I presume today’s protesters are defining this a civil disobedience, as were their 60s counterparts, in which case they likely would not be concerned with the question of rights and laws here (but you are right that the laws they are violating–those regarding access to assembly on property–are not the central targets of the movement). It is disappointing, as an alum, that they would occupy the New School, of all places, although the student protests on campus a couple of years ago were in battle with the administration–so could that be the in the background of their actions?

Sociologically, I am asking how these continued acts of civil disobedience tell us something about the depth (and breadth) of anger right now. That a NYPD officer joined the OWS protesters and himself got arrested is pretty striking.

Susan Pearce

Best,
David

thanks a lot.

We have just been through a Maoist type of criticism and self crticism session, in which it wa sarranged in advance that I would be the one criticized along with the co-signers of the statemnt.

I have been through such repellent events before, but not at the New school. Fine. I am in a lousy mood.

Still thanks for your thoughtful statement. The only thing i would like to point out that the first two dictionary definitons are completely irrlevant to the case at ahnd.

So You wind up supporting my etymology, as problematic as it may be. Andreas Kalyvas too brought up the formation of Europaean city states in the earlly middle ages as “occupations”. While he is probably confusing occupation with conjuratio, that example too makes my very case. These were indeed military occupations, carving out urban islands in the feudal sea, before it came to swearing to keep promises to one another. Factory occupations would have been a better counter-example, that can be according to me occupations or sit-ins, depending on the case.

Be well. I hold no grudge at all. You are a serious discussion partner at least, unlike the Stalinist who so pissed me off today. I was very angry, and totally lost my cool. We were accused of Mc Carthyism, sectarianism and sexism among other great things. But losing your cool is bad, my bad.

All the best, believe it or not

Andrew

But I still don’t get your reading of dogmatic graffiti. I can’t find meaning in slogans like kill all cops or liberals. Some critical reflection is required here, I think, on your part. Such ideas are not playful, they are dangerous.

Lastly, I think that the crucial practical message of this post has to do with how certain tactics will turn the group that speaks in the name of the 99%, against the less than 1%, into the less than 1%. As the movement proceeds that danger has to be recognized.

1) an activity in which one engages
2) the principal business of one’s life : vocation
a: the possession, use, or settlement of land : occupancy
b : the holding of an office or position
3) a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : seizure
b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it.

-Merriam Webster

I think it is telling that this article highlights the more militant, and largely negative aspects of the word ‘occupation’. There is, if I understand it, a large history of oppressed groups appropriating the language of their oppressors and using it in a creative and positive way. The 99% slogan is indeed one of the core tactics that has made ‘the movement’ effective. Yet, I would say, that it goes hand in hand with the ‘occupation’ element. Of this dichotomy it is differs from the slogan in that it is representative of a more radical act of transgression. Thus, I would say that the 99% slogan is nothing without, the ‘occupation’ element. But this is overly simplistic.

I think we should consider that the playful creative element of the word ‘occupation’, which cannot really separated by the actual ‘act’ of occupying. I would say that the small act of transgression in even the name making gives it power. It’s a transgression for the very reasons given in the above article. Its usually interpreted as a military metaphor. But typically we associate it with the action of a more powerful entity ‘occupying’ a less powerful entity. When protestors who have less power adopt the name and make the claim that they are indeed the occupiers of a more powerful entity, the meaning of the word ‘occupation’ changes. It is that creative tweeking that gives it an absurd power.

The article over simplifies the term ‘occupation’. One of the wonderful things many of the protestors did at Zuccotti Park and the New School occupation did was expand—both symbolically and in action—as oppose to reduce the meaning of the word ‘occupation’. They collectively broke the word open, and let it bleed in the tradition of some of our best critical theorists. One of the great lessons of Karl Marx was that ‘work’ as a life activity is precious to the human. When the humans’ work is devalued, he or she is in a sense de-humanized. At Zuccotti park, I met a man who had, with others, created an animal center. At the center people could come and get, food and medical help for their pets. He clearly loved his work, his occupation, and he received no pay for doing it. His way offers us a more nuanced way to ‘occupy’ the word ‘occupation’. I was not at the occupation of the New School, but I have talked with some of them. One women, who acknowledged that they had difficulties, told me that many great things had happened at the Kellen Gallery Occupation. They were feeding homeless people and engaging in a lot of creative dialogue. Feeding homeless folks and engaging in creative political discussion are valid ‘occupations’. And one can say that if you engage in such ‘occupations’ in the space that you are ‘occupying’ you are not treating such a space as an “enemy”. I would say in such a case you are treating such a space as a friend—albeit a larger one.

Some students such as myself, and some faculty feel that they are ‘occupiers’ in this duel sense—though we must not reduce it to a duality. On the one hand we occupy the New School as students and, or as faculty members in terms of the actual space. On the other hand, the work we do in that space is representative of our ‘occupations’. We should thus be very careful in the way we talk about ‘occupation’.

If the New School makes the claim that it is a progressive school, that fosters critical thinking, we need to try and live up to that. I do not think that it is helpful to use our positions of power to define ‘a word’ in a universal way. To hastily define, reduce the word- or the graffiti, or anything for that manner-in a way that does not threaten our position of knowing is to play it safe. To stick by our guns does not seem helpful. Why not leave it as a state of broken meaning, bleeding and incomplete? Why not leave it open? It’s easy to look at a word like ‘occupation’—or a work of graffiti— and shoot from the hip, and go with the definitions we know and are comfortable with. It seems more difficult to face that thing that you ‘know’ and wrestle with it in such a way that it eventually appears unfamiliar, if not totally unrecognizable to you. To the point where it might appear as to be so strange that it makes you extremely uncomfortable. I think this is a good thing.

On some occasions someone might offer you just such an uncomfortable thing—these things are reminiscent of what Max Weber called ‘inconvenient facts’. But you might not recognize such a thing as a gift, particularly, if you have this disposition of holding onto, and defending, the ‘meanings’ you are comfortable with. Given this, if you see the word occupation as a ‘military metaphor’, and someone puts forth another way of looking at it, why not, instead of rushing to defend your definition, through the use of hostile othering, instead accept that gift. Perhaps, the more unfamiliar that gift appears to you, and the more uncomfortable that gift makes you feel, the better. The possibilities of re-imaging, such a word as ‘occupation’, can be sparked by just reflecting on its numerous dictionary definitions.

Best,
David Peppas