It's an exciting time to be a cynic. The past few years have validated some of our most prominent fears and expectations: a global financial crisis, rising food and commodity prices, pro-democracy movements against oppressive and persistent despots, corporate infiltration into federal governance, ongoing energy dominance of oil and coal companies, and the continued breakdown of community-based support, services, and organizations. Just to name a few.
In these many and threatening lights, it's no surprise that a whole lot of cynics find themselves gathering in plazas, parks, and squares around the United States and beyond. And while cynicism may be a reason to gather, it’s well understood that cynicism burns faster than any carbon-based fuel. Occupiers are fast at work on the stuff of long-term sustenance: hope, ideas, positivity, and resolve.
Last Thursday night our local chapter, Occupy NOLA, gathered for the first time at Duncan Square Park, deliberately and defiantly in the shadow of City Hall. The crowd of at least 250 had none of the tension that I usually witness at protests, none of the rebellious uneasiness I expected from a nascent movement, one that wants to believe it can change a society. Patience seemed the operative emotion. Many in the crowd seemed to understand that what they were about to undertake would be long, slow, awkward, painful, risky, and maybe even ungratifying.
Could it be any other way? Leaving aside for a moment the task of re-thinking an economic system or a society, consider only the interpersonal difficulties: each participant brings a different set of frustrations; each has in mind a different personal and collective agenda; each carries with them part of the cultural baggage that together we are trying to shed. Collectively each group of occupiers represents thousands of combined years of cultural learning. Learning another way will take more patience than we can imagine, assuming we ever get past the un-learning.
That process began the moment the General Assembly got underway. In three hours the GA, as it’s otherwise known, was able to agree on a consensus-based voting model, affirm a commitment to non-violence, establish a makeshift sanitation plan, and form about a dozen working groups to move forward with issues such as security, food, media, education and anti-racism. Some occupiers clearly agonized over the pace, but given the size of the group and the enormity of the task, getting anything done was an accomplishment.
Credit is due to all of the organizers and facilitators for their persistence, patience and grace. Not only did they pull off forming an incredibly difficult organizing task, they conducted the GA in an orderly way while ensuring the safety of all participants.
I make a point of giving them credit because what follows are a series of critiques aimed at initiating a discussion around ways that Occupy NOLA could be more inclusive, and ultimately I hope, more effective. I make these critiques with the understanding that for the lead organizers there was enough to worry about without having to be constantly self-critical and self-reflective, and with the acknowledgement that these ideas originate from mistakes I have made and continue to make in my own work organizing. I hope these thoughts might serve as part of a framework for occupiers as they go about the difficult work of movement building. I also want to acknowledge that I have not been able to participate since the first GA, and that my critiques are informed by several friends who have.
Curiously what first alerted me to trouble was the fact that I felt very comfortable with how facilitators were conducting the GA - the hand signals, the consensus model, the different phases of each discussion, the language and format of “facilitation.” It all felt very familiar. I’d seen it quite a bit during college: in a worker solidarity group, with students organizing around environmental issues, at a co-op where some friends lived. It functions very well in those settings, especially to the extent that it mimics seminar discussions, the bread and butter for humanities majors like myself. The “process,” as it was referred to at the GA, seemed to be working, not too surprising given that most of the group looked less than a decade out of college, and many that spoke sounded like they’d spent more than a little time in the academy.
The use of the “process” probably felt comfortable to those who had encountered it before, but may have been alienating to those who had never been around it. The facilitators introduced the process without offering much explanation for why we were using that particular mode of communication, and some people may have been left wondering. To the unfamiliar eye it might have appeared slow or saccharine.
All of the ideas presented by the facilitators were very good ideas. The rub is that they originated from a small group of people and not from a more inclusive process that could have offered occupiers more ownership over the outcomes. Nobody seemed to strongly disagree with the decisions that were made, but it’s still possible that a number of people felt little or no stake in those decisions and therefore felt less desire to participate. And even though a fair vote happened, those in attendance did not reflect any large swath of the city of New Orleans nor of the 99% that the movement claims to represent. As far as that was true, the votes were not fully democratic. Even though the ideas were good, going forward it might be hard to convince people who weren’t represented – most notably black New Orleanians and Latino immigrants – that they should go along with what was decided, or that they should participate at all.
The form of Occupy NOLA raises questions about participation in several ways: the highly specific language, politics and symbology of the group; the fact that it’s most accessible to people who have the time, equipment and experience to camp out; and the form and content of the media used to initiate and communicate about the occupation. It’s not that any of these things absolutely require revision or hinder inclusivity, but occupiers should think about how to offer spaces and voices to people for whom this movement doesn’t necessarily lend itself.
Finally, there needs to be some kind of way to break from process at absolutely crucial moments. At the first GA one of the few black men in the group began speaking about the need to move along and get to what he thought were relevant issues. He vented his frustration about the process but had no outlet to discuss that frustration because another person raised a point of process and the group moved on. His views were silenced by quick answers and strict adherence. There may arise a point where breaking from process could alter the course of Occupy NOLA for the better. There may have already been one, or several.
If occupiers are committed to the idea of democracy then they should trust that the GA can police itself in these moments. If the group decides that it should drop what it’s doing to address someone’s personal concern then by our own democratic logic we should follow the group’s will rather than the facilitator’s. If democratically the group decide to stay on point, let that decision come from discussion among people in the crowd, and let it be the result of a temperature check – a mechanism used to check the groups feeling about an issue – or a vote. It’s not fail-safe. People will still be silenced. But at least that silencing won’t be knee-jerk in the way that it appeared to be in the first GA.
I’m not calling for any sort of dramatic overhaul or reset of what’s happened so far at Occupy NOLA. Anything that’s going well should not be disrupted, and any missteps that have been taken should be treated as opportunities to learn and grow. What is needed, I think, are many acts of individual and collective self-reflection. One of the goals of the Occupy movement, as I understand it, is a critical analysis of the economic and political structures that have caused our massive wealth divide and a host of related issues. We should look outward towards Wall Street or towards the Orleans Parish Prison, but the movement would also benefit from an inward analysis, one that examines questions of privilege, access and participation at Duncan Square and beyond. If part of what we’re trying to accomplish is some sort of re-shaping of society then first we need to consider how our present society has shaped us. What about us re-affirms aspects of that society? How can we recognize those things within ourselves, then begin to alter them? If we’re all a little more deliberate about how we’re thinking, behaving and communicating then a more self-critical and socially critical group will follow.
It’ll be fascinating to see how this experiment plays out. When a group claims to represent 99% of this country, the possibilities for ideas, actions, and demands are endless. Yet as much as we’re tempted by grandiose and exciting possibilities, we’ll only get there by remaining grounded, patient and deliberate. We’ll need to be open to criticism. We’ll need to accept mistakes with resolve and without guilt. We should exercise humility, acknowledging the impossibility of knowing the consequences of all we do and say.
We should also remember that we’re in New Orleans. This city has a specific history written into the larger narratives of American injustice and inequity, a history dating much further back than August 2005. New Orleans faces its own unique challenges. It also boasts unique sets of people, resources and organizing traditions that offer the experience and wisdom to move forward with what we face locally and nationally. Undoubtedly this city’s incarceration rate, level of illiteracy, income inequality and schooling issues are symptoms of much larger national and international problems. Yet locating and remedying those larger causes may require that occupiers first build momentum and capacity by organizing and coalition-building locally around what’s already happening here. Occupiers should build on and learn from past and current efforts in New Orleans, lending support and solidarity not only to those around Wall Street, but also to those around Broad Street, Galvez Street, and Claiborne Avenue.
You're a smart guy...
ReplyDelete