Occupy's 99% = Bottom-Up Participatory Democracy

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.

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

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The White House - Blog Post - A Wonderful Day

Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination.  In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite.  This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.

Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized.  Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job.  These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.

In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court.  for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.

The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama.  In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill.  Blumenthal writes:

For quite some time President Obama has promised that all non-emergency
legislation will be open for public comment on Whitehouse.gov for 5
days before the President signs it. I am not sure what constitutes
“emergency” legislation; providing emergency appropriations in response
to a disaster or attack would apply. This was supposed to be a major
element to the President’s transparency efforts, even though the effect
of it can be disputed (the bill has already passed and can’t be changed).

As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency.  Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency. 

Here is the rub!

For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency.  It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that.  Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability.  Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.

For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war.  I understand and emphasize with this position.  Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?!  So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency.  This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration.   Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem.  As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama. 

From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults.  May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.

All thoughts are welcome here.

Rebecca

(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)

A Modern Image of Evil

The image of Evil Part One: Credit Card Commercials

This visa credit card commercial pisses me off:

What do we have? A machine. A mindless bloody machine made up of people and credit (yes the check card is still a credit card and sends a certain message - the use of plastic=good). A rhythm is offered by the commercial. There is a popular song. We move to the beat like a well oiled piston - humans hypnotized - yes, and yes again - swinging our hips, legs and arms: one, two - one, two - one one, two two, one one, two two . . . people in the store, grabbing lunch. Lunch is ordered, packaged, tossed to the customer along with the drink all in time, Nothing should ruin this smooth, mindless ritual. We get to the cash register and swipe our plastic - lovely because on one had to take the time to verify our bloody identity (yes, so nice in a would where identity theft is on the rise), yet there it is - money should be fast, easy. Life should be easy. Why think? Really . . . why bother? Life is easier without thinking - just purchase mindlessly - that's nice (can you hear the smoothing music now). Then Bam - an asshole with cash! How dare this smart, intelligent man stop our mindless purchasing with plastic. Really! The music must stop. We must stop. and . . . . glare . . . . stare . . . if only looks could kill . . . embarrass this man for thinking outside the box, on his own two feet enjoying his own rhythm. How dare he have a different rhythm - and a good credit score. Screw you asshole! We hate him, we might even form a mob scene because he stopped us and our mindless swiping of plastic. Yes maybe. Like in Frankenstein, with fork-knives and pitch and fire - I see it now, the Capital One guys, "what's in your wallet" will help - we will take him down! But wait. He is gone and the music - ah the music of mindless buying is back. Thank god we can stop thinking again!

This attitude, this way of being and shopping and living scares the shit out of me. Look at our economy? Look at people's lives! And yet, those who offer us credit, visa and the rest promote this mindless spending without knowledge of responsibility. The fine print, much to fine for most of us to get allude us as we are confounded by the repercussions of our spending--the credit card companies promote a culture of irresponsibility and then they are angry when they get what they have sown. Not only are we left with stupid spending practices, but with stuff we do not need.

The image of Evil part two: Consumerism

Now, I like my stuff, my "shit," as much as the next person. I enjoy my iphone, my computer, Wii and so on - but I can walk in my house. I can say no to stuff - easily-I do not need the phone, I wanted it - there is a difference. I can actually purge possessions without worry. But I know so many people who cannot. People like Joan Cunnane (77) who was literally crushed to death by her crap because she couldn't define herself outside of stuff. Shopaholic pensioner dies in her home after being buried under mountain of unopened items | Mail Online @foleymo on twitter posted this article while promoting @seattleorganize's business of helping people organize their stuff (oh our crap). Reading the article I was horrified by what happened to this poor woman--crushed by her thousands of scarves and eventually died because of dehydration. The author, James Tozer, writes:

The neatly-organised goods took up so much space in her bungalow that she only had a 2ft wide path to get around it, and both her car and garage were packed with other purchases.

She was reported missing earlier this week when she failed to attend a hospital appointment but while police searched her home it took two days to sift through her possessions and find her body.

A link to another article tells of how "an eccentric loner" died in a similar way when he was crushed by the stuff he had collected, allowing himself a "network of tunnels built from rubbish in his home." I have known and do know people like this and they worry me. Replacing human to human contact with stuff--searing for connections to be made through the action of buying a thing is just as absurd as fighting terrorism by buying a new pair of shoes. And yet, we have been trained by our culture to define ourselves through our crap. My heart is breaking today.

Conclusion:

We must stop. We must become the socially-osterized man in the above commercial and know how much money we have, and what we can spend, and what we really need to own. I am linking to Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping because he fights against our need to shop instead of creating real, viable human interactions. And he is right, we must stop and look community and the local for our real needs. Dr. R