One turn-off that's come up for a lot of those who, perhaps at first glance, would seem likely supports of OWS is the issue of class, and the problematic inclinations of grouping, let's say, a family of four with an annual income of $18,000/yr with a family of four with an annual income of $80,000/yr -- in short, all those who fall under the category of the "99%."For some of the people I've talked with, this sort of failure to acknowledge the importance of class is cause to dismiss OWS as any sort of legitimate social movement.
I thought about it for a while, because while I agree(d) that class is a significant issue - and one that perhaps the OWS movement as a whole has thus far failed to fully take into consideration - I couldn't justify a complete disregard for a movement that - even on a different continent - has sparked so much excitement and inspiration. So I wrote a bunch of shit down that I was thinking about, and didn't know where to post it, and thought I'd post it here.
These are my thoughts (however jumbled they may be) in response to Class and OWS.
I think that I speak for a lot of study abroad-ers when I say that it is incredibly frustrating to not be in the United States for OWS’ inception or implementation.
From an overseas perspective, I find it heartening and inspiring and exciting to see both the increased numbers of protestors in attendance, as well as the increasing media coverage of the movement, the latter of which, although a seemingly obvious right, often manifests as a luxury rarely bestowed upon movements of the, what some would deem, “radical left.”
In terms of the OWS skeleton, class is a touchy subject in general, and an inevitable point of contention when one decides to group the bottom 99% of America together. It’s an individual choice to decide whether to embrace OWS as a movement nurtured by a unified and genuine want for change, for some sort of liberation from the stagnant control of corporations, for banks to be held at least partially accountable (if not from a political standpoint, then absolutely from a social one) OR simply as another movement that is inherently flawed (as, arguably, every single significant American, and probably universal, social movement has been), polarizing and thus, essentially worthless.
Indeed, it would be discernibly more beneficial to persons in the bottom 1% for those of greater privilege to consistently spend their time working towards improving the bottom’s quality of life. But regardless of OWS’ existence, the percentage of those dedicating their lives (volunteering at soup kitchens, etc.) to the betterment of others probably would have, and has, remained constant.
Actually, I take that back. I think that the emergence of OWS has led to an undeniable increase of people who are – albeit, in many ways, relatively financially privileged – finally, FINALLY, taking a stand against the injustices of corporate greed and the egregious fiscal policies (anyone wanna talk about Citizens United?) that, until now, the American public has accepted.
Of course, as should be expected from any movement of this volume and spontaneity, there lies some groundwork hypocrisy. Of course it’s difficult to reconcile those feelings of hypocrisy with one’s wanting-to-show-support for OWS. And yeah, we all sort of hate the kid with a “Fuck Cooperate Greed” sign in one hand and an iPhone in the other.
But I am hopeful that the inherent message of OWS will prove to transcend class: we are protesting not only to improve the quality of our own lives nor only to improve the quality of life of those in the lowest socioeconomic classes. This movement is necessary because of the shared understanding that, when the people’s demands are met, the equalizing of even one minority group will serve to better and strengthen the general foundation and social consciousness of our country as a whole.
We may not dominantly be talking about the poorest 5% or 10% of America. But what OWS has illustrated is that these are not just problems for the poorest of the poor, the bottom of America’s social hierarchical ladder. And while there are certainly OWS protestors who are motivated purely by the temptation of individual advance, my guess is that a majority are standing in support and solidarity of a group of people that has, quite simply, grown too big to ignore.
I don’t think this movement is about a middle class hero marching in to save the unemployed. People are excited because, for the first time in what seems like years, those of working and middle class are, together, exercising their political rights and demanding improvements to their quality of life. We are, finally, in some physical, concrete and hands-on way, connecting and unifying with people of different classes and presumably (hopefully) of a myriad of races, ethnicities, religions, etc.
Perhaps what I mean is just that it is important to assert that one’s wariness of internal aspects of the movement does not negate their general support of OWS in and of itself. Of course, I’m assuming that those who have voiced such hesitations of OWS are not opposed to stricter fiscal policy in the United States, or disagree that on some level, we need more accountability from banks and the government in terms of economic legislation. Critique from the inside, not the outside, is the way to better the movement whilst maintaining an outside perception of legitimacy and preventing a discredit of the work, the excitement, the energy that has been created by OWS.
Occupy Wall Street, for everything that it is, is unarguably more tangible, unifying and, above all, more accessible than any sort of academic critique ever has been to the American public.
Therein lies the hope of the movement, and, at least for me, serves as justification for why OWS deserves the people’s support. Of course, critical discourse is necessary for a movement of this (potential!) scope and consequential social and political change. But to stand by on the sidelines because of these flaws is to miss something bigger than us, and something beautiful. This may be overkill, but Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” That’s how it feels to me, at least, a million miles away from home.
No comments:
Post a Comment