Keyword: Staying
I am interested in the ways in which the burgeoning Occupy
movement inhabits an affective, social temporality of permanence that forcefully
breaches the already available time-slots of reified, rationalized
administration of public space. It has often been discussed how specific
occupations reclaim public sites in the interest of rebuilding the commons, and
the gravity of spatiality in determining particular formations of Occupy
activities – tents arranged by task; safe spaces for
queers, women, and minority groups, boundaries that must be patrolled by
community security, etc. Space is
undeniably crucial to understanding how occupations operate – the ethos is
founded upon taking back places that belong to the public, in one way or
another. Nevertheless, I propose an examination of time as inextricably
intertwined with the materializations of Occupy communities in space. What is
novel to the Occupy movements in my view is not just that they belong to the
commons, understood in spatial terms, i.e. they are publicly visible holding
down sites in urban and not-so-urban localities so as to “demonstrate” our
frustration with the logic of capital and to make recognizable the
possibilities for building new affective communities on our own terms. Viewed through
this spatial analytic, they belong to the commons much in the same way do other
political demonstrations; they are to be seen at specific points in time and
space conveying a message, however various it might be. In contrast, Occupy breaks with these
spectacle based forms of politics in actualizing through a temporal permanency
our collective ownership of public space; that is, we do not remain at sites
for the, say, 2 hours of capitalist time allotted to us by the authorities on
pre-negotiated terms, but we remain there for as long as necessary to generate
new affective, relational forms of becoming, even when we violate camping laws
or other reified legal constructs.
This is what is confrontational and threatening to the status quo about
the Occupy movement, but also what contributes to its possibility for
successful communization. Herein lies my interest in the durational nature of Occupation
– occupying space-time outside the permits of legal jurisdiction clashes with
petrified conceptions of regularity and systematicity integral to the
reproduction of capital, through which individuals must inhabit certain spaces
at certain times. Occupy offers a rupture in the continuity and routinization
of social life, in that a community cements itself so as to be accessible at
any point in the day. Rather than surrendering to the inevitable atomization
and individualization that follows pre-arranged political marches or gatherings,
Occupy retains its solidarity by actually enabling the possibility of “living
together” outside the framework of bourgeois private existence. This also
radicalizes exclusivist claims to territorial identities embodied most awfully
in nationalism by prioritizing not the specific locale and affective ties to it,
but the vitality of the community itself. While spectacle based political
actions can powerfully force into view fleeting traces of the promise of a new
society, “staying” allows us to partake in the longevity of that new society
itself.
I appreciate your closing remarks that "'staying' allows us to partake in the longevity of that new society itself." During my participant observation with Occupy Oakland, I was struck by the ways in which the "occupy-ers" did not simply denounce corporate rule and call for inclusive democracy on all levels, but rather came to embody the very change they sought. They embodied inclusivity, democracy, and care through free schools, libraries, food tents, medic tents, art tents, and musical shows.
ReplyDelete