The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement witnessed in recent months is one of the most significant socio-political events to have taken place in the history of the United States of America. Measuring merely by the weight of popular support and enthusiastic participation evinced by the movement, it could be equated with the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s Rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s respectively. But nothing in popular culture currents of recent years would have led to an anticipation of this sudden collective uprising by a majority of American citizens. The protests and public discussions were centered on the flawed policy priorities of the body politic. It also addressed the greed-based actions of Corporate America which put profits ahead of social responsibility. The failures of the political and business establishments have hurt a vast majority of ordinary Americans – the other 99%, as the slogan proclaims.
This research essay will argue that the OWS movement is nothing short of a nation getting in touch with its revolutionary spirit. After all, the short history of the country, starting with its fight for independence, is studded with movements of public collective action that have induced progressive changes in the political, legal and cultural domains. The OWS movement is the most recent in that noble tradition of civil disobedience and collective public action that the country is so proud of. But how history will judge and rate the effectiveness of OWS will depend on how well public grievances are translated into meaningful changes to government policies. Upon it will rest the stability and viability of the country as well as the rest of the world.
Having legitimate grievances is one thing, but to willfully express them against powerful institutions is quite another. It is still hard to believe that this bold first step in the fight against corporate greed had at last been taken. Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, which is in the vicinity of NYSE, was the site chosen for the historic moment. On 17th of September, 2011, a thousand-strong group of demonstrators showed up to the call to Occupy Wall Street. From that point on, each day, at least a few hundred people took turns to spend the night in the park so as to keep a round-the-clock vigil. Although a few hundred people may not sound like a lot, the very idea to occupy Wall Street was both revolutionary and provocative. ‘We are the 99%’ is a perfect slogan for the movement, for not only did it make clear the situation of gross inequality in wealth, but also suggested the great potential power in the hands of the majority – the power of numbers.
“Over the course of the weeks that followed, many others visited Zuccotti Park, also known as Liberty Square or Liberty Plaza. Once there, it was difficult to remain a bystander or spectator. Everyone was invited to participate directly in the process of determining what Occupy Wall Street was all about, through the democracy of the “General Assembly,” daily meetings at which collective decisions were made in an open, participatory manner.” (Kunstler 991)
A brief study of conditions that precipitated OWS reveals interesting insights. The glorifying symbol of modern day finance is that of the giant bronze statue of the Charging Bull – this is an iconic landmark in Wall Street. In an apt symbolic correspondence, the task undertaken by participants of OWS is nothing short of taming (or at least trying to tame) the raging bull. This exercise on part of the general public was highly warranted, for the economy (both domestic and international) was in a bad way. The major stock market crash of October 2008, with the subsequent bailouts of private banks with public funds, high rate of unemployment, widening gap between the wealthy and the poor were all contributing factors. The atmosphere during September of 2011 was one of discontent and hopelessness “among those who bore the brunt of disastrous financial decisions that appeared to have enriched the few at the expense of the many. To occupy Wall Street was an empowering way to give voice to this outrage. It was also an assertion of control over Wall Street as a symbol, and the power of the people to change its meaning.” (Kunstler 990)
The OWS, which started as an innocuous gathering in Zuccotti Park in New York City, rapidly caught the public imagination, as it spread across the country swiftly and effectively. Author Amy Dean’s journal article ‘Occupy Wall Street: A Protest against a Broken Economic Compact’ (first published in Harvard International Review, 2012) offers insight and rationale behind his great mass movement. It goes to the root of the grievances by OWS participants and consolidates their claims through supporting statistics and poll findings. Not only is the article systematic and scientific, but was published in the distinguished Harvard International Review, making it credible and useful for research. The author addresses the crux of the problem, namely that of the ‘broken economic compact’. She notes how “the Occupy movement is a protest against a broken economic compact that reaches into the very middle of America and that is resonating in other parts of the world as well”. (Dean 12) Rather than being an arm-chair investigation of the landmark event, the author gives first-hand accounts of the unfolding movement from its epi-centre in New York City. As she observes in the introduction, during the early months when OWS maintained tent cities in lower Manhattan and other metropolitan areas around the country, these abodes attracted people with counter-cultural and radical political beliefs. Watching these developments on the Television, one got the impression that the assembled group is from fringes of society and not from the American mainstream. But this innocuous looking motley crew soon swelled up in numbers and in no time made their voices being heard. (Dean 12)
Occupy Wall Street thus a crucial reality check for a nation that is on the brink of economic and social disintegration. The movement showed up a mirror to the nation’s leaders and reminded them of their misplaced priorities and unethical behavior. But the initial impact of the movement will fade quickly if protestors fail to escalate and maintain exposure to the issues. Regardless of what strategies they adopt moving forward, “they have already left behind a transformed framework for public debate in America. Occupy Wall Street has struck a chord with a wide swath of the country by highlighting issues that had been all but hidden in mainstream news coverage prior to the street protests.” (Dean 13)
To analyze the central slogan of the campaign, the figure 99 percent is only approximate. In fact, a vast concentration of the nation’s wealth is held by the top quintile of 1% of the American population. This makes the protest by the 99.90% against the remaining 0.10% of the population. This speaks for the moral righteousness of the outrage. By practically bringing an overwhelming majority of the population under one genuine cause, the movement acquired legitimacy. To illustrate the point, let us consider some statistics pertaining to income distribution in the United States:
“By definition, practically all of us are in the “99 percent” of Americans with annual incomes below $506,553. Of that 99% of Americans, about 6%–or one out of fifteen–live in extreme poverty, defined within the United States as having income of less than half of the official poverty line. The number of Americans with incomes at or below the national poverty line is even greater, at fifty-one million. The Census Bureau reports that about one-third of the American population has incomes below 150% of the poverty line. These working households typically “live paycheck to paycheck,” with little to spare for extras beyond basic household necessities. The remaining two-thirds of Americans, labeled “other” in the reports, are above the 33% identified as poor but below the 1% defined by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement as excessively wealthy.” (Davis 931)
The reason why OWS is important is because the economic injustices cannot carry on any longer. People are tired and irate about the direction the country has been moving toward in the last few decades and they are desperate for a change. The OWS taps into this fount of collective angst and gives vent to them through civilized and non-violent protest. The genius of the OWS movement is in bringing together sections of the demography that had historically resisted such unity. For example, OWS managed to unite economically disparate groups, “from the bottom 6% of incomes up to the ninety-ninth percentile, around issues of economic inequality.” (Davis 932) Demographically, this is a broad grouping that had not lent itself to common causes and solidarity in the past. Yet, such is the verity of the message of OWS that workers’ rights activists, socialist/anarchist organizations, representatives of the very poor, had all come together for the common cause. Citing comparable examples from history, one can gain perspective on the strength of non-partisanship in OWS. For example,
“in the 1960s, poor people in the United States, with liberal middle class allies, mobilized around efforts to address poverty, resulting in the Welfare Rights Movement of the 1960s that followed on the national War on Poverty. Efforts to explicitly expand the welfare rights movement to include workers, and thus transition toward a movement addressing broader issues of economic justice, foundered. From the opposite direction, efforts to expand more middle class movements to include the poor have also failed. For example, the significant successes of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr., could not be replicated when Reverend King turned his attention to the rights to adequate housing and the Poor People’s Campaign shortly before his death.” (Davis 932)
This brings into light the political and social significance of OWS apart from its economic implications. To put the socio-political importance of OWS in perspective, one has to compare its reach and participation to similar people’s movements of recent times. The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign of the 1990s and 2000s is a suitable example. This campaign spoke to the American conscience to take substantial measures in alleviating the travails of the very poor. Some practical measures as donating old and unused real-estate to the poor have been suggested. This was a movement led and run by the homeless community in the country. Brave as this movement was in its propagation, it failed to engage higher income citizens in their activism apart from taking their donations and volunteering. The mission statement of the campaign, namely, “‘to unit[e] the poor across color lines as a leadership base for a broad movement to abolish poverty’ – further emphasizes the primary focus on the poor, without a clear appeal to those who identify as workers or members of the middle class.” (Davis 933) This explains why this movement could not gather momentum the way OWS was able to do. It also explains why OWS is unique and special in terms of strengthening the American social fabric and sense of solidarity. In this respect, the historical significance of OWS is on par with that of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, although the domain of protest was social and not economic in the latter.
Another key indication of the centrality of OWS in American public discourse is its infiltration into art and popular culture. Indeed, creativity and political resistance have always found association during key moments in American history. For example, a prominent example from twentieth century history was the theatrical activity of the civil rights and antiwar activists of the 1960s. Going a little further back, the mass orchestrated labor revolts of the early twentieth century formed the content of films and theatre of the time. Expanding this point, OWS supporter Mike Daisey, the monologist and raconteur, observes:
“The idea of creative resistance is a vital one, because resistance needs different paths. If your only way of resisting is violent, things don’t tend to work out long-term; violent resistance tends to consume itself. And if your only way of resisting is nonviolent and passive, the people doing the act of dispersing you, they learn ways to adapt to that. Art and theatre is actually a very effective way to connect with other humans in a space. Art and cultural resistance have to be part of the movement to help make that point. These theatrical images create an urgency that helps people understand issues on a visceral level.” (Daisey, as quoted in Wallenberg 28)
It is in recognition of the power of art to construct socio-political change that many eminent personalities from American theatre and literature came out to support OWS. Veteran performance artist Penny Arcade and anti-consumerism activist Reverend Billy (aka Bill Talen) spoke passionately and intelligently to those assembled in the OWS site. The East Village-based Foundry Theatre provided selections from its adaptation of the 1937 labor revue Pins & Needles. Music performances were given by Rude Mechanical Orchestra, the investigative theatre company The Civilians as well as the New York City Labor Chorus. The Civilians are an interesting theatre group, in that one of its senior directors Steve Cosson has mooted the idea of a play about the OWS movement tentatively titled Occupy Your Mind. Another theatrical piece related to the Occupy Wall Street movement is Let Me Ascertain Yotty. (Wallenberg 27)
Another proof of the gravity and historic importance of OWS is its impact outside the United States. Apart from the Global Solidarity Movement governing issues facing the global south, no other common cause has united people across nationalities, ethnicities and political systems as OWS has done. Conversely, OWS movement has derived its tactics and mediums of protest from other successful international resistance movements. For example, when the magazine Adjusters, which adheres to an anti-consumerist stance, called its readership to action and participate in OWS. In their official pronouncement to their readership in their website, the editors of Adjusters referred to Egypt’s Arab Spring uprising. The rhetoric went ‘Are you ready for a Tahrir moment?’ Hence, while Occupy Wall Street had more home grown precedents like the “massive Wisconsin protests in early 2011 by public employee unions defending their collective bargaining rights, Occupy is simultaneously viewed as part of a worldwide labor and human rights struggle that’s shining a light on the inequities of unfettered global capitalism.” (O’Rourke 7)
Another barometer of popular currents is online social media. Social networking and micro-blogging sites such as Facebook and Twitter were effective vehicles in carrying the message and spirit of OWS movement. There was also the OWS official website, whose inflow of traffic was unending. Their cumulative effect is comparable to that of the peasant revolution in early twentieth century Russia. Though Occupy Wall Street is one of a sort economic protest in the American context, it falls under a long list of public revolts starting from Sparta’s in the fifth century BC. From then till now, technologies have advanced and cultures have evolved, yet the basis of protest, namely, ‘The few have a lot. The many have little.’ has not changed. OWS is a reflection of this sad fact.
Reading key historical events longitudinally, we see how political revolutions usually have an impact on foreign policy. When the protestors lose, as they usually do, the status quo is maintained, and the situation remains as bad as it had been. To the contrary, when the underdogs in the struggle do manage to win – the victory for Chairman Mao being a classic example – things could prove to be worse. Yet, uprisings from below are a risk worth affording. In other words, while
“there isn’t much good to be said about the origins or the outcomes of peasant revolts, but there are good reasons they keep happening. Economic distress equals political unrest, on the perfectly reasonable assumption that politics and economics are joined at the hip. No matter if the wrong Siamese twin often takes the beating–any political unrest will have some influence on foreign policy.” (O’Rourke 6)
Hence, in the final assessment, Occupy Wall Street is a much needed public unrest. Irrespective of how effective its message will translate into public policy is an open question that time will answer. But in the context of what it has done to unite diverse demographic groups within the population, and for its role in creating optimism out of an atmosphere of gloom, it is already a success. While the pitch and tenor of the movement has somewhat mellowed since its vociferous beginnings in September 2011, its entry in the annals of history is already registered. At the minimum it has given a feeling of hope and opened up discussions on alternatives to the prevailing economic model. But it is in the interests of all Americans as well as the future viability of the human race, that the impressive beginning to OWS is taken to their proper conclusion. It is equally important to realize the vision as it was to first advertise it.
Works Cited
Davis, Martha F. “Occupy Wall Street and International Human Rights.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 39.4 (2012): 931+. Print.
Dean, Amy. “Occupy Wall Street: A Protest against a Broken Economic Compact.”Harvard International Review 33.4 (2012): 12+. Print.
Kunstler, Sarah. “The Right to Occupy – Occupy Wall Street and the First Amendment.”Fordham Urban Law Journal 39.4 (2012): 989+. Print.
O’Rourke, P. J. “Are the Peasants Revolting? Occupy Wall Street Takes on the World.”World Affairs January-February 2012: 6+. Print.
Wallenberg, Christopher. “To Catch the Conscience of a Nation: Occupy Wall Street’s Inherent Theatricality Is Bolstered by Artistry from Cadres of the Committed.”American Theatre Apr. 2012: 26+. Print.