Tag Archives: occupy


Where are they now?

Where are they now?

Curious about the current issues of the Occupy movement? Check out this article in The Stranger to learn about the repercussions of the May Day protests in Seattle.



Occupier + current system + social media = ?

20 May 2012: The police crack down pretty hard on the Occupiers in Chicago today during their Anti-NATO protest.

I found this photograph moving around Facebook and I thought I’d post it.  I thought the Occupy protests were winding down, but based on this chaos, I’d say I was quite off the mark.

The focal point of the image is the young man guarding himself against a police officer, as well as on the overwhelmed and scared woman with the camera.  I feel like this image represents three main elements of the entire Occupy movement really well.

The young man represents the generic Occupier: the recent college graduate, possibly a hipster, who feels the need to stand out against the current regime and say that he doesn’t approve of the current status quo.  His hands are up to shield himself against the night stick, but the look on his face isn’t necessarily one of fear.  There is determination there, a confidence that comes out if you stare a little longer at him, and you can see that he isn’t just going to defend himself against the police officer, he is willing to take him on.

The police officer is not only representative of police presence and the issues that have come out of that during Occupy, but the illustration of faulty government itself.  The police are supposed to protect citizens, just as the government is supposed to benefit the people, but clearly the police were not protecting anyone but themselves in Chicago today, and clearly the system is not working for the governed because groups like the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers exist.

Finally, the woman with the camera represents media, more specifically social media.  Before social media took off, people heard about things like this through news articles or segments done by professionals.  Ideally, the news is supposed to be unbiased but it rarely is.  Now, with social media, people who were actually there in the moment can show their own evidence to anyone they want at lightning speed for free.  With these kinds of resources, the moments like this will always be available to the public and the truth will never be forgotten.

The Occupier, the current system and social media. Put them all together and what do you get?  Based on this photo, a real Charlie Foxtrot.


Useful platform: feminist issues line up with OWS goals

The website, occupypatriarchy.org, brings a unique perspective to the category of “Within the Movement.” With little research surrounding the specific gender breakdown of Occupy, this blog provides information about how and why women need to participate. In particular, one post provides the following quote that describes how even though the Occupy movement is new and young, long standing issues such as gender inequality can be addressed by using its structure:

“While the Occupy movement has been developing, the war on women has become a nightmare of hateful, ignorant, daily attacks on women’s human rights.  It is urgent that this be stopped and presents an opportunity for the Occupy movement as a whole to stand up for women’s lives and say that this war must stop.”

From this application of the ideals of the movement, one can see how wide ranges of people and causes (with respect to geography, education, economic standing, medical history, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.) have the potential to speak out for change by using the OWS movement as a platform. More specifically, in the case of occupypatriarchy.org, many feminists and feminist supporters wish to show how Occupy’s many human rights complaints forge a bond between the occupiers and women’s rights activists.

Below you will find a list of issues deemed by the writers of the blog as issues routinely prioritized by feminists that are, or according to the article should, be important to the OWS movement:

  • Equal pay and ending other forms of economic discrimination
  • Childcare
  • Paid maternity and paternity leave
  • Zero tolerance of violence against women, sexism, sexual harassment and other misogynist behavior
  • Ending sexual exploitation and trafficking
  • Getting the Equal Rights Amendment ratified
  • Implementation of the National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security
  • Funding the Violence Against Women Act
  • Ratification of CEDAW the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
  • Reproductive justice (including the right not to have a child, the right to have a child and the right to raise children
  • Zero tolerance on the assault on women’s reproductive health
  • Valuing unpaid work such as childcare, eldercare and housework

The general focus of this list is equality for women both nationally and globally; however, its undercurrent furthermore suggests that because these circumstances exist, the more general issue of human rights is still a serious problem within the United States. What this lists describes is a series of circumstances in which many people feel as though human rights have been limited or have been nonexistent. The income inequality concern that sparked the OWS movement in New York is also an example of a very specific complaint that has its roots in human rights. By supporting the endeavors of both groups to raise awareness for the core issues the chances of effecting change are much higher.

(A more in-depth look at the feminist issues presented in this article can be found here)


Becca Barbush

Occupy Bias

I’m going to keep this short and sweet.  To me, the Occupy movement is all about stereotypes based on bias.

Occupiers are considered to be radical socialists and anarchists, criminals, racist (this too), lazy and homeless, except when members of this diverse group are none of these things.  The police are overly violent and are under the control of the big bad government, except when they are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability (llaurenfrank, asulkin, kjonach, ivazuka).  Corporations are always evil, unless they fund Occupy, and everyone in the 1% are trying to keep the 99% down, unless they use their power and influence in favor of Occupy.

People are quick to judge the movement and place labels on it, just as Occupiers are quick to judge and label those who oppose them.  But when those labels are laid out so simply, and the incongruities are able to surface, does it still make any sense?  No?  My thoughts exactly.


Story, Brand, and Equity. OWS or Ad?

Occupy Wall Street is an advertisement. You may be confused at that statement and even laugh, but through analysis of what the movement started as and what it has become, the characteristics of a commercial correlate to those of the movement.

Specifically, I will compare the qualities of OWS to qualities of a successful Super Bowl commercial. According to Alex Konrad, a reporter for CNN Money, the three aspects of a brilliant Super Bowl Commercial are story, brand, and equity (Konrad 1). These three qualities of OWS can be analyzed through looking at the logistics of the operation, such as how it began, the image it has created for itself, and the lasting implications that have been produced.

The story behind OWS is a primary driving force. The only way a story can appeal to its audience is to be strong and meaningful. According to a study found in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, “…ads with a strong story not only have a better shelf life in our memories, but also have it easier maintaining momentum in later ad campaigns” (Konrad 1). The matter in which the story is presented cannot be overlooked. The presentation needs to be simple, yet informative and thorough. If it’s too complicated the audience will get lost in the message that’s trying to be conveyed.

The true story of OWS lies within its origins. What started out from claims of economic inequality and frustration, expressed through peaceful and non-confrontational protest, has expanded into a wide array of motives with multiple methodologies being used. An example is the most recent OWS event, May Day. On May 1st, 2012, 50 occupiers were arrests; some protesters even threw police barricades into the middle of Broadway in an attempt to interfere with car traffic, while others sent letters containing white powder, presumed to actually be corn starch, to large financial institutions. Tactics for the day included protesting outside of Bank America for its predatory lending strategy that led numerous consumers to foreclose, blocking tunnels and bridges in New York City, and picketing outside of NYU in regards to their expansion plans in Greenwich Village (Barr 1-2).

A common interpretation of OWS is its intention to defend democracy, although some occupiers may argue with democracy is no longer present within the U.S. Nevertheless, OWS is still an evolving global movement that is consistently changing. One of my colleagues, emiliealoisia, states in her post Why Get Involved? Motivations for Supporting OWS Differ Across the Globe, “Since the movement lacks a clearly defined ideology, reasons for joining may differ between individual protestors. This is especially true when we consider the movement’s spread to other countries. Internationally, OWS has been used in a variety of ways, most of which are different from its original use in Manhattan’s Zucotti Park.” Because motives, ideals, and methodology have changed throughout the movement, they have become diluted through the cycling of old and new members. As a result, there is no solidified message.

The next key component of a successful Super Bowl Commercial is brand. Brand is the identity that is created for the message that the audience can recognize in any setting. Essentially, brand is the linkage between the story and what the organization stands for. Without this representation, there is no effect on the audience being reached out to.

Motifs and iconic symbols within an advertisement, and in OWS’s case a movement, should be synonymous with its ideals and are important to creating the brand. A large aspect of OWS’s brand is its structure. The main objective was to create a loosely horizontal structure in hopes of eluding the concept of a hierarchy. The movement has suffered as a result of this lack of solidified leadership. For instance, The New York Times heavily critiqued OWS by pointing out how the movement was not cohesive and was based on theory rather than practice. OWS responded with the idea of their own newspaper; yet occupier opinions on the topics to be addressed and tactics to be utilized varied greatly. One side wished not to “engage the system,” while the other wanted “all-encompassing demands” (Reeve 1).  Because of the huge group divide in instances such as this, OWS has had issues developing a large consensus and thus, as The New York Times implied, a cohesive message.

But, OWS has made a pitch at organization and loose leadership principles. This is evident through their implementation of a General Assembly, a symbol of OWS because of its importance. It is a nightly congregation of individuals from various backgrounds who all bring various perspectives to the union. There are no leaders, but instead facilitators who run the meetings and switch responsibilities within and between meetings to ensure fairness and a sort of “anti-hierarchy.” The statement made by OWS’s implementation of the GA is vital to its brand.

Possibly the most important aspect of a successful advertisement, being that it is the culminating effort of story and brand, is a movement’s equity. Equit measures the impact a message has on an audience and more importantly, an organization’s staying power. Successful equity results in the audience’s appreciation for years to come, while lack of equity, in other words a one-hit wonder, result in a menial impact in viewers’ minds.

OWS’s equity can be measured by its economic, social, and political implications. But, what are they? According to my colleague, gvalerio2 in her post Can You Spell Success Without OWS?, no political or economic policy has been leveraged as a result of OWS, now 8 months into the movement. However, praise (as well as criticism) gave been given towards the movement. There has been praise handed out in support of OWS, mainly from Democrats, such as House Democrat Leader Representative, Nancy Pelosi, who states, “”I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen” (Desvarieux 1).

Socially, OWS has succeeded and failed in different areas. As I mentioned before, OWS started out as a movement and strong edifice for those who were dissatisfied with America’s direction. Unfortunately it has turned into a collection of individuals, rather than a cohesive movement. This is a result of having a reach so extensive that it has reached and influenced so many people that one congealed message may never be attained. OWS became a fad for some individuals, who in turn supported the movement half-heartedly. It has even become a pop culture parody in some cases, such as in the following Star Wars reference:


A fact about OWS is that it has raised awareness. It has become a global movement that has reached many cultures and countries extensively. I’ve even had the opportunity to conduct research in another Honors course on the socio-economic and political implications of the Occupy movement outside of OWS, through analysis of movements in the UK, Nigeria, and other cities in the U.S.  All movements share a common knowledge of the basic beliefs of the movement, mediums of distribution (social networking), and (peaceful or not) some implementation of mass protest.

Comparing Occupy Wall Street to a Super Bowl commercial is not meant to be demeaning. OWS has been used as a tool to raise awareness to a cause, just as a commercial is used to raise awareness for a product. Both aim to gain a following. The story behind OWS is there, although continuously evolving. The brand has made its statement through logistical structure, yet remains diluted in overall principle. Now, has OWS established lasting equity for years to come? Yes. The movement may fizzle out in the coming months or years, but the impact of global awareness cannot be undermined.

Mark Bray, Ph.D. History student at Rutgers, said in regards to May Day, “There was a sense of novelty to Occupy in October…Today is more celebratory, and nostalgic” (Barr 2). Occupiers wanted their beliefs to be heard. The world has listened.

For Equality and Human Rights?

From books like Common Sense to the Common Laws, equality–or lack thereof–has driven many revolutions and movements. The Civil Rights Movement was about equal treatment for all races; the Brown Berets strove for equal treatment of the Latino race; the Women’s Rights Movement strove for gender equality and the list continues. The catchy phrase of Occupy Wall Street is “We are the 99%.” What they want to get across could be anyone’s guess but from photographs, the easiest conclusion is that 99% of the United States populations is struggling to make ends meet in some way or another (although it is usually monetary).

What they believe in are citizen rights. Citizen rights are differentiated from human rights as the right “to work, just pay, a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including housing and medical care, social security and education.” Human rights, as defined by Feinberg, are “moral rights of a fundamentally important kind held equally by all human beings, unconditionally and unalterably.” Human rights are ideally universal and should remain the same throughout the globe. This is not the case and it is visible on every news channel in the world. This is the primary motivation of the movement according the the photograph and the interviews, is for the moving of citizen rights to be human rights.

This is a huge thing and it makes sense why some would call those in the movement “entitled“. That’s the theory basis of it. If we were to look at the movement as a blob. Which it isn’t and that’s where psychological motivation comes into play. But to interview every single person–as the Handbook of Motivation and Cognition suggests–is nearly impossible and there are always chances that people will lie about their real reasons.

As more articles come about about possible motivations for Occupiers (members of the Occupy Wall Street Movement), I will try and connect them with research done about human motivation. There are false articles and misinformation all about but theories are proven.


“Don’t tase me, bro!” ~ “I wasn’t planning on it, sir. I’m just trying to do my job.”

Police brutality is nothing to be overlooked or downplayed. It is a serious offense. However, it is not the all-encompassing defining action of the police against Occupy. Mostly they are just trying to do their job.

As mentioned in my previous post, there has been an increase in criminal activity in and around Occupy protest sites. As a result of that activity, the police force has to be ever more vigilant at those sites to continue to protect their cities. But as the numbers of police officers increase to survey the areas of protest, tensions between the protesters and the police force rise.

Sgt. Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, explains this tension. In a Fox News article, he states, “paralysis is occurring across law enforcement. It’s becoming a Catch 22 […] To go in there to clear the [Zuccotti] park is going to cause confrontation. To not do so is detrimental.” Regarding the specific pepper spray incident in Kara Jonach’s post, Mullins told the Staten Island Advance to “remember who created the atmosphere,” referring to the rowdy protesters that caused many well-mannered, professional police officers to respond on-scene. He goes on to say that Bologna, the man responsible for pepper spraying the girls, “made a decision to use the pepper spray and it wasn’t popular,” essentially saying that it was one man’s decision and his actions should not be reflected on the police force as a whole.

Since this event, the way the police interact with protesters at Zuccotti park has changed greatly. A New York Times article reports that “most uniformed officers have remained on the perimeter of the park since the third week of the protest, rarely venturing in,” and the only officers within the park dress in plainclothes and are just there to keep the department privy to planned marches and the like. This new hands-off policing has “pleased the protesters, who have had numerous run-ins with law enforcement officers and tend to view them negatively.”

Based on what happened with the pepper spraying incident, there is good reason for protesters to be weary of a heavy police presence. However, I do not see why Bologna’s unlawful actions should somehow equate the entire police force. An anonymous police official at Zuccotti Park stated, “We try to maintain a low profile and not antagonize the crowd […] and once you go in there, there’s a sense of hostility.” Is it important for protesters to watch out for the police that act out? Sure, absolutely. But does that mean that every boy in blue is a threat? Not at all.