Oakland did me in.
When I first heard the words – Occupy Wall Street – I thought, Yes! Of course! What a perfectly elegant idea. After spending most of this year watching people all over the world gather in public to demand freedom from oppression – and what’s more, to actually get somewhere – to see people in my own country do the same thing filled me with a hope that is more than just a T-shirt-ready marketing slogan. And while critics denounce the protesters based on their lack of a cohesive message, I admire it. I admire the homemade signs, the messy lack of a corporate tagline. I would, indeed, be suspicious of a slick message, knowing first hand exactly how that sausage is made.
But I haven’t joined up. I haven’t gone to any local meetings. I didn’t get out and Occupy Oneonta with the rest of my friends. It’s not a lack of solidarity or support. It’s the fact that I am feeling a deep sense of community limbo with one foot edging toward Washington and one toe still here in New York, where everyone who sees me at the coffee shop asks, “I thought you were moving?”
Then, yesterday, the unbelievable videos and photographs from the Occupy Oakland demonstration that was dispersed by police with tear gas and possibly other projectiles. (There are disputes about whether police used rubber bullets or bean bag launchers. And here is what non-lethal force looks like – a U.S. veteran hospitalized with a skull fracture sustained during the police action.)
Watching those images, I couldn’t help but think of photos of civil rights protesters being attacked by police dogs. I thought of Kent State.
Look beyond the videos though at the fact that there are so many videos. Rodney King was an exceptional case because a person with a camera just happened to capture something that was a daily occurrence. Watch this video that depicts the beginning of the police action in Oakland. Look at all the people recording the event. For all practical purposes, this is a video of police attacking a large gathering of journalists. That alone gives me hope.
A lot of the Occupy groups have adopted a logo of a powerful raised fist. It would be more accurate if that hand were holding a cellphone shooting photos and videos, texting, Tweeting and Facebooking field reports.When you document bullying and oppression, you take away a significant source of its power.
To me, that’s what all the people involved in Occupy all over the country and the world are doing. They’re documenting and sharing their experiences with the forces that are getting rich and powerful through bullying and oppression. Sometimes that oppression looks like police forces lobbing flash grenades. Sometimes it looks like a young woman bankrupted by breast cancer. Sometimes the oppressive cage seems quite gilded, as in the case of the Facebook ad that keeps showing up on my page that reads: I Am What I Buy.
Document it.
I worry about our society’s tendency to make more and more decisions on the basis of images — including banners, signs, headlines, soundbites. That’s how we got the stupid Tea Party. We now have the crazy situation now where both extremes are shouting, “It’s class war.” But is it? I read that there were 500 peaceful protesters in Oakland and the police sent in 500 heavily armed — an overreaction for sure.
Very good points. Do you think that we are more likely now to act because of images? I am not sure I agree with that, since I think the image and soundbyte have been around in one form or another forever.
I think humans use stories to define who they are, where they’ve been and where they’re going. It’s as true of a cave painting as it is of a Gucci ad in a magazine. The difference is that the latter is created for us with the express purpose of manipulation so that we will have such a strong need to be part of that story that we will pay utterly ridiculous costs of entry. And in the case of so many products, those costs include real degradation of whole communities.
I think we are more likely to react to images, to respond to them in an emotional way. They are also easier and more comfortable in that they only hint at the story, letting the audience ignore anything that may be inconvenient. That’s not to say more analytical narratives are more trustworthy, but they are a good deal harder to produce and harder to digest. And by trying to be complete as stories, they are more exposed. It’d be hard to write a thousand words on a pair of Gucci shoes themselves, what they look like, how they feel, how they’re made, and hold anyone’s attention. You’d have to talk about other things like social value, which would involve the buyer’s status.