As I participate in OccupyBoston, I am constantly aware that this idea of a truly horizontal, participatory democracy grounded in the principles of collective thinking and wed to the process of consensus decision-making is so foreign to most of us here in the US, that it's a learning process for us all. We're going to make a lot of mistakes. We're going to struggle with changing the ways we are used to. It will be a bumpy road.
I get that and I embrace it. I'm prepared to be a stalwart protector of the process and a nurturer of our faith in it. I see a better future for all if we can embrace this.
Today, however, I found myself telling the Occupy Boston community that I would block a proposal. That I had serious enough concerns that I would walk away from this community if it were passed. I surprised myself. I can't believe I'm actually considering whether I will have to walk away from Occupy Boston.
You all, here on DailyKos, are a community I trust to help me find words I'm struggling to pinpoint. Will you help me articulate this profound angst?
I'm having some very disturbing feelings about Occupy Boston. Enough that I'm considering walking away from it and joining the OccupyTheHood activities happening around here, instead.
Within the Occupy movement there are internal and external pressures to develop a "message" or a "list of demands" or a "mission statement". I find the urgency around this to be bogus, unless we limit ourselves to a mission of building a way for the 99% to end the oppression of the monied elite. Anything else is premature and is buying into old, failed models of activism and effecting political change. Still, at Occupy Boston, there are at least two groups: one which insists that we must adopt a mission statement (though it is really much more than that); and another which insists that we adopt of list of demands.
One could argue the details in either of these groups' proposals. However, what disturbs me is that the "demands" group is all white males and the "mission" group is predominantly white males with a few white females. Both are tone-deaf to the idea that they can't possibly author a document which comes from all the voices of the 99% because they only represent a sliver and a dominant sliver, at that. I find myself strongly feeling that to issue any official demands, without having that list actually created by a group which itself includes many different types of voices, will be off-putting to groups we need to reach out to and build solidarity with. Let me note here, that when I was in NY, the demographics of all the gatherings were more diverse than they are here. Almost every gathering here is 90% white. We have, yet, to persuade marginalized communities that this is their movement, too.
Last night, a young white male presented his list of demands to the General Assembly for consensus. We lost quorum during the presentation, so it was never fully processed. But, I had asked a "clarifying question" about who authored the document. He answered that he had. He then insisted that this was okay because he had gone around the camp talking to everyone about it. He was sure that it covered everybody's concerns. (Remember, the camp is 90% white.) I know that claim about concerns to be wrong, right off the bat, because nowhere in his demands does he mention the Prison Industrial Complex. So, there is at least one major concern to a critical and historically oppressed segment of the 99% which was not addressed.
After the meeting, this young man asked me if I felt that he answered my question. I told him, "yes, but that he might like to know that I would have blocked his proposal." He was very angry with me and a few of his friends joined him. It was a lot of work just to get them to hear a full sentence from me about why. Meanwhile, a black man joined our conversation. These men were arguing that they had "talked to everybody" and therefore their list did reflect the plurality of voices in the 99%. I stated that unless a plurality of voices was involved in authoring it, that was not possible. They could not hear this and kept shoving the list up in the air saying, "show me one thing in this list you disagree with!" The black man next to me said to them, "from my perspective, it feels like you are naming yourselves the vanguard of this movement. You are not working with me, but for me." They again went on and on about how they've talked to a lot of people. One even insisting that because his union, which is racially diverse, liked the list, it was, therefore inclusive. So, a woman and a black person are directly telling them, "I don't hear my voice in there", yet, they continue to insist that it is in there.
It was a circular conversation with them asserting themselves with a lot of dominant energy and this self-appointed sense of "don't worry. we know what's best."
Sadly, when I try to talk to people about this within the camp, which is mostly white, there is this overwhelming sentiment of "well, anybody is welcome to come here. If they don't come here and put their voice in, we have to come up with something." Rather than focus on why people don't come and how to proactively get all voices involved, they presume it's okay to speak for everyone.
I find it patronizing and I don't want to be a part of that. I want to challenge myself and the movement to overcome whatever personal and social barriers we have to getting to know communities other than our own and hearing from them about their ideas of what we need to do. Collective thinking is about making sure that marginalized voices are amplified. Not that we "hear" and then speak for them.
It reminds me of people coming into the Witnessing Arab Spring series with comments about what Libyans should do. Or how Egyptians should build their new government. We seem unable to see others as fully empowered human beings who can make those decisions for themselves. Who have the creative power to find solutions which suit them best. To accept that our perspective may actually be flawed and that others might have better ideas. We are not the Grand Knowers of All.
What is that? What are the words to describe the dysfunction and destructive nature of that? How can I get this across to people? I want to find a positive, constructive way to get people to see that we need to operate differently if we are to create the change we seek. If we mimic the very processes and dynamics under which our society operates now, we will simply be generating a new 1%. Maybe that elite group won't be defined my money. Maybe it will be defined as "The Voice of The People", but it will still be another elite group coming from on high. It may consider itself a more benevolent group, but any power-wielding group is doomed to become corrupt. The whole premise of the horizontal democracy is that people are empowered in moments for particular tasks, but no one has power over others.
I'm frustrated as I talk to people. Somehow, I'm lacking the words. Please, offer me some.
I'll leave you with one of my contributions to an email exchange on the subject yesterday:
This is how we might think about "messaging":
First, the idea of having a "message" is coming from external pressures. Media and so-called "experts" who are doing the bidding of the 1% or have thrived in the system as it is. These "experts" haven't done much to fix the mess we have, so why listen to them? We need to trust ourselves to operate in a wholly new way, not beholden to the ideas of the past or the pressures of the power elite. What they know is how to wield power over, we're learning to be empowered with.
Second, if I am a black, Latino, Arab, or Asian, and I don't hear my voice; if I am a Muslim, a Hindu, a Pagan, or practitioner of Santaria, and I don't hear my voice; if I am disabled or chronically ill, and I don't hear my voice; if I am gay. lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or transsexual, and I don't hear my voice; if I am impoverished and I don't hear my voice; if I am in prison and I don't hear my voice; if I am from any marginalized group and I don't hear my voice then our "message" is not from the 99%. It is a message from a select few, self-appointed people who happened to camp in a public place and thereby gain attention and some power. It is an abuse of power to then claim that we represent the 99%. In fact, it is exactly what all the existing power structures do.
Jamarhl Crawford of Blackstonian explained to us why the communities of color have yet to join us. Our camp is not the 99%. He has issued an invitation which would go a long way to building solidarity. We need to accept his invitation. If those communities do not feel that they have joined us, nothing we can say, no matter how well-intentioned or -crafted is truly the voice of the 99%. Why would we push forward with that in the name of appeasing the criticism of the 1%? Don't we de-legitimize ourselves by doing so?
That note was not at all persuasive, if I assess based on responses to it. Help!
Update: I'd like to add that one of the most inspiring moments at Occupy Boston, to date, was the vote to make official a statement of solidarity with Indigenous Peoples. This resulted in the Native Americans of New England issuing a statement of solidarity in return.
Another exciting moment was a vote to endorse a statement about Global Democracy, standing in solidarity with democracy movements around the world.
I feel the best focus for the movement right now is to keep issuing statements of solidarity. Keep proactively letting groups know that we see them and value their input into building solutions. And to figure out how to build venues in which all the groups can work together to make this movement powerful, authoring mission statements, declarations and demands together.
I will consider leaving my role as a core member of the facilitators working group to focus on this.
My previous diaries on OccupyBoston & OccupyWallSt:
#Occupy: Consensus and Autonomy
Anti-Capitalist Meet-Up: What is this #Occupy thing?
OccupyBoston: A Hard Day's Night
OccupyBoston: Triumph and Tedium
A space of our own: A Women's Perspective on OccupyBoston clicks
#OccupyBoston: the day after
A Proposal to the Greenway Conservancy re: #OccupyBoston
Holding the Line at #OccupyBoston
#occupywallstreet: a primer on consensus and the General Assembly
#OccupyBoston: learning together
from an #occupier to Ed Schultz: Yes, we can change gov't w/UPDATE
from #OccupyWallStreet to #OccupyBoston : lessons
#OccupyTheRecList: a discussion (w/clarification update)
Witnessing #occupywallstreet: the power .... of the people ... 's mic
Witnessing #occupywallstreet: my 2nd day
Witnessing #occupywallstreet #6: my first day
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #5
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #4: Send blankets, Updated #2
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #3: Cheer Them On!