Occupy Wallstreet.

[geo]

I've been only half following along here, but I've been thinking again about Eric Hoffer's 1951 book, THE TRUE BELIEVER: THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE OF MASS MOVEMENTS which seems to me to be very relevant to the OWS movement. I apologize if this offends anyone who is sympathetic to the OWS movement. I happen to agree that corporations have much too influence with our government and that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to bail out corporations and banks. Still, Hoffer's book seems rather spot on in many respects.

One of Hoffer's main points is that those who would join a movement have become disenfranchised with themselves. They have lost faith in themselves as autonomous entities which is why a movement, especially one in its early stages, still undefined and nebulous, is a perfect vehicle for them .

If I remember correctly, Hoffer also points out that a mass movement almost always peters out, but even if it does achieve its goal, its members are still waiting in the wings because ultimately they are deeply dissatisfied with themselves. Although mass movements are frequently about achieving freedom, its members find freedom to be an "irksome burden."

My take on this is that when economic conditions are less than rosy, we reach a critical threshold of those ready to take up a holy cause. That would explain the OWS movement. It also suggests that if the OWS movement fails, which it probably will, a new one will quickly take shape. The conditions are right.

Someone mentioned that many of the Occupiers are actually fairly well to do, not poor. Hoffer says that the poor actually live purposeful lives, engaged in a struggle for food and shelter. They don't have the sense of futility and lack of esteem of those who would join a mass movement.

Hoffer's book is well worth reading, especially with what's been going on lately. The man is also eminently quotable because he writes in aphorisms:

"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

"Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free from freedom." It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?"

"Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority."

"They who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually, their innermost desire is for an end to the "free for all." They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society."

[giselle]

One of Hoffer's main points is that those who would join a movement have become disenfranchised with themselves. They have lost faith in themselves as autonomous entities which is why a movement, especially one in its early stages, still undefined and nebulous, is a perfect vehicle for them .

Someone mentioned that many of the Occupiers are actually fairly well to do, not poor.

They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society."

Great post Geo, sounds like an interesting book. A few comments on the above:

I think it is natural for people who feel 'disenfranchised' or even just insecure, to band together with others, simply because there is safety in numbers and because there is a deflection of responsibility, if everyone is to 'blame' then no one is to blame. However, I doubt very much this is the only reason. I know this sounds out of synch in a world of neo-conservatism, but some people genuinely believe that life is not just a zero sum game of cutthroat, individualistic competition and so join movements or get involved is some type of activism out of a real desire for change. I think it would be grossly unfair to cast them as just unhappy losers (but I recognize this is a good way to discredit them hence a good tactic for those with something to lose, making me very suspicious about motives).

I also think that many who see the world in primarily individualistic terms try to help others through their efforts. I know this sounds suspiciously like 'trickle-down' theory, but really I'm thinking more on a one to one level where I think it can be very effective.

With respect to the participation of the relatively well-to-do in OWS, there may be a specific reason for this .. participation by the 60's and 70's 'protest' generation who hanker for those days but meanwhile have accumulated a pretty solid kitty of their own so are far from living on the street. Also, some of them are 'experienced' protesters and I would guess they are helping to organize and lead.

As to being subjected to competition and 'ruthless testing', I think this is largely a matter of personal choice. Certainly there is a basic level of competition in a world of finite resources, but many make the choice to pursue more in life than what the basic level affords, and so face heightening competition as the stakes get higher. So, I believe we are 'subjected' to a basic but fairly minor level of competition, which is within the ability of most people to handle, but if we choose to pursue, more, higher, then the degree of competition will heighten ... this is a matter of personal choice, not something one is 'subjected' too.

[Interbane]

However, I doubt very much this is the only reason. I know this sounds out of synch in a world of neo-conservatism, but some people genuinely believe that life is not just a zero sum game of cutthroat, individualistic competition and so join movements or get involved is some type of activism out of a real desire for change.

These were my thoughts as well. The author likely hit some truthful points, but in the end it's the generalization of the motive of a movement. I don't think any such thing can be generalized. Perhaps there are large correlations which may hold true, but to discuss one at the expense of the others, while good for book sales, doesn't capture the truth and complexity of the situation. I can say that I would join the OWS movement, but that my motives and psychological disposition are not in tune with what the author writes.

"They who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually, their innermost desire is for an end to the "free for all." They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society."

I don't want free competition. That's a stupid concept. I want fair competition. "Free competition", while holding the seemingly positive connotation of "free", is actually a terrible thing to include in any sustainable society. I don't want my food growers to freely compete. They all must have restrictions on what they put in my food. I don't want to "freely compete" with a bank over charges that I have no way to argue against. Yes, I can change banks, but that doesn't get my back my $2,000 that they unfairly(but legally!) took from me. I don't want oil companies to freely compete for all of the local resources. There must be restrictions, a "resistor" on the flow of money, otherwise the flow takes over and unintended consequences burn us.

If you look at the examples above and instead consider "fair" competition, the difference makes sense.

[geo]

You make some great points, Giselle.

As you say, there are many reasons for joining the OWS movement. People are fed up with the direction the country is going, tired of the partisanship and special interest groups. People want to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Our local paper interviewed several folks who are with the Occupy Asheville movement, and most were very intelligent, and educated. So clearly Hoffer does generalize quite a lot and his aphorisms only go so far to describe the people who make up a mass movement. People are very complex and cannot easily be categorized no matter how much we try.

And, yet, I think there's a lot of truth to what he says, keeping in mind that Hoffer is talking generally about how mass movements get started and what motivates people to join them. I think OWS does qualify as a mass movement and, yet, it might evolve into a political force that can create change. I'm very skeptical that it will, but who knows?

I do wonder how all these folks have time to go occupy a city. I 'm missing a couple of students in my English class and I asked one of the other students if he knew what happened to them. He said the last thing he heard from "John" was that the "revolution is happening." Apparently these guys dropped everything and went to Chicago to be part of the movement there. I actually admire their idealism. That's exactly what young people are supposed to do (although they could have easily waited until the semester was over).

[giselle]

I'm sure you're a great English teacher Geo, but I 'm afraid that in the calculation of english class vs OWS that the latter may seem more ... exciting. Perhaps you could contact your MIA students and get them to do a paper on the OWS movement from an inside perspective .. could even count toward course credit!! I mean, if a revolution is happening, might be good if we know about it! Who knows, maybe OWS is the 'wests' version of 'arab spring' and we shouldn't underestimate it? And really, there is lots of time to do the things we want, even occupying cities, its just a matter of setting priorities.

I'm interested in reading Hoffer's book - sounds like a great counter-point to other things I've read about activism and the theory behind it. Maybe he's takes a page from Ayn Rand on individualism, but I like her books, even if I don't buy everything she says, so I might like Hoffer.

[geo]

. . . I 'm afraid that in the calculation of english class vs OWS that the latter may seem more ... exciting.

No doubt. I know that out of about 15 students maybe 3 are into literature and of those 3 not really that much. It was suggested last time that writing about the OWS is what we should be doing. Unfortunately, this is a literature-based research class and we're moving toward writing a 5-7-page critical analysis paper. I could devote one class to responding to a written prompt: articulate what the OWS movement is all about. That might be very interesting.

Hoffer's book is written in a very unusual style. It's all written in aphorisms. It's only about 164 pages. It did leave quite an impression on me and I've been quoting him a lot (as many here will attest).

[giselle]

Geo: I'll make a point of reading Hoffer's book. And there's lots of material around for your students to base research on in connection with OWS and protest movements in general. Certainly would be interesting to hear views from those participating or having a strong interest in OWS and the validity of literature about protest movements in their view.

[adriellemartin]

I am in a mixed feeling, while i am sure that its true about corporate today, people get booted out, while company survives for its own selfish interest and the investors at Wall Street are so cold hearted about things that occur in News. Their only motive is to retrieve profit of some information.

[johnson1010]

Funny. Get a dozen or so kids to block a sidewalk to protest the financial undermining of the nation, pepper spray to the face...

A food item, essentially.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/me ... oduct.html

[johnson1010]