An informal discussion about the psychology of activism

[Minima]

So, though my engagement with occupy, I found myself increasingly unable to engage with people at a serious level, and every single mental block I encountered had to do with figuring out the neruoses of this or that person or group,

My two intellectual exercises during the break consisted of trying to figure out what had actually occurred at occupy, and how to actually think about these things that had happened in in our present history (arab spring, tea party, protests in south america) in a way that was meaningful.

Whenever I am at my campus occupy or some related event, I am always so caught up with personal problems with people, and so desperate for emotional stability that I make concessions to practically anyone that comes up with a minimally coherent thought. The rhetoric of occupy and the culture of activism that surrounds it is all garbage. I want to describe it as a peculiar kind of half learning and slacktivism for the most part. Among other things, I think this is the fault of internet culture, media, etc.- but this is such a tired issue, and I want to avoid it for now.

The main 'neurosis' of occupy looks very much like the same problem of subculture. In a subculture in music, or hobby, or anything like that, we often experience that distinctions are made for the sake of making distinctions. Well that's no basis for a politics. If we pursue a kind of academic logic of every single question down to it's most radical formulation it becomes a melange of the most ridiculous kinds of posturing. There is a purpose to academic engagement, but we should refuse to participate if we sense that our egos have too much of a stake in it. This my main concern with the "personal is political" argument of post-modern theory, which at occupy, finds itself in the
heavy hammer of democratic representation and the tyranny by the claim of "lived experience." At a citywide education summit, several people alternated between weeping and storming out of the room, and I could see hands trembling visibly throughout the entire meeting. Apparently, this kind of break down was 'mild' for occupy, and is a frequent occurrence.

Formally, this boils down to a few things

-Distancing my thought about occupy from the actual events and representation of occupy which are not conductive to pursing goals of social change or even organizing at a basic level.
-The egoism and narcissism in activism and it's connection with subculture.
-The problem of overusing the argument from 'lived experience" against any representation or attempt at objective or universal truth at occupy.

In this conversation, we should assume a basic understanding of the discursive importance of the problems with universality and particularity debate (an old and tired one) and proceed to problems of concrete application of our understanding of it.

[Kadir Ateş]

Thank you for sharing this. My encounters and involvement in the Occupy movement also seemed to be more like navigating the personalities of the site more than anything else. I remember one friend of mine even having a discussion with me about "who can we trust who can we not trust" and it just seemed almost conspiratorial, almost Blanquist at times. At its best it became a platform where general public aired their grievances, telling us their own personal stories of how they're barely making it. Those were touching and you could tell that they were still finding their way to a type of politics that they never really thought of prior to Occupy. It was, at times, a "Who's Who" of leftist politics, with myriad Trot groups hawking their respective newspapers and other groups, trying to make the party line adaptable to the populist rhetoric of "the 99%".

So I've been thinking about this at times and I wish I had something more analytical to offer:

As one comrade put it to me, it is about "form versus content": there is something about Occupy which lends itself to be almost entirely composed of snotty, middle class-types who prior records of activism and/or knowledge of "radical" movement boils to the surface. I'm still figuring it out, to be honest. One potential thought as to why this may occur is due to the nature of it being a protest which fetishizes an aspect of capitalist production, namely, the excesses of fictitious capital (Wall Street). You've heard this sort of critique before, I'M sure: That the crisis is not "out there", it is not about the big, bad banks but about what I prefer to call the politics at the point of production. That is, how we make our living in society and how this changes in an ever-shifting backdrop of a financial crisis. True, there have been calls for more communizing politics, and perhaps the Pacific Northwest can be one of the more successful examples. But when I return to the daily grind at work, nobody shows the slightest interest, and I've come to think that maybe it isn't a working class movement in that sense, but I don't know...

More loose thoughts, sorry.

[black magick hustla]

activism, highest stage of alienation

[Minima]

In order to problem solve rather than personalize, I've extracted the general traits of one asshat I can't deal with at Occupy, so I can deal with this kind of bullshit in the future. The problem with this guy is that he is a "good guy" and actually one of the better assholes at Occupy. Unfortunately murder is not a solution. I've reread this blurb below and seen how it could apply to leftists and revolutionaries as well so... our ensuing conversation should be fairly interesting.

Post methods of dealing with this, Your own "case studies" etc. we'll hash out this with our dime-bookstore psychology and feel good about ourselves.
~~


Seeks phallic power, in official statements, has a tendency to speak for other people. when speaking, casts large general statements over arguably agreeable sentiments. Sees himself as the de-facto leader of a completely horizontal organization (not because there shouldn’t be one, but because he is incompetent) The problem is that this style will not give way to rigorous critical thought. It is only interested in images, stylization, official power, and is a result of half-learning, a lack of discipline, and easy successes due to privilege. Has a tendency to try and consolidate personal power over resources. Speaks the language of politicians and marketing. Prefers slogans, easy truths, talking points, and rhetoric over sustained and self-questioning engagement.

When asking a simple favor from a social justice group, he immediately launches into a marketing pitch for occupy although it is clear that the SJC member identifies as much with occupy as he does. Directly attempts to assert negotiating power in himself as a spokesperson for the Occupy. When the SJC reacts to this, it is in a qualification of their organizational relationship to Occupy. the SJC member has already accepted the framework of the conversation as two representatives speaking to each other as officials from their respective organizations. After the conversation, tries to narrate the problem as being the SJC member, whose nit picky qualifications and ego tripping was in fact a direct result of his “negotiating” style.

[Kadir Ateş]

This over-reliance on professional organizers demonstrates the weakness of the movement and in general, the relative weakness or a politically-organized working class (organized by the workers themselves, of course). This weakness is not directly reflected, but only appears to be so, and so the movement adjusts to the contours of individual personalities, becoming more and more sensitive with each outburst from an individual organizer. That's the sense I'm getting from Minima's psychological portrait of one such individual.

I think it was Bordiga who said something like the revolution will be horrible, it will be anonymous. I tend to agree.

[Kadir Ateş]

Two more disturbing things I've heard (both from anarchists)

- "There are so many assholes at Occupy X, I think I'm just going to work with people who behave normally."

- "I don't care who I organize with, as long as we push the struggle forward."

[citizen of industry]

This kind of thing isn't unique to the occupy movement. You should try getting mired in union politics - it's just as bad, if not worse. And it can't be avoided, it's just what happens when groups of people work together, and it's more prevelent the greater level of democracy.

In my experience, there are two general types of people, introverts and extroverts. Extroverts do a great job giving speeches, organizing and chairing meetings, But they are more likely to blow their own horns, have narcissitic tendencies, take over the discussion, etc. Introverts, on the other hand, do their best organizing work outside large meetings, are more likely to listen and pay attention, choose their words and make decisions carefully. Often they don't speak because they've been listening to everyone else and have already formed an opinion, whereas the extroverts are working out their opinion through speaking.

I guess it's a matter of balancing the two tendencies and kind of a luck of the draw the kind of combination of people your group has. All people fall into the two tendencies, but then there are extremes at both ends.

[Minima]

@ Sailorjay - generally I see what you're saying, and I agree. I don't know if you share the rough impression that Occupy itself is the unique situation here, like a kind of zero-ground for a new politics. Maybe it is over-analyzing things, and pointless to say that a general feeling of insecurity dominates these meetings, and it shows in the way we act and talk.

I don't want to think it is a question of styles. There are many 'extroverts' and 'introverts' I get along with equally well from many perspectives. I want to locate this as a problem of psychology, but maybe I should drop the issue and do something more useful...

The problem of Occupy is that we don't have a doctrine. It's like a kid with an identity crisis, it's a kind of neurosis where everything has the aspect of hysteria. We always want to shout and wave and rant about something because in reality there is nothing to stand on. No one here really knows what they're talking about. Their 'hearts are in the right place.' But they haven't got a clue what's going on, or how to act. So somebody mutters something vaguely agreeable and official sounding, and every body jumps on it - hear hear! someone comes in a proposes an action -solidarity! hear hear!

It's insane...

[citizen of industry]

@ Sailorjay - generally I see what you're saying, and I agree. I don't know if you share the rough impression that Occupy itself is the unique situation here, like a kind of zero-ground for a new politics. Maybe it is over-analyzing things, and pointless to say that a general feeling of insecurity dominates these meetings, and it shows in the way we act and talk.

I don't want to think it is a question of styles. There are many 'extroverts' and 'introverts' I get along with equally well from many perspectives. I want to locate this as a problem of psychology, but maybe I should drop the issue and do something more useful...

The problem of Occupy is that we don't have a doctrine. It's like a kid with an identity crisis, it's a kind of neurosis where everything has the aspect of hysteria. We always want to shout and wave and rant about something because in reality there is nothing to stand on. No one here really knows what they're talking about. Their 'hearts are in the right place.' But they haven't got a clue what's going on, or how to act. So somebody mutters something vaguely agreeable and official sounding, and every body jumps on it - hear hear! someone comes in a proposes an action -solidarity! hear hear!

It's insane...

From where I stand then it seems like occupy lacks a coherent program, worked out on paper, and that is the root of most of all the problems. That's the criticism that's been leveled at it from both the left and the right though, so nothing new there. The 99% is quite a big strata, that covers everyone up to CEO's of some companies. Someone mentioned snotty-middle-class types. Putting the issues of the bottom of the 99% at the top of the agenda might help narrow things down, that means focusing on the most oppressed. Also building united fronts with various groups and organized labor. That's the advantage of socialism, IMO, it's grounded in economic theory, with organizational structures and clear programs.

But from where I am (overseas) the good points far outweigh the bads. Occupy Oakland and the West Coast Port Shutdown were effective, thousands of people have been mobilized in many cities in the US, the heart of imperialism, and it has spread to other countries some. If there isn't a clear program, at least in large part capitalism has been singled out as the root of the problem, which is true. Even if the movement has some setbacks or peters out it will hopefully develop and change and re-emerge as economic and political situations change, despite its birthing pains.

[blake 3:17]

@ Sailorjay - generally I see what you're saying, and I agree. I don't know if you share the rough impression that Occupy itself is the unique situation here, like a kind of zero-ground for a new politics. Maybe it is over-analyzing things, and pointless to say that a general feeling of insecurity dominates these meetings, and it shows in the way we act and talk.

Occupy Wherever has been about opposing very real economic injustices. These economic injustices are a form of violence. Our class is kicked in the face everyday. When we fight back collectively, we have to remember that we keep getting kicked and we will keep getting kicked. This can bring out the good and the bad in people, and that's often very mixed.


The problem of Occupy is that we don't have a doctrine. It's like a kid with an identity crisis, it's a kind of neurosis where everything has the aspect of hysteria. We always want to shout and wave and rant about something because in reality there is nothing to stand on. No one here really knows what they're talking about. Their 'hearts are in the right place.' But they haven't got a clue what's going on, or how to act. So somebody mutters something vaguely agreeable and official sounding, and every body jumps on it - hear hear! someone comes in a proposes an action -solidarity! hear hear!

It's insane...

The joy for those of us who've been around a while is that there isn't a doctrine. That means there's room for kookiness, but better than the same old same old effin tired stuff. For the struggle in the US, the independence from the Dems and AFL-CIO top down stuff is a victory.

There's an excellent piece on NOT pushing demands on Occupy, by a revolutionary socialist here: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/3476 The demands, doctrine, program emerge in the course of struggle.