Two positive visions of the OWS: Wolfe and Knabb, or the spectres of Debord
So while I critiqued the Goals and Visions, urm, “visions.” I will show two accounts about the positive end of things:
One of the most notable characteristics of the “Occupy” movement is that it is just what it claims to be: leaderless and antihierarchical. Certain people have of course played significant roles in laying the groundwork for Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations, and others may have ended up playing significant roles in dealing with various tasks in committees or in coming up with ideas that are good enough to be adopted by the assemblies. But as far as I can tell, none of these people have claimed that such slightly disproportionate contributions mean that they should have any greater say than anyone else. Certain famous people have rallied to the movement and some of them have been invited to speak to the assemblies, but they have generally been quite aware that the participants are in charge and that nobody is telling them what to do.
This puts the media in an awkward and unaccustomed position. They are used to relating with leaders. Since they have not been able to find any, they are forced to look a little deeper, to investigate for themselves and see if they can discover who or what may be behind all this. Since the initial concept and publicity for Occupy Wall Street came from the Canadian group and magazine Adbusters, the following passage from an interview with Adbusters editor and co-founder Kalle Lasn(Salon.com, October 4) has been widely noticed:
We are not just inspired by what happened in the Arab Spring recently, we are students of the Situationist movement. Those are the people who gave birth to what many people think was the first global revolution back in 1968 when some uprisings in Paris suddenly inspired uprisings all over the world. All of a sudden universities and cities were exploding. This was done by a small group of people, the Situationists, who were like the philosophical backbone of the movement. One of the key guys was Guy Debord, who wrote The Society of the Spectacle. The idea is that if you have a very powerful meme — a very powerful idea — and the moment is ripe, then that is enough to ignite a revolution. This is the background that we come out of.
Lasn’s description is a rather over-simplified version of what the situationists were about, but the Adbusters at least have the merit of adopting or adapting some of the situationist methods for active subversive use (which is of course what those methods were designed for), in contrast to those who relate to the situationists as passive spectators.
Another example of this quest for influences can be found in Michael Greenberg’s In Zuccotti Park (New York Review of Books, November 10):
The antic, Dadaist tone [of the Adbusters] . . . sounds more like something that was cooked up in a university linguistics class than by conventional grassroots populists. But when combined with anarchism, the hacktivism of the WikiLeaks phenomenon, and the arcane theories of Guy Debord and the so-called Situationists on the May 1968 student demonstrations in Paris, a potently popular recipe appears to have emerged.
If the situationists’ theories were really all that “arcane,” it is hard to see how they managed to inspire such an immense popular movement. But Greenberg’s article is at least a fairly decent and objective attempt to understand what is going on. This cannot be said of a more extensive article by Gary Kamiya, The Original Mad Men: What Can OWS Learn from a Defunct French Avant-Garde Group? (Salon.com, October 21), which attempts to account for what he sees as “the peculiar liaison between Occupy Wall Street and the Situationists.”
And Ross Wolfe’s “A Vision for an Emancipated Future”:
As if anticipating our own historical moment, Guy Debord once offered the following advice to anyone seeking to change the world: “Be realistic,” he insisted. “Demand the impossible!”
It is perhaps no coincidence that the only politics befitting the dignity of human freedom today seems to us impossible. We stand at the end of a long line of revolutionary defeats — some tragic, others farcical. The world lies strewn with the detritus of dead epochs. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.
And yet the past feels unbearably remote and out of reach, uncomprehended; it confronts us as an alien entity. Yesterday’s grand visions of emancipation appear to us as so many distant, delicate daydreams — untenable, unthinkable. Still in the background one can hear the faint echoes of La Marseillaise and L’Internationale, the notes all run together.
But these notes have largely been drowned out by the white noise of postmodernity. The memory of such past struggles has faded, humanity’s deepest wish-fulfillments forgotten. Instead we remain spellbound and transfixed by the current state of affairs. We have lost the ability to imagine a society built on principles fundamentally different from our own.
Without an adequate understanding of the past, we have chained ourselves to the dumb reality of the present, abandoning all hope for a better future. What little political imagination still survives is kept alive only by scavenging the desiccated remains of what once was possible. We have thus set sail into the open seas of ahistory, and landed promptly in oblivion. Only now are we beginning to glimpse the first rose-fingered rays of the dawn of a new era.
I strongly suggest you read both, and the spectre that haunts them:
“Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea. ”
― Guy Debord