By Jonathan Kraft
We have watched, some of us incredulously, over the last weeks as the small protest in New York’s Zuccotti Park has turned into a global phenomenon. Occupy Wall Street now lists 1,612 different “meetups” across the globe, spanning from the obvious locales (Berkley, Seattle, Paris) to the obscure (Islamabad, Fairbanks, Almaty).
The hardest part of Occupy is in deciding exactly what it is. We know that it is a movement against the unbridled world of high finance, a rebellion against the excesses which caused the global economic downturn, excesses that, according to the movement’s organizers, whoever they are, continue virtually unrestricted today. What we do not know about the movement is its broader significance. It could be a flash in the pan, or it could be the beginning of a dynamic social movement. It could be the liberals’ answer to the tea party, or it could be completely and totally different. It could be good for President Obama, it could be bad for President Obama. It could be a well-informed push for financial regulation, it could be a messy conglomeration of disparate agendas.
The problem is that the lack of information about what exactly this movement is reflected by the media coverage of it, meaning that consumers of information are fed a whole lot of conflicting viewpoints about what the meaning of Occupy actually is. This actually serves to discredit the movement, and even make it a laughingstock in certain circles. While the movement’s website actually tries to compare Occupy to the Arab Spring, to Tahrir Square, the fact is that those movements had a simple, central message which people could rally behind. Everyone knew what those movements were about, so when it came time to make a decision as to whether to support them or not, people were faced with a black and white choice. Here, Occupy’s lack of a coherent message may have served to attract masses to Zuccotti Park, and the rallying points of demonstrations in other places, but it also serves to place the movement at the periphery of society instead of at the center.
I recently visited Zuccotti Park to try and get a sense of what exactly the movement was about, and discovered that while a significant amount of protesters were gathered inside the park, just as many gawkers, spectators, and other curious passers-by surrounded them, walking around, taking pictures, and just looking in. Some protesters made cursory efforts to try and engage these “civilians,” but the divide was clear; Occupy Wall Street is a fringe movement, for those on the fringe of society, and without a clear and unified message, the “99%” of whom the protesters speak will remain passive onlookers.
Tags: Occupy, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Zuccotti Park, Zuccotti Park
As a child of the 60s, I was excited to see the passion of public outcry when this movement began, and heartened to see it’s spread. I couldn’t agree more, though, with your view that it lacks a coherent message and is hard to define. Perhaps that is a function of spontaneous planning, or a sign of the times. Unfortunately, there are so many issues circling our culture right now. I guess the demonstrators mist pick one.
Great points Jonathan and Sheryl. Lack of leadership may be another reason why OWS has no coherent message. Abbie Hoffman would be proud.
I agree. But if the movement stands for anything, I think it supports the sentiment that people are fed up with the lack of regulation and scrutiny that governs Wall Street. After being primarily responsible for the economic crisis, they received huge bailouts which in turn allowed them to recover from the wounded economy the fastest. I think the movement stands for a social and moral judgment upon the financial industries and advocates a crack down on white-collar crime. I think harsher sentences for white-collar criminals a la Bernie Madoff and Raj Rajaratnam are here to stay.
I don’t think the “movement” has to pick just one goal, but articulating some type of desired end result would be helpful. At this point, given the length of time these people have been living in tents, their movement seems to be losing support (and media interest) because there appears to be no end in sight. Protesting for the sake of protesting may be a thing of the past, with no place in the current generation, regardless of how disgruntled we may be.
I agree with your post and these comments – I live by Wall Street and have seen the protesters almost every day. The impression that I’ve gotten is that the crowd at the park has devolved into a random collection of people with little invested into the movement and who are probably not quite sure what they are railing against. Now that OWS has a sizeable war chest and national attention, I think they need to move beyond the unproductive tactics they’ve thus far adopted – they need to develop a serious message and try to deliver it through a more effective medium than “occupying” neighborhoods and subways.
I believe Occupy Wall Street has a valid message: namely, that a relatively small collection of people single-handedly drove the worldwide economy into the dirt and then walked away with million dollar bonuses, as the rest of the country struggles to make ends meet. This is a moral (and legal) outrage, and the more that the Occupiers draw attention to this basic injustice, the better off we will all be.
Having said that, my problem with many of the protesters is that they don’t even seem to understand what they are protesting, or are simply fed up with the way their life turned out and are eager to blame “corporate America” (as if this term is even capable of being defined). Apparently, a poll was circulated among the protesters and a majority of them had absolutely no comprehension of basic economics or the fundamental policies that led to the current global financial meltdown. A vague anger or desire to “stick it to the man” isn’t a valid message, which might explain why the movement is seeming to falter in recent days.