I've been worried since my last post that it might have been too negative, or given the mistaken impression that I'm not a huge fan of OWS after my visit, which is anything but the truth. Looking back, though, I think it's a pretty honest assessment of the camp itself. The main point, of course, was that there's a significant difference between the physical occupation of Zuccotti Park and the protest movement it symbolizes.
But now get ready, because this is going to be a long freakin' post, and roughly halfway in I start gushing like a weird little fangirl.
After spending some time in the park, we went to 60 Wall Street, a cavernous lobby space open to the public that protesters have been using for teach-ins and working group meetings. (This weekend they'll be having a public reading of Melville's short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" there). We went there to attend a teach-in, and sat down near a likely-looking circle. As it happens, they were OWS, but not the group we were looking for.
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, All I Ever Wanted
It's becoming more and more difficult for me to articulate my
thoughts on Occupy Wall Street and the larger Occupy movement, and I'm
not sure whether visiting Zuccotti Park made that more or less so. I
think it's fascinating and really important to think and talk about the
very complex issues facing the movement and to do so critically and
impartially despite my support. I am wary, however, of having any
criticism I might have used to discredit the movement, so I feel
increasingly pressure to make sure I'm speaking very precisely. There
were some parts of my visit to OWS that were a bit disheartening, but
others that were utterly transcendent. Whatever shortcomings I might
identify, I am, now more than ever, a huge supporter of this movement
and extremely impressed with the work that's being done and the
extraordinary level of complexity and organization within the group.
Since I tend to think of my experience there in two parts, I'm going to split this into two posts. For one thing, it'll just hang together better, and for another, I'm fully aware that I'm, well, wordy, to put it kindly. And so.
I guess as good a starting point as any is the peculiar semantic dissonance of the term "occupation" and the actual structure of the protest group. I've had a number of discussions lately with Occupy skeptics, and it's occurred to me that despite the fact that a huge majority (read thousands upon thousands) of participants and supporters are not actually, literally occupying tents in Zuccotti Park or other designated spaces across the country, the encampments, because they are a visible, tangible, 24-hour manifestation, are the sum total of evidence for how many people judge the movement.
On the one hand, I understand. If you aren't already predisposed to support it based on the vague ideas presented in the mainstream press, it's difficult to invest the time and energy necessary to understand the layers upon layers of nuance the movement engenders. And it's called "Occupy" which suggests (again, to those disinclined to really examine it) that somehow the physical presence of protesters in tent cities is somehow the point.
On the other hand, that's some pretty goddamn lazy thinking. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm group shy and took my time getting comfortable with Occupy, but I spent some time trying to get a feel for it, and found it relatively easy to get a handle on. Granted, as my high school history teacher taught me, I went directly for the primary source readings, occupywallstreet.org, occupytogether.org, participants blogs, etc., because if you want to know what people are talking about, you'll always to better to ask directly then to accept someone else's account of what they seemed to be saying. Particularly when "someone else" is a reporter who may or may not have done their research.
At any rate, this question of Occupy Wall Street (or anywhere else) as a physical occupation of a particular space versus a larger philosophical and/or off-site presence is important and I became more cognizant than ever that the physical occupations, while symbolically important, should not be the standard by which the movement is judged. Because if I were to judge OWS by Zuccotti Park, I would have been very disappointed.
Since I tend to think of my experience there in two parts, I'm going to split this into two posts. For one thing, it'll just hang together better, and for another, I'm fully aware that I'm, well, wordy, to put it kindly. And so.
I guess as good a starting point as any is the peculiar semantic dissonance of the term "occupation" and the actual structure of the protest group. I've had a number of discussions lately with Occupy skeptics, and it's occurred to me that despite the fact that a huge majority (read thousands upon thousands) of participants and supporters are not actually, literally occupying tents in Zuccotti Park or other designated spaces across the country, the encampments, because they are a visible, tangible, 24-hour manifestation, are the sum total of evidence for how many people judge the movement.
On the one hand, I understand. If you aren't already predisposed to support it based on the vague ideas presented in the mainstream press, it's difficult to invest the time and energy necessary to understand the layers upon layers of nuance the movement engenders. And it's called "Occupy" which suggests (again, to those disinclined to really examine it) that somehow the physical presence of protesters in tent cities is somehow the point.
On the other hand, that's some pretty goddamn lazy thinking. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm group shy and took my time getting comfortable with Occupy, but I spent some time trying to get a feel for it, and found it relatively easy to get a handle on. Granted, as my high school history teacher taught me, I went directly for the primary source readings, occupywallstreet.org, occupytogether.org, participants blogs, etc., because if you want to know what people are talking about, you'll always to better to ask directly then to accept someone else's account of what they seemed to be saying. Particularly when "someone else" is a reporter who may or may not have done their research.
At any rate, this question of Occupy Wall Street (or anywhere else) as a physical occupation of a particular space versus a larger philosophical and/or off-site presence is important and I became more cognizant than ever that the physical occupations, while symbolically important, should not be the standard by which the movement is judged. Because if I were to judge OWS by Zuccotti Park, I would have been very disappointed.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
It's the #Occupation That's Sweeping the Nation
There was a time when timidity kept me from joining things. As time goes on, it's become more curmudgeonly distaste than fear that keeps me flying solo. There are a number of political and social issues that move me, but I always end up disinterested in aligning myself with the official movements that support my positions.
There are a lot of reasons for that, but at the top of the list is my overwhelming aversion to the doctrinaire thinking and the kind of accidental complacency that creeps in when people align themselves under a philosophical flag.
Which is why I really like the #Occupy movement.
Given the respectful, dignified and diverse face of the this movement, the opposition's at a bit of a loss to find a critique that gains traction, but the standby seems to be the lack of coherent message, the old, "but they're not accomplishing anything," attack, which really misses the point.
For starters, there may not be a list of demands but guess what? This is a protest movement, not a hostage negotiation. As far as there not being a message...isn't a little bit farcical to pretend the message is indecipherable? The bottom line here is that the American public has become a marginalized minority by its theoretical representatives in government and the undue influence of corporations on same.
At this early point, the over-arching goal of this movement is to win the hearts and minds of the American public.
Because while morally dubious political decision-making and corporate malfeasance are the direct roots of our current malaise, we, the 99%, need to take a little bit of responsibility here too. I'm not talking "you can't complain if you don't vote," because voting is a pretty bare minimum of involvement and is, as we've seen, pretty ineffective. It's not enough to check a box on a ballot if elected officials know there'll be no consequences if they let us down. The corporate/political complicity that #Occupy stands against didn't happen suddenly, it happened incrementally and as a nation we were a) not paying attention or b) too lazy to respond beyond bitching to our friends.
There were people protesting, the proverbial canaries in the coal mine but average Americans were either a) not paying attention or b) too lazy to think critically about what they were saying. The message that corporations have a dangerous hold on politics is not a new idea. We've watched G8 summits and IMF meetings turn into chaos and rioting and we've seen a steady stream of furious hippies and punks railing against the man and his money and the control it has in our lives. The thing is, they were preaching to the choir, or at the very least to lapsed members of the congregation. The people who heard the message were the people who already understood the dynamic. The people who needed to hear it saw a bunch of very angry people with weird hair and insufficient personal hygiene with whom they had nothing in common.
So here we are, having fallen rather far into the rabbit hole of economic and social decline and finally, finally waking up and taking a stand. To my mind the real target of the #Occupy movement (at least at this early stage) is only nominally the 1% and its stranglehold on government. It's not so much against something as it is FOR a great awakening of the public consciousness, FOR the creation of an educated, engaged populace, FOR a sense of unity to replace the binary us vs. them, liberals vs. conservatives, white collar vs. blue collar narrative that has effectively paralyzed our capacity to act together. We've spent a very long time misdirecting a lot of dogmatic, impotent rage at each other instead of valuing the things we share and working to achieve common goals.
To change those attitudes, particularly as deeply entrenched as they are, is no mean feat. #Occupy has made impressive inroads already, and if it keeps on apace, it will have achieved something far more valuable than revoking corporate personhood or prosecuting some crooked CEO; it will have changed the culture that created the conditions for these shenanigans in the first place.
And so I'm putting aside my natural aversion to joining and heading down to New York next week. I have faith it's going to be engaging and inspiring. I'm excited to meet people and talk with them about what's going on and I'm sure there'll also be a bunch of people and things that drive me crazy. Which sounds like democracy. It sounds good.
There are a lot of reasons for that, but at the top of the list is my overwhelming aversion to the doctrinaire thinking and the kind of accidental complacency that creeps in when people align themselves under a philosophical flag.
Which is why I really like the #Occupy movement.
Given the respectful, dignified and diverse face of the this movement, the opposition's at a bit of a loss to find a critique that gains traction, but the standby seems to be the lack of coherent message, the old, "but they're not accomplishing anything," attack, which really misses the point.
For starters, there may not be a list of demands but guess what? This is a protest movement, not a hostage negotiation. As far as there not being a message...isn't a little bit farcical to pretend the message is indecipherable? The bottom line here is that the American public has become a marginalized minority by its theoretical representatives in government and the undue influence of corporations on same.
At this early point, the over-arching goal of this movement is to win the hearts and minds of the American public.
Because while morally dubious political decision-making and corporate malfeasance are the direct roots of our current malaise, we, the 99%, need to take a little bit of responsibility here too. I'm not talking "you can't complain if you don't vote," because voting is a pretty bare minimum of involvement and is, as we've seen, pretty ineffective. It's not enough to check a box on a ballot if elected officials know there'll be no consequences if they let us down. The corporate/political complicity that #Occupy stands against didn't happen suddenly, it happened incrementally and as a nation we were a) not paying attention or b) too lazy to respond beyond bitching to our friends.
There were people protesting, the proverbial canaries in the coal mine but average Americans were either a) not paying attention or b) too lazy to think critically about what they were saying. The message that corporations have a dangerous hold on politics is not a new idea. We've watched G8 summits and IMF meetings turn into chaos and rioting and we've seen a steady stream of furious hippies and punks railing against the man and his money and the control it has in our lives. The thing is, they were preaching to the choir, or at the very least to lapsed members of the congregation. The people who heard the message were the people who already understood the dynamic. The people who needed to hear it saw a bunch of very angry people with weird hair and insufficient personal hygiene with whom they had nothing in common.
So here we are, having fallen rather far into the rabbit hole of economic and social decline and finally, finally waking up and taking a stand. To my mind the real target of the #Occupy movement (at least at this early stage) is only nominally the 1% and its stranglehold on government. It's not so much against something as it is FOR a great awakening of the public consciousness, FOR the creation of an educated, engaged populace, FOR a sense of unity to replace the binary us vs. them, liberals vs. conservatives, white collar vs. blue collar narrative that has effectively paralyzed our capacity to act together. We've spent a very long time misdirecting a lot of dogmatic, impotent rage at each other instead of valuing the things we share and working to achieve common goals.
To change those attitudes, particularly as deeply entrenched as they are, is no mean feat. #Occupy has made impressive inroads already, and if it keeps on apace, it will have achieved something far more valuable than revoking corporate personhood or prosecuting some crooked CEO; it will have changed the culture that created the conditions for these shenanigans in the first place.
And so I'm putting aside my natural aversion to joining and heading down to New York next week. I have faith it's going to be engaging and inspiring. I'm excited to meet people and talk with them about what's going on and I'm sure there'll also be a bunch of people and things that drive me crazy. Which sounds like democracy. It sounds good.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Red Herrings and the Elephant in the Room
[In case you're just jumping in here, this is the second of three posts on marriage. The first can be read here.]
Oh, gay marriage.
For starters, let's acknowledge that this is a proxy war. Just like black civil rights activists weren't sitting at lunch counters because Woolworth's had the best fries in town and feminists don't protest at beauty pageants because they don't like swimsuits, the gay community and its allies are not pushing for marriage rights because they love gold jewelry and fancy cake. This is not about marriage, but as I noted in Part I, marriage is generally synonymous with legitimacy and it is a pretty perfect symbol of social acceptance for this particular group.
Consider it this way: most systematic discrimination is directed at a group of people who are then targeted individually for exhibiting whatever trait (skin color, boobs, etc.) identifies them as a member of that group. I can't think of another group off the top of my head in which the individual has no such identifying traits except for their romantic relationships with other members of that group. In other words, a celibate homosexual is a socially acceptable homosexual because there is no giveaway to the bigot that that person is someone they consider sub-human. Since marriage legitimizes relationships in the public eye, and relationships are the characteristic that defines gay otherness, marriage legitimizes being gay.
So yes, marriage rights is an elegantly practical way to focus the energy of activists and supporters in such a way that each seemingly small victory carries way more weight than whether or not someone qualifies for health insurance through their new spouse's employer.
While I'm more interested in the endgame of social acceptance, I don't want to minimize the real benefits bestowed by legal marriage, particularly where health is concerned. On the one hand there's the fiscal piece: In a weird coincidence, two gay men that I work had partners diagnosed with cancer in the past five years. One couple has been together for about 30 years, the other for about 10. Thanks to domestic partner benefits (which were negotiated into our contract very, very recently, just before these diagnoses), they were covered for treatment and are still covered for follow up treatment, CAT scans, etc. Unlike married couples, however, contributions for a domestic partner are still subject to federal taxes, making it more expensive for a domestic partner than a spouse. And if a health crisis ends tragically and the couple have shared assets or there is no will designating the partner as the heir, death can be crippling financially as well as emotionally.
[Quick digression here: Can I say how disappointing it is when otherwise reasonable people who don't have health insurance make the ridiculous argument that goes something like, "Oh boo hoo, they have to pay more. Well some of us don't have any insurance, so they should get over it." ? This might be my biggest all time pet peeve: IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU MORE LIKELY TO GET IT. Seriously, folks, if you think health care's important, then grow a pair and start working towards universal healthcare. The more people have insurance through their employer, the harder it is for other employers within that industry to argue that they can't swing it, so advocate positive change or just shut the fuck up, 'kay? --end digression]
Anyway, there's the fiscal piece, but also in the realm of health care, there's an access piece that is potentially devastating. Because southern Maine is awesome and generally pretty tolerant, both of my friends were treated well by doctors and staff during their partners' hospital stays and outpatient care, even in a Catholic hospital. The fact remains, however, that they are not legally family. Without hiring a lawyer and drafting paperwork explicitly granting each other the rights and benefits of a spouse, gay people can be denied access to updates and information and even basic physical access to the hospital room their partner is in. It wasn't until January of this year that the U.S. passed a law allowing gay people to comfort their loved ones at their deathbeds.
So yes, obviously there are some legal implications to marriage that are worth fighting for in addition the main goal of general cultural acceptance. Why then, am I so ambivalent about gay marriage?
Well, because as I discussed in the last post, I don't think marriage is, nor should it be, the standard of respectability. Furthermore, I'm not crazy about the idea of gaining acceptance and hopefully respect by seeking permission to cram oneself into an archaic and often restrictive regime with the mainstream. Taking gay rights and marriage as separate issues, I fully support equal rights for gay people and furthermore support a total reconsideration of marriage. I would rather see a new institution born from domestic partnership fleshed out to be inclusive of everyone without the baggage of history bogging it down. I'd rather see the law concern itself with creating legal protections and leaving the emotional and moral judgment out of it.
But hey, I suppose it took hundreds of years for marriage to change from a one-sided labor contract to the gold-standard of virtue and romance. Maybe opening marriage to new participants will be as good for the institution as it for the newcomers.
Oh, gay marriage.
For starters, let's acknowledge that this is a proxy war. Just like black civil rights activists weren't sitting at lunch counters because Woolworth's had the best fries in town and feminists don't protest at beauty pageants because they don't like swimsuits, the gay community and its allies are not pushing for marriage rights because they love gold jewelry and fancy cake. This is not about marriage, but as I noted in Part I, marriage is generally synonymous with legitimacy and it is a pretty perfect symbol of social acceptance for this particular group.
Consider it this way: most systematic discrimination is directed at a group of people who are then targeted individually for exhibiting whatever trait (skin color, boobs, etc.) identifies them as a member of that group. I can't think of another group off the top of my head in which the individual has no such identifying traits except for their romantic relationships with other members of that group. In other words, a celibate homosexual is a socially acceptable homosexual because there is no giveaway to the bigot that that person is someone they consider sub-human. Since marriage legitimizes relationships in the public eye, and relationships are the characteristic that defines gay otherness, marriage legitimizes being gay.
So yes, marriage rights is an elegantly practical way to focus the energy of activists and supporters in such a way that each seemingly small victory carries way more weight than whether or not someone qualifies for health insurance through their new spouse's employer.
While I'm more interested in the endgame of social acceptance, I don't want to minimize the real benefits bestowed by legal marriage, particularly where health is concerned. On the one hand there's the fiscal piece: In a weird coincidence, two gay men that I work had partners diagnosed with cancer in the past five years. One couple has been together for about 30 years, the other for about 10. Thanks to domestic partner benefits (which were negotiated into our contract very, very recently, just before these diagnoses), they were covered for treatment and are still covered for follow up treatment, CAT scans, etc. Unlike married couples, however, contributions for a domestic partner are still subject to federal taxes, making it more expensive for a domestic partner than a spouse. And if a health crisis ends tragically and the couple have shared assets or there is no will designating the partner as the heir, death can be crippling financially as well as emotionally.
[Quick digression here: Can I say how disappointing it is when otherwise reasonable people who don't have health insurance make the ridiculous argument that goes something like, "Oh boo hoo, they have to pay more. Well some of us don't have any insurance, so they should get over it." ? This might be my biggest all time pet peeve: IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU MORE LIKELY TO GET IT. Seriously, folks, if you think health care's important, then grow a pair and start working towards universal healthcare. The more people have insurance through their employer, the harder it is for other employers within that industry to argue that they can't swing it, so advocate positive change or just shut the fuck up, 'kay? --end digression]
Anyway, there's the fiscal piece, but also in the realm of health care, there's an access piece that is potentially devastating. Because southern Maine is awesome and generally pretty tolerant, both of my friends were treated well by doctors and staff during their partners' hospital stays and outpatient care, even in a Catholic hospital. The fact remains, however, that they are not legally family. Without hiring a lawyer and drafting paperwork explicitly granting each other the rights and benefits of a spouse, gay people can be denied access to updates and information and even basic physical access to the hospital room their partner is in. It wasn't until January of this year that the U.S. passed a law allowing gay people to comfort their loved ones at their deathbeds.
So yes, obviously there are some legal implications to marriage that are worth fighting for in addition the main goal of general cultural acceptance. Why then, am I so ambivalent about gay marriage?
Well, because as I discussed in the last post, I don't think marriage is, nor should it be, the standard of respectability. Furthermore, I'm not crazy about the idea of gaining acceptance and hopefully respect by seeking permission to cram oneself into an archaic and often restrictive regime with the mainstream. Taking gay rights and marriage as separate issues, I fully support equal rights for gay people and furthermore support a total reconsideration of marriage. I would rather see a new institution born from domestic partnership fleshed out to be inclusive of everyone without the baggage of history bogging it down. I'd rather see the law concern itself with creating legal protections and leaving the emotional and moral judgment out of it.
But hey, I suppose it took hundreds of years for marriage to change from a one-sided labor contract to the gold-standard of virtue and romance. Maybe opening marriage to new participants will be as good for the institution as it for the newcomers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)