I may receive some flak from local occupiers for some things I say here, and frankly, I hope I do. This thing called “Occupy” is at a critical juncture, and is experiencing its first wave of clearly defined dividing lines within itself. Constructive dialog would probably be very useful. As an example, I recently received a rather lengthy forwarded email that did an “ask and answer” based on the question “Is Occupy a movement or an organization?” To me, this is like asking if a Prius is a car or a design concept. While some auto enthusiasts might argue that it’s not the former, it is in fact clearly both. Debating the point is not very useful, unless you plan to refine the design, and build the next model. And something of that sort is clearly going on with Occupy. As someone who has been engaged in Occupy-related activities since before the camp in Zucotti Park, it has been a little frustrating to watch energetic, smart people engage briefly and then move along, turned off by the cumbersome assembly and meeting methods that many occupiers hold sacred, even though they may have only learned of them a few months ago. Locally, this phenomena has left Occupy Ann Arbor comprised mainly of people engaged in what I call “boutique activism”. The focus is largely on grass-roots actions for the homeless, and foreclosure assistance. There’s rarely mention of banks and politics, at least in terms of taking action of any kind. Ironic, given that the “occupy” in “Occupy [INSERT PET CAUSE]” comes from a group called “Occupy Wall Street”. On a national level though, there may be something very different going on. First of all, the 99% Declaration Working Group – which sprang from the original OWS group – is planning to select 435 delegates nationwide in June, and hold a National General Assembly on July 4 in Philadelphia. OWS, by the way, quickly went on the record stating their displeasure with this plan. Elsewhere, activist lawyer and Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has been developing an organization called Rootstrikers. The group is clearly aligned with the Occupy ethos, and has found strange bedfellows with people like convicted GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, via United Republic. United Republic is directly connected with Rootstrikers, and operates a blog called Republic Report which, in their words, is “devoted to rooting out the corruption that is so corrosive to American values”. And even established and clearly partisan organizations like the Roosevelt Institute are openly stating support for the Movement. So is this all just co-opting of the movement? I don’t think so. I think it may be the best thing to happen for the movement since the 700 arrests on the bridge last fall. And I believe it’s simply a matter of people who are “better-placed” societally doing what they can do to initiate real change. But I fear that my anarchist and socialist friends, with whom – in spite of our massive ideological differences – I have spent months cooperating with on our common values – will find this all anathema to their beliefs. Is this the next phase of Occupy, or its death-knoll?
“Oh, do you want nice middle class gestures for peace? And intellectual manifestos written by a lot of half-witted intellectuals and nobody reads ‘em! That’s the trouble with the peace movement. ”
-John Lennon
And the trouble with the “Occupy” movement in Ann Arbor, and in Michigan altogether. Boutique Activism, indeed. Consider, NOTHING happened in Michigan on February 29th. Actions in 70 cities elsewhere around the country – nothing here. In Ann Arbor, we just couldn’t get out of our own way, but, the “we don’t like the ‘Shut Down the Corporations’ name” contingent was at least part of the problem. I wonder what Flint, Lansing, Detroit & Occupy for All were too busy with?
I figured Occupy will fizzle out sooner or later…I would’ve like to have seen more said/done about the political corruption in the U.S. (should’ve started in Washington D.C. instead of Wall Street, IMHO) the foreclosures happening NATIONWIDE (maybe even Occupying some/most of them) and people not being able to get a job with a livable wage.
I’ll just vote straight Socialist this November…the Democrats are no different from the Republicans anymore…
Well, Philip, I think you have a point. As a guy I couldn’t identify said while I was trying to get to sleep in Zuccotti Park in November of last year put it: “Voting for Democrats, or Republicans is like voting for the Bonannos, or the Gambinos (organized crime families).
But, voting straight socialist will not be noticed, unless it leads to a significant victory by someone on the socialist ballot. Not thinking that will happen. There has to be something else – what is it?
“But, voting straight socialist will not be noticed, unless it leads to a significant victory by someone on the socialist ballot.”
This notion is the result of decades of brainwashing by the corporate power structure and the 1% who want you to think the only way the Socialists or the Green Party can make progress is to win 51% of the vote in a single election.
IN REALITY, new parties never win their first elections; building a new party is a PROCESS that spans multiple elections. The Democrats did it. The Republicans did it. Why would you expect a progressive party to be any different?
Furthermore, losing even a few percentage points to a progressive party will alarm the Democratic Party, which will see this as losing “their” votes, with the threat of losing even MORE votes if they continue to serve the 1%. This is how your Green votes can have a positive influence even before the Green Party starts winning at the state and Federal levels.
Getting 5% of the vote (and matching Federal funds) is certainly doable, as people are waking up to the BIPARTISAN support of the 1%.
The Green Party doesn’t accept corporate money and represents CITIZENS’ interests, making them a good progressive alternative to the corporate parties.
Vote Green! It feels good!
The problem of lack of will here in Ann Arbor has been an interesting one. My personal impression has been that the “boutique activism” has become the bulk of OAA…simply because it’s the only part that survived. After the initial honeymoon period during the Fall, attendance to anti-bank protests and direct actions fell so low that the people organizing them basically gave up, while the “boutique activists” were the only ones who continued operating.
I must say one thing I’ve seen through the Occupy movement is that Wall Street and boutique activism actually have a lot to do with each other. The homelessness/anti-foreclosure/feminist “boutiques” we’ve been seeing in OAA all grew directly out of issues that arose at the Occupy Ann Arbor camp, which did indeed organize around the premise of protesting the wrongs of the banks.
For some reason “anti-bank activism” then dropped off–possibly because it seemed so impossibly big that local folks didn’t feel like OAA was making a real difference in that area–while the boutique activism remained because it was impacting issues in the local community that, well, a small group of dedicated people could actually impact visibly in a way that gave others incentive to join.
I for one am all for Occupy “politicizing” as far as that means getting involved in local, state, and national politics. Not as far as it means “choose an existing political party to support,” but if we want to bring lasting change to this country–how else do we expect to accomplish it? The Tea Party has put into motion a long-term plan to gain control of the House and Senate 15 years from now. We should be doing the same.
Activity needs to happen on both levels – the local, immediate needs, and the global, systemic failures – they are all part of the same system. Most places have both going on, and there is certainly worthy activity in directly addressing local fallout from our insane socio-political system – i.e., homelessness, hunger (both of which are growing exponentially), foreclosures, student debt, predatory investment banks (read Matt Taibbi today), etc. And I think if both scales were being worked on successfully here as elsewhere the label “boutique” would not arise. Maybe the question is why is it especially hard to generate activism toward national or global goals in Ann Arbor in particular? Is it due to Ann Arbor’s size? Wealth (although there is plenty of poverty and need right here)? Lack of connectivity between campus/student activism and town activism? I’m sure Transition Town groups (as in Chelsea, Traverse City, Ypsi) would come under the ’boutique’ label (if fighting for the homeless does), but these groups are actually doing public education around our economic and monetary systems, in fact anything having to do with living justly and sustainably.
“attendance to anti-bank protests and direct actions fell so low that the people organizing them basically gave up, while the “boutique activists” were the only ones who continued operating.”
-Clare
And what she says is most likely true. And what I would say is: “Thus was Occupy Ann Arbor co-opted (not to say: corrupted) almost from the beginning.” Boutique activists, as we are calling them, came to Occupy from their boutiques with their issues, -ologies, & -isims – all seemed to be thinking “hmmm, what can “Occupy” do for my issue, -ology, or -isim?” (very sales & marketing department, 1% kind of thinking – that). Guess no one wanted to be impolite enough to ask: “What can your issue, -ology, or -isim do for Occupy?”. To be sure, all of these issues, etc. are worthy of remedial action – but they already had “boutiques” dedicated to them, and are symptoms, not causes in most cases. The cause? In most cases, the 1%.
99% vs. 1% – that’s what the deal is, kiddies. If you can’t deal with being class-warriors, go back to your boutique.
Occupy means…Occupy! Meeting openly in public spaces, meetings facilitated to allow all to have a say and have agreement to take actions through consensus! If the intention is not to occupy , drop the title and re-name the group for it’s true intention, or disband. The title “Occupy” can be marketed by the system into “Have a nice day”, but the essence of occupy, the masses teaching and learning from each other, despite mass incarceration, penalties, disagreement fees, guilty until proven innocent…the essence of occupy to keep moving forward through direct action, that is the fresh air I want to breathe…
I find the term “boutique activism” offensive for those of us who have been working hard and consistently in the trenches since fall. I also find it an absurdly inappropriate term both in the context of feminism and in the context of homelessness. I would appreciate if it is not used on the front page of the Occupy Ann Arbor Website which is now the main vehicle through which OAA is introduced to the public.
You may find this interesting: Occupy’s Growing Pains
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/15/occupys-growing-pains/
I’m having a hard time with this. On the one hand, I don’t think I’m in a position to criticize anyone, having sparsely participated. On the other hand, I feel there are things that very badly need to be said. Orian’s comment is a voice of sanity on this post, and I’d like to add to it.
“But I fear that my anarchist and socialist friends, with whom – in spite of our massive ideological differences – I have spent months cooperating with on our common values – will find this all anathema to their beliefs.”
Ian, ideological differences are going to be differences in method. You’re talking past anyone for whom these statements are contradictory:
“The focus is largely on grass-roots actions for the homeless, and foreclosure assistance. There’s rarely mention of banks and politics, at least in terms of taking action of any kind.”
Grassroots actions for the homeless/anti-foreclosure action are actions. They’re related to the banks, and they’re political. It’s not clear what actions you feel are missing. I’m not trying to claim that OAA is a robust organization, it’s just not clear to me what your criticism is, and it sounds as though you’re dismissing actions that others take to be vital.
Joe, I want to address your comment specifically:
“Boutique activists, as we are calling them, came to Occupy from their boutiques with their issues, -ologies, & -isims – all seemed to be thinking ‘hmmm, what can Occupy do for my issue, -ology, or -isim?’ (very sales & marketing department, 1% kind of thinking – that). Guess no one wanted to be impolite enough to ask: ‘What can your issue, -ology, or -isim do for Occupy?’. To be sure, all of these issues, etc. are worthy of remedial action – but they already had ’boutiques’ dedicated to them, and are symptoms, not causes in most cases. The cause? In most cases, the 1%.”
What “isms” and “ologies” are you talking about? I don’t know who you’re belittling, or whether you’re telling someone that their oppression is less important than (or for that matter, somehow separable from) class warfare or the struggle against Wall Street. I know you aren’t talking about OAA’s feminists having “very sales & marketing department, 1% kind of thinking.”
“99% vs. 1% – that’s what the deal is, kiddies. If you can’t deal with being class-warriors, go back to your boutique.”
What kiddies are you talking to? Which members of Occupy are you telling to go home if they don’t agree with you about what actions are most important? What on earth makes you think that’s anything but grossly antithetical to the entire movement? I’m sure whoever it is will respond well, or already has.
Joel,
Given some time for thought, I think you’re right to have “taken me to school” on this.
I’ll spare you any long explanations, & just say: apologies to all concerned.