Co-option

[Mark]

L'Avante-Garde, we are not for sale but we are for distribution. The truth is that the SEIU - and probably Move On as well - was slick and never mentioned Occupy but only the 99% movement and the truth is Occupy doesn't own it - nor should we try to. The 99% movement, while acknowledging Occupy as its origin is now much bigger than Occupy. We should be glad, really, that we were able to create a class consciousness among Americans. We shouldn't get possessive about the language we use or try to make it harder for people to adopt our symbols and, therefore, our thinking. We shouldn't try to discourage people from saying they are with us or part of us.
That is how a movement gains momentum and we shouldn't interfere with that.

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

[quote="m_x"]Mary I'm sorry but I don't quite understand why you think our statement is so much more personal than the OWS version. We used theirs as a template but sought to make it even clearer.]

Personal, because I can't find a comfortable place for myself and people like me within the organization.

In making it clearer you've made it dogmatic. Your "clarity" constricts, confines, limits and effectively replaces the reflection and exploration that needs to go on in every members head every day of our lives! We must be challenged to think for ourselves, evolve, reflect and adapt.

[Also I appreciate poetry but we need to be clear more than we need to be poetic IMO.]

Read the great documents and speeches that have transformed generations. They are pure poetry. The power to inspire and cross boarders and generations is in the artistry of the words, and space they leave for the listeners imagination. Why are we arguing to settle for less! Since antiquity it's the artist who encapsulate a cultures values.

From this I expect you to make the practical translation in your own head, using your own knowledge, wisdom and experience. I

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

Mary, could you copy and paste the version you prefer into this forum and highlight the parts you are specifically talking about?
I have asked everyone on the 90+ email chain about this and about 10 other subjects to move their discussion into this forum to streamline matters.

I already included the original back in the thread.(Bearhair kindly gave direction with a link)
Since then L'avant-garde has created a Chicago version.

To start
HIGHLIGHT
Occupy Chicago is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, a union, an advertising campaign, or a brand.It is not for sale or distribution. Mark's suggestion: It is not for sale but is free to be distributed widely.

This is GOLD. Does anyone need an explanation why?

I'll continue, Sam, if this is the kind of highlighting you find helpful.

[m_x]

I don't believe this movement is free to be distributed widely, there are preconditions. For example we've been non-partisan since day one.

While its great we've changed the conversation we need to be conscious of where that conversation in now heading. For example Obama's first campaign speech was based around income inequality, if he we are not careful we could actually be aiding his message, which is empty and nothing more than a distraction from real change. We must try to frame what standing for the 99% means and what occupy means.

This message is meant to empower the movement. It is meant to give credence to the messages we send out and to ensure our autonomy. Not invite others co-opt our message which I think "free to distribute widely" implies.

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

I misquoted Mark, so look above and see what he said "it's not for sale but for distribution" and it refers directly to the preceding so let's not take it out of context.

Mark can step in here on that point. I'm ready to move on to the next paragraph.

In summary of paragraph one:
I love that they choose not to define the movement, but to define in absolute terms what it is not. It's succinct and deftly identifies the players complicit in maintaining the status quo we find intolerable.

[Mark]

Co-optation has several sociological meanings. One is the one we all abhor, the appropriating of the superficial stylistic elements of a movement while shunning any substantive part of it. This is done by those who would exploit it for their own gain and by those threatened by it to neutralize it. The latter would be done by Wall Street to our movement making our language and symbols into advertising slogans and logos that would have no deeper purpose than the selling of product for someone's personal profit.
The second definition is quite different. This sociological meaning of the word signifies a point of success or victory for an insurgent social movement. That is the point at which the language, symbols as well as the essential values and goals of the movement that were initially confined only to the subculture of the insurgent, oppositional minority are adopted by the broader, more mainstream culture and the realization of the goals of the movement, at least in some measure, become a fait accompli. This happened when Civil Rights Movement made its final gains, when the war in Viet Nam finally ended and when Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976 wearing blue jeans and quoting Bob Dylan.
We all want to prevent the first definition from becoming the reality but we shouldn't try to prevent the second from happening just for the sake of our own vanity.

[Mark]

Co-optation has several sociological meanings. One is the one we all abhor, the appropriating of the superficial stylistic elements of a movement while shunning any substantive part of it. This is done by those who would exploit it for their own gain and by those who are threatened by it in order to neutralize it. The latter would be done, for example, by Wall Street to our movement making our language and symbols into advertising slogans and logos that would have no deeper purpose than the selling of product for someone's personal profit.
The second definition is quite different. By this sociological meaning the word signifies a point of success or victory for an insurgent social movement. That is the point at which the language, symbols as well as the essential values and goals of a movement that were initially confined only to the subculture of the insurgent, oppositional minority are adopted by the broader, more mainstream culture and the realization of the goals of the movement, at least in some measure, become a fait accompli. This happened when Civil Rights Movement made its final gains, when the war in Viet Nam finally ended and when Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976 wearing blue jeans and quoting Bob Dylan.
We all want to prevent the first definition from becoming the reality but we shouldn't try to prevent the second from happening just for the sake of our own vanity. We musn't be possessive about our language and symbols and hope for as wide a distribution of them as possible together with the same for our goals and values.

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

From the Original OWS Announcement
PARAGRAPH TWO: (my thoughts)

We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence.(This is inclusive, makes honesty a prerequisite for participation, and mandates non-violence as the modus operandi.) We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy. (Needs punctuation:"to engage in participatory, as opposed to partisan, debate and democracy.)(Clearly re-affirms political independence We welcome dissent.(We expect to learn from each other.)

This sets expectations without dictating behavior. It asks us to be our better selves. It asks us to be open minded and interested.

PARAGRAPH 3 (This creates an official source without any foot stomping. I can't support this until the GA remote vote is enacted)

Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at www.nycga.net should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street.

PARAGRAPH 4
We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people. (This restates and identifies unequivocally what being non-partisan means, but doesn't preclude future involvement in an unestablished entity if the people decide it wise. This also provides for adaptability envisioning the movement to be around a long time.)

To be continued...

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

Sam. Matt, where do we stand on this discussion. Where are you at on the rewrite? Have you abandoned what I took for genuine openness and retreated to committee?

[Bearhair]

The intro of this proposal is that "we need to clarify our position in the political world, and distance ourselves from those who try to co-opt it."

The OWS text is their Statement of Autonomy, but in comparing it with the latest version in this proposal, it seems that the Chicago version is more of a mission statement.

Also,

Occupy Chicago does not endorse and never has endorsed the two dominant parties, Democrat and Republican, that are currently carrying out the agenda of the 1%. Our only affiliation is with those who want to end the entanglement of big business and government.

I'm very uncomfortable with these two sentences. First of all, it does not clearly separate the issues of endorsement and affiliation.

Regarding endorsements, OWS states quite simply: "We have not made endorsements." Your version focuses on endorsement of entire political parties, and rejects only two of the 12 or more political parties working towards the 2012 Presidential election. Any potential endorsements by Occupy Chicago would be for a particular candidate, not an entire political party.

OWS' statement on affiliation is "We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people." I believe we also should remain unaffiliated with ANY political party or candidate. Your text can be interpreted to mean that Chicago can affiliate with a political party, as long as it's not the 2 mainstream parties.

If the intent is to draft a statement of independence (autonomy) in reaction to the supposed attempt by SEIU to co-opt the Occupy name, then keep it simple and state that we have not endorsed any political candidate, and, as OWS states:

"Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at [occupychi.org] should be considered independent of Occupy [Chicago]."