Occupy Wall Street: The Crest of a New Wave

Charlie showed me an article about the currently ongoing "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the New York Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html?_r=1

While writing a response, I happened to begin thinking about how I felt towards the movement, regarding its strengths and weaknesses, and what we could continue doing. Here is what I came up with.

---------------------------------------------------------

The article by New York Times correspondent by Ginia Bellafante takes a discouraging perspective that doesn't really acknowledge how hard it is to conduct theory in practice, especially when people are trying to think through the very issues the writer criticizes them of not being familiar of. Please, give a good, hearty laugh when the author mentions "Intellectual Vaccum". It is easily observable that on Occupywallstreet's official website, there are a list of demands. The organizers decided that instead of presenting them as their goals, a common slogan/objective would allow more contingencies for action, and gather a larger crowd.

On the first day, Saturday September 18th, it would take someone of extreme ideological tilt to declare that there was a shortage of conversation and intellectual vitality: people's assemblies and discussion groups were happening all the time. Now, I believe the assemblies could have been more effective if they had better audio equipment and a media relay unit going back and forth between all groups, but real democratic processes with a multitude of voices were occurring; they are time consuming and can be quite messy.

The article is also quite contemptuous and dishonest. Notice how the writer cites the individuals holding banners, the woman in underwear as if they came straight out of a freak show; and most distasteful, is the haughty quote from a snug trader that concludes the piece. Of course the kids know Apple is a fucking monopoly, but you just can't get away from buying shit in a capitalist system. It's not something one should use as an argument against one's opponents: not everyone is an engineer or tech wiz who can build their own computers, either. Implicit in that citation, I think, is a very classical "you're against capitalism (substitute this for Wall St, Big Business, Corporations etc.), but why do you buy xxx?" sort of attitude.

However, I think the article is correct in identifying - but also twisting and trivializing - the movement's mostly left-leaning college-student middle-class base, and a particular protest lingo that is unfamiliar to those who aren't in the know. For example, "creative rebellion", "carnivalesque protest", "use of internet memes" etc. We didn't have many members from the working class in our tow; the largest working class population present one Saturday ago were probably the NYPD officers. If we aim to eventually be able to mobilize the workers in the nearby Pizzeria and the McDonald's across the street, and if the message seems muddy and cluttered (or if it is being distorted or downplayed by mainstream media like this), then we need strategies that can hone our focus. Communicative tactics that do not sacrifice the multiplicity of issues that are being discussed.

Similarly, one doesn't have to grant the movement a "make or break moment" or "event" kind of status. Unrealistic expectations sap our mental energies when disappointment is met; it can also make us psychically over-invest in the activities while creating a psuedo-catharthic outlet effect that leaves us too satisfied and drained. Political dissent shouldn't be orgasmic, ending in climaxes. It should be intensive and prolonged, where anger, pleasure and reflection flows steadily and in accumulation. If the momentum doesn't carry, perhaps it's time to pause, take a brief respite, think, re-strategize and then regroup on those motherfuckers; maybe back in Wall Street, maybe just locally.

Darwin

The Crass Hegelianism of Discourse on the Political

You hear it all the time in the media these days.  We are told that both sides of the political debate contain "extremists"  that muddy the political waters for everyone.  If only a political compromise could be forged, then we could truly "get things done" in the US.  Not only does this logic undermine the basic premise of democracy itself - that ideally it should be slow, deliberatative, and agonistic if not agonizing - but it also attempts to dismantle politics as a process which is founded on debate and vigorous disagreement.  Some readers would not be wrong to pinpoint Obama's emphasis on "compromise" as a contributing factor to this jargon.  Whether Obama actually believes in this idea - which sadly seems to be the case, especially after the national debt debacle - or employs it as a strategic and powerful part of his political weaponry remains to be seen.  Increasingly, the idea of compromise is changing from an effective tool of political agonism to an ideal that is nostalgically hoped for, and often alluded to in a collective memory (which never existed) when political ideologies put aside their differences and made a pact for the common good.

The idea of "compromise" is strengthened by another oft-repeated idea which is directly tied to it.  This is the belief that political ideologies are equally valid and therefore deserving of the same praise and respect regardless of what ridiculous, pompous, insane, or vile ideas they spew forth.  Take a recent example of this rhetorical move from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

"Those who lean left politically might reflexively focus on a rising tide of libertarian individualism, market fundamentalism, and the celebration of the "virtue of selfishness" by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and their think-tank popularizers. Those who lean right might blame other forms of individualism, including feminism, social liberalism, and rights-based social movements since the 1960s."

So here it is.  Innocuously tossed off in an article whose main purpose is to raise awareness of the increasing loss of empathy among youths, we get an equivocation that makes the head spin. This rhetorical move starts by pretending that there are only two political trajectories in the country.  Then, after setting up this false dichotomy, the clever rhetorician usually suggests - in the interest of "fairness," of course - that both leanings are equally flawed or equally viable, depending on the argument.  This is the height of relativism and irresponsible writing.  Basically, the authors utilize an oversimplified version of an idea wrongly attributed to Hegel: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  We are supposed to take from this that because both sides could make a critique of the other, therefore both sides cancel one another out, resulting in the "truth" that if only both sides could be a little less different, a little more willing to "compromise," much could be accomplished in the world. In reality, the two sides are drastically unequal, and their consequences incredibly different.

Let's delve more into the above quote to clarify what is at stake in the two political positions as they apply, in this case, to empathy.  On one hand, when it comes to the waning problem of empathy, there is a clearly identifiable form of self-righteous selfishness that is endlessly and shamelessly promoted on the right, and it is not a coincidence that an especially rabid form of this ideology came into the mainstream around the time of the Reagan/Thatcher revolution in the late 70's and early 80's - the very same time that empathy among the young began to decline.  On the milquetoast left, the tentative suggestion that some people might be different than others - but nevertheless deserving of the same rights - necessitates that people try to put themselves into the shoes of others.  Here we end up with two different kinds of individualism - the individualism which sees the self as independent of society, and a form of individualism which attempts to incorporate subjects on the margins as deserving of the same rights and privileges of the majority.  In other words these perspectives are in no way equal, despite the authors' attempt to synthesize them.  This simplistic equivoation is not qualified or explained in any way.  In fact it is presented as normal, part of a standard journalistic practice.  It would be interesting to hear from the authors or their imaginary interlocutor on the right how "feminism, social liberalism and rights-based social movements" contributed to a lack of empathy among youths.  Of course one of the keys to this crass Hegelianism is that delving too deeply into any specifics begins to create shades of nuance, which threatens the ultimate assumption that at their core, both ideologies are equally probable candidates for causing or solving any number of problems.  More thoughtful writing should be expected of a purportedly academic news source, but this kind of uncritical equivocation is all too often repeated ad nauseum within American political discourse in the media today, creating a zeitgeist which only deepens our delusions about the political.

C. Wesley

In the Neighborhood of Zero: A World War II Memoir (William V. Spanos)

I wrote this book review for a professor who has challenged me intellectually and has had quite a strong influence on my work.  This is my way of attempting to thank him for his continual intellectual provocations.  Check it here.

C. Wesley

Conservatism is the force that gives us meaning

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/USA--USA-B-U-Students-Celebrate-121119849.html

We must now ask ourselves, in the wake of the sudden eruption of "celebratory" gatherings on college campuses around the United States, if conservatism is now the force which truly inspires collective action amongst college-age youth.  Most visible campus events these days seem to be either Tea Party gatherings, anti-affirmative action protests, or (most recently) the repressed youthful desire to celebrate the death of a childhood boogeyman mixed with empty slogans of nationalism.  Whatever it is, the Right is on the move, while the Left is stagnant, distracted by internal squabbles, theorizing into a void, or lost in a self-interested and delusional indifference.

Eyewitness accounts from Binghamton University's campus suggest that College Republicans were immediately on site handing out American flags and stoking the flames of nationalist sentiment.  Meanwhile, the Left was nowhere to be seen.

Where did the Left go so wrong?  How can we inspire others again to stand up for what really matters?

Meanwhile, media pronouncements about the significance of Osama bin Laden's death ranged from speculation about the collapse of al Qaeda to the insistence that an attack against the United States is imminent .

In truth, we have no idea what is about to happen.

Our contemporary situation can be distilled to a particular quote from "Politics and the English Langauge,"

"Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell

Where to start?  The war in Afghanistan was largely justified as an intervention to get rid of Osama bin Laden.  It is time to end this engagement now.  However, now that bin Laden has been killed, we may find ourselves in a paradoxical sitaution where President Obama, bolstered by uber-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, takes on a more hawkish view of the middle east.  We may even get to see, as Salman Rushdie has already suggested, Pakistan labeled a "terrorist state."  From this one can only imagine the possibilities.

The specter of Osama haunts America...  We're all conservatives now.

C. Wesley

Time of Revolution

2011 - 100th anniversary of the Chinese Republican Revolution. 2/11/11 - First stage of victory of the Egyptian Revolution. It's the Year of the Revolutionary Rabbit.

There was nothing better to hear than the resignation of Hosni Mubarak towards the end of my long week of illness: congratulations to the Egyptian people. However, the fight is far from over, with Suleiman and the Army still in cahoots, with most of the old "regime" still intact.

My thanks to the Egyptians for all their inspiration.

Darwin

Epic Epitaph

Going into slightly darker territory, befitting the start of our department's Being*3 reading group tomorrow evening at Micah's: death! It seems that there are at least two types of short writings most commonly used to deal with death: a.) epigrams about death, sometimes somber, otherwise humorous...b.) epitaphs by the subject him/herself or dedications from others. To me b.) seems much more interesting and intimate, as it interrogates how one would like to be remembered, according to oneself rather than the determining vision of others. Here's my wager:

"Yielding all to oblivion, one certainty he refused to relinquish: that he died for Justice, Love, and
Peace."

- D.H. Tsen

Epigrams on Love inspired by Cornel West

Largely inspired by West's appearance on the Colbert report last month.

"Don't simply be an extremist, be an extremist of love!"

"Centrists of love compliantly fill the streets today, while extremists of love are in sore shortage."

"The extremist of hate destroys. The extremist of love destroys AND creates."

- D.H. Tsen