Currently: Occupied

Apparently the Occupy Wall Street movement is something that has been going on for a while, and is large enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. I say apparently because, as someone who just started school and didn't have internet at my home for nearly a month, I've had a hard time being connected to the world.

But the Occupy Wall Street movement is interesting to me. On the basic principle, I am fully sympathetic with the protestors. Trying to deny that the financial sectors of our economy represent undue influence on the political sector and have lead to some highly egregious breaches of public moral norms is rather difficult. I suppose the people who would disagree are those who are either uninformed at the most basic level, or who actually believe in the Utilitarian model and its application to corporations. Unfortunately, I think that position is untenable and rooted on some seriously flawed axioms. But that is neither here nor there.

What I find problematic, however, is the following. There seems to really be more of an amorphous shape to these protests rather than the kinds of directed and well focused protests this country has seen in the past. This is perhaps evidenced by the Occupy movements lack of central demands that appear actionable. I am not saying that what they want is not just- I believe that it largely is- but that what they are after is really unclear pragmatically. I will borrow a quote from The New York Times contributor Gina Bellefante as quoted on Wikipedia, "The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face — finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out." I agree with Bellefante's point here. The movement may capture the general ideals of a great many of us who have grown up in an America market by run-away corporations, but that does not mean our ideals are well articulated; yet. When writers look "behind the scorn" they most certainly do see precisely what it is that is bothering the protestors, but they cannot translate this into an articulated grievance- only a laundry list of complaints.


There is something to be said, however, for the fact that the amorphous demands that these protestors hold have actually converted in to action. While I agree with Bellefante at this point and time I also hold out hope that action itself may lead to an articulation of demands. And I also hold out hope that the protests themselves will become the trigger by which more people come to identify their grievances with the ways in which finance and governance intersect in this country in a very baffling way. 


The article from Salon.com that I linked above has a fairly interesting point that I would like to put out right now. The author of the article, Glenn Greenwald, writes:

Given the costs and risks one incurs from participating in protests like this — to say nothing of the widespread mockery one receives –  it’s natural that most of the participants will be young and not yet desperate to cling to institutional stability.  It’s also natural that this cohort won’t be well-versed (or even interested) in the high arts of media messaging and leadership structures.  Democratic Party precinct captains, MBA students in management theory and corporate communications, and campaign media strategists aren’t the ones who will fuel protests like this; it takes a mindset of passionate dissent and a willingness to remove oneself from the safe confines of institutional respectability. 

This passage troubles me because it does presume that the demographics of the protest are acephalous because of some deficiency with young protesters and the absence of those skilled enough to bring direction. Firstly, I would have to say that these are moments when leadership is forged and structural thinking outside of the "safe confines of institutional respectability" leads to remarkably change. The protests against the Vietnam war were made of a similar demographic, but they have now become venerated for their powerful effect on American political-culture at the time. I tend to agree with Greenwald's overall point- the protestors do deserve support from those who share in their ideals. But they also deserve that those of us who cannot protest begin to articulate the frustration in words and thoughts at the same time action takes form. Those of us who share in their general sentiments have a responsibility to begin a much bigger discourse on the nature of what troubles us. We have an obligation not to march in the streets, though many would like to, but to lend support to those who do by creating a voice.

At this juncture I do not know if this movement will actually begin a substantive shift in the way the financial, political, and civic spheres interact, though I do hope there will be some lasting effects beyond the protests. These protests have the potential to represent a serious moment for this generation growing up in the world after 9-11 and on the downward slope engendered by decades of reckless faith in a system of markets geared towards wealth disparity. While I support the protestors and feel that they are embodying something very important, I do not think it has taken a meaningful shape yet. I hope that a voice will be found soon, and that a peaceful but powerful change will come.