(In the memory of Vladimir Ilyich, who in spite of everything was a great political man.)
The Occupation of Wall Street has already done important things. It has put the very important issue of inequality on the collective American agenda. It has experimented with forms of direct democracy and in ways of seriously influencing the political system outside the official channels. It has the potential of becoming not only the forerunner, but also a key component of a new American movement for more democracy and more justice. But, as all movements, it must confront its own worst tendencies to realize its genuine potential.
By tendencies I mean strategies rather than people or individuals or groups. Such a negative strategy is symbolized by the slogan that appeared just before the taking of a part of the New School: “occupy everything.” I regard it as a childhood ailment not to denigrate any participants or to represent their age (they were adults!), but to indicate problems of an early, developmental phase that can still be overcome.
“Occupy everything” is a slogan and a program incompatible with a non-violent movement aiming to raise moral as well as political consciousness. The idea of “seizing public or quasi-public spaces to make broad claims about the overall (mis)direction of our society” cannot be justified as a general right in the name of which the law is violated to transform or improve it. It is incompatible with productively addressing “the public at large.” Finally, and most clearly “occupy everything” is deeply contradictory with the creative slogan “we are the 99%.”
“Occupation” as against “sit-in” is a military metaphor. Occupation easily calls to mind the occupation of Iraq, and of the West Bank of the Jordan River. Sit-in means that we enter and stay in the space of an institution, non-violently, space where we have some kind of right to be and exercise civil disobedience, accepting to pay a price when arrested. For example, African Americans who sat in had a right to be served in public lunch counters, a right that was then formally denied. Sit-ins bear moral witness to unjust laws that need to be changed. Occupation means the forcible taking and holding of territory. Literally speaking, while most of the events taking place all over the country were sit-ins, despite their name, a few were attempted and (mostly) failed occupations. Sit-ins can lead to only one-sided use of open force, while occupations involve potentially two-sided violence. We can even have sit-ins in the space and territory of friends, in the sense of space to which they have some right, but only with their democratic consent. But it is always the territory of enemies that is occupied. This is a matter of force alone, and not right. Conversely, when force alone without right is the basis of a presence in a space or territory, it is an occupation and not a sit in.
Words matter. While an occupation can be effectively a sit-in, and a sit-in can be an occupation, or be turned into one, when the word “occupy” is used that in itself produces facts and outcomes. Nancy Fraser makes the general claim that OWS implies the strategy (and implicitly the right) of “seizing public or quasi-public spaces.” This claim represents just a slightly limited version of the slogan “occupy everything.” Our apartments are not offered as spaces that can be occupied for the purpose of generating more public discussion. Still the claim means that not only the New School’s space, but that of public high and elementary schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, as well as offices dedicated to the administration of essential public goods and services, could be rightly seized if the purpose was to elevate and open up public discussion. The very spaces of public discussion could be seized to facilitate another discussion.
Let us be clear: there is no such a right, whether customary, legal, moral or human. As a strategy, the idea leads to deep conflicts between the occupiers and those whose activities, rights and forms of publicness are being forcibly displaced. When in sit ins or in civil disobedience rights are violated, these are rights that are exclusionary and oppressive that in themselves involve the denial of rights more universal and more justified. This cannot be said about all social space, and their relevant rights holders. Rights can be claimed only to the extent that they do not violate other rights without serious reason, above all identical rights. For example, the rights that are constitutive of the public sphere and without which it cannot ultimately exist, ought not be violated in the name of the very same rights. That is why occupying hospitals, or schools or spaces of public learning or discussion is unjustified, unless it is by their own participants who are being denied important rights. But then the occupation would be a sit-in. When parts of OWS march over to the New School and occupy part of it, they are not occupying a space whose owners or holders or participants have denied them any rights. On the contrary, the right to freely assemble, and speak has been granted to them over and over again by that very institution. To occupy that institution is to imagine it as an enemy, and unfortunately to turn it into an enemy. To occupy in the name of its very participants in the face of their opposition, or without their democratic decision, can never be made acceptable.
Equally important, occupation that aggressively sets the interests and needs and opinions of people on the same level, here students and students, against one another cannot be a strategy in the name of the 99%. (Even faculty belong to the 99%, I would add, though here some rhetorics have put us on the other side.) Speaking in the name of the 99% is based on a fiction, but it is a productive fiction as long as the interests of the 99% are rigorously kept in mind. Opening up friend and enemy relations among us means that the movement suddenly is acting in the name of a much smaller percentage than 99. If all public and quasi-public spaces become targets of occupation, the 99% turns into .00001 and the 1% turns into 99. A popular strategy turns into a narrowly elitist one. The results, if “occupy everything” became a general strategy would be disastrous, mostly for the activists themselves. But we would all lose the potential I am speaking about.
It was perhaps right to use the military metaphor in the case of Wall Street (that could of course not be occupied, among other things because it is ultimately a virtual space). This is so because that famous 1% itself arguably acts like an exploitative, occupying force with respect to the rest of society. Zuccotti Park was a symbol of nearby Wall Street, and a park where few other rights were at stake. A better slogan would have been better, but we are now stuck with “occupy.” But extending the idea to everything, or all public and “quasi-public” space (whatever the last phrase means) follows only from a slogan, but not the earlier practice. This strategy emerged as a result of a temporary defeat, the police attack on the park. It targeted the New School simply because it was the easiest place conceivable to conquer, and perhaps hold. Yet, this strategy threatens to bury those who have adopted it, and discredit even the fledgling movement itself, however unfairly. If continued, the real 99% (or those who more successfully speak in its name) will crush the imaginary and symbolic one, even if this will be against some of its own vital interests.
“Occupy everything” is by no means the only strategy available. OWS is not ultimately an occupation. That was at best a temporary strategy. Better understood, OWS is a proto movement, a potential part of a new American movement for economic justice. A movement can use demonstrations, marches, open public and intellectual discussion, exemplary acts, forms of art and performance (politization of art, rather than the aesthetization of politics pushed by some!) and even generating new and better forms of organization and leadership to do what only movements can do: help transform the political culture and influence the direction of more formal political development.
A childhood ailment can kill, as well as immunize. People speak of the Occupation of the New School as an important learning experience. I hope this is indeed the result.
Occupation
1) an activity in which one engages
2) the principal business of one’s life : vocation
a: the possession, use, or settlement of land : occupancy
b : the holding of an office or position
3) a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure
b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it.
-Merriam Webster
I think it is telling that this article highlights the more militant, and largely negative aspects of the word ‘occupation’. There is, if I understand it, a large history of oppressed groups appropriating the language of their oppressors and using it in a creative and positive way. The 99% slogan is indeed one of the core tactics that has made ‘the movement’ effective. Yet, I would say, that it goes hand in hand with the ‘occupation’ element. Of this dichotomy it is differs from the slogan in that it is representative of a more radical act of transgression. Thus, I would say that the 99% slogan is nothing without, the ‘occupation’ element. But this is overly simplistic.
I think we should consider that the playful creative element of the word ‘occupation’, which cannot really separated by the actual ‘act’ of occupying. I would say that the small act of transgression in even the name making gives it power. It’s a transgression for the very reasons given in the above article. Its usually interpreted as a military metaphor. But typically we associate it with the action of a more powerful entity ‘occupying’ a less powerful entity. When protestors who have less power adopt the name and make the claim that they are indeed the occupiers of a more powerful entity, the meaning of the word ‘occupation’ changes. It is that creative tweeking that gives it an absurd power.
The article over simplifies the term ‘occupation’. One of the wonderful things many of the protestors did at Zuccotti Park and the New School occupation did was expand—both symbolically and in action—as oppose to reduce the meaning of the word ‘occupation’. They collectively broke the word open, and let it bleed in the tradition of some of our best critical theorists. One of the great lessons of Karl Marx was that ‘work’ as a life activity is precious to the human. When the humans’ work is devalued, he or she is in a sense de-humanized. At Zuccotti park, I met a man who had, with others, created an animal center. At the center people could come and get, food and medical help for their pets. He clearly loved his work, his occupation, and he received no pay for doing it. His way offers us a more nuanced way to ‘occupy’ the word ‘occupation’. I was not at the occupation of the New School, but I have talked with some of them. One women, who acknowledged that they had difficulties, told me that many great things had happened at the Kellen Gallery Occupation. They were feeding homeless people and engaging in a lot of creative dialogue. Feeding homeless folks and engaging in creative political discussion are valid ‘occupations’. And one can say that if you engage in such ‘occupations’ in the space that you are ‘occupying’ you are not treating such a space as an “enemy”. I would say in such a case you are treating such a space as a friend—albeit a larger one.
Some students such as myself, and some faculty feel that they are ‘occupiers’ in this duel sense—though we must not reduce it to a duality. On the one hand we occupy the New School as students and, or as faculty members in terms of the actual space. On the other hand, the work we do in that space is representative of our ‘occupations’. We should thus be very careful in the way we talk about ‘occupation’.
If the New School makes the claim that it is a progressive school, that fosters critical thinking, we need to try and live up to that. I do not think that it is helpful to use our positions of power to define ‘a word’ in a universal way. To hastily define, reduce the word- or the graffiti, or anything for that manner-in a way that does not threaten our position of knowing is to play it safe. To stick by our guns does not seem helpful. Why not leave it as a state of broken meaning, bleeding and incomplete? Why not leave it open? It’s easy to look at a word like ‘occupation’—or a work of graffiti— and shoot from the hip, and go with the definitions we know and are comfortable with. It seems more difficult to face that thing that you ‘know’ and wrestle with it in such a way that it eventually appears unfamiliar, if not totally unrecognizable to you. To the point where it might appear as to be so strange that it makes you extremely uncomfortable. I think this is a good thing.
On some occasions someone might offer you just such an uncomfortable thing—these things are reminiscent of what Max Weber called ‘inconvenient facts’. But you might not recognize such a thing as a gift, particularly, if you have this disposition of holding onto, and defending, the ‘meanings’ you are comfortable with. Given this, if you see the word occupation as a ‘military metaphor’, and someone puts forth another way of looking at it, why not, instead of rushing to defend your definition, through the use of hostile othering, instead accept that gift. Perhaps, the more unfamiliar that gift appears to you, and the more uncomfortable that gift makes you feel, the better. The possibilities of re-imaging, such a word as ‘occupation’, can be sparked by just reflecting on its numerous dictionary definitions.
Best,
David Peppas
David, thanks for a serious response. Indeed the flexibility of the term occupation does provide a number of different political openings, as you suggest. But some meanings are more sticky than others, and those who declare occupy everything, indeed can threaten those of us who try to pursue a critical occupation, including students and faculty. Ending business as usual in a setting where business includes studying and exploring makes me uncomfortable. Those who automatically supported the occupation I think should confront the difficulty. Thus I especially appreciate this post by Andrew, not because it tells the whole truth, but because it points to inconvenient facts. That said this debate is promising.
But I still don’t get your reading of dogmatic graffiti. I can’t find meaning in slogans like kill all cops or liberals. Some critical reflection is required here, I think, on your part. Such ideas are not playful, they are dangerous.
Lastly, I think that the crucial practical message of this post has to do with how certain tactics will turn the group that speaks in the name of the 99%, against the less than 1%, into the less than 1%. As the movement proceeds that danger has to be recognized.
Dear David:
We have just been through a Maoist type of criticism and self crticism session, in which it wa sarranged in advance that I would be the one criticized along with the co-signers of the statemnt.
I have been through such repellent events before, but not at the New school. Fine. I am in a lousy mood.
Still thanks for your thoughtful statement. The only thing i would like to point out that the first two dictionary definitons are completely irrlevant to the case at ahnd.
So You wind up supporting my etymology, as problematic as it may be. Andreas Kalyvas too brought up the formation of Europaean city states in the earlly middle ages as “occupations”. While he is probably confusing occupation with conjuratio, that example too makes my very case. These were indeed military occupations, carving out urban islands in the feudal sea, before it came to swearing to keep promises to one another. Factory occupations would have been a better counter-example, that can be according to me occupations or sit-ins, depending on the case.
Be well. I hold no grudge at all. You are a serious discussion partner at least, unlike the Stalinist who so pissed me off today. I was very angry, and totally lost my cool. We were accused of Mc Carthyism, sectarianism and sexism among other great things. But losing your cool is bad, my bad.
All the best, believe it or not
Andrew
Dear Andrew
Thanks for your kind words, and no hard feelings. I have myself been in a lousy mood as well. And I am guilty of some grand standing and self righteous ranting. So I must apologize for that. I do think that things like humor, sarcasm and yes even anger have a place in academia–and in protest movements. Otherwise, it would all be quite boring. So do not be so hard on your self. I thought your discussion with Barbara about anger in this context was quite interesting.
Best,
David
yes, it was very correct self-analysis, as it turned out unfortunately.
thanks a lot.
Thanks Jeffrey. But, my concern is that perhaps we should not be too hasty to assume that our more normalized, legitimate, occupation is so critical. Maybe its not as critical as we like to think? And perhaps, of the many facets of the New School Occupation, if we choose to see many, their might be something to learn from at least one of those many facets?
Best,
David
Andrew,
Thank you for this thoughtful critique of the language. I would be in favor of a different term, from a social diversity perspective (after Native American outcry, the New Mexico protesters changed their wording to “(Un)occupy” — thus retaining their affinity with the OWS movement). There is precedence, of course, from the 1960s student movements, who occupied administration buildings, leading to subsequent campus architecture to prevent such activities. And the University of Gdansk student occupied the university during Solidarity.
I presume today’s protesters are defining this a civil disobedience, as were their 60s counterparts, in which case they likely would not be concerned with the question of rights and laws here (but you are right that the laws they are violating–those regarding access to assembly on property–are not the central targets of the movement). It is disappointing, as an alum, that they would occupy the New School, of all places, although the student protests on campus a couple of years ago were in battle with the administration–so could that be the in the background of their actions?
Sociologically, I am asking how these continued acts of civil disobedience tell us something about the depth (and breadth) of anger right now. That a NYPD officer joined the OWS protesters and himself got arrested is pretty striking.
Susan Pearce
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/what-if-we-occupied-language/?src=recg