After reading Chapter 2 of David Meyer’s Politics of Protest, I found the five-step cycle of protests a unique way to look at previous social movements. In Molly’s post, she talks about how Occupy Wall Street could fit into this theory. I agree with her analysis, however to branch off of her idea, I have to disagree with the notion that OWS is an organization. After reading some of the articles from publications such as Vanity Fair and Time, what has been going on with OWS is more of a movement, than an organization. According to Meyer, “social movements are episodic” whereas the issues they deal with are much more persistent (23). This spontaneity that allowed for the OWS movement to begin and keep holding on without much organization shows that there are underlying, persistent issues of capitalism and a divide in social classes in the United States, and citizens are ready to take action.
One idea that I found interesting was what organizing would do for a social movement. In an October 2011 article by David Meyer, he talks about the Tea Party and how Occupy Wall Street could learn from that organization and use what they have done to help their own movement. (Read the article here) Although OWS is still young, there needs to be some organization within the movement in order for it to be successful. I don’t entirely agree with Meyer’s statement that social movements are episodic and the issues are persistent. In order for a movement to be successful and push the ideas to make a change, there needs to be organization within the episode of the movement to make a change.
In the beginning of the movement, protests were necessary to show solidarity within the nation and within the movement. However, now that the movement has been around for several months, it needs to move into the next stages of development: organization. Many involved directly with OWS say that they like that there is not a formal leadership aspect to the movement. Is there a way to have organization and demands of the protesters being met, without formal or hierarchical leadership?
Is there a way to have organization and demands of the protesters being met, without formal or hierarchical leadership?
OWS has shown that there is definitely a way to have organization without formal, hierarchical leadership. Through twitter and tumblr, the movement has gained a following and has created a way to update the protesters in real time. OWS uses social media not only as a way to mobilize but also as a way to organize. Through the informal organization of OWS, the movement has created a legal team of experts who are able to fight for the rights of the group within the parameters of the law.
Additionally, the Vanity Fair article notes that the English anthropologist, David Graber, is not in a formal leadership role in OWS, yet he managed to mobilized people into a general assembly on August 2, came up with the “We are the 99 percent” idea and continues to lend his famous face to the movement.
Despite the success of OWS’s use of social media to date, I think you’re right that the movement needs to organize more efficiently and adopt more formal leadership. To those in OWS who wish to keep it a “leaderless movement,” perhaps the people can elect a group of leaders to be the face and direction of the future of OWS. That way, democratic leadership can still emerge.
I think it may be possible for the demands of OWS protestors to be met without necessarily increasing organization. OWS may become a movement with a next, more organized step in which it creates a specific platforms and endorses candidates. To me, however, OWS is not about new leadership. It’s about demanding accountability from the leaders we already have. It’s about changing voter engagement and ideology. By voicing their concerns broadly, OWS can appeal to the masses and inspire civic engagement in a wider number of Americans. By stirring up unrest with our political system, OWS is getting citizens interested and changing the political agenda for election day. Politicians have already started reacting to the movement, and President Obama has used an increased amount of OWS-inspired language as he begins his re-election campaign. This change in the political agenda, set by OWS protesters, is a valid accomplishment that shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed just because they don’t have a list of specific demands or a candidate up for election. For OWS, there is no need to elevate an individual leader and give someone else power. The goal is to empower the citizen to think more critically of his/her leaders and, consequently, demand change with ballot in hand.
In response to the question of whether there is way to have organization and demands of the protesters being met, without formal or hierarchical leadership, I believe that these goals are very feasible without formal or hierarchical leadership. It is true that leadership is necessary for organization and demands of the protestors being met, but this does not denote that hierarchical leadership is the sine qua non of social movement. Leadership can emanate from anyone in the movement, regardless of whether or not they are a formal leader. In regards to OWS, the individuals posting pictures on tumblr or camping out in Zuccotti Park are in fact displaying a form of leadership. The movement itself has no hierarchical leadership, but the members of the “99%” would say that they have formed a strong organization. One could disprove my theory on the importance of hierarchical leadership by explaining that the 99% have not had their demands met, and thus that style of leadership must be necessary. That being said, I believe that the 99% have not had their demands met not because they lack formal or hierarchical leadership, but rather because they have not yet clearly delineated their demands. It is difficult to state a platform with a list of demands with formal leadership, but I believe that it can be done using the vast array of social media outlets that brought the individuals together in the first place.
I tend to disagree with my classmates that organization and the demands of protesters can be met without formal leadership. I suppose this disagreements centers on our definitions of “formal” leadership, leading me to one conclusion and my classmates to another. Above, they are using “formal leadership” as being synonymous with “hierarchical leadership,” which I do not really agree with. Yes, hierarchical leadership may be one form of formal leadership, but it is by no means the only form. I believe that my definition of formal leaders really centers on the idea of someone leading people somewhere, which is a much broader definition. I do not think that the OWS movement could have gotten to where it is today without leaders. Someone had to come up with the original idea, someone had to get the message out there to attract others, and someone had to plan all of the various protests and events. None of what has happened so far in terms of organization could have happened without leadership, and I don’t think that they will able to accomplish anything in the future without leaders.
When it comes to answering the question whether protesters need formal leadership or not I agree with Ethan. It is definitely possible for protesters to form a powerful movement and accomplish their goals without a hierarchical form of leadership. I say this because after reading about Ella Baker and her style of leadership, it became apparent to me that ledadership can evolve from anyone in the movement. However, i do believe that with the help of an oganization a movement and its protesters can more clearly establish the goals needed to move forward. Not saying that it is necessary, but it could help.
It may be a little strange that I am commenting on my own post, but I am actually commenting in response to Kristen’s comment. I’m glad that she touched on the difference between hierarchical leadership and formal leadership, which perhaps I was not clear on in my post. I agree that we are often wary of the term hierarchical leadership because it seems that the people who are protesting or perhaps feel under represented are not going to have a say and be overshadowed by a few elite who have the power.
I believe that mobilizing through the internet and attempting to organize that way is useful at first, but because the use of the internet can turn into an apathetic and anonymous method, there needs to be some sort of organizational leadership that develops so that there can be regulation within the movement and demands can start being outlined and met. Without this type of leadership, it seems that the OWS will not survive much longer.
I really enjoyed your blog post. I couldn’t help but think of the Civil Rights Movement and Ella Baker. In no way did the organizations that were involved with the civil rights movement stifle the movement. In fact, I think they helped to grow the movement and gain credible recognition. SNCC especially more than any was responsible for the successes of the Civil Rights movement. Not only was it a defined organization but it was made up of those who had a large passion to create change and the intelligence to do it without violence. However, I understand that not every organization can keep the pureness of the movement in tact, due to the logistics of keeping an organization running.
To respond to your all’s discussion on formal leadership, I don’t think you need someone driving people to protest however it helps to have experts or organizations helping to provide information and resources. This doesn’t mean that they then become the face of the movement. I would say OWS has a great balance of this, for the people feel like they are doing the acting and leading together but have help from those who know what will be successful and what won’t. Because the protestor all feel responsible for the change they gain then this strong sense of initiative and do even more for the cause.
The Occupy Movement needs leadership to be successful and have its demands met. However, this does not require formal or hierarchical leadership. Instead, what the movement lacks and requires is horizontal leadership and dialogue. Simply by the massive publicity that OWS is getting, it can be argued that it has been partially successful. In other words, OWS has caused people all across the nation to look inwards and examine the economic system and social hierarchy of our country. Our class is a good example of the success that OWS has had in sparking outside dialogue. However, inside dialogue within the movement itself is lacking. For example, what do people within the movement want? What are their ideal goals for our country and our economic system? For these questions there are no true answers. Imagine how much more effective the movement would be at facilitating outside dialogue if it decided within itself what we should talk about and debate. For dialogue, horizontal leadership (peers leading peers) is required to coordinate organized discussions and collect a clear list of mutual demands. Without these demands and without explicit goals, the outside dialogue the movement generates is too broad and ineffective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpgDtoj73DQ