re//Framing the Occupy Movement

RE//FRAMING//THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

RE FRAMINGTHE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

// IS A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE IN WHICH TRANS-DISCIPLINARY ITEMS ARE REFRAMED IN AN ACEDEMIC CONTEXT

// THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IS MADE POSSIBLE BY N. VAN ULDEN (DESIGN) & ALL CONTRIBUTORS

// WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO LISA TE GIFFEL (PHOTOS) & ROEL BEGO (DESIGN) & RENÉ VAN BEEK (SUPPORT)

4// Contributors .

6// Introduction

12// Framing by the Media The first chapter will seek to understand the influence of national and international media by analyzing portrayals of the movement as a whole, its goals and structures and individual activists.

28// Framing by the Government Chapter two will be concerned with government framing. When faced with the sudden uprising of the Occupy movement, how did governments react?

42// Domestic Framing The third chapter analyses the Occupy movement’s own domestic frame during its creation and how it has transformed. with time. Have sentiments changed?

74// Conclusions

54// Activism in the Digital Age Chapter four will focus on the important role of digital technologies in activism.

RE FRAMINGTHE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW

64// Other Responses to the Crisis in CapitalismThe final chapter of this book will be focused on these riots as different reactions to the crises of global capitalism.

80// Bibliography

8// Chapter Outline

CONTRIBUTORS F. KOKJ. VAN DER HOEK

// is a second year Political History & International Relations student at Utrecht University. She pursues a special interest in conflict studies, peace-education and social and environmental justice. During summers, she volunteers for CISV International; an international peace organization which aims to create a more just and peaceful world by building global friendship. Subsequently, she is initiating a peace-building initiative in the Netherlands as an element of her training of the Youth Peace Ambassador project by the Council of Europe. She has been active within the Dutch Occupy Movement since the 15th of October 2011.

// was born in 1991 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. By the time she was sixteen, she knew she wan-ted to study law and hopefully someday become a successful lawyer. After travelling the world and being aware of the inequali-ties she decided to volunteer for several NGO’s, such as Human Rights Watch. She is now a law student at the Utrecht Univer-sity, where she has focussed on International law, especially Human Rights. She has won many many renowned prices in the field of International Law for her outstanding papers. The academic world is holding its breath to read the first eBook she has co-authored. She has never been active in the Occupy Movement.

The articles appearing within this publication reflect the opinions and attitudes of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the publishers or editorial team.© Framing Violence 2012

4 //// CONTRIBUTORS

T. KOUVELD E. TAAL N. VAN ULDEN J. DEMMERS

// is an undergraduate student of English at Utrecht University. Self-proclaimed master of the humanities, his controver-sial achievements include a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize for his essay ‘First World Problems: Where to Start?’ and a Pulitzer Prize for his poem ‘the how and why of throwing stones at other stones’. He won the latter but kindly declined the honour for no apparent reason. He is interested in anything text-based except for cook books and, while he hates cam-ping, enthusiastically researched the Occupy Movement for this e-book, stating that this would become his masterpiece.

// is a second year Sociology student, with a minor in conflict studies. She has always been interested in group behavior, es-pecially group behavior in times of conflict. Evelien works at an organization that is specialized in giving social, psychological and juridical help to people who are having the feeling of being outside society. She is particularly engaged in the or-ganization’s policy and together with the executive committee she is planning on an exchange program for young people who live under poor circumstances in East Turkey and the Netherlands. She has never been active in the Occupy Movement.

// is a fourth year Liberal Arts & Sciences student at Utrecht University. He does not only make the best coffees in the world, he will also talk to you about politics and cuddle your dog. At the age of 22 he was appointed editor in chief of Spunk.nl, an online literary magazine for early adopters, and co-founded Volle Bak, a cultural platform for young creative talent. His father always said that cheese is sometimes called dairy but it will always be cheese. It is therefore that he has never been active in the Occupy Movement.

// is Assistant Professor and co-founder of the Centre for Conflict Studies, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. She lectures and writes on conflict theory, the role of diasporas in violent conflict, and on ethnographies of neoliberalism. She was Associate Visiting Professor at UC Berkeley (2007) and guest lectured at the University of Ruhuna (Sri Lanka), Sabanci University (Turkey), Coimbra University (Portugal), and the European Peace University (Austria). Some say she was brought to earth on a glitter farting rainbow unicorn, others just say she is all Ghandi could ever hope for. Anyhow, her all round awesomeness inspired us to write this e-book.

5

Words By Editorial Team

The worldwide Occupy movement came out into the open on the 17th of September 2011 by the name of Occupy Wall Street. The initiators did so by occupying public space in New York City’s Zuccotti Park, nearby its financial district Wall Street. The activities taking place on Wall Street are one of the main topics of the protestors critique. The movement was initiated by a Canadian activist organization named Adbusters. This organization was set up twenty-three years ago and has ever since opposed capitalism, consumerism and advertising. They do so by publishing non-profit magazines on these topics, initiating several campaigns and creating awareness for those of others such as “Buy Nothing Day”. Adbusters aims to gather and inspire social activists around the world to work together on environmental issues and all that has to do with it. Their most recent campaign turned out bigger than they could ever imagine.

INTRODUCTION

6 //// INTRODUCTION

//How it all StartedAs we all know, 2011 has been a moving year. The news was overloaded with inspiring media images coming from Tahrir Square, where thousands of people gathered and eventually the Egyptian revolution took place. Subsequently, a new Spanish movement called Indignados came into being; once again a gathering of people crying out for social justice, especially in times of economic melt-down. They used various techniques to discuss issues, such as “direct democracy” through a consensus-decision making process. Inspired by these happenings, its innovative character and its overtly amplifying function through the use of modern communi-cation technologies, Adbusters called out for an occupation of Wall Street. The outcry was picked up by various other organizations with similar objectives - such as hackers group Anonymous - and the awareness increased day by day. Throughout the summer of 2011 sympathizers started to organize themselves by having brainstorms on how to implement the movement. This is when concrete features such as the consensus decision making process and the rule to have no leaders were agreed upon. Finally, the occupation started on the 17th of September, which not only implies the physical occupation by putting up tents in Zuccotti park, but also the start of digital Occupy activism which

spread the word all over the world. Awareness increased among the people, but only when the mainstream media picked up on

the happenings in New York City the movement really became world famous. Occupations were initiated all over the US.

On the 15th of October protesters called out for a Global Revolution Day, which was a day of global protest in

solidarity with Occupy Wall Street and the start of many more occupations across Europe and other continents.

Occupy is represented on every single continent since October 2011.

//What Occupy doesOccupy is a movement that strives to raise

awareness among society over different kinds of issues. They want to achieve awa-reness thru non-violent demonstrations

and a range of other actions.First of all, Occupy is occupying public spaces throughout the world in many cities in order to create awareness. These camps form the basis of Occupy, where protests are organised and people can gather. They organise many lectures and protests, where Occupiers can speak openly about issues they want to draw the attention to. Because Occupy camps often do not have amplifiers, they work with a system called ‘peoples microphones’, where the crowd repeats key words of the speech. In America Occupy has also disrupted foreclo-sures by camping on the premises of the foreclosed home. Near to the camping sides, occupiers speak to by passers about the move-ment and talk about what issues people deal with in their lives. Social media plays a large part in the Occupy movement, as they reach out to people and coordinate demonstrations and other acti-ons by using media as facebook and twitter. Most camps also have their own internet website, where they post articles, blogs, pictures and agendas. Occupy also has a radio station in the Netherlands. Occupy uses many ways to raise awareness among the society. One of these ways is by using culture. They make protest songs, theatre performances and art to express them. Occupy aims to start the dialogue with anyone who is open to it. Therefore they visit schools to give lectures on various subjects and gives lectures on different kinds of topics, to go into depth of issues. Occupy has drawn attention to the innovative ‘permaculture’, a combination of permanent agriculture and culture. Permaculture is a way of growing your own food and thereby contributing to the ecosystem. They organise many demonstrations over a range of issues, where they spread information leaflets. Apart from this, they also support many initiatives of other movements or demonstrations. An example of this is demonstrations of workers for better payments or rights and of students against cut backs in education. Every week Occupy hosts a general assembly per camp. In these assemblies they discuss the progress, brainstorm on ideas for actions and points of improvement within the movement. These assemblies are open to the public, so anyone can participate. In the Netherlands occupy also hosts a general action assembly. This meeting is purely for brainstorming on what kinds of initiatives they can participate in or create. They have different working groups, where they brainstorm on different kinds of issues. \\

7

CHAPTER OUTLINE 1// 2//

The first chapter will focus on framing by news media. After an initial silence on the part of the news media giants, the Occupy movement has received various media attention as interest for its causes grew. Being a major contributor in the forming and shaping of discourse and public opinion as well as a tool of communication for the Occupy movement itself, the first chapter will seek to understand the influence of national and international media by analyzing portrayals of the movement as a whole, its goals and structures and individual activists.

Chapter two will be concerned with government framing. When faced with the sudden uprising of the Occupy movement, how did governments react? A critical perspective will be provided of the constitutional freedoms which seem to have their limits. Amongst others, the article will analyse evictions of Occupy camp sites and the consequences of these actions in a juridical context.

The aim of this book is to provide an insight into the inner workings of the Occupy movement. In particular, the usage of framing by the movement it-self and its portrayal in popular media and government will be explained in detail.

8 //// INTRODUCTION

3// 4// 5//

The third chapter analyses the Occupy movement’s own domestic frame during its creation and how it has transformed with time. Have sentiments changed? The months after the first occupation of the Zucotti Park saw increasing tensions between police and activists. The article investigates frames and discourse used by the Occupy movement and searches for significant developments since its emergence.

While the Occupy movement gained much of its renown through the activists’ campsites, most notably at Wall Street, an essential element of its organization is new media. Online com-munities such as Facebook have played crucial roles in the establishment and mobilization of the movement. Chapter four will focus on this so-called digital activism and will compare and contrast the rise of the Occupy movement to the Arab Spring, an eruption of protests in a large portion of the world’s Muslim countries in which social media played a similarly important role. This chapter analyses the online movement as a continuity beyond the physical pres-ence of the tents on Wall Street.

The spring and summer of 2011 were not only the stage for peaceful protest. Violent riots tore through London and Paris, destroying parts of both cities. An interesting characteristic of the London riots in particular were the many lootings committed by the rioters. The final chapter of this book will be focused on these riots as different reactions to the crises of global capitalism. The author will analyse the frames used by the rioters and give an account of the overall effectiveness of the riots as compared to the peaceful protest of the Occupy movement.

9

‘The remaining titans of newspapers hold themselves to a higher standard, and they continue to invite us to buy into the idea that they trade only in verifiable truths while showing no fear or favor to anyone. They are making themselves look silly while they strain to make the protesters look silly.’

>> PETER S. GOODMAN, BUSINESS EDITOR OF THE HUFFINGTON POST

‘The remaining titans of newspapers hold themselves to a higher standard, and they continue to invite us to buy into the idea that they trade only in verifiable truths while showing no fear or favor to anyone. They are making themselves look silly while they strain to make the protesters look silly.’

>> PETER S. GOODMAN, BUSINESS EDITOR OF THE HUFFINGTON POST

The way events are presented in news articles, television programs, radio stations or websites can affect how people come to understand these events.’ People need to make sense of the complexity of life and therefore embrace and reconstruct symbolic orders, modes of discourses and modes of conduct.’ (Demmers 2012:1). Sleuter and Wills (2009:7-24) state that mainstream news media often use discursive tactics that are closer to propaganda than to journalism. According to Sleuter and Wills (2009:7-24), media can operate more profoundly than other forms of pressure, like state policies.

FIRST CHAPTER

FRAMING BY THE MEDIAWords By E. Taal

The main focus of this chapter will be on analyzing the kind of frames that are used in different media sources in the United States and Europe, by using academic sources about media framing typologies. The question why media sources are using these frames is going to be explained as elaborately as possible. However, the answer to his question concerning the media sources that are used in this chapter, are not based on factual information. It is only possible to formulate our own hypothesis on the reasons why the framing is used in these media sources, because zooming in on these specific factors requires more research. In his study on activist groups, Proulx (2009:293-305) emphasizes that many studies focus on the idea that societies are ‘industries where industrial activity is capitalizing on ownership and computer code’, such as media corporations. This idea will come back in many of the theories used in this chapter. However, Proulx also states that activists who are pursuing projects for information and communication cooperation are opposing this idea of domination. In the chapter about internet activism, this phenomenon will we be explained more elaborately. We will begin with explaining how the Occupy movement went from being unnoticed to being noticed by the media. In the second chapter our focus will be on news video’s that were showed in Holland and in the United States. In the second part of this chapter we are going to analyze photos and cartoons that were used in newspapers in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The third source of media that is going to be analyzed are newspaper articles from the United States.

//The Rise of Occupy in the Media ‘Echoing the determination to oust Hosni Mubarak that temporarily unified Muslim Brothers with Christians and feminists in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the idea was that an occupation like this in the United States could similarly mount enough pressure to enact

one critical, game-changing policy proposal.’ (Schneider 2011:1). According to Schneider (2011:1), the idea of a revolution in which people would come together in order to enact a changing policy proposal, a mentioned above, did not have enough power to make many people join the Occupy movement. Therefore, movement building, as Schneider (2011:1) calls it, was the next step Occupy took in gaining more power in the United States: ‘They would try to plant the seeds for assemblies to grow around the city and around the country. These, in turn, could blossom into a significant, even effective, political movement. Specific demands might come later, after the movement grew.’ According to Schneider, the fact that Occupy eventually chose a strategy of not specifying its goals explicitly made more people in the United States join the movement (Schneider 2011:1). But this ‘movement building ‘was not enough to draw the attention of the media. Schneider (2011:1) states that after tents were put in the United States, police responded with violent arrests. Videos of occupiers being arrested violently were viewed on television and on the internet many times. Schneider (2011:1) states that each time there was a conflict with the police in the United States, the media attention increased. An example of this is the pepper spraying of Occupiers by the police in Oakland (MSNBC 2011). According to Schneider, each episode brought more cameras and more participants. This is how Occupy transformed from being unnoticed by the media to a major topic of many newspapers, television programs etc. in the United states. Ladhani (2011:2) states that Social Media, like Twitter, also helped to make Occupy a wide spread and well known movement. This global communication network could also explain how Occupiers in the United States became more known and were a growing example for many other followers in countries all over the world. This phenomenon of digital activism however, will be analyzed in a different chapter.

13

//Video ImageAn example of the increased media attention on Occupy because of the involvement of police, is a MSNBC news topic broadcasted on the 4th of November 2011, in which news reporter Keith Olberman tells us about the pepper spraying and arrests of Occupiers in Tulsa, Oklahoma (MSNBC 2011). De Graaff (NOS 2012) mentioned several ‘ Hollywood media tricks that can be used as a tool for analyzing this video. mentioned several ‘

Video 1.1

14 //// FAMING BY THE MEDIA

When the item is shorty summarized in the beginning, music is used to make people at home feel that the item that is going to be talked about is one that is worth watching. What is also immediately showed in the video, and what de Graaff also mentions being a Hollywood trick, is the images that are showed. According to de Graaff, the music that is used in a video can draw separate images together (NOS 2012). And this is exactly what is done in this MSNBC video. Accompanied by music, different short images and videos of arrest are showed, in which Occupiers are bleeding and being treated very roughly when being arrested (MSNBC 2011). According to de Graaff, the music that accompanies images can be used as carrying emotions, and in this case the effect of the music is being reinforced by the use of violent video images (NOS 2012). Another very obvious aspect of the video is the difference between the editing of a short video in which a policeman pepper sprays a man in the face, that is showed two times. The first time the video is showed, the colors are (close to) the original colors of the video. However, the second time the video is showed, the only colors that are used are dark blue and white. This use of colors gives the images an extra dramatic effect. This effect is being reinforced by the use of slow-motion. This use of colors and slow-motion increases the feelings of empathy towards the man that is pepper sprayed, and thus it also creates feelings of empathy towards the Occupy movement as a whole. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:1-15) call this the human interest frame, because the video is bringing up feelings of empathy. Different types of diagnostic frames are used in the news item. The first frame that is used is the injustice frame (Benford and Snow 2000:611-39). The editors of this video have tried to make the watchers feel that the Occupiers in this video are treated unfair. This is done by editing the video in such a way (violent images, use of music, use of colors, the use of slow-motion) that it shapes negative

perceptions of viewers concerning the response of the police to the Occupy protests (MSNBC 2011). The second diagnostic frame that is used in the video is the boundary frame (Benford and Snow 2000: 611-39). Police officers are framed as the ‘bad ones’ and the Occupiers as the ‘good ones’. However, motivational framing and prognostic framing do not occur in the video (Benford and Snow 611-39). The absence of these two frames is not in line with the hypothesis of Snow, Vliegentart et al.(2007:385-415), stating that countries more economically and politically distant from an event will more likely engage only in diagnostic framing. One could say that the Occupy movement is indeed quite politically and economically close to the United States. However, only diagnostic framing is used. Thus there can be said that this hypothesis is not confirmed in terms of this video. The final obvious use of ‘propaganda’, as de Graaff (NOS 2012) calls it, is the use of the repetition. In this video, a police officer’s statement about the arrests is showed in the video two times. The Police Officer states: ‘Pepper spray is used in cases of resistance. In this cases it was used only on persons who were actively resistant (MSNBC 2011).’ The news anchor responds to this statement by sarcastically saying: ‘By sitting on the ground arms linked, demanding their constitutionally right to free assembly, resisting ‘so much’, ‘so threatening’, that a policeman was able to hold a man’s head into his hand and bravely douse him with pepper spray. (MSNBC 2011).’ Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:1-15) would call the statement above a morality frame. because the news anchor refers to the behavior of the police as not being morally right. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:1-15) also mention other frames, that are common in the American media and that are present in this video as well. One of this frames is the conflict frame, in which conflicts between groups or individuals are showed. In this case it is the conflict between Occupiers and the police. According to Neuman et

15

al. (in Semetko and Valkenburg 2000:1-15), the conflict frame is the most common used frame in the United States. Herman, S. and Chomsky, N. (Goodwin 1994:101-111) state that the western capitalistic state ideology has power over the media. Their propaganda model explains how this ideology is propagated in western societies. Herman and Chomsky have formulated five filters in their propaganda model which media sources must pass before they turn into news. The first aspect is the size, ownership and profit gains of media conglomerates. The second are the advertisement interests. The third factor is the sources of information that are used. The fourth factor are the negative reactions on a television program, news article etc. and the fifth is anticommunism. Size has to be seen as an important factor when analyzing the MSNBC video (Goodwin 1994:101-111). The NBC news is a news station that is known to be very big and influential in the United States. Herman and Chomsky (Goodwin 1994:101-111) also point out that the media and the government are many times involved in a confusion of interest. In this case there can be said that the government might have played its part in shaping the left-wing ideas that are presented in this video. Noam and Chomsky (Goodwin 1994:101-111) also state that large media firms many times shape their news items or news articles by the information given by the government, which might not be very objective. In this case the event was captured on video, so objectivity would be likely. But the government could have been influential in framing the event in a way that more obvious pro-Occupy statements were made, then in the case of no involvement by government organizations. Another aspect Herman and Chomsky emphasize is flak: reactions by commentators, officials etc. who do not agree with the information brought out by the media. In this case these negative reactions might also have shaped the news item, and that therefore the MSNBC might have chosen to emphasize more leftist statements

to attract as many viewers as possible (Goodwin 1994:101-111). ‘Middle class is occupy tired’, is how Pownews (2011) called one of their items about the Occupy movement in Holland. The item was broadcasted on Dutch television on 25 October 2011. In the item, an anti-Occupy statement was made. The news anchor starts his news item by saying that the local authority of Amsterdam does not want to make a start in ‘cleaning the Beursplein’, a square in Amsterdam where Dutch Occupiers put up their tents. The news anchor uses the insect frame (Benford and Snow 2000:611-39). The protesters are compared to insects by stating that the square can be ‘cleaned’, just like ants can be swept away from a pavement. The type of diagnostic frame that is used in this video is boundary framing (Benford and Snow 2000: 611-39). The ‘evil ones’ in this situation are, according to the news anchor and most of the interviewed, the Occupiers. The framing that is used to make viewers think that Occupiers are bad or at least weird people, is when the answers that certain Occupiers give to a Pownews interviewer are shown. It is obvious that the editors of the video chose to show exactly those people who did not know what to say and would in some way be perceived as being weird by Dutch viewers. An example of this is when an Occupier answers:‘No..uhm..will not leave..uhm..we are against uhm.. the political parties …right? (Pownews 2011).’ Prognostic framing is used in the video as well (Benford and Snow 2000: 611-39). At the end of the video, a politician states that the solution to the problem of people being annoyed by Occupiers is that the Occupiers just have to start working again. But what is really obvious in this video is the use of motivational framing. One of the people that is being interviewed says: ‘They are here for about two weeks now. Get them out of here.’ Even the news anchor finishes his news item by saying: ‘they have made their point clear and now: get lost!’.(Pownews 2011).


Snow and Vliegenthart’s (2007:385-415) hypothesis, that countries more politically and economically distant to an event would more likely engage only in diagnostic framing, was not confirmed in terms of the former MSNBC video that was showed. In this case, there can be said that the Occupy movement is less politically close and therefore less politically powerful in the Netherlands than in the United States, because the Occupy movement is bigger in the United States. However, economically the Netherlands are reliant on the United States economy. Thus, not only diagnostic framing is used, which could be explained by the political distance from Occupy, but it cannot be explained by the economical distance. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:1-15) use typologies of framing in their research, of which three types of framing occur in the video. The first type of framing is the human interest frame. The story emphasizes how different individuals are affected by the fact that Occupiers are present on the Beursplein. The second frame that is used is the conflict frame: the story reflects on the disagreements between the Occupiers at one hand and several politicians and other civilians at the other hand. According to Semetko and Valklenburg (2000:1-15), the conflict frame is less often used by the more sensationalist news programs. This hypothesis however, cannot be verified in this case, because Pownews does use this frame and is also seen as a very sensationalist news program in the Netherlands. The third frame that is used in the story is the morality frame. The moral message is that people should not complain about the economic circumstances in Holland and that they should just find a job (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000:1-15). Politicians who are interviewed in the video state that Occupy is more prominent and has relatively more followers in the United States, because there are more problems of unemployment in the United States than in Holland (Pownews 2011). This statement can be used to attract Dutch voters. Hanggli (2011:301-317) also

emphasizes that political actors need the media to reach public whereas the media need the input of the political actors for their news production. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:1-15) state that the difference between the Dutch and American society in terms of conflicts is that in Holland, there has always been a multiparty coalition government, with a multipart opposition. In Dutch news programs thus, there is not only a conflict between the government and opposition, such as in the MSNBC video, which shows a conflict between the Occupiers and the police (representing the decisions made by politicians), but also the conflict among the parties within the coalition. This comes forward in the fact that different representatives of Dutch political parties are presenting their anti- Occupy views in the Pownews video (2011). When analyzing the Herman and Chomsky (Goodwin 1994:101-111) propaganda model, there can be said that the use of flak might be a very important aspect in the types of framing Pownews used. Pownews often receives negative reactions on their website, in which many people seem to support right wing ideas (Pownews 2011). Therefore Pownews might have chosen to bring more extreme right-wing statements into their news items.

17

//Cartoon and PhotosThis cartoon is made by Valentin Zorin (2011). He is a Russian journalist commenting on the United States and he is active on the Voice of Russia radio. His anti-Wall street and anti-capitalist politics can be explained by looking at the frames that are used in his cartoon. The pigs that are drawn in the cartoon above stand for the capitalist politicians and mainly the Wall street bankers:‘The events of this autumn suggest that the American political system and its powerful media machine for “brainwashing “American society suffered a startling breakdown. Yet, they’re still trying excuse the overweening greed of Wall Street bankers, who’re responsible

Figure 1.1


for the mass robbery of millions of people and who aren’t trying to alleviate society’s problems. Current developments suggest that such efforts have failed.’ The metaphor that is used here to frame the Wall Street bankers and capitalist politicians is called the homospeciality metaphor (Sleuter and Wills 2009 :7-24). Two distinct images are merged into a single image, namely the heads of pigs and the banker/politician’s suits. The fact that pigs are used in this framing highlights the otherness of the bankers and politicians, because we do not recognize them as human beings. Thus, dehumanization is used to set a negative image of United States bankers and politicians. The fact that the pigs are much bigger than the civilians and that these civilians are stuck under the piles of money tells us something about the amount of power that the bankers and politicians have in whether or not to deny the civilian’s claims. The fact that they are saying that they ‘don’t know what the civilians want’ because they ‘don’t have a list of demands’, while we can see that the people lying underneath the sacks of money do have demands, tells us that the politicians/bankers are not willing to listen to these people’s demands. By drawing the picture of smoking and drinking pigs on top of a pile of money, Zorin tries to tell us that the capitalist politicians and bankers can only think of money and are not bothered at all by the cries of help that come from the civilians. The image of the capitalist bankers having the ability to alleviate the problem, but not having the will to do that, is called the responsibility frame (Semetko and Valkenburg :2000 :93-107). The use of this frame implies that politics are an important factor to take into account in this case. Because of his Marxist background, it is not strange that Zorin has such a negative view concerning capitalism in the United States. Herman and Chomsky (Goodwin 1994 :101-111) emphasize that confusion of interests by governments is an important factor in shaping news, and in this case it is possible that

Russian government institution had their share in shaping the anti-capitalist views that are supported in the cartoon. The second frame that is used by Semetko and Valkenburg (2000 :93-107) and that can also be seen in this cartoon is the human interest frame. The cartoon emphasizes how civilians are affected by the ‘money grabbing’ of capitalist bankers/politicians. The economic frame is another frame that is used in the cartoon : there is a mention of financial consequence for civilians due to the greediness of capitalist bankers and politicians, who maintain the capitalist system (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000 :93-107).

‘Good cartoons hit you primitively and emotionally, a cartoon cannot say, ‘on the other hand’ and it cannot defend itself. It is a frontal assault, a slam dunk, a cluster bomb.’

>> Marlette in Sleuter and Wills 2009:7-24

19

This picture is taken by a reporter from the Guardian Newspaper in the United Kingdom (2011). The title and subscription of the newspaper article are: ‘50 Occupy Wall street Protesters Arrested: Demonstrators including members of clergy held after trying to scale church car park fence in New York.’ However the text written in the article is promoting (what seems to be) quite a neutral view upon the Occupy protesters, some attention must be given to the facts that it is the clergy you can see on the picture. The fact that this picture was shown in the United Kingdom, explains a great deal about the intention of the publisher;

Figure 1.2


The ‘British Religion in Numbers’ (2012) is a website on which observed numbers of religiosity in Britain are given. The website obtains these statistics form government data sources, opinion polls, faith community sources, such as accounts or yearbooks and faith community contact details. The databases reveal that although the number of religious people declined in Britain, still more than half of the British people believe in a God. Cusack (2011:1-10) also emphasizes that young people in the United Kingdom are overall still interested in religiosity. This fact might have been influential for the Guardian editorial office in the choice to add this photo to the article. If the editorial office would choose to use this photo, most people in the United Kingdom would feel empathy towards the clergy and the Occupy movement. This implies that the editorial office that made this article would be pro-Occupy. The type of framing that can be applied to this, is the human interest frame (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000:93-107), because the picture contains visual information that might generate feelings of sympathy towards the clergy and the Occupy movement.

21

This photo was taken in Oakland in January 2012 (Shaw 2012). What you see here is a group of Occupy protesters, burning the American flag. One of the Protesters is holding up a sign which says ‘Occupy Oakland’. The picture showed up in many newspapers, with headlines such as ‘300 arrested, flag burned at Occupy Oakland’, Oakland assesses city hall damage after Occupy break-in’ and ‘after lull, Occupy protest resurfaces in Oakland’. The headlines of the newspapers already tell us that in this, case there will be no positive things said about the Occupy protesters. And the use of this picture underscores that. The American flag is something Americans have always been proud of and it makes Americans have a feeling of belonging. The nation as a home metaphor is used in this image, because by burning the American flag, the ‘homes’ of American civilians are being attacked (Sleuter and Wills 2009:7-24). The threat is that Americans who see this picture might take this flag burning as deeply personal and insulting. By showing this picture, for example in a newspaper, the image that is built is that Occupiers are spoiling the space of home and that they are the enemy of the United States.

Figure 1.3


The frame that is most prominent is the conflict frame (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000:93-107) The main issue this picture is trying to address is the conflict between these Occupiers with the state authorities. However, this picture clearly does not represent all Occupiers, but the simple fact that this picture is shown may change or shape people’s perspectives of Occupy being reckless and an enemy of the state. Shaw(2012) recognizes the danger that Occupiers are getting themselves in because a group of Occupiers were caught on photo in this way: ‘I guess it’s hard to conclude anything other than the fact that the movement -- in an act that makes no sense -- must have decided to torch itself.’ One of the media sources in which this photo was shown is the Christian Science Monitor. Snow and Vliegenthart et al. (2007 :385-415) stated that in newspapers that are more politically right, there will be a focus on group based attributions instead of government based attributions. In an article on hyscience.com (2010), the writers of the article state that Christian Science Monitor has falsely labeled John Patrick Bedel as a right-wing extremist. The writers of the article on hyscience.com (2010) state that Peter Grier, staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor, has an obvious anti right political bias. If the Science Monitor would indeed have left-wing views, it is strange that the editorial office chose to show this anti-Occupy picture. Snow and Vliegenthart ‘s hypothesis is also not in line with this statement made by hyscience.com. The Christian Science Monitor, having left-wing views (according to hyscience.com), would not likely focus on group based attributions, but on government based attributions. In this case this cannot said to be true, because the fact that this photo is shown, emphasizes group activity without any comment on government involvement. In terms of the propaganda model made by Herman and Chomsky (Goodwin 1994:101-111), the sources of information that newspapers use that eventually chose to bring this photo into the

public, might be very important. It is possible that the information that the newspapers got came from government officials, who have an anti-Occupy bias.

23

//Newspaper ArticlesIn his article, Darling (2011:1) talks about the executive order to force student loan companies to cap annual loan repayments at 10% of what students make after they are done with school, that was promised by Obama to the Occupy Movement in the United States in October 2011. Darling (2011:1) does not agree with the order, because he thinks that ‘middle-income Americans will end up footing the bill to pay the salaries of Ivy League Professors’. A very prominent frame that is used in the article is the responsibility frame (Semetko and Valkenburg 2000:93-107). Occupiers and Obama are held responsible for the bad economic circumstances in the United States. Another frame that is used is the economic consequences frame. Darling (2011:1) states that because of the capping of annual loan payments, American citizens will experience the negative consequences, which would be that citizens ‘will pay the salaries of Ivy League Professors.’ Darling compares Wall Street Occupiers to ‘out of control monsters in a bad Halloween movie’. , Dehumanization is used, in this case by using the Spawn metaphor, because Darling (2011) is calling up the deep symbolism of the monstrous and is therefore dehumanizing the Occupiers (Sleuter and Wills 2009:7-24). In this case, the article was written by a journalist of a right-wing magazine. In their article, Snow, Vliegenthart et al (2007:385-415) state that in newspapers that are politically right, there will be a propensity to invoke group based attributions. Thus, we could expect that the right-wing orientation of the magazine influenced the way in which Occupy, that is seen as a left wing movement (Darling 2011:1) is portrayed in this article. The conclusion that can be made based on the article is that group based invoking, as mentioned by Snow, Vliegenhart et al. (2007:385-415) is indeed used. However, not only Occupy is blamed in the article, but also Obama, who eventually implemented the request that was made by the Occupiers. Thus, what can be concluded here is that the hypothesis can partially be verified when analyzing this article.

Snow, Vliegenthart et al. (2007:385-415) also state that event proximity is an important news value and is likely to increase the chance that the event will be covered and discussed in the media. This contextual theory can be applied to this article: ‘President Obama threw his arms around these left-wing activists last week.’ The fact that Darling (2011:1) mentions that the event happened ‘last week’ can explain the relative importance of the event when the article was written on 31 October 2011. Another hypothesis Snow, Vliegenhart et al (2007:385-415) come up with is that countries less politically and proximate to the riots will be more likely to blame the state for the event. What would be expected in this case, is that it would be less likely that in this case the government would be blamed. But, as mentioned before, it is also Obama who is to be blamed in the article. The Human Events magazine is one of the biggest and most influential conservative magazines in the United States. Therefore, making profit is likely to be a very important, and therefore investment corporations and banks might play an important role in shaping the Human Events news. It is also likely that confusion of interest of the government and the newspaper have played an important role in shaping the news item and that the Human Events magazine has based the article on the information that was given by right-wing government organizations (Goodwin 1994:101-111). The next article was published by the Virginia Gazette in Williamsburg (Langley 2012). In the article, diagnostic framing is used in terms of boundary framing (Benford and Snow 2000: 611-39). Different actors who are quoted in the article talk about Occupy in a positive way. An example of this is that someone who is interviewed calls Occupy a ‘unique movement’’ The ‘bad’ are in this case the financial institutions and their ties to government. What is the most obvious about this article, is the use of prognostic framing. Even the title of the article is a prognostic frame:‘Next for Occupy: get more involved.’ The ones that are interviewed emphasize the strategies that Occupy has to use in


gaining more success: “You need both old-school methods and new-school methods to exercise fully First Amendment freedoms. Physical presence remains important to public dissension.’ In this article, it is not the writer of the article himself who brings up the strategies mentioned above. However, by using only the arguments of people saying Occupy is a successful movement, the writer of the article is creating discourse as well. It is exactly that what people read in this article that shapes their perceptions of the Occupy Movement. It is possible that the editorial office got its information from government organizations that support the Occupy movement (Goodwin 1994 :101-111) The hypothesis, that countries more politically and economically close to an event would less likely engage only in diagnostic framing is verified in terms of this news article (Snow, Vliegenhart et al, 2007:385-415). The article was published in Williamsburg. The Occupy movement started and was very active in the United States at that time and not only diagnostic, but also prognostic framing is used.

//ConclusionIn this first chapter, the reason for the transformation of Occupy from being unnoticed by the media to a major topic of many newspapers and television programs was explained: each time there was a conflict with the police, the media attention increased. Social Media, like Twitter, also helped to make Occupy a wide spread and well known movement. Different media sources were analyzed in terms of the frames that were used and the contexts in which they occurred. Overall there can be said that the different countries in which the photos, cartoons, video’s and news articles occurred were not very different in the types of frames that were used. The most prominent frame that was used, concerning all countries in which the sources occurred, was the human interest frame. What is also very obvious about the use of framing is that in the American media sources, a lot

more frames were used than in video’s, photo’s, newspaper articles and cartoons that occurred in other countries. The main difference between the video’s that were analyzed and that were shown in television programs in the United States and in the Netherlands was that the Dutch news used diagnostic and motivational frame, which was not the case in the American video. What was also obvious about the video from the United States, is the use of Hollywood tricks. In the second part of the chapter, a cartoon and two photos were analyzed. The human interest frame was used both in the cartoon made by Zorin and in the photo showed by the Guardian. The main differences between the types of frames that were used in the two United States news articles are that in latter article prognostic frames were used, which was not the case in the first article that was analyzed. Not all of Snow and Vliegenthart’s hypothesis were confirmed in terms of the media sources that were analyzed in this chapter. A reason for this can be that not enough media sources were used to draw a more realistic conclusion in terms of the overall pattern that can be seen in western media. Overall we do agree on the idea that way in which news articles, television programs, radio stations or websites present certain events, can affect how people come to understand these events. We agree on Herman and Chomsky, who state that size, ownership, profit, advertisement interest, the use of sources and flak are important factors to look at, because these factors play a role in shaping news. When looking at video’s, reading a newspaper, watching a picture or looking at a cartoon, it is important not to take the events that are being showed or talked about as facts, but to always be critical about the ways these events are presented, or even propagated. \\

25

‘Frames are developed and deployed to acieve a specific purpose.’

>> BENFORD & SNOW

‘Frames are developed and deployed to acieve a specific purpose.’

>> BENFORD & SNOW

SECOND CHAPTERFRAMING BY THE GOVERMENT

Words By F. Kok

We have the right to demonstrate and have the-freedom of expression, but one by one Occupy camps are being evicted and cleaned up. How come people accept that these basic rights and funda-mental freedoms are infringed or limited? The government is limiting these rights of what Occupy claims to be 99% of the population, how come we are not collectively out on the streets, resisting these evacuations and evictions? In other words, what do government officials say and what frames do they use that are persuasive enough that it is collectively accepted that these rights are infrin-ged?

In this chapter I will discuss framing by governments. I will examine this particular kind of framing thru the article of Benford and Snow (2000), comparing several case studies to see the similarities and differences. The first paragraph is about the international declarations and treaties and how the Dutch law system works. The second paragraph is about demobilizing and how tocounter frame collective action frames.

//Legal Frameworks, Law in a NutshellThe evictions of the Occupy camps is in contrast with article 19 and and article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereaf-ter UDHR). These articles form the freedom of opinion and expres-sion and the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Article 29 UDHR provides the framework of cases in which these universal rights can be limited by the government. There are only two sets of limitations of the universal human rights and freedoms aloud, these limitations are:

>> Limitations that are determined by law, this can only be called upon if this limitation enables others to enjoy their rights and fundamental freedoms. >> Limitations that enable meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society.

The UDHR is non-binding, which means that if you go to court due to an alleged infringement of his or her rights, you cannot call directly upon the UDHR. However, there are many conventions such as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-mental Freedoms that include the exact same rights and freedoms as the UDHR. These conventions are, if they are ratified and signed by a country, binding. This means that in national court, one can directly call upon this convention and governments are held upon protecting these rights and freedoms. The duality of law is that we are prohibited to infringe these rights, and the government is prohibited to infringe ours, unless law provides the limitation. The requirements of public order and general welfare are requirements that can be widely or narrowly in-terpreted. The government will often try to prove that a certain case falls within the allowed limitations, where the defendant will try to

prove that it does not fall within the allowed limitations. In order to evict an Occupy camp, the city council notifies the defendant that there is a decree to evict them. If they do not agree and obey, they can go go to court. Why do we accept a court order and judgement? In Europe, we have several principles and assumptions in court, such as an unbi-ased court. One part of this assumption is that the court can rule only on the material that is provided by in court. The judges can not call upon any other material than the case file. Another principle is the principle of legality; the government can only act if the action is provided by law. So if they want to limit the rights of civilians, they have to prove that law provides the limita-tion. The court is the third party in the conflict that provides or refuses the approval of limitations of human rights and freedoms. This in its turn, can strengthen the position of the government if they win the case, as it then is ‘proven’ that they have the law on their side. If you do not agree with a verdict of the court, you can appeal. Ano-ther court will than revise your case and give a new verdict where they either rule in line with the first verdict or give a new verdict. This, together with the assumption that the court is unbiased, provi-des a trustworthy legal redress. One important thing to note is that due to the separation of powers (the Trias Politica of the philosopher Montesquieu) the court is not allowed to examine the constitutionality of the law. It can only rule on whether the case falls under the letter of the law or not. It cannot, in other words, rule on the constitutionality of the limitati-ons that are provided by law, for example if the disputed limitations are just. As mentioned before, in court, one party will try to prove that the limitations is not provided by law, and the other party will try to prove that it is. This is where the framing comes in. Each party will

29

-what Benford & Snow refer to as- simplify and condense aspects of actions (Snow&Benford 1998:198) to make their point of view plau-sible. The court can only rule on the legal files that are provided in court, and they have to choose between the two represented frames. In order for the government to win a lawsuit, they have to make one of the allowed limitations plausible. In order to legally evict these camps with a legitimate reason, the government or city council has to imply that the demonstrations are disabling public order or are a threat to the security of other civilians. Opposing the movement for its goal will not succeed, this is not provided by law and would directly contravene with the principle of a democratic society. There have been many lawsuits between city councils and local Occupy camps, and in each case you see that the government or city council invoke on one of these principles of public order or public safety. The court will then decide –based on (among other factors) the history of the movement, and the way the demonstrations are carried out so far- whether it is likely that if Occupy remains where they are, public order, health or safety is endangered. In some cases the city council or mayor (who is often the defendant) win, but there are numerous cases where they do not win, because the defence is not convincing enough. This shows how important and widely interpreted these rights and freedoms are. Another option to evict the camps for a reason provided by law is to claim that the right the Occupiers are invoking on is not applicable in the present case. This is what you also see in a lot of jurisprudence, dispute over whether a certain right is applicable or not. In the Occupy file there are also many of these cases. So what do cases like this entail? The city council or government will for example argue that the Occupiers do have the right to demonstrate, but that the right to demonstrate does not entail –to what to the public eye seems to be- a permanent resident or camp on public space. Demonstrations are seen in the Dutch legal system as public

manifestations, and these are protected by the Regulation Public Manifestations. But do seemingly permanent camps on public spaces fall within the scope of this regulation? In a case of one month ago the court ruled in a summary procedure that it could not be proven that it did not, and that the case had to be postponed until the pending case could be treated with regard to the content of the case.

//Reversed Collective Action, a ‘how to’ DemobilizeOccupy is protesting against the current capitalistic market form. Due to the fact that politics is part of this system, the government has to carefully choose its words when it comes down to Occupy. If they turn their backs to the Occupy movement due to their subject of protesting, there will probably be a lot of resistance among the people. Moreover, they are very unlikely to win a lawsuit. So the politicians have to frame their motivations in a way that they agree with or at least tolerate the ideals and the subject of protesting, but just not the way they chose to protest. They need to remove the causal connection between the means and the purpose. If they effectively do this, they probably will receive a lot of support. In short, they need justify de-mobilizing the occupy movement. They can do this by what Benford refers to as counter framing (1987:75). He calls counter framing an attempt to undermine and neutralize the other group’s version of reality. Framing is taking one aspect of reality en enlarging that aspect, so the national or local government has to take one aspect that questions their effectiveness in order to undermine Occupy. For this chapter I have reversed the characteristic features of collective action frames, which Benford & Snow refer in their article ‘Framing and Social Movement’ (2000). They give a very adequate description of important features for collective action, for this chapter I will do an experiment by using the features to see

30 //// FAMING BY THE GOVERNMENT

if you reverse them or interpret them otherwise, they can prevent collective action. I will then compare these features to case studies, films and written documents of governments and city councils to see whether governments, city councils or politicians on itself (knowingly or unknowingly) implement these features. The frame processes that Benford & Snow use are not static but dynamic as they remark themselves (2000:628). My experiment will therefore also aim to see how extensive or dynamic these processes can be interpreted and used. The article contains features for Social Movement Organisations (SMO), the government or city council is clearly not an SMO, my experiment will therefore also aim to see if these features are applicable to other types of organisations. As Benford & Snow remarked in their article, frames are developed to achieve a specific purpose (2000:624). The next chapter will drive on two assumptions, the first is that the government will aim to achieve consensus mobilization, which facilitates agreement (Benford & Snow 2000:615), they want individuals to support their action, which is to evict the Occupy camps. The other assumption is that the government will try to keep the resistance as low as possible. This is reversed motivational framing, which fosters action (Benford & Snow 2000:615). This particular kind of framing is what the government will have to diminish and counter frame. The purpose of the frames used by the government is to keep collective resistance and action as low as possible, and to diminish the Occupy movement. If the Occupiers are evicted from their camps, the set up of the demonstration is ‘destroyed’, so Occupy will be a lot less visible and out there. Benford & Snow identify three factors that contribute to the credibility of framing. These factors are frame consistency, empirical credibility and credibility of the frame articulators (Benford & Snow 200:619). So the credibility of framing depends on who says something, based on what they say something, and if they

repeatedly use the same frame or use contradicting frames. One very important remark Benford & Snow make in relation to this is that the connection between what they say and what anyone can see for himself does not have to be generally believable, but that it must be believable for a certain target group (Benford & Snow 2000:620). The reasons provided by the government for evicting camps do not have to be plausible for e.g. occupiers, as they are unlikely to agree anyhow, but to the public that might resist. As Benford & Snow refer to, speakers that we regard as more credible are generally more persuasive (2000:620,621). In the present case the speakers are the chosen politicians and the Occupiers. Generally the politician will have more status than an occupier, due to the fact that the politician is chosen by people and therefore is likely to be more credible for a certain target group, its voters. Scheufele (1999) makes a distinction between media versus individual frames when it comes to political communication. Where media frames help organize a set of events, individual frames serve as internal structures of the mind (Scheufele 1999:106). Scheufele remarks that the presentation and labelling of events directly affects how recipients perceive these events, and that media frames help organize the news and gives meaning to everyday news. Individual frames on the other hand, are what Entman describes as stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals processing of information (Entman 1993, 53). In other words, it helps individuals to comprehend political news. So why is this relevant? Occupy was –especially in the begin-ning- almost daily a worldwide news topic. But Occupy has many camps, so not just national government are asked for statements, also local governments, city councils, political parties or politicians on themselves. As Scheufele has remarked, they help us form an opinion about what to think of Occupy. How to make sense of these occupied places and demonstrations. So unknowingly, the opinions

31

of the politicians on the news on Occupy play an important part on how we perceive Occupy. So what have politicians said in the news? In a Dutch news article on November 19 2011, the chairman of the conservative-liberal political party VVD proposed to retrieve the social welfare and security that a lot of the Occupiers were on. As motivation he claims that he does not have the time to sit around all day and he says the only way to change the economy is to actively do something. The undertone in this proposition and statement is that the Occupiers are lazy people, cost money and therefore do not help the economy whatsoever. In another city in the Netherlands an article appeared stating that a party in the city council thought the protesting looked more like a party than a demonstration. In the same city another party stated that the demonstration was a farce, and that they wanted to withdraw the permit of the Occupiers to demonstrate. In the United State and the United Kingdom Fox News which is a right wing news broadcasting channel that repeatedly calls occu-piers lazy, refers to the demonstrators as filth, a gang and claims that occupiers are all jobless and chose to be so.

//SOME ILLUSTRATIVE VIDEOS


These films display clips of Fox News and their framing and labelling of Occupy.Labels that they use are filth, hippies, drug users, lunatics, and fascists, crazy left wing people.

Video 2.1 & 2.2

33

The New York mayor, Micheal Bloomberg, made a public statement that the Occupiers are not productive. Later he evicted the camps on the basis that the health conditions were intolerable.

Video 2.3


Prime minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron makes a public announcement on how he thinks of Occupy, stating that he is all in favour of the right to demonstrate, but he does not see why this entails putting up a tent anywhere you feel like. So in other words, he says, the demonstration is fine, just not this way.

Video 2.4

35

David Cameron later states that the demonstration is not constructive, the way they are demonstrating according to Cameron does not contribute to changing or helping the system nor the people. He questions the efficiency of the movement.These clips can be roughly categorized in two categories.

Video 2.6


The politicians either question the efficiency of the movement, questioning what this kind of protesting contributes to the comba-ting the crisis, helping people getting a job etc. The other category contains the politicians that do not refer to the subject or means of the Occupy movement but to the kind of people that join the movement, and to the ‘mess’ they make or the message these kinds of people send out. Steuter & Wills (2008 & 2009) offer a range of metaphors that are used in many frames by many parties. Some of these metaphors are for example the Hunt metaphor, the insect/swarm metaphor and the Spawn metaphor. I would like to add another metaphor to the ones that Steuter & Wills suggest, the Dirt metaphor.As many of the footage I have seen and read contain a sense of people dirtying the streets, making a mess and creating a stench on public space. This metaphor calls –just like the insect/swarm metaphor- for the government to step in and control the situation. To clean up the streets, dirt is just like insects and swarm of insects seen as something unwanted that needs to be taken care of. By invoking or implying the dirt metaphor, the government adapts to inherent needs for clean and tight streets. The following clip shows a local Dutch politician referring to the so-called business card of Utrecht, stating that this is not what Utrecht wants its tourists to see. He indirectly refers to the dirtiness of the camp, as this is not what tourist want to see when they come to Utrecht.

Benford & Snow make three hypothesises related to the connection of resonance of a collective action frame and its salience to targets of mobilization (Benford & Snow 2000:621):

1// The more central the adopted beliefs, ideas or values of a movement to the target group, the greater the probability of the mobilization.2// The more experientially corresponding of the framings, the greater their salience, and the greater the probability of mobilization.3// The greater the narrative fidelity of the proffered framings, the greater their salience and the greater the prospect of salience (Benford & Snow 2000:621, 622)

If you partially reverse these hypotheses, you prevent mobilization by the frames of the government. What I mean by this is that the government will try to reach consensus mobilization and not action mobilization. An example of the first hypothesis is if the reasons for evicting a camp are based on central ideas and values of voters (for example law and order), they are likely to agree with the politician, and prevent action mobilization. They want their voters to agree with them and not to support the occupiers in resisting the eviction, so they will frame their motivations by stressing that this kind of de-monstrations contravene with ideals that are high on their agenda.

The second hypothesis is to frame that the reasons for evicting

37

the camps are experientially evident. If the government claim they make a mess, it has to be evident in the concerning camp. If it is not evident, the government is less credible and people are likely to not accept their arguments. The third hypothesis refers to the assumptions or even myths, which are embedded in our culture, if the frames correspond with the cultural assumptions they are likely to be believed. For example, a stereotypical image of for example squatters is that they dress in a particular way that is different from the main stream clothing (e.g. spikes, leather), and that they make a mess of the housing they squat. In the media, squatters are often depicted towards sloppy, messy and unclean people. Then there is also the stereotypical image of people on social welfare and security, as being scroungers, lazy and trying to do minimal and gain maximal. The same goes for drug users, as many broadcasting channels claimed that there were drug needles confiscated from the camps by the police. These ‘types’ of people are not highly appreciated in society, so if the government and city council say that these kinds of people are the kinds that are camping on public spaces, the people in general will find it a lot less worrying that the camps are evicting than when the camps were to be occupied by Joe the Plumbers. Occupy tries to reach as many people as they can, they will seek for aligns by what Benford & Snow call frame alignment processes (1986). Two of these processes are frame amplification and frame extension. Frame amplification entails clarification of values and beliefs, frame extension involves showing interest in issues of potential supporters (Benford & Snow 200:624, 625). Benford & Snow recognise the hazard in these processes, there can arise disputes within a movement over issues as efficiency and purity (2000:625). This will immobilize Occupy from within, but if you question the efficiency from the outside, you can potentially immobilize them. So in order to counter frame Occupy, the

government should question the efficiency of the chosen means of the movement, their plan of attack. As mentioned before, framing is taking one aspect of reality and zooming in on it. This is exactly what Benford refers to as counter framing (Benford 1987:75), reframing action to try to contain or limit the influence of the movement. The politicians have to counter frame on what (among others) Benford & Snow refer to as the prognostic and motivational frame task. In short, prognostic framing entails a plan of attack and motivational framing entails a call to arms. Question these two framing tasks and collective action will be adverted. The third framing task, diagnostic framing, which entails problem identification, does not need to be counter framed. By denying or questioning the problem, the politicians will be less convincing. One other important remark is what Benford & Snow refer to as framing at general level and framing at concrete level. Framing at general level entails attributing characteristics that implicate lines of action, whereas framing at concrete level entails talk among activists and public announcements (Benford & Snow 2000:632). In the framing process by governments, you see both of these levels. As mentioned before, the politicians attribute certain characteristics to the Occupiers to strengthen or invoke myths and justify evicting the camps. These characteristics are that the demonstrators are often squatters, homeless of jobless people that are on social welfare and have ‘nothing better to do than sit around all day’. At concrete level, you see local politicians and mayors of cities making public announcements all the time, and as Scheufele remarked, these help us comprehend the news, help us label the Occupiers and form an opinion about them.

//Conclusion


In the introduction I have asked three questions:

>> How come we accept that that our basic rights are infrin ged or limited? >> How come we are not collectively out on the streets to resist the evictions? >> What do government officials say that is persuasive enough to demobilize?

The answer to the first and the second question partially overlap, but the first question also has to do with our law system. Due to the principles that were elaborated on, the rulings of the court are seen as accurate, and sensible. In first instance the people often do not accept what the government says or does, especially when these actions limit rights and freedoms we have. But after a court ruling this often changes. If we accept the limitations or rights, that of course is also a reason not to protest against the evictions. But other factors do play part though, such as that by repeatedly using the dirt metaphor we apparently see it as justified that the rights of groups of people are limited or infringed. For further research it is therefore interesting to look into the question whether we perhaps do not see every right as universal, as the dirt metaphor and the type of people play an important part in the argument whether or not we accept that these rights are infringed. This could imply that we simply do not attribute every right to everyone, but only in a certain amount for a demarcated time. In my opinion the article of Benford & Snow (2000) can also be used for other entities than SMO’s. I think local or national governments can very adequately use the features that they address for collective action. As for the question to what the government officials say it is not just what they say, but also who says something and how often the

same kind of arguments are used by other politicians. The essence of counter framing of governments seems to be either to question the efficiency of the Occupy movement, to not contradict the subject of the demonstration but the means they have chosen, or else to avoid the whole subject or means whatsoever and concentrate on the dirt metaphor, so by saying for example that the streets are getting dirty. Dirty streets call for action, one of the tasks of the government is to keep the cities clean. One thing that is evident is that up until now, there has been no collective action to resist against the Occupy camps, so the government is very effectively demobilizing, perhaps the article of Benford & Snow circulates among the politicians, who knows. \\

39

‘They want to smash not just the movement, but the people.’

>> ANONYMOUS

‘They want to smash not just the movement, but the people.’

>> ANONYMOUS

From its emergence in September of 2011, its activists have characterized the Occupy movement. They called for economic justice and denounced greedy bankers, corporations and governments. The unifying slogan “we are the 99%”, addressing the unfair balance of power in favour of the wealthiest 1% of the population became part of worldwide popular discourse. With time, however, governments and city councils decided to take action against the camps set up by the Occupiers, which had emerged in major cities across the globe. Videos of violent evictions by police forces featured in news television programs, websites and blogs. The framing of the evictions as police brutality, using unnecessary violence, resulted in cries of outrage amongst the public. Ever since the violent evictions a definite change is noticeable in the messages conveyed by the Occupiers. Today, six months after the emergence of the Occupy movement, most articles posted on the Occupy Wall Street website are centred on injuries caused by police actions and anti-police protests. What does this mean for the movement? Will the days of peaceful protest eventually come to an end?

C H A P T E RT H I R DD O M E S T I C F R A M I N G

Words By T. Kouveld

In order to find an answer this question, this chapter will give an analysis of the domestic frame of the Occupy Movement at its emergence and transformation. By analysing the movement’s collective action frames as defined by Benford and Snow (2000) a detailed overview will be given of the movement’s framing at the outset in September 2011, paying particular attention to its mobilizing message and the ways in which this counter-discourse created a strong us/them dichotomy within American society. The chapter will furthermore explain how the acts of violence by police forces in large American cities have influenced these frames and have given rise to an increasingly hostile anti-establishment discourse. I will focus on the naming and framing of the violence by the Occupy Movement and how this leads to the forming of violent imaginaries. Also, I will refer to Anthony Smith’s (1996) ethno-

histories and how they are increasingly playing a role in the development of the movement. From this point the chapter

will argue that these violent developments and discourses may lead to an increase in antagonism between the

Occupy movement and governments and possibly increasingly violent riots in the future.

//Domestic Frame at Outset of OWSAs a social movement, the primary aim of

the Occupy Movement is to mobilize as many potential activists as possible.

This may seem self-evident, but it is nevertheless important to point

out the different frames used by the Occupy Movement to

achieve this goal. In order to get a better understanding of these mobilizing practices

and how they have transformed, Benford and Snow (2000) have defined a number of collective action frames, with which to analyse social movements’ framings:

As described above, they argue that collective action frames can be divided into three core tasks: diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames. The diagnostic frame, which states the issue the movement addresses, can be further subdivided into different aspects and is prevalent in several ways within the Occupy movement. First of all, to indicate problem, the movement states that the top 1 percent of society has an unfair amount of wealth and power. This imbalance is similar to the Marxian imbalance between the elite and the proletariat. This constitutes what Benford and Snow call an injustice frame (2000: 616). Consequently, the remaining 99 percent of the population, which is represented by the movement, is victimized by this approach. This creates a frame of victimhood, which can be recognized in the majority of the outings on banners, which centred on economic injustice in terms of housing foreclosures and unemployment (see fig. 3.1). The diagnostic frame,

‘Collective action frames are constructed in part as movement adherents negotiate a shared understanding of some problematic condition or situation they define as in need of change, make attributions regarding who or what is to blame, articulate an alternative set of arrangements, and urge others to act in concert to affect change.

>> Benford & Snow 2000: 615

43

establishing of the 99 percent as innocent victims of the corruption and greed of the 1 percent has a third function, namely one to place blame. This practice, called adversarial framing, is used to single out the 1 percent, i.e. corporations, bankers and government representatives, as a homogenous party to blame for this perceived injustice and victimhood. This group, framed by the movement as greedy, consumerist and responsible for failure is not only regarded as a cause of current issues, but also dehumanized as inhuman and evil, thereby legitimizing civil disobedience as a form of hostility towards them.

Moreover, the antagonistic group is identified literally as they according to the declaration of Occupy Wall Street (nycga.net FIX), stating by use of bullet points every grievance they have caused us, creating a repetition of the perceived homogeneity of the antagonistic group. Consequently, institutions and corporations are ascribed agency as autonomous, elite actors in the process of the distribution of wealth. As Benford and Snow argue, the diagnostic frame is important in creating group boundaries (2000: 616). It becomes clear, then, that the slogan “we are the 99 percent” is a reification (Demmers 2012:

Figure 3.1

44 //// DOMESTIC FRAMING

11-12) of this diagnostic frame: it creates static boundaries that determine who is granted and who is denied membership of the group. The slogan, which is chanted by members of the movement during protests and demonstrations, creates a clear us/them dichotomy. The slogan is an obvious reference to the movement’s concerns with the uneven balance of financial and political power. Moreover, it claims moral superiority and truth based on sheer numbers. The 99 percent suggests a homogenous social group with shared frustrations and goals. It seems interesting, then, that the so-called prognostic frame is hard to determine within the movement.

What Benford and Snow term the prognostic frame is the task of a collective action frame to provide a solution for the problem (2000: 616). In the case of Occupy, however, this frame is problematic as the movement was infamous at the start for its lack of cohesion and thus lack of prognostic frame. During an interview in the early days of the movement, however, a young activist addresses this criticism by stating that the lack of cohesion makes the movement more personal, as everyone involved has the opportunity to enter his or her personal grievances instead of one collective goal (McKinley). Indeed, the movement itself seems to embrace its

Figure 3.2

45

multitude of demands rather than peter out one collective goal. It seems therefore that Benford and Snow’s prognostic frame needs expansion in order to analyse this type of social movement. The Occupy Wall Street movement was never meant to provide a clear-cut solution to the issues they addressed. Instead, the movement created a forum to collectively search for solutions in the form of community-wide general assemblies, smaller workshops and individual initiatives. While affiliated movements such as the Zeitgeist movement do provide a solution in the form of what resembles a Marxist socialist state, the Occupy movement intended to let its community produce a plan of action (NYC General Assembly FAQ). The movement did, however, influence popular discourse: the slogan “we are the 99%” has become symbolic for the movement and civic grievances in general.

The motivational frame, the third main task of collective action frames, is a call to arms (Benford and Snow 2000: 617). Since its emergence, the Occupy movement has been known for demonstrations, public protests and the claiming of territory by physical occupation, i.e. campsites, mass gatherings and squats. Initially, activists were rallied to meet at Zucotti Park, New York and physically occupy the park using tents and their presence. Using social media, the call to arms was spread across the world and other major towns soon followed its uprising message. There is a clear vocabulary of dormant inequality. In other words, the movement propagates a call for people to wake up and realize the crooked balance global capitalism has led to (see fig 3.3). This use of language is known from Marxism and is prevalent in many other contemporary collective action frames, such as the Kony 2012

Figure 3.3


campaign of early 2012 that called for the arrest of LRA leader Joseph Kony. Occupy states this frame as follows: ‘[…] we are calling upon ourselves, and upon one another, to wake up and employ our power as citizens: […]. We cannot ‘whine’ about the injustices wreaked upon us if we have been complacent and silent in the face of these injustices’ (NYC General Assembly FAQ). An essential statement by Benford and Snow is that ‘collective action frames are not static, reified entities but are continuously being constituted, contested, reproduced, transformed, and/or replaced during the course of social movement activity. Hence, framing is a dynamic, ongoing process’ (2000: 628). Benford and Snow specify political, cultural and individual forces as being able to influence collective action frames (2000: 628-630). The rest of this chapter will discuss the influence of political constraints in the form of camp evictions by police force on the Occupy movement. While the Occupy movement propagates adherence to a strict code of non-violence, violent conflicts have occurred between police and activists. At the time of writing, around 6,858 arrests have been carried out worldwide since the emergence of the movement (StPeteForPeace.org) and popular video streaming websites such as Youtube are teaming with videos made by activists, journalists and passers-by, reporting on the violent clashes. Violence mainly occurs during the eviction of the Occupy camps, most notably Occupy Oakland in November 2011 and the reoccupation of the Zucotti Park in New York by Occupy Wall Street in March 2012. During the evictions, police forces resorted to the use of batons, kettling, tear gas and pepper spray. The taped events, subsequently posted on the movement’s website, clearly show immediate framing of the police as aggressive antagonists. This process of dichotomizing between the police and the Occupy movement in terms of us and them can be read as an initial step in the creation of violent imaginaries.

//Framing of Police ViolenceWhat stands out in the many grainy video clips made of the evictions of Occupy camp sites is the practice of othering of police officers as evil antagonists. This practice is a reaction to the violent events during the evictions, granting the acts a ‘performative quality’ (Demmers 2012: 19). In other words, the violence is witnessed by an audience and carries with it a meaning. This entails that the images, in this case videos, of the events may serve as shared memories in the future to support group identities. The process of othering is clearly noticeable in the language used by activists, the publishing of the videos on major websites afterwards and the reactions these videos receive. The language used consists mostly of dehumanizing metaphors: the police as a whole are dehumanized from individuals to a homogenous antagonistic entity. Steuter and Wills (2009) have analysed the role of visual metaphors and state that ‘images emphasizing the Otherness of the enemy are fundamental to wartime discourses […] (2009: 9). Several of the categories of metaphors identified by Steuter and Wills can be recognized in the vocabulary of Occupy activists. First of all, the use of homospatiality, or the creation of a human-animal fusion, features during the eviction of the Zucotti Park. Police officers were repeatedly called ‘pigs’, while on the one hand a rather traditional derogatory term, nevertheless dehumanizes the group. A second visual metaphor used is the video material of the charges carried out by police forces. Everywhere the camera pans, black uniformed policemen are busy arresting activists, shoving people or issuing commands through a megaphone. The droning voice and anxiety caused by the seemingly unlimited number of agents which swarm the park not only dehumanizes the Other, it de-individualizes. This is called the insect or swarm metaphor, in which the enemy becomes an unstoppable force of interchangeable antagonistic actors (2009: 15). This

47

metaphor is strengthened by police tactics, giving the impression of individuals working as a single unit with a shared conscience. A third metaphor which is often present in actions of the Occupy movement is the ‘nation as home’ metaphor. The reclaiming of public space by campsites and demonstrations has been one of the main characteristics of the movement. This can be seen in evictions, in which all activists needed to ‘defend the park’ (Al Jazeera) and during the occupation of Brooklyn Bridge, New York. A commonly used chant during this demonstration was ‘ whose bridge? Our bridge!’ (VIDEO). In other words, the space claimed for community purposes then becomes a territory belonging to the group, which must be defended against outside defilers. The effect of the use of these frames and metaphors is that it creates new collective action frames. The violence portrayed by the police and coded by the Occupy movement as ‘police brutality’ and unnecessarily violent shapes frames of victimhood and injustice. The activists, then, are portrayed as innocent idealists, victimized by violent police actions. An article on Adbuster’s Occupy Wall Street website features a report from an eyewitness what the author describes as “extreme police brutality”. The activist in question describes an eviction as follows: ‘[i]t was angry, vicious people jumping unarmed protesters and bystanders. It was an attack. It was intentional brutality. They did not follow any procedure of kettling, “less lethal” tactics, etc. Their actions were directly targeting individuals and beating the shit out of them’ (Adbusters 2012). The article was published online and paired with photographs of activists with bloodied faces, which serve as proof of the inhumanity of the actions and although the activist speaks of lethally dangerous attacks, deaths have not been reported as a result of evictions so far. Police agents are framed as no longer being rational individuals but swarms of aggression, instilling fear and rightfully so because of their frightening and possibly lethal tactics. This leads to a more rigid us/them dichotomy, identifying the police as the violent enemy and symbol of oppression. A side effect of the

above framing through metaphors is a risk of creating metaphoric entrapment (Mumby and Spitzack 1983: 164 in Steuter and Wills 2008:15). Metaphoric entrapment may follow the consequent use of metaphors and frames, creating static, stereotypical truths. In the case of the Occupy movement, this would mean that the police would undoubtedly summon up connotations of violence and antagonism. Eventually, the combination of these metaphors, the violent events and the framing by the Occupy movement, then, results in the forming of violent imaginaries.

//Forming of Violent ImaginariesLike many contemporaries, Schröder and Schmidt (2001) regard violence as something which ‘is more than just instrumental behaviour’ (2001: 3). They elaborate on the performative quality of violence as described earlier, identifying the social meaning of violence as essential in the creation of violent imaginaries. According to Schröder and Schmidt, ‘violent acts are efficient because of their staging of power and legitimacy, probably even more so than due to their actual physical results’. They point out, however, that the ‘symbolic dimension of violence’ is open to interpretation. It is here that names and meanings are contested and framing has a free hand (2001: 6). These processes can be identified in the multiple video recordings of the police evictions in New York. The staging of power as defined by Schröder and Schmidt is firstly embodied in the physical power of the police forces. They appear in great numbers, carry out arrests and generally physically overpower the Occupy activists (wearechange.org). Furthermore, the symbolic uniforms and collective tactics used increases the intimidating image of the power of the police. The activists, on the other hand, stage their power and legitimacy by resisting arrest, verbal abuse and the chanting of slogans. In doing so, the activists’ perceived power stems from their display of bravery by resisting defeat against a physically stronger enemy, the result of which is a form of martyrdom which is later interpreted, named and framed in


the aftermath of the violence. As Schröder and Schmidt argue, these events are ‘stored in a society’s collective memory’ (2001: 8). This allows for a collective remembering in the future. This practice is highly visible in the aforementioned article by Adbusters. The article points out an increase in ‘police brutality’ and furthermore sums up different injuries sustained by activists at the hand of police forces, including a broken bones and medical negligence of a woman having a seizure during arrest (Adbusters). Schröder and Schmidt define violent imaginaries as ‘the emphasising of the historicity of present-day confrontations, [...] represented through narratives, performances and inscriptions’ (2001: 9). The Adbusters article is an interesting example of a violent imaginary, combining inscriptions and narratives. The narratives in this case are both the article itself and the interviewed activist giving his account of a police eviction. The photographs of injured activists would be considered inscriptions. All three emphasize the injustices and suffering undergone by the group. In doing so, the article suggests that all the police are the only perpetrators of violence and aggression. In other words, the article

creates a sense of collective suffering and moral superiority based on the use or refraining of violence. Other media show a less one-sided perspective, however. A live video made by a reporter for the website wearechange.org shows activists’ constant verbal abuse of police agents. Moreover, the activists show a deep suspicion of police forces’ capacity to apply medical care. During the eviction of the Zucotti Park a woman has a seizure while under custody of the NYPD. While the woman is being taken care of by four to five agents, the cameraman and other activists continue to verbally harass them (wearechange.org). At this point the boundaries between both groups have become so hostile that the police is no longer considered to be capable of delivering first aid. This specific event will be discussed in further detail. At this moment it is suffice to state Schröder and Schmidt’s conclusion that the recording of the eviction creates ‘an imaginary of internal solidarity and outside hostility’ (2001: 11). In short, the violent imaginaries form a nightmarish image of a totalitarian police state giving rise to an increase in anti-police myths and discourse within the Occupy movement (see fig 3.4).

Figure 3.4

49

//Role of Ethno-HistoriesAn interesting approach to the Occupy movement is from a viewpoint of nationalism. Anthony Smith’s theory on nationalism in particular provides an interesting perspective. Smith defines nationalism as ‘an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a human population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential ‘nation’’ (Smith 1996: 578). A nation, then, is defined by Smith as ‘a named human population with shared myths and memories occupying an historic territory or homeland, and possessing a common public culture, a single unified economy and common legal rights and duties’ (1996: 581). These factors can be found in the collective action frames and forming of group myths and counter-discourses as discussed before. Smith explains that many theories on nationalism overlook essential cultural elements of the forming of a nation. He identifies three elements which explain the variety and persistence of nationalism, namely ethno-histories, ethnic election and a sacred territory (1996: 583). Ethno-histories feature heavily in the Occupy movement, which will be discussed. Ethno-history has several aspects which are important to explain the persistence of nations. An important aspect is that of a golden age. A group needs a point in history which symbolizes an ideal group identity. It promotes a normative character of the community, adds a sense of regeneration and promotes a shared destiny and continuity (Smith 1996: 583). Although the Occupy movement is fairly young and obviously incomparable to ancient nation-states, the emergence of the movement in September 2011 has been identified by the group as a golden age. This can be seen by various videos posted on Youtube and several Occupy websites, looking back with nostalgia to the first few months of Occupy Wall Street such as The Occupation by indie film maker Bert McKinley which shows the film maker’s experiences at the Zucotti Park. He interviews several activists while upbeat music plays in the background. The short film shows the idealistic, expressive activists from all layers of society sitting peacefully in the park, voicing their concerns through signs and speeches. Some are emphasized by slow-motion shots; others stand out because of their narratives. Furthermore, an older man criticizes Fox News for interviewing what is perceived to be

a Wall Street broker, thereby clarifying that Occupy should not be affiliated with either the right political spectrum or Wall Street brokers, who, as has been pointed out before, have become Others, the person in case only identified by the older man by his ‘pin-stripe suit’ (McKinley). As such, the film represents a golden age in that it promotes the normative character of the community, i.e. it prescribes wanted behaviour and defines ‘what is and what is not, distinctive about that community’ (Smith 1996: 584). Furthermore, the film communicates a sense of regeneration: it functions like inspiration for future generations and others in contemporary times. Finally, the film ends with a hopeful open ending. The camera witnesses from a distance an explanation of the various hand gestures used in general assemblies. The camera slowly turns dark, suggesting a shared destiny in the future and continuity for the movement. The violent imaginaries as described above do not feature in Smith’s theory, but it should be pointed out that both concepts complement each other. While Smith’s golden age rhetoric focuses mainly on ages of prosperity and hope, Schröder and Schmidt’s violent imaginaries instead centre on collective suffering. Both theories lead to more rigid us/them dichotomies and both theories base these dichotomies on power relations. More important, both approaches point out that the authenticity of the data used to communicate their message can be questionable and depends on the party translating the message to contemporary terms (Smith 1996: 592; Schröder and Schmidt 2001: 6).

//What’s Next?The question now remains what the future holds for the Occupy movement’s frame. As a reaction to police violence against Occupy protesters, there seems to have emerged an antagonistic frame regarding police forces and it appears to increase in hostility. Us/them dichotomies are more rigid than they were at the onset of the movement, which was peaceful and pacifistic. Recently, activists complained after the eviction of the re-occupation of Zucotti Park because it was the most violent encounter they had ever witnessed during police clashes. What can this mean for the future? This final paragraph will take a small case study from the Zucotti Park eviction and analyse one event using Donald Horowitz’ theories on the


process of ethnic riots (2001). According to Horowitz, riots show certain patterns in increasing hostility and finally escalation (2001: 16). An important moment in the onset of riots is what he calls the lull. This is a moment after an (often lethal) act of violence has occurred and rumours start to emerge, influencing dominant discourse and eventually leading to misinformation and spurring groups on to violent conflict. The case to be discussed has been mentioned a few times in this chapter, namely the young woman having a seizure during her arrest at the March 17 2012 eviction of the Zucotti Park. The arrest provoked outrage within the group because the woman was bound and under police custody when the seizure occurred. A more detailed report of the events that night will help. Different cameras have captured the events that transpired during the arrest. The young woman, Cecily McMillan, was part of the Occupy Wall Street group bent on reoccupying the Zucotti Park in New York from which the group was evicted in November 2011. In time, police forces arrive and, after an initial warning, start clearing the camp site. On a grainy video a young woman (McMillan) is seen walking up to an agent and elbowing him in the face, upon which she gets tackled and arrested (anon). For an unknown reason, McMillan has a seizure while under custody. Police officers carry her body to the sidewalk after the seizure starts and watch over her. Immediately, protesters panic and start to verbally abuse the police, accusing them of brutality. Miss McMillan is eventually brought to a hospital, but her wounds and treatment remain unclear. During the following court hearing, different spectators delivered altering statements about the duration of the seizure and how long it took before Miss McMillan was able to receive medical treatment (Devereaux). A situation in which the police are involved and innocent citizens, women and children in particular, are victimized can in some cases escalate into riots or violent protests. This happened for instance during the London riots in the summer of 2011, when a young man was shot dead by a police officer. The ensuing rage subsided for a short period and then full-scale riots broke out, with many accounts of looting and violence against police. In the short lull between the initial outrage and outbreak of serious violent protests, a lack

of information gave way for rumours to spread. Prime Minister David Cameron’s denouncing of the violence as common criminality spurred on the violence instead of creating order and chaos ensued. In New York the situation did not escalate any further as a result of the seizure of Miss McMallen, but cries of outrage were rampant. Obviously, there are major social, political and economical differences between the Occupy movement and the lower ranks of society in London which influence the outcome of these violent situations. The patterns which allow for similar situation are beginning to show, however. As tensions rise between the Occupy movement and police forces, it seems inevitable for riots to eventually break out at one point.

//ConclusionIn conclusion, this chapter has discussed the domestic frame of the Occupy movement during its emergence in September 2011. Special attention has been paid to the collective action frames as defined by Benford and Snow (2000). The diagnostic and motivational frames were easily recognized, but finding a prognostic frame proved to be more difficult. The Occupy movement did not provide its group members with a clear-cut answer to the political and economical inequalities it addressed. Instead, it opened a forum for members to discuss their personal grievances in groups and from there on think of solutions. With time, the movement came into more and more conflicts with police forces, camp evictions being the most salient issue. As a reaction to police actions, a new discourse can be discerned, which grows increasingly hostile against the establishment and police in particular. Using dehumanizing metaphors and violent imaginaries, police forces were framed as violent antagonists, bent on destroying the Occupy movement. At the same time, nationalist sentiments can be found in the search for golden age rhetoric as described by Anthony Smith (1996). In short, the us/them dichotomies created by the Occupy movement have become more rigid with time. As a result, one wonders about the future of Occupy if violent clashes with police continue to occur. The chapter concludes by foreseeing an increase in violence in the future if things stay as they are and a possible escalation into full-scale riots.

51

Tomorrow is your opportunity to fail // Or be successful if you please, yes indeed // Tomorrow is a politician’s today // it’s the victim of decision // and the future of our children //So if I die someday // Will I be in heavenly places // Singing hallelujah with an angel // On the piano or will I be // Just another contribution // To the earth, the trees, the grasses // As tomorrow slowly passes // No one know….no one knows

>> ASAs ‘NO ONE KNOWS’

Tomorrow is your opportunity to fail // Or be successful if you please, yes indeed // Tomorrow is a politician’s today // it’s the victim of decision // and the future of our children //So if I die someday // Will I be in heavenly places // Singing hallelujah with an angel // On the piano or will I be // Just another contribution // To the earth, the trees, the grasses // As tomorrow slowly passes // No one know….no one knows

>> ASAs ‘NO ONE KNOWS’

FOURTH CHAPTER ACTIVISM IN THE DIGITAL AGESince the 7th of September 2011 the Occupy Movement spread around the globe like fire. In many cities they set up camps, internet cafes and libraries. They organized discussion groups, had general meetings and formulated slogans after lectures. They also opened facilities as food banks and field hospitals at a profound number of camps. What the residents of these temporary cities in the financial and political districts of main-ly Western countries currently wont do, is appoint a committee of strong leaders, submit a list of demands or seek confrontation. The baby boom generation of the recreational 60s and the political 70s as well as the lost generation of the cynical 80s and the relativistic 90s are up in arms: the Occupy Movement consists of a bunch of slackers who live on tax dollars paid for by hard working laborers while they’re smoking pot in a hippie-ish camp. Therefore the Occupy Movement must above all be seen as a protest from the network ge-neration that arose from the digital era. While they manifest themselves offline, online Occupy proceeds much further. There are discussions in the blogosphere, through Facebook the likes pile up as an expression of support and through Twitter they call the people to keep Occupy alive.

Words By N. van Ulden

But the use of social media doesn’t seem to make Occupy substantially different from other movements. However Occupy does stand out from other movement from bygone eras through a consistent application of the open source model. This model provides free access to source material so that all may use, copy, change or improve this material at their discretion, provided that all derivatives are also freely accessible. Another example of such a open source model is Wikipedia, but it is also used for developing operating systems and software. Occupy is not the first movement to use digital media in search of meaning, response and support. Activism in the digital era is eminent. While no one doubts that digital activism is a godsend to attract attention for a particular purpose, opinions differ whether it has a long-term, significant impact. This chapter will first say something about the use of digital media in activism in general. How do acitivist groups like the Occupy Movement frame and manifest themselves online and what do they take into consideration with this? Next it digs into the question if digital activism can be a critical tipping point in winning over the souls of the general public and bring about real change. Finally we will answer the main question how we as academics can frame the Occupy Movement in an understandable and furthermore respectable discourse.

//Digital ActivismPhysically demonstrating in the West seems to be something of bygone eras. It has been long since a good number suffragists were screaming for equal rights. It is even longer ago that men armed to the teeth stormed a bastion and unchained a revolution. But activism is not something that belongs to our grandparents. If you need convincing that the state of activism in the digital age is alive and well, look no further than you own Facebook timeline. (McCafferty 2011:17)

The range of activisticly charged postings is very wide. Activists therefore make good use of blogs, social media, mobile apps and other tools to promote their message and gain support. It makes one think of how effective this technology could have been through history. You would almost wonder if the two atomic bombs would have been dropped on Japan if the Japanese would’ve been able to tweet the Americans that something went wrong with the declaration of war just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or what would be left from the disbelievers of the Holocaust if cell phones were smuggled into concentration camps to take live pictures of the atrocities to upload to Facebook. Or which heritage could Galileo Galilei have left the world if he was able to finance his heliocentric model through an call on Kickstarter. Digital activism is basically the use of digital technology by citizens who want to achieve social and political change. (Joyce 2011) The way we normally understand digital activism is through tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Kickstarter. There are limitless examples however in which digital technology can help these activists. To name a few: Wikileaks (a website to anonymously leak private information of public interest), 4CHAN (a public crowd-sourced platform that is mainly about hacking campaigns) and the Obama’s election campaign (which was mobilized primarily online and utilized the full range of new media). When thinking about the use of digital technology and social media in terms of digital activism we are often overwhelmed by anecdote. Mary Joyce, who is an expert in the field of digital activism and travels the world training, speaking and consulting on the topic, states that when you look ‘at a dozen cases [...] you will see three dozen examples of how activists are using digital technology in their work’. (Joyce 2011) This endless variety in the use of digital technology as tools for activist campaigns is not only confusing to observers but to activists themselves as well.

55

To understand what exactly may be useful digital technology for activists you’ll need to look at how this technology is currently used by activists such as Occupy. Joyce however has composed an exhaustively and exclusive list of seven elements that form the basis of all uses of digital technology for digital activism. We have to underline that we are merely at the beginning of this process in which we compare the many characteristics of the enormous amounts of case studies to derive a framework that divides digital technology into activist functions. So further study has to be done to complete and build upon this list of functions.

//LIST OF ELEMENTS THAT FORM THE BASIS OF ALL USES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR DIGITAL ACTIVISM

1// Document >> Digital content creation The creation of digital content is to be understood as the encoding of text, video or audio, regardless of whether it is subsequently shared online or not. For example someone accidentally witnessing an event and grabbing their smartphone to film it.2// Broadcast >> Information-sharing, no call to action The most basic form of content-sharing. The aim of broadcasting what one has documented is to create shared understanding of public issue. Think of uploading videos from your smartphone to Facebook or tweeting photos via Twitpic.3// Mobilize >> sharing of information, with call to action Content-sharing which includes a direct request for the viewer. Many activists use Facebook to call for mobilization. A great example is the Facebook page We are all Khaled Said, an online campaign to get Mubarack in jail. 4// Co-Creat >> design and planning The iterative decision-making process by which actions and campaigns are designed and planned. This is an important element, because in this stage the call for action is framed in a way it inspires people to join the cause. Most planning occurs offline for security reasons, but when technology was used it was private and one-to-one (e.g. sms, phone calls or BB-messenger), unlike social media which is public and many-to-many.

56 //// ACTIVISM IN THE DIGITAL AGE

5// Protect >> evading censorship and surveillance Applications that help activists evade censorship blocks and government surveillance of their digital communication. An example of such a technology is Opera Mini, a web browser for smart phones that includes an app called Turbo which when enabled loads content through an Opera-run server. This speeds up retrieval of content if connectivity is slow, but has the side-effect of basically being a proxy server to circumvent restrictions on content which limit your access.6// Synthesize >> aggregation and mash-up There are two types synthesizing. One of them is aggregation: bringing together content of the same types, such as photos on a Flickr-page with the same subject or news articles on your iPad. The second is mash-up: bringing together content of different types, such as GPS data and video on maps that combine tweets in conflict areas.7// Transfer Resources >> mainly money This is really important for Western non-profit organizations in particular to raise money through online donations. Not all activists use digital technology for the transfer of resources. For example, there is no evidence of resource transfer during the Egypt Revolution. This is very telling, because it proves that you can have a revolution without a lot of money so you can frame (see 4) your campaign in such a way it inspires people to volunteer their time, energy and talents.

Once you understand this framework of the different uses of digital technology for digital activism you can see that for a single tool such as Twitter or Facebook there are multiple different functions. But solely presenting these functions isn’t al there is to it. Yet, while no one disputes that online initiatives draw greater attention to a cause, opinions vary with respect to whether they make a significant, lasting impact. One can say technology does not really advance activism to achieve its most critical goals: to change the heart and minds of the public, and effect real change. (McCafferty 2011: 17). The next part of this chapter will focus on the debate over digital activism versus slacktivism.

57

//Digital Activism versus SlacktivismDigital slacktivism - or clicktivism - refers to people who are happy to click a “like” button about a cause and may make other nominal, supportive gestures. (McCafferty 2011: 17) But this kind of clicking is, unlike true digital activism, hardly inspired with the kind of emotional fire that forces a shift in public perception. An illustrative example of a popular technique of organizers on all sides of the political spectrum is online campaigning in which supporters are encouraged to simply like, copy and paste a template form of the letter to their own Facebook timeline. Does such a simple act constitute activism at its finest? In the age of online media where network ties may be highly fluid, to discount acts of slacktivism as only weak evidence of a network movement misses an important aspect of global politics. (Strange 2011: 1251) The durability depends however upon the ability to integrate more physical means of coordination between activists. As acts of slacktivism they have at least the initial advantage that people can join with relative ease and so be exposed to further integration. New Yorker contributor Malcolm Gladwell states pretty much the same when he claims that ‘[...] successful efforts must engage participants by convincing them that they have a great personal stake in the consequences’. (McCafferty 2011: 18) Traditionally, highly effective movements evolved from within parties built upon strong tie personal connections, such as those among soccer team mates and church members. Activism associated with social media, however, is dependent upon weak tie relationships. Organizers seek involvement from Twitter followers they have never met or Facebook friends with whom they would never otherwise stay in touch. These are loose networks, whereas meaningful activism requires string, robust organizational structure. Even in the case of the Arab Spring - arguably the political

movement most enhanced by multiple digital means - those casting doubt upon the influence of technology contend that the events would have mattered little if old-fashioned principles of activism were not applied: effectively planned mass assemblies in which passionate pleas for change were expressed. (McCafferty 2011: 18) The fact that the Arab Spring demonstrations got YouTubed, Facebooked and tweeted is simply a logical progression in the continuing advancement of multimedia, just as broadcasting Martin Luther King’ speech in which he called for racial equality on TV news during the 1960s at one time seemed novel in its ability to connect a cause with a nationwide audience. Some of those downplaying the impact of online activism will even argue that its ability to generate boots-on-the-ground user engagement is overstated. Tufts University sociology professor Sarah Sobieraj likens modern efforts as more of an infatuation with technology with little to show for it. For her book Soundbitten: The Perils of Media-Centered Political Activism Sobieraj researched the methods of more than 50 different groups focused on shaping discourse. She concluded that their internet strategies have done little to influence the public. Despite all that, to discount digital activism as only weak evidence of a network movement misses an important aspect of the age of online media, where network ties may be highly fluid, confusing media tools with political communities. However their durability depends upon the ability to integrate more physical (and traditional) means of coordination between activists, people both involved with and supportive of digital activism concede that they really cannot measure how much technology inspires people to do something. The Internet has established platform upon platform to present a position in multiple formats. It allows for the exchange of views on a said position. It increases the capability for calls to action and organizational logistics. (McCafferty 2011: 18) In other words, if the


new techniques of activism serve to amplify and even help better organize the old, what is wrong with that? One can say that commitment to the network may vary greatly among the list of signatories. As with other forms of online digital media, that groups can express support without spending substantial resources may hollow out the effectiveness of digital activism if this is not followed up by real-world interaction. However, it widens the range of groups that may endorse the activists campaign - adding legitimacy to political demands and indicating which groups outside the network’s main activity may be later persuaded to engage further. Digital activism may be said to then facilitate low-cost political engagement, with the potential that engagement may deepen over time towards becoming more substantial. (Strange 2011: 1242) In this light both researches and activists agree that giving a signature to an online petition has comparatively low political significance. The petition does not force the group to change its behavior. (Strange 2011: 1242) On the contrary, technology offers huge potential to connect and thus extends to all kings of political involvement. An obvious example is Obama’s election campaign, which was mobilized primarily online and utilized the full range of new media. We now move the discussion from the cyber-skeptic view that digital activism is somehow less legitimate and inferior to older approaches to show how the Occupy Movement is to be understood: it shows how ‘old’ and ‘new’ activism can work together to serve.

//The Balance between Offline and Online ActivismThe assumption so far has been that online media fuel efforts towards change. It is however still not at all clear how they will advance activism to a level of actual political activity. That is because we have only framed digital activism so far in terms

of economics and logistics. If this were the only argument you could say that if you have enough connectivity and a number of technologies develops sufficiently, youautomatically stimulate change. But then we confuse the intended uses of technology with the actual uses - which we have seen in the first paragraph. The assumption that the network generation is prone to revolution has one problem: this generation may not necessarily be crazy about participating in political action whether it is online or offline because of all the good things the Internet has to offer. Adult content, downloading entertainment on sites like 9GAG.com, email and looking up friends on Facebook still occupies far more space than politics or news. It is shown that it’s not at all clear how they will advance to the level of actually being politically active. What if it wouldn’t get them into the streets? The Occupy Movement with all its offline activity proved to know how exactly technology influences civic engagement and their propensity to actually go and engage in protest. Morozov suggests that we have to go back to Maslov and have to think about how his pyramid of needs can apply to digital media. What people at first will want to do online is have fun, explore pornography, search on YouTube for clips of funny cats, some may want to learn from Wikipedia, and eventually they may want to campaign. Some of them may start downloading reports from Human Rights Watch and others may still be downloading porn. (Morozov 2012) The Occupy Movement has to be seen not simply as a matter of using technology in greater numbers, but about everyday citizens finding creative ways to exploit it in ways previously not conceived to advance a cause. (McCafferty 2011: 19) This so-called open source model, which occupy manifests in, provides free access to source material – computer code, data , information – so that everyone may use, copy, change or improve it at their discretion, provided that all

59

derivatives are also freely accessible. Data drives activism. Perhaps the greatest irony? One can say that Occupy’s successful integration of online and offline activity is because the Movement did not appoint a committee of strong leaders, submit a list of demands or seek confrontation. The Movement strategically holds all options open to invite all to join their campaigning. They are called the 99% for a reason; it is a movement that anyone can edit. (Van den Akker 2011) The Movement itself only has an understandable starting point (‘We will become a revolutionary protest movement’), does not exclude anyone (‘We are the 99%’), and leaves it up to them to decide which contributions are being delivered. It is then through an interactive process that activists identify their campaign target and develop a common vocabulary by which the network actors may frame their collective action. (Benford & Snow 2000; Carty & Onyett 2006: 234-236) For now the open source protest of the network generation forms a platform for both old and new views, from the cry for culture and the outrage over the pension agreement to the booing of the unions and the drums of the alter-globalists. According to Van den Akker building up campsites has first priority, the final list of demands will follow automatically. (Van den Akker 2011) Simultaneously it is because of this interactive process that other generations than the network generation dirt-frame Occupy as a non realistic form of activism that will never bring about revolution for it is to dependent on people who are happy to click a “like” button but are hardly inspired with the kind of emotional fire that forced a shift in public perception in bygone eras. But in all of the above we have proved that the Occupy Movement both online and offline effectively catalyzes change. The discussion now reaches a defining point, for the question remains how we as academics should frame the Occupy Movement without discarding it as a

bunch of slackers who live on tax dollars paid for by hard working laborers while they’re smoking pot in a hippie-ish camp.

//Activism in the Digital Age of a Metamodern Network GenerationTo answer this final question, we must first examine what exactly the network generation entails. Some cultural critics refer to this generation with a comparison of lazy young people who hang whole days in cafeterias (the so-called french fries generation), others see this generation as susceptible to burn-outs and depend on recognition (the so-called generation Y). Those defenitions with all their implications of laziness and instability would deprive the generation. Since the turn of the millennium we have had a democratization of digital technologies, techniques and tools which has caused a shift from postmodern media logic characterized by television screen and spectacle towards a metamodern media logic of creative amateurs, social networks and locative media. (Kirby ....) This is what the cultural theorist Kazys Verzalis calls network culture. The network generation thus moves beyond the worn out sensibilities and empty practices of the postmodernist not by radically parting with their attitudes and techniques but by incorporating and redirecting them. (Van den Akker 2012) What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new cultural dominant - metamodernism. We understand metamodernism first and foremost as ‘a structure of feeling’ which can be defined as ‘a particular quality of social experience [...] historically distinct from other particular qualities, which gives the sense of a generation or of a period’. (Raymond Williams 1977: 131) So when we speak of metamodernism we do not refer to a particular movement, a specific manifesto or a set of stylistic conventions; we rather attempt to chart the cultural dominant of a specific stage in the development of modernity.


Our methodological assumption is that the dominant cultural practices form a discourse that expresses the cultural mood and common ways of doing, making and thinking. To speak of a cultural dominant therefore has the advantage that one does not ‘obliterate difference and project an idea of the historical period as massive homogeneity. [It is] a conception which allows for the presence and coexistence of a range of very different, yet subordinate features.’ (Hardt & Weeks 2000: 190-191) This metamodern discourse expresses itself in an oscillation between a modern desire for sense and a postmodern doubt about the sense of it all, between modern sincerity and a postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy, unity and plurality, naivety and knowingness. In a short period of time we have seen that the ecosystem is severely disrupted, the financial system is increasingly uncontrollable and the geopolitical structure has recently begun to appear as unstable as it has always been uneven. This triple crisis infused doubt and inspired reflection about our basic assumptions. Others have started to theorize emergent cultural changes that might or might not be dominant in the future. That is where the Occupy Movement comes in. It is a movement that ‘[...] can be grasped as a generational attempt to surpass postmodernism and a general response to our present, crisis-ridden moment.’ (Toth 2010: 2) Any one structure of feeling is expressed in an open source model by a wide variety of cultural practices and a whole range of aesthetic sensibilities. The Occupy Movement is thus shaped by (and shaping) social circumstances, as much as it is formed in reaction to previous generations and in anticipation of possible futures. In the digital age, the narrative arc - the ways of story telling and also that of activism - are shaped by the Internet. Therefore life in the network generation does not compare to an old-fashioned book with a clear beginning and a closed ending, but follows the guidelines of new media. Anyone has access to information and can

use, edit and complement it at their discretion. In the context of the Occupy Movement this means that every activist adopts the protests in its own way: whether they manifest themselves online or offline and to what ends does not alter the fact that Occupy has grown in this way from a few tents on a square to full blown communities around the globe. We can then say that even those generations who criticize the Occupy Movement on their lack of vision are involved in the practices of the 99%. For it is besides the point whether or not one agrees with their (lack of) visions on ‘alter-modernity - a future beyond (i.e. meta-) modernity as we currently know it.’ (Van den Akker 2012) What matters is that it is our contemporary culture that enables these visions and furthermore opens up the discourse of having a vision at all.

//’Conclusion’So now we have formulated an accurate answer to our main question it remains for us to again underline that we are merely at the beginning of the digital age. We are in the middle of a process in which increasingly sophisticated digital technologies get more and more hold on our lives. No one knows about tomorrow, but to get a grip on today and to fully understand yesterday academics must always be aware of the crux of the matter: that our network generation is brought up in a metamodern discourse which expressess itself in an oscillitation between a modern desire for sense and postmodern doubt about the sense of it all. Thus, when we as academics discuss the Occupy Movement, we must not put emphasice on the fact that it is a campaign run by digital activists, but that it is a campaign run by the network generation which manifestate themselves particularly with digital technologies.

61

“The crisis of global capitalism is unprecedented, given its magnitude, its global reach, the extent of ecological degradation and social deterioration, and the scale of the means of violence. We truly face a crisis of humanity. The stakes have never been higher; our very survival is at risk. We have entered a period of great upheaval, of momentous changes and uncertainties, fraught with dangers, if also opportunities.”

>> ROBINSON & BARERA

“The crisis of global capitalism is unprecedented, given its magnitude, its global reach, the extent of ecological degradation and social deterioration, and the scale of the means of violence. We truly face a crisis of humanity. The stakes have never been higher; our very survival is at risk. We have entered a period of great upheaval, of momentous changes and uncertainties, fraught with dangers, if also opportunities.”

>> ROBINSON & BARERA

FIFTH CHAPTEROTHER RESPONSES TO THE

CRISIS IN CAPITALISM

1ONE

1ONETHE UNITED STATE BANK OF AMERICA

ONE US DOLLAR

Serious business it seems. Luckily, the Occupy movement has not been the only initiative expressing concern about the issues portrayed by Robinson and Barrera. Over the past few decades, there have been various other movements, initiatives and organizations engaged in awareness raising and campaigning activities related to these problems. This chapter aims to analyze different manifestations of this resistance opposing the current structures causing the crisis in capitalism, which are currently being illuminated as a conse-quence of the successful mobilization of the Occupy movement. The overall aim is to attempt to theorize the best manner in which to frame an adequate response to the crisis in capitalism from below. There-fore, we will firstly draw on an analysis of this particular crisis and the issues to be dealt with.

Words By J. van der Hoek

//The Status QuoIn their article Global Capitalism and Twenty-first Century Fascism; a US Case Study Robinson and Barrera seek to analyze the process in which the status quo in the United States of America - a capitalist system in crisis - might develop towards a twenty first century neo-fascist state. The authors state that this phenomenon could be the possible outcome of the current neoliberal project, which will according to them not solely apply to the USA - considering the state of the globalized interconnected community the world finds itself in today. They consider this process as a dangerous development which might have severe consequences. Throughout the article it is stressed how the transnational capital class (the worlds’ most wealthy few who own the biggest corporations which operate globally; TCC) has come to dictate the financial markets and hereby national politics. They do so by lobbying for deregulation or even making politicians into their own representatives , which enables corporations to act freely without government intervention. This process has gradually transformed the elite of separate nation-states into some sort of neoliberal global community, severely undermining proper democracy (Robinson & Barrera, 2011). The neoliberal project came gradually into being during the seventies, when Western democratic nation-states increasingly went through a collective process of transition from a social-democratic, moderate ‘laissez faire’ market system towards neoliberal policies. The process was given a great push under the Reagan and Thatcher administration in particular, after which other liberal politicians carried these policies through. Corporations and banks grew bigger and increased their outreach throughout the world, gradually transforming into the state of being ‘too big to fail’ in which they find themselves today. These developments led to an increasing Gross National Product and relatively more wealth, in some aspects considered as booming economies. The increase of wealth partially caused by the free market system was by many perceived

as some sort of natural process, integral to the rise of the nation-state, obtaining democracy and pursuing a Western way of living; creating a mentality in which this was considered as all being part of the package deal leading to freedom, luxury and happiness, which should thus not be questioned (Steger & Manfred: 2010). The neoliberal state of mind was led by the idea of experiencing infinite exponential growth –oil and other finite resources being its lifeline - and grew out to be a dominant ideology. This also found its way into the main stream education system - which was already influenced by the imagined society constructed during the Industrial Revolution - in which gradually and (probably unconsciously) more stress on achieving personal gain by obtaining a successful career was put, rather than solidarity and collective gain. Nowadays, we can state that the course of history has led to a situation in which today’s generation grows up in a world which is being governed by a transnational plutocracy or so-called corporatocracy; both implying the transnational capitalist class which has gained so much capital over the past few decades that it made them one of the most powerful elites the world has ever known. Additionally to severely undermining democracy, the TCC has successfully obtained the power to manipulate public opinion by broadcasting subjective and relatively non-critical information towards the status quo, by controlling the mainstream media - nowadays better described as the corporate media. Robinson and Barrera identify three possible responses to these developments caused by the crisis in capitalism, namely; reformism from above in order stabilize the system, popular and leftist resistance from below and twenty first century neo-fascism. The authors draw on the third possible response by looking into the future perspective of the status quo. According to them, the USA will gradually transform into a twenty first century neo-fascist state – in case the course of history will not be radically changed.

65

Furthermore, Robinson and Barrera call for action by the means of a popular and leftist resistance from below; the main topic of this chapter. In order to analyze these movements, I will first draw on Paulo Freire’s concept of so-called ‘conscientization’. Freire identifies a categorization of certain stages in consciousness in which people can find themselves. For social movements drawing on these particular issues it is of high importance to take notice of such theories, concerning the state of mind their target group finds themselves in and so the manner in which to frame their discourse. The author distinguishes three different levels, namely;

>> Magical consciousness: The state of mind in which people do not question their way of living, the society they were born into and their position in it. They do not analyze situations of injustice they might experience. They acceptthe status quo as it is.>> Naïve consciousness: The state of mind in which people do pay attention to the way things are and possible injustice they might experience, but merely consider these experiences of injustice as incidental happenings. They do not relate it to a bigger picture in which structures might be the source of this injustice.>> Critical consciousness: The state of mind in which people recognize experiences of injustice as an element of inherent structural problems, rather than just incidental happenings. They try to analyze the society they were born into in a manner which is as objective as possible and aim to free their mind from dominant ideologies imposed on them through pedagogic means.

“A twenty-first century fascism would not be a repetition of its twentieth century predecessor.

The role of political and ideological domination, through control over media and the flow of images and symbols, would make

any such project more sophisticated and, together with new panoptical surveillance and

social control technologies, probably allow it to rely more on selective than generalized

repression. These and other new forms of social control and modalities of ideological

domination blur boundaries, so that there may be a constitutional and normalized neo-fascism (with formal representative

institutions, a constitution, political parties and elections), all while the political system is tightly controlled by transnational capital and

its representatives.” >> Robinson & Barera 2000: 615

66 //// OTHER RESPONSES TO THE CRISIS IN CAPITALISM

Taking these different stages in consideration, Paulo Freire calls for a raise of consciousness to a higher level to eventually experience a transformation into being in a state of a never ending, infinite critical consciousness. This process is called ‘conscientization’. According to the author it should always be in development, as there is no finite truth and there are no borders to knowledge. The outline of his philosophy is that educators and any other pedagogues – who are the main actors in the construction of the mindset of new generations - should not impose their knowledge on their students, but teach them how to think, rather than what to think. This should be in a way that is free from dominant ideologies such as the capitalist system (Freire: 1970). Other than applying these to the education system, obtained insights gained through such a learning experience could lead to a mass-mobilization of people in order to form adequate and effective resistance as a response to the crisis in capitalism. Johan Galtung’s theory on structural violence portrays this awareness process and its counter reaction by the hegemonic class further.

The Occupy movement has tried exactly to achieve this process of conscientization theorized by Paulo Freire, to then meet the limits imposed by the top ideology as described by Galtung. The corporate media partially portraying sympathizers of the Occupy movement as lazy, homeless or unemployed people has made a great contribution to such a process of marginalization and fragmentation; a powerful counter frame. Meeting such opposition is not something which has occurred for the first time in history.

“As far as I am concerned, exploitation represents the main part of an archetypical violence structure. This means nothing more than a situation in which some people, namely the top dogs, draw substantially more profit from the interaction taking place within this structure (...) than the others, the underdogs (...).A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human body, it also impacts on the mind and the soul (...) as a constituent part of the exploitation, that is, strengthening components contained within the structure. Their function is to prevent awareness and mobilization of this awareness, which are two of the conditions needed to be successful in fighting exploitation. With the help of penetration the consciousness of the underdog is reached with elements of the top dog ideology; this penetration is linked to segmentation, which only allows the underdog a limited view of reality. The latter is the result of two processes, marginalization and fragmentation. This involves forcing the under dogs increasingly to the edges, condemning them as insignificant, dividing them and keeping them away from each other.”>> Gaultung 1993

67

//Social Movements as a Response to the Crisis in CapitalismOver the past century, there have been diverse movements which in general oppose the capitalist, neoliberal ideology in which profit making and personal gain is often prioritized over other values which might not be able to be expressed in money. From anarchism to the love and light movement aiming for solidarity and oneness among the human race - from environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, whose sympathizers physically resist the destruction of the ecosystem - to the ‘I don’t pay’-movement, initiated as a response to the economic crisis in Greece by for example taping public transport-ticket validation machines in order to enable people to travel for free. The ways in which these movements express themselves differ widely, but they all come from a common source; destructive structures or elements of the structures of the capitalist world order. To come to a general understanding of the way in which these movements operate - and especially which methods work best in order to mobilize people - a further analysis of the manners in which they frame themselves and try to mobilize their target group, but also its effects, is in order. As describer earlier in this book, social movements use collective action frames in order to address certain issues activists want to bring to attention. These come into being by constructing a common finding of their perception of these issues, their causes and possible alternatives. In order to achieve this a shared interpretation is to be found; the process of framing a perception of reality. In essence, Benford and Snow distinguish three different frames. These frames are either based on primarily diagnosis, prognoses or motivation to take action. The diagnostic frame particularly draws on solely an analysis of the perceived issues, whereas a prognostic framework complements such a diagnosis by proposing alternatives and the manner in which actors can come to these. Finally, the motivational frame calls for action in order to oppose the particular issues. For

social movements to be the most effective and in order to achieve their goal, it is highly important to prevent ambiguity. Unambiguity could cause a decrease of credibility of the movement among the target group. This implies that the construction of the issues the social movement generally wants to address is a crucial process, which could lead to either its unprecedented success or its downfall. Therefore, the preparation process should be profoundly thought through. Benford and Snow also address different vocabularies used to manifest the issues activists are concerned about. They distinguish four factors, namely; severity, urgency, efficacy and propriety. The way in which these vocabularies are being used - and particularly in which degree they are being used - are considered highly important. Amplifying the severity and urgency of the matter often causes for example a diminished sense of efficacy, which should obviously be avoided (Benford & Snow; 2000). Subsequently, the authors emphasize the role of dynamics between factors such as flexibility versus rigidity and inclusivity versus exclusivity. They state that - hypothetically speaking - a social movement has more potential to achieve mass mobilization through a flexible and inclusive collective action frame than a rigid and exclusive one would. Furthermore, when such a frame is carried out in an effective manner, the movement increases its potential to transform into a so-called ‘master frame’. Master frames function as an umbrella; by bringing together separate movements with similar objectives they strengthen its common position and appeal among the target group. We can state that the Occupy movement is an example of such a master frame. Other than previously described factors, Benford and Snow draw on a high degree of resonance as an important feature of successful social movements, which is according to them determined by its relative salience and credibility. The credibility of a social movement


particularly relates to features such as frame consistency, empirical credibility and credibility of the frame articulators. In sum; finding a balance between flexibility and unambiguity is required to be able to construct a consistent framework, to then strive to come to a correct analysis of the particular issues and finding a manner in which these are being articulated well; the discursive process of a social movement. The authors draw on this process as follows;

According to these theories, we can state that the Occupy movement not only functions as a master frame for diverse social movements which oppose negative consequences of the capitalist system, but also gives the former manners in which anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberal activism occurred a new dimension. One of the movements which has been the biggest over the past few decades is the so-called anti-globalist movement. This movement consists of two different groups of sympathizers; those who reject globalization as a whole and those who reject certain aspects of globalization, such as the increasing rise of power of the transnational capitalist class, but not international cooperation an sich. The opposition of the so-called anti-globalist movement specifically aims to

generalize all sympathizers of this movement by portraying them as people who reject globalization as a whole; a misconception which is often made and functions as a powerful counter reaction frame which undermines the movements’ objectives. Therefore, the terms anti-globalists and alter-globalists are being distinguished, the latter being those who only reject certain aspects of globalization. The movement came into being during the nineties, particularly opposing the policies of transnational institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G8 and the World Trade Organization. One of its momentums has been the organization of the World Social Forum in 2001 as a critical response to the World Economic Forum. The WSF has ever since been organized yearly in order to enable like-minded people and their organizations to connect, exchange knowledge on these topics and strengthen their position. Over the years, the WSF has also decentralized in order to raise its accessibility to the public by organizing regional network meetings along with global ones. We can state that the role of counter framing has played a big role in the anti-globalist movement and might have even partially doomed its name for good; a very effective manner do to away with activism which opposes activities of the transnational capitalist class. It is likely that the anti-globalist movement might have outgrown its efficacy over the past decades and could therefore gain more appeal through the relatively new framework of the Occupy movement. This is exactly what changing the discursive process which Benford and Snow emphasize in their article is about; by giving an old frame novelty through initiating new tactics, changing slogans (“We are the 99%!”) and strengthening collaboration with other movements, they have been able to recruit a lot of new sympathizers; altogether a great example of successful mass mobilization. Among social movements objecting for similar aims different

“What gives the resultant collective action frame its novelty is not so much

the originality or newness of its ideational elements,

but the manner in which they are spliced together and articulated, such

that a new angle of vision, vantage point, and/or interpretation is provided.”

69

tactics can be identified. Some stick with solely awareness raising by providing information and motivating their target group to ‘wake up’ (such as so-called ‘truth activism’), whilst others also actually come out in the open to take action. Secondly, there is a distinction to be made between movements which frame reality in a way in which everything is being portrayed as pure evil (and so make a vast generalization in their discursive frame) and those who stick to the perception that some elements of the status quote are undesirable, whilst emphasizing other elements which are desirable. These function as an example of ‘the Good’ that needs to be followed. The latter perception often aims to convince the target group that they are actually able to transform the bad into the good. As previously mentioned, it sometimes occurs that a high degree of severity diminishes the sense of efficiency. This could be exemplified by the first two versions of the documentary series of the Zeitgeist movement. In these documentaries, which focus on the global system as a whole, such a vast amount of (perceived) information drawing on solely negativity is given to the audience, that it might leave the target group completely overwhelmed concerned with an issue so massive that one might feel she or he is never going to be able to able to change it. This frame could turn out problematic, as it tends to create a feeling among the target group of being completely powerless and too small to ever have an impact, rather than feeling inspired to take action. Furthermore, the documentaries end with a proposed solution to the problems; the implementation of the Venus project (a global technocratic non- monetary resource-based economy). Although this alternative way of living will most definitely broaden the horizon of the audience, it is an alternative so radically different from the status quo that it does not enable the consumer of the information to start right away by making necessary individual changes. There is a lack of guidance in transitional steps which the target group could take to come towards such an

alternative portrayed, which diminishes efficacy and might have even a contrary effect. The ‘HOME’ documentary on the other hand - a film made by a French director focusing on the creation of the planets ecosystem, its evolvement throughout the years and the effect of human interaction to it - portrays exactly these structures, but then with a more environmental focus. Eventually, the massive problems drawn in the documentary are being framed in a way in which the consumer of the information feels able to actually take a stand against this situation and change it. The documentary ends with a positive message, portraying examples of ‘The Good’ in an attempt to persuade the audience to follow these. These examples, which draw mostly upon the creation of alternative energy sources, form an adequate transition between the status quo and the proposed solution and therefore an increasing feeling of efficacy. Taking these both situations in consideration, although the main focus is of these documentaries differs, comparing the discursive framing process is of value. We can state that the ‘HOME’ documentary has more potential to achieve mass mobilization resulting in real life action and could thus be identified as a strong motivational frame, in comparison with the first series of the ‘Zeitgeist’ documentaries which are rather sticking with the providing of information and solely diagnosis. Therefore, to actually come to collective action, its target group needs interaction with other social movements which draw on a more motivational frame and this way get its target group to take action. Other than documentaries providing information aiming to raise awareness, there is also a lot of activity taking place in the art scene. I will outline the work of political activist Banksy, who attempts to raise the process of conscientization in his own, very original way. The following image, which is a photo of one of his works, portrays his manner to do this perfectly (scroll down the paragraph).


He frames his criticism of the status quo in a really sublime way by combining different frames and important factors which determine whether a discursive frame successfully achieves its goal or not - identified by Benford and Snow. It contains an analysis of the perceived issues in a very clear and short way (more than a one-sentence slogan does), it directly links these issues to the individual’s life and it urgently calls for action by leaving the posed question at the end open for the audience to answer and

thus gives food for thought - all while portraying exactly how to act upon these issues after deciding to not accept them. It has an activating function, rather than something to passively consume. It is a relatively strong frame which does not limit itself to a certain political orientation, leaving it rather difficult for potential opposition to form an adequate counter frame. Furthermore, the image really takes these issues to the streets, aiming to influence those on grassroots-level. These actions supplement the lack of accessibility and visibility of some movements, organizations and initiatives concerned with these issues, which are sometimes only discussed on top-level, as happens with for example the World Social Forum. Finally, it portrays different outcomes of the capitalist system which together form a general critique to these structures.

Figure 5.1

71

Except for these forms of awareness raising, information providing and calling for action, we can distinguish movements, organizations and initiatives which are not merely occupied with such activities, but also act upon them by simply creating their own reality; one which they actually do agree with. In the media such movements can for instance be exemplified by online alternative news sources, such as ‘Democracy Now!’ and ‘The Real News Network’; both USA-based organizations which do not accept advertising, government or corporate funding in a way to increase their ability to aim for an objective and fairly critical news broadcasting. By doing so they project their critique in a way which undermines the institutions which are currently operating and directly shows the target group how it should be and that it is within our possibilities. If such a movement would be followed more widely among the grassroots – of which its potential is growing every day due to the increasing popularity of new media - it would simply force current institutions to change their ways, as they simply would not be generating enough audience anymore; the ancient wisdom of The Boycott.There have also been other initiatives such as the ‘Time bank’; an institution which enables people to obtain goods or receive assistance of someone in exchange for lending their time to people who could use their expertise in a certain topic. All of this interaction happens completely autonomous from the money system. Not only in the field of media and banking such movements operate. The concept of ‘permaculture’ has precisely done so; a movement aiming for the creation of sustainable forms of human life on earth, by increasing self-sufficiency through for example initiating community gardens. Permaculture plays one of the key roles within the Occupy movement, inspiring people to act upon their critique and enabling them with the right tools to no longer be a part of the system of mass-consumption and its destructive

consequences for our eco-system. By doing so, such a movement is able to strengthen the framework of the Occupy movement, as it provides clear alternatives and increases their credibility by being able to prove it actually works. Subsequently, there are initiatives which aim to bring about ideas of alternative ways of living by doing it in a more comprehensive than solely agriculture. Over the past few years, autonomous communities have been created which pursue politics, economics and industries which are based on direct democracy and a consensus based-decision making process, especially in countries where the economic depression hit hard, such as Spain, Italy and Greece. Some of these communities even internally agree on using another means of currencies than the euro, making them not as dependent on national and international financial developments. Such autonomous communities are by some defined as so-called ‘post-capitalist communities’, implying that even if people do not initiate such alternative ways of living themselves, they eventually will have to anyway; taking in consideration the status quo and the future perspective of the course of history. The Occupy movement has not only shed a light on already existing movements, organizations and initiatives and this way made them visible again, its existence has also empathized much older visions, such as those of indigenous peoples who live in peace with nature, ancient civilizations and non-western religions. A lot of the previously described pursue values which have almost completely disappeared in today’s mainstream global society - congruently with spirituality considered to be done away with. Sympathizers of the Occupy movement have put new emphasis on phenomena such as meditation and self-healing techniques, but also the ancient Mayan’s mindset.


//ConclusionThroughout this chapter, we have come across a vast amount of diverse movements, initiatives, organizations and such which all have a common source; they came into being as a response to the crisis in capitalism. We have seen how some of these frame themselves in a way which for example only serves the function of raising awareness, whereas others manage to combine more functions at the same time. Furthermore, it also occurs that some do not engage in these activities at all, but simply create their own reality by for example setting up an autonomous community within society.Based upon the theory on collective action frames by Benford and Snow and looking at certain movements which recently have been shed a light on as a consequence of initiating the Occupy movement, I can state that in order to take collective action the process of conscientization and the stage of taking action should be linked and need to be balanced. Their relation is crucial and cannot really go without each other; not being able to think critically and make a profound analysis of the issues one is concerned about might result in taking action in an irresponsible manner, whereas taking action without obtaining a profound understanding of the situation one is dealing with is not a desirable situation either. Secondly, it is of high importance to always leave the consumer of the information provided or the action initiated with a sense which makes her or him feel it is within their possibilities to make a change concerning the issues portrayed, even when solely coming from an individual - or at least to not completely demotivate the target group and crushing the idea of making sense by taking individual action. This might occur when an ‘awareness raiser’ frames the perceived issues in such a way that it makes the consumer feel completely powerless. It is desirable that any social movement which attempts to call for action by providing awareness draws a link between the problematic structures and proposed solution portrayed and the way in which the individual can contribute to this transition. This is greatly theorized in the quote; ‘Think globally, act locally’.Taking these conditions in consideration, I should like to conclude that in the end it really is the interaction of all the efforts made by different movements which together form a fierce bloc. Recently this process has come to a momentum through the inception of the Occupy movement in which their visibility has increased. When a certain documentary or action might not provide the target group with a comprehensive raise of consciousness to think critically about the system as a whole, there might be another initiative which could complement the previous efforts. Subsequently, separate movements focusing on different elements of the structures of the capitalist world order enables them to develop their expertise in topics of their preference. All these small steps taken by different movements should be considered as the process of conscientization as a whole, of which the small efforts should be seen as pieces of the

puzzle. In my opinion, the desirable outcome of these efforts is to increase the group of people which is able to oversee problematic structures and will speak out against injustice, to eventually become big enough to lead the mainstream which usually follows the big masses anyway. When a situation in which a group of people big enough takes action by - for example - moving their money to a socially responsible bank or boycotting certain products of which its production is particularly harmful to the environment, they could be powerful enough to force corporations to stop their irresponsible behavior. The power of consumers, the grassroots means everything; it literally means the world. Without the consumers taking part in it, there is no system; it is not some autonomous institution. It is the big sum of everyone’s individual actions which form it, and therefore it is able to be changed. Taking collective action to make people aware of this, is a very effective but rather slow process. The fierce dichotomy between capitalism and communism needs to be broken, so to make people see there are alternatives beside these two ideologies. In order to speed this process up, which is in our crucial needs, real structural changes need to come from the government. Governments need to so by setting forth in particular socially responsible regulations on corporations and banks and investing in alternative energy. Neoliberalism will inevitably fail, due to its economic, ethical and environmental unsustainability. It is up to governments and the grassroots to act as soon as possible in order to not let the severity of consequences of these harmful policies increase even more.

“Something big is happening. From Tahrir Square to Wall St., from staggeringly brave Avaaz citizen journalists in Syria to millions of citizens winning campaign after campaign online, democracy is stirring. Not the media-circus, corrupt, vote-every-4-years democracy of the past. Something much, much deeper. Deep within ourselves, we are realizing our own power to build the world we all dream of. We don’t have a lot of time to do it. Our planet is threatened by multiple crises - a climate crisis, food crisis, financial crisis, proliferation crisis... These crises could split us apart like never before, or bring us together like never before. It’s the challenge of our time, and the outcome will determine whether our children face a darker world or one thriving in greater human harmony.” – >> Gaultung 1993

73

In the //first chapter, we focused on analyzing the kind of frames that are used in different media sources in the United States and Europe, by using academic sources about media framing typologies. We agree on the idea that the way in which news articles, television programs, radio stations or websites present certain events, can affect how people come to understand these events. When looking at videos, reading a newspaper, watching a picture or looking at a cartoon, it is important not to take the events that are being showed or talked about as facts, but to always be critical about the ways these events are presented, or even propagated. Because of the scope of the chapter, we have not been able to use a large database of news resources to base the analysis of the types of frames that are used in the media on. Other researches could make use of more media sources in which Occupy occurred, to draw a more realistic conclusion about the overall image of the types of frames were used in the media. Not all of Snow and Vliegenthart’s hypothesis were confirmed in terms of the media sources that were analyzed in this chapter. Again there is the problem that only a few media sources were used an thus other researches could

1// Framing by the MediaCONCLUSIONS

Sometimes you only have to read small details to get the bigger picture. © Framing Violence 2012

74 //// CONCLUSIONS

make use of a larger database in drawing conclusion about news in which Occupy occurred, referring to the theory by snow and Vliegenthart. Other theories were used to explain why these frames were occurring in the media. Other authors could make use of more media sources about Occupy to make a more realistic conclusion in terms of the motives of western media organizations in which Occupy occurs. Another option for researches who are interested in the motives of newspaper editors to use particular kinds of framing is to focus on one newspaper and to dig into the organization of this newspaper in terms of the power that is exercised by governments, banks etc. in shaping the newspaper’s news items. Finally, the analysis that was made in the chapter was based on media sources that occurred in western media. For other research, it would also be interesting to focus more on non-western media in terms of the framing of Occupy.

Throughout //chapter two the main focus has been on the features of collective action as described by Benford & Snow (2000), but instead of social movement organisations, these features were used for another entity, the government. The features are also used for another purpose, and that purpose is demobilizing. The features of the article of Benford & Snow show several similarities with what is seen and heard in the political communication on television or newspapers. This shows that the features for collective action can also be reversed or interpreted otherwise. The similarities between the articles (differently interpreted) features and the reality are –to say the least- remarkable. In my opinion the article of Benford & Snow is therefore proficient to use for other entities, namely the government. Some features that Benford & Snow address are not relevant for demobilizing and have therefore not been mentioned in this chapter. In chapter two there has been a suggestion for a new metaphor, apart from the metaphors Steuter & Wills (2008) suggest. This metaphor is the Dirt metaphor. Occupy is often framed as dirty people, as weed that needs to be removed from the streets. This

2// Framing by the Government

75

is interesting because it immediately invokes deeply imbedded cultural values; dirt needs to be cleaned up. For further research it could be interesting to look into the question if the Dirt metaphor is also seen in campaigns, propaganda or other types of political communication. Further research could also be interesting in the field of other social movement organisations: have these techniques that are described in chapter two also been used for other (social) movements?

The //third chapter of this book analyzed the movement’s domestic frame and argued that as time passes, the Occupy movement shows several processes, which further reify us/them dichotomies that stand at the base of the movement. First, the domestic frame was analysed using Benford and Snow’s collective action frames (2000). This approach showed a movement which set a boundary between the elite and the masses, articulated by the movement’s slogan “we are the 99%”. Benford and Snow’s approach could not be fully applied because of the lack of a so-called prognostic frame: instead of propagating clear-cut answers, the movement created a forum for discussion. This forum should then lead to the shaping of solutions. The masses were motivated to take to the streets through social media and picketing signs. Discourse in this period was mainly aimed at othering bankers, corporations and governments. As a response to camp evictions by police forces, however, a more antagonistic discourse and framing emerged. Police evictions were framed as unnecessary violent and police forces were dehumanized through the use of metaphors, especially following the eviction of the re-occupation of the Zucotti Park. At the same time, nostalgic

3// Domestic Framing

76 //// CONCLUSIONS

videos started circulating on the Internet, idealistically documenting the euphoria at the start of the movement. This golden age rhetoric can be seen as the emergence of sentiments resembling the rise of nationalism following to the theories of Anthony Smith (1996). The combination of anti-establishment discourse with golden age rhetoric and violent imaginaries, then, leads to extremely rigid us/them dichotomies between the movement and police forces. This constitutes a shift from the initial frame, which was aimed at socio-economic and political inequalities. What, then, can be expected of the future? The chapter argues that the rigid, hostile dichotomies can potentially lead to an intensification of violence or the escalation into violent riots by placing the developments into the riot process as defined by Horrowitz (2001). It should however be pointed out that this chapter focuses on police violence against the Occupy Wall Street movement in particular. For further research, it would prove interesting to examine the effects of evictions at other locations.

In the //fourth chapter we have asked the three following questions, how does Occupy manifest themselves online, how effective digital activism is and last how academics should frame Occupy. The answers to these questions are not as clear-cut as one may think. The difficulty with digital activism is that it is very hard to measure the impact of it. But one conclusion we can draw is that the digital age is alive and well, for an example look no further than your own Facebook timeline. (McCafferty 2011:17). Digital activism is basically the use of digital technology by citizens who want to achieve social and political change. (Joyce 2011). Therefore life in the network generation does not compare to an old-fashioned book with a clear beginning and a closed ending, but follows the guidelines of new media. Anyone has access to information and can use, edit and complement it at their discretion. In the context of the Occupy Movement this means that every activist adopts the protests in its own way: whether they manifest themselves online or offline and to what ends does not alter the fact that Occupy has grown in this way from a few tents on a square

4// Activism in the Digital Age

77

to full blown communities around the globe. So how should we frame Occupy? What we can conclude is that the Occupy Movement must above all be seen as a protest from the network generation that arose from the digital era. But the use of social media doesn’t seem to make Occupy substantially different from other movements. Although a signature to an online petition has comparatively low political significance, the Occupy Movement with all its offline activity proved to know how exactly technology influences civic engagement and their propensity to actually go and engage in protest. The Occupy Movement has to be seen not simply as a matter of using technology in greater numbers, but about everyday citizens finding creative ways to exploit it in ways previously not conceived to advance a cause. (McCafferty 2011: 19). One very important conclusion therefore is that data drives activism. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new cultural dominant - metamodernism. So when we speak of metamodernism

we do not refer to a particular movement, a specific manifesto or a set of stylistic conventions; we rather attempt to chart the cultural dominant of a specific stage in the development of modernity. It is a movement that ‘[...] can be grasped as a generational attempt to surpass postmodernism and a general response to our present, crisis-ridden moment.’ (Toth 2010: 2) The Occupy Movement is thus shaped by social circumstances, as much as it is formed in reaction to previous generations and in anticipation of possible futures.

78 //// CONCLUSIONS

Throughout //chapter five we have talked about social movements, organizations, initiatives and such illuminated by the Occupy movement which construct a response to the crisis in capitalism. They differ in their points of view, the main topics they invest their energy in and the way they frame and manifest themselves, but they all come from a common source; unjust structures in the global society. Occupy has successfully managed to bring these different movements together and so to strengthen their position through its centralization, all while providing like-minded people and potential sympathizers an environment to meet, network and possibly work together on the issues of their concern. Occupy has put these movements in a new perspective, of which the resulting developments created by these new networks are perfectly congruent with 2011: ‘The year of The Protestor’. It is likely that Occupy will outgrow its efficacy by occupying public space in time, after which its sympathizers will need to find new manners in which to engage in activities raising awareness about the current issues and taking action against neoliberal policies of the transnational

capitalist class. The movements which have been centralized during Occupy’s momentum could take the lead in this resistance. They will need to do so by constructing an inclusive and flexible, yet unambiguous, discursive frame. The outline should be to aim to eventually come to a process of ‘conscientization’, in which gradually more people become aware of the structural problems the crisis in capitalism implies and the way these manifest themselves. This should happen by guiding them in a way in which the target group is provided with a correct analysis of the issues of concern, in combination with the construction of a link to actions any individual could take. These actions will function as small steps taken in order to transit from the status quo to alternative ways of living which are socially, ethically and environmentally responsible.

5// Other Responses to the Crisis of Capitalism

79

Adbusters, 2012, Occupy Wall Street. Homepage of Adbusters Media Foundation. Online available at http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet.

Adbusters 2012, Police Brutality Increasing Against Occupy. Adbusters Media Foundation. Online available at http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/police-brutality-increasing-against-occupy.html.

Al Jazeera, 2012, Fault Lines: History of an Occupation, Al Jazeera.

Youtube, 2012, Woman Tackled By NYPD In Zuccotti Park.

Benford, R. & Snow, D., 2000, ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 611-639.

British Religion in Numbers, 2012, Believe in God or Life force. Online available at www.brin.ac.uk.

Cusack, M, 2011, ‘Some Recent Trends in The Study of Religion and Youth.’ Journal of Religious History, 35, pp. 1-10.

Darling, B, 2011, ‘Nightmare on Occupy Wall Street’, Human Events, 67 pp. 1.

Demmers, J. 2012, ‘Chapter 6: Telling each other apart: a discursive approach to violent conflict’ in Theories of Violent Conflict: an introduction Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1-25.

Demmers, J. forthcoming, ‘Identity, Boundaries and Violence’ in Demmers, J. Theories of Violent Conflict, New York and London: Routledge.

Devereaux, R. 2012, Occupy protesters accuse NYPD of beating activist during weekend clashes. The Guardian, London.

Eindhovens Dagblad, 2012, CDA noemt Occupy schertsvertoning. Online available at www.ed.nl.Entman, M, 2007, ‘Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution

of Power’, Journal of Communication, 57, pp. 163-173. Freire, P., 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, The Seabury Press, New York.

Galtung, J., 1993, Kulturelle Gewalt, Der Bürgerim Staat 43. Online available at http://twitmail.com/email/105796992/239/Avaaz---the-march-of--democracy---48-hours-left-

Goodwin, J, 1994, ‘What’s right (and wrong) about the left media criticism?’, Sociological Forum, 9, pp. 101-111.

Hanggli, R, 2012, ‘Key Factors in Frame Building: How Strategic Political Actors Shape News Media coverage’. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, pp. 300-317.

Horowitz, D., 2001, The Deadly Ethnic Riot, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp 1-70.

Hyscience, 2010, Christian Science Monitor Falsely Labels John Patrick Bedel As Right-Wing Extremist. Online available at www.hyscience.com.

Katillae, 2012, The other 99%. The New Yorker: cartoon. The New Yorker. Online available at www.newyorker.com.

Ladhani, N, 2011. ‘Occupy Social Media’. Social Policy, 41 pp. 2.

Langley, C., 2011, ‘Next for Occupy: Get More Involved.’ The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg.

McKinley, B., 2012, The Occupation , Video

Morozov 2012, RSA Animate - The Internet Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?, Video.

MSNBC: Olberman, Keith, 2011, Occupy day 47: the first strike: Thousands joining Occupy Oakland in General Strike, Police uses pepper spray on Protesters in Tulsa.NOS, 2012, Het geheim van Kony. Online available at www.nos.nl.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

80 //// BIBLIOGRAPHY

NYC General Assembly 2012, last update, Frequently Asked Questions Homepage of NYC General Assembly, Online available at http://www.nycga.net/resources/faq/.

Pownews, 2011, Middenstand A’dam is Occupymoe. Online available at www.uitzendinggemist.nl.

Proulx, S, 2010, ‘Can the use of digital media favour citizen involvement?’, Global Media and Communication, pp. 293-305.

Robinson, W., Barrera, M., 2011, Global Capitalism and Twenty-First Century Fascism: a US Case Study, SAGE.

Scheufele, 1999, ‘Framing as a Theory of Media Effects’ Journal of Communication, pp. 103-22.

Schneider, N., 2011, From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere, The Nation Newspaper. Online available at www.thenation.com.

Schröder, I. & Schmidt, B., 2001, ‘Chapter I: Introduction - Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices’ in Anthropology of Violence and Conflict Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1-24.

Semetko, H. and Valkenburg, M, 2000, ‘Framing European Politics : A content Analysis of Press and Television News.’, International Communication Association.

Shaw, M., 2012, Reading the Pictures, ‘Occupy’ Flag Burning Photo as extreme prejudice. Online available at www.huffingtonpost.com.

Smith, A., 1996, ‘The Resurgence of Nationalism? Myth and Memory in the Renewal of Nations’, The British Journal of Sociology, 47, pp. 575-598.

Snow, Vliegenthart & Corrigall-Brown, 2007, ‘Framing the French Riots’, Social Forces, 86, pp 385-415.

Steger, F., Manfred, L., 2010, Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York.

Steuter & Wills, 2008, ‘Infestation and Eradication: Political Cartoon and Exterminationist Rhetoric in the War on Terror, Global Media Journal (Med. Edition).

Steuter & Wills, 2009, ‘Discourses of Dehumanization’, Global Media Journal, 2, pp. 7-24.

St.PeteForPeace.org, 2012, Occupy Arrests. Homepage of St.PeteForPeace.org. Online available at http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/.

Swaine, J., 2011, Occupy Wall Street protesters locked in legal battle with New York’s Michael Bloomberg. The telegraph. Online available at www.telegraph.co.uk.

The Guardian, 2011, 50 Occupy Wall Street Protesters Arrested. Online available at www.guardian.co.uk.

The Guardian, 2011, Occupy Wall Street is trying to destroy jobs:The New York mayor says the protests are ‘not productive’ given the importance of financial services to the city’s economy. Online available at www.guardian.co.uk.

Van den Akker, 2012 ‘Zie Occupy als Wiki die allen mogen editen: De exacte eisen komen later wel’. NRC Handelsblad: Opinie, 19/11/2011.

Vries, de, 2011, Occupy Eindhoven meer feest dan protest. Omroep Brabant. Online available at www.omroepbrabant.nl.

Wearechange.org, 2012, NYPD’s Iron Fist: OWS Re-Occupation Arrests: Protester Has Seizure in Handcuffs. Homepage of wearechange.org. Online available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1AiNMAv2KI&feature=related.

Wijnants, 2011, VVD in Den Haag: Geen uitkering meer voor Occupiers. NOS niews. Online available at www.nos.nl.

Zorin, 2011, Fifty years on. Voice of Russia Worldservice. Online available at www.02varvara.worldpress.com.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

Documents

re//Framing the Occupy Movement