Is Alternative Politics Out of Question?
Digital Social Movement of #WeArethe99% and #PapuaLivesMatter
This essay was written for We Are The 99%: Memory of the Occupy Movement Midterm
Struggles for social change are struggles not just against current configurations of power or modes of distribution and exploitation but also against their internalization (Brisette & King, 2012). This passage from an essay in We Are Many is a sufficient description of what social movements have to overcome and challenge, the production of exploitative status quo, not only in a physical sense but also in how we organize ourselves within the movement. After three months of delving into the Occupy movement readings, I became cognizant of the power of prefigurative politics that can be mobilized through collective grievances.
This essay will explain how that is possible against the backdrop of social media activism. I then will compare and contrast the politics of resistance and strategies implemented in the Occupy movement with the Free West Papua movement in Indonesia. This is because the nature of the tactics is similar; both received attention and participation primarily through online-based calling for action propaganda. But, it differs mainly in its politics; Occupy spent the bulk of its time rallying for the politics of redistribution (political economy), whereas the Free West Papua movement is about politics of recognition (cultural-identity). These two movements will be intriguing to be juxtaposed precisely because of these reasons; through their similarities and differences, one could learn from the other.
What is Occupy Movement?
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began in New York City in September 2011. By 9 October, similar demonstrations spilled over 70 significant cities and over 600 communities across the US, each with specific local grievances context, but all responded to capitalism and class hierarchies. It primarily advocated social and economic justice and new forms of democracy. An ever-widening gap between rich and poor, a perceived failure by President Obama to hold the financial industry accountable for the crisis of 2008, and a sense that money had taken over politics are all prime concerns of this movement (Vanity Fair, 2012). Their main slogan, “We are the 99%”, asserts that the “99%” pay for the mistakes of the “1%”.
Another defining variable of the movement is its pervasive use of social media that allows activists to create, circulate, curate, and amplify the movement. The initial call to OWS was broadcast by Adbusters magazine. The call to action gained momentum when endorsed by the loose global network of hacktivists known as Anonymous, in a widely circulated web video (http://youtu.be/2svRa-VsaOU; Schultz, 2008; Coleman, 2010). OWS began to receive significant mass media coverage only after police brutality against protest participants (Costanza-Shock, 2012). Although it had a steady physical presence in Zuccotti Park for the next three months, it also generated media attention across social network sites (SNS), print and broadcast platforms. The movement also emphasizes its platform on participatory democracy to decentralize power; hence it can be labeled a “leaderless movement.”The democratic process occurs in various “working groups,” while important decisions are often made at General assemblies, which can themselves be informed by the findings of multiple working groups. Decisions are made using the consensus model of participatory democracy, and this often features hand signals to increase participation and to operate with discussion facilitators rather than leaders.
What is the #PapuaLivesMatter Movement?
The death of George Floyd has revitalized the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement not only in the but also in Indonesia. The BLM movement has helped spotlight the decade’s grievances held by those who identify as West Papuans and call for self-determination in Indonesia’s eastern provinces. In West Papua, many indigenous Melanesians have been fighting against human rights violations — including unlawful arrests, violence against civilians, and offenses against the right to peaceful assembly and association — committed by the Indonesian government since it took control of the territory in 1963. While international attention waxes and wanes, recent local conflagrations between militia and the Indonesian armed forces, as well as urban protests, have drawn international attention to West Papua’s struggle (Okazaki & Walton, 2020).
Since July 2020, social media have been awash with the #Papuanlivesmatter hashtag, which has attracted backing from actors, artists, and many of Indonesia’s progressive youth. University student groups have organized online seminars with Papuans and human rights activists, sparking conversations that would have never happened in the past. Non-Papuans have taken to the streets calling for change, including in a city better known for its Islamic schools deep in the heart of Tasikmalaya, West Java (Indonesia is 87% Muslim, Papua is predominantly Christian). In short, people are starting to see that the system in which Papuans live under the occupation of the Indonesian government is racist.
Before the visibility of #PapuanLivesMatter, discourse about Papuan Occupation had been largely held in academic settings conducted by Javanese Muslim men scholars (the Indonesian counterpart of cishet WASP men), with focus on developmentalism logic, whereas the issue of race often disgarded. They usually muddled on how economic development in Papua should be at the heart of political endeavors and institutions and also as a means through which the Indonesian government establishes stable legitimacy in the area. Where in fact, the movement runs primarily not in economic grievances, but rather identity. This is particularly apparent when a group of Indonesian police, the army, and some nationalists stormed the Papuan student dorm in Surabaya, then uttered the slur “Monkey” (Pierson, 2020). This act has struck the emotive cord to build resistance. #PapuanLivesMatter has made the racist, oppressive system in Papua visible, as it was put in context with the growing visibility of #BlackLivesMatter movement online. I would say that it is the digital version of that struggle, a transformation made by protesters to gain visibility among Indonesian and international social media users. Many Indonesians wouldn’t be reflecting on the injustice toward Papuans if it wasn’t for George Floyd.
Student activists in Indonesia have organized public forums for West Papuans to describe their experiences of oppression and discrimination. Aside from rally and direction action in the street, the #PapuanLivesMatter agenda often piggyback to other movements in Indonesia such as #ReformasiDikorupsi (#CorruptedReformation) or demonstrations on women’s rights and sexual assault-related bills.
To Compare and Contrast : the Case of Occupy Movement and #PapuanLivesMatter Movement
Both the Occupy Movement and #PapuanLivesMatter movement owed its visibility to call mass to action to social media platforms. Then, the question arises from this realization: what do social media really make ways in which participants of collective actions are mobilized (apart from little things like fixing date, opening group, hashtag)? Is their significance merely technical or constitutive? In the case of the Occupy movement there is always a debate on weak ties and strong ties. As noted by Malcolm Gladwell, in the age of digital activism, activists are defined by their tools, not causes. He claims that high-risk activism with “strong tie” comes from an applicant’s degree of personal connection to the civil rights movement. It’s the kind of activism that has the characteristics of “critical friends” — the more friends you had who were critical of the regime, the more likely you would join the protest (Gladwell, 2010). Social media activism is nothing like sort; it is built around weak ties in which seeing is often interpreted as belonging to a movement. Weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism. But, with social media, the transaction cost of joining a movement is lowered, obstacles to collective action are removed — one can organize and be aware of injustices without having to come to New York or Manokwari, West Papua — and more efficient forms of coordination are created.
The Occupy And West Papua movement are therefore falling into the same trap; how would they overcome these hurdles? The West Papua movement has a strong precedent and a clear geographical area in which their politics of recognition is based on. It stems from state oppression against a group of people, with the overarching goal of claiming equality through identity politics. Therefore, it is quite easy to identify the core issue (racism) and the transformation of Papuan people from a subject of oppression to agent of resistance. The Non-Papuan Indonesian activists who joined the movement mostly know where to stand (on the back!) and put their support into, hence the movement does not have to worry about hierarchical hurdles nor weak ties/strong ties distinction. It already has physical manifestation among the Papuans because they have been oppressed for decades, thus community-building efforts are no longer needed. This movement should rather put their energy into how to gain space in the Non-Papuan Indonesian and international political discourse. Allegiance with the non-Papuan and international community is a concern, in which then the question would be, does it also need to build strong ties with those actors? If so, in what ways activists can lure these actors into the movement? #PapuanLivesMatter movement, therefore, has to deal with whether its movements have to be co-opted to a bigger movement in order to gain traction and bargaining power. This movement has its issue specified perfectly, but needs to gain acceptance from other activist groups and/or social movements.
This is clearly not the case with the Occupy movement. It has bigger tent than #PapuanLivesMatter with more intersection between economic, social, and cultural edges. The concern for Occupy movement is rather the opposite, does it have too wide of a scope to have clear goals and demands? Chapter 2 of the book Are We the 99% highlighted this dilemma. The OWS is for everyone: as long as you’re not in the wealthiest 1%, you have a place here. This inclusivity has a problematic bent, in which participants will avoid talking about anything else (such as sexism, racism, and ableism) besides the main platform, which is wealth inequality. Sub-groups and working groups do exist to incorporate those issues into the movement, but their grievances largely will be pushed aside as the movement tries to “enlarge” its scope. Trade-offs are made to widen the scope of acceptance, whereas issue specificity is minimized. The overall Occupy movement strives for unity, but disregards various experiences/minorities to a universal “99%”. It brings up the old question of how should an experience from Barnard College graduate with a $70,000 salary per year relate to homeless women’s experience in the Bronx?
This “universality” act within the Occupy movement also further hurts the marginalized groups who participate in it. As noted by Toupin, Occupy’s lack of formal structures ends up favoring those who already enjoy gender, class, and race privilege. By not having “affirmative action” on issues faced by marginalized groups, it is sensible to assume that the ones that will drive and design the narratives are groups that have social capital in the first place. This claim reminded me of our class discussion that is always critical of the lack of identity politics recognition in Occupy, that being a white heterosexual lady is an advantage in itself, because the state apparatus inherently is designed to protect that particular group of people. The Occupy Movement, with its lack of protection for marginalized groups, could potentially make their status more vulnerable than ever (and on top of that, their grievances won’t be counted as a matter). If this issue posed a risk to marginalized groups, the movement will mainly reflect issues of being able-bodied with the least potential risk. This is obviously counterproductive, as activism is supposed to challenge the status quo, attack the deeply entrenched problems of those in the margin, not reproducing the hierarchy of the established order instead. Media framing of Occupy proves this point just right, even the left-wing media such as The Colbert Report gave the mic to white men when they gave coverage to make the movement more “legitimate”.
The supposed main objective of Occupy movement is quite radical, which is challenging the political and economic inequalities caused by late capitalism/neoliberalism, but the degree of transformation wanted by the people in the Occupy movement is varied; some want to transform the status quo altogether, and some want only to check its more egregious excesses. Although, the details have a wide range of the spectrum, from calling on financial transactions tax and a breakup of the big banks to an optimistic vision to dismantle the neoliberal system altogether, the grievances and roots are still the same — to replace the system and create a different way of doing politics — and that is exactly what brings the movement to international notoriety, from London to Malaysia. The goals, albeit ambitious and vague, have added bargaining power that can secure its legacy in international political discourse. Prefigurative politics in Zuccotti Park help the world imagine an alternative world that is not a subject or under the discipline of the existing structure. By being staunchly anti-establishment and not focusing itself on winning a candidate in traditional politics means, the Occupy movement has turned politics of demand/dissents that are usually the characteristics of political movement towards politics of autonomy and self-determination. The Occupy movement has thrown the seed of the greatest hope for resistance, that rests in the assertion of difference against the monoculture of capitalist hegemonism.
#PapuanLivesMatter movement, with its issues-specific grievances, has yet done and gained the same traction. In order to reform the racist system — and to some extent have the right of a referendum to be able to formally secede from Indonesia — the movement has been trying to appeal to the larger structure of power, the Indonesian government, and international politics to gain recognition. There is a risk of being co-opted and reproducing the same oppressive structures they currently faced, hence creating a revolutionary pole in opposition to the status quo and embracing a polarizing approach is needed. #PapuanLivesMatter movement has done this by piggybacking to the bigger racial injustice movement such as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, but it still needs to build solidarity with other anti-establishment movements to be able to have bargaining power and visibility, such as the climate change and environmental movement. There is a real environmental threat in Papua in the form of mining exploitation by Indonesian-American joint company PT. Freeport (Kurniawan, 2020). This sentiment could be materialized into solidarity with the larger climate change movement. #PapuanLivesMatter movement should learn the anti-hegemonic stance of the Occupy movement, as to be revolutionary, particularity must not seek hegemony. Rather it must remain anti-hegemonistic in nature. #PapuanLivesMatter has the potential to build prefigurative politics similar to the Zapatista movement, if it decided to not only win freedom but also claim rights to transform a given structure of power.
As for the Occupy movement, it can be more aware of the intersectionality of an issue. One way or another, the progressive stack method in the movement has tried to address the issue, but it has been largely criticized as a “forced equality”. It is after all, not only giving space for the marginalized to speak, but also to be included and addressed in the mainstream agenda of a movement.
REFERENCES
(FROM CLASS READINGS)
Costanza-Chock, S. (2012). Mic check! Media cultures and the Occupy movement. Mic check! Media cultures and the Occupy movement. Social Movement Studies, 11: 375–385.
Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change. The New Yorker.
Kusumaryati, V. (2021): #Papuanlivesmatter: black consciousness and political movements in West Papua, Critical Asian Studies
Lalinde, J., et al. (2012). Revolution number 99. Vanity Fair
McKee Hurwitz, H. (2021). Are we the 99%? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Ng, E., & Toupin, S. (2013). Feminist and queer practices in the online and offline activism of Occupy Wall Street . Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 6(3).
(OUTSIDE CLASS READINGS)
Kurniawan, E., 2019. Opinion | Indonesia Has a Papua Problem (Published 2019). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/papua-riots-indonesia-monkey.html> [Accessed 15 November 2021].
Pierson, 2020. George Floyd’s death inspires an unlikely movement in Indonesia: Papuan Lives Matter. [online] Los Angeles Times. Available at: <https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-02/papuan-lives-matter> [Accessed 15 November 2021].
