Report on Dec 2011 APA Panel, "Occupy Philosophy!

Uleman, Jennifer K.

English

PhilPapers

A Project of the Social Science Research CouncilAboutAfrican FuturesOccupyDigestBooksOccupy > Dispatches > Occupy Philosophy! | January 25, 2012Occupy Philosophy!by Jennifer UlemanSmack in the middle of the holidays, on a Wednesday night in very late December, about 150 people—philosophy professors and graduate students—gathered in a hotel conference room in Washington, DC, for aTweet Facebook Emailpanel called, “Thinking Occupation: Philosophers Respond to Occupy Wall Street.” The panel had beenadded, very late in the game, to the program of the 108th Eastern Division American PhilosophicalAssociation Meeting.1The size of the crowd surprised everyone, particularly since we’d organized things long after the printedconference program for had been sent out to APA members. We were up against stiff competition (theDecember APA is a zoo of sessions), including meetings of the International Association for EnvironmentalPhilosophy, the Hegel Society of America, the Radical Philosophy Association, and the Society for theHistory of Political Philosophy, among many others. It was at dinnertime (7:30-9:30pm). Given all this, aturnout of 150 people was amazing, and evidence of the hunger there is for engagement of the Occupy kind.Our panel of six—Elizabeth Anderson (University of Michigan), Chad Kautzer (University of ColoradoDenver), Charles Mills (Northwestern University), Darrell Moore (DePaul University), Annika Thiem(Villanova University), and me (Purchase College, SUNY)—included philosophers active in localoccupations as well as philosophers who’d been watching and reading from a greater distance. Among uswere full professors with named chairs and brand-new assistant professors. Some of us considered ourselvesanarchist, some radical, some liberal; all of us had been energized by the Occupy movement.We had, of course, a lot to say.Elizabeth Anderson drew on Charles Tilly’s work to describe four features democratic social movementsmust project in order to win public support: worthiness (the participants live up to public standardsof  virtue), numbers (many people participate in the movement), commitment  (the participants display awillingness to make personal sacrifices for their cause), and unity (they rally around a single, clear setof  demands).2 There was the rub; the Occupy movement clearly has the first three features, she argued, butthe fourth is more complicated. The anti-plutocracy message is very clear, but Occupy has notoriouslyresisted articulating demands, with results that remain to be seen.You can link to the full text of comments by Chad Kautzer, Charles Mills, Darrell Moore, Annika Thiem, andme by clicking on our names. (This report, with links, is also on my website.) So more briefly: Kautzeremphasized the radically democratic internal structure of Occupy and how it is generating a new communityof transgressive subjects (“outlaw subjects”); Mills argued that Occupy both can and should position itself asmainstream, given a clarified sense of liberalism’s central commitments; Moore talked about the importanceof spontaneity and space in all the occupations; Theim talked about what it would mean to occupy (academic)philosophy, calling on everyone to risk critique and political action at their own institutions; and, finally, viaattention to a sign at Zuccotti Park (THE HEART WANTS WHAT THE HEART WANTS), I argued that theabsence of demands, however untenable in the long-term, has underscored Occupy’s call for (and small-scalecreation of) a public sphere in which inchoate desires can be explored, articulated, and honed.After the presentations, hands in the audience shot up. Flummoxed, I asked Darrell Moore to take stack—theclosest we came to embodying Occupy. A sampler of comments and questions: Given a common rejection ofcrony capitalism and corporate politicians, wherein do we locate the real differences between the Tea Partyand Occupy Wall Street? What did we think the future held and, in particular, what did we imagine about thelooming (or already underway) battle for ownership of Occupy Wall Street? What else could be said aboutthe role of affect in the Occupy movement (and how philosophers might pay better attention to it)? How wasthe concept of Occupation taking hold outside the United States, and could we reflect on resonances withuprisings in the Arab world and elsewhere? One audience member reported that when he walked aroundZuccotti Park with a sign saying “Remember Rawls!” a lot of people approached him wanting to talk.Another said that many at Occupy Oakland were anarchists who had thought and read deeply in the anarchistintellectual tradition. The panelists were also, it bears noting, accused by one audience member of beingcommunists and tyrants, without any right, not having been elected, to ‘represent’ the views of the 99% orany other public—a set of charges, Anderson replied, that have routinely been made against US democraticsocial movements at least since the 1920s. After the session officially ended, twenty or so people milled inthe room talking and exchanging names until it was finally time to go eat or sleep or catch the end of theconference reception.I’m proud of “Thinking Occupation: Philosophers Respond to Occupy Wall Street,” and of the APA forembracing it. It will have been a real success if it encourages people to take up the DIY-ethos promoted byOWS. My charge: Run, philosophers, run (everyone else, too!) with whatever part of the anti-plutocracymessage you find most urgent or salient; find whatever allies you can; make noise or pursue quiet changes assuits you and the means at hand. The more people push on different fronts, the more ways and places peoplework to reclaim democracy, the better it will be for everyone in the long run.1. The panel took place on Wed., Dec. 28, 2011. Huge thanks to Richard Bett, Secretary-Treasurer of theAPA Eastern Division, and Linda Alcoff, its President-Elect, without whose help the panel would nothave happened. ↩2. Charles Tilly, Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties (Boulder, Col.: Paradigm Publishers, 2005),chapter 15. ↩Tags: academia, Occupy, philosophy, public scholarship6 CommentsLeave a Comment1. David Velleman says:January 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm · ReplyIt’s all very well to theorize the Occupy movement, but we are a part of the problem that they areprotesting, and theorizing won’t make us part of the solution. One of the chief grievances of theOccupy movement—and a legitimate grievance—is the level of student debt, which is directly causedby the ever-rising costs of higher education. Until we join with our colleagues and administrators tocontrol costs, claims to be in support of the Occupy movement are hypocritical. (And if we don’t do itourselves, the Federal Government will soon force us to do it, by shutting off student loans for thoseattending the more expensive institutions.)Chad Kautzer says:January 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm · ReplyDavid, I would agree that higher education is not exempt from the concerns of the Occupymovement, but indeed one of our panelists, Annika, spoke only of Occupy and the academy(perhaps you overlooked the links to our papers?). Also, some of us are doing both theory andpractice in Occupy. I find it a common assumption among academics to believe that wheneversomeone is theorizing a movement, they are not participating in it as well. In short, theory is notevidence of the lack of praxis.2. Nick says:January 27, 2012 at 12:25 am · ReplyThis is heartening. At my institution (SFSU) several of the graduate teaching associates and I held asimilar panel in early November and we also enjoyed some success: not only did we have anunexpected number of attendees (around 80), a large portion of them were interested enough to stay forover an hour of Q&A. Keeping in mind that these attendees were mostly critical thinking and Phil 101students, you can imagine how amazed we were. I think that there is a lot of interest out there for a wayto interpret the movement and I’m glad to hear that it is still a hot topic among those best suited toprovide it.3. RV says:January 27, 2012 at 12:58 am · ReplyIt is very exciting to see faculty members at philosophy departments become engaged with our currentglobal problem of transnational capital vis-à-vis democracy. A medium should be established where weacademics/students (perhaps not just of philosophy but humanities or even academia in general) canengage in dialogue and propose action.4. Gloria Bennett says:March 1, 2012 at 2:03 am · ReplyJennie,I am so proud to be able to say that I have been educated by someone who is legitimately invested inthe future of her students and community. As others have mentioned, I do believe that lack ofaccessibility to education and financial hardship are issues that need to be addressed by the Occupymovement, but I do not see a dialogue about these issues by members of the academic community to bepart of the problem. The fact is that many professors have access to the perspectives of their students,which come from varying demographics and need to be represented in this discourse, especially whenthey do not have the means to represent themselves. I, for one, am glad that I have a former professorpresent to speak to my thoughts, ideas, and story (which you seem to have all done quite well, might Iadd.) The fact is that nothing can be accomplished without first having a conversation, and I think thispanel shows us that we are well on our way to real, attainable progress. The important point, now, is forall of the educators and academics present in the discussion to bring this conversation to their students,colleagues, and fellow higher education professionals. The significance of Occupy really lies in thelack of demands, and the ability for everyone to participate in discourse. If we, as you said, continue torun with it and include anyone who is willing to listen and speak, then there is a real future for thisperiod as a theoretical, political, and social movement.Trackbacks for this post1. The Stone Philosophy Links - NYTimes.comLeave a Comment Name * Email * (never published) WebsiteSubmit Comment← Trashing the ScriptConference-calling across the Occupy Rhizome →AfricanFuturesEssaysAfrican Futures| July 14, 2012Democracy and Change: What are the Prospects for an “AfricanSpring?”by Jolyon FordAfrican FuturesDispatches| July 12, 2012Did the June 23 Movement Change Senegal?by Catherine Lena KellyEssaysAfrican Futures| June 15, 2012The Coming Elections in Zimbabwe: Hysterical Headlines andHappy Losersby Andrew IliffOccupyMovementEssaysOccupy| July 2, 2012A Vision and a Program for the American Left: A Conversation withRoberto Mangabeira Unger on the Situation, the Task, and theRemaking of the Democratic Partyby Macabe KeliherEssaysOccupy| June 11, 2012Rediscovering Politicsby Jedediah PurdyEssaysOccupy| May 21, 2012Occupy’s Expressive Impulseby Todd GitlinDigestAfrican FuturesDigest| September 7, 2012The Return of the Opposition in Gabonby Aaron PangburnAfrican FuturesDigest| September 5, 2012An African Lysistrata in Togoby Ciara AucoinAfrican FuturesDigest| June 4, 2012Democracy in Mali: A True Festival of Robbersby Sara AbbasSSRC on TwitterFollow the SSRCJoin our Mailing ListName:Email:SubscribeSite MapAboutAfrican FuturesOccupy MovementDigestBooksSocial Science Research Council - One Pierrepont Plaza, 15th Floor | Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA | P:212.377.2700 | F: 212.377.2727 | E: pf@ssrc.org  

Occupy Philosophy!

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers