to or are placed in by others. The theorist Nancy Fraser best articulated this: if the public is a homogenous entity interested in consensus, then publics are diverse, predicated on difference and willing to argue and agitate for their concerns. And while a rule governing a public space may be desirable for the public , such as ‘No Sleeping Overnight’, it may not be good for a public , such as the homeless. Occupy’s critics often invoked the interests of the public as a way to isolate the protesting groups and, ultimately, their messages. I will look in detail at how this criticism impacted two encampments – Occupy Wall Street in New York and Occupy Oakland. Though the same argument was waged elsewhere, these two cities received intensive media coverage and, thus, greater condemnation. In both places civic leaders successfully appealed to the public to close the encampments, though their subsequent actions showed little regard for any public.
with, as the park has been taken over by protestors, making it unavailable to anyone else.’ The New York Daily News concurred, arguing that the protesters excluded all other people: ‘The need for eviction would be true no matter the message. No one group — whether they are doing Tai Chi or playing piano or lambasting capitalism — has a right to commandeer a public space to the exclusion of others for an indefinite period.’ Even the judge that heard and then denied the protesters’ appeal of the eviction cited the public’s interest: ‘The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park . . . to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely.’
One of Occupy’s publics, families, gather in Zuccotti Park on October 22, 2011
14
Not much media coverage accompanied the call for Occupy Wall Street, announced by Adbusters in July of 2011. Neither did the original occupation of Zuccotti Park which began two months later on September 17. Only as the occupation persisted, and the days stretched into weeks, did the movement’s momentum grow, along with the voices of its detractors. Nearly two months after the occupation began, the park’s private manager posted new rules banning lying down and the use of tarps and tents. On November 15, police cleared the protesters from Zuccotti. In a statement later that day, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave this reason for the eviction: ‘The law that created Zuccotti Park required that it be open for the public to enjoy for passive recreation 24 hours a day. Ever since the occupation began, that law has not been complied
Critics levelled similar arguments at Occupy Oakland, despite differences between the protesters’ tactics and their relationship with the city government. Unlike New York, Oakland’s mayor supported Occupy’s goals and one city council member even slept at the encampment in Frank Ogawa Plaza. Instead, local business organisations led the condemnation, claiming the encampment scared customers away. Perhaps because this argument alone seemed too self-centred, they also invoked the interests of the public versus the interests of the protesters. In a letter to Mayor Jean Quan, the Downtown Oakland Association and the Lake Merritt/ Uptown District Association wrote: ‘Unlike Zuccotti Park in New York, this is a public space — to be enjoyed by all the people of Oakland, not just a minority who have now had their moment and the headlines; it is time
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator