Occupy Oakland got rough on Saturday night, when an attempt to occupy a vacant convention center resulted in police using tear gas and other weapons, as well as, reportedly, protesters throwing rocks back at them. Some of the most widely-circulated photos depicted the burning of an American flag that had been removed from Oakland’s City Hall. On Sunday, other Occupy groups around the country took to the streets in solidarity marches. In New York, there were reports of potentially dangerous actions, including a bottle being thrown. Entrepreneurial live streamer Tim Pool, as The New York Observer anxiously reports, noted that there was more of a black bloc presence than usual. The night before, an OWS-er allegedly used pepper spray on a police officer.
Those who had been at the afternoon’s Occupy Town Square beforehand might have seen this coming. Members of OWS’s Direct Action Working Group—which oversees the planning of most marches and other actions—gave an impromptu teach-in about the idea of “diversity of tactics,” which was in many respects insightful, but ultimately became an apologia for undertaking, or at least tolerating, what might be construed as violent actions. The villains of the presentation, perhaps even more so than police, were those within the movement who denounce or try to stop others who want to do such things. They were described as likely to be sexist and racist for trying to insist on nonviolent discipline.
The teach-in also revealed a misunderstanding. Several participants indicated that they thought Occupy Wall Street had a statement of nonviolence, and that there was an underlying presumption that all movement actions would operate under such an assumption. (Hence the often-heard chant, “This! Is! A peaceful protest!“) To an extent, this is true; just about every major document passed by the General Assembly includes some mention of nonviolence. Many other Occupy groups have issued much more explicit commitments to nonviolence, and the Alliance of Community Trainers has eloquently called for the movement as a whole to do so more. But New York’s Direct Action group has in its GA-passed guidelines a nod to respecting “a diversity of tactics”—which opens the floodgates. It means that, effectively, in an Occupy Wall Street action, you can’t assume that nonviolent discipline will be maintained by everyone in the movement. And this teach-in was a reminder that nonviolent tactics are not favored by some of those most influential in Direct Action.
A diversity of tactics can be a good thing. A lot of the movement’s success stems from creating a framework that smaller, autonomous sub-groups can fill with their own creativity and instincts, as well as their sense of what tactics are appropriate. Gandhi would be the first to add that willingness to fight violently is preferable to mere passivity. And to the credit of their common sense, Occupy protesters have overwhelmingly left the violence to the police.
But the diversity of tactics framework might have other consequences as well. For a movement that still hasn’t managed to mount a demonstration in New York as well-attended as a single sold-out game at Yankee Stadium, the prospect of vigilantes doing dangerous things on behalf of a larger crowd could make even fewer people feel safe taking part. Such a framework can also mean that the media attention is unduly monopolized by a violent few, rather than the effect of a peaceful—even militantly peaceful—many.
When the afternoon teach-in was over, a small group of participants stuck around, many of whom seemed to be concerned about what they’d just heard. (The demographics among these stragglers would have deflected accusations of racism or sexism.) Some were coming to terms with the realization that Direct Action, as it stands, is not planning its marches and demonstrations with nonviolent discipline in mind. And they knew that truly nonviolent action and destructive tactics don’t easily mix.
Therefore, if people in the Occupy movement want to infuse their resistance with a fuller spirit of nonviolence, they will have to organize new kinds of direct actions themselves, whether within or alongside the Direct Action group, and ask outright that those who take part in these particular actions do so nonviolently. All the better if trainings can be provided in advance. Those who believe that nonviolent force is really more powerful and more revolutionary than hateful or destructive force should find ways to prove it. The burden, as it stands, is on them to carve out new space even within the diversity of tactics framework—as well as on their comrades respect these tactics in turn.
Awesome. Keep it up! King’s insistence on purification before action is not roundly understood.
Hi Nathan – Thanks for this. I’ve proposed for Thursday’s GA a group reading — and, time and consensus-permitting, breakout discussion — of the last several paragraphs of Emma Goldman’s afterword to “My Further Disillusionment in Russia”:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/further/mfdr_12.html
The excerpt begins at “There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another”. I’m inviting many other groups, including Occupy Faith, who are soon planning to lead non-violence workshops in the model of those conducted by King. I’d love it if you could attend.
hi,
i was one of the co-presenters for the talk about diversity of tactics. i’d like to point out that the position we took in regards to violence and non-violence has been pretty aggressively misrepresented. we never asserted that folks who seek to regulate the actions of others are “likely sexist/racist”. what we did assert was that many of the criticisms of violent tactics/property destruction are authoritarian, coercive, and reinforce racist and patriarchal power dynamics. we also took the position that in order for a choice to be ethically or politically relevant, it must be a choice. which is to say, that if we force each other (through coercion, intimidation, or, say, misrepresenting each others political ideas on the internet) then we are a) not actually in a non-violent movement and b) not acting freely. we also pointed out that white/straight/men should not speak on behalf of people of color, women or queer/trans people. we do not need straight white men to tell us what makes us safe or unsafe. by focusing on our comrades who use, for example black bloc tactics, we obscure the state, structural, and police violence that actually makes us unsafe. what we need to understand various tactics as being part of a rich tapestry of resistance, as all contributing to the same struggle. i do support my comrades who choose to use black bloc tactics (who you have slanderously misrepresented as “violent vigilantes”). i also stand with my comrades who choose to use marches, performance art, sit ins, and rallies. by no means did we make the argument that “at any point we could riot!” we did say that we respect each others autonomy and commit to engaging in supportive critique and conversation to find the best path forward. and for the record, i give trainings on non-violent direct action on a regular basis, as do many others in the movement who host a wide range of political perspectives. and finally, while we unambiguously support a diversity of tactics framework, the vast majority of our actions have been explicitly non-violent. we have made that choice strategically and in full knowledge of the wide range of tactics available to us. we have made every effort to be clear about what folks can expect at each of our actions and engage actively in educating each other about how to work in solidarity with one another.
I was another co-presenter and also feel as though this article severely simplifies an attempt to nuance a conversation that has been, for the most part, very flat and dehistoricized at OWS.
And to be clear, as the presenter who attempted to illuminate a feminist analysis of the conversation, I would re-emphasize that autonomous tactical choice is inherently tied into gender liberation.
Those who are female assigned must be given the opportunity to make informed choices about their needs, rather than be confronted with frameworks that might not always be of use (and could potentially be very oppressive).
This statement makes NO reference to any specific tactic or penchant for violence. It is a statement about feminism – that the right to use ones body as one sees fit is DIRECTLY tied into feminist themes and goals.
To use an example, I will say that I am pro-choice. I am aware that abortion can be seen as a violent act in many ways. I am also aware that only the individual woman can understand her situation in the best way and what might be best for all parties involved. I can not assume that because one woman can afford to raise a child and has support networks to do so means that all women have that option. Hence the “CHOICE” in pro choice.
Your flattening of my portion of the teach-in into these two sentences –
“The villains of the presentation, perhaps even more so than police, were those within the movement who denounce or try to stop others who want to do such things. They were described as likely to be sexist and racist for trying to insist on nonviolent discipline.”
– is insulting and tells me two things. 1) you did not attempt to understand or listen, but 2)simply felt attacked and became defensive, like most men who are confronted with the thought that women are people who contain the same capacity for complex decision making and need assessments (and let me emphasize, women are people who have been historically cornered into passivity and violently repressed or silenced when speaking out against that concept. You will never understand how awful this feels).
You, in your assumptive reaction, missed my most important and critical point.
We must be non-violent with EACH OTHER, as a first and foremost way to build a community of resistance. Sometimes this means respecting autonomy – while simultaneously promoting a necessary dialog where groups who disagree can come to consensus on tactics and agreements that collectively liberate us all.
Also, I favor no particular tactic as tactics are instrumental and only useful in context.
I was present when I heard both of you, and think you were both respectful on the surface, to what people had to say about diversity of tactics. I did find it very manipulative and misleading. I did a point of information, and was corrected, that OWS never consented to non violence.
Here’s the phrase that says it “Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience” and it was consented upon, Sept. 23rd, see the link http://www.nycga.net/resources/principles-of-solidarity/
Non violence and violent tactics are NOT compatible together. The actions of one violent person destroys credibility of all non violent activists. I do respect what S and Z were saying, about the sexist construct, but that’s different. If a woman is doing anything within our principles of solidarity, she’s welcome to do so. Whatever you go by, you cannot call yourself a part of OWS specifically and be violent.
You cannot be non violent to each other, if you’re going to be violent to the police, and then have them beaten up. I say this, because it happened to me. You guys threw stuff at the police, and ran away, while rest of us got batoned and pepper sprayed.
It is one thing, in Oakland, where they did not consent to non violence, and everyone is on the same page. The dialogue you guys were having was not proper, because most of the people marching, and rightfully so, they thought this was non violent march, and were not told of the parameters of this march…thus hurting US. Before you guys call us to be non violent with you, how about you be non violent with us, at the very least?
I am very disappointed in the members of DA, and New School, who came up with facetious excuses like “Violence, for some of us, is the ONLY way to communicate back”.
If you want to commit acts of violence, do so OUTSIDE of OWS, in a separate occupation. There are 13 occupations, go make a 14th occupation in NYC, but do not blemish and destroy all the good work that non violent activists have done. There is no room for us in your diversity of tactics, and as proper procedure, we’ve consented to non violence in our Principles of Solidarity.
I too was at this event and from my perspective, the ‘presentors’ are the ones who suffer the prejudice of their opinions! Nathan and Yani has presented the right perspective on what transpired at this event.
Thank you so much, s and z, for your comments. They remind me why I love OWS.
Nathan,
While I have appreciated much of your commentary concerning OWS over the past few months, this post is most disappointing and disconcerting. I have a few qualms, which I will name, but broadly, you seem to be parroting the typical privileged and ignorant position towards tactics and strategy that has plagued white men for some time. (like 2000 years)
My first objection is to a part of your first sentence: “reportedly, protesters throwing rocks back at them.” Are you vying for Sarah Maslin Nir’s job at the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/us/occupy-oakland-protest-leads-to-hundreds-of-arrests.html?_r=1&ref=occupywallstreet) ?
For the entire first paragraph, you are starting the narrative by blaming protesters (in the very first sentence) for violence which was blatantly initiated by the police at every turn. Self-defense is the foundation of ethical and moral action – grow up, learn human past and (more importantly, present) situations.
Why not begin with a record of police violence?
My second objection to your inflammatory tone towards the OWS Direct Action WG. You somehow insinuate racism and sexism from teach-in trainers who knew more about racism and sexism when they were 10 then you will in your entire life. This is a personal attack on your character. Fuck you.
My third objection is towards your laughable (mis)understanding of a diversity of tactics, and to OWS’s understanding AND PRACTICE of a diversity of tactics. I don’t even know where to begin on this. You used to hang around Liberty Plaza – now you are simply out of touch and ignorant of what actually goes on in OWS planning and practice. If you aren’t willing to be present and take action, don’t report like you know what is happening on the ground.
My fourth objection is to your RACIST AND SEXIST remark later on: “When the afternoon teach-in was over, a small group of participants stuck around, many of whom seemed to be concerned about what they’d just heard. (The demographics among these stragglers would have deflected accusations of racism or sexism.)” – Clue yourself into racism and sexism: simply because YOU CHOOSE TO LABEL people as a certain gender or ethnicity based on outward appearances does not mean that those people can’t be both sexism and racist. You basically just said, “Hey, I’m not a racist, I have black friends.” Again, this is an attack on your personal character. Fuck you, you racist, sexist asshole.
My fifth objection is to your ignorant-as-fuck use of Gandhi’s words. You use this quote: “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…” blah blah blah. What is NOT sexist about Gandhi’s words? In a similar vain, he clearly says, “I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.” Is ’emasculation’ not sexist enough for you?
He is also one of the most racist figures in Indian Independence towards the subcontinent’s Dalit population (see Gandhi vs. Ambedkar). You don’t know shit about Gandhi – just what you read in your “Nonviolence is heavenly” class assignments at that name-that-privileged-college you MOST DEFINITELY went to.
Nathan – do yourself a favor: stick to writing and “reporting” on cats in trees, the local cop hero, and maybe get your feet wet with some human interest stories on a sick child somewhere in northern Pennsylvania (just don’t mention fracking – your future bosses at the NYTimes won’t like it).
You’re a dirtbag,
d
Hi Nathan and all,
First, I owe you, Nathan, a deep apology. My hateful language was completely out of place and wrong, to say the least. I want you to know I am sorry for typing what I did, and that I don’t hold on to any of what I said. I don’t expect you to accept my apology, but please know that I extend it to you with all sincerity.
Though I am not articulate enough to write it, this article accurately depicts how I really feel about this whole discussion.
Solidarity and Apologies,
d
Thanks, all, for taking the time to respond.
s, z, and d, I regret that in this brief post I didn’t have the chance to report more fully on your presentation, which was really very eloquent and well-done in many respects. (I wasn’t planning to write about it, so I didn’t bother to write exact quotes in my notebook.) But I’m not sure that I deserve the vitriol of these comments. In the above article, I actually don’t criticize anything you said, or contend with it in any detail. Nor do I dismiss it. I don’t condemn anyone who feels that they have no choice but to use violence or destructive tactics (though I do feel called to try to offer nonviolent alternatives based on what has worked in similar situations elsewhere). I tried to listen attentively, and what I failed to grasp is my own fault of course. But the main points made in my article don’t really seem to be the points you’re attacking me for. In fact, they seem to be things you would probably agree with:
1) Diversity of tactics, including tactics that some might perceive as violent, are understood as acceptable within the Direct Action working group. Therefore participants in OWS actions (unless it is otherwise stated) should be aware that nonviolent discipline is not to be presumed or expected. Many people are not aware of this, as I learned at and after the teach-in.
2) People who want to pursue nonviolent tactics should autonomously take it upon themselves to organize new kinds of actions in this vein, within or without Direct Action. Again, as s suggests, this is totally consistent with the positions presented at the teach-in and the diversity of tactics framework generally. Such actions would of course be totally voluntary. Those who are committed in principle to nonviolent action should focus on these.
I think in many cases above, you’re assuming I’m saying something that I’m not. In fact, I mainly wrote this not as a criticism of black bloc or related tactics, but as a way of offering something constructive to people in the movement who are interested in nonviolent discipline and who are frustrated—something I’ve witnessed a lot in OWS actions—by the doings of affinity groups that undertake destructive tactics on behalf of the whole group. These people perceive such things as a kind of abuse of their own solidarity, and I’m suggesting that they can find a constructive way of responding and moving forward while remaining in solidarity with all.
In that spirit, I’d like to point out one thing z writes that I found really interesting:
I think part of the disagreement is that many people who come to OWS come as gray-area bystanders, not always sure if they’re part of it or not, even if they want to be. The boundaries are porous. There are even people in OWS who imagine that the NYPD will magically join them one day if they’re really nice. (I doubt it, though it’s not impossible.) A perspective of nonviolence might suggest that everyone is at least potentially part of the movement, so we should all be nonviolent with one another. If one is nonviolent to allies, but potentially violent to enemies, does one always know which is which? Do activists need to wear uniforms, to be sure? Should they be nonviolent to cop infiltrators but violent to one in uniform who has been trying to persuade his colleagues not to be brutal to protesters? I have, for instance, heard second-hand reports from Sunday night of people in the movement physically attacking one another in the melee. What if this is true? Was this merely a case of what the military so disgustingly calls “friendly fire”? Or was this an extension of a logic of exclusion, where certain people take it upon themselves to say who is in and who is out? What right do they have? Based on conversations about the incident I’ve heard since then, it’s hard to know.
By the way, I am also certainly aware that Gandhi was, like all of us, far from perfect. In graduate school, I once even presented a paper at a masculinity studies conference about the similarities between how Gandhi and Osama bin Laden managed their families! But I don’t think that’s grounds for neglecting his insights and the tools he did offer by which people might choose to liberate themselves. Ultimately, we must all adjudicate any argument made by authority for ourselves.
As several of you so rightly suggested in your presentation, finally, one can’t assume that one knows who one is talking to, and where a person is coming from, and one should therefore be careful before speaking on the basis of such assumptions. Regarding the hateful language on display here, I can’t do better than to offer your own advice back to you.
This is a general response to the issues raised, not Nathan or OWS, per se. I have been an activist for 30 years, starting in 1980. I have been actively engaged in issues ranging from AIDS to Sex trafficking and domestic violence, healthcare to homelessness, Guatamala, El Salvador and Iraq*2. And a few more. I spent a few hours yesterday in conversation on the OccupyMarine site. What I heard and observed there was very scary to me. I have not busted my ass for 30, with countless others, to get the momentum to where it is now, to have it blown out of the water by hot heads and resistance fighters who think there’s glory to be found here. What I heard and read on this so called non-violent site gave me the first pause that I’ve had, that the inevitability of change in a good way could be hijacked by OUR OWN SIDE. Non-violence and non-violent resistance are very sophisticated methods….it’s not just about “oh, I won’t fight back!” For anon, e.g., to broadcast a message of never forgive, never forget, (regardless of where or how it originated) is as fascist and buffoonish a slogan as I can think of. Slogans and symbols matter. The current spate of “activists” sound like 12 year olds who think they finally have the drop on the bullies. If they do not intend to make a serious and sincere commitment to non-violence they do not represent me and they do not have the moral authority of their cause.
Nathan, to say that your framing and tone regarding the presentation/discussion of a diversity of tactics as it related to more aggressive and even violent tactics was anything but negative and misleading would be a lie. It is clear that you were presenting it as innapropriate and wrong. Also you insinuate that non-violent activists have been misled in the types of actions they have been participating in with OWS. Not true. As was discussed yesterday and many times elsewhere, individual actions are concepted, generally, with action agreements specific to that day or action. All planned actions by the direct action working group of OWS have been planned with what would generally be considered “non-violent tactics.” All but a few actions, all taking place at night with specific goals of taking streets and a pretty clear demeanor, have been undeniably family friendly.
The way you have presented this it is as if folks were arguing for their right to do whatever they feel like doing any time and that frankly isn’t true. People are people and they are free to do as they please. What is expected, as stated by DA, is that they be aware of the effects of their actions on those around them. By having specific marches or actions that are more aggressive, folks are given an appropriate outlet as opposed to having nowhere to express themselves and maybe making a poor decision at a more family oriented action.
I think what you’ve done here is write a piece that was inaccurate in it’s account, pushing a position and agenda. And, frankly, I think you unexpectedly got caught by the presenters and others who didn’t share your perception of the teach-in. This post, to me, seems to do a lot of back peddling and reframing of your original tone. Maybe you’ve had more time now to think about your statements or something and now you feel differently then when you wrote the original piece, but maybe that means you should take more time and do a better job preparing for a critique.
Anthony; I think my language is quite clear. I did not say anyone was purposely misled (which seems to be what you’re accusing me of). I said:
I believe “misunderstanding” is accurate and I stand by that. People I spoke with were genuinely confused after the presentation. I wonder whether the fact that certain readers know me to be a proponent of nonviolence is part of why the piece was read with the assumption that I am yet another oppressive person trying to silence them. As someone who has tried to grapple with “diversity of tactics” in a positive light—and taken heat from some in the nonviolence world for doing so—I’m doing what I can to be constructive. I certainly have not been anywhere near as offensive to the presenters as they have been to me.
You’re totally right about the “diversity of tactics” doctrine “that they be aware of the effects of their actions on those around them,” and perhaps that would have been worth mentioning. It’s another really interesting notion, and quite beautiful. I guess what I’m speaking to is the sense among many people in the movement I’ve heard from that, when they experience potentially violent or destructive behavior in marches or other settings, they have felt that this doctrine was not being followed. For them, it is only being followed if fellow protesters remain nonviolent, period. In some respects, those people—of which there are many—are the ones I’m mainly referring to.
You also mention the idea, discussed in the presentation, that all but night actions are assumed to be family-friendly, and that people can easily make decisions for their own safety. What is clear to you is by no means clear to others. The calls to action (many of which I suspect DA doesn’t control) do not say, “Don’t bring your kids tonight, this might get hairy.” I was not aware of this assumption myself. The Brooklyn Bridge action of October 1 was case in point; as we all know, there were many people who took the road on the bridge, following the lead of people in DA and others, assuming it was part of the plan. Big success? In many respects, yes. But transparency, clarity, and showing evidence of communicating well with one’s comrades? Not exactly.
I’m glad that you see past actions as being designed with nonviolent tactics in mind. As far as I’ve seen, this is true. What I’m suggesting at the end (and as I’ve suggested since my reports in the first week of OWS) is that there could be more experimentation with new, perhaps “deeper” kinds of nonviolent actions, with more explicit discipline. For many people, merely being “not physically violent” isn’t exactly the same as being truly “nonviolent,” and they have a desire for more of the latter. I think of something like the successful singing anti-foreclosure actions, or the nighttime vigil for the chancellor following the UC Davis tear-gassing. That was one of the most powerful actions of the whole movement, in my mind: speaking truth to power without saying a word.
For the record, the Direct Action Working Group planned the Brooklyn bridge march to go over the pedestrian walkway. Individuals taking direct action led the march over the roadway. I would also note that the police allowed for this to happen as what I think to have been an intentional trap. Also when members of DAWG noticed the march had split, they went to the fork and informed folks of the higher risk of going onto the roadway.
Next point, I wasn’t saying that you had said the presenters misled the participants. I’m saying that your framing of the presentation is misleading to your readers.
“And this teach-in was a reminder that nonviolent tactics are not favored by some of those most influential in Direct Action.”
this is literally saying that we, as presenters, would prefer not to use non-violent tactics. That’s just inaccurate. Though it is common with folks who see diversity of tactics as an argument in favor of violence. The presentation did not say “violence is the way” it was more focussed on acknowledging tactics as tools. Neutral in and of themselves and only able to be evaluated in context of their use.
I’m frustrated that this is the way this discussion is taking place because I have nowhere to go but to a defensive place in responding to your agenda framed article. No one is arguing to wage violence for many strategic and contextual reasons. But acknowledging that context as well as strategies can and must change, we should keep all of our tools in the box so that we can make choices about which ones are right for which job. In short, you can’t use a hammer to do the job of a saw.
I’m aware that DAWG planned to go on the pedestrian bridge; I reported exactly that that day, since I was interviewing a DA member before and during the action in order to better understand how DA plans related to the reality of an action. I only said, above, that among the people who autonomously chose to go on the road were some DA people, though perhaps that is irrelevant. But thanks for clarifying. Personally, I’m a big admirer of Direct Action, which is such a vibrant, creative, and self-aware community.
Perhaps people should be on the defensive when arguing that violent or destructive tactics might be appropriate for a movement. (I’m not alone in having perceived that as your basic message. I might have overstated the point in what you cite above.) That’s a grave discussion, one not to be taken lightly. And the many people who do not accept your position that tactics are neutral were certainly put on the defensive by your presentation. Which I assume was the point.
Nevertheless, perhaps its best to be cautious about getting trapped in ideological battles right now. My article essentially accepts the diversity of tactics framework, and calls on people who want to see more creative and nonviolent actions to pony up, to demonstrate much more fully that they can be militant without being destructive. I am gratified to see that there are projects in the works now to do just that, projects that are in keeping with a diversity of tactics but which aim to infuse the movement with a renewed positive, courageous, creative ethos—and this is something that I think both you and those people uncomfortable with the presentation can get equally excited about.
Hey Nathan,
Quickly-
As a member of the DA working group I feel harshly misrepresented. I wouldn’t sum it up in the exact ways that others have, however, I feel that this article was saying, ‘you can’t trust those direct action folks, they are into violence and as we know non-violence is the only way to go’. You didn’t say it just like that, but that is certainly, definitely, absolutely the tone of this piece.
I keep feeling like the missing piece in diversity of tactics discussions is that it’s not about everyone acting freely. If that were the case, I could freely act to interfere when I saw someone doing something violent, racist, or otherwise destructive.
Diversity of tactics translates as Thou Shalt Not Interfere. I can’t abide by that commandment, and that’s why nonviolence and violence don’t mix. In any situation where diversity of tactics is the law being laid down, respect requires that I stay away rather than walk in with the intention of breaking the rules.
Only those who have no arguments, resort to violence. If you only want destruction, you can use violent acts, but if you really want change in your society, non violent tactics is the only way. The reason is simple; The society as a whole is far stronger than your movement, when it comes to violence. So what you need is respect for your arguments and actions, and that will fade away quickly if you use violent actions. The freedom for individuals and groups of choosing the when, where and how, must be within a framework, to be successful. This means solidarity with the movement and I think OWS should explicitly declare non-violence as part of the framework. This of course means condemnation of acts of violence and credibility in the eyes of citizens outside the movement.
Firstly, I’m sure that I and the other presenter didn’t use any hateful language. Why would you say that?
Second, To clarify, being non-violent with each other means that we use:
Honesty, open communication, no assumptions, and actively dialoging and working against oppressive dynamics (sexism, racism, classism, ageism, ableism, etc). It means respect and solidarity.
Through doing this we can understand a few basic principles that anarchism functions off of – what are our needs, what are our abilities, and what are our vulnerabilities?
As communities we should be free to explore these and find the balance that is right for us with open minds and hearts to each other.
That being said, as someone who has been involved in planning most of the large actions at OWS, the collective takes great care to understand the tactical needs of the occupation based off of the needs of those who participate in the group. The framework that the community seems comfortable with at this moment is consistently one of non violence, as we find when we establish action agreements before any mass mobilization.
We have created and trained COUNTLESS occupiers in non-violent direct action (NVDA) and I am frankly quite aware that nonviolence does not equal passivity, as someone who has participated many acts of civil disobedience for many different issues. If any group doesn’t understand the principles of nonviolence, it is those who show up to actions and are afraid to put their bodies on the line in an instrumental way, and simply stand on the sidelines yelling at folks to get back onto the sidewalk because they are afraid. Those are the folks I take issue with. They create an even more unsafe environment by attempting to use their fear or prejudice to prevent someone from acting.
Basically, don’t assume that my assessments aren’t coming from a place that is informed and experienced, and above all considerate of the safety and experience of all.
To respond to your first comment, the main points you drew out from your argument are not things I would disagree with. But I am quite aware of the prejudiced and reactionary assumptions that will be put on me by some who choose not to listen. And so the way in which those ideas are presented are extremely important.
Case in point, many comments are based on the assumption that at any moment I will go crazy and violent and start smashing things without any thought other than a release of my own inarticulate rage. This is TOTALLY untrue and oppressive, and yet perpetuated heavily. I felt sold short in your article and left in a defensive position. Also, as a person who is female assigned, being told that I am ignorant and emotionally unstable is triggering and plays into sexist dynamics and stereotypes. Which was one of the main points of my presentation.
You’re right—I owe you an apology. I mistook the commenter d as one of the presenters, and it was d’s hateful language I was referring to. I am sorry to implicate you in that. One can get sloppy when feeling defensive.
Could you clarify where I am calling anyone “ignorant and emotionally unstable”? If I did, it was without meaning to do so. In fact, in an earlier comment I refer to something you said as “really interesting” and raised some questions about it for further discussion. Much like my own mistaken accusation noted above, it feels like my own words and actions might be getting confused with those of others.
I’d like to be respectful of all those involved, including those I tend to disagree with on particular issues, hoping to suggest a framework that can address the “needs” of all—admittedly with a special concern for the many people who hope for a deeper spirit of nonviolence in the movement. But not exclusively them.
As I say above, I applaud the extent to which OWS actions have operated in a nonviolent framework so far. But I also think of nonviolence as a deep, complicated, and multivalent discourse (as I’m sure you do as well), and I think there is a lot of valuable territory in it that’s as yet unexplored by OWS. I’ve been gratified to learn, since publishing this post, that there are some really exciting efforts both within Direct Action and without to do just that.
one of the issues that we were trying to raise was that non-violence in ows has been reactionary and uncritical rather than strategic and thoughtful (on the whole). i personally and politically have no commitment to non-violence per se. i have a commitment to what works and to justice. i believe that property destruction and self defense do have a place in this and other movements (or rather, that they can if used strategically). this movement’s (and the left’s in general) tendency to dogmatically adhere to a rigid and uncritical “non-violent” narrative actually produces an atmosphere of silencing, violence and bullying. before we gave the presentation in question, we had a conversation in which we had to support each other because of our (entirely legitimate) fear that we would be shouted down or even physically assaulted for expressing our views. i personally have been physically and verbally threatened by self identified “pacifists”. and while i do not hold all pacifists accountable for that behavior (see how i acknowledge autonomy there?) the behavior is common enough that i have to act with it in mind.
i’d also like to point out that “non-violent” tactics actually rely pretty centrally on violence for their success. they, when used in the kingian sense, draw out the violence of the state onto one’s own body and therefore, despite calling themselves “completely non-violent” use violence strategically. without the presence of sustained, focused violence, these tactics have no meaning.
i also find it deeply frustrating that folks consistently point to movements that objectively failed as examples of the success of exclusively non-violent tactics. the anti-war movement (in its various iterations) in no way impacted the function of the imperialist war machine. there are more troops in afganistan then ever before. the u.s. is planning to wage a war against iran, mostly unopposed from what i can tell here.
what we were arguing for in the presentation and subsequently is that people engage in critical thinking around what has and has not worked, what we are and are not capable of, and what we are even working for. do we want to blindly adhere to the state sanctioned narrative of strict non-violent action (master’s tools right?) or do we want to think creatively and move toward revolution? i have no attachment to any particular tactic, per se. but i want to see us do a better job of thinking things through and making active choices that leave room for growth.
I couldn’t agree more with much of what you say here! As you’ll see on Waging Nonviolence, we try to do just what you call for—constructive, critical news and analysis of movements’ strategies and tactics. We’re not interested in nonviolence for its own sake; we’re interested in nonviolent action that wages transformative struggles with means worthy of the end. And of course you’re right that “nonviolent” direct action does not mean safe or peaceful (or “family-friendly,” for that matter). It seems to me that there are two issues at play here that people I’ve heard from are concerned with:
1) Whether one can know what to expect from comrades in the movement during an action, that there are certain agreements about what behavior is acceptable and not.
2) Whether a part of such agreements would be explicit statements that protesters will not engage in physical or verbal violence (whether or not the state does). For some people, this is important in order for them to participate in a given action.
I’m sure you know that for every story of activists being threatened by “pacifists,” there are painful stories people have of beautiful, peaceful actions that they feel were disrupted by “violent anarchists,” or whatever. It seems like there is need for better mutual understanding and consensus-building on all sides. I hope this exchange has helped.