There have been plenty of comparisons made between the Vietnam protests of the 60’s and the current Occupy Wall Street movement that is spreading across the globe. But today’s Occupiers have a few things many of their parents didn’t have: cell phones, social networks, the Internet – just to name a few. This panel included some of the voices of both Berkeley and Zuccotti Park and explored how technology has, or hasn’t, changed the speed, ease, or strength of social mobilization and protest over the course of 40 years. It was part of Social Media Week NYC.

Panelists:

Vanessa Bahmani, artist and photographer for Indie GoGo

Josh Davis, School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UNC

Brett Solomon, Co-Founder & Executive Director of Access

Paki Wieland, Social Worker, Activist

Carne Ross, Executive Director, Independent Diplomat & Author at The Leaderless Revolution

Freddie Laker, VP of Global Marketing Strategy at Sapient Nitro

Discussion:

FREDDIE: How did you organize

PAKI: We really had terrible disregard for the past. What I’ve experienced now is an appreciation for the people who have gone before, and people are trying to learn.

Yes, we did have phones. There were unions. A lot of it was using the old top-down model, and leaders were effective. Now, there’s not a disregard for the past, but trying to pull out the good.

FREDDIE: What about the speed?

PAKI: We had to have advance planning. That’s one of the benefits of now. We had to plan months in advance sometimes. It didn’t just happen. The Montgomery Bus Boycott didn’t just happen because Rosa Parks sat down. She was part of a community that had been preparing for this moment for a long time. And this is what’s happening now. We’re all preparing for when something like this happens to us.

BRETT: I also began sticking postage stamps on letters at Amnesty. I think that the new technologies that are a reflection of the social networks that already exist. Our social networks now have technology, but what gave drive to the protests were the frustrations of the public. Yes we use the tools, but we’re working on top of those frustrations. There has to be the impetus, the need to protest. And we ask people to come offline.

CARNE: I’m a bit of a skeptic about all of this, there are a lot of presumptions made. Movements used to be pointed at a singular goal. Now we’re dealing with a different phenomenon. Occupy has to do with inequality, it’s not a singular goal. There’s an immense satisfaction that the movement exists, but what will the literal change be? So far the evidence isn’t there. Inequality is highly complex, involves many different facets.

It’s an old model of politics, that people are turning to Washington to change things.

You’ve got to build systems to replace the old. Build a new banking system. It’s incredibly hard, and it’s not about making a Facebook page.

FREDDIE: I love that you said that those in power love that they don’t actually have to change anything. I want to go back to the naivety that you’re talking about. What about using social media to identify people and reaching out to them?

BRETT: In some cases you’re right. But let’s look at the Arab Spring, several dictators fell after having been in power for decades.

CARNE: Power in our country is extremely clever, it isn’t like in Egypt.

BRETT: Yes but there’s still radical change taking place. When one can unify around opposition point instead of defining a complex change.

FREDDIE: Is it harder to affect meaningful change now?

CARNE: I think it’s harder. Power is very entrenched and clever.

JOSH: The measurement of Occupy, what do we measure? Do we measure that the conversation has shifted, or do we measure that inequality has gone away?

CARNE: Occupy is in trouble in New York. Bloomberg’s eviction has really crippled the movement.

PAKI: We’ve shifted from saying “this is the problem, and this is the answer,” but now there’s a point of intersectionality. It’s important to look at the different ways solutions are being formed. That’s where social media comes in, you can be in touch and learn about what’s happening all over the country and world.

FREDDIE: I think we see a bunch of different groups of activists. We see armchair activists, active protesters, change agents (not changing the system, but creating something new). Is it easier to do these things now?

CARNE: No, building a new bank system is still incredibly difficult. You still need to deeply understand the banking industry. We need to develop a new theory for change.

FREDDIE: Are armchairs good for the system?

CARNE: I think they’re the status quo. They ventilate what everyone’s thinking, but through entirely ineffective means.

BRETT: We’re trying to ramp up that participatory process. But even that click involves a political process that can shift a way an individual views an issue. When you link those people together, it takes time, but they create connections to the top order of people who can affect change.

JOSH: Yes, it takes time, but we can use social media as a recruitment tool and help people form identities. We’ve got to look outside the box and understand what’s happening.

PAKI: I’m guilty of signing online petitions, I’m a Raging Grannie. So what does it mean? Some of the differences of being here in the US, with freedom, there are different ways to approach the ills of our future. It’s all part of the same struggle for human liberation. The other tension is that on one hand, instantly you can see what we’re doing, but on the other hand we’ve got this long time that it’ll take to change things.

CARNE: It’s really important that we don’t confuse activity with results.

PAKI: I agree, it’s not the change we want to see. But, a year ago, who a year ago new what a GA was?

BRETT: But if we look at some of these instances, no one would prefer to have a return back to where they were under a dictator. The absolute control that authorities have over the information space is unbelievable, and in many cases, the digital space is one of the only places they’ve been able to circumvent that.

CARNE: But doing the same in a place like US is a far different problem. The internet may be helpful in formulating change, but it’s not a solution.

FREDDIE: Are there less great leaders now? Are they less visible because of the mass of people connected digitally?

JOSH: We have to look at leadership in the organizing, who’s going to create the Facebook page, etc. In a case in Charlotte, we had a protest instance where several people got arrested, but because they were so connected, other leaders popped up. It’s leaderful, not leaderless.

PAKI: We had to have rallying points. Just like today, we need to have ills to connect people on. The links that are made are very important.

CARNE: I think two things are happening, feeding off each other. Globalization
makes people feel less and less able to control phenomenon. One consequences is a skepticism of powerful elites of governing the system. You’re getting this system change and an emotional change that are converging.

BRETT: This idea for not wanting someone to speak for you is great, because you can speak for yourself. The digital natives have never experienced a time when they cannot express their views. We’re just beginning to see the first implications of that.

Audience question: What do you feel about whether fear is what oppressed the Occupy movement which was very small compared to the protests we’ve had before? Is it because the oppressing power was the last bastion from a growing power on the right?

CARNE: I don’t think that’s fair. I think the problem with Occupy is that it didn’t provide a convincing model for change.

Audience question: We had the Vietnam War. When it ended, we disbanded, we become zombies. The American Dream was no longer a dream. We live in a top-down society, do we need to stand up as individuals and take back our future?

PAKI: What the Occupy movement does it invites a thickening of the conversation. We’re not a very patient people, it takes time.

CARNE: There’s a paradox about Occupy, it should be an engine to have people go out and accomplish things as an individual. I’m struck by how many people in Occupy talk about inequality, but they exist in so many places where it’s apparent – the work place, etc. Occupy is in a funny phase and it needs to find a new direction. It’s need to be more action-based, less protest-based.

Audience question: How do you change the output of revolution?

CARNE: Realizing the peer-to-peer network that are out there is fundamentally anti-hierarchical, horizontal. That has the potential to be a transformative moment.

BRETT: Something we’ve taken for granted is that the internet will remain open. Those in power now that the internet has such an impact, so part of the change that needs to happen is to make sure it stays open.

Audience question: How has location and the rise suberbia changed activism?

JOSH: With immigrants, if someone lives in a town, and they’re the only undocumented person there, they’re alone. When they can network, and understand what’s happening elsewhere, and connect to others like them, that makes a difference, it’s empowering. That empowerment is hopefully what’s going to take us from where we are now, battling huge systems, and get us to a point where eventually we have a hyper-local, grassroots process. Those connections are most important as a tool for empowerment.

Audience question: Carne, is there room for progress? With armchair activism, people are learning, talking, embracing something. Is there something there?

CARNE: I completely agree. The flotation of Facebook will be one of the most dramatic transfer of wealth from the many to a small few, and this is so interesting. Let’s keep an eye on the bad as we measure the good, is all I’m getting at.