The Pros and Cons of Occupation

The protest tactic of occupying a public space 24/7 has clearly captured the attention of the world.  Other grassroots movements like the Tea Party are hostile to the occupy movement partly because they're jealous of the success, angry they didn't think of it themselves.  However, the physical occupations also carry a burden, one which is threatening the political movement which, if successful, would allow everyone to go home, and to have a home to go to.

Simply sustaining the occupation is a major effort, sucking up resources that could otherwise be applied to political change.  And as a physical symbol of a political movement, the failure of an occupation would be seen as symbolic of the failure of the movement.  And in public perception, a physical occupation has unattractive aspects, since people camping creates sanitation issues, requires police monitoring, and inconveniences passers by.

The physical occupations have also contributed to a skewing of media attempts to define the political movement.  The people who actually camp 24/7 are generally young people who didn't have good jobs or families to tie them down.  This self-selected group also contains some of the most aggressive and radical members of the disaffected 99%.  Some of them are having fun playing revolutionary.  Members of the mainstream media have been verbally abused and confronted by people in masks.  This is not the nonviolent movement we wanted, and 90% of the 99% would disapprove.

The physical encampments are just the tip of the iceberg of the political movement.  Most people who consider themselves participants in the movement are not camping and may never even get down to the protest site.  They participate online, or only attend one or two events or marches at the protest site.  I can't speak for the campers, but most of us in the movement do have jobs, families and responsibilities.  We will continue to fulfill these obligations as we fight for change.  Do we need the physical occupations to accomplish our goals?  Without the encampments, will the spirit of Occupy Wall Street fizzle, or become co-opted by established political organizations who are part of the system we're attacking?

If we no longer had 24/7 encampments, something else would have to take their place.  Physical presence would probably still be required to attract the attention which is a prerequisite to getting the change we want. Could occasional presence be as effective as a 24/7 encampment?  Could it be even more effective?  If resources and energy weren't spent maintaining encampments, would more people participate in isolated marches and protest actions?  If people didn't have the encampments to criticize, it would be harder to pigeonhole the movement.

I'm not trying to sabotage the movement, nor am I insisting that we do away with the encampments.  I think we need to have this debate though.  We need to have contingency plans in case occupations start failing.  The oncoming winter creates a greater threat to the viability of the occupations than the police crackdowns.  While occupation started this movement, it need not define it.  We eventually need to grow beyond camping.  What will the Occupy Movement look like when we no longer occupy?