Abstineo

Over the past month, Occupy Oakland's General Assembly has debated five separate proposals addressing nonviolence, diversity of tactics, and destruction of property, four leaning towards nonviolence and one toward “diversity of tactics.” Not one has passed, despite attempts to address the issue from various viewpoints.

Yellow are nonviolence-affirming proposals, purple is the diversity of tactics-affirming proposal

The Proposals
The first and most popular proposal (or, more accurately, least unpopular one) was the so-called “Friendly Neighbor Policy” proposal, floated on October 23^rd. It was also the most benign, requesting “zero tolerance for racism, sexism, harassment, or violence” within the encampment, and for occupants to “be respectful of all people and visitors.” However, speakers against the proposal disavowed policing each other within the movement, promoting individual autonomy instead, and one occupier asserted that “in revolutionary times, violence is needed.” In the end, only 63% of the assembly approved of the proposal, falling far short of the 90% needed to pass under modified consensus.

Both the “Diversity of Tactics” and “Action Agreements” proposals (11/9 and 11/20) included language to acknowledge diversity within the movement, but ultimately sought to discourage violence and destruction and disown from the movement those who took part in such acts.

“We urge individuals employing Black Bloc tactics to use self-restraint and forethought. We urge Black Bloc members not to destroy local businesses. We encourage all individuals who are engaged in non-violence to continue to do so.” – Diversity of Tactics Proposal 11/09/11

“We agree not to physically assault people except in the case of self defense or bodily defense of others, we agree not to engage in destruction of property... We recognize that individuals who take part in other actions are acting autonomously and not in the name of our movement.” – Action Agreements Proposal 11/20/11

Playing Oakland schools musical chairs, 11/19

In both cases, speakers against the proposal far outweighed those for it, and the language of the proposals was systematically shot through with holes. Some in favor argued that without a promise to maintain a safe and nonviolent movement, “average” people may be scared away, and that many of the people the Occupy movement purports to represent cannot afford to be arrested. However, most of the rhetoric focused on the vague language of the proposals, the inability to enforce such edicts, and the inefficacy of choosing a fixed set of tactics without a parallel set of clear goals.

A “Statement of Intent” proposal drafted in the wake of the murder nearby the occupation was withdrawn after harsh criticism on Nov. 21. It stated that “those who indulge in violence and coercion are cutting themselves off from everyone else... we [of Occupy Oakland] bring peace, we serve, and protect. We choose our actions and we are aware that our actions have consequences.” Though the sponsor stated that the intention behind the proposal was to affirm the wholeness and balance of the movement, its very language indicated hostility towards those who decide to “indulge in violence and coercion.” Eventually, the proposal was withdrawn and set aside.

Creating Division

Education cuts protesters, 11/19

In each of the four proposals, speakers noted that restraining or disowning those using violent tactics could be seen as itself violent, and certainly devisive. When I was in attendence on November 9^th, it was clear that the very proposal seeking to unite the movement behind nonviolence had in fact divided the assembly. Though I am nonviolent myself, I spoke against the proposal because it seemed only to serve to oust some people from what is supposed to be a populist movement.

Interestingly, a fifth proposal seeking to affirm diversity in tactics rather than solely nonviolence met with nearly as much resistance as proposals for peace. The “St. Paul's Principles” proposal which touted “respect for diversity of tactics” and “no denouncement of fellow activists or events to the media,” at first seemed a solution to the divisiveness of the other proposals. Diversity is great right? Isn't that what embracing the 99% means?

However, as one speaker against the proposal put it, given that some people are staunch pacifists and personally denounce violence and destruction “would 'diversity of tactics' leave out a diversity of people?” Furthermore, some likened the prohibition on talking to the media to a “code of silence” that would be ultimately destructive to the transparency and accessibility of the movement.

At the Education March to Lakeview School, 11/19

So What?
Personally, I believe in using peaceful means to achieve results, and that hostility and rage will only perpetuate fear and hate. However, I feel that directing our negative energies toward each other will splinter the movement and obstruct our visions for the future.

So if we can't decide to be nonviolent, but we also can't decide to not be nonviolent, and we know that “a house divided doesn't stand,” what are we left with?

This issue gets to the very heart of the Occupy movement's stubborn refusal to define itself or present demands. The 99% means very nearly everyone. We can't expect that nearly everyone in a room, let alone a movement, country or planet, is going to have the same goals, concerns, or means of affecting social change.

"Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme," 11/19

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that condemning individuals and their actions, however personally offensive, is pretty pointless and a waste of precious GA time. If indeed many of those wishing to employ “Black Bloc” tactics are self-proclaimed anarchists, then passing a resolution at the GA will do nothing to curtail this activity. Most anarchists believe in grassroots organization rather than top-down structure, and in individual autonomy. When the General Assembly becomes a vehicle for imposing restrictions on individual behavior, it has already become another establishment that goes against the values espoused by the powerful anarchist subculture of the movement.

Abstineo
Low approval (and high abstention) on the above proposals, at a GA where most action and solidarity proposals are passed indicate that plenty of people also feel uncomfortable defining the actions of others. Abstineo, Latin for “abstain,” comes from abs- “away from” and teneo “hold, restrain.” In the context of voting, then, to abstain is literally to shy away from restraining the group, the process, or the individual. This indicates that perhaps as a movement, the trend is to abstain from controlling the autonomy of our fellow protesters, and instead affirm only those actions which allow for individual choice and expression.

Rather than limiting the umbrella of “Occupy,” we need to live under an ever-expanding tent that can grow to accommodate everyone in the 99%. This may mean standing with people of other viewpoints, but with whom we are united for a related cause. We should neither attempt to condemn nor condone any one viewpoint or tactic. Instead, we can engage in dialogue and education with each other to gain deeper understanding, and use our diversity to form multiple collaborative and interlinked communities.  

"No one can evict an idea whose time has come!" 11/19

The beauty of the Occupy movement is that anyone can participate, and anyone has the agency to create something where they see a void. If sitting in an intersection, or boycotting a store, or moving money out of banks is what you think should happen, organize it and you'll probably get your local GA's blessing. It seems that the only thing Occupy implicitly agrees to disavow is dissent, choosing instead to uphold individual initiative. 

Evigilo

Stockholm syndrome – n. (psychiatry)

“An emotional attachment to a captor formed by a hostage as a result of continuous stress, dependence, and a need to cooperate for survival.”

A shockingly large number of Americans are suffering from a kind of nationalist Stockholm syndrome. Unsurprisingly, they don't even know it. With income disparity at an all-time high in the United States, why are so few people reluctant to admit their discontentment, frustration, and fear, even to themselves? The convoluted answer lies in our history as a country, the philosophical underpinnings of our economic system, and the inherent problems of the American Dream. Luckily, people are starting to wake up.

When I think about the Occupy movement in the context of its place in the American psyche, the image that comes to mind is that of a very large locomotive laboriously starting to move. Right now, we're at the slow beginning stages where it doesn't even seem possible that we, the weighty 99%, could be careening down the track of social change in the very near future. But as more and more people realize their discontentment with the status quo, and with their health and safety being traded for profit, moving the large machine becomes easier.

There are plenty of Americans who have been on the train for years already. Like one African-American man said at the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on Monday night, “A lot of people have been realizing in the last 5 years that the system is fucked. That it keeps them down. And it's great that they realize that, but my people have known that for the last 500 years.” Some members of minorities, immigrants, union workers, and politically minded people have been speaking up for themselves and their communities for years. However, many more are willfully ignorant, afraid of losing what they still do have, or just don't want to rock the boat.

One major problem lies in the foundation of the American Dream, which pervades every corner of our society through schools, workplaces, government programs, and popular media. This philosophy tells us that if we work hard and apply ourselves to our careers, we will be prosperous, and deserving and entitled to that prosperity. This notion negates the powerful effects of institutional oppression, luck, and blatant discrimination that are at work against many people in the country.

The flipside of the American dream is that it implicates those who are not prosperous in their own undoing: if someone is poor, jobless, homeless, ignorant, unpopular, or otherwise unsuccessful, then it is solely their fault. Had they merely tried harder or applied themselves, according to this logic, they would be successful as well. A paradigm like this allows those who have achieved success to imagine themselves as more entitled to respect, privilege, and further success than those who have failed. And who wants to be a failure? So plenty of people are reluctant and too proud to admit even to themselves that they are struggling, because they believe it to be their own fault and something to be ashamed of.

Furthermore, despite our founding fathers' intentions to the contrary, we live in a country in which it is considered unpatriotic to be dissatisfied with the establishment and the government, let alone speak against them. Clearly, there are plenty of people who do speak up. But not enough.

So how do we spread the call to social change?

It has to start with compassion, education, and outreach to those who are not yet on board. We have to open up safe and welcoming spaces that have room enough for everyone. We have to provide the information that will awaken Americans to acknowledging the injustice and inequality that they already know exists. (More on this in the next post)

In Latin, 'evigilor' means 'to awaken,' but it also means 'to be alert' and 'to be watchful.' We are coming into a new period of American history in which citizens need to awaken to the call of their neighbors, and learn to watch out not only for themselves, but for each other. Our linguistically related concept of holding 'vigil' means to occupy a space together, for a common purpose, and often throughout the night. In as much as the hundreds of Occupy encampments across the globe are evocative of perpetual vigil for our errant economic milieu, they are also calls to every passerby to allow themselves to awaken.

The alarm is going off. Time to wake up.