There is one aspect of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement that seems to spook mainstream politicos on both sides of the aisle. Many long-time progressive leaders from the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s echo this concern as well. A good deal of these folks are nervous because the movement has not appointed designated spokespeople to deal with the media and many continue to urge OWS to rectify this "problem."
My humble opinion is that the OWS movement is taking a very Taoist approach to how they operate. Rather than incorporating a slew of arbitrary procedures and protocols, the activists involved are allowing the movement to flow of its own accord. They are facilitating an organic process instead of a stilted one.
From my perspective, designating spokespeople itself creates a problem. By their very nature, spokespeople begin to exert a strong influence on the direction of any group. Since they are the ones who deliver the message, they often exert a stronger influence on what that message might be.
In addition, sometimes the manner in which a message is delivered includes part of the spokesperson's personal agenda. That's okay if personal agendas have, more or less, equal footing, but, in the eyes of the media, what the spokesperson says becomes the de facto message, even if it can be proven to be at odds with the group's message.
So, rather than criticizing OWS for their lack of official spokespeople, I applaud the move. OWS represents a diverse segment of the population and it would be next too impossible to encapsulate this diversity in two or three individuals. A time may come when enough ideas have coalesced into a specific set of demands and, if this happens, then designating spokespeople would seem prudent.
Until (or if) that time occurs, allow the movement to develop of its own accord.
My humble opinion is that the OWS movement is taking a very Taoist approach to how they operate. Rather than incorporating a slew of arbitrary procedures and protocols, the activists involved are allowing the movement to flow of its own accord. They are facilitating an organic process instead of a stilted one.
From my perspective, designating spokespeople itself creates a problem. By their very nature, spokespeople begin to exert a strong influence on the direction of any group. Since they are the ones who deliver the message, they often exert a stronger influence on what that message might be.
In addition, sometimes the manner in which a message is delivered includes part of the spokesperson's personal agenda. That's okay if personal agendas have, more or less, equal footing, but, in the eyes of the media, what the spokesperson says becomes the de facto message, even if it can be proven to be at odds with the group's message.
So, rather than criticizing OWS for their lack of official spokespeople, I applaud the move. OWS represents a diverse segment of the population and it would be next too impossible to encapsulate this diversity in two or three individuals. A time may come when enough ideas have coalesced into a specific set of demands and, if this happens, then designating spokespeople would seem prudent.
Until (or if) that time occurs, allow the movement to develop of its own accord.
I think people are "spooked" because history suggests when you get a lot of people together, and no one is listening, or speaking for the group, things can easily degenerate into mob violence. What you say may be true, and I hope that it will play out "productively" in some "Taoist" way, but without, say, a Gandhi, unemployed people will just camp out forever, or the beast will strike back, a la Tiananmen '89.
ReplyDeleteI am not looking forward to APEC in November in Hawaii. It could get ugly, and not for the reasons one might expect.