Trying to engage

It's the end of the week, the work week anyway, and I'm in a sort of limbo as I wait to hear back from a couple of committees at Occupy LA as to when and where to participate in their next meetings.  I have no idea what kind of schedule they're operating on, and how long it might take for them to get back to me.  They're certainly not on any kind of 9 to 5, Monday through Friday schedule.  It's funny how that whole idea of a work week, and thus the hallowed weekend, is a product of modern industrial culture, and to a great extent the hard battle fought by labor unions to establish reasonable working conditions, including the length of the work week and day.  I guess it's not surprising that that structure of time is irrelevant to a group of people whose whole raison d'être is to fight the corporations that have generated this 9-5 M-F mindset.

I went to the General Assembly meeting on Tuesday night, and got there right about 7:30 when it was scheduled to begin.  It was easy enough to find the location, as lots of folks had already gathered and a number of drummers were playing while a few women were dancing to the rhythms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVGz9D2dj7o

The meeting itself was pretty interesting, both in terms of content as well as process. First they went through their shared principles of solidarity, as well as principles of nonviolence derived from Gandhi's work.  Then people from a number of committees made announcements, followed by announcements from individuals who had information they wanted to share.  The rest of the meeting then focused on addressing proposals brought forward by people who wanted to get the General Assembly's support.  The GA operates by consensus, which they have defined as 90% agreement, although I'm not sure they ever really take a vote to be precise about that.  One or two proposals were approved fairly readily, and a couple others generated a fair amount of discussion and were eventually tabled until the next night, with the obligation on the part of the proposers to do some more work, get better clarification, talk to more people, etc. - to address issues raised in the discussion.  The last proposal of the evening was the most controversial, and ultimately generated enough "hard blocks" - three or four people who were unwilling to support it - that it was left unsupported by the GA.

The issue itself was pretty interesting.  A man announced that some other groups were going to be sponsoring an activity the following week that entailed civil disobedience, and he was asking the GA to provide their (verbal) support for the activity.  The problem was, he wouldn't tell us what exactly the activity was, because he said it was important to maintain secrecy in order for the event to be effective.  While there is some logic to that, a number of folks present felt like they couldn't support something that they didn't know what it was, especially knowing that, by definition, it was going to be provocative, and thus potentially confrontational and even possibly violent.  He assured us it was nonviolent, but his arguments couldn't convince a few to be willing to voice their support - and thus allow the GA to give its support - so it was left at an impasse as the meeting had to come to an end in order to respect those who had planned some kind of vigil or memorial to begin at 10pm in that same spot.

In the discussion regarding this proposal, it was clear that the Occupiers assume that the police could come in at any moment to start clearing out the camp, with the possible use of tear gas, rubber bullets, flash grenades, and rough tactics used in plenty of other cities across the country.  Classes in nonviolent civil disobedience were being offered to Occupiers, and I think the man trying to get the GA's support for his proposal indicated that only those folks who had taken that class would be able to participate in the activity he couldn't tell us about.  I guess the point of the activity is to get arrested, which he said would result in a small fine and quick release, but you never know how the police will deal with folks in that situation, so it is useful to have some guidance ahead of time about how best to react if they do get tough.

I went back over to the camp on Wed. to get contact information for a couple of committees I am interested in participating in.  Since the City Liaison and Research committees did not have any meetings listed on the schedule on the whiteboard at the welcome tent, I asked the guy there for the contact info for the committee point people, since the gal the other day had told me I could get it from a notebook they had.  But this guy said they don't give that info out, and when I asked why, he said that the one thing leaders of social movements have in common is that they get assassinated.  He suggested instead that I leave a note with my contact info and then the point people could get in touch with me.  So I wrote short notes on the back of a couple business cards, and left them there with the hopes that they would indeed pass them on to the relevant folks.

I went back on Thursday morning, to see what committee meetings and classes were scheduled for the day.  I want to take the nonviolence training class, and they are also providing training for folks to serve as "medics" in case of a violent shutdown, people who could help those immobilized by tear gas, for example - I may be interested in taking that too.  Since the nonviolence training wasn't til 1:30 and it was a nice sunny morning, I decided to go get my camera and spend some time taking pictures around the camp.  I have it in mind to create some kind of photo essay, so I spent a couple hours taking photos of tents and signs and people and spaces and activities, trying to capture some of the scale and complexity and creativity reflected in the OLA community.  By the time I was done with that I was tired and hungry, so I decided to head back to my room and save the nonviolence training for another day.

As of Friday morning I had not heard back from either of the committees, so I went to the OccupyLA website and provided my information as being interested in volunteering, indicating which committee I was interested in and why.  By this time, I was starting to wonder if identifying myself as a USC professor was working against me, in terms of leading people to question my motives or allegiances.  USC is known, of course, as a conservative institution, and it might be easy enough for people to conclude that it would be unlikely for a USC professor to be aligned with the OLA movement.  As I was wrapping up taking pictures the day before, a couple folks sitting at a table together seemed a little suspicious of me and what I was doing, and one of them said something to the effect of "I bet you're on the other side."  I could only conclude that, by appearance, I don't look like I belong or fit in with the crowd there, so add to that the fact of my questionable institutional attachment and maybe they are reluctant to get back in touch with me because of some concern about my intentions.  I mean, it's hard to believe that they are so busy they can't send me an email or text message or something.  I'm a little frustrated and disappointed by the lack of response on their part, as you think they would want to take advantage of as much help and support as they can get.  I guess plan B at this point is just to show up at a couple of the other regularly scheduled committee meetings next week, and see if I can start getting involved that way.  

In the meantime, there is a sense that the time has come to amp up the confrontation a bit, to start taking more actions that send signals to the world that we are serious and committed.  When I arrived at the camp on Thursday, materials had just been unloaded onto the sidewalk with which to build some mobile gardens, smallish wooden structures filled with dirt in which to grow herbs, vegetables, and other edibles.  There was a video clip posted on the OccupyLA website showing a discussion among a few Occupiers and a few cops, with the former admitting that the act was partly symbolic in that they would never grow enough food to really help out much and it was meant to indicate that they intended to be there for awhile, and the police then indicating that they had been in discussions with some Occupiers about creating an exit strategy such that bringing in a garden was sending the wrong kind of signal.  I haven't learned yet how all that has been resolved, but it does highlight that fact that the Occupiers are still aiming to dig in for the long haul while the police are aiming to get them out as soon as they can.  With some unknown civil disobedience planned for next week, things may soon start to get a little more exciting.