Occupy

It is the morning and he is to see Sarah in the afternoon for tea and coffee. She drinks the coffee and since he is kicking his caffeine habit, he sticks to chamomile tea.

“I’m torn about what’s going on with the protests.”

“Hm?”

“I agree, the minimum wage should be higher, but I can’t help but feel pessimism even if the bill goes through,” Howard says. 

“Why?”

“Because I don’t think low wages are an all-encompassing cause or fatalistic effect of poverty. I mean, in some sense, they are; people aren’t paid enough to survive and afford the necessities. But what makes people work so hard for so little? It’s got to have another explanation.”

“Like the relentless march of capitalism. The invisible masturbatory hand,” she gestures.

“Yeah, but I feel that’s also too simple. It’s not just labor-capital that concerns me. Nor is it simple supply or demand or pricing issues. It’s more about incentives.”

“You’re saying they’re misaligned with the will of the people.”

“Something like that.”

“What do you mean,” she asks.

“I mean, wasn’t there something interesting about the Occupy protests? All the 99% rhetoric? Nobody in the Occupy movement really spoke for the 1%. Why should they—the rich—care about reform? Is there a way for their incentives to be aligned with the rest of ours?”

“Some would say no. I mean, 40% of all wealth has flowed to the top in recent years. You can say all the incentives are misaligned but that doesn’t trump the cold, hard truth of a family who hasn’t seen their take-home pay increase in 10 years,” Sarah quips. 

“That’s true. I’m not discounting that. I’m saying that there was something odd about the rhetoric because it was so one-sided. It spoke to frustration and empathy with the 99%, but the terms of the debate seemed constrained,” Howard replies.

“In what way?”

“Sure, a minority has been privy to all sorts of economic privilege, but where this privilege come from seems to be a mystery. Maybe the system is oppressive to all, and not just the 99%. Maybe there’s a way to get everyone on the same page.”

“Sounds a bit idealistic.”

“And you’re saying Occupy wasn’t?”

“No, but you’re talking about more than simple protest,” she says. 

“Yeah. I mean, is it too much to say that the movement’s paradigm was too limited? The slogan framed the debate: us vs. them. But maybe it’s us—all of us who suffer, who are implicated.”

            “…” She gives Howard a look.

            “The thing is the pie is not fixed. And I mean not just the economic pie, but also the discursive pie. There are ways for discourse to penetrate the 1%, to convince them that it is actually in their interests to favor reform. Enlightened self-interest. Civil society and the freedoms implicated.”

            “What do you mean by freedom?”

            “I mean, are you really free if 99% of the population is suffering while you are enjoying unprecedented levels of prosperity? There must be other reasons to help your neighbor than just a plain idea of Christian charity. We help because it is good for us—helping makes us less lonely and self-centered people. It promises true freedom,” Howard says. 

            “I don’t know if Christianity is the best example. It seems like many Christians in America help because they are called by their faith to do so, not just out of enlightened self-interest.”

            “And I don’t see anything wrong with that. But it’s that the same message of tolerance can be used to justify anything, even the accumulation of wealth through capital. No one person—no one ideology has a monopoly on goodness. We can’t pretend that liberals or conservatives are evil, by nature.”

            “I don’t see how the two relate.”

            She’s probably a bit exasperated, Howard thinks.

            “I think it’s easy to fall into a bubble where your life starts to make sense, and you start to claim your side cares and the other doesn’t. Faith in organized religion, it seems to me, is a communal way of doing this. I mean, how many Christians have even visited a synagogue or a mosque in the United States? I’m going to guess the number is very low.”

            “So?”

            “Okay. Let me just use an example. There’s a famous quote by Kierkegaard that goes something like, ‘the point of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.’”

            “Sounds very existential. Is he saying that we can’t hope to change the will of God in the world?”

            “Maybe. But I find spirituality where people might find existentialism. That’s my point. The protests did not go deep enough—because the problems inherent in our society are also spiritual problems.”

            “Interesting,” she remarks.

            “And once we recognize this—that self-centeredness and greed actually has causes and therefore solutions…”

            “We can solve income inequality?” She produces a skeptical look on her face.

            “Maybe, maybe not. I’m just saying that change must be multifaceted, because people are more complex than simple economic issues.”

            “I agree.”