the U.S., Japanese society is less diverse, especially in terms of race and ethnicity, and therefore, people tend to think that others share similar ideas, although in many cases they may not. Since different ideas are an important source for creativity and since Japanese society is becoming more diversified, it is essential to self consciously create a more democratic and open way for building consensus. This does not mean that the tactics of direct democracy and its tools of human microphone and hand gestures can or should be directly transferred to and implemented in Japan as it has been practiced in the U.S., yet these technics can be modified and rebuilt by applying appropriate resources in a different culture. Tactical hybridity is inevitable and desirable.

Lastly, in order to achieve a social change within capitalist society, it is crucial for movements to endure without losing the support from the general population. To do so, the tactics of Shiroto no Ran that creates an alternative economy inside the capitalist society and maintains relationships with the existing and surrounding society is instructive. But to really make a difference, it is crucial for us to keep pushing creatively, to draw the attention of the media and to surprise, indeed astonish, the public at large, to provoke them to think that the way things are is not the way things must be. For such purpose, the practices of OWS can be adapted and used in many different ways by the Japanese movement when they try to expand their movement.

I believe the coming together of these “amateurs” from different cities and continents will be a source of creativity sustaining an occupation. I hope and think that this Flying Seminar session made its small contribution to an ongoing transnational relationship between the two significant movements.