The Question and Objection to the Occupy Movement
One recurring complaint/ question I have heard from the media, as well as those who oppose or confused about the Occupy protests is this: What do you all want anyway? For the rich to pay more taxes? For an apology from Wall Street? What??? On one hand, "What do you want" is a good question being asked of the 99% protesters. This is a common question asked whenever there is a movement protesting perceived wrongs. If you have a problem with something, what is your proposed solution? However, this is a "top-down" representative democracy approach to problems, rather than a "bottom-up" participatory democracy philosophy. The Occupy movement is a bottom-up philosophical movement. As such, it is important to understand the difference between these two approaches and why the "what are your demands" question is not really an appropriate question to ask at this moment in time.
A Top-Down Approach
From the "Top-Down" perspective, it is expected that a centralized group of people/leaders organize, make demands, form a plan, and encourage the masses to follow the laid out plan. Like a representative democracy, the followers select not simply the message or the plan, but the leaders they trust to facilitate that message and plan. If the plan or message runs into roadblocks, we can then feel comfortable that our leaders will make the adjustments needed. Power lies in the leader rather than the plan or demands. Thus, this mode of power/problem solving suggests that if we select the right person for the job, those people will act in our self-interest, and not just their self-interest. In effect, this is the philosophy of a representative democracy since our focus is more on the elect rather than simply the plan of action. Plans and "party philosophy" is important in this paradigm, but what takes focus are the leaders and their ability to make things right for us.
A Bottom-Up Approach
Conversely, a "Bottom-Up" participatory functions within an opposite paradigm. Here, people who agree on a general protest idea or grievance, in this case the problems of capitalism and regulation of markets, come together to negotiate and work through the core problems or concerns at hand. The focus is on the problem, the many possible solutions, and negotiation. The focus is not on absolute leader(s) who will make these decisions for us. Process before a decided end result is emphasized because people recognize that one plan, one demand, will likely NOT be sufficient.
The Occupy Movement and the Bottom-Up Approach
Within the 99% Occupy Movement, it seems to me that an important fear about making specific demands at this moment is this: one solution will likely only benefit a portion of the population, not solve the root of the problems, whereas the hope is to benefit 100% (no one wishes to harm the 1%) and heal the roots. So, for example, maybe taxing the 1% is a good idea, but it is NOT the only good idea and more investigation is needed. To reach this goal, we must negotiate over the use of language and action; we must negotiate everyday practices and ethical/social values between our personal self-interest and the interest of the collective (our local, national, and Global Community). This is a "double process" of consensus, which takes much longer to accomplish then the top-down approach discussed above. This is why I call the occupy movement a "Bottom-UP" movement, and why this global group of people are an example of participatory democracy.
I suspect a plan and demands will come in a more concrete form later on, but right now what we are witnessing is a global discussion process of consensus building. Such a discussion takes a lot of time and a lot of endurance. As such, is it a waste of time? This too is a good question. After all, absolute consensus is almost always impossible to reach in a small family, let alone a nation or a global community. But I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding NO. Equality in economics, politics, and social arrangements can only be reached through the consensus process. We no longer live in a world were we can allow ourselves to make top-down decisions for the global population. This approach ends in increased conflict and war and, I would continue to argue, is a good part of the reason we are in the mess we are in right now.
A Cosmopolitan Movement
The 99%ers are a cosmopolitan group functioning within the tradition of the World Social Forum and participatory-democratic philosophy - it is a new way of thinking. A way of thinking that must trust wide participation in the democratic process (not simply a process based on voting), and one that must trust the chaos of that process, and the uncertainty of that process. In the end, I suspect if we follow this approach through, we may end up with plans that support the majority rather than the minority of the population.
For more on cosmopolitan democracy and my thoughts on process (bottom-up), over end (top-down) approaches, you might wish to read: Toward a Cosmopolitical Democracy: Process over Ends.
I would love your thoughts on this!
One recurring complaint/ question I have heard from the media, as well as those who oppose or confused about the Occupy protests is this: What do you all want anyway? For the rich to pay more taxes? For an apology from Wall Street? What??? On one hand, "What do you want" is a good question being asked of the 99% protesters. This is a common question asked whenever there is a movement protesting perceived wrongs. If you have a problem with something, what is your proposed solution? However, this is a "top-down" representative democracy approach to problems, rather than a "bottom-up" participatory democracy philosophy. The Occupy movement is a bottom-up philosophical movement. As such, it is important to understand the difference between these two approaches and why the "what are your demands" question is not really an appropriate question to ask at this moment in time.
 |
| Image by Don Ryan/AP, and linked to from: "Occupy Wall Street" @ NPR.org |
A Top-Down Approach
From the "Top-Down" perspective, it is expected that a centralized group of people/leaders organize, make demands, form a plan, and encourage the masses to follow the laid out plan. Like a representative democracy, the followers select not simply the message or the plan, but the leaders they trust to facilitate that message and plan. If the plan or message runs into roadblocks, we can then feel comfortable that our leaders will make the adjustments needed. Power lies in the leader rather than the plan or demands. Thus, this mode of power/problem solving suggests that if we select the right person for the job, those people will act in our self-interest, and not just their self-interest. In effect, this is the philosophy of a representative democracy since our focus is more on the elect rather than simply the plan of action. Plans and "party philosophy" is important in this paradigm, but what takes focus are the leaders and their ability to make things right for us.
A Bottom-Up Approach
Conversely, a "Bottom-Up" participatory functions within an opposite paradigm. Here, people who agree on a general protest idea or grievance, in this case the problems of capitalism and regulation of markets, come together to negotiate and work through the core problems or concerns at hand. The focus is on the problem, the many possible solutions, and negotiation. The focus is not on absolute leader(s) who will make these decisions for us. Process before a decided end result is emphasized because people recognize that one plan, one demand, will likely NOT be sufficient.
The Occupy Movement and the Bottom-Up Approach
Within the 99% Occupy Movement, it seems to me that an important fear about making specific demands at this moment is this: one solution will likely only benefit a portion of the population, not solve the root of the problems, whereas the hope is to benefit 100% (no one wishes to harm the 1%) and heal the roots. So, for example, maybe taxing the 1% is a good idea, but it is NOT the only good idea and more investigation is needed. To reach this goal, we must negotiate over the use of language and action; we must negotiate everyday practices and ethical/social values between our personal self-interest and the interest of the collective (our local, national, and Global Community). This is a "double process" of consensus, which takes much longer to accomplish then the top-down approach discussed above. This is why I call the occupy movement a "Bottom-UP" movement, and why this global group of people are an example of participatory democracy.
I suspect a plan and demands will come in a more concrete form later on, but right now what we are witnessing is a global discussion process of consensus building. Such a discussion takes a lot of time and a lot of endurance. As such, is it a waste of time? This too is a good question. After all, absolute consensus is almost always impossible to reach in a small family, let alone a nation or a global community. But I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding NO. Equality in economics, politics, and social arrangements can only be reached through the consensus process. We no longer live in a world were we can allow ourselves to make top-down decisions for the global population. This approach ends in increased conflict and war and, I would continue to argue, is a good part of the reason we are in the mess we are in right now.
A Cosmopolitan Movement
The 99%ers are a cosmopolitan group functioning within the tradition of the World Social Forum and participatory-democratic philosophy - it is a new way of thinking. A way of thinking that must trust wide participation in the democratic process (not simply a process based on voting), and one that must trust the chaos of that process, and the uncertainty of that process. In the end, I suspect if we follow this approach through, we may end up with plans that support the majority rather than the minority of the population.
For more on cosmopolitan democracy and my thoughts on process (bottom-up), over end (top-down) approaches, you might wish to read: Toward a Cosmopolitical Democracy: Process over Ends.
I would love your thoughts on this!
R
