Occupy Wall Street goes global

Since its beginnings in New York City, the Occupy Wall Street movement has become a worldwide phenomenon with a presence in 82 countries. However, this rapid spread has not been entirely beneficial to the movement’s image.

Bill Wasik describes an incident in which electronic musician Kaskade accidentally caused mayhem by tweeting that he would put on an impromptu show in a public place as publicity for his new album. As the tweet spread, a large crowd overran the area and resisted policemen’s efforts to disperse them. Although Kaskade generated a substantial response, he was unhappy with the result. He asked his crazed fans to go home, worried they would tarnish the image of electronic music.

A similar problem has arisen for the original OWS protesters. Although most countries have followed the intended principles of the movement, some have not. In Spain, an existing movement which had used violent riots associated itself with the nonviolent OWS. In Italy, a peaceful protest turned violent when protesters began rioting and destroying property. These highly visible violent outbursts harm the peaceful image of OWS.

OWS has also been co-opted to spread a different message than its intent. In Iran, students used “occupy wall street” protests to show radical anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments.¬†The notoriety of the movement is being hijacked by others to gain a higher profile for their own ideas.

As Wasik says, groups and initiatives can become more visible through their use of social media. However, they risk becoming visible enough that they lose control of their message.

Emma

Advertisements

4 responses to “Occupy Wall Street goes global

  1. coffeeshoprhino

    Does this tie in with Gladwell’s article “The Revolution will not be Tweeted”?

    • Thanks for reading!
      It does, as it relates to Gladwell’s concept of the strong ties which existed in pre-internet social movements versus the weak ties which exist in the very publicly visible social movements of today.
      As Gladwell says, “It [social networking] makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.” OWS is a visible movement, but its high visibility can actually make it harder for the original protestors to make their voice heard as others join the movement. Unlike older protests, which had a group of tightly connected people who planned a unified message beforehand, OWS is a loose network of people. Some of these people, like the ones in Spain, Italy and Iran, are changing the message of the movement through their actions, because they are not part of a close-knit hierarchy which characterised social movements of the past.

      • coffeeshoprhino

        This seems like a very important point. Especially for the OWS movement since it claims to be non-hierarchical. Which, I would think, makes the weak ties possibly even weaker but the movement more fluid.

  2. ramblerofoccasionalbrilliance

    How have most countries “followed the intended principles of the movement”? Do you mean anything other than having a peaceful protest?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s