Citation

Gitlin T. Br. J. Sociol. 2013; 64(1): 3-25.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, London School of Economics and Political Science, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/1468-4446.12001

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Occupy Wall Street has stalled in its attempt to make a transition from a moment to a movement. It had a sizable impact upon the presidential election, driving America's political centre of gravity toward the left, but has been unable or unwilling to evolve beyond its original core into a ?full-service movement? that welcomes contributions from a wide range of activists at varying levels of commitment and skill and plausibly campaigns for substantial reforms. In contrast to earlier American social movements of the twentieth century, the Occupy movement began with a large popular base of support. Propped up by that support, its ?inner movement? of core activists with strong anarchist and ?horizontalist? beliefs transformed the political environment even as they disdained formal reform demands and conducted decisions in a demanding, fully participatory manner. But the core was deeply suspicious of the ?cooptive? and ?hierarchical? tendencies of the unions and membership organizations ? the ?outer movement? ? whose supporters made up the bulk of the participants who turned out for Occupy's large demonstrations. The ?inner movement's? awkward fit with that ?outer movement? blocked transformation into an enduring structure capable of winning substantial reforms over time. When the encampments were dispersed by governmental authorities, the core lost its ability to convert electronic communications into the energy and community that derive from face-to-face contact. The outlook for the effectiveness of the movement is decidedly limited unless an alliance of disparate groups develops to press for reforms within the political system.

Keywords

anarchism; assembly; Barack Obama; Occupy; plutocracy; social movement