In a Washington Post article published last October, journalist Heather Gautney explores the Occupy Wall Street movement, and how it operates as a leaderless movement. She compared OWS to successful leaderless movements such as the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s and gay-rights activism. Both of these movements had a common goal: consciousness-raising. The main focus was to raise awareness of their respective issues, and in that sense, these movements were successful. Using this same definition of success, is the OWS movement a success? Considering all of the media attention it has received since it started up last autumn, the Occupy Wall Street movement has definitely reached its goal of raising awareness on the issue of economic inequality (the problem of the 99%). However, how do we know that the goal of the OWS movement is to only gain social awareness? Since there are no true leaders, it’s hard to determine what goals, if any, the movement has set out to achieve. Most would think that besides raising awareness, the protestors wish to accomplish some change in policies that will fix the disparity between the 1% and the 99%. If, this is their ultimate goal, then it is too soon to tell whether or not the movement will have any effect on changing our “failed democracy” into a “true representative democracy”. However, it has been almost 8 months since the movement has started and no policy changes have been made, the 99% still face the same “hardships” they did before, and media coverage of the movement seems to be dwindling. We can only tell with time whether or not this movement will actually make a difference, and cause some change.