By: Amanda Porter
As David López García explains in his precis, the extent to which Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements achieved their goals and managed to influence policy is one of debate. In an era where information is highly quantified and scholars, practitioners and policy analysts alike place a premium on measurement, with casual connections as a gold standard—how can the success in terms of outcomes and influence of a movement be defined when the movement itself was largely fluid? As Saskia Sassen argues, “…Occupy Wall Street, and others—made legible the fact that occupying makes novel territory, and thereby a bit of history, using what was previously considered merely ground. Territory is itself a strategic vector in all these very diverse processes of occupation” (2012). Because the movement was born a little over five years ago, perhaps time and retrospection will reveal its true impact in history, but for this precis I will attempt to address López García’s question and discuss to what extent the Occupy Wall Street movement achieved its intended goals and even redefined the need for goals.
Primarily, I would argue that the movement’s success is hard to pin down, because the specific goals themselves were various and contested. Adding to this (or perhaps allowing it to be so) there was not a formal leadership and organizational structure in the way that Kenneth T. Andrews defines it and in the way that it existed in the civil rights movement and other movements of the 20th century. While there seems to be consensus around the fact that the Occupy Movement successfully and cleverly framed the issue of “the 99 percent and the one percent” laying out the crisis of income inequality, the corruption of Wall Street and influence of money in politics and brought the issues to the national and even international stage—the durability of the movement and concrete changes brought about by it are in question (Levitin 2015). According to Robert Reich, once the encampments that physically symbolized the movement were cleared “…nothing seemed to remain behind. Some Occupiers made plans for further actions, but a movement without structure, discipline, and strategy proved incapable of sustaining itself.” (2013). He points to the lack of leadership and decision-making structures that guided past movements, like the labor union and women’s suffrage movement, as the downfall of the Occupy movement and its ultimate lack of influence. For Reich, the goal of the movement was understood as reducing inequality, and because in 2013 (at the time of his piece) inequality was still on the rise, the movement had effectively failed to do nothing more than spread an important message.
Others point to specific policy advances, claiming that policies have been directly influenced by the Occupy movements. According Michael Levitin the following policy advances stem from specific splinter movements born out of the Occupy Movement: a renewed labor movement that has led to increases in minimum wage, a revitalized environmental movement that has led to a veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline along with divestment movements that have led to over $50 billion in fossil-fuel divestment as well as an anti-fracking movement that has led to fracking bans in several states. In terms of corruption and big money in campaign finance, Levitin claims that Occupy led to a national movement in over 600 towns and cities that have passed resolutions to overturn Citizens United to eradicate corporate personhood in electoral politics. Finally, he explains that Obama’s policy plans around free community college and proposals for debt-free college were spurred from the Occupy movement’s call for reform of the growing and oppressive student debt. In addition, Levitin points to the rise of politicians like former Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as the most important contribution of the Occupy Movement, in terms of addressing big banks and rampant inequality. He explains that leaders like Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren rose to popularity and came into office at the local and national levels on the platform of inequality and the messages made popular by the Occupy Movement. However, what Levitin fails to address in his piece are the exogenous shocks, like the financial crisis, and the external political environment and actors that may have also been factors in fostering the agenda setting and implementation of these policies.
Overall, it seems that Occupy Wall Street and similar movements broke traditional paradigms of social movements, therefore it seems necessary to evaluate the movement’s impact in a non-traditional way. Namely, the Occupy movement is missing some of the key tenants Andrews lays out that are necessary to analyzing movement outcomes. Due to the lack of identified leadership and organizational structure, it does not fit within Andrew’s outlined theory “movement infrastructure” or the “access-influence model.” While the movement seemed more in line with the “action-reaction model” in that the protest was used as a form of communication as well as a way to mobilize sympathetic third parties and influence political elites; the temporal element of the movement is still missing and it is too soon to tell if the Occupy movement goes beyond the “action-reaction” model’s agenda setting stage to have long term impact; despite its symbolic disruption being disbanded. Furthermore, while I agree with Levitin that Occupy movements paved the way for an important national dialogue and perhaps other movements were spurred by the 2011 protests, it also seems that it would be difficult to prove a direct, causal connection between the Occupy Movement and for, example, Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The logic of Reich’s argument makes sense; if the Occupy Movement’s objective was to decrease inequality and address the massive wealth accumulation of the “one percent” then again, a national discourse was stimulated and this discourse is definitely carried on by politicians, as witnessed in the 2016 election cycle. However, there hasn’t been gains in reducing income inequality and it has proven difficult to hold candidates accountable to their promises of “draining the swamp” or action on inequality and big banks, beyond campaign rhetoric. To measure the Occupy Movement’s success, it really depends what it was trying to achieve. Was the movement’s aim really as grand as to dramatically reduce income inequality in the United States over a short, 5 year period? Or was their aim to become a unifying movement towards various goals, with no specific plans to directly influence policy? In order to measure the impact, one must know the intent and in order to analyze the lasting legacy of Occupy Wall Street, I think analysts will more time to piece together the large picture of movement’s place in history.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Levitin, Michael. June 10, 2015. “The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street” The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-triumph-of-occupy-wall-street/395408/
Reich, Robert. September 16, 2013. “Happy Birthday, Occupy!” The Christian Science Monitor.
As David López García explains in his precis, the extent to which Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements achieved their goals and managed to influence policy is one of debate. In an era where information is highly quantified and scholars, practitioners and policy analysts alike place a premium on measurement, with casual connections as a gold standard—how can the success in terms of outcomes and influence of a movement be defined when the movement itself was largely fluid? As Saskia Sassen argues, “…Occupy Wall Street, and others—made legible the fact that occupying makes novel territory, and thereby a bit of history, using what was previously considered merely ground. Territory is itself a strategic vector in all these very diverse processes of occupation” (2012). Because the movement was born a little over five years ago, perhaps time and retrospection will reveal its true impact in history, but for this precis I will attempt to address López García’s question and discuss to what extent the Occupy Wall Street movement achieved its intended goals and even redefined the need for goals.
Primarily, I would argue that the movement’s success is hard to pin down, because the specific goals themselves were various and contested. Adding to this (or perhaps allowing it to be so) there was not a formal leadership and organizational structure in the way that Kenneth T. Andrews defines it and in the way that it existed in the civil rights movement and other movements of the 20th century. While there seems to be consensus around the fact that the Occupy Movement successfully and cleverly framed the issue of “the 99 percent and the one percent” laying out the crisis of income inequality, the corruption of Wall Street and influence of money in politics and brought the issues to the national and even international stage—the durability of the movement and concrete changes brought about by it are in question (Levitin 2015). According to Robert Reich, once the encampments that physically symbolized the movement were cleared “…nothing seemed to remain behind. Some Occupiers made plans for further actions, but a movement without structure, discipline, and strategy proved incapable of sustaining itself.” (2013). He points to the lack of leadership and decision-making structures that guided past movements, like the labor union and women’s suffrage movement, as the downfall of the Occupy movement and its ultimate lack of influence. For Reich, the goal of the movement was understood as reducing inequality, and because in 2013 (at the time of his piece) inequality was still on the rise, the movement had effectively failed to do nothing more than spread an important message.
Others point to specific policy advances, claiming that policies have been directly influenced by the Occupy movements. According Michael Levitin the following policy advances stem from specific splinter movements born out of the Occupy Movement: a renewed labor movement that has led to increases in minimum wage, a revitalized environmental movement that has led to a veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline along with divestment movements that have led to over $50 billion in fossil-fuel divestment as well as an anti-fracking movement that has led to fracking bans in several states. In terms of corruption and big money in campaign finance, Levitin claims that Occupy led to a national movement in over 600 towns and cities that have passed resolutions to overturn Citizens United to eradicate corporate personhood in electoral politics. Finally, he explains that Obama’s policy plans around free community college and proposals for debt-free college were spurred from the Occupy movement’s call for reform of the growing and oppressive student debt. In addition, Levitin points to the rise of politicians like former Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as the most important contribution of the Occupy Movement, in terms of addressing big banks and rampant inequality. He explains that leaders like Bill de Blasio and Elizabeth Warren rose to popularity and came into office at the local and national levels on the platform of inequality and the messages made popular by the Occupy Movement. However, what Levitin fails to address in his piece are the exogenous shocks, like the financial crisis, and the external political environment and actors that may have also been factors in fostering the agenda setting and implementation of these policies.
Overall, it seems that Occupy Wall Street and similar movements broke traditional paradigms of social movements, therefore it seems necessary to evaluate the movement’s impact in a non-traditional way. Namely, the Occupy movement is missing some of the key tenants Andrews lays out that are necessary to analyzing movement outcomes. Due to the lack of identified leadership and organizational structure, it does not fit within Andrew’s outlined theory “movement infrastructure” or the “access-influence model.” While the movement seemed more in line with the “action-reaction model” in that the protest was used as a form of communication as well as a way to mobilize sympathetic third parties and influence political elites; the temporal element of the movement is still missing and it is too soon to tell if the Occupy movement goes beyond the “action-reaction” model’s agenda setting stage to have long term impact; despite its symbolic disruption being disbanded. Furthermore, while I agree with Levitin that Occupy movements paved the way for an important national dialogue and perhaps other movements were spurred by the 2011 protests, it also seems that it would be difficult to prove a direct, causal connection between the Occupy Movement and for, example, Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The logic of Reich’s argument makes sense; if the Occupy Movement’s objective was to decrease inequality and address the massive wealth accumulation of the “one percent” then again, a national discourse was stimulated and this discourse is definitely carried on by politicians, as witnessed in the 2016 election cycle. However, there hasn’t been gains in reducing income inequality and it has proven difficult to hold candidates accountable to their promises of “draining the swamp” or action on inequality and big banks, beyond campaign rhetoric. To measure the Occupy Movement’s success, it really depends what it was trying to achieve. Was the movement’s aim really as grand as to dramatically reduce income inequality in the United States over a short, 5 year period? Or was their aim to become a unifying movement towards various goals, with no specific plans to directly influence policy? In order to measure the impact, one must know the intent and in order to analyze the lasting legacy of Occupy Wall Street, I think analysts will more time to piece together the large picture of movement’s place in history.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Levitin, Michael. June 10, 2015. “The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street” The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-triumph-of-occupy-wall-street/395408/
Reich, Robert. September 16, 2013. “Happy Birthday, Occupy!” The Christian Science Monitor.