Sunday’s New York Times featured this article about the different avenues the Occupy Movement is taking — planning larger protests to draw in more people to their movement, renting office space, organizing general assemblies and work groups. The activists they quote in the article have experience participating in other social movements.
The article quotes David Meyer, the author of The Politics of Protest. “’Some of the stuff you do to get attention often puts off your audience,’ said David S. Meyer, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who studies social movements. ‘It’s a delicate balance, being provocative enough to get attention and still draw sympathy.’”
In what ways does the article reflect other themes in Meyer’s book?
Also pay particular attention to the activists quoted by the reporters. How is the New York Times portraying the Occupy Movement?
The article reflects a discussion we’ve had in class a couple times about OWS – “without the visible camps or clear goals, can Occupy become a lasting force for change?”.
We, along with the New York Times reporters, are not able to fully answer this question and can only speculate. We will not really be able to answer this until we’ve seen OWS endure or burn out. I think this question about becoming a lasting force reflects the theme from Meyer’s book that characterize social movements as something that takes time. Social change can never be an immediate thing; it’s slow and processual.
I have to wonder if OWS is extending their “getting attention” period too long. Everyone knows who they are, and a couple months ago, nearly 50% of the population supported their ideas. That’s a few points higher than Barack Obama, and 40 points higher than Congress.
I think their best bet in terms of capitalizing on the attention they have won is to stop posturing and start putting forth concrete solutions. Such solutions do exist, such as the ‘Occupy’ amendment, banning corporate $$$ in politics. http://www.naturalnews.com/034266_corporate_money_politics.html
So that’s what I think they should do, but without concrete leadership, can the movement move toward anything specifically? Someone may need to take responsibility and shift at least some of the movement’s strength toward specific measures before the lifespan of OWS burns out.
I agree with John, I understand that the point of the movement is to be as representative as possible and be so democratic that everyone is an equal contributor, but, without a formal leader, the movement may burn out. Meyers points out how movements sometimes needs the support of an overlaying organization to keep its lifespan and keep the public interested, and even though it might go against the ideas of the OWS movement, they are in danger of becoming more of a nuisance then a positive agent for change. After months of having to deal with the protestors, New Yorkers are getting tired of the inconvenience. I think the movement has gotten enough attention and now, they need to get some results before their supporters drop off and realize that all the media attention that the movement has attracted is actually going to hurt the movement unless something actually gets accomplished.