Occupy Wall Street Movement: 'It's About the Process, Stupid'

Given our human bias not to take seriously anything that is not served up to us in the form of absolutes, it is beyond annoying that the in-your-face presence of the OWSM would have the audacity (interesting word) not to reduce what it is they are actually after to a veritable grocery list of demands. The audacity of their hope (interesting phrase) is that we might get the critical point that "democracy," as I wrote almost three years ago in my HuffPost blog entry of October 20, 2008, "is not a commodity of fixed value; rather, it is a process and as such something we must work each and every day to secure. To uphold and improve democracy's process is, therefore, to uphold and improve democracy itself. The more functional the process, the more authentic the democracy."

When I published Democracy and Self-Organization: The Change of Which Barack Obama Speaks in 2008 I did so with two reasons in mind. The first reason was that I feared the change of which Barack Obama was speaking, having not taken the form of an itemized list of demands, was not strongly on the radar screen of most individuals, even though they could sense its significance at a feeling level and wished to support him. The second reason was that I wanted to explain how the change of which Barack Obama was speaking was actually a direct expression of the current cultural need for meaning, hence its widespread resonance. By way of nature we continue to evolve psychologically and spiritually, much as we adapt physically to our ever-changing environments. In terms of our search for meaning at the cultural level, it is the case that what worked for us 150 years ago when it came to addressing our social, political and ethical challenges will not meet our needs today. Of course this is not to say that there won't be those who will continue to cling to the old in near-addictive fashion.

The change of which Barack Obama spoke in the presidential campaign of 2008, the change toward which we have been moving as a culture by way of nature is a very specific change. It is a change that supports inclusive rather than exclusive process. It is a change that accounts for the real stakeholders and the real factors in play. It is a change in which dynamic process is protected from the imposition of false absolutes in the form of secular and religious ideologies. It is a change in which interpersonal, social and political process does not succumb to the imposition of any labels whatsoever that preclude our engagement with others as human beings first and foremost.

"For democracy to be functional," I wrote in Democracy and Self-Organization, "its process must be inclusive and dynamic. For democracy to be functional, it must hold open the requisite space for the genuine processing of information. For democracy to be functional, everyone must be invested in the outcome of the self-organizing process and no individual or group should experience the paralyzing apathy of marginalization. All important and critical issues must be put on the table and openly and frankly processed, not only by the voting public, but also no less by their elected representatives. Democracy would, in this regard, be a truly inclusive and dynamic process altogether freed from the narrow, self-serving agendas and manipulations of power politics and lobbyists."

Let's face it: OWSM is simply picking up where the election campaign left off. The change of which self-organizing nature speaks is not going away.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[tulins]

08:54 PM on 11/23/2011

Great to know the winds of change/self-organizing nature are at work. Thank you Robert for your insight. Let’s hope it is a gale force wind!

[tinekev]

09:14 PM on 10/15/2011

When I first heard about the OWS movement I thought "This could be good" and was encouraged to hear how it was spreading. When I read Dr. Aziz's article I understood more clearly why it was good. I didn't realize that what these young people are doing is hopeful and related to the same hope I felt when Barack Obama was elected as President. Unfortunately President Obama's ideas tfor democratic change have been thwarted by the US pokitical system. Now, however these good intentions are being picked up in this movement and finding resonance in many hearts, lives and situations.
It's like you say, Dtr. Aziz, this change is not going way. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Dianne Hayman]

11:28 AM on 10/13/2011

It is imperative to protect the needed space for true democratic process. Robert Aziz delineates how this happens--by foregoing rigid agendas, party platforms, dogma, and "grocery lists of demands." Aziz brings a new and vitally important perspective to bear on what is transpiring within the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Without this insight, it becomes far too easy to buy into the mainstream critique--"the OWSM's weakness is that it has no clearly identifiable goals."

[KWade]

11:11 PM on 10/12/2011

Before I read this post I have to say that I was one amongst the flock, wondering what specifically the OWSM protestors were demanding.

After reading this post, the answer became much clearer: what they are demanding is a greater measure of inclusion in the political process. From this perspective, the core message that the protestors are actually voicing is: “We have significant interests that are not being respected by you in charge! Start listening to us!”

If by way of protesting the OWSM is able to sway the media and political discourse so that it better aligns with the true interests of the people – and I am probably not wrong to say that the OWSM speaks for the vast majority of the population – then politics becomes more inclusive, democratic, and functional. A most worthy “demand” to make.

[edwardleaman]

10:48 PM on 10/12/2011

What Dr Aziz aptly addresses here is the unfolding, over time, of something compared with the driving to outcome of that thing. The first accepts that space needs to be created in order for people, time and circumstances to catalyze something real, the second powers its way to result. The first is lateral, the latter is linear. We are witnesses to an expression of a self-organizing viewpoint that does not need a specific outcome to be considered successful. More the success, like the searching of the web, lies in the bringing to the user of an experience that they, themselves, deem worthwhile and valuable. Isn't the point of democracy, per se, the ability of an individual not just to express their opinion but also to derive from a debate what they need to move forward in consciousness? Rather than living with false absolutes of right or wrong, left or right, is not this movement about walking step-by-step towards meaning via a process rather than an ideology, dictum, or false absolute. Dr Aziz does us service is helping us understand what the meaning of what lies beneath this moment and movement, rather than pointing out what the picture of this moment and movement looks like. He allows us to educate ourselves. He does not school us in his opinion.

[mjmoyer]

10:34 PM on 10/11/2011

As one who suffers an almost allergic reaction to "politics as usual", with all of the ideological power games and pursuit of narrow self-interests that define it, I would welcome the chance to engage in a functional democratic process. I know that I am far from alone in this, but it is encouraging to hear voices raised in support of this principles, refusing to be marginalized. Thank you for your post, Dr. Aziz.

[burnedette]

01:34 PM on 10/11/2011

The mantra of the Tea Party Movement is no government. The mantra of the Occupy Wall Street Movement is functional government. Who are the true defenders of democratic process?