Growing out of the broader Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, a bit uptown, at the New School, there was another occupation. It began on OWS Global Day of Action, November 17th. About one hundred broke away from a march from Union Square to Foley Square. The march was a part of a city-wide student strike in solidarity with OWS Global Day of Action. The breakaway group occupied a student study floor on 90 Fifth Avenue. The headlines of The New York Times about the action captured how many of us at the New School understood it: “Once Again, Protesters Occupy the New School.” I was quite skeptical about this action. I didn’t understand why The New School was a target. But initially, I didn’t simply oppose. I thought that there was a real possibility that New School President David Van Zandt’s accommodating approach to our occupation might open up space for creative activity.
Unfortunately, things didn’t develop that way. As time progressed, the aggression that the tactic of occupation of university space is, defined the action more and more, while the opening in public life that OWS has provided took a backseat. Once again, for me, Hannah Arendt’s insight that in politics the means define the ends was confirmed. The object of my concern is most readily perceivable by the photos of the graffiti on the occupied space accompanying this post. The damage to The New School facilities is disturbing, but I find the content of some of the slogans even more serious. In addition, there were reports of some students having worries about their safety in the occupied space as events progressed. Instead of the space being open and inviting, some rather perceived and experienced it as hostile, disinviting and dominated, due to the some of the occupiers’ tactics and politics. There were also the very reasonable concerns of many students about losing access to the space for their studies.
It is with these factors in mind that I signed the following letter, composed by my colleague, Andrew Arato, to The New School community in support of President Van Zandt’s approach to the challenge, an approach that led to a relatively peaceful, to this point, end of the occupation.
Monday, November 28, 2011
To the New School Community
Dear Friends:
We need to express our strong appreciation for the way our president, provost and some of our faculty members handled the unfortunate occupation of a part of the New School. They were right not to call in the police, and to be conciliatory, ready to negotiate until a full democratic vote of those present could be taken.
They were also right (letter of November 23) in calling attention to the destructive and undemocratic practice of a minority that initially refused to leave in spite of the vote. This act of firmness also facilitated the favorable outcome.
Some of us, probably a relatively small minority of students and faculty, may think that it is acceptable to occupy the New School whether or not there is any school specific contentious issue at stake. Let us note however, that as against the recent past, the leadership of Van Zandt and Marshall (not to speak of the faculty mostly enthusiastic about OWS) has provided no conceivable excuse for this action. On the contrary, it was all extremely hospitable to the movement and its reasonable demands for time and space. We are aware of possible motivations why the New School was selected: namely our very tolerance and liberalism made us a much easier and less defended target than the real enemies of the movement. But the existence of opportunity is not in itself a justification for anything.
Whether any of us do agree with the occupation of a part of our place, we are sure none of us can accept the fact that the occupiers have deliberately caused serious damage to the facilities. $40,000 dollars is mentioned as a figure. That is quite a sum. Just to pick an example of alternatives, the equivalent of 10 graduate assistantships will go for renovation instead, at a time when we already cannot reward at all some of our best students.
We are not calling for the punishment of the students concerned by the University. This would be counter-productive. But we do think that any serious movement-to-be has the responsibility to police its ranks, and discipline its membership by excluding those who violate democratic rules and engage in random violence.
Again the president and the provost need to be offered our sincere thanks. Had someone else been in their place, the results could have been tragic, and not only for the short term. The long shutdown of universities from Greece to Uruguay and Mexico has happened in the past initially for equally fortuitous reasons. It is our job here, faculty and students, to make sure that this cannot happen to the New School.
Signed by,
Elaine Abelson
Andrew Arato
Jay Bernstein
Emanuele Castano
Doris Chang
Alice Crary
James Dodd
Federico Finchelstein
Carlos Forment
Laura Frost
Teresa Ghilarducci
Jeffrey Goldfarb
Eiko Ikegami
Elizabeth Kendall
Marcel Kinsbourne
Benjamin Lee
Arien Mack
Elzbieta Matynia
Joan Miller
Edward Nell
Julia Cathleen Ott
Christian Proaño
Vyjayanthi Rao
Janet Roitman
Jeremy Safran
Willi Semmler
Ann-Louise Shapiro
Rachel Sherman
Ann Stoler
McWelling Todman
Robin Wagner-Pacifici
Terry Williams
Eli Zaretsky
Vera Zolberg
Some further explanation
This was our third occupation in four years, but was quite different from the previous two, when Bob Kerrey was the university president. The issues then had much more to do with the tension between Kerrey, on the one hand, and the students and the faculty, on the other. The local and national contexts were also very different. Now the New School occupation has occurred at the time of the broad social movement that is Occupy Wall Street. While President Kerry called in the police, to the deep consternation of The New School community, David Van Zandt, was much more open and understanding. His first response as reported to the Times: “As long as they’re not disrupting the educational functions of the university they can stay… It’s a tough time for students right now, and we’re aware of that. These are big social issues.” And he followed with a series of additional statements in which he sought common ground with the occupiers, attempting to avoid conflict. Yet, perhaps inevitably, there was conflict and controversy. The different perspectives are illuminating.
The occupation was from the outset planned and executed by the “All City Student Occupation.” This is an overarching body of the NYC university students. They are not necessarily representative, but are linked to all the individual school assemblies. They posted a series of statements throughout the course of the occupation.The New School General Assembly reposted from there and at its own site. These sites provided a student view of the occupation, until a fateful General Assembly in which the pressing issue was whether to accept or reject an offer by Van Zandt of moving and limiting the action. A telling majority accepted the offer. A committed minority questioned the legitimacy of the decision and stayed.
At the GA: there were about 150 people. The vote accepting the Van Zandt offer was about 90 yes and 25 no. The vote wasn’t completely clear, though those in favor clearly prevailed. The discussion at some points was civil and reasonable, at other points, not.
Then things became difficult. In the night of Nov 22, a group of the “no voters” decided to stay. Most of the participants by then had vacated 90 Fifth. They left or moved to the Kellen Gallery. The remaining 90 5th Ave occupiers opened a new blog and published statements there.
The students, both activists and non-activists, were split on the occupation. Although they overwhelmingly are, along with the faculty, very supportive of OWS, the occupation of The New School was not as broadly supported. Among many of the faculty, including me, there was the additional factor: strong support for the way David Van Zandt has handled the crisis, always supporting the mission of the school, which includes its traditional openness to progressive social, political and cultural expression and action, coupled with a strong commitment to its various educational divisions and programs.
In the end, my ambivalence about the occupation turned to opposition, not understanding the justification of occupation, being appalled by what some did in the occupied space, supporting the President’s response, wanting to minimize the negative impact of the occupation on my intellectual home, while still supporting the project of OWS. I think this was the conclusion of many, probably most, of my colleagues and students. I look forward to further informed reflection on the issues involved here, which are far from settled at The New School, and beyond.
All involved in the OWS movement want the “Zuccotti virus” to spread. Yet what exactly is the “Zuccotti Virus”? Is it about tents and sleeping bags? Is it about fomenting radical social and economic change? Yes, this is the way some people would define, and this is part of it. But it shouldn’t be overlooked that the “Zuccotti Virus,” more properly referred to as “the Spirit of Liberty Plaza,” is also a transformation of the way in which we live and relate with others. We all recognize that a callous disregard for the welfare of others is a problem shared by the “1%.” However, what will happen to the movement when we in the movement do the same? It will fade away. If we claim to represent the 99%, we should realize what this entails. It means working things out with those that share similar concerns, but who do not necessarily share the same vision of change. Part of the beauty I saw in Libery Plaza from its earliest conception was that, in the non-dogmatic nature of its “incoherency” one could go there and feel at home. There was instant solidarity. But there is also a negative side to solidarity: defining ourselves as an in-group opposed to others who do not conform to a certain rigid ideology, and hence excluding them from our moral circle, rather than trying to work things out. Solidarity without empathy for the “other” often leads to “narcissism of minor differences” and conflict. It will turn the process of social justice into a zero sum game.
This is a critical time for the movement. If the chant “We are the 99%” is to have any meaning at all, if we want the contagion to spread we must realize that this is contingent on forming an inclusive, supra-ordinate identity, one which a majority of Americans can empathize with, and consequently, identify with. I had envisioned change occurring as a the culture of sharing, and non-dogmatic inclusion, would spread, transforming American culture that to often, while believing in a dogmatic ideology of liberty, blames the victim. I believed it would spread, eventually isolating those who still held fast to a worn out ideology of selfishness. And this process seemed to have begun, but crass and foolish actions jeopardize this mechanism. I re-iterate Prof. Golfarb’s comments about ends and means, but phrase it a little differently; to quote MLK: “The means you use, must be as pure as the ends you seek.” In actuality, a majority of people are dedicated to that principle.
And financial damage aside, the occupations has also damaged the spirit of movement here at the New School. Last Sunday, I saw fliers taped up in the 2 W. 13th design building which read, “OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTORS ARE DISRESPECTING ART, OUR LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, THEY ARE AFFECTING OUR STUDENTS’ FUTURES. SAVE ART. SAVE OUR CURATORS. SAVE OUR STUDENTS. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE NEW SCHOOL, EMAIL: vanzandt@newschool.edu.” In a way, the Parson’s student have the right idea. Send David Van Zant the message, and possibly Parson’s students as well, that you’re an Occupy Wall Street Protester, you care about the New School, and you don’t agree with the way the occupations here were conducted. I would also add that the occupations highlighted another problem; for a university steeped in the tradition of social justice, that there is no open, public space set aside for the exclusive purpose of the art of political expression now seems to be a sin of omission. Parson’s students have their art galleries; politically active students should have theirs as well.
While you were disturbed by the developments that took place at the New School, I suspect that you may not have been entirely surprised. Many movements have developed radical and violent factions. This sometimes causes movements to split. I think that the Vietnam Antiwar Movement(s) is a good example. Radical factions, some violent, became associated with it; influenced public opinion; and tainted the messages of the core elements of the movement (I’ve viewed the Vietnam Antiwar Movement (s) as an aggregation of a number of movements). As OWS events unfolded, I wondered if a dialectic was at work; or if this was something akin to Newton’s Third Law of Motion which is commonly stated as, “For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
I did not sign the letter, and for a few reasons. I did communicate privately with certain parties. Not everything belongs on blogs. It did not strike me as necessary to make a public statement. I am also not entirely happy with certain choices of language. Talk about ‘policing’ the ‘ranks’ does not seem to me particularly informed or helpful.
I am not particularly concerned about the ‘damage’ to the facilities. The New School has spent not inconsiderable sums installing artworks within its premises. What is left here is a work of art we got for free. In some respects a good one in illuminating certain corners of the militant unconscious.
There may have been a ‘radical’ faction, but while its rhetoric is maximalist, there was hardly ‘violence’ as Michael suggests above. I appreciate the danger he is pointing to but would want to be very cautious in using certain language, here, again.
In any case, was not the whole thing of inestimable educational value? Is it not a good thing to have to think through and work out a situation? I suspect certain students involved or even just paying close attention will have learned a lot. Even if the clean up is expensive — money well spent. Things like this were certainly important parts of my own education.
I did have the ‘not us again’ sensation that Jeff notes, however. It does seem a bit like picking on an easy target to occupy the New School. One might hope for more imaginative tactics.
As a New School student I found your overview and the letter with its long column of my superiors names, to be extremely intimidating. Given this, I do not feel entirely comfortable expressing any views that may differ from it. Thus, I do not really see it as having any potential for stimulating “good discussion”. Despite the ostensible claims about protection and democracy, the underlying message of the letter, and your blog, is quite clear. The message is do not protest or occupy the New School or you will be associated with vandalism, nihilism and even taking away funding from other students. To me it appears that this “crisis” is being exploited to keep criticism directed away from our (not your) intellectual home. And since when in the protestors rule book did it say you only occupy or protest in the spaces of your “real enemies”? The letter and your piece is set up in such a way that anyone who offers a divergent or more nuanced view must walk on egg shells. He or she runs the risk of being lumped in with anti democratic vandals. They run the risk of being branded as enemies of the New School. The letter may be more ‘civilized’ than the graffiti, but I find it to be far more disturbing. It is truly a sad day when we are expected to thank our leaders at the New School for not pepper spraying our brothers and sisters. And to call this a “crisis” is fear mongering. A key problem with the letter and your piece is an over-emphasis on explicit acts of graffiti. This is all factual but the problem is that your piece and the letter are leaving out the more positive elements of the New School Occupation. This is really what FOX news is so good at. But I expect to see this on FOX news. It really saddens me to see it here. To mention on occasion that it was a minority, give nods to some exterior safe abstraction of OWS, and then focus on the negative aspects of it is irresponsible. It also seems somehow disingenuous to talk about scavenging from the spirit of the occupation after slandering it. This is really not about OWS. This is about our right to freely assemble. This is about our right to protest. The New School should not be treated as an oasis of purity, that is exempt from critique. Nor should its legitimacy be determined through crude Hegelian othering. The letter tells the protestors with a bodiless voice, we are not the ones that you should be occupying. The letter tells the protestors to target the “real enemies”? An institution that creates official knowledge playing the victim? My next question which I pose to that letter, with its phalanx of signatures is; Who are these real enemies that you speak of? The absurd assumption here is that protesters and occupiers must have “real enemies”-as opposed to fake enemies. Is this the New School of Social Research or the Lord of the Rings?
best,
David Peppas
I find a great deal in your comment perplexing and some of it fundamentally wrong. A few things to start.
The views of students and faculty on the occupation vary. An overwhelming majority voted to end the occupation of 90 Fifth and an overwhelming majority support OWS. Somehow this has to be explained, beyond the notion that the administration and faculty are silencing students.
I posted the letter, which I signed, but also gave an account of the event with links to other positions. I am glad you wrote, but saddened by your accusations that my colleagues and I seek to silence those with whom I disagree. I think you must know this is not the case through our previous exchanges.
We have already debated this issue on Facebook and I think you haven’t actually explained what you think was positive about the occupation, certainly not its vandalism and the intimidation of students who disagree with the occupiers. And can you honestly claim that the issue is that the New School limited freedom of assembly?
I am quite interested to know how you can suggest the latter and even more interested in what you take to be positive about the occupation. As I indicated in my post, I was initially ambivalent about the occupation. Not understanding why it was happening at the New School, hoping that it would present an opening for creative intellectual and political action, not as hopeful as Ken Wark, but along the lines of what he suggests. But that is not what happened. So please explain.
I was concerned about a negative outcome of the New School Occupation, but thought there was a possibility and perhaps there still is for a more productive outcome opening space for creative political interaction which both Scott and Ken Wark, in their different ways, hoped for.
From beginning to end of the latest events, I was hoping for more imaginative tactics at the New School. Occupy a New School building again? Why for the larger movement and why for the New School? It is time for radicals, liberals and conservatives to stop operating in cliches. The graffiti that appeared at the occupation as art? Perhaps, but if so it is radical kitsch. The damage was real even as the estimates of cost widely vary. As far as the event being of educational value, that will depend on what we do. Can
rifts, such as the ones Scott points to, be healed? Probably but I am not sure they will be. Can a space being provided to continue the discussion? Yes, it seems to me that this is work being done by the Student Senate, working with the administration. Will there be sense or nonsense in this space? That depends on us. I am the eternal optimist.
I don’t want this to seem like a pile on, but I find it ironic that you should feel intimidated. Perhaps you know now how other New School students, especially those from other countries, felt when the occupied spaces were barricaded, and there were things like “divine violence” written on the walls. (I don’t want to implicate anyone in particular, but if you want to worship at the altar of violence, better find yourself another church). This is not simply a matter between those that prefer a more radical approach and the faculty that signed the letter, but a matter between that “minority” of occupiers and other New School students that have every right to the space as well.
But it is not entirely fair to stress all the negatives, without mentioning the fact that there were generally good intentions. For example, someone one had written “Stop Criminalizing the Poor” as well. However, good intentions are not enough. I will re-iterate again: the means you use must be as pure as the ends you seek. This is not to exclude all radical, yet non-violent, measures, but the potential unintended consequences must be taken into consideration.
Btw, I wouldn’t compare those that signed the letter to the folks at Fox News. Fox News resorts to outright falsehood. There’s a big difference, between that and stressing the negatives. Besides, no one was compared to Hitler, so the analogy is not really fair.
Ultimately, I hope we can come to some kind of understanding by acknowledging and understanding the viewpoints of others, and move on, because there are positive things happening that hopefully we can all support %100: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/02/9166035-foreclosed-homes-empty-lots-are-next-occupy-targets
I feel for the students who felt intimidated by the incident. My slightly tongue in cheek remarks about my own intimidation were meant to show that the signed letter probably would not invite much criticism from students who had positive things to say about the occupation. The reason for this should be self evident. These people, who signed this, are within this institution, individuals with high status. Therefore, it seems logical to assume that many students might not feel comfortable expressing divergent views because questioning authority in this context can ruin ones career. I see discomfort such as this as to be a much more wide spread problem in the New School. I would say that it instills more trauma on a daily basis than the trauma of the occupation. And I would maintain that it is a more sinister form of violence in that it is normalized, and therefore largely invisible. I think one difference between our view points is that I view the reaction to the incident as to be more harmful and intimidating than the actual incident. I think the signed letter is a good example of the kind of reaction that I am speaking of. I see it as violent. And I see myself as complicit in this because I am part of this institution. Yet, rather than rehashing the obvious problems surrounding vandals, or engaging in sycophantic rituals, I find it more productive to direct my criticism upward, at the letter. In comparing the letter to FOX I was quite specific. I did not say that the ‘folks’ who signed the letter were exactly like the folks at FOX news. My criticism was directed at the product, at the letter. Many of these people who signed this letter have been my teachers. One is on my committee. Indeed many of these people were the people who taught me how to do the close and critical reading I did of the letter (this is of course subjective). I think it is healthy and essential to question authority. But you evidently do not find my line of questioning to be sound or helpful and I respect that. Violence comes in many forms, it can appear as to be abnormal and explicit or it can be normalized, implicit and invisible. I see a systemic problem in our society. Namely, we seem to have a tendency to fetishize explicit violence (graffiti) in ways that distract us from, and reinforce, the more invisible forms of violence (the letter) infused in our institutions.
Jeffrey, good points which I will address. My response to Scott deals with some of your concerns. I think you and your colleagues condemnation of the graffiti will guarantee that it transcends kitsch, and sky rockets into the realm of high art. Thats my prediction.
I’m not sure what sort of “intimidation” you are alluding to that 90 5th Ave occupiers engaged in, but it pales in comparison to the intimidation any of your students must now feel if they supported the occupation.
Did any of you bother to consider how your students might react to this letter? The language certainly gives off the appearance of a veiled threat for reasons Ken Wark alluded to. I can’t imagine a student in your sociology department, for instance, could now possibly feel safe showing any support whatsoever for the student movement in NYC. How wonderfully democratic.
I very much resent the idea that our letter intimidates anyone. I for one don’t even know who was in and who was out of building. Because of my low tolerance for people who say non-sensical things, for example speak about revolution without knowing anything about the phenomenon, I did not even go to the relevant meetings – quite a wise decision on my part. (I support the faculty members who are more Habermasian than I am, and participated, in a seemingly endless dialogue. ) In any case since I explicitly came out against any kind of punishment, or retribution the letter speaks for itself.
As to Ken Wark’s statement about art and property, I think it is simply funny. To impose your art on those who wish no part of it is as authoritarian as imposing many other things. To treat property as if damage involves no cost to anyone is reminiscent of practice under state socialism. I was told that I dramatically underestimated the damage, and also that we may lose the space with a resulting cost of over 1 million. The best thing about all this may be the letters of Wark and Fraser, that pretty much indicates the intellectual and ethical level the big majority of the faculty, and I imagine our students are up against. Students will have to speak for themselves. The faculty of the NSSR already spoke. I am proud of them.
Final point: we “occupy” territory of the enemy, not of friends. Sit ins were not and are not occupations, but struggle for rights that are not yet legal rights against those who deny them. Those who engage in civil disobedience violate law to honor and improve the law. Occupation is violent; the sit in is non-violent. The only reason why this occupation did not end in open violence was because of the strategy of the New School administration.
I gained my perspective on the occupation primarily from my students. They are the ones who have spoken about intimidation. Among those who most strongly supported the occupation and still support it, is a student of mine,who does so in full knowledge that this doesn’t affect his relationship with me. I am critical of the way the occupation proceeded and certainly of specific actions during the occupation. I am quite open to arguments that I am mistaken. As it stands, I am still convinced that it stands as an example of how not to engage in political action, and that the action was not radical, but foolish and self defeating.
Oh, yes, “policing”.
Wark says it is uninformed. Since it is a normative statement it could not be informed or uninformed.
I did not claim anything about how participation has been regulated by parts of the OWS. That some of the people who were in it were not yet thrown out is however a bad sign. (ok: gently told to leave and not to come back.) My point is only that they should be excluded by the democratic decision of the other participants. He does not agree with that, concerning anyone?
He says the term is not helpful. Helpful for what? It would be very helpful for the New School. It would be very helpful for the movement’s impact on the rest of society, including students.
What is totally uninformed and unhelpful is what Wark says here. But for all I know he was helpful in helping to defuse this crisis. And I do not think that he puts up crazy graffiti on public or quasi public buildings, defacing them. That work he leaves to the true artists among our midst.
I also find it “healthy and essential to question authority,” and many of those that have “high status” would agree. However, I feel the issue is more with the form, rather than the content. There is speech, and then there are speech acts. In the case of a speech act, form is more salient than the content, and it is debatable whether or not graffiti, as a speech act, and regardless of the content (message) can be considered free speech. Spray painting “Divine Violence” on the walls of the school is one thing; writing it on a banner and reaching out to other students to explain the symbolic significance of that phrase (as you did in your comment) is another, and more effective in terms of fomenting social change because then the dangers of being misunderstood would be minimized and the chances of raising awareness maximized, and the movement can grow. In such a case, whether or not any faculty agree with the message would be entirely irrelevant, and whether or not I agreed, I would defend your right to say it.
To take another case, if someone were to occupy a foreclosed home I would support it entirely and, if I had the opportunity, participate in the occupation. But if someone were to decide that they wanted to spray paint on the walls of that, I wouldn’t support that, because the purpose of such an occupation is to help those people who lost their homes get them back, not decorate it with agit-prop. If homeowners were able to later re-occupy their homes, who would then pay for the cleanup?
The unintended consequences of protest need be considered, and this requires vision and planning. But more importantly, I feel that it requires talking things out and deciding on what the most effective course of action might be. What is effective, and what isn’t? It seems to be the choice of tactics in the New School occupation didn’t work, so rather than hardening one’s stance, I feel it is time to consider what could be done differently, so that it could work in the future.
I agree with the majority of what you have said, but take exception to the assertion that “occupation is violent.” I’m not sure if you had visited Liberty Plaza, but if you had, you would have seen a very non-violent occupation. Furthermore, the New School occupation was not representative of the occupations happening around the country, and the world for that matter. Essentially, these are extended sit-ins.
Policing the ranks via disciplinary action and exclusion (see above letter) may not be the only route to nonviolent, productive action. Perhaps this is the point where the imaginative capacity is essential if we hope to develop new methods of negotiation, new forms of political subjectivity. Maybe being more creative in the way we approach, understand and work through these issues is not just a good idea, but is necessary if we hope to “do” politics differently, more inclusively. The graffiti and destruction clearly express anger. As responsible social scientists, we need to engage if we hope to understand this anger and the ways this anger might be transformed into effective action. (This goes for the anger of all parties involves, as it seems there is anger on all fronts—the professors, president, students, and so forth.) A position of dismissal—“ready to negotiate until”—is not acceptable. The negotiation must continue and not just using ‘tried and true’ methods of democratic discourse, but through exploring other means (the imagination is critical here—and not in a utopian sense, but simply to picture and enact practice and participation in new ways). The frustration that comes with impotence in the social, economic, political, and educational realms can be overwhelming for some and we would be wise to make our best efforts to understand this—even if we feel that we are not “the real enemies of the movement.”
Again I note the confusion. The faculty letter does not support disciplinary action.
Self-discipline is another matter. Excluding the violent is fundamental for non-violent movements.
Anger is not an argument or a justification of anything.
Anger is an expression and as such often conveys something not yet fully articulated. As a sociologist I am interested in considering this. Politics involves emotion–to ignore this is naive. I did not say anger justifies something, simply that it expresses something and some of us (some sociologists) are interested in finding out what that might be.
The letter says the movement should discipline its members. I understand this and responded to this. Perhaps my response was not clear enough. I simply think negotiation versus expulsion is a better option–that engagement versus dismissal is more important, both within the ‘ranks’ (ranks implies a hierarchy I think this movement is trying its best to avoid, however challenging that might be) and within the discourse with those who position themselves outside the movement.
I visited it. There was no violence. And this misses my point altogether.
My point was that terminology matters. It is true that most of the actions all over the country were in effect extended sit ins. The term occupation however involves forceful taking of possession of a territory. It becomes violent in the face of resistance when and if it persists in the original goal. This actually happened in several cities in the face of police violence. When noone resists there may not be actual violence. That is a different matter than systematic non-violence in sit ins and in ciivl disobedience. The fact that the violent are not excluded, because anger is ok supposedly, indicates the potentially violent character of these actors.
The language of occupation allowed to the thrashing of the New School . Our place was treated as enemy territory. This is the point missed by Ken Wark.
p.s. I’m angry. This doesn’t justify anything, but it frequently mobilizes me to speak out and act in ways I think might have some sort of productive impact. Hell, often I know these things will not likely make a difference–letters, calls, marches, discussions, arrests, etc., but I do it anyway–to vent the anger, hoping it will land in place that helps me connect with others, to find a way to transform the anger into something more meaningful. As a young person I was particularly driven by anger and through discussions and collaborations with those who had more experience as activists, as thinkers, as victims, as many other things, I was able to find new ways to express myself, to develop skills and gain knowledge that helped me find more productive forms of expression.
I’ve been a student at the New School for the past five years and I spend a considerable amount of time in 90 Fifth Avenue during the occupation. While I find myself in general disagreement with the opinions expressed in this post, one aspect leaves me particularly puzzled. What is this obsession with some arguably stupid writings on the walls?
In the New School restrooms I see, at least, one “grafitti” per week that is sexist, racist, anti-democratic, homophobic or offensive in some other way. Am I going to base my opinion about this institutions, its administration, its faculty members and its student body on an anonymous sharpie message?
As for the cost estimate that is mentioned in the later, one wonders what other figures are being mentioned. Relating the figure to student funding it, of course, “just an example”. To give another example, $40.000 is about 1 percent of the 2010 interest payments made by the New School for its long-term debt, i.e. the cost of financing the new building on Fifth Avenue and 14th Street. (Source: Report on University Finances)
The reason why I am not signing this post with my real name has been stated above by Pedd886.
I am a little confused by David’s and Smash McGrabs comments on the framing of the discussion through the letter and the post as hierarchically dominated. By this I mean less that I do not see that it might be intimidating to voice dissenting opinion if you feel inferior, but I rather do not understand what the problem is? Is our opinion not even more significant, if it is voiced against a feeling of being less powerful? It is especially then that we have to speak and I actually think that this is what our Professors enable us to do. (David, maybe you should question the relation with your comittee member, if you are afraid to disagree?). Of course it is uncomfortable to voice a opposite opinion if you are afraid that someone, who is in real or perceived “higher” structural position will ‘punish’ you, but we have to challenge ourselves, we have to act against this discomfort … then at least from my experience we mostly get respect. If there was any educational value in the events of the last weeks (and I agree with Ken Wark, that there is), it is exactly that we have to stand up for ourselves.
No space is without hierarchy. I think that was what mostly amazed me about the occupation, because it established hierarchy by faking equality. In my experience it were mostly the ones who yelled the loudest that “this is a occupation, this is about liberation. We create a free space for everyone,” who used this to be ignorant of the opinions of others by simply not acknowledging them. If the mantra of some of course is provocation by agitation, this is hard to argue with. But I always felt this ‘radicalism’ as somewhat circular, or worse, under the mantle of inclusion it becomes hypocritical. Equality and freedom is not realized if everybody just does whatever they want, without at least considering that they infringe on others. Again, everybody should challenge themselves.
On a more pragmatic note, it is a little too easy to condemn the NSSR-faculty letter by Andrew (also note that not everybody signed it) as oppressive. A lot of people were too happy, when the faculty issued a statement supporting the student-walk-out in October. Where were all the voices then, saying this is unfair for the students who wanted to go to class? Were they not feeling like acting against their faculty? This is what I mean with considering the other. If your faculty says: “Go strike, we fully support everyone, this is what the New School is all about” – that makes it kind of hard to say, I rather come to class, show up and skip the protest.
In terms of my own dissenting opinion: Regarding the message of the ‘writings on the wall,’ I am starting to be highly ambiguous about them. I firstly thought that it was nothing some color could not fix and that the strong reaction against them was somewhat out of proportion. The more I think about it, this might be a little hypocritical on my side. I for example react very strongly to any ‘Hakenkreuz’ I see painted on any wall, and I think it is a crime. So then who am I to dismiss “Kill Liberals” as idiotic, but harmless.
Nazis are angry. the Klan is angry. Anger can be for all sorts of things. Gandhi for one never was angry, not even against the British. I never heard King give an angry speech. People who are serious about politics tend to be realists and do not often get angry. This goes even for Lenin. Have you seen Obama really get angry, though he has lots of cause?
I on the other hand do get angry, so I understand you. And, I always do stupid things when I am really angry. So i did not attend any of the events not to get angry, and do stupid things. What I admire about Van Zandt is that he is not in the least angry. That is why he acted so well in this crisis.
But I am not in the least angry with the students who have written, though I could get angry with the one who keeps on writing me absurd e Mails. I am disappointed in Fraser and Wark, who should know better than to write what they have written. But not very angry, given the fact that they seem to be in a small minority of the faculty. (Only three expressed support for them with respect to our not at all angry statement.)
One more thing: a few people who have written seem to be real cry babies (not you). Professors Goldfarb and Arato are now going to be mean to us….oh how horrible! First of all we are not. Secondly what kind of plaints are these from revolutionaries and anarchists, even would be ones? A little shameful, dont you think?
I re-read your letter.
It is a weird combination of sense and non-sense. I have already commented on the cry baby stuff, so ill fitting for a revolutionary or an anarchist. You are affraid of the 30+ signers? I cannot believe that you are serious.
So only one half sentence needs to be profiled: “An institution that creates official knowledge …”
What the hell do you mean? Do you mean our economics department, politics, anthropology etc.?
Or only Goldfarb and me?
Do you know who teaches here and what? Have you ever looked at other programs in the country?
It is hard to know whether this idea is a reason for laughing or crying.
And please tell me what the “bodiless voice” of 32 people is? And also “crude Hegelian othering”?
Finally: the rights you mention are indeed very important. But as you must know that they ought not violate the rights of others without really good reason.
Oh yes, who are the real enemies? You ask. We stipulated the 1% as you could have imagined. It is a fiction of course. But believe me we did not think that OWS and the New School are enemies. That seems to be your assumption if I understand the cited phrase correctly. In that case occupation indeed was the understandable though stupid strategy. Stupid, because then the question was one of power, and not of rights. Given that you hardly had any support, the question of power was easily decided.
What if you had much more power? Then there might have been a horrible clash between us and you, or you and you. Whom would that help or serve?
I am reading below: inestimable educational value. Money well spent.
I am reading your prediction about these graffiti sky-rocketing into the realm of high art. (already falsified, unless someone took some very good photos!)
All this is fantastic talk. CAn you imagine what intelligent people at the New School who may read this will think?
I am reading the stuff about FOX News, because we did not mention all the great things that happened during our occupation. Let me tell you what we really suppressed, then. We suppressed the report of numerous faculty members that they have never in their life heard such nonsense spoken by students.
Your letter dear David, and in part Ken Wark’s are prime examples of this.
I am a veteran of these things. In the 60s I heard some very dangerous talk, but rarely such nonsense. In contrast Machtinger, Dohrn, Clark and Rudd were brilliant theorist, not to speak of Dutschke, Krahl and of course the really brilliant Cohn-Bendit. Where are such people now? Maybe that’s the real trouble, all the nonsense you are reading without any serious intellectual leadership to put some of it together.
At the student senate meeting people testified that their exposure to the graffiti left them suffering with post traumatic graffiti disorder. And what’s perhaps most disturbing is that some students were barricaded inside an area of the New School. I can think of no greater horror than to be trapped inside the New School. I feel for these people.
heh, kind of hilarious to see Professors INCREDULOUS at students for spray painting “divine violence” all over a student center after having assigned, and in many cases rhapsodized over, Walter Benjamin’s “On Violence” via “Illuminations” over and over and over again on their syllabi. I guess the students paid attention?
what professors? certainly not the two of us. It was the worst piece that an otherwise great writer wrote, still very young. Nor did I rhapsodize over Sorel or Fanon. From me you only would have heard that repressive tolerance is the worst piece Marcuse ever wrote. And as far as Zizek and Negri are concerned, the less said the better.
So why should I not criticize those who are stupidly violent? With a lot less excuse than Fanon, and with a lot less sophistication than Benjamin and Sorel recommended.
Why not mention Mussolini, Gentile and the futurists? They are your true forerunners, whether you like it or not.
Here is a Benjamin quote for you: (not exact) “Fascism aestheticizes politics, Communism responds by politicizing art [as in Brecht’s plays]. Consider which is the version you are defending!
I guess I am wondering how as an educator you can be so hard on a first run attempt to call attention to a broken educational system? I am even more baffled, because you are a professor of sociology at a “progressive” school. I feel really embarrassed to be a student at the New School after reading your letter, but not as ashamed as I would feel if I was a sociology student in your program. Take inspiration from the past- think Howard Zinn- and support your students in creating change that will benefit you as an educator, students collectively and society as a whole. I challenge you to start thinking in terms of how you can support this social movement instead of critically and definitively critiquing the first run. Use your influence to empower not close the conversation through your short-sided judgments. I have read your letter a couple of times and I cannot find your motivation unless you are wishing to declare that you do not support students.
I also want to add that there was no structural damage to the 90 5th Ave building or Kellen Gallery, which makes the $40,000 in damages sound suspicious. I know the maintenance workers are not seeing too much of that money. Also, didn’t students help to re-paint Kellen? I am shocked at the inflated price of paint. This is a talking point that should be investigated- and challenged if it really did cost that much.
You have an opportunity as a human being and a teacher to do something amazing- please stop blaming and support your students to change the higher education system. This is not a radical idea- it is a necessity.
Ooh, now do Camatte and Agamben!
My colleagues and I are supporting our students, the majority of whom voted to end the occupation and who also are as disappointed as we are by the tactics of vandalism. At some point, the damage done to the Kellen Gallery and 90 5th Ave. will be accounted for, nonetheless, as far as I am concerned any senseless damage is too much. And while I don’t see how the occupation worked in any way to change the educational system, I do see that the way it was conducted suggests that any change it could promote would not be an improvement.
I want to emphasize here and in my classroom, I encourage differences of opinion and the development of informed judgment. When I visited 90 5th during the occupation, this wasn’t so clear. Slogans like “violence is divine” and “kill all cops” do not encourage mutually respectful debate nor sound educational reform. Further, I am moved by the notion of the 99% and don’t see how these actions and words could ever be understood or supported by the people of the 99%.
The phrase “any serious movement has the responsibility to police its own ranks” simply refers to what all successful protest movements do. They organize and discipline those that are involved so the police don’t have an easy excuse to start cracking heads; it’s what MLK did, it’s what OWS did collectively in Liberty Plaza.
Those that are still playing the victim card are in serious denial of why the occupation was not successful; it was not that the faculty disapproved; the letter was written after the fact; it was that the occupation pissed off a majority of New School students. It’s futile to try to reform higher education when your tactics alienate so many students. Don’t you get? Step outside of your own narrative for a moment, stop pointing fingers, and reflect on what could have been done better; reflect on how things could have been made more inclusive; actually study how successful protests are done (like or not, the New School occupation remains a text-book example of how NOT to do things); otherwise you will again fail to accomplish anything other than an inflated sense of self-righteousness.
A space being offered? Ha! Till the end of semester, which is two weeks away. How charitable for the student senate to spend their energy and time to provide something with such a limited expiration date. Also, with the sociology faculty publicly vocalizing their critical, non constructive judgements what would be the purpose of a school sanctioned organizational hub? Students now have to worry about the repercussions of going against what their professors think. Peoples interested in the All City Student movement should look past the New School, because as this love letter to Van Zandt proves, there is a division within the New School between professors who support students and those who do not. The signatories of the above letter have made it clear that if the movement is not done to their liking it is not worth while. I personally do not want to be involved in a project where I have “experts” telling me how it should be done. Check out the faculty support coming out of CUNY. A collaboration with CUNY staff would be a much more fulfilling, creative and strategic path for the movement- not the New School. Collectively you have made it appear that there is little room for faculty and students to come together in solidarity. Luckily I have talked to many professors who prove to me that the sociology department is a minority. I am sure Van Zandt loves you guys though.
Who are you to decide if it failed? Only time will tell- and not the time it took for you to re-fresh your twitter page or write a blog entry. I think you pointed out the exact reason why this letter fails to hold value for the progression of a student movement. There is an assumption being made that people did not learn from the occupation, that the information gathered through participation will not be utilized to improve upon tactics. A minority of faculty have come out to state that this was a failure and that nothing good will come out of it. You are wrong on this. Here is a missed opportunity for faculty to help shape and mature the tactics by showing support, not agreement, but support. Instead, another choice has been made to drive a wedge between students and faculty. I think this is a consequence the signatories need to consider. Do not be so arrogant to decide what is or what is not of value when the process is still in play.
Just one point. It is not simply a minority of the NSSR Faculty that signed the statement.
Only three members expressed opposition to it, and one of them chose to stay on.
The signers represent a big majority of the tenured faculty.
In all such situations junior faculty tends not to participate at all, even though it could and should. But why not assume they would divide similarly on the issue?
Finally at least 5 people chose not to sign because they believed the letter was not tough enough, critical enough of the occupation. Again, that should also be the proportion of junior members, whose futures are most endangered if the New School were to collapse, or cut whole programs.
For me this ends the discussion. I do not believe in a Habermasian discussion without an end with opponents who are both doctrinaire and intellectually not up to it.
As to success or failure, let history decide. If success meant merely learning something, there would be no failure, because we learn from every political conflict. It is tough to evaluate the success of a group that had no goals.
Last point- it has been verified that the graffiti at Kellen was not done by a majority and in fact not even students. Are you suggesting that you have to be a certain type of person to have the right to express yourself? If so, what type of person is that? The sociology staff seems to know- please enlighten us all on the appropriate way to show our dissatisfaction and who is allowed to show it. We are listening, but unfortunately I do not get the sense that the other side is so receptive. I would hope, especially from people who have benefited from more life experience, as educators you would be able to see the situation as a symptom of the greater issue. You may not like the messages that were written, but they are proof of a larger problem at hand. People are mad and anxious about the future- will we be able to pay our loans off? Will there be jobs? Will we ever own a house? What if someone I love gets sick and we don’t have health insurance? Will cops beat me if I think differently then the people who are in control? These are scarey questions. You may not see the method by which these issues were expressed as valid, but do not discount the deeper meaning. There is still time- scrap this letter and come out publicly in support, not of the occupation, but of the greater student movement to change the way education does business. If you expect the students to admit their faults it may be time to for the sociology staff to see the short-sightedness of this public letter. I am still struggling to understand how this letter is meant to be interpreted.
If you want to call what was described by even those that participated as a “shit show,” and was not supported by a majority of students a “success” then so be it. That’s your trip. Yet while focusing solely on the “wedge between students and faculty” you are still ignoring the wedge between students and other students. Until this is addressed, there will be no “progression” of the student movement, and in fact, there will be no student movement all.
“For me this ends the discussion. I do not believe in a Habermasian discussion without an end with opponents who are both doctrinaire and intellectually not up to it.”
Now I understand- we are talking about two different things. I have been expressing myself from a human being perspective, when you are looking for an academic battle of the wits. You are right- I am not intellectually up to it. It’s too bad that the New School is so dependent on students to pay for professors salaries that they have to accept everyone who applies. I am embarrassed and angry.
Point of information: NSSR is only one school within the New School- not the majority.
With all your comments I get a little lost. We are still talking about the 90 5th Ave occupation that ended with these statements, by the last ‘occupiers’? http://ninetyfifthavenueoccupation.wordpress.com
I especially love the “Thanks-Taking” message. So far for the myth of the All-NYC-Student occupation that was forced out by the evil New School. I am really looking forward to see how this group will adopt their tactics from here. Just saying that it was a small faction, does not really help in this case, since this small faction was able to dominate every message and the space.
Good luck at Cuny, since this seems to be the promised land. I bet there will be much more support for this kind of action, especially when I consider that Cuny has the mass potential, that I saw when a few hundred students (of how many thousands?) came out to protest tuition hikes. I guess my presence at these protests cannot count, because I am from the reactionary New School.
I know this is a sucker-punch, but ‘guest’ you have opened pandoras box if you want to pitch New School versus user NYC schools, students versus students, departments vs departments (by the way in which department do all the Professors that signed the letter teach?).
My lesson learned from this discussion: Only time will tell 😉
I signed the letter and posted it because I support our students, and for that matter students beyond the New School, informed by our students judgments. I support major reform of the financing of higher education, and Occupy Wall Street. Your assertion that the signatories don’t suggests that you know better than others about what their interests are. And please note, the faculty from many departments at the New School signed the letter.
Dear Andrew,
First of all I am not what you would really call a “revolutionary” or “anarchist”. I can assure you, though I have certain eccentric qualities, I am really quite boring. In terms of “cry baby stuff”, that perhaps better describes your oligarchical letter with its list of signatures. It is just a bigger baby. When I first read it I thought it was a Surrealist hacker’s joke or maybe a more sophisticated form of the Milgram experiment. An experiment which asked; would students who were exposed to poorly written propaganda, that was signed by their professors, question it in a critical way? or maybe; Would professors sign the document? You are asking me if I am afraid of the 30+ signers or you or Jeffrey Goldfarb? No, not in the slightest. But, I do have a phobia of humorless passive aggressive bureaucratic documents. And I have to say that I don’t think that any of you are mean, I am actually quite fascinated and amused by all of you. You asked me what I meant by a bodiless voice, that curious letter, with its signatures struck me as such a thing. I’ll get to that later.
Your comment in which you said that you “resented” the fact that some people might be intimidated by the letter was revealing–are you sure you weren’t ‘angry’ rather than ‘resentful’. And the fact that the highly influential people who signed it did not consider that the letter might be intimidating to many students reveals a systemic problem in the New School (a much bigger problem than ‘radical’ occupiers in my mind). It reveals that you and your colleagues are in many ways out of touch with reality in a very particular way. You take for granted your power. This is not a sin. This is not negligence. This is a systemic problem that is being perpetuated because the people under you are not pointing this out to you. You ask why? I give you this answer. They are for some reason convinced that it is not in their best interest to do so. I recommend that you avoid addressing any questions that this answer might raise. You would be better off rehashing the dangers of radicalism and graffiti. Or maybe tell us to eat freedom fries, because I have a hunch that that French Post-Modern mumbo jumbo really irks you. How about a slippery slope scenario? It starts out innocent. We all know the story. The young impressionable youth starts getting a hold of the ‘wrong’ literature. He makes the mistake of reading the young naive Walter Benjamin, as opposed to the old wise, chubbier, Walter Benjamin. And then, lord have mercy, becomes mesmerized by those ghastly Futurists. Before you know it he’s covering the walls of art galleries with meaningless crap and worshipping machines. I agree with you. To live in a society that promoted such behavior would be truly horrifying? Wait a second……never mind.
Official knowledge, I think is an appropriate term here. I do not think that an institution that produces ‘official knowledge’ is a ‘bad’ institution. But I think when creating official knowledge we have to be very cautious. Not just for ethical reasons but in order to create quality work. You are right. The New School is not, in the great scheme of things, one of the more powerful or sinister sources of knowledge production. However, I think we must admit that we do want it to have a powerful impact on society. We want it to influence society. Yet, while fostering and employing that influence shouldn’t we at the same time be vigilant, and constantly question authority within the very institution we inhabit? Shouldn’t we ask important questions even if they endanger our status within our institution? If professors do not encourage students to challenge them they contribute to the making of a sycophantic culture, and this effects the quality of work. The signed letter and the responses to it reveal to me that just such a culture is operating within the New School. We need to, as many of you have suggested get past the cliches. I think a key element of effective protest is transgression and the breaking of taboos. This takes risk taking and courage.
Here, Michel Foucault speaks of a certain kind of truth known as parrhesia, one that I would say is lacking in academia. Note here the mention of ‘anger’, I am thinking of your exchange with Barbara. Swallow your pride and feast on some of these FRENCH fries-don’t worry I won’t quote any Durkheim:
“So you see, the parrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority’s opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the “game” of life or death. It is because the parrhesiastes must take a risk in speaking the truth that the king or tyrant generally cannot use parrhesia; for he risks nothing.” (see Michel Foucault’s Fearless Speech)
The parrhesiastic game can be a game of high stakes:
“When you accept the parrhesiastic game in which your own life is exposed, you are taking up a specific relationship to yourself: you risk death to tell the truth instead of reposing in the security of a life where the truth goes unspoken. Of course, the threat of death comes from the Other, and thereby requires a relationship to himself: he prefers himself as a truth-teller rather than as a living being who is false to himself.” ( Foucault Ibid)
Yet, this is where there appears to be a huge point of contention around this whole debacle. One might argue that the graffiti was a positive form of parrhesia while others see it as “meaningless” “chattering”. Here Foucault makes a distinction between two types of parhesia:
“There are two types of parrhesia which we must distinguish. First, there is a pejorative sense of the word not very far from “chattering” and which consists in saying any or everything one has in mind without qualification. This pejorative sense occurs in Plato, for example, as a characterization of the bad democratic constitution where everyone has the right to address himself to his fellow citizens and to tell them anything – even the most stupid or dangerous things for the city.” (Foucault Ibid)
What I see here is you and Jeffrey and those who signed the letter are engaging in flippant uncritical declarations of what is proper parrhesia and what is not. And in reading the comments I see that these sloppy declarations of what is legitimate and what isn’t are being sprinkled around quite liberally. Of course there is a danger associated with people becoming uncritically intoxicated by theories. But it is evident to me that you engage in overly simple sweeping dismissals of entire artistic movements, authors, and works. If a student was to come to me and express interest in the Futurists, the work of Zizek, or any one of Walter Benjamin’s essays I would be pleased. I hope that I never get to a point where I develop the level of expertise that you have and dismiss such things in such an absolute manner. I hope that I would encourage them to engage with the material in a critical way. Surely if they are excited by such works, their must be something good to build on even if you find the material loathsome. If I were to say that Futurists are dangerous, Zizek is worthless, and Benjamin was naive when he wrote that piece you mentioned, I can assure you no one would care. However, when you say such things people listen. Once again you do not seem to be aware of this.
In his Essay ‘The Storyteller’ Walter Benjamin famously put forth the idea that our ability to tell and listen to stories is dying. The signed letter, masquerading as an expression of democracy, in many ways is a perfect example of this death. Some of the key elements of Benjamin’s ideal story were 1) the story successfully makes the listener feel like he has experienced what the storyteller has. 2) the story is light on information and over explanation. 3) The story teaches us to “meet the forces of the mythical world with cunning and high spirits”.1 The signed letter was in every way antithetical to all of these things. To me it seemed more like a bodiless voice. I think it would have been more productive if you and Jeffrey, and each of those people that signed the letter had instead taken 5 minutes and written a short ‘story’ about your experiences around the event, and shared those. It is quite clear to me that you know how to talk like a human and not like a bodiless voice. Unlike the letter, your comments on this blog have been spirited, interesting, genuine, and you obviously have a sense of humor. Your enthusiasm for your work can also be seen when you talk. Always hungry for discussion, it is not an uncommon sight to see you in the hallways of the New School. In these instances I have seen you, like Benjamin’s story teller, surrounded by captivated students, animated and gesturing. So when I contemplate this, I am perplexed by your letter that resembles none of this.
We are your students please “teach us how to meet the forces of the mythical world with cunning and high spirits.” But, please do not, with a bodiless voice, define democracy for us, or tell us what is meaningful and what is meaningless, or what is art and what is not art. What you perhaps do not understand is that the letter is not representative of you or any of the people who signed it. It is not representative of anything human.
1 See Walter Benjamin Illuminations Essays and Reflections. Edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt. Shocken Books New York 1968: 102.
Best,
David Peppas
Dear David,
even though you address Andrew, I take the minute to just make a comment. While I do not like being labeled a sycophant, I do appreciate your response. I do not agree with parts of it, but it is worth thinking about. I actually applaud you for the final Benjamin part (oops, I did it again. Well that is what sycophants do.)
I do have a big problem with your point of view though. You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow students. You speak of power and authority, bodiless voices and so on … If I get the main point of your argument and problem with the letter, you obviously think that it is dangerous, because it does not encourage discussion, but instead stifles it. That it does not encourage a critical response, but actually introduces some sort of truth-regime. So I might ask you: If you can speak your mind and challenge ‘official knowledge,’ why do you think others are not able to do the same?
Best,
Tim
I come in late in this conversation, so I risk repeating things that have been said before. I am sorry about this. But I want to return to the initial faculty letter that Jeffrey Goldfarb posted on this blog. This was drafted by Andrew Arato, and signed by a large number of New School professors, many of whom are friends of mine, and most of whom I would expect to agree with on political issues. But I am troubled by the letter. I was not asked to sign it (presumably it was circulated only to tenured faculty), but if I had been, I would have declined.
I had no problems with the first paragraph. We certainly should show our appreciation of the impeccably liberal way in which the President has responded to the various protests over the past few weeks, and especially of the way that he, together with some administrators and professors handled the occupation of the Student Center. For me, this indicated a very welcome reaffirmation of New School values and traditions.
But I thought that the rest of the letter was much too quick and unreflective a response to our local occupation, expressing immediate outrage, perhaps disappointment, rather than considered judgment. Some examples: Why raise the issue of student punishment, merely to dismiss it as ‘counter-productive’? Why not also say that it is inappropriate, indeed wrong, for a university to use punishment except as a very last resort, especially in cases involving politics?
If there is a concern with what is ‘counter-productive’, why then go on to say that any ‘serious movement-to-be has the responsibility to police its ranks, and discipline its membership by excluding those who violate democratic rules and engage in random violence’ (my italics)? This is not the language likely to create a dialogue with members of a highly diverse movement, most of whom are committed to self-organization and inclusion. Why raise the emotional ante by invoking the specter of the ‘long shutdown of universities from Greece to Uruguay and Mexico’ as if a similar ‘tragic’ fate for the New School was only narrowly averted. In the absence of some account of similarities and differences, this is largely scare mongering.
Of course there are substantial issues here, ones that deserve and may get the decent discussion that Jeffrey calls for. But in the letter they serve as rhetorical bludgeons, not as invitations to dialogue.
I want to say something about an issue that is in the near background of the faculty letter: the politics of protest movements. Most of us recognize that protest is a legitimate and necessary part of democratic politics. But we need to pay attention to the nature of this form of politics. Protest operates on the borderlines of legality and, let us face it, of civility. The largely symbolic forms in which protests are mounted (occupations of public or private space, sit-ins, street marches, theatrical interventions in bureaucratic procedures, political graffiti, etc.) often involve breaches of the law, confrontations with the police, inconvenience to uninvolved citizens (those Wall Street workers who complained of the difficulty of getting to work were not wrong!), and extra expense to public authorities. They also attract an incredibly diverse range of participants, with different agendas and priorities, especially with regard to confrontation with authorities and pushing the boundaries of extra-legal activity. Organizational structures are at best fluid and often chaotic; and local initiatives are a constant challenge to overall coordination and planning. OWS did a remarkable job of coordination through procedures of self-management and consensus in very difficult circumstances. But there is always the possibility of smaller factions splitting off from the larger grouping (even the democratic majority) to pursue agendas that they conceive to be more important. Even if it were desirable, it is simply not possible for the group as a whole to ‘police’ its members, ‘exclude’ those it suspects of a penchant for violence. At best other groups (the ’majority’) may want to criticize breakaway factions, and in certain cases disavow them. This is entirely appropriate. But when we presume to give advice as to appropriate democratic procedures, we should be sensitive to the fragmented nature of this form of politics. For good or ill, minority actions of this kind should be recognized as an ever-present possibility in ongoing protest movements. We should not be too surprised, even when our institution is the target and it is our walls that are graffitied.
Jeffrey says that he criticizes the occupation on behalf of the many (I guess most) students who oppose the occupation. Fair enough; though surely their criticisms would have been more effective if they had made them themselves. Criticism by faculty is also appropriate. But where possible, this should be conducted in ways that open up discussion, and do not foreclose it. In this case, I would have hoped that the response of my colleagues might have shown more sensitivity, not only in the terms in which it was expressed, but also to the political circumstances surrounding the occupation. The issues raised by the occupation needed to be discussed. But in a cool hour. There is a place in politics for outrage and disappointment, but these should not displace the need for judgment. Especially at the New School.
Ross Poole
December 5, 2011
Not surprisingly, I am inclined to agree with much of what Ross has said. I would want to refine just one point, which is in the concluding sentence: “There is a place in politics for outrage and disappointment, but these should not displace the need for judgment. Especially at the New School.” In my view there’s no shortage of what one might call the ‘ethics of judgement’ at the New School. But perhaps what we could do with a little more of is the ‘ethics of understanding’.
It struck me that there is a rush to judgement in the letter which is exactly of a piece which that which it thinks it is judging against. But are we really sure these events are what we think they are? What happens, for example, if rather than issue moral edicts, we think about the situation under the rubric of the aesthetic? What affects are expressed here? That strike me as a useful question. (And yes Andrew, even ‘bad’ art has its uses.)
Alternately, one can think about the occupation as pedagogy. What if the occupation of 90 5th was (not a teach-in but) a ‘learn-in’? Perhaps in those terms it was the best class offered all semester, and as such money well spent (on covering up the ‘art’, etc). Situations reveal things about organizations that one doesn’t learn otherwise. A whole course transpired on the difference between direct action and direct democracy, not to mention on the uses of liberal tolerance and their paradoxically coercive effects.
There’s an opportunity still to learn things from this situation, now passed. I’d love to read some first hand accounts. (Were there no ethnographers in the room?) Let’s not squander that opportunity.
Thank you for your serious critical comment. I indeed do think it is necessary for the faculty and students to carefully and calmly reflect on what happened in the occupation, the significance of the administrations response and the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty letter. I signed the letter for two reasons, first to express my complete support for the way the New School administration addressed the challenge of the occupation, and second, after talking and exchanging notes with my some of my students, to support their position as it informed my understanding of the action. I didn’t write in their names, but thought it wise to indicate my debt to them. Some of them have been a part of the discussion here, and I should add not only on one side of the issue of the occupation and the letter.
That said I agree that now is the time to listen to diverse views, something that I am afraid was not characteristic of the occupation. And I would add, as one is critical of the letter in its details, it seems to me that one also should be critical of the slogans used in this political action.
Yes there is a need for an ethics of understanding, and it should be serious. We need to understand and engage people who think differently than we do. When I visited the occupation at 90 5th, I was disappointed by how much evidence there was that this understanding was not present, for some even as a matter of principle.
The end game, of course, was disheartening. I had hoped as you did that the students would use Kellen for real cultural experimentation and learning. I was very disappointed, as I imagine you must have been. Unlike you, I can’t write this all off as a great educational exercise, though. The possible lessons are too muddled, at least for me, to be understood. And bad art may have its uses, but it also has its limits, especially if you take the graffiti of the occupation as art, as you have suggested it should be.
I understand this may be the precedent and I understand the phrase and context, what I wonder is if there are other ways to do things that are yet unexplored. I’m hoping there are. Learning from the past is undeniably important, but thinking creatively and inclusively is also important. I am hopeful that political practice is an ongoing process (that was the point of my earlier post and why I think engaging with difference and disagreement is essential).
Thank you Ross. As a student, I appreciate your nuanced assessment of the situation. I agree that the open letter above seems to have been drafted in haste. It has upset a lot of my peers, including many not involved in (or particularly concerned by) the occupation in any way. We all hope that the paternalistic tone, and disturbing references to punishment, policing and exclusion, do not give voice to some basic truth about the attitudes the signatories hold towards their students or the conduct of political life. Taking this open letter into account, the moral of this whole sorry saga seems to be that people who want to achieve political ends dear to them, without alienating necessary allies, should beware of writing ill-considered things on walls.