Occupy Wall Street’s proclamation of solidarity has been its most identifiable message. Though individual Occupiers disagree about the focus and though the entire movement faces criticism for a lack of clear direction, there is never a dispute about the slogan: “We are the 99%.” According to Richard Schechner, NYU professor of Performance Studies, this slogan demonstrates that the movement’s “unifying theme was solidarity” in favor of a “redistribution of wealth and power,” in a way that “people of all persuasions” can stand behind (Schechner 9). But despite its projected image of inclusivity, the Occupy Wall Street movement has not really succeeded in accurately representing “99%” of Americans. Led largely by young white men, there is actually an underrepresentation of women and racial minorities in Zuccotti Park.
This is not because these communities are currently facing less economic problem, but because they cannot relate to the message Occupy sends. The rise of the “(Un)Occupy” slogan demonstrates that the Occupy and its practices are especially failing to reach out to people of color. Although minority communities are ready to challenge the same corporate malfeasance that Occupy is fighting, they still feel alienated by the movement’s name, privilege, and potential to encroach on or co-opt already existing movements.
Many criticisms of Occupy Wall Street have focused on the name of the movement itself and on the problematic connotations of the word “occupy.” At first glance, it is easy to see why the word “occupy” was initially adopted. W. J. T. Mitchell, Professor of English and Art History at the University of Chicago and editor of the interdisciplinary journal Critical Inquiry, considers the word appropriate because it communicates an intent to “occupy rather than to merely demonstrate and go home” (Mitchell 14). Mitchell traces the word back to the Roman trope of “occupatio”, the “tactic of anticipating an adversary’s arguments by preempting them, taking the initiative in a space where one knows in advance that there will be resistance and counterarguments” (Mitchell 10). It is thus, a demand in its own right for presence and an insistence on being heard. The rhetoric does not just take possession of empty space in an argument but also provokes a response and frames it in advance. In the same way, Occupy Wall Street separates itself from temporary, transitory gatherings and asserts that it is a “manifestation of a long term resolve” (Mitchell 14).
Nevertheless, some protesters who otherwise agree with the movement find the language problematic. Activists in regions with a significant presence of indigenous people, such as Puerto Rico, New Mexico, and Hawaii, are rallying behind the slogan of “(Un)Occupy.” In her remarks at Washington Square Park, civil rights activist and scholar Angela Davis urged protestors using the “occupy” slogan to be aware of the “genocidal occupation of indigenous lands,” “violent and brutal occupations” in other countries, and “military occupation” (Davis 133). It’s easy to see why this will alienate people who originate from formerly colonized nations or have been historically oppressed by imperialist forces. According to Davis, we must, therefore, “challenge language,” “transform language” and eventually change the meaning of “occupy” into “something that is beautiful, something that brings community together, something that calls for love, happiness, and hope” (Davis 133). Mitchell, too, acknowledges the importance of transforming a word so connected to “military conquest and neocolonialism” (Mitchell 12). He thinks that the movement is actually seeking to occupy a “global system that has oppressed and impoverished the vast majority of the world's population” and to reclaim the public space for “justice, democracy, and equality” (Mitchell 9).
Other activists, however, are still skeptical of these claims. Among their concerns, they cite the lack of representation of people of color. Even Schechner, who feels positively about Occupy, acknowledges that that many are suspicious of the movement because it favors those “already occupying places of privilege,” such as “educated whites, mostly urban, largely under 40” (Schechner 9). For a movement claiming to represent “the 99%,” Occupy is not very diverse. Washington Post columnist Stacey Patton illustrates in her article, “Why African Americans aren’t Embracing Occupy,” the representation gap by citing recent surveys. She finds that “although African Americans are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population,” they “make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street” (Patton 2). She finds this surprising, because she thought that the movement should particularly resonate with black Americans, who, on average, are facing higher unemployment and other economic struggles than the average white household. Additionally, she notes that “African Americans share white Americans’ anger about corporate greed and corruption, and also have a rich history of protesting injustice in United States” (Patton 1). Activist Andrea Lim notices a similar trend in other communities. While dining in Chinatown, located less than a mile from Zuccotti Park, she realizes that the community, which “has never stopped being economically, politically, and culturally marginalized,” paradoxically has “nearly no presence in OWS” (Lim 100). This prompts discussion of why there is such little representation of minority groups in Occupy Wall Street. It brings the inclusivity of the movement into question. Are the practices of the movement alienating certain groups?
This leads many to believe that the common attitudes, such as the ease with which Occupiers justify the use of “occupy,” is reflective a larger privilege affecting the movement. Activist Emahunn Raheem Ali Campbell argues in his essay, “A Critique of The Occupy Movement from a Black Occupier,” that “white privilege” functions within the movement to “close safe spaces for people of color to join and effectively participate” (Campbell 42). Campbell recalls how he is often invited to Occupy “teach-in” events to speak about the prison industrial complex. After the discussions, he and other minority speakers agreed that they felt “tokenized and that [their] respective discussions would not have a direct positive impact on [their] efforts” (Campbell 46). In this sense, movement is simply content with bringing in people of color or members of the LGBQT community to speak on intersectionality, but has no further plans of addressing internal racism on a large scale. In an other example of privilege, Campbell admits that he was “struck by how Occupiers attempted to forge an alliance with the police by chanting, ‘We are the ninety-nine percent! So are you! You are one of us’” (Campbell 49). Speaking from his own experiences, Campbell says “for black and brown people, it is hard to stomach how the police are of us, regardless of their working-class orientation and occupation” (Campbell 49). If there is widespread ignorance of issues affecting people of color, such as stop-and-frisk, racial profiling, police surveillance, and mass incarceration, then the movement stops being a safe space for many minority groups.
Aside from trying to ally with “the system,” Occupy appears to sometimes encroach on other, long-established social movements and spaces. From his involvement in the movement, Campbell notices, “some local activists view Occupiers not only as usurpers of decades-long struggles, but also and unfortunately as “occupiers” of their cities (Campbell 48).” Because of Occupy’s presence in areas such as Brooklyn, “one may argue that Occupiers have ‘occupied’ an action started by an organization that people of color led, silencing their voices in the process” (Campbell 49). Though Occupiers take projects of anti-imperialism and anti-militarization seriously, it’s possible that “through language and activism,” they might actually reconstitute these very practices (Campbell 47). In neighborhoods where residents are wary of gentrification, a new wave of protestors of more privileged backgrounds is seen as a potential threat to the identity, diversity, and vibrancy of local activism. Historically, the “high joblessness and social disenfranchisement that is new to most of the Wall Street protesters” has been a “fact of life” for many communities (Patton 2). Additionally, Black America’s fight for income equality is not just isolated to Wall Street, but “is a matter of day-to-day survival” (Patton 2). The residents of Chinatown share similar views. “Why should Chinatown jump aboard,” asks Lim, when “the community has self-organized for over a century against racial discrimination and for economic and social security without much outside recognition or help?” (Lim 104). African Americans, Asian-Americans, and many other minority groups alike had been forced to form their own systems of political organization and economic and social support because they were historically excluded from mainstream American society. They still have their own battles against tenant evictions, police brutality and street crime to fight and cannot afford to have their own struggles sidelined by bigger, more amorphous Occupy movement. In this sense, the smaller, ethnicity-based activist groups understand the message of Occupy very well. In fact, they have been fighting the same battle for much longer than OWS has. But does Occupy understand these groups?
Even more important is the question of whether Occupy can risk continue to remain ignorant of concerns affecting these communities. Is this possible when inclusivity is intrinsically related to the eventual success of Occupy Wall Street? Solidarity is a goal the movement set for itself. Our society cannot afford to lose any of the momentum Occupy has gained or any of the revolutionary acts it has inspired. Different ethnic communities can benefit from aligning themselves with a larger movement to raise more awareness for their struggles. But this cannot be accomplished unless Occupy decides to actively align itself with the different movements. If it does not do so, then it is in danger of “collapsing under its own weight of white privilege” (Campbell 50). Occupy has woken up our nation with its challenge to the 1%. Now it has to challenge itself. Only after Occupiers have renounced using the same divisive methods of the 1% can they stand with all people and rally behind “We are the 99%.”
Works Cited
Campbell, Emahunn Raheem Ali. "A Critique of the Occupy Movement from a BlackOccupier." The Black Scholar No. 4, Special Anniversary Conference Issue: A Celebration of the First Forty Years (Winter 2011): 42-51.
Davis, Angela. "Un(Occupy) - Remarks at Washington Square Park, October 30."Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America. Ed. Astra Taylor and Keith Cessen. London: Verso, 2011. 133. Print.
Lim, Audrea. "Chinatown is Nowhere." Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America. Ed. Astra Taylor and Keith Cessen. London: Verso, 2011. 99-104. Print.
Mitchell, W. J. T. "Image, Space, Revolution: The Arts of Occupation." Critical Inquiry.
Vol. 39, No. 1 (Autumn 2012): 8-32. Patton, Stacey. "Why African Americans Aren’t Embracing Occupy Wall Street." The Washington Post 25 Nov. 2011
Schechner, Richard. "Occupy Solidarity." TDR (1988-) Vol. 56. No.1 (Spring 2012): 7-9.
Annotated Bibliography
Campbell, Emahunn Raheem Ali. "A Critique of the Occupy Movement from a Black Occupier." The Black Scholar No. 4, Special Anniversary Conference Issue: A Celebration of the First Forty Years (Winter 2011): 42-51. I found this source to be very eye-opening, as it is a first-hand account from someone who is involved in the movement and still sees much progress to be made. An interesting point he brings up is that due to Occupy’s presence in areas such as Brooklyn, “one may argue that Occupiers have ‘occupied’ an action started by an organization that people of color led, silencing their voices in the process.” From his involvement in the movement, he notices that “some local activists view Occupiers not only as usurpers of decades-long struggles, but also and unfortunately as “occupiers” of their cities (48).” Campbell also admits that he was “struck by how Occupiers attempted to forge an alliance with the police by chanting, ‘We are the ninety-nine percent! So are you! You are one of us.’ Based on his own experiences, Campbell says that “for black and brown people, it is hard to stomach how the police are of us, regardless of their working-class orientation and occupation” (49).
Davis, Angela. "Un(Occupy) - Remarks at Washington Square Park, October 30."Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America. Ed. Astra Taylor and Keith Cessen. London: Verso, 2011. 133. Print. This speech was my original inspiration to learn more about this topic. According to Davis, we must “challenge language,” “transform language” and be aware of all the "resonances of the language we use.” The last point is especially important to Davis because the word “occupy” brings to mind the “genocidal occupation of indigenous lands” and violent military occupations in other countries. Davis urges Occupiers to take the meaning of the word into their own hands and change its meaning into “something that is beautiful, something that brings community together,” and “something that calls for love, happiness, and hope.”
Mitchell, W. J. T. "Image, Space, Revolution: The Arts of Occupation." Critical Inquiry. Vol. 39, No. 1 (Autumn 2012): 8-32. There is a very interesting analysis of what the movement stands for and how OWS is actually seeking to redefine what it means to “occupy.” Mitchell considers the word “occupy” to be appropriate because communicates an intent to intent to “occupy rather than to merely demonstrate and go home.” This movement is not a temporary, transitory gathering but the “manifestation of a long term resolve.” According to Mitchell, the movement paradoxically performed the “occupation of the world by a global system that has oppressed and impoverished the vast majority of the world's population.” Mitchell considers this to be a “reversal” of the meaning of the word “occupation” from its principal connections with “military conquest and neocolonialism.” This new occupation, therefore, is seeking to reclaim the public space for “justice, democracy, and equality.” I can definitely connect this to the end of Angela Davis’s speech, in which she urges Occupiers to redefine the wordinto “something that is beautiful, something that brings community together.”
Patton, Stacey. "Why African Americans Aren’t Embracing Occupy Wall Street." The Washington Post 25 Nov. 2011: Patton’s article was among the sources cited by Campbell. She outlines why it is worth noting that certain minority groups, particularly African Americans, aren’t represented in the Occupy movement. She cites a survey that found that “African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street.” She argues that the movement should particularly resonate with black Americans because they, on average, are facing higher unemployment and other economic struggles than the average white households. This prompts her to ask: “African Americans share white Americans’ anger about corporate greed and corruption, and blacks have a rich history of protesting injustice in United States. So why aren’t they Occupying?” The rest of the article tries to find the answer through comments made by popular commentators and media personalities. Most sources agree that black Americans struggle with theseproblems on a “day-to-day” basis and interesting is comedian JohnMinus’s explanation: “High joblessness and social disenfranchisement is new to most of the Wall Street protesters. It’s been a fact of life for African Americans since the beginning.” His comment follows the logic in our Occupy! text that explained why residents of Chinatown weren’t participating in the movement.
Schechner, Richard. "Occupy Solidarity." TDR (1988-) Vol. 56. No.1 (Spring 2012): 7- 9. Though Schechner finds the attempt to find commonality between the “99%” a positive trend, he explores a lot of the criticisms of Occupy. This article talks about the difference between “particularist” and “solidarity” movements. He cites that since the 1980s at least, there has been “no one over-arching progressive movement issue.“ He cites that many people are suspicious of the movement because it favors those “already occupying places of privilege,” such as “educated whites, mostly urban, largely under 40.”