What is the occupy movement?

Introduction

In the fall of 2011, the occupy movement occupied the headlines for weeks. Photos showed activists―so-called Occupiers―and their tents on squares in major cities like New York, London, and Amsterdam. What makes this movement so newsworthy? To answer this question, I will explain what the occupy movement stands for, who they are, and what strategies and tactics they use (see also Van Stekelenburg, 2012).

What is the occupy movement?

Since 17 September 2011, activists occupied New York’s Manhattan under the name Occupy Wall Street. What began as a small group of protesters quickly spread out, first only in New York but soon occupy camps were established in other American cities, and worldwide. The Occupiers protest inequality, the power of the financial sector and large multinationals, and the failure of politics. Although their claims may be vague, many Occupiers seem to agree with the short but powerful message ‘We are the 99%’, by which they mean that 1 percent of the population possesses 40 percent of the world’s wealth, while the remaining 99 percent shares the remaining 60 percent

.

What inspired them?

The protesters in New York say to be inspired by the demonstrators on the Tahrir Square in Egypt, and Spain, where tens of thousands started to occupy squares from May 2011 onwards (the M15 movement or the Indignados). Inspiration was also found in Israel, where in July 2011 the protest movement #J14 occupied squares. Facilitated by a strong symbolic media- magnet message, the simply translated frame that resonated worldwide by citizens frustrated about the global economic recession. And occupation of the worldwide financial

centre―Wall Street―seen as the kernel of the financial crisis and financial evil. Finally, footage of brutal policing of clearings of the explicit non-violent Occupy sites ‘snowballed’

from ‘new’ media to ‘classic’ media; consequently the already strong symbolic message made it to the news worldwide for months.

Which tactics do they use?

The urban tent camps are perhaps the most prominent tactic. Occupy confronts and builds a movement by occupying public space with urban tent camps which visualizes who they are and what they stand for. Symbolism and rituals are important ‘weapons’ (see also Boekkooi, Klandermans, & van Stekelenburg, 2011; Van Stekelenburg & Boekkooi, 2013). The camps are little micro-societies, inclusive and equitable ruled by deliberative democracy, instead of the individualistic, privatized non-transparent, top-down multi-nationals dominated society they are diametrically opposing. Locations are strategically chosen, symbolic places where the opponent is omnipresent. This 'war of positioning’ not only strengthens symbolism, but also provides a ‘free haven’. Indeed, urban occupations are not just an innovative transgressive form of collective action, but ‘free spaces’ that allow activists to connect with one another and develop movement frames , ideologies and a shared identity. They are interactive encounters in which activists meet, debate earnestly, engage in lively study groups and workshops, plan future activities, organize political action, but also inspire and mobilize the general public (cf.

Gamson, 2012). The urban camps form a place to build a collective identity and the related rituals. Take the daily General Assemblies where participatory democratic rituals are

practiced as preached. It is fascinating to observe how within a few days a group of disparate individuals develop a shared identity. From hand gestures to organizational structure,

everything is decided in consultation, often inspired by occupy camps worldwide enabled by

digital media.

Who are they?

Occupiers are said to be marginal types, peripheral isolated individuals: ‘Hippies, cavemen or lazy scum’

. However, the opposite appears to be true. Research on the Spanish indignados, shows that compared to other austerity demonstrations in Spain, the so-called Plaza Protests show some noteworthy characteristics. Mobilization through digital media and particularly through social media managed to channel collective outrage through many small

organizations with little mobilization experience and brought an unusual crowd into the streets. Participants were significantly younger, more educated, more likely to be women and unemployed, and less likely to have been previously politically engaged (Anduiza,

Cristancho, & Sabucedo, 2013). Moreover, rather than peripheral isolated individuals, the activists were firmly socially embedded (Tejerina, Perugorria, Benski, & Langman, 2013).

And why do they protest?

Amr Mchanna―a young entrepreneur at the Tahrir Square―had much to lose. He had a good job and had just become a proud father. He was neither an outsider, nor did he see himself as a victim of the system, contrary to that, the Mubarak regime offered him every opportunity.

So why did he go to the Tahrir Square? Amr answers: ‘Perhaps the idea that I can do something against a hated dictator. If my daughter grows up, she does not want to hear that her father had stayed at home today’ (Valk, 2011: 15). His moral obligation and shared feelings of efficacy conquered Amr's biographical barriers.

But another motive has also emerged: the criticism to democracy as it is now (Della Porta, 2011), as so aptly framed in the slogan of the Spanish Indignados ‘Democracia real ya!’.

Almost without exception, all Occupiers find the system of parliamentary democracy

outdated. Nowadays, many people converge on the belief that the way democracies function and the political outcomes they generate are often frustrating, disappointing, short-sighted, unfair, and thus seriously deficient (Offe, 2011).

And, will occupy sort any effect?

Gamson argues that whatever the institutional and political changes are in the long run, the occupy movement will already be a great success in terms of raising awareness. Sobieraj (2011) and Gamson (2012) both write about the avalanche of media attention the occupy movement ensued. Sobieraj compared two months of media attention of the Seattle protests in 1999 to two month of coverage on the occupy protests, and shows that the Seattle protests received only 10 percent of the media attention the occupy protests have had received!

With Gamson we may wonder how sustainable this cultural change will be and how the occupy movement will change the political and public discourse. The fact that the movement floats on a potpourri of grievances and is not able to forward a coherent political agenda, is fodder for critics. How politicians and other opponents will react to this potpourri of grievances is an interesting but open question. Part of the answer, suspects Gamson, is determined by the extent to which major institutional or policy changes are made to actually reduce the growing inequality and the influence of multinationals on national and

international politics. Should this not occur, the occupy movement and its issues will remain on the global socio-political radar for a longer period.

Notes

1 http://www.sanneroemen.nl/wat-is-er-niet-duidelijk-aan-wij-zijn-de-99

2 See http://onl.nu/nl/blog/hippies-en-holbewoners

Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2013). Mobilization through online social networks: the political protest of the indignados in Spain. Information,

Communication & Society, 17(6), 750-764.

Boekkooi, M., Klandermans, B., & van Stekelenburg, J. (2011). Quarrelling and protesting:

How organizers shape a demonstration. Mobilization, in press.

Della Porta, D. (2011). The road to Europe: Movements and Democracy [Electronic Version], Gamson, W. (2012). Cultural outcomes of the Occupy movement. . [Electronic Version].

Mobilizing Ideas,

http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/culturaloutcomes_of_the_occupy_

movement/. Retrieved 12 January 2012,

Offe, C. (2011). Crisis and Innovation of Liberal Democracy: Can Deliberation Be Institutionalised? Czech Sociological Review, 47(3), 447-472.

Sobieraj, S. (2011). A Sociologist’s View of the “Occupy” Camps: Movements in a Shifting Media Landscape. Footnotes, 39(9).

Tejerina, B., Perugorria, I., Benski, T., & Langman, L. (2013). From indignation to

occupation: A new wave of global mobilization. Current Sociology, 61(4), 377-392.

Van Stekelenburg, J. (2012). The occupy movement: Product of this time. Development, 55(2), 224-231.

Van Stekelenburg, J., & Boekkooi, M. (2013). Mobilizing for change in a changing society. In

J. van Stekelenburg, C. M. Roggeband & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The Future of Social

Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes. Minnesota: University

of Minnesota Press.