Occupy: beyond the political?

Today the ‘Occupy’ movement saw protests around the globe. Both small and large, peaceful and violent. And as diverse as the different occupations were, probably also were the occupiers. The rather diffuse and broad message of Occupy allow for people from many different perspectives to identify with it, from Trotskyists and anarchists to U.S. Marines and more or less apolitical seniors. This is both a strength and weakness of the movement. It can count on sympathy from many quarters of society, but is also susceptible to be moulded into a range of political agendas, whether they be traditional socialist, libertarian anti-Statist or grassroots environmentalism.

This makes it a risky business to define what Occupy is all about, though many more or less renowned people have by now tried to do so. Rather than making yet another attempt, I will instead focus on my own perspective and on Occupy, and what it has so far meant to me. While I expect some share my interpretation of the phenomenon, I am equally certain others will disagree.

Three Elements
In my view, there are three interlocking yet distinct dimensions to Occupy, a material, political and, for lack of a better word, existential element. While the media has so far focused most on the material and political side of the story, I believe that it is actually the existential message that is most important. I also believe that it is precisely this existential element that is shared amongst most of the participants in Occupy, and allows disparate groups that would normally be at odds with one another to unite under the same banner. The U.S. Marines and British anarchists being a case in point here. Since the material element is the most discussed one however, I intend to start my argument from there.

The Material: On Destitution and Debt
Considering the slogan of Occupy “we are the 99%”, it is obvious this movement has a material component. It originates with people who cannot afford proper healthcare or education, sometimes not even food or housing. It is an outcry at a society which is on the whole wealthy, but in which a significant portion of the people lives in poverty or destitution. At a basic level, Occupy is a demand by people to have access to the basic provisions one would expect to have in a developed and prosperous society.

The Political: The Polis versus the Market
Of course, such a statement could be made anywhere, so it is the location of Occupy that best expresses its political side. By targeting institutions such as Wall Street, the London Stock Exchange or representations of the government, people aim their anger at an elite which has used its economic power to consolidate its hold of a disproportionate share of society’s wealth. It is rage at banks and other financials that use lobbying and economic blackmailing to perpetuate their economic predominance and influence. And it is frustration with the governments that spend more time consulting with rich elites than with the people they are supposed to represent. Especially in the US and UK, it is also disgust of the endemic corruption, nepotism and revolving-door politics that are seemingly endemic to our modern political establishments.
The political argument runs deeper than bank bailouts and tax-exemptions for the rich however. It is recognition that the people have lost control over many parts of their societies. Privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation have shifted many institutions and aspects of our society from the political into the economic realm. This means that areas which used to be nominally controlled by the people on an equal footing, now respond to the logic of ‘one dollar, one vote’, giving the rich commensurably larger influence over the way in which our societies are shaped. The encroachment of the market on what used to be the political is therefore a direct threat to our democracies.

The Existential: “I spend, therefore I exist?”
However, I belief that these two critiques, the material and political, are both inspired by a third, existential element. This existential element might not be so consciously formulated because it cannot be as easily translated into a material need for decent housing, or a political demand for the restoration of democratic governance of society. I think however, that underneath these demands is an ultimately fundamental need for people to be recognized as human beings, equal to others regardless of wealth, status or material possessions.
In democracies, all citizens are in principle politically equal. Whether one is rich or poor. man or woman, black or white, we are all equal as participants and shapers of our societies. This does not mean that gross inequality cannot persist. But as members of a common political community, we can recognize each other as equals.
Our contemporary societies are however transforming into post-political economic communities. With the continuous annexation of political and public space to the market, we are stimulated to relate to each other as economic actors, rather than fellow citizens. We are even taught that our governments are not the representations of the people, but ‘service providers’, like utilities or telephone companies. Unlike citizens however, consumers are not fundamentally equal. Political man is valued by the weight of his vote, economic man is valued by the amount of wealth he possesses.
This is, I belief, the basic injustice of our current societies. Not merely that many of us are poor, while a few are rich. Or that some have power while others do not. The basic injustice is that economic society proclaims that some of us are more valuable, and therefore more human, than others. It is the social-Darwinian notion of the market that those who are rich, successful and ostensibly more ‘useful’ therefore also have more right to exist as human beings. Or, as one placard today in London read: “Am I human yet, or should I earn more?”. Occupy is therefore also an attempt to reclaim our common human dignity.

A common message?
Now, I will not deny that to some this idea might seem overly esoteric. I immediately acknowledge that for the really destitute, relief of their material needs is the prime reason to identify with Occupy. For others, especially the more ideologically invested among us, the political aspect might be most important, with aims ranging from the establishment of a socialist state to regulation of banks or the abolition of government altogether.
However, I belief that for the many of us who are neither exceedingly poor or very politically active, the existential element resonates the most. It is why we immediately, and on a very intuitive and emotive level, identify and sympathize with the Occupy movement. Because regardless of our differences, we believe that no society can be just in which the value of a human being scales with her income and a tiny rich aristocracy is therefore sanctioned to trample the less powerful underfoot. If there is any common message Occupy could convey, it is that we will persevere until the new self-styled nobilities of our societies admit they are not the slightest bit more human than the rest of us.