By Andrew Arato, December 7th, 2011 
(In the memory of Vladimir Ilyich, who in spite of everything was a great political man.)
The Occupation of Wall Street has already done important things. It has put the very important issue of inequality on the collective American agenda. It has experimented with forms of direct democracy and in ways of seriously influencing the political system outside the official channels. It has the potential of becoming not only the forerunner, but also a key component of a new American movement for more democracy and more justice. But, as all movements, it must confront its own worst tendencies to realize its genuine potential.
By tendencies I mean strategies rather than people or individuals or groups. Such a negative strategy is symbolized by the slogan that appeared just before the taking of a part of the New School: “occupy everything.” I regard it as a childhood ailment not to denigrate any participants or to represent their age (they were adults!), but to indicate problems of an early, developmental phase that can still be overcome.
“Occupy everything” is a slogan and a program incompatible with a non-violent movement aiming to raise moral as well as political consciousness. The idea of “seizing public or quasi-public spaces to make broad claims about the overall (mis)direction of our society” cannot be justified as a general right in the name of which the law is violated to transform or improve it. It is incompatible with productively addressing “the public at large.” Finally, and most clearly “occupy everything” is deeply contradictory with the creative slogan “we are the 99%.”
“Occupation” as against “sit-in” is a military metaphor. Occupation easily calls to mind the occupation of Iraq, and of the West Bank of the Jordan River. Sit-in means that we enter and stay in the space of an institution, non-violently, space where we have some kind of right to be and exercise civil disobedience, accepting to pay a price when arrested. For example, African Americans who sat in had a right to . . .
Read more: The Occupation of the New School as a Childhood Ailment of the OWS
By Nancy Fraser, December 6th, 2011 
As I agreed to publish the faculty letter concerning Occupy New School, authored by Andrew Arato, I asked Nancy Fraser for permission to publish her dissenting note, which also circulated among the faculty. Unfortunately, there was an email mix up, and she didn’t get back to me. Yesterday, we finally were in contact. She asked me to publish it as I received it, which I gladly do here. -Jeff
Dear all, I hate to be a party pooper, but I must tell you that I will not sign this letter. While I agree that the administration handled the situation very well, I belong to the group, described as a “small minority,” that believes that a building occupation need not be justified by demands addressed explicitly to its owners. In fact, that idea runs directly counter to the premise of the occupy movement, as I understand it, which involves seizing public or quasi-public spaces to make broad claims about the overall (mis)direction of our society. Hence, the occupiers of Zucotti Park were not addressing demands to its owners, but were seeking to speak to the public at large. I see no principled reason why a movement should not occupy a university building to make such a statement or initiate such a discussion. The students who did so in this case may have misjudged the situation, overestimating their support and failing to communicate clearly what they were doing and why. But if so, those were tactical errors in executing what might have been a promising strategy. The letter that many of you have chosen to sign does not even contemplate such possibilities. It seems to me to be written from the standpoint of those who govern, whereas I prefer to consider this matter from the standpoint of those who protest injustice, a group our society already marginalizes–politically, intellectually, and spatially.
Best to all, Nancy Fraser
To comment on this post, click on the title.
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, December 1st, 2011 
Growing out of the broader Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, a bit uptown, at the New School, there was another occupation. It began on OWS Global Day of Action, November 17th. About one hundred broke away from a march from Union Square to Foley Square. The march was a part of a city-wide student strike in solidarity with OWS Global Day of Action. The breakaway group occupied a student study floor on 90 Fifth Avenue. The headlines of The New York Times about the action captured how many of us at the New School understood it: “Once Again, Protesters Occupy the New School.” I was quite skeptical about this action. I didn’t understand why The New School was a target. But initially, I didn’t simply oppose. I thought that there was a real possibility that New School President David Van Zandt’s accommodating approach to our occupation might open up space for creative activity.
Unfortunately, things didn’t develop that way. As time progressed, the aggression that the tactic of occupation of university space is, defined the action more and more, while the opening in public life that OWS has provided took a backseat. Once again, for me, Hannah Arendt’s insight that in politics the means define the ends was confirmed. The object of my concern is most readily perceivable by the photos of the graffiti on the occupied space accompanying this post. The damage to The New School facilities is disturbing, but I find the content of some of the slogans even more serious. In addition, there were reports of some students having worries about their safety in the occupied space as events progressed. Instead of the space being open and inviting, some rather perceived and experienced it as hostile, disinviting and dominated, due to the some of the occupiers’ tactics and politics. There were also the very reasonable concerns of many students about losing access to the space for their studies.
It is . . .
Read more: Occupy New School?
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|