News > Politics
Occupy Wall Street: What It Lacks and the True Identity of the “Man”
Loading ...Deft Magazine writer, Luca Stein, explains the Occupy Wall Street criticism, and tells the true identity of “The Man.”
Photo Courtesy of David Shankbone, Wiki Commons
The Man is a vague term, but necessarily so. It’s not the government, though the government is an arm (or An Arm) of The Man. Nor is it big business, at least not as a singularity. The Man is a nebulous entity. Only its footprints are visible. It is a nexus of wealthy interests exerting its power for the personal gains of an increasingly exclusive social stratum. Through the corporate world, the media, and willing public servants in both political parties, The Man stacks the deck in its own favor. Most of the ire directed against The Man relates to its subversion of financial law. What is more atrocious, however (and this fiscal immorality is plenty atrocious) is how The Man establishes parameters for what an idea must be – and how it must be presented – in order to be taken seriously. The Man’s control of the country’s narrative is a galling affront to freedom of choice.
Its twitchy radicalism aside, people who have been ritually abused by The Man (not an insubstantial group) might find this depiction appealing. But, alas, it’s not laden with irony, and that is a fatal marketing flaw. Irony supposedly died on 9/11, and its powerful return over the last decade has been hailed as a triumph for the indomitable American spirit. But its resurrection has been less biblical miracle and more zombie apocalypse. Irony was once a tool for the unpowerful to combat the manipulative, insincere sincerity of the establishment. Now, irony is callous force that enervates genuine sincerity. To treat anything at all without a cool detachment is to subject yourself to ridicule and dismissal.
This problem of image has faced Occupy Wall Street for the last month. The movement has been criticized for its lack of a cohesive narrative or clear demands, and for the eccentric ideas of some protestors. But the lack of a singular voice actually speaks more to the credit of the movement than to its flaws. The movement does not have a single voice because it is organic. It has not been marketed, branded or commoditized. Perhaps later in the course of its life it will evolve a structured message, but to condemn it at this point in its lifecycle for its multiple faces is like condemning a young Jim Carrey for his.
As for the way that signs reading “Anarchy Now” or “Abolish Capitalism” have led some to dismiss the protesters as zany zealots, we are again seeing an ugly constriction upon freedom of choice, freedom of discourse, freedom of opinion. The ideas of those particular protestors are fringe solutions to be sure, and poor solutions quite possibly. But why are they not even worth discussing? Why are they grounds for immediate dismissal? Because Anarchy and Communism are not among The Man’s acceptable conversation topics. In the mid-20th century, people with these ideas were made to look like terrors. Now it seems more effective to laugh at them.
What’s especially discouraging is where this laughter is coming from. One expects to have the movement mocked by the usual hacks in the media and in Washington. (Remarkably, credit has to be given to presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Usually one of the most reliably slimy men in the country, Santorum actually offered a defense of Occupy Wall Street, agreeing with the protestors that “you create a moral hazard…when you allow people who did things that are clearly illegal and immoral to get away with it and be compensated richly for it.”) What is discouraging is how even young liberals (and young conservatives, and older people of any political philosophy who have been hurt by Wall Street’s actions – which is a pretty sizable group) are turning their noses up at this movement. Not because it doesn’t address their concerns, not because it’s offering solutions they don’t care for, but because it’s not slick. Because it doesn’t look good, because it doesn’t sound right, because its embarrassingly earnest. Because, in short, it hasn’t been properly processed and marketed.
This is a triumph for the insidious injection of consumerist ethos into the American consciousness: even protest has to be cool. Even passion is grist for ridicule. The Man has been at it for 50 years now, but he’s still doing some amazing work.
You might also like
|
|
|
|
|
