Harvard Yard has been closed to anyone without a university ID as occupiers continue to inhabit the space near the statue of John Harvard.
- Is there a difference between an "occupier" and a "protestor"?
- Who are the 1%? The 99%? Which one would you rather be? Can one move between these groups? How should we classify the student-occupiers at Harvard?
- Are there any third parties who are adversely affected by the various occupations around the world?
- How do the security staff and police officers at Harvard feel about guarding the Yard 24/7?
- Who speaks for the occupiers? What are their goals? What outcome would prompt them to end their occupations?
- Why are these occupations happening at this point in our nation's history?
- Why are many of the occupiers students?
- How do you feel about the occupations, and why?
- For what cause, if any, would you "occupy" a space?
I'll get the discussion going by providing some thoughts on the first couple of questions:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Some would likely say that all "occupiers" are "protestors" but that not all protestors are occupiers. This would imply that occupiers are perhaps a more hard-core subset of the broader group who are willing to take things a step further and turn temporary action into a prolonged movement. I think this is mostly true, but would add that the distinction is a combination of both motivation and opportunity (not all protestors have the ability to devote so much time to their beliefs, regardless of how fiercely they hold them).
I think another key difference is that protestors generally participate in discrete, short-term demonstrations for the purpose of expressing their opinion. Participation in protests requires an underlying belief in the efficacy of our democratic system; letting the nation know what you think is only worthwhile if elected officials take that opinion into consideration. Conversely, occupiers seem not to harbor any such faith in the system. Their sustained occupation is premised on the idea that without continuous pressure, elected officials will fail to act. The very term "occupy" implies a militant action meant bring about change by force, not persuasion.
I think one of the primarily failings of the Occupy "movement" is a consequence of this distinction. Because the movement is a non-violent one, it will fail to force change through direct action. The occupiers must therefore rely on persuasion, not force. But there seems to be an assumption that sustained protest in the form of camping amplifies their voice by showing their dedication. While this may be true for a small group of Americans (most of whom already agree with the occupiers), the larger population is alienated by the fact that the protestors are the select few who have the time and resources to go on an idealistic camping trip for a few months (students, the homeless, unemployed, etc.) The occupiers have separated themselves from the 99% (see below) through their tactics instead of creating solidarity. My recommendation would be to forego sustained occupation, which has failed as a method of persuasion, and focus on short, large-scale protests that will reach a broader audience and have a greater influence on future voting. At this point the Occupy movement is probably too pidgeon-holed to accomplish this transition, which is why I think that the movement is a failure. To the extent that Occupy can re-brand itself as a broad-based movement, it may still be capable of playing a role in the 2012 elections.
Question 2: I would offer three independent but overlapping metrics for defining the 1%: wealth, power, and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteWealth: Though estimates vary, it seems that the cut-off for the top 1% in the United State based on personal wealth would be about $9 million, a surprisingly large number. From the perspective of occupiers, this definition is likely underinclusive; our sense of who is in the "1%" is likely broader than that strict definition. The appeal of this definition is that it provides a concrete basis for policy decision. If, for instance, we think that wealth redistribution is a noble goal, we might use the 1% wealth cut-off to determine tax policy. Despite this appeal, I don't think that this is the best definition for what the occupiers view as the 1%.
Power: A more vague definition would turn on some concept of political power or access. Of course, this overlaps with wealth, a point that I am sure most occupiers would emphasize. The appeal of this definition is that most people probably think that in a democracy power should be evenly distributed among the populace, not concentrated in an elite group. Regardless of whether this is true in a Republic or even desirable, most Americans would probably sympathize with this distinction. There are few out there would have a problem with demonizing the 1% most politically powerful in the nation.
Opportunity: Another seeming grievance of the Occupy movement is the lack of opportunity for the 99%. From this perspective, the 1% may be a select group that has the most opportunity to pursue some desirable goal (luxuries, personal fulfillment, etc.) Both wealth and political power are merely instruments for achieving these goals, so it would seem that this definition incorporates the other two. Its interesting that Harvard occupiers are most likely to fall into the 1% under this definition.
Regardless of the definition, I would want to be in the 1%. It is difficult to conceive of a definition under which any rational person would want to be in the 99% (maybe if you defined it based on greed or exploitation, but not on success). The more pressing question is whether you can move between the two. Obviously it is possible for some to move between the two (I myself plan on doing so), but there is a general sense that the "American Dream" of upward mobility has disappeared. This may simply be an example of golden-age mentality, or it may be a result of the rapid technological change that has revolutionized manufacturing and labor.
I would propose that the Occupy movement has focused largely on the second definition when it should be focusing on the first. Disparities in political power are, as they have always been, merely a symptom of wealth disparity. The true solution to lack of political power and opportunity is money; too little capital is held by the 99%. One solution is through tax and transfer. Another is technological advancement; while this progress tends to continue the concentration of wealth, it also increases quality of life broadly. Whatever the solution, Harvard occupiers need to focus on the root cause of disparity instead of blaming the "rules of the game" for being slanted.