Chapter Two of Meyer’s book focused on the cyclical nature of social movements and the commonalities shared between various movements (as well as the ways in which movements can differ). According to Meyer, organizations have in common a grievance to an existing policy or problem, a need to respond in accordance with American law and societal standards, political (and physical) space to organize, institutions that are either unresponsive or seem unresponsive to the cause at hand, and a tendency to “go public” with an expert from the field or an insider.
The Occupy Wall Street movement fits nicely into this definition because the activists have a clear grievance: the fact that 60% of our nation’s wealth belonging to the “1%”. Protesters also are responding to this grievance without stepping out of legal bounds or causing social upheaval: activists did their research and found a NYC park in which they could protest all night rather than a public park that would have to close. The organization has attempted to seek appropriate space for protest. They have been successful at organizing online but have run into trouble with the police in NYC. Do you think that NYC police and the government are fulfilling their constitutional duties to provide sufficient space for protest? I think the argument could be made that the police are infringing on activists’ First Amendment Right (specifically freedom of assembly) when they kick-out protesters for “sanitary reasons”. I think the case could be made that governmental institutions, and especially Congress have been unresponsive to their grievances because Congress has historically favored the 1% with tax breaks. Are there any other instances in which either Congress, the President, or other governmental institutions have appeared/been unresponsive to OWS grievances? The Occupy Wall Street movement, however, does not reflect the fifth and final aspect of Meyer’s definition of social movements because OWS has avoided elevating leaders and experts in the organization. OWS has adopted a more lateral organization in order to be more democratic and therefore it would be against their nature to choose one “insider” to represent their public interest. Do you think it is possible for social movements like OWS to fit some aspects of Meyer’s definition but not all?
I think it’s important to point out that the characteristics you noted are not describing specific organizations but rather the nature of protest within the broader movement. When I read this chapter, I kind of thought that Meyer was more so describing the nature of protests that guide the entire movement and how multiple organizations develop and respond.
I don’t necessarily agree that OWS functions like an organization. To me, it seems much more like a protest framework that aims for social change, which may incite a larger/ longer scale movement.
One question I thought about after reading your thoughts on OWS and how governmental institutions, especially Congress, have been unresponsive to OWS’s grievances is a matter of physical space. We kind of touched on this during class last Friday, but it makes me wonder that if Congress and other governmental institutions are the main target for Occupiers, wouldn’t it been more effective to occupy other places (maybe in DC or outside other federal government buildings) rather than Wall Street (especially when the protests began).
Interesting read on the movement. Its true that they have clear grievances but few clear demands. One of the more difficult problems OWS is facing is figuring out who to protest: the wealthy who have no responsibility to listen or the government workers who does, but isn’t.
Just for fairness’ sake, the occupy protesters break the law regularly because their marches commence without permits. Which leads me to ask,
irequirinh a permit constitutional?
In response to your question, John, I believe that requiring a permit for such marches is constitutional. What we have to remember is that although protestors have a grievance with specific aspects of the government, the government still has the job of protecting its citizens and ensuring their well being. While a government must be structured in a way that allows for change and social movements, we must remember that not every citizen will be involved in the social movement. Therefore, the government must allow citizens to assemble, while also protecting those that do not wish to do so. The best way to strike this balance is to ensure that when citizens choose to assemble they are doing so in a way that does not harm others. As a result, the requirement of permits for marches, in my opinion, is completely legitimate and constitutional.
I agree with your response, Ethan. This type of thinking is closely aligned to the libertarian point of view. This view basically emphasizes personal freedom and the security of rights to each individual, so long as the attainment of that liberty is not infringing on anyone else’s. In my opinion, and in that of the libertarian, it is perfectly acceptable to assemble and to create a movement for change, however, the actions raise questions when they harm everyone else’s liberty.
When making this argument, I think it is important to remember the definite differences between harming other people and causing them discomfort. Yes, activists ought to check themselves so as to not harm other citizens. However, they are not required to dilute their message or halt their marches in order to please everyone. I strongly believe that the best approach to causing large-scale change to a flawed system is making some sort of scene that adequately and sometimes offensively displays your discontent and the injustices of the situation.
In saying this, so far in OSW, as far as I know, there hasn’t been any large threat to national security. Those people are justified in taking advantage of our nation’s freedoms to speak and assemble, and the more uproar they cause, they more they’ll be heard.
I strongly agree with the argument you are making here John. The difference you make between harming others and causing them discomfort is a very important/distinct one, and there is a fine line between the two. To me, simply protesting for anything will of coarse make those who are not participated or interested in the cause uncomfortable, so there is no avoiding that. I believe it is personal freedom of choice to decide whether you believe so strongly in a cause to harm yourself, as long as you are not causing harm to others. Especially because the grievances that OWS does have affect so many citizens, it is important for them to really get out there and make a scene. Like i said in class one day, I think this is just the beginning. All social movements start somewhere. They don’t just miraculously come about and make all these changes without causing a scene. For example, think of the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement. Just like African Americans, these OWS supporters are putting themselves out there. I also believe that making a scene is not only a way to get the government to respond, but also another tactic for gaining interest among the general public who perhaps really doesn’t know what is going on.
I’m not sure if any of you are MTV fans (guilty), but there was a special done on the Occupy movement (http://www.mtv.com/videos/true-life-im-occupying-wall-street/1673866/playlist.jhtml#series=2211&seriesId=5232&channelId=1). The special provided an insider’s look at the lives of protestors, and particularly their attempt to clean up Zuccotti Park to deter their eviction. This episode shows the true impact of residing in an unsanitary environment. It offers some perspective on the protestor’s ability to organize themselves and on why they feel compelled to protest consistently. I think that while the protestors have succeeded in garnering media attention, the lack of clarity, or entire lack of, their demands hinders them from effecting social change. One of the things I continuously question is can a movement be successful without formal leadership? Or, will OWS become a just a politicized Woodstock? While I think it is possible for the OWS movement to fit some aspects of Meyer’s formula but not all, I struggle with the notion that the movement can be sustained without formal leadership.
Sarah, I enjoyed the episode you posted because it really visually aided the articles that we had to read as it video showed the extent to which these occupiers are going through to make their point. I agree that OWS might not be able to maintain its momentum without formal leadership because as we discussed in class, Meyers points out the benefits of having the backings of an organization. However, Meyers also points out how social movement organizations can often stifle and smooth out disruption and represent the very institutionalization that OWS is fighting against. However, in order to sustain a movement, I think there needs to be a foundation where a reasonably stable flow of resources can be used to continue the movement’s presence in American life.
But referencing back to the original post, I think that movements don’t necessarily need to fulfill all aspects of Meyer’s requirements; just like there really isn’t a formula to a participant in a social movement, there isn’t one to define a social movement. Which is why I have a problem with one of the featured demonstrator in the True Life episode Sarah posted. He is angry that Bloomberg is present in the park where the demonstrators have taken over, and event though I’m not necessarily a Bloomberg fan and I’m not sure of his true intentions for visiting the park, I also don’t think every single demonstrator is in that 99%. I believe that there are numerous students and participants who are there to be part of the revolutionary movement, just for the experience. So, the question I pose is, should people be barred, formally or informally, from movements just because they aren’t the norm? If someone was born into the 1%, why shouldn’t they be allowed to join the demonstrators in OWS just based on pure principle?