Another protest, another Youtube video of police overreaction and oppression. This has become a pattern over the last few months of the Occupy protests. As one hand-held sign at a protest accurately pointed out, if the police enforced bank regulations the way they enforced camping in parks we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. Of course, we all know that is not how it works. Police attack protests because they are expected to do so. They don’t arrest bank presidents because they are not expected to do so. Let’s face it, this is what most of us on the side of the protests expect of the police as well.
Still, in protest circles there is a lot of discussion about what to do about the police as well as the national military. Are they the enemy of the struggle? How should we best respond to them? Can they be turned to ‘our’ side? Will there be a day when the police and military take to the streets with the protesters and call for the end of the corrupt system? After all, when you look at attempts at revolution around the world the response of the military and police has been critical for deciding the fate of the movements. In 1989 East Germany the Berlin Wall fell within hours of the knowledge that the police and military would no longer try to repress people trying to go near it. In the revolt against Mubarak in Egypt the military’s support of the protests was crucial for removing him from power. On the other hand, determined police repression in Syria, Bahrain, the US and elsewhere has hindered protesters’ ability to move their movements forward.
So what do we do about the folks in blue? As the slogan “We are the 99%” points out, those of us in the protest movement are trying to argue that the battle is not between a small groups of leftists and the rest of society, but between the ultra-rich ruling class and everyone else -police and military personnel included. The actions of the police at many of the protests, however, show that these institutions are not seeing things this way. We also know, however, that while there are a few ass holes in the police who love to give protestors a good beating for the hell of it, there are many more who don’t and are supportive of the goals of Occupy Wall Street.
I got to thinking about the role of the police and military in creating revolutionary change while listening to a conversation among activists about a month ago. The argument swung between two opposite positions. One position was that people in the police and military are free individuals that will ultimately change their behavior when they see it is in their best material interests to stand with the 99% and demand real change. After all, most of us know people –friends, fathers, daughters, neighbors, cousins, ourselves –who are in the military and police forces, but yet agree with the critique of society being presented by the Occupy movement and other movements for social justice.
On the other side of this argument was the position that members of the police and military are prisoners of their organizations and that they will almost always behave according to the commands of superiors and the logics that spawned the institutions. It is no secret that one of the major missions of both the police and military is to secure not just ‘the peace,’ but also to keep secure the current regime of property and the economic processes which are, especially in this era, phenomenally unequal and structured to maintain and increase that inequality (i.e ‘the army of the rich’). The argument then goes that the police and military were created by the wealthy and powerful, and as organizations they will serve those interests, not those of individuals within the rank-and-file.
It was a pretty intellectual discussion (in all the positive senses of the term) and many good points were brought up backed by references to Marx, Weber and other great social thinkers. In the end, the discussion seemed to come down to two opposed positions not just about the police, but about the malleability of people in general. Are individuals capable of free choice or are they “sheeple” that are locked into particular actions dominated by the histories and logics of the institutions they find themselves in? I think a lot of the conversation tended toward this stark dichotomy due to the craving on the part of protesters to fit individuals in the police and military into one tidy category so that practical tactics around the idea of “could the police be turned to our side?” could be discussed.
Most people, however, recognize that both of these positions about the police (and human nature) are actually pretty false caricatures. The real situation is a bit more complex for the people in uniform and the real truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. People are affected by the larger structures they find themselves in, but they also resist and change those structures, often because the society around those institutions change.
I think that the fact that these institution sit within the larger society is not just an academic point, but a crucial point for the project of ‘getting the police on our side’ (or at least stopping them from attacking our side!) While there may be forces within these institutions encouraging certain behaviors of repression toward protesters (ranging from shooting to pepper spraying to arrest), these behaviors are legitimized by the norms of the larger society outside these institutions. These norms are different in different places and they can and do change. For example, the norms of society in the US are such that only particular behaviors on the part of police are seen as ‘acceptable’ to unleash on citizens camping in parks: pepper spraying, baton beatings and arrests for example. Other behaviors however are not considered legitimate in that context: shooting, torturing, electrocuting, attacking with dogs, etc. The same is not true today in, say, Syria and it wasn’t true in the past in the US either. The tactics available to the police and military to use are conditioned by the larger society in which those institutions find themselves. Furthermore, the police and military’s willingness to support the banks, the government, and the corporations, comes from this same source: the larger social norms that say business-as-usual is proper and is worth defending.
The job of the protester in society is not to try and convince the police or military to come onto our side, but instead to make the case across the whole society that the ‘usual’ rules are no longer valid and must be changed. Then, in turn, the police and military as institutions will have to behave differently to comply with those new norms. As an example, during the US civil rights movement in the 1960s the movement endured substantial police repression while trying to achieve social change. What they were able to do was not turn the police forces on to their side as much as they were able to turn national public opinion against discrimination. Then, in turn, it became scandalous for police to act in a discriminatory manner. So instead of trying to change the mind of the police, they changed the perceptions of the larger society which then forced racist police to act differently and also gave an opening for police who were against racism to profess their beliefs. (This of course is not to say that police don’t still practice discrimination. The point is that discrimination is now widely viewed as an abhorrent practice rather than an accepted norm)
So how do these norms get changed? By social movements doing exactly what the Occupy movement is doing right now. By challenging the idea that extreme income inequality is OK. By challenging the right of the elite to mega-profits at everyone else’s expense. By challenging the government’s complicity in increasing that inequality. By challenging the idea that capitalism is the only way to run an economy. By challenging the government’s authority to say who can be in a park and who is allowed to speak. By challenging the police’s authority to react violently toward peaceful protesters.
The point of protest and non-violent civil disobedience is, after all, not primarily about changing laws as much as it is about changing minds. The point is to show how dedicated people are in their beliefs. It is about convincing others that the system people have been taking for granted is rigged and needs changing. The point of protest is also to show that nothing, not even violent repression, will keep us from declaring what we believe and our right to say it.
The battle is not really a street battle even though that may be where it takes place. It is, in essence, a battle of ideas. So can members of the police and military join us in this battle? Of course the answer is yes, but they must be given the broader social support to do so. It is crucial to build enough support so that people that work in the police and military (and the banks, and the government, etc) who also see that the current system is morally bankrupt can make the switch of allegiance and still feel secure they have a future in the society and in their position. To do that we have to change the sea in which these institutions swim. That may sound like a big task, but it is already happening. The Occupy movement has been a success because there is a critical mass of people willing to come forward to question the economic and political logics that have led us to the mess where we are today. Even a year ago it was considered ‘edgy’ and radical to question capitalism, now it’s hard to support it. As you watch bankers and their politicians exasperatedly defend free market capitalism on TV always remember one thing: When someone has to spend time having to defend a system that people used to take for granted, it means they are losing the battle.
There is, however, still a ways to go before the social groundwork is laid where we can see the institutions of the government ‘switch sides.’ In the meantime we need to treat those individuals with respect and empathy until the social conditions are created that encourage them to become our supporters against our real opponent: a flawed system. Most importantly we need to not be waiting for the police and military. Instead we have to realize that they are waiting for us.
Still, in protest circles there is a lot of discussion about what to do about the police as well as the national military. Are they the enemy of the struggle? How should we best respond to them? Can they be turned to ‘our’ side? Will there be a day when the police and military take to the streets with the protesters and call for the end of the corrupt system? After all, when you look at attempts at revolution around the world the response of the military and police has been critical for deciding the fate of the movements. In 1989 East Germany the Berlin Wall fell within hours of the knowledge that the police and military would no longer try to repress people trying to go near it. In the revolt against Mubarak in Egypt the military’s support of the protests was crucial for removing him from power. On the other hand, determined police repression in Syria, Bahrain, the US and elsewhere has hindered protesters’ ability to move their movements forward.
So what do we do about the folks in blue? As the slogan “We are the 99%” points out, those of us in the protest movement are trying to argue that the battle is not between a small groups of leftists and the rest of society, but between the ultra-rich ruling class and everyone else -police and military personnel included. The actions of the police at many of the protests, however, show that these institutions are not seeing things this way. We also know, however, that while there are a few ass holes in the police who love to give protestors a good beating for the hell of it, there are many more who don’t and are supportive of the goals of Occupy Wall Street.
I got to thinking about the role of the police and military in creating revolutionary change while listening to a conversation among activists about a month ago. The argument swung between two opposite positions. One position was that people in the police and military are free individuals that will ultimately change their behavior when they see it is in their best material interests to stand with the 99% and demand real change. After all, most of us know people –friends, fathers, daughters, neighbors, cousins, ourselves –who are in the military and police forces, but yet agree with the critique of society being presented by the Occupy movement and other movements for social justice.
On the other side of this argument was the position that members of the police and military are prisoners of their organizations and that they will almost always behave according to the commands of superiors and the logics that spawned the institutions. It is no secret that one of the major missions of both the police and military is to secure not just ‘the peace,’ but also to keep secure the current regime of property and the economic processes which are, especially in this era, phenomenally unequal and structured to maintain and increase that inequality (i.e ‘the army of the rich’). The argument then goes that the police and military were created by the wealthy and powerful, and as organizations they will serve those interests, not those of individuals within the rank-and-file.
It was a pretty intellectual discussion (in all the positive senses of the term) and many good points were brought up backed by references to Marx, Weber and other great social thinkers. In the end, the discussion seemed to come down to two opposed positions not just about the police, but about the malleability of people in general. Are individuals capable of free choice or are they “sheeple” that are locked into particular actions dominated by the histories and logics of the institutions they find themselves in? I think a lot of the conversation tended toward this stark dichotomy due to the craving on the part of protesters to fit individuals in the police and military into one tidy category so that practical tactics around the idea of “could the police be turned to our side?” could be discussed.
Most people, however, recognize that both of these positions about the police (and human nature) are actually pretty false caricatures. The real situation is a bit more complex for the people in uniform and the real truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. People are affected by the larger structures they find themselves in, but they also resist and change those structures, often because the society around those institutions change.
I think that the fact that these institution sit within the larger society is not just an academic point, but a crucial point for the project of ‘getting the police on our side’ (or at least stopping them from attacking our side!) While there may be forces within these institutions encouraging certain behaviors of repression toward protesters (ranging from shooting to pepper spraying to arrest), these behaviors are legitimized by the norms of the larger society outside these institutions. These norms are different in different places and they can and do change. For example, the norms of society in the US are such that only particular behaviors on the part of police are seen as ‘acceptable’ to unleash on citizens camping in parks: pepper spraying, baton beatings and arrests for example. Other behaviors however are not considered legitimate in that context: shooting, torturing, electrocuting, attacking with dogs, etc. The same is not true today in, say, Syria and it wasn’t true in the past in the US either. The tactics available to the police and military to use are conditioned by the larger society in which those institutions find themselves. Furthermore, the police and military’s willingness to support the banks, the government, and the corporations, comes from this same source: the larger social norms that say business-as-usual is proper and is worth defending.
The job of the protester in society is not to try and convince the police or military to come onto our side, but instead to make the case across the whole society that the ‘usual’ rules are no longer valid and must be changed. Then, in turn, the police and military as institutions will have to behave differently to comply with those new norms. As an example, during the US civil rights movement in the 1960s the movement endured substantial police repression while trying to achieve social change. What they were able to do was not turn the police forces on to their side as much as they were able to turn national public opinion against discrimination. Then, in turn, it became scandalous for police to act in a discriminatory manner. So instead of trying to change the mind of the police, they changed the perceptions of the larger society which then forced racist police to act differently and also gave an opening for police who were against racism to profess their beliefs. (This of course is not to say that police don’t still practice discrimination. The point is that discrimination is now widely viewed as an abhorrent practice rather than an accepted norm)
So how do these norms get changed? By social movements doing exactly what the Occupy movement is doing right now. By challenging the idea that extreme income inequality is OK. By challenging the right of the elite to mega-profits at everyone else’s expense. By challenging the government’s complicity in increasing that inequality. By challenging the idea that capitalism is the only way to run an economy. By challenging the government’s authority to say who can be in a park and who is allowed to speak. By challenging the police’s authority to react violently toward peaceful protesters.
The point of protest and non-violent civil disobedience is, after all, not primarily about changing laws as much as it is about changing minds. The point is to show how dedicated people are in their beliefs. It is about convincing others that the system people have been taking for granted is rigged and needs changing. The point of protest is also to show that nothing, not even violent repression, will keep us from declaring what we believe and our right to say it.
The battle is not really a street battle even though that may be where it takes place. It is, in essence, a battle of ideas. So can members of the police and military join us in this battle? Of course the answer is yes, but they must be given the broader social support to do so. It is crucial to build enough support so that people that work in the police and military (and the banks, and the government, etc) who also see that the current system is morally bankrupt can make the switch of allegiance and still feel secure they have a future in the society and in their position. To do that we have to change the sea in which these institutions swim. That may sound like a big task, but it is already happening. The Occupy movement has been a success because there is a critical mass of people willing to come forward to question the economic and political logics that have led us to the mess where we are today. Even a year ago it was considered ‘edgy’ and radical to question capitalism, now it’s hard to support it. As you watch bankers and their politicians exasperatedly defend free market capitalism on TV always remember one thing: When someone has to spend time having to defend a system that people used to take for granted, it means they are losing the battle.
There is, however, still a ways to go before the social groundwork is laid where we can see the institutions of the government ‘switch sides.’ In the meantime we need to treat those individuals with respect and empathy until the social conditions are created that encourage them to become our supporters against our real opponent: a flawed system. Most importantly we need to not be waiting for the police and military. Instead we have to realize that they are waiting for us.
RSS Feed