Occupy History

[Safferz]

This was forwarded to one of the listservs I'm on, and I thought I'd share. What do you guys think? What is the role of historical production in contemporary movements like OWS?

"Inspired by the creativity and strength of Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movement around the world, Occupy History adds its voice in support of those speaking out against and demanding solutions to growing injustice and inequality, both economic and social.

We encourage historians to work to build the discussion beyond inequality and injustice to include the history of the struggle for equality and justice and the changes needed in our countries’ governments."

http://occupyhistoryna.wordpress.com/

[kotov]

I'm not sure what one's role would be as far as the OWS movement itself; I guess that kind of depends on your personal political views (it doesn't do a whole lot for me personally). As far as our role in correcting for social injustice, I think that we definitely have a role as far as review and revision of previous historiography of whatever topics we're researching. As far as political relevance goes, I don't really know; I try to avoid mixing the two a lot of the time, and very rarely does my work address American political issues much, much less contemporary issues like OWS is attempting to address.

[crater21]

To be honest, I don't really think it is the job of historians to support particular movements or causes. I think a historian's job is to be the dispassionate observer who aims to find the historical truth (or get as close to it as possible) without bending to ideology. So, red flags go up in my mind when I read things like

Occupy History adds its voice in support of those speaking out against and demanding solutions to growing injustice and inequality...

To me, that sounds like the job of an activist, not a historian (and, I say that as someone who, on a personal level, supports a great deal of what the Occupy movement stands for)

I fully recognize, btw, that this is a debatable position. Many people believe that historians should not be (and cannot be) impartial or that there's no such thing as "historical truth" etc etc. I totally respect this view, but just don't agree with it.

[Safferz]

To me, that sounds like the job of an activist, not a historian (and, I say that as someone who, on a personal level, supports a great deal of what the Occupy movement stands for)

I fully recognize, btw, that this is a debatable position. Many people believe that historians should not be (and cannot be) impartial or that there's no such thing as "historical truth" etc etc. I totally respect this view, but just don't agree with it.

My position here is heavily influenced by my background in African history, postcolonial theory and gender studies, so I struggle to see how the question is up for debate! I think history writing, like all forms of knowledge production, has a political dimension. African history itself only emerged as an academic field some 50 years ago to write *against* European historical production that for centuries represented the continent as primitive, timeless and outside of History (re-phrasing Hegel here), which then in turn became the dominant discourse used to justify the imperial project. So I really don't agree with the idea that the academic historian somehow possesses some objective 'view from nowhere,' because like all people, historians are subjective actors shaped by their social, cultural (and I should note, institutional) contexts. And I think history shows that

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Safferz et al.,

If you look at the broad spectrum of historical study, I think it is pretty clearly colored by the subjective perspective of particular historians and historical schools. Bias and subjectivity, even when not butressed by unseemly motives or outright prejudice, more or less always exist. The very nature of historical work suggest this has to be true. How can one set forth and support a theory of what has transpired amongst previous generations, or why, without being heavily influenced by their own experiences?

Because subjectivity is so subconsciously intertwined into historical study, I believe that credibility requires us to be particularly careful not to purposefully interject contemporary motivations. This is especially true of political motivations, they tend cloud objectivity to a greater degree than other motivations.

This is NOT to say that blatant injustices/discrepencies (such as the one Safferz referred to) should not be redressed. Rather, that the conscious use of politics dilutes the overall credibilty of historical study.

Edited January 10, 2012 by ADMITedlyLucky

[superfluousflo]

I think that there is plenty History to be written about social inequality. Some might confront it more directly than others. I think that it is silly to be dogmatic about it. I've read some uninspired Marxist histories of the working-class that are based more on Marxian theory than evidence. Niall Ferguson, though exhausting, has given some perspective on the history of social and geopolitical inequalities and asymmetries in Civilization. Of course, I don't suppose many of the OWS would be keen on his conclusions (and that's reasonable). I think that researching to production of social inequality in its myriad forms is highly admirable and essential. At the same time, I think it needs to be potentially more rigorous than what we get from the Occupiers.

It is important to acknowledge that class history, the history of the production of race, Empire, and the history of domesticity, are all concerned with dominance, hegemony, power, injustice. OWS is nothing fundamentally new but in this historical moment is influential and should be noted. It can't exactly be studied historically yet, but we have our brothers and sisters in sociology and political science who will do present analysis and later generations, I have to assume, will provide historical analysis on, we can hope, a turning point in American economic inequality. We're not there yet, though.

[StrangeLight]

writing about inequality and social justice in history is not new. not even close. and i always get very nervous when i hear someone claiming that it is possible or desirable to be a dispassionate observer as a historian. that's not actually possible, but to think it is means that the historian is disguising their own biases even to him/herself. the alternative isn't that we all have to write polemical, deeply political arguments, but to recognize that we cannot separate our lived experiences from what we deem is or isn't important to include in our historical narratives.

[SapperDaddy]

I fail to see how OWS will end up as anything but an amusing anecdote in the history books. What exactly have they accomplished other than showing they are more than willing to wallow in their own excrement because, "They're mad, damnit!"

[RevolutionBlues]

As someone looking to study the history of working class movements, I am very interested in this thread and would like to throw in my two cents. First, I agree with some of the other posters that historians can never achieve complete objectivity, nor do I think it would be desirable to do so. Our own beliefs can lend us passion in pursuing history and our own experiences can give us deeper insight, empathy, and understanding with our subjects. I am proud to have participated in the Occupation and hope I will become a better and wiser historian for it. Second, this beneficial subjectivity must be recognized by historians and continuously presented as a disclaimer to themselves and others. History conducted with specifically ideological ends in mind is little more than vulgar propaganda. Third, it is too early to either lionize or dismiss the movement as an item of historical interest. Historians (unlike many social sciences) have the luxury of time; the Chartists started small and took a decade to achieve their aims, while the Bolsheviks were a joke at the turn of the century but by the end of 1917 nobody was laughing. There is simply no way to tell right now whether this will be an insignificant blip on the historical radar or the beginning of global revolution. In short, hindsight may be 20/20, but foresight is legally blind. Finally, I fully believe that historians have a role to play in the Occupation. That is not to say that we should, as others have expressed fears of, conduct historical studies for the purpose of justifying our present political positions. However, we should use our knowledge of what has (or more importantly has not) worked for social and political movements in the past to help inform and guide OWS. We must use our expertise to help explain how the present system came to be and why. We have a duty to give back to the society that has trained us as historians by taking our scholarship out of academia and to the people who fund our studies in a relevant way.

[crater21]

To expand on my point earlier, I am certainly not suggesting that history writing is completely objective. Of course it's not. Subjective biases creep into all parts of the process, from selecting sources to presenting evidence to making arguments.

That does not mean, however, that we should not strive to write objective history. Personally, the way I see it is this: we begin with the premise that there is an objective past (or pasts) out there, and it is our job to try and get as close to it as possible. We recognize that we'll never fully access it because it will always be mediated by language. And, we will only ever be able to interact with it through sources, the production of which is itself deeply political and subjective. But, that is where the challenge of being a historian comes in. By critically evaluating sources and addressing our own biases in the work, we can strive to reach an objective account, even though we might never realize it fully.

That is why I don't think we can start with the goal of wanting to support a particular agenda. We can't say, "I want to write a history in support of XYZ". Instead, we should start with a question we want to answer, keeping our minds open to whatever the answer(s) may be. Of course, the fact that we choose to ask one question over another is a result of our own experiences, and that is unavoidable.

Anyway, this is just my view of it. Admittedly, I am more on the traditionalist side of this debate. But, the fun part for me is to see how other people view and write history, and that's why this thread has been so great. Thanks for all your responses!

[Sigaba]

I fail to see how OWS will end up as anything but an amusing anecdote in the history books. What exactly have they accomplished other than showing they are more than willing to wallow in their own excrement because, "They're mad, damnit!"

While it remains to be seen what the historical legacy of the OWS movement will be, I augur that it will stand as an example of history working from "the bottom up" and from "the margins." In this case, social and international historians (among others) will to point to the OWS as a by product of similar movements in non-western regions of the world.

In the scope of American political and social history, the OWS movement--along with the Tea Party movement--will serve as examples in discussions of populism, political gridlock in "the Beltway," the ongoing "crisis of modernity," and the role of new media. From there, one can easily transition backwards to reflect anew on the American Gilded Age, among other topics.

A broader point here is that as a graduate student in a doctoral program, every aspiring historian should know how to do three things: (1) to sleep in any position, no matter how uncomfortable; (2) to find "free" meals (because no matter how generous one's funding may be, one often go hungry); and (3) to make arguments that tie contemporaneous events to broader historiographical debates and, in turn, point to the relevance of those debates. That is, the reason why the OWS is "nothing new" is because historians have been talking about similar subjects for decades.

[SapperDaddy]

One big difference between grad students and OWS protesters is that most historians I know manage to find a shower more than once a week.

[barricades]

One big difference between grad students and OWS protesters is that most historians I know manage to find a shower more than once a week.

Seriously. Your analyses never fail to amuse me...

[SapperDaddy]

Seriously. Your analyses never fail to amuse me...

I'm not exactly trying to be serious.

[SapperDaddy]

In all seriousness though, I just don't see how OWS fits in with the narrative of revolution. Despite all the We are the 99% signs and slogans, I do not see real disaffection, especially when the majority of the protesters could afford iPhones. This isn't the Arab Spring where people are protesting not having a job over generations. Also, there was no real leadership, and sadly, no real objective. They never made a proposal as to what they wanted to accomplish, aside from a few, "we think the world should be thus," ambiguous statements. There was no real manifesto, there was no Lenin. Sure there is discontent, but that never did crystalize into a revolution. I guess that it does fit into the narrative of revolutions that failed to launch.

[Sigaba]

timestamp='1326489326' post=1057761476]

In all seriousness though, I just don't see how OWS fits in with the narrative of revolution. Despite all the We are the 99% signs and slogans, I do not see real disaffection, especially when the majority of the protesters could afford iPhones. This isn't the Arab Spring where people are protesting not having a job over generations. Also, there was no real leadership, and sadly, no real objective. They never made a proposal as to what they wanted to accomplish, aside from a few, "we think the world should be thus," ambiguous statements. There was no real manifesto, there was no Lenin. Sure there is discontent, but that never did crystalize into a revolution. I guess that it does fit into the narrative of revolutions that failed to launch.

SD--

Why are you speaking of the OWS movement in the past tense? While municipal governments have moved along those decamping in public spaces, this does not mean that the movement is finished. Also, it is wise for a historian to impose his or her own vision of what is "real"?

If one were to revisit the history of British colonial America, one would recall that the sentiment for revolution developed slowly. And if one were to take another look at the historiography of the American Revolution, one would recall that there is ongoing debate over the truly revolutionary nature of colonial America's journey to political independence.

We do not know how things are going to play out with the OWS movement--just as we don't know if the TPM will have a lasting impact. As individuals, we may have our preferences as to what we'd like to see happen. But as historians, should we privilege those preferences and use them to inhibit the intellectual curiosity of others?

[SapperDaddy]

I don't see the movement growing or picking up steam. At least not until it's warm again. I think as historians we really need to wait until there is some time that's passed in order to really judge anything.

[crater21]

To be fair, the purpose of Occupy was not to bring about a revolution. So, the comparisons with the Arab Spring, etc, are flawed, I think. Rather, the purpose was to create a space - both physical and rhetorical - in which to start a dialog about inequality. In that much, it has succeeded. To take one small example, just think of how the terms "1%" and "99%" have become a part of public discourse.

In many ways, Occupy has transformed the political debate in this country, as it is becoming evident through the 2012 election race. Obviously, we need some distance from the event to know how it will ultimately be viewed in history. But, I suspect that its real significance will be in the way it has brought issues of inequality and wealth distribution back to public discourse.

[SapperDaddy]

Sure, for now. But given America's short term memory, I doubt it will last very long. We're not talking about the Tea Party movement much anymore because OWS came along. So what takes OWS out of the spotlight? I would argue that even if the discourse has changed some, as it's an election year in a down economy, much of that discourse was bound to come up, as it did in every other election ever held during a down economy. Remember when Bill Clinton quipped, "It's the economy, stupid."

and I use the term revolution as that seems to be a poplar self-identifier for the protestors-revolutionary. I actually went to Zuccotti Park while OWS was going on. My opinion of the movement was formed by the 3 hours I spent there. Half the people there only showed up because they thought it was a way to get on TV or find a free meal (or various other thinks going on, drugs, sex, etc.). The other half fancied themselves as the next incarnation of Lenin or Trotsky. My first impression was the stench. I could smell the park from about a block away or more. It honestly sickened me how many of the "revolutionary" types had a Che Guevara shirt on, but were sending their general assembly stuff on their iPads. And then they had the audacity to say that they were doing it for me. How they could look me in the eye and tell me that pissed me off. Sorry if that puts a bit of a dent in what you think of OWS, or if you think I'm wrong.

[Riotbeard]

Great essay, if you are a leftist skeptical of OWS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-adams/occupy-wall-street-movement_b_1008978.html

[superfluousflo]

Sure, for now. But given America's short term memory, I doubt it will last very long. We're not talking about the Tea Party movement much anymore because OWS came along.

Am I mistaken or were a whole lot of Tea Party candidates elected to the House 3 years ago? On top of that, haven't they had a huge influence on policy and discourse in those years?

[SapperDaddy]

Am I mistaken or were a whole lot of Tea Party candidates elected to the House 3 years ago? On top of that, haven't they had a huge influence on policy and discourse in those years?

I think half those candidates are not going to win reelection as people see how nutty the Tea Party is.

[oseirus]

I know this point has been beaten worse than a child in a third world sweatshop but the job of the historian is to report things objectively. You give the facts and data as they occurred, with no slant, like a journalist is supposed to do. With OWS, the historian will be tempted to make a comparison but that is the slippery slope in history where we can lose focus and resort to simplistic assessments. I remember reading in Time Magazine a while back ago comparing the Arab Spring to the Revolutions of '48 and sure there are some tangentially similar issues at hand, but the uniqueness of revolution shouldn't be discarded so you can make a cheap point. Now this isn't to say that you can't take the lessons learned from '48 to use as a road map to predict how the Arab Spring could shape out. A historian can look back and say, x followed this path and we can make a similar assumption about Y because of this, that, and the proverbial third. Flat out contrasting for contrasting sake to me is a dangerous path because a lazy assessment can be made of somethings that are wholly unrelated. For example, if you watch anything on that anathema of a network, the "History" Channel, this seems to be their bread & butter. The sad thing is they even get accredited historians to spew about certain pablum that is then accepted by the mainstream as having historical merit. Thus in my estimation, OWS shouldn't present a problem as far as historical documentation because it was important enough of a milestone in the US (to some people) that it would warrant mentioning in any decent assessment of the early 21st century.

[StrangeLight]

sapperdaddy will do well at berkeley.

[oseirus]

ruh roh! we're getting into that political debate territory!