Occupy! A global movement

Jenny Pickerill, John Krinsky, Graeme Hayes, Kevin Gillan, Brian Doherty

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780367738778
• eBook ISBN: 9781317586319
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is an urgent and compelling account of the Occupy movements: from the M15 movement in Spain, to the wave of Occupations flooding across cities in American, Europe and Australia, to the harsh reality of evictions as corporations and governments attempted to reassert exclusive control over public space. Across a vast range of international examples over twenty authors analyse, explain and helps us understand the movement. These movements were a novel and noisy intervention into the recent capitalist crisis in developed economies, developing an exceptionally broad identity through a call to arms addressed to 'the 99%', and emphasizing the importance of public space in the creation and maintenance of opposition. The novelties of these movements, along with their radical positioning and the urgency of their claims all demand analysis. This book investigates the crucial questions of how and why this form of action spread so rapidly and so widely, how the inclusive discourse of 'the 99%' matched up to the reality of the practice. It is vital to understand not just the choice of tactics and the vitality of protest camps in public spaces, but also how the myriad of challenges and problems were negotiated.

This book was published as a special issue of Social Movement Studies.

Why Does Occupy Matter?

JENNY PICKERILL* & JOHN KRINSKY**

^*Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, ^**Department of Political Science, The City College of New York, New York, NY, USA

ABSTRACT Analysing the Occupy movement is important for understanding the political importance of social movements and the theoretical limits of social movement approaches. Occupy enables us to critically re-examine and question what we think we know about the processes of collective action. We identify eight contentions which illustrate why Occupy matters to scholars and which challenge us to re-examine existing assumptions: (1) the core claim to space that Occupy asserts; (2) the power of the language of occupation; (3) the need to pay more attention to the importance of crafting and repeating slogans; (4) the politics of prefiguring a new society (and its contradictions); (5) the implications of not making demands on the state; (6) the importance of ritualising and institutionalising protest; (7) the messy diffusion and mediation of a potentially global movement and finally (8) why confrontation with the police is understood as important as a movement tactic. Whatever the outcome, Occupy has enthused and mobilised activists in new ways and has articulated that inequality is something we all can, and should, seek to remedy.

Introduction

As Occupy activists are once more arrested trying to start another camp outside the London Stock Exchange and others concede to eviction notices (May 2012), it is timely to reflect on why the actions of Occupy activists across the world matter. This is especially so, given their comparatively short existence (since September 2011). There are obvious precursors and parallels to the Occupy movement (if it can even be conceived as such a connected entity), but it is not a clear progression from the anti-capitalist actions of the 1990s nor necessarily the spirit of the Arab Spring spreading west. There are disjunctures and fissures between these other movements and moments and the ways in which Occupy was conceived and practised.

To many it was the moment when resistance to the inequalities of capitalism finally emerged: a tipping point in which the unfairness of bank bailouts juxtaposed against rising personal poverty triggered a moment of clarity of the absurdity of the current economic and political system. Yet we have had these moments of clarity before. Indeed, there are those who claim Occupy to be a manifestation of a particular ideology (and therefore its historical tenet) and there is evidence of certain tints of socialism, Marxism and anarchism at different Occupy protests (Graeber, 2011) and indeed similarity with the 17th century Diggers (Lewycka, 2012). Others rightly have despaired at the ignorance of lessons already learnt about the tyranny of structurelessness or the exclusionary potential of consensus decision-making practices (such as hand gestures).

Yet it would be a shame if academic contributions were confined to a superficial critique of how things could have been done better. Knowing a lot of social movement theory does not make a good activist. Instead we want to reflect on why Occupy matters for those of us interested in social movements, and in doing so identify the common threads of the papers in this special issue. Analysing Occupy is important for understanding both the political importance of social movements and the theoretical limits of social movement approaches. Thus, Occupy enables us to critically re-examine and question what we think we know about the processes of collective action. The papers in this issue variously draw upon specific actions, places or tactics to explore why Occupy matters, and here we identify eight overarching themes which interweave and tie together these different narratives.

Eight Reasons Why Occupy Matters

So why does Occupy matter? It was a convergence of interesting tactics and ideas, few of which were novel on their own, but which when combined ignited a passion and energised activism unlike we have seen for several years. It has also enthused academics worldwide who have in turn been advocates of, and participants in, numerous Occupy protests. It is not surprising that the mainstream media, hungry for stories of conflict and struggle, amplified the protests, but what is of real interest in the story of Occupy, and thus why it matters, are some of the tactical and strategic approaches taken.

Making Space

Occupy puts the issue of space at the core of its agenda: by using spatial strategies of disruption (marching and camping in unpermitted places); by articulating the symbolic significance of particular spaces and by challenging the privatisation of our cities, and thus its reinvigoration of the ‘right to the city’ debates. In London, for example, the failed attempt to occupy space within the square mile of the City facilitated a public realisation that the financial corporate world was not only off-limits to most, economically and socially, but also quite literally.

Physical encampments have long been a protest tactic (at military bases, to prevent road construction, etc.) and actions such as Reclaim the Streets in the 1990s sought to reclaim roads (and motorways) for pedestrian use. The act of extended encampments in assertively public spaces (such as city squares or parks) also draws upon the Latin American tradition of public assembly and collective action far more than evidenced in recent years in London or New York. Factory occupations are also a key historical precedent. As in Occupy, the occupations were similarly strategic and symbolic; occupations of factories disrupt production (as some contemporary occupations have sought to disrupt commerce and the ‘normal’ flow of urban accumulation) and they showed that workers want to work, but under different conditions.

Thus, Occupy camps reasserted the spatial dimensions of exclusion and inequality by forcing society to recognise that capitalist accumulation happens in certain places, and that these places can be named, located and objected to. These encampments have thus reasserted the power of the tactic to camp, and the power of such encampments to identify the geography of capitalism. Moreover, this focus on space challenges social movement studies to move beyond merely conceptualising the extent of space or the compression of space by time (as with discussions of globalisation and ‘scaling up’ protest), and instead to more thoroughly explore the strategic use and occupation of space as symbolic.

The Language of Occupation

The use of the terms ‘occupy’ and ‘occupation’ by activists turned politics on its head. Occupation used to refer to a state’s forced occupation of another country (such as the USA of Iraq), an act which campaigners sought to overturn and resist. Activists called their acts ‘sit-ins’ (if temporary) or ‘protest camps’ (if long term). Occupy is an altogether more powerful word because it forces the acknowledgement of two things. First, in order to occupy a space it must already be owned. As the British argued in Australia in 1788, if the land has no people (and thus no owners) then it is not an occupation but the claiming of available space and resources. This was, in part, the point of Occupy—to identify the need to reclaim space from corporate greed—but activists also quickly discovered that even a park or square is rarely ‘public’ but is governed by many laws and exclusions. Second, it (perhaps inadvertently) reminded those indigenous people already dispossessed from that land (especially in the USA and Canada) that they were still dispossessed, and gave the impression to some that they were being reoccupied by yet more unwanted intruders (Yee, 2011). As such, ‘to occupy’ had a stronger and more controversial implication than simply to set up a camp or hold a sit-in. This use of powerful language was a tactical choice which framed the movement in a certain way, both positively and negatively, and as such reasserts the debate about ways in which collective action is framed.

Crafting and Repeating Slogans

The slogan ‘we are the 99 per cent’ (whether accurate or not) was incredibly powerful. Unlike ‘this is what democracy looks like’ (from the anti-capitalist protests of the 1990s) or ‘Bring our troops home’ (anti-war protests in the mid-2000s), it immediately created a sense of inclusion and majority.

The power of a good campaign slogan is well known but hard to get right, and tends to be underrated in social movement studies. In the last century, only a few have stood the test of time. The early slogan of the suffragettes of ‘Deeds not words’, the Situationists’ ‘All power to the imagination!’ from 1968, ‘Make love not war’ against the war in Vietnam, or, finally, ‘Think global, act local’ by environmentalists, all bear repeating. The Occupy slogan is likely to resonate as much as these and was key to the success of the movement. It is exactly through this repetition that slogans come to populate the discourse and establish their own truths.

We need to examine slogans more carefully. Slogans differ from other concepts in studies of social movement claim-making: they are not frames (though they partly serve this function, they are also usually a lot more ambiguous); and they are not narratives. Rather they raise questions about the uses of ambiguity in political claim-making, and the way in which, as Stone (2003) writes, ‘ambiguity is the glue of politics. It allows people to agree on laws and policies because they can read different meanings into the words’. However, this ambiguity also creates space for contestation. While focusing on wealth as a defining difference has its drawbacks (in that there are wealthy Occupy supporters and not all bankers earn enough to qualify as part of the 1 per cent), the notion of a majority ‘us’ and minority ‘them’ was a very powerful emotional motivator, but equally enabled opponents to contest the way in which the movement works based on this common super-majoritarian slogan.

Prefiguring a New Society (and Its Contradictions)

Occupy throws the work of prefigurative politics into stark relief, and challenges us to evaluate critically the balance of effort between living and acting a prefigurative, autonomous politics of mutual aid in ‘camps’, and working within, even on the edge of, ‘normal’ movement politics to win tangible reforms and alterations of behaviour in various parts of the state. It raises questions about the actual exclusions from the prefigured community and why they occur. Finally, it raises the political question of whether it is possible or even desirable to align the contemporary anarchist politics that are centrally identified with Occupy with existing labour and community organising and campaigning.

As in many other forms of activism, inclusion of diversity in Occupy actions became a point of contention. By focusing on difference according to wealth, it was perhaps assumed that other differences such as race, gender, class and colonial (and other) could be subsumed and to some extent ignored, or because such exclusions are still not uniformly seen as automatically problematic by some contemporary activists. Moreover, it might have been assumed that the multicultural nature of many of the cities in which Occupy emerged would in turn generate multicultural participation. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Despite often being physically close to different ethnic communities (such as Chinatown in New York), or being in cities where the majority of residents were non-white (such as Oakland, California) there have been accusations of racism and exclusion within Occupy. All exclusion is problematic, but Occupy actions encountered three particular issues with regard to unions, gender and homelessness.

Collaboration with labour unions and thus working people was often sought by Occupy. It was recognised that unions could be key allies and that they shared similar grievances to Occupy activists. However, forging such collaborations was difficult and only a few places succeeded. Most notably Occupy Oakland built successful ties with one of the strongest trade unions (the International Longshoreman and Warehouse Union) and together they organised a large general strike and an action which closed several west coast ports (Healey, 2012). As successful as this was, however, the alliance eventually broke down through disagreements around tactics, the need for leadership and which campaign issues should take priority. Moreover, such collaborations raise the quandary of how some prefigurative autonomism actually depended on outside labour support even if this was not always formally acknowledged (such as the financial support of organised labour in the USA for Occupy, or even the assignment of labour and community organisers to Occupy Wall Street by existing community organisations and labour unions).

While it is difficult to generalise across all the different Occupy camps which took place, it appears that feminism and its assertion of respect for different genders have yet to be taken seriously. Women’s visible presence is not the same as functioning equality and there were worrying reports of sexual harassment and intimidation making females feel unsafe and unwelcome in camps. Many places established ‘safe spaces’ in which to protect women, but in a movement focused on tackling economic equality it would seem reasonable that social and gender equality should be at the forefront of debates.

Finally, the fact that in many instances homeless people were already present in the spaces where Occupy set up camps has triggered extensive debates as to how inclusive the movement has been to those already living in the streets. Many camps welcomed all participants but others, like in El Paso, Texas, developed rigorous codes of conduct which homeless people had to abide by in order to be allowed to stay with the occupiers or share the donated provisions. This has raised obvious questions about elitism and assumptions being made about homelessness.

The political and theoretical outcomes of these exclusions have yet to be fully understood, but are likely to have further implications. For example, the refusal of union support by the indignados in Spain and the rejection of such labour politics ultimately led to a contradictory political outcome in the national election of the conservatives in Spain.

Making Demands on the State

The complexity of practising a prefigurative politics is further complicated by the official, but variable, refusal to make ‘demands’ that could be co-opted by existing political parties or that recognise the legitimacy of the state as an agent capable of or willing to implement policy. Instead many camps explicitly sought to circumvent traditional providers of services and rather than make demands simply create the alternative. By establishing temporary tent communities with kitchens, bathrooms, libraries, first-aid posts, information centres, sleeping areas and educational space, they recreated new spaces of provision: prefigurative alternative communities with very few resources. These encampments began with a distinct focus on outreach work. In particular, there was significant emphasis on alternative education. In London, the ‘Tent City University’ and ‘The Bank of Ideas’ were quickly established and teach-ins occurred in many camps.

At the same time, it quickly became clear that Occupy camps were developing what Laurie Penny called an ‘economy of care, a network of mutual aid’ (2012, p. 27) for their residents. The camps began to take on elements of service provision for all involved which extended ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Citation Information
• 1. Why Does Occupy Matter?
• 2. Occupy Pittsburgh and the Challenges of Participatory Democracy
• 3. How Local Networks Shape a Global Movement: Comparing Occupy in Amsterdam and Los Angeles
• 4. Tahrir, Here? The Influence of the Arab Uprisings on the Emergence of Occupy
• 5. The Indignados of Spain: A Precedent to Occupy Wall Street
• 6. Occupying the #Hotelmadrid: A Laboratory for Urban Resistance
• 7. Already Occupied: Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonialism and the Occupy Movements in North America
• 8. Whose Occupation? Homelessness and the Politics of Park Encampments
• 9. Collecting Occupy London: Public Collecting Institutions and Social Protest Movements in the 21st Century
• 10. Israel’s ‘Tent Protests’: The Chilling Effect of Nationalism
• 11. The Homeless and Occupy El Paso: Creating Community among the 99%
• 12. Occupy Online: How Cute Old Men and Malcolm X Recruited 400,000 US Users to OWS on Facebook
• 13. Mic Check! Media Cultures and the Occupy Movement
• 14. The Free Culture and 15M Movements in Spain: Composition, Social Networks and Synergies
• 15. Tactics of Waste, Dirt and Discard in the Occupy Movement
• 16. ‘Occupy Israel’: A Tale of Startling Success and Hopeful Failure
• 17. The Students’ Rebellion in Chile: Occupy Protest or Classic Social Movement?
• 18. ‘Why don’t Italians Occupy?’ Hypotheses on a Failed Mobilisation
• 19. Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement
• 20. Negotiating Power and Difference within the 99%
• 21. Occupy—The End of the Affair
• 22. Walking in the City of London
• Index