(San Francisco Chronicle, Noah Berger / AP Photo / November 17, 2010)
I think most of us have seen this image and the YouTube videos from Wednesday's protest in San Francisco. Below are links to several news articles as well as photographs of the event that give us some context upon which to reflect. Clearly, it is an outrage and an abuse of power that is frightening, more so because it sets a precedent for how police may respond to moments of tension during future student protests.
ARTICLES
Los Angeles Times:
Huffington Post:
Washington Post:
L.A. Times photography:
2 comments:
The Los Angeles Times article is a perfect example of the difficulties of modern protest actions.
The effective Haussmannization of the "modern" city has made the layout decentralized and stark. The UCSF Mission Bay campus conference center is located in a large and largely pedestrian-free campus, away from most residential halls and commercial areas. For this reason, when protesters gather, there are only several eyes to watch and relay this information to the public.
The LA Times article unabashedly gathers information only from police officers and administrators. The format is depressingly familiar:
a statement of actions in which rogue violent students (not any ordinary students and no graduates, faculty, or workers) attack police, who are forced to respond with force. The police chief states that the officers acted valiantly. A close with an administrator feigning support for peaceful protesters and a call to end the violence of the breakaway arm of the movement.
In this construction, the students are voiceless objects in an vaguely defined struggle against having to pay higher tuition. The seemingly singular movement is faced with internal strife and bad organizing.
Yet a movement is never unified; movements as reconfigurations of socio-spatial/economic networks are not unities. They are composed of a variety of groups that are themselves never unified and individuals who are themselves not unities. This chaotic beauty is betrayed by the idea of a unified movement, yet also by the appearance, in places and times, of vanguardist groups that seem to take power in secrecy and exclusion, only to claim to represent all students.
A potential answer, proposed on a student blog, is the building of spokescouncil affinity groups in which interested parties can find climates of action, discussion, and values that reflect their own, and engage in a smaller and therefore more democratic network. These groups will inherently morph, amalgamate, and dissolve freely. No one can be a vanguard.
This format seems to me a valuable one for all organizing, and likewise for the mobilization and informing of greater society. Discussion in small open groups breeds affinity, creates organically chaotic, organismic networks that better mirror ecological systems--a model clearly proven to work.
I'm rambling and must finish today's reading...........
The Los Angeles Times article is a perfect example of the difficulties of modern protest actions.
The effective Haussmannization of the "modern" city has made the layout decentralized and stark. The UCSF Mission Bay campus conference center is located in a large and largely pedestrian-free campus, away from most residential halls and commercial areas. For this reason, when protesters gather, there are only several eyes to watch and relay this information to the public.
The LA Times article unabashedly gathers information only from police officers and administrators. The format is depressingly familiar:
a statement of actions in which rogue violent students (not any ordinary students and no graduates, faculty, or workers) attack police, who are forced to respond with force. The police chief states that the officers acted valiantly. A close with an administrator feigning support for peaceful protesters and a call to end the violence of the breakaway arm of the movement.
In this construction, the students are voiceless objects in an vaguely defined struggle against having to pay higher tuition. The seemingly singular movement is faced with internal strife and bad organizing.
Yet a movement is never unified; movements as reconfigurations of socio-spatial/economic networks are not unities. They are composed of a variety of groups that are themselves never unified and individuals who are themselves not unities. This chaotic beauty is betrayed by the idea of a unified movement, yet also by the appearance, in places and times, of vanguardist groups that seem to take power in secrecy and exclusion, only to claim to represent all students.
A potential answer, proposed on a student blog, is the building of spokescouncil affinity groups in which interested parties can find climates of action, discussion, and values that reflect their own, and engage in a smaller and therefore more democratic network. These groups will inherently morph, amalgamate, and dissolve freely. No one can be a vanguard.
This format seems to me a valuable one for all organizing, and likewise for the mobilization and informing of greater society. Discussion in small open groups breeds affinity, creates organically chaotic, organismic networks that better mirror ecological systems--a model clearly proven to work.
I'm rambling and must finish today's reading...........
Post a Comment