Phase Two: Occupy Wall Street on November 17

(Reuters / Eduardo Munoz)

Even if it were to dis­ap­pear tomor­row, Occupy Wall Street would have already scored a mas­sive vic­tory. It has fun­da­men­tally altered one of the dom­i­nant nar­ra­tives that under­lies the major­ity polit­i­cal and eco­nomic thought in this coun­try: that as much as Amer­i­cans might be dis­sat­is­fied with politi­cians, they have no real com­plaint with inequal­ity, or the eco­nomic sys­tem that makes it pos­si­ble and per­pet­u­ates it – namely cap­i­tal­ism. Occupy Wall Street rup­tured this nar­ra­tive through the occu­pa­tions and mas­sive pop­u­lar sup­port. Before Sep­tem­ber the sen­tence, “Amer­i­cans are dis­sat­is­fied with social inequal­ity” would have been debat­able to say the least, per­tain­ing only to a small fac­tion of left­ists and aca­d­e­mics. Now it can be stated as fact, a fact that the exist­ing forces and pow­ers do not know what to say about.

One does not rup­ture a dom­i­nant nar­ra­tive with­out being rein­cor­po­rated some­how. The two-month his­tory of Occupy Wall Street has been a strug­gle on the part of the man­agers of pub­lic opin­ion, the pun­dits, news­cast­ers, and come­di­ans, to make sense of this event, to place it in another nar­ra­tive. First, there was the dis­cus­sion of demands, or the lack thereof; “What are their demands?” became the dom­i­nant ques­tion. This was fol­lowed with the focus on the con­di­tions of the camps, the sto­ries of rats and pub­lic uri­na­tion. When these failed to catch on, failed to con­tain grow­ing sup­port for the move­ment, vio­lence became the issue. Not the vio­lence of pep­per spray, rub­ber bul­lets, flash­bang grenades, and clubs, but the “vio­lence” of bro­ken win­dows and garbage cans set on fire. Accord­ing to the time-hon­ored tra­di­tion, vio­lence is the pre­ferred nar­ra­tive to dis­credit the move­ment. It is per­fect because of its ambi­gu­ity; head­li­nes that state, “Vio­lence Mars Protest,” never need to men­tion who was the sub­ject or object of vio­lence, or con­cern them­selves with the dis­tinc­tion between bro­ken win­dows and bro­ken skulls.

All of this is a pre­am­ble for my obser­va­tions on Novem­ber 17, a day of action in New York City. This day was called months ago, as a com­mem­o­ra­tion of two months of occu­pa­tion, but it took on added sig­nif­i­cance after the evic­tion of Zuc­cotti Park ear­lier that week. Now the ques­tion was whether the move­ment could out­last the occu­pa­tion. This was the ques­tion every­one was ask­ing, or at least the reporters, and there seemed to be reporters every­where. I spoke with four over the course of the day. More than my per­sonal moti­va­tion and back­ground, they wanted to know what I thought about the events of the day, what did they mean? The day had not even ended, we had not even learned that the New School was occu­pied or that over 30,000 peo­ple would gather in Foley Square, but it was impor­tant to inter­pret pre­emp­tively, in advance of the day’s events.

The inter­rup­tion of the dom­i­nant nar­ra­tive is an impor­tant event. It is a great accom­plish­ment to get pun­dits and politi­cians to talk about inequal­ity and exploita­tion; to see the media dis­cuss what it is usu­ally so ded­i­cated to obscur­ing – inequal­ity, exploita­tion, and the point­less suf­fer­ing of so many. Inter­rupt­ing the dom­i­nant nar­ra­tive is not the same thing as con­trol­ling it, how­ever, and the lat­ter is nearly impos­si­ble. The indi­vid­u­als who police protests, defend­ing the win­dows of Bank of Amer­ica and Whole Foods against rocks and paint with their fists, are try­ing to do this, as are those who would cast out every home­less per­son from occu­pa­tions all over the coun­try. Such attempts to “con­trol the mes­sage,” to appear non­vi­o­lent and respectable at all costs, are futile. Win­dows will get bro­ken, and there is no end to what can be con­strued as vio­lence, link­ing arms being the lat­est. More­over, they end up repro­duc­ing all too quickly the very struc­tures of dom­i­na­tion that are being resisted. They are dic­ta­tor­ships with­out the pro­le­tariat.

This does not mean that any event, any inter­rup­tion, must then become the play­thing of the dom­i­nant forces. It does mean, how­ever, that one has to extend the inter­rup­tion as much as pos­si­ble, cre­ate new ways of dis­turbing the dom­i­nant nar­ra­tives and ideas. I saw two in New York on that day. The first was seem­ingly small, the Occupy the Sub­way action, which brought the “people’s mic” and sto­ries about unem­ploy­ment, debt, and pre­car­i­ous exis­tence onto sub­way cars, cut­ting through the fil­ters that sep­a­rate peo­ple from each other. The sec­ond was the mas­sive pro­jec­tion onto the Ver­i­zon build­ing, a beau­ti­ful work of polit­i­cal poetry with the cen­tral mes­sage, “We are Win­ning.”

While the two worked in oppo­site direc­tions, one cut­ting through the spec­ta­cle and the other cre­at­ing its own spec­ta­cle on a mas­sive cor­po­rate edi­fice, they both con­tributed to a cen­tral task, build­ing col­lec­tiv­ity, form­ing in con­crete ways, the “We” of the 99%. One cre­ated lat­eral con­nec­tions, the other cre­ated an image of power, of pos­si­bil­ity, that is just as impor­tant: peo­ple act out of sol­i­dar­ity and a sense of their own power. Finally, in this task of inter­rupt­ing and break­ing dom­i­nant nar­ra­tives, a task that is insep­a­ra­ble from cre­at­ing new ways of mak­ing sense and relat­ing, one can­not dis­count the way in which the loss of the system’s legit­i­macy works to under­mine itself as well. On Novem­ber 17 I saw police lash out in acts that seemed more like rage than even orga­nized repres­sion, punch­ing peo­ple behind bar­ri­cades and forcibly grab­bing peo­ple from crowds. Oth­ers saw this as well, live or on YouTube, and with this another nar­ra­tive falls, that of the police as neu­tral guardian of order.

We are repeat­edly asked what this event, this evic­tion, this gen­eral strike, means for the Occupy Move­ment. Per­haps we should also ask what this move­ment means for the nar­ra­tives that legit­i­mate exist­ing power struc­tures.

Jason Read is Assoc­iate Pro­fes­sor of Phi­los­o­phy at the Uni­ver­sity of South­ern Maine. He is the author of The Micro-Pol­i­tics of Cap­i­tal: Marx and the Pre­his­tory of the Present and is cur­rently work­ing on a book on the pol­i­tics and polit­i­cal econ­omy of transin­di­vid­u­al­ity for His­tor­i­cal Mate­ri­al­ism.

Author of the article

is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern Maine. He is the author of The Micro-Politics of Capital: Marx and the Prehistory of the Present and blogs at Unemployed Negativity.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.

Please comment with your real name using good manners.

Leave a Reply