Occupy's Growing Pains--Reflections of an Insider

By Shepherd Bliss

Published by Portside
March 15, 2012

I have been active in the historic Occupy movement since it
first erupted onto public space. I have attended numerous
meetings, rallies, teach-ins and other events, as well as
written supportively about it. Since the Sept. 17 opening at
Occupy Wall Street in New York, I have been excited and
ignited by this incredible uprising.

Recently I have become frustrated by some of its hostile
interpersonal dynamics. We could benefit from more
tolerance, compassion, and respect for differences within
the millions of members of the 99% that we claim to
represent.

My previously published writings about Occupy all have been
exclusively about its substantial  accomplishments--opening
a wide national/ international conversation on wealth
inequality, challenging corporate personhood, banks, and
foreclosures, mobilizing thousands of people, energizing
youth, and creating community. I am grateful to Occupy for
these and other significant political and social
contributions, which have already changed history. They have
also inspired me personally.

Though reluctant to address my concerns with Occupy's
problematic infighting publicly, I do so because of Occupy's
guiding value of transparency. Also because I plan to
continue within this mass movement, rather than become
another burned-out drop-out. Reports from Occupy groups
elsewhere indicate similar problems to those where I live.
Occupy is too important to let it fragment; we need unity
through diversity, rather than divisiveness.

My reflections emerge from nearly half a year "being on the
ground" within Occupy. I seek to deal with the good and the
not-so-good, or even bad. The good and the bad often arrive
together, or follow soon upon each other.

Critical thinking, self-criticism, and a dialectical process
of thesis-antithesis-synthesis have guided other movements.
Such restorative, regenerating processes could benefit
Occupy groups. Or they run the risk of remaining small
groups, rather than growing to include a wider diversity of
views and backgrounds within the large 99%. I have made such
observations within Occupy circles, to which some have
listened; others have dismissed me as "being on the other
side."

An elder, retired member of one of the Occupy affinity
groups that I am in reminded us of the following from the
sixties: "The personal is political, but the political
should not be personal." This phrase helps me avoid bitter
infighting and try to de-personalize inappropriate attacks.

Occupy seeks to speak truth to power, so it is inconsistent
to then attack each other personally. Though Occupy is about
activism, introspection on how we communicate can enhance
resilience, making us more effective. Differentiating
between criticisms and attacks would be essential. In our
passion to improve things, expressing criticisms as
constructive messages that we would respond well to if they
directed at us would be helpful.

Chile and Love

Chilean-American Ariel Dorfman's essay "Confessions of an
Unrepentant Exile" in The Nation magazine (Nov. 9, 2011)
stimulated these reflections. Unhistorical perspectives
within Occupy concern me. Dorfman's essay--which appeared to
be from his forthcoming "Feeding on Dreams" book--provided
an historical frame that I partly share with him. I lived
briefly in Chile during the early 1970s.

Occupy re-ignited the dreams I began having half a century
ago, during the l960s, when there was a similar (though
distinct) historic uprising of democratic aspirations to
create a more just world. That mass movement organized me to
resign my commission in the U.S. Army, which was waging an
unjust war on Vietnam. Occupy reminded me of who I am, the
values that have guided my adult life, and the courage to
re-assert them.

As I have watched the president--the 1%'s top manager--and
the 1%'s bought Congress and bought Supreme Court pass and
uphold more laws restricting freedoms and listened to
Republican candidates for the presidency, I am concerned
that the U.S. might be approaching a similar collapse of
democracy as occurred in Chile. There are, of course, major
differences. A similarity is how polarized the U.S. now is
and how polarized Chile was then.

"I joined a million marchers who poured into the streets of
Santiago to celebrate the third anniversary of our electoral
victory" Dorfman begins his article, writing about Sept. 4,
1973. This is in a country of only a few million people. A
week later, Gen. Augusto Pinochet was responsible for the
assassination of the democratically-elected President
Salvador Allen de, on the other Sept. 11. This launched two
decades of terror throughout Latin America's Southern Cone.
It is still recovering.

As a youth, I was thrilled to participate in demonstrations
of hundreds of thousands in Chile, as I was to be last fall
with around 4,000 pro-Occupy people. But rather than growing
in support, as Allen de did in Chile, Occupy may be
declining. Yet Occupy may be the biggest threat that the
vulnerable 1%--because there are so few of them and
potentially so many of us--have had in a long time. We need
all the support we could get to prevail.

An historical antecedent of a decisive mass demonstration
here in the U.S. would be the l999 shut-down in Seattle of
the World Trade Organization (WTO); the WTO never really
recovered. That was only possible because 40,000 well-
organized people came from all over into the streets with
clear, de-centralized leadership. Blessings to them.

"Mad, Passionate Love--and Violence: Occupy Heads into the
Spring" by San Franciscan Rebecca Solnit has also guided my
reflections. It was published in late Feb. at
www.commondreams.org.

"When you fall in love," Solnit begins, "it's all about what
you have in common, and you can hardly imagine that there
are differences, let alone that you will quarrel over them,
or weep about them, or be torn apart by them." She adds,
that "if all goes well, (one can) struggle, learn, and bond
more strongly because of, rather than despite" these
differences. That is where Occupy has arrived, in my
opinion. Some people want to stay in the honeymoon and not
hear criticisms from which they could learn.

Whereas Solnit focuses on some of the political differences
within Occupy, I will focus on interpersonal attacks that
drive people away. Some creative, committed people have
marginalized themselves. Many meetings are poorly
facilitated. Some prefer free-for-alls where they can talk
on and on. People who still have jobs and families to care
for cannot stay as long, so those who are uncontained wear
others down.

Interpersonal Conflicts within Occupy

Anger, fear, and passion initiated Occupy. Some of that
anger and fear have now been turned on Occupy activists in
what might be described as "horizontal hostility" against
each other. Anger can help initiate things; it can also de-
mobilize, as can fear. Shadow sides of anger, fear, and
passion include destructive rage, paranoia, and dogma.

Occupy claims to represent the 99%. Yet it has been unable
to mobilize more than a small percentage of that large
constituency. Some have even begun a class struggle within
Occupy, pitting the poor and working class against the
middle class. Though still young, if Occupy learns from its
mistakes, it could broaden its appeal. Otherwise, it will
remain a footnote in history, rather than a sea change.
Perhaps Occupy is in its "terrible twos" and will soon
mature. We need to outgrow mean-spirited attacks and "my way
or the highway" attitudes.

Occupy claims to be "leaderless," which has values such as
being inclusive and de-centralized. But some activists seem
anti-leader. They oppose authority, any kind of authority,
rather than being against social injustice. They oppose
structure, mistaking it for hierarchy. Leader-ful
perspectives could be more helpful, as could an
understanding of ourselves as co-leaders who share
leadership and take responsibility for it. We would benefit
from learning how to work in teams, in spite of our American
hyper-individualism and inflated egos.

Some activists blame the system for all problems, rather
than take personal responsibility for one's own
shortcomings. Occupy often lacks follow-through and
discipline. Its guiding ideas can be stronger than their
implementation. Individuals in Occupy need to be accountable
for what they do, or fail to do.

It is too easy to blame one's opponents and the corporate
media and demonize them as "enemies." The successes of true
history changers--such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and
Nelson Mandela--occurred partly by their winning over some
of their adversaries, who became defectors from the
privileged and their protectors.

Occupy Wall Street was well-funded at the beginning by a
former Wall Street broker; a West Coast philanthropist
recently gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to media
projects by some of its activists. Welcoming potential
allies can strengthen Occupy. One has to be careful, of
course, not to accept compromising conditions and be co-
opted by funders.

Ironically, Occupy's guiding description of the 1% and the
99% was borrowed from the former head of the World Bank. "Of
the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%" titles Vanity Fair's May 11,
2011, article by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in
economics. "America's inequality distorts our society in
every conceivable way," he writes. This is "an inequality
even the wealthy will come to regret," Stiglitz predicts.
"As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one
question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to
America?" Come to America it did, through Occupy. He
concludes that the fate of the 1% "is bound up with how the
other 99 percent live."

Occupy too often alienates natural allies, both individuals
and groups, with dismissive dualisms such as "we are
radicals and they are liberals." Such good/bad, either/or,
black/white thinking polarizes and is not helpful to
building a mass movement. Groups and individuals can retain
their own political integrity and still enter alliances and
coalitions.

Some of the early responders to the Occupy call resist
expanding their base to include a wider number of
participants from the large and diverse 99%. Founders of
groups, movements, organizations, and institutions can cling
to remaining in charge, rather than share with others. The
necessary radical changes that Occupy advocates are not
likely to come easily or soon; it is important to have long-
term strategies, retain activists, and be sustainable.

What is currently happening within Occupy occurs in many
groups trying to work together, especially for social or
political change.  Authorities have hit Occupy hard,
including using divide and conquer tactics. We need to
develop mediation tools to continue to hang in there. Rather
than merely working toward conflict resolution, we can
strive for conflict transformation and accept appropriate,
non-personal conflicts as potentially helpful. Then Occupy
can move beyond the honeymoon stage to authentic community.

Occupy would benefit from remaining a place that touches
people and activates them, rather than decline into dis-
functionality. Rather than fighting each other, we need to
support each other and target the monopolization of wealth
by the 1%.

The problems outlined here can be solved. We can find ways
to stay together. Spring is arriving, so things will bloom
and blossom. Rather than contract, this is a time for Occupy
to expand and spread. We need to practice the transparency
that Occupy was founded on and deal with our "stuff," rather
than deny it.

The peace movement had similar problems in its infancy. As a
young soldier in the l960's I was called a "paid killer" and
"death merchant." Name-calling, shaming, and scapegoating--
which have been used recently within Occupy--are not the
best tools to facilitate change; they tend to create
resistance. Such tactics did not win me over to the peace
movement. Its strategies and messages eventually matured.
Activists started treating soldiers as human beings, which
helped many of us leave the military.

Perhaps the problems discussed here are a sign of maturation
beyond the honeymoon and digging in for the long haul of a
sustained mass movement for social justice. As for me, it is
too early to separate or divorce.

Occupy is a dynamic learning community. Within it one can
learn not only how broken the system is, but also how to
work together in teams. Many affinity groups and work groups
continue to do phenomenal work, which can deepen
friendships. I miss those who have left. Through Occupy I
have met people who will probably remain lifelong friends.

If we want to create a better world, we need to model it.
Occupy is a process, still in motion. What's next? Stay
tuned.

"Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars." Martin
Luther King, Jr., April 3, 1968.

[Shepherd Bliss farms, teaches college, and can be reached
at [log in to unmask] ]

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate