Institutions trying to Usurp a Movement

It has been interesting to watch the doings on at the various occupations around the country. In particular, watching some groups and organizations that grew out of movements of the past are now trying to latch on to the "Occupy Movement" to try and stake a claim in it has been most interesting. HIV/AIDS organizations and activists, Jim Wallis' Sojourners, environmental groups, healthcare groups, and organizations such as AFSC are all looking for ways to somehow get their message on the radar. Some seem to be trying to remain viable; others (Sojourners most blatantly) are using the movement as a fund-raising opportunity. Let me just say, I'm normally a big fan of Jim Wallis, but I was really turned off to get the most recent fund-appeal e-mail from Sojourners titled "we've been doing this for 40 years" and then asking people to join their "sustainers circle" (even going so far as offering a "free" gift if you donate which, to me, isn't free but bartering). It is exactly this kind of exploitation and manipulation done by the "establishment" that, it seems to me, many of the occupation movements are rejecting.

My take is that this occupation movement is a culmination of a whole bunch of things, and it is also unlike anything we've seen before. It's the result of not just leaders but entire communities punting on big issues and always deferring on making serious changes and difficult choices for a later day, and that day is now. As NYTimes columnist David Brooks observed last May, we now have young adults who played by the rules their whole lives (structured childhoods of playdates, sports, and academics driven not by learning but by test-scores and grades) with the promise that compliance would be rewarded, but instead are faced with high-rates of un- and under-employment and burdened with loans. There is anger for sure, but there is also the recognition that the previous generations failed to prepare for the future. This is a non-partisan issue; it was under the Clinton years that there was an explosion of McMansion's, big cars and unprecedented debt (to that point) - very much an "if it feels good, do it" time. It's not that this was Clinton's fault or responsibility; it was just part of the era we have been living since the 1950's of American capitalism.

It is easy to see that all the various social, environmental and health issues are related to this movement. In fact, there is a strong element of chaos related to this movement as it attracts the passionate, the disgruntled, the angry, as well as the dropouts looking for company and a chance to get high. A look at the various signs that pop up at these places can speak to this, as the "issues" are clearly present. But it is also fair, I think, to understand the rejection of the organizations that have been established to address these issues or, at the least, be very skeptical of their intrusion into the movement. Taking HIV/AIDS just as an example: at what point do we look around and say that the outcomes (in terms of the continuing spread of HIV and the growing wait-lists for treatment) are not just the result of bad politics or inadequate funding? It is also the result of an entrenched industry that played "spend it or lose it" that wasted millions of dollars in needs assessments and studies. It is not a movement but a business that holds expensive conferences in glamorous places, patting itself on the back but slow to adapt to new realities and technologies. Too often it is driven not by mission completion but by protection of turf, and now wants more money. There have also been organizations that have slashed programs and staff, but maintained salaries and pensions. It is the lack of balance to sacrifices that this generation is experiencing. Consider, as another example, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill last year, not one of the countless e-mails from environmental groups that I saw that called for protests or for more funding also called on people to reduce consumption. You can replicate this process with almost all the issues of our times. For many of these organizations and institutions, the goal is to keep their issue alive in people's faces, but they don't want to really be questioned about their corporate presence and how it influences our lives, which is the very thing I see much of what this movement is about.

It will be interesting to see where this movement goes. I fully support the idea of a major community transformation that connects us closer to the ideals we espouse (see another David Brooks column for more about this). For me, it's not just about taxing the rich, nor is it about healthcare for all. It's also not mine to say what it is about. I do think that a part of the movement that is healthy is that we all need to be fully engaged and responsible. If we are educated and informed while being engaged, we will absolutely be a better society. It will also spell doom to all those organizations that want to make this their cause and exploit it for their own institutional survival. I can't say that mine is to go and Occupy anything, but to do what I can to nurture the transformations for a better, more just world.

Love, Authority, and Effectiveness

This past weekend, an announcement was made at the end of the Meeting for Worship I was attending. After a series of ministry messages about love, authority and effectiveness, an elderly woman rose to say that the next day, Monday, she and another woman were going do camp themselves outside of a bank in town and hand out flyers denouncing this bank’s continued investment in coal companies that do mountain-top removal. Why were they choosing this bank in particular? Because the bank had just recently completed construction of a new, green building in town. I find it a bit ironic that this bank was being targeted not because it doesn’t care about the environment, but because it does, but perhaps not enough. When I related this story to my sister, she said that this bank has also been a big backer of a lot of community programs including support of affordable housing.

My gnawing question has been: Is this an effective strategy for change? Because this bank has taken action and gotten some good publicity on environmental issues, should they be in line for a protest because they lack full integrity by continuing to profit from mountain-top mining? Do we leave other banks and companies who have more integrity – they don’t care about the environment at all? And what about our own integrity? Really, don’t we all benefit from the destructive but cheap mining of coal that helps keep energy costs down? And what about the printing up and handing out of flyers – the majority of which would end up in the garbage?

All of this creates a dilemma for me. I definitely think that we need to address issues such as mountain-top removal for coal. It’s a horribly destructive way to get energy. But I’m not sure that alienating a company that has made some environmental strides and has been a fairly responsible community partner is effective. This also has me wondering about the effectiveness of protests in general. Perhaps early in movements, when no one seems to be caring or taking action, these are effective ways of getting people to just pay attention. But as we get to the root causes and the challenges of community transformation, the work of change becomes more complex.

One of the ministry messages in Meeting that morning had been that Love is our ultimate authority, and our effectiveness increases not when we use love to manipulate people to what we want, but when we engage in people and situations so that we can be more loving. With this bank, I wonder how we can be more loving in expressing our gratitude for what they have done and concerns for what they continue to do. I know we will also have to look at our own complicitness if we want to truly be effective.