occupy paper

7/25/2019 Occupy Paper

1/43

Occupy as Method: The Queer (political and

epistemological) Potential of Occupy Wall Street

Laura SjobergChristian ChessmanUniversity of Florida

Draft for Presentation at the 2!" #nnual Meeting of the

#merican Political Science #ssociation$ %hicago$ &' Please do

not cite ithout permission * comments are elcome to

s+o,erg-u.edu

Disclaimer ,y Way of &ntroductionTo call the Occupy movement ueer is both itself a politically

controversial statement and the basis for the argument in this paper! "t

is #ell$%no#n that ueer issues #ere not singled out in the Occupy

movement& #here no 'ride (ags or pin% triangles could be seen

)*olcher +,--.! /hile some in the ueer community suggested that

this #as a positive sign of a broad and inclusive movement )e!g!

0immerman +,--.& others reacted negatively& suggesting that O/S

spaces prioriti1ed the #ants& needs& values& and culture of

heterose2ual #hite men 3rst and characteri1ed it as another e2ample

of a straight$#hite$man approach to movement$building
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/43

)4isOccupy!com +,-+.! /hile some )e!g!& 5ichael /arner6s 7+,-+8

discussion of the death of ueer theory. have recogni1ed resonance

bet#een Occupy /all Street and ueer theory& many more people have

characteri1ed the occupy movement as forgetting 9 and sometimes

resisting 9 to include people #ho are the most oppressed in the

process )5erone% +,--.! :udith Levine framed the Occupy movement

as do#nright unfriendly to #omen and ueers;*ut it turns out life #asn6t so blissful for some residents of

the concrete 'eaceable ssembly! The lengthy and e2haustively debated

4eclaration of the Occupation of ?e# @or% city managed to

include only one grievance dealing #ith se2 and gender;

They have perpetuated ineuality in the #or%place based

on age& the color of one6s s%in& se2& gender identity& and

se2ual orientation! Childcare #as infreuent& or so casual

as to be ha1ardous! /omen and ueers #ere being

harassed and assaulted under the blue$tarp cover of night!

Aven Occupy6s main form of political action 9 nonviolent

civil disobedience& #hich means& basically& submitting to

police brutality and spending countless hours in jail 9

favors young #hite men; They are sturdy& childless& and

unli%ely to receive the harsh treatment their counterparts

of color #ould receive! )Levine +,-+.

-


3/43

/e #ere neither at Occupy /all Street nor directly aBliated #ith the

Occupy movement 9 #e read& and #rite& it as outside observers 9

consumers of its politics& its signi3cations& and its implications! /e do

not ma%e an attempt to e2plore& understand& disaggregate& or

streamline the many reasons many people participatedparticipate in

the Occupy movement& or the many diDerent #ays in #hich many

diDerent Occupiers intervene in and engage #ith contemporary

political orders! This decision is partly strategic )the properties of the

Occupy movement that #e are interested in do not rely on a neat or

coherent narrative of O/S. and partly substantive )as Sidney Tarro#

)+,--. e2plains& as%ing its activists #hat they #ant& as some pundits

have demanded& is beside the point.!-Second& #e do not speculate to

the Esuccess6 or Efailure6 of the EOccupy6 movement either as a social

movement generally or in service of particular goals!+Further& #e #ant

to ma%e it clear that #e are not ma%ing the argument that O/S #as

good for queer people or for queer rights& or even that it #as not

complicit in ma%ing heterose2ism and cisse2ism normali1ed even in

the radical community! /hile #e have heard positive and negative

accounts of #hat happened to ueer people in O/S& as #ell as positive

and negative accounts of the O/S record on ueer issues& #e are not

loo%ing to sort those uestions out! "nstead& #e see #hat 5ichael

/arner )+,-+. sa#& resonance! /arner describes;>lmost +, years later& the resonance #ith the Occupy /all

Street movement is unmista%able! Li%e Occupy /all Street&

+


4/43

ueer theory #or%ed by magneti1ing attention& at the right

moment& to problems that e2isted before it& and #hich it

could not 32! Li%e O/S& it maintained a s%eptical distance

from legitimate political processes in order to cast light on

their distortions! Li%e O/S& its moment in the spotlight #as

only a strobeli%e illumination of a lingering state of aDairs

)/arner +,-+.!/e see these resonances& and #ant to e2plore them! Therefore& rather

than e2amining occupy as queer politics& #e are loo%ing at occupying

space as queering& and therefore to the ueer )epistemological and

political. potential of the practice of occupation as revealed by the

O/S movement! "t is in that vein that #e classify O/S as a ueer)ing.

movement!/eading Occupy:udith *utler& in Precarious Life& made the argument that& in neoliberal

capitalist imperium&G

dissent is uelled& in part& through threatening

the spea%ing subject #ith uninhabitable identi3cation& )+,,H& p!2i2.

given that a dissenter must choose silence over being labeled

treasonous or communist or some other label that has an unbrea%able

identi3cation #ith evil in contemporary /estern political performance!

This catch$++& *utler argues& limits not only #hat #e can hear& #hat #e

can see& and #hat #e can mourn& but also ho# #e live& #hich she

frames )in Levinas6 )+,,I 7-JK+8. terms. as the surplus of every

sociality over every solitude! *utler )+,,H. argues that it is the over$

infusement and policing of meaning& #hich serves not only the

G


5/43

performative function of constituting human e2perience as such but

also the regulatory function of rendering uninhabitable political space

)deemed. unacceptable! The uninhabitability that *utler sees as

inscribing constant precarity onto body and lived e2perience initially

seems an unsolvable pu11le 9 given the common assumption that the

uninhabitable cannot be inhabited! Until it #as!e$imaginging Mannah >rendt6s )-JJN7-JIN8. concept of a

space of appearance& *utler )+,--a. reacted to Occupy /all Street

)O/S. as the )literal. inhabitation of the uninhabitable& characteri1ing

it as a performative social ontology of euality separable from other

revolutionary attempts by its very ability to embody the by$de3nition$

disembodied uninhabitable space of protest! "n a speech in enice&

*utler )+,--a. tal%ed about O/S as a )gendered. embodied social

ontology that at once presumes precarity and interrupts its numbing

hold! "n this sense& as ?i%%i Sullivan )+,,G& v. describes ueer theory&

O/S refuses to be disciplined and continues to struggle against the

straightjac%eting eDects of institutionali1ation& to resist closure and

remain in the process of ambiguous )un.becoming as protest!

"magining an e2tension of *utler6s initial& hopeful reaction to O/S& our

current project accounts for the biopolitical uncontrollability of the

movement as a transgression diDerent in %ind and scope from

traditional protest movements in a #ay that sho#s )epistemological

and political. promise for ueer theori1ing! Thin%ing of ueerness as a

verb )a set of actions. )to ueer.& it is to ui1 or ridicule& to spoil&

P


6/43

to put out of order& a deconstructive practice that is not underta%en

by an already constituted subject& and does not& in turn& furnish the

subject #ith a nameable identity )Sullivan +,,G& I,$I+.!

elying collected on discourse and dispositive data from Occupy

5ovements in across the globe& #e frame the occupy movement as

constituted by embodied inde3niteness& interrupting the assured

embodiment on #hich neoliberal imperium stabili1es its domination!

This performative counter$culture then not only clashes #ith the

substance of neoliberal imperium but also brings into uestion its

structure and modes of sustainability& presenting a biopolitical

challenge to its continued e2istence!This framing of the Occupy movement& #e argue& not only tells

us something about the politics and process of the movement& but

suggests that the contribution of O/S both to critical theori1ing of

politics and to revolutionary political action is at least largely

methodological 9 in the movement6s )intentional or unintentional.

transformation of embodied present from a tool of biopo#er control of

the sovereign to a tool of rejection of sovereignty& and #ith it& the

appropriation of an embodied space of appearance for radical&

empathetic& transformative politics previously structurally e2cluded by

the rules of habitation in Ampire! This paper engages occupation as a

method of %no#ledge production and e2change& and e2plores

uestions of creation& stability& Etransfer&6 and signi3cation of

%no#ledge)s. through those lenses! "t begins by using Eoccupation6 as

I


7/43

a lens to understand )disciplinary and political. %no#ledge production

strategy and %no#ledge consumption possibility& and continues by

e2ploring the implications for the %no#erlearner distinction in 7ueer8

" theorypractice! "n so doing& it ma%es the argument that the logic of

occupation can ma%e a signi3cant contribution to ueer theory6s

eDorts to Ema%e strange& to frustrate& to counteract& to delegitimi1e& to

camp up 9 heteronormative %no#ledges and institutions& and the

subjectivities and socialities that are )in.formed by them and )in.form

them )Sullivan +,,G& vi.! "t concludes #ith some of the implications of

thin%ing about occupation as ueer and ueerness as occupying!Occupy as (Queer) 0m,odied &nde1nitenessThe Occupy movementconversationmethod%no#ledge is to be

framed #ithin its situation in #hat LM5 Ling and >nna >gathangelou

)+,,J. refer to as the neoliberal imperium;>n overarching hegemonic project it encompasses

states& governments& classes& and sets of ideologies that

#or% in tandem to validate each other speci3cally& the

neoliberal imperium re(ects and sustains a set of social

relations of power e2pressed through daily interactions and

the institutions that support them )e!g!& global capitalism&

the neoliberal state and its mar%et& the patriarchal family&

complicit %no#ledge construction in the academy& an

ontology of fear and property! )>gathangelou and Ling

+,,J& +.

H


8/43

"n >gathangelou and Ling6s e2planation& the neoliberal imperium

dra#s on and legitimi1es neocolonial strategies of po#er based on

race& gender& se2uality& and class to privilege the fe# at the e2pense of

the many& despite the continuous e2ploitation of the latter to sustain

the former )+,,J& +.! "n this understanding& the stability of the current

social order not only relies on but consistently reproduces ineualities

among people& states& and nations! These ineualities dra# lines

among livable and unlivable e2istences!"n this #orld& the system of needs is the product of the system of

production in a cycle of symbolic e2change )*audrillard -JK,.! eality

is a product& a simulacrum 9 to be produced for and consumed by the

people in self$ful3lling cycle& a dialectical vision of history and

consciousness cycling and recycling at all levels #here it is at once

approaching perfect operationality and approaching its o#n death

)*audrillard -JKH.! "n other #ords& the system of deprivation and

e2clusion on #hich the neoliberal imperium functions #or%s so tightly

as to ma%e its political impacts seem natural and its evils invisible!This system of deprivation and e2clusion ma%es certain lives unlivable

and certain spaces uninhabitable! "f a particular e2istence is de3ned as

impossibly other by the prevailing discourses and practices of

everyday life& then the people #ho live those e2istences are in essence

impossible! This impossibility means that the space other to the

neoliberal imperium )not objecting to it but outside of it. is discursively&

performatively& and physically uninhabitable! The perfect

K


9/43

operationality of the neoliberal imperium constitutes performative

erasure of any space potentially outside of it for not only spea%ing& but

for livinge2istingactingfeeling! "n :udith *utler6s )+,--a& -+.

e2planation& the structural control of the neoliberal imperium on daily

life is strong& and& as a result& #e are faced #ith the idea that some

populations are considered disposable! *utler e2plains;

This process 9 usually induced and reproduced by

governmental and economic institutions that acclimati1e

populations over time to insecurity and hopelessness )see

"sa$bell Lorey. 9 is built into the institutions of temporary

labor& of decimated social services& and of the general

attrition of social democracy in favor of entrepreneurial

modalities supported by 3erce ideologies of individual

responsibility and the obligation to ma2ima1e one6s o#n

mar%et value as the ultimate aim in life! )*utler +,--a&

-G.!This process& called precariti1ation& *utler argues& renders certain

space )particularly that in opposition to the perfect operationality of

the neoliberal imperium. uninhabitable multidimensionally 9 in terms of

identities& actions& lives& and physical space! "t ma%es certain living

spaces uninhabitable 9 both literally and 3guratively! This

precariti1ation separates people from livable life& #here restoration and

rehabilitation are only possible by brea%ing #ith the neoliberal status

uo )*utler +,--a& p!-G.!

N


10/43

*ut such a brea% #ith the neoliberal status uo initially appears

impossible! This is because& in Mannah >rendt6s )-JJN7-JIN8. terms& a

space of appearance is at once necessary for the sort of democratic

political function that #ould be necessary to perform such a brea% #ith

the status uo and impossible #ithin the perfection of the neoliberal

imperium! >rendt suggests that a polis is only a polis #hen there is

space #here " appear to others as others appear to me )>rendt

-JJN7-JIN8, -JN.! Such a space is not just the location of the polis& but

instead a 7physical space that8 comes into being #herever men are

together in the manner of speech and action )>rendt -JJN7-JIN8&

-JJ.! "n this #ay& to have action 9 to have life 9 to have politics& the

only indispensible material factor in the generation of po#er is the

living together of people )>rendt -JJN7-JIN8, +,-.! The inhabitability

of uninhabitable space& then& is necessary for the creation of political

alternatives!*ut the neoliberal imperium prevents the very creation of this

alternative space! "nstead& it constitutes the operative abstraction of

living together 9 the 3ctionali1ation and alienation of the operative

from the real 9 systematically in such a #ay that the abstraction of the

practice of neoliberal capitalism becomes real )*audrillard -JKH.! "n

this #ay& it serves as a trap that cannot be escaped because there is

no #ay to escape it 9 to have a real politics& there must be spaceQ to

have space& there must be a possibility of a real politicsQ yet neither

e2ist #ithin the neoliberal imperium& to #hich one cannot be other!

J


11/43

/hile voices of dissent sporadically arise& they are uic%ly interpolated

because the neoliberal imperium pre3gures both itself and its

)internali1ed. other such that there is no genuine outside to use as a

deconstructive space!One of the major projects of ueer theori1ing has been to 3nd that

elusive and impossible outside! :udith *utler has described the term

ueer as a site of collective contestation that is never fully o#ned&

but al#ays only redeployed& t#isted& and ueered )*utler +,-G.! The

impossibility of ueer deconstruction becomes a pu11le even in that

description 9 it is at once inside and outside& but the t#o are

irreconcilable!Anter Occupy /all Street )O/S.! /e mean enter both in the

sense of intellectual intervention and in the sense of spatial

intervention in the perfect abstraction of the neoliberal imperium! "n

this analysis& #e are interested in the intersection bet#een Occupy as

a movementstatuse2istence and the problem of uninhabitable space

in the neoliberal imperium! "n order to understand this& some brief

e2ploration of the relationship bet#een O/S and political space is

necessary!O/S as a movement started )or at least got noticed. in the

physical occupation of 0uccotti 'ar% in Lo#er 5anhattan& and uic%ly

spread to the physical occupation of a number of par%s and other to#n

and city public spaces around the United States )and even around the

#orld.! =reg Almer and >ndy Opel )+,--& N. suggests that O/S6

-,


12/43

occupation of public space changes the spaces in #hich protest is

allo#ed! 'reviously;The spatial segregation of spea%ers according to the

content of their messages all too easily bifurcates voices

and perspectives into t#o sides& mirroring the dominant

redblue political culture of the US! !'rotests and

demonstrations become staged events& bland and neutered

substitutions of the passionate by literally separating the

demonstrators from the last object of their demonstration&

the protest 1one becomes a #ay of controlling the content

of the debate #ithout really ac%no#ledging #hat is done!

)Almer and Opel +,--& N.!The allocation of protest space in the United States layers on the

neoliberal imperium to ma%e the space of otherness to it uninhabitable

both as an alternative and as physical space!

O/S discursively interrupts the narrative of the unadulterated

good of the neoliberal imperium by critiuing the lifestyle and

dominance of the -R )van =elder +,--.! /hile that interruption is

important& #e argue that the O/S movement ma%es another& more

important& more fundamental& and more lasting intervention in the

status uo political dialogue! This second interruption 9 the one that is

the focus of this paper 9 is the ma%ing of uninhabitable space

inhabitable! *logger =eoDrey Molscla# describes this in terms of

0i1e%6s subjective destitution;

--


13/43

O/S seems to 3t perfectly #ith 0i1e%6s understanding of the

subjective destitution& the act of separating one6s self from

symbolic support& the act of cutting ties to socially de3ned

roles and e2pectations& the act of dying to the symbolic

order& and therefore& in a sense& of dying oneself )Molscla#

+,--."t is this act of separating oneself from symbolic support that :udith

*utler suggests is %ey to the Occupy 5ovement creating )in >rendt6s

terms. a space of appearance #here previously such a space #as not

possible! She e2plains that acting together opens up time and space

outside and against the temporality and established architecture of the

regime )*utler +,--b& G.! >ccording to *utler& for politics to ta%e

place the body must appear #hich necessitates& #ithin the neoliberal

imperium& that there has to be a hegemonic struggle over #hat #e

call the space of appearance )*utler +,--b& G.! Such a hegemonic

struggle could help to move from piecemeal forms of transgressive

resistance against the e2isting order to#ard creating the possibility of

another order altogether ensuring lasting change )Molscla# +,--.!Mo# such an intervention must be had& though& and ho# such a

hegemonic struggle must be #on& is often left oD the theoretical map

in evaluating the Occupy movement! *utler& ho#ever& does some

thin%ing about these uestions& suggesting that it matters to

understanding #hat it means to Occupy that there is inhabitation of

physical space )be it 0uccotti 'ar% or academic buildings in London&

-+


14/43

>thens& or *er%eley. involved in occupying& #here the symbolic

meaning of sei1ing these buildings is that these buildings belong to the

public )*utler +,--b.! Sei1ing public buildings as occupation is& in

*utler6s vie#& a path to a diDerent social ontology based on the

presumption that there is a shared condition of precarity that situates

our political lives starts at occupation )*utler +,--b& P.! The result is

the ability to ma%e #hat *utler characteri1es as impossible demands;"f hope is an impossible demand& then #e demand the

impossible! "f the right to shelter& food& and employment

are impossible demands& then #e demand the impossible!

"f it is impossible to demand that those #ho pro3t from the

recession redistribute their #ealth and cease their greed&

then& yes& #e demand the impossible )*utler +,--c.!The feasibility of achieving the content of these impossible

demands is beyond the scope of this analysis 9 #e are interested in the

very fact of their impossibility! The occupation performed by O/S

creates space for the ma%ing of impossible demands transgressive to

the politics of the ordinariness of the neoliberal imperium! "n our vie#&

the true accomplishment of O/S is not to provide hope& shelter& food&

employment& and #ealth redistribution& but to provide the possibility of

demanding those things in the face of the operative abstraction of the

neoliberal imperium 9 the >merican 4ream& hard #or%& and >merican

e2ceptionalism!

This operative abstraction hides its constitutive other 9 the reality

-G


15/43

of its impacts on people! The e2istence and honorary position of Ethe

>merican 4ream6 relies on the e2istence and marginali1ation of a

constitutive other #ho does not belong! For each person Esafe6 at

Ehome6 in the neoliberal imperium& then& there are )insider&

constitutive. others from #hom they must be protected& whether or

not an actual threat is posed! >s such& ueer theori1ing has suggested

that inclusiveness itself has been #eaponi1ed to diDerentiate Ehome6

from Eother6 or Ea#ay6 and e2cuse )discursive and material. violence

to#ard that other!"n this #ay& 'uar )+,,H. argues that the inclusive e2pansion of the

neoliberal imperium to involve the ueer other$#ithin remains

e2clusive and violent to#ards its constitutive other)s. even as it

appears gentler! That violence is )at least in part. the violent

reproduction of naturali1ed& bounded identities #hen identities are

liminal and messy #hen not policed! The bounded nature of both

inclusion and e2clusion 9 of inhabitable space 9 e2cludes liminality&

messiness& and outside$ness! The violent reproduction of bounded

identities sho#s stability& hiding liminalityQ sho#s certainty& hiding

doubt& and sho#s stic%iness& hiding mobility! ueer theori1ing of the

liminality involved in unstable se2gender identities sho#s that even

that #hich is presumed to be the most primordial )in se2 identity. is

really liminality hiding under supposed de3nition! Translated to thin%ing

about inhabitability& this theori1ing suggests that even the apparent

ultimate safety of inhabitable space hides liminality and uncertainty&

-P


16/43

and perhaps danger under its supposed )empirical and normative.

clarity!Such dangers have been previously recogni1ed in ueer

theori1ing! ueer theori1ing has uestioned either the sovereignty of

the state or the naturalness of the concept of sovereignty! "n Cynthia

/eber6s #ords& sovereignty performs as a referent for statehood

#here the norm of state sovereignty heralds and reinforces )a false

sense of. stable identity and e2istence for states )/eber -JJI& -.! "t is

in this sense that /eber )-JJI& -+G. suggests that the state is a sign

#ithout a referent& given that the Esovereignty6 that serves as the

basis for the state6s stability is self$referential& and therefore cannot be

the referent of the state )/eber -JJI& -+G.! "n this #ay& in

*audrillard6s terms& truth appears as a simulacrum )a truth eDect. but

not as a referent or signi3ed )/eber -JJI& -+I.! The truth eDect of

the concept of sovereignty is to produce the appearance of the stability

of stateidentity in " #ithout any underlying basis for it! "n other #ords

theorists Esolve6 )ho#ever temporarily. the problem of state

sovereignty by proceeding as if the meaning of sovereignty #ere stable

because a solution to this problem seems to be a prereuisite for

getting on #ith the business of international relations& #hich leads to

the treating of sovereignty as an already$settled& uncontested

concept )/eber -JJI& +$G.! This Esettles6 a sovereignty order despite

the possibility)probability. of global politics6 lac% of capacity to be

settled in such an orderly #ay! This is at least in part because states

-I


17/43


18/43

*ut this 3gurative reterritoriali1ation& *utler argues& can never be

complete& given that the space that it occupies remains constitutive

other to the inhabitable space of the neoliberal imperium! This is #here

#e thin% that pairing the act of occupation in the Occupy movement

and ueer theori1ing about disturbance and reterritoriali1ation might

actually reach the uninhabitable space of other to& rather than

constitutive other to& the neoliberal imperium!This is because the act of occupation in the Occupy movement

provides a counterdiscourse not only because of its opposition to the

neoliberal imperium )#hich has been opposed before. but because of

the methods of its opposition! The neoliberal imperium has been

opposed before not only by protesters& but by many people across the

spectrum of E>merican6 e2periences! Some have critiued it #hile

others )starving& free1ing& and dying. have been living proof of its

failures! Still& opposition to the neoliberal imperium has largely been

coopted as its constitutive other )and therefore inside.& and its failures

have been made invisible by its perfect operationality! That

operationality had not previously been disturbed either by critiue of

or carnage resulting from current political practice!/e argue that this is one of the %ey diDerences bet#een O/S and

other political movements 9 that O/S disturbs the operationality of the

neoliberal imperium! "t disturbs both its narrative basis and its practice

by embodied occupation! That embodied occupation performs a

physical intervention )and therefore a symbolic intervention. in the

-K


19/43

star% line bet#een the inhabitable space #ithin )and as constitutive

other to. the neoliberal imperium and the uninhabitable space Eoutside6

of it! This is because O/S occupies three uninhabitable spaces

simultaneously; the space of protest& the space of outside of the

neoliberal imperium& and the space of the liminal and uncertain Eafter6

the dominance of the neoliberal imperium!O/S literally occupies the space of protest& by refusing de3ned and

licensed places to protest the e2isting political order 9 protesting the

)demanded. orderliness of protest that #ould %eep it #ithin the

neoliberal imperium! The physical presence of the Occupy movement

in a space #here it is#asphysically not allowed to be actually

occupiesthe space of objection to the ordering of bodies demanded

by the neoliberal imperium& disrupting the embodied order of

contemporary politics! The resultant disruption of the neoliberal

imperium is as important as the method by #hich that disruption

occurs! >s #e have outlined above& disruptions of the imperium that

lac% spaces of appearance are only able to resist from #ithin the

coordinates that the imperium has pre3gured& and therefore lac%

emancipatory potential! This potential is hamstrung in part #hen the

disruption of oppressive biopolitical formations are co$optedQ instead of

eliminating the old oppressive formation& it simply adapts to

accommodate the tactic and forms a ne#& similarly oppressive

formation! Occupying the space of protest& then& creates a space for

-N


20/43

emancipatory potential that #as previously unavailable under the

operative abstraction of the neoliberal imperium!

*oth by disturbing the order of )physical and political. protest

space and by doing so to reject the principles and results of the

neoliberal imperium& O/S also occupies the uninhabitable space of

Eother6 to the neoliberal imperium! ather than restricting itself to the

acceptable protest methods and spaces that #ould contain it as the

)internal. constitutive other to the neoliberal imperium& O/S positions

itself outside of the acceptability of both protest to and failure #ithin

the neoliberal imperium! "t does so by pointing out the #ays in #hich

the neoliberal imperium is not only unable to %eep its promises

)>gathangelou and Ling +,,J. but has& despite its operative

abstractions& failed to contain the bodies of its protestors and failures!

Thephysical presence of bodies in 0uccotti 'ar% )and else#here

around the country and the #orld. is an embodied and symbolic

counternarrative to the neoliberal imperium& only possible by the

inhabitation of uninhabitable space! >s 0i1e% said at 0uccotti 'ar%& #e

are not destroying anything& #e are only #itnessing ho# the system is

destroying itself )0i1e% +,--.!

"n this sense& the materiality of the form of #itness is %ey; the

#itness is an embodied& physical presence that manifests inside but

must be outside of the neoliberal imperium! "n this space of

appearance& this physical manifestation of bodies in the face of the

-J


21/43

neoliberal imperium6s closure of the space for such manifestation

creates an outside the neoliberal imperium in a #ay that disrupts the

dominance of the neoliberal narrative& and suggests the ability to

uestion the perfection of its operationality )and therefore its feasibility

at all.!

This leads to the third #ay that O/S inhabits uninhabitable space 9

by being in the space of the liminal and uncertain after the neoliberal

imperium! One of the central properties of the neoliberal imperium&

according to >gathangelou and Ling& is the certainty #ith #hich its

parts are de3ned and its results are ordered 9 stably as Auropean&

Christian& #hite& capitalist& heterose2ual& and patriarchal! O/S& as& in

Tarro#6s )+,--. terms& a diDerent type of movement& occupies the

neoliberal imperium #ith something that is ambiguous )and perhaps

even ueer. on issues of race& class& national origin& se2& se2uality& and

economics! ather than constructing a de3ned opposite or a clear

political space& the practice of O/S suggests that the alternative to the

ordered& inescapable& perfectly operational neoliberal imperium is the

liminal& the messy& and the unordered 9 outside on principal but

refusing to rebuild or reconstruct an )eually oppressive. alternative

order! "nstead& it blurs the categorical boundaries bet#een inside and

outside& capitalist and non$capitalist& and produces liminality as a

counterculture to the straightjac%et of liberal capitalism! This produces

and performs uncertainty both of the occupier and the occupied&

+,


22/43

and rejects the assumption that clarity can be )re.produced by labeling

a person as #ithin a previously de3ned set of characteristics! >s

Christine Sylvester once noted& liminality suggests borderlands that

defy 32ed homeplaces in feminist epistemology& places of mobility

around policed boundaries& places #here one6s bag disappears and

reappears before moving on )Sylvester +,,+& +II.! Occupy blurs the

lines bet#een Ehomed6 and Ehomeless6 both in practice )#here the

homed re$homed #ith the homeless for solidarity.& eDectively

uestioning and deconstructing the )apparently stable. neoliberal

imperium& provide a reminder that home might be as dangerous as

the liminal& and that there might )as bell hoo%s )-JJ,. suggests

about marginality. be empo#erment in embracing liminality!The stability of the neoliberal imperium is desirable& but ultimately

violent! "t is desirable because settled$ness is )in *audrillard6s terms.

seductive )regardless of& and perhaps especially in the absence of&

capacity to be settled.! "t is ultimately violent because those #ho are

Eunsettable6 but settled any#ay into a binary into #hich they do not 3t

are Esettled6 and limited into something they are not by force of

conformity& a violence that repeats itself constantly in the daily lived

e2perience of )inappropriate. settlement! "t is in the Eunsettling6 of that

violent settlement #here O/S 3nds its residence in the uninhabitable

space of the liminal Eafter6 the neoliberal imperium!"n this #ay& the strategy of occupation meets the logic of ueer

theori1ing6s desire to deterritoriali1e and reterritoriali1e! /e argue that

+-


23/43

this reali1ation has substantive impacts about for the politics and

theori1ing of sovereignty& practical impacts for methodology in the

study of sovereigntysecurity"& and prescriptive value for oppositional

politics!Occupy$ Territory$ and Soereignty

The impact of the inhabiting of these three uninhabitable spaces is

comple2 and multidimensional! /hile #e dra# from a number of the

implications& #e focus on one; the transformation of embodiment from

a tool bipo#er of control of the sovereign to a tool of rejection of

sovereignty! "n the bipo#er order of the neoliberal imperium&

individuals rely on the government for social goods #hich are used to

indoctrinate or interpellate them and produce them as proper subjects

of the sovereign! This biopo#er is aimed at disciplining populations into

self$policing& to follo# the #ill of the sovereign as a self$enforced edict!

The sovereigns e2ercise of po#er functions by naturali1ation through

institutions and environments that acclimati1e individuals to behaving

in a certain #ayQ speci3cally in a #ay #hich is subordinate to the #ill of

the sovereign!The self$policing function is#as %ey to the perfect operability of the

neoliberal imperium& given that bodies )across levels of precarity. #ere

ordered into particular and speci3ed places #ithin its modalities of

po#er! *iopo#er #asis a tool of the sovereign to maintain and enforce

sovereignty and therefore the e2isting political order! The physical act

of occupying& ho#ever& suggests a possibility of 3nding an outside to

the rule of biopo#er! ather than being )self.$policed& occupying bodies

++


24/43

are being un$police$able! Those #ho occupy are using bodies as a

tool of the rejection of the sovereign and the )unjust. political order it

impliessupportsrei3esma%es possible! >s outlined above& the

disruption of the neoliberal imperium happens #hen an individual uses

their body to performatively constitute other#ise unspea%able spaces

and manifest unspea%able identities! Uniue to this tactic is the

inability to accumulate po#er& because po#er derives from the

physical space ta%en by each individuals body and the concomitant

performance that body enacts! Aach bodys performative eDect is

eual& because the eDect derives not from some characteristic of the

body& but from its e2istence and occupation of space! /hether or not&

then& Occupy is a counterculture or protest movement on its o#n

merits& an Occupying body moves from a tool of the neoliberal

imperium6s biopo#er to a tool of transgression against it! This could be

useful literally )as a tool of e2panding critiue of the neoliberal

imperium. and as translated to other areas of protest& critiue& and

unsettling& as discussed belo#!Occupy as 3Queer4 Method for the Study of

Soereignty5Security5&/"n this section& #e are interested in the #ays in #hich the

Occupy movement has altered both the method of and the situation

of protest in order to provide insight into the methodology of

protestpolitical scholarship in "& particularly in ueer scholarship& but

also more broadly! /hat implication does the no#$inhabitability of

+G


25/43

uninhabitable space have for ho# #e do research critiuing e2clusion

/e believe that these uestions lin%ing the theory and performance of

O/S and " methods have been neglected in the 3eld& and are loo%ing

to pursue them!/hile a group called Occupy"Theory has e2plored some of

these uestions in blog posts& meetings& and #ritings in journals of the

3eld&Pmuch of that #or% has focused on directly relating to the

Occupy movement 9 in the terms spelled out on the blog 9 #hat #e

e2pect from the Occupy movement and #hat the Occupy

movement can e2pect from us as " theorists! Some e2ceptions&

though& e2ist& and are #orth mentioning beforeduring our discussion

of #hat #e derive from O/S as method for " theori1ing! The 3rst

thoughts are 'atric% Thaddeus :ac%son6s& in Three Thoughts about

/hat EVoccupyirtheory6 5ight 5ean! :ac%son )+,-+& -,K. suggests

that to occupy in the Vo#s sense means something li%e assembling

constitutively& and thus calling attention to the contingency of

#hatever is being occupied! :ac%son e2plains that the O/S

commitment to economic justice demands that " theory be

evaluated according to the eDect it has on people6s lives& and perhaps

especially according to the values it enshrines and advances ):ac%son

+,-+& -,N.! >ida Mo1ic )+,-+& -PJ. adds to this the suggestion that

the very attempt at doing apolitical " scholarship is rendered

ineDective by considering the concerns of the Occupy movement&

such that if there is a message in the Voccupy movement for " and

+P


26/43

"'A scholars in the United States& it is the #arning that the last t#o

decades of academic political abstinence are no longer sustainable!

There is no #ay around it! Citing >le2 *arder and 4aniel Levine6s

)+,-+. suggestion that " has been co$opted by liberal triumphalism

of the post$Cold /ar era and therefore failed to raise its voce loudly

and clearly& Mo1ic suggests that one of the ta%e$a#ays from the

Occupy movement is the need to revive a politics of critiue in "!/e ta%e these lessons as important for thepolitics of " theory 9

understanding contingency in global politics& judging theory based on

its impact on people& and restoring a critical politics to " theory! Our

interest is in building on those lessons to understand the potential

contributions of the political practices of O/S for the politics and

research methods of the 3eld of "! For those purposes& building on the

discussion of the relationship bet#een O/S and the neoliberal

imperium above& #e derive some characteristics of #hat it means to

occupy! Occupying is physically inhabiting that #hich is occupied& as

an embodied disruption of the social order #hich ma%es that

inhabitation impossible! Occupying is inhabiting uninhabitable space 9

space of protest& space of otherness& and space of liminality! Occupying

is turning a body from a tool for the policing of sovereignty and the

maintenance of the centrality of po#er to a tool for resistance of

sovereignty and the disruption of the category of po#er! Occupying is

residing in but remaining outside of the possible in political space&

+I


27/43

e2posing (a#s in the operability of an other#ise perfectly operable

imperium!So #hat #ould it loo% li%e to occupy the imperium of "

theori1ing "t is perhaps 3rst important to understand ho# and #hy

one #ould thin% of " theori1ing as an imperium to begin #ith! Though

there are many #ays to approach understanding " theori1ing as an

imperium& #e approach it through feminist lenses! /e argue that

)>merican& mainstream. " can be understood as an imperium that by

its constitution e2cludes feminist #or%!

This " is a #orld that polices its boundaries& #hatever they are!

Aach debate e2cludes its other as much as it constructs a con(ict

bet#een its in$cro#d! *ut since by de3nition everyone is in the

debate& even its detractors are constitutive others! There is no

outside the debates inside " 9 that is "6s uninhabitable space!

This tension is present& for e2ample& in feminist debates about

engaging #ith " )Tic%ner -JJK.! Feminist " discusses the a#%#ard

silences and miscommunications in relating #ith "& yet cannot ever

be completely outside of the a#%#ard other it relates to )in. )Tic%ner

-JJK& H-+.! The function of the part$inclusion )e!g!&


28/43

inability to escape the discipline or these dysfunctional relationships

entirely )e!g!& 0ale#s%i6s 7+,,K8 lament.! This trap of being never$

inside and never$outside is mismatched #ith feminist scholars6 claim

that the nature of their #or% #as discipline$transformative )e!g!&

Tic%ner -JJN& +,JQ 0ale#s%i +,,G& +J-.! >s a result& there6s an

underlying tension in feminist " #or%& #here it cannot e2ist in the

space allocated to it& but it cannot escape that space either 9 its

protest is corralled into inhabitable space #hen it be functional if and

only if it 3nds a #ay to inhabit uninhabitable space! "n other #ords )li%e

much critical theori1ing #ith a political protest against the Ebusiness as

usual6 ontologically& epistemologically& andor methodologically.& the

parado2 of feminist theory as critical theory is that the imperium of the

discipline traps& orders& and tames its critiue!Some feminist theorists )e!g!& 0ale#s%i +,,G. have suggested

that the ans#er to this parado2 is in seeing feminist theori1ing as

fundamentally undecidable 9 an approach embraced by ueer theorists

in a number of diDerent conte2ts! >t the same time& as 0ale#s%i

suggests and ueer theorists con3rm 9 it is that interruption&

instability& and undecidability that renders the uninhabitable space

that those approaches could inhabit so dangerous& and incentivi1es

"6s taming behavior! Seeing " as this sort of imperium vis a vis critical

theori1ing brings up the uestion of #hat it #ould loo% li%e to occupy

"! /hat #ould it loo% li%e to physically inhabit the discipline of " To

be an embodied disruption of the social order #hich ma%es inhabitation

+K


29/43

impossible To occupy a space of protest > space of otherness >

space of liminality /hat #ould it loo% to reside in but remain outside

of the possible political space of " To use embodied po#er to resist

the orthoro2y and operationality of "Certainly& the uestion of the relationship bet#een critical " and

mainstream " has been e2plored in the discipline in a number of #ays

)e!g!& Sjoberg +,,J.! *ut the uestion of the materiality of occupation&

#e argue& might be a good #ay to thin% about critical interventions in

"! Several #ays of thin%ing about this might bear fruit! The 3rst is the

physical inhabitation of the discipline of "! This is more complicated

than it 3rst appears& given that the discipline of " is a political

economy& #here if one is able to be sustainably present& it is because

one is in some sense included by#ith the discipline as a paid member

of a faculty& allo#ing one the time and resources to both eat and #rite!

>t the same time& the intersection of that political economy of being a

faculty member and the political economy of %no#ledge production is

not 1ero$sum& #here to%enist inclusion in the political economy of

being a faculty member can actually signify the creation of a

constitutive other in the political economy of %no#ledge production!"t is #hen it reaches this point that #e argue that critical " might

usefully bene3t from thin%ing about and acting on occupying the

discipline of "& and #ield ueer theori1ing as a tool to analy1e the

productivity of such a move! So far& such a strategy has not )e2plicitly

or implicitly. been a part of ho# critical theorists have dealt #ith "&

+N


30/43

outside of a fe# individual acts of civil disobedience! /hile some loo%

to stand outside of " )*ro#n -JNN. or actively reconstruct " #ithout

reference to the mainstream of the discipline )Suires and /eldes

+,,K.& still others engage the discipline )Tic%ner -JJ+.! These

strategies& though& might be enhanced by applying some of the uniue

methods of occupation #hen #e thin% about ho# to interact #ith the

discipline! For critical "& physically inhabiting the discipline of " might

be accomplished by going to the spaces that " feels safe in its

e2clusion of its critiues 9 conference spaces& panel spaces& journal

spaces& boo% spaces& university spaces 9 and occupying them 9

reading& #riting& tal%ing& interrupting! "t might be accomplished by

establishing a physical presence places #here critical are usually not

#elcome 9 in3ltrating social space to in3ltrate intellectual space&

coming uninvited& as%ing feminist uestions of non$feminist #or%& and

the li%e! "n "& such occupation seems to accord #ith ueer theorists6

desire to to ui1 or ridicule& to spoil& to put out of order& performing a

deconstructive practice that is not underta%en by an already

constituted subject& and does not& in turn& furnish the subject #ith a

nameable identity )Sullivan +,,G& I,$I+.!"n this #ay& an embodied disruption of the social order may be

that sort of physical presence in un#elcome spaces or disruption of

e2isting physical space 9 #hether by spea%ing& attire& physical location&

or engagement in#ithat the international relations imperium! "t might

be something as simple as #earing Emarriage euality6 or Ethis is #hat

+J


31/43

a feminist loo%s li%e6 tshirts in the place of business suits at

conferences& or something as complicated as a large$scale 7insert$

critical$group$here8 presence intervening in a conference panel that

ignores or suppresses critiue! Ambodied disruptions can be in physical

presence itself or in the #ays in #hich physical presences react to&

narrative& involve& or implicate a particular critiue of the #ay that "

#or%s!Occupying a space of protest& in Occupy movement terms& is to

refuse to %eep protest con3ned to the allo#ed spaces )in feminisms6

case& for e2ample& feminist journals& feminist theory and gender

studies panels& allocated chapter space in te2tboo%s and syllabi. and

instead to engage in interventionary protests in uninhabitable spaces!

Spaces of protest can be as straightfor#ard as alternative te2tboo%s

)e!g!& Shepherd +,,J. and as side#ays as presenting a paper diDerent

than that announced in an impermissible space for critical research!

Occupying a space of otherness reuires transcending the con3ned

space of "6s constitutive other )inclusiveness that allo#s and produces

e2clusiveness.& to act simultaneouslyphysically present in but

conceptually outside of& against& and contrary to the orthodo2y and

perfect operationality of "!

Occupying a space of liminality for 7ueer8 critical " might mean

embracing both intellectual instability )there is not one critical position

but many. and disciplinary instability )critical " is not homed in ".! "n

this conte2t& liminality means embracing uncertainty and change& in

G,


32/43

the #orld& in the discipline& and in the research of the discipline! "t is

not marginality or mainstream& engagement or ignoring& occupying or

complicity 9 it is both sides of each of those dichotomies at once! The

occupation of liminal space is embracing the by nature unstable

identity and practice of 7al#ays already ueer8 critical "!/ould an occupied " loo% any diDerent than a non$occupied "

'erhaps& perhaps not! /ould the intellectual relationship bet#een

critical " and mainstream " loo% diDerent for the occupation >lmost

certainly! /ould such an occupation be a substantive ueering of the

discipline /e argue yes! For our purposes no#& it is the intellectual

relationship that #e are interested in 9 the idea that a 7ueer8 critical

occupation of " ma%es "6s uninhabitable space inhabitable 9

fundamentally changing the bordersboundaries of the discipline and

their functioning& in #ays similar to the )intellectual. impacts of ma%ing

the uninhabitable space of the other to the neoliberal imperium

inhabitable fundamentally rippled the tenability of the neoliberal

imperium! This is all the more true given the Occupy understanding

of %no#ledge)its political relations and interactions. as inherently non$

hierarchical& coincident #ith the critical " interest in critically

reevaluatingdeconstructing hierarchies in " %no#ledges!

Occupying /esearch

>ll of that said& limiting the methodology of occupation to

understanding disciplinary politics seems both unnecessarily limiting&

especially given that it #ould follo# the political implications that the

G-


33/43

idea of Occupying " has research process implications as #ell! This

section& then& addresses #hat it #ould mean to use Occupy as a

research method for "& particularly in correspondence #ith the

critiues and perscriptions associated #ith ueer theory!

There has been a signi3cant amount of #or% )especially recently.

on critical " methods 9 the breadth and depth of that research could

be a paper itself! For no#& #e are going to use >nn Tic%ner6s

description; a deep concern #ith #hich research uestions get as%ed

and #hyQ a preoccupation #ith uestions of re(e2ivity and the

subjectivity of the researcherQ and the commitment to %no#ledge as

emancipation )+,,I& P.! This sort of scholarship is at once research

and politicsQ considering up front #hat it means to know and ho# #e

construct %no#ledge! This vie# clashes heavily #ith the positivist bent

of Ebusiness as usual6 political science& suggesting that the positivist

notion of objectivity is no more than the subjective %no#ledge of

privileged voices disguised as neutral )Marding -JJNQ


34/43

everyone so long as they do so objectively! >s such& critical "

research goals and the Occupy methodology might have common

interests and goals in terms of the politics of %no#ledge production and

%no#ledge consumption! /e particularly 3nd t#o #ays #here #e thin%

the )ueer vie# of. the method of Occupation might dovetail #ith the

#or% of critical "& #hich #e brie(y s%etch here!

The 3rst idea is that researchers occupy the uninhabitable space of

liminality& particularly& the liminality of our research subjects!

ecently& scholars have been thin%ing about #hat it means for the

researcher6s body to be at ris% and e2perience trauma in the research

process& particularly in 3eld research!I/e argue that this could be

pushed further& to#ards thin%ing of occupation ofe2perience of

liminaluninhabitable space inhabited by "6s traditional research

subjects as itself a research method& #here sense and emotion are

the product and producer of research e2periences! Living the liminality

that #e often ignore even #hen #e #rite about the situation is a

research experience 9 a #ay to reside in but outside of the dominant

narrative of historypolitics& a #ay to transgress the boundaries

bet#een research subjectobject and researcher& and a #ay to

understand the fundamental interdependence of the occupier and the

occupied in research terms! The combined uncertainty of the observer

)#hat is that. and uncertainty in the consumption of the observed

)ho# is that e2perienced. of living liminality potentially provides the

GG


35/43

ability to inhabit the uninhabitable space of researcher$positioned$as$

researched& brea%ing do#n the researchersubject divide and providing

space for the use of embodied occupation to brea% do#n "6s

)disciplinary and research. sovereignties! This could be leveraged in

support of feminisms6 interests in critical political %no#ledge

production& anti$hierarchical transgression& and the creation of space

for both research and political practice outside of the "neoliberal

imperium)s.!

The second contribution #e argue that Occupy as method could

ma%e to critical " research is in understanding research more

generally as being stable in its liminality rather than anchored by a

static certainty about ontology& epistemology& method& or 3eld politics!

One #ay to thin% about this might be thin%ing about " as art& as

Christine Sylvester suggests;

Surrounded by enchanted positivism& #hich promises

progress in %no#ledge 9 yes& this is the #ayW 9 only a

long learning curve has brought us to the point of X$

raying and carbon$dating the facts presented as

timeless tendencies& as Eobjective6 "! "f #e do not

journey along the learning curve& #e end up trying to

dra# #ithout loo%ing& observing& and rec%oning #ith

life! )Sylvester +,,+& +KG.

GP


36/43

Sylvester is arguing that seeing the #orld in a #ay that is linear&

rational& and e2clusively scienti3c neglects a number of concerns #hich

are normatively important& #hich 3nd their substance in the political&

the personal& and the critical! >t the same time& anchoring research in

liminality contradicts the discipline6s anchoring in a positivist social

science based on appro2imating certainty! >s researchers& liminality$

as$research$goal is another uninhabitable space in " 9 one #hich

might be physically inhabited as an embodied disruption of positivist

social science 9 one #hich might be a space of otherness and a space

of protest all at once 9 both providing ne# intellectual turf for " and

disrupting its operationaliity!

Occupying /esearch to Occupy5Queer &//e are interested in a number of #ays that both research practice and

the political landscape of the 3eld might change as a result of the

introduction of the methodological principles for performing research

and navigating the 3eld that #e glean from the ideas and practices of

the EOccupy6 movement! "n our vie#& one of the most useful uestions

such an interpretation can as% is ho# the space of the need to

Edothin% things diDerently6 becomesbecame less

inhabitableuninhabitable space in the discipline of "the practice of

governance& and ho# to inhabit that uninhabitable space&

methodologically for " theory and practically for the #orld of

governance /e thin% of it in terms the perfect operationality )in

*audrillard6s terms. of a simulacrum of E#hat " is6 )or& in your terms

GI


37/43

Eho# to govern6. #here the system and its normali1ed Eopposition6 form

a tight narrative of completeness that ma%es Eotherness6 to it

impossible! That narrative completeness relies on bodies being #here

they are Esupposed6 to be )in Foucauldian terms about biopo#er being

an enforcer of sovereignty.& and re$placement of bodies )occupation.

interrupts the narrative completeness of the imperium by

demonstrating the inhabitability of uninhabitable space!/e thin% an Eoccupy6 approach to " method and " politics might

serve a function of disrupting the narrative completeness of "$as$

discipline and "$research$practice that could have t#o transformative

eDects! The 3rst is to render inhabitable the uninhabitable space of

critical theori1ing residing in " though outside its compliant

follo#ingcompliant protest model! The second is to disruptdisconnect

the neat lines bet#een research subject and research object by

residing in the liminal space of the research subject as research! /e

thin% that these t#o performances of occupation are both substantively

signi3cant for the 3eld on their o#n& and acts of the sort of disruption

that ueer theori1ing loo%s to cause! Using O/S methodology as a

model for ueercritical " politics and methodology might further that

causeQ seeing the O/S movementas ueer politics might clarify and

sharpen both its critiue and its methodology! Of course& both ideas

#ill reuire signi3cant further development& and

uestionscommentsrebu%es are #elcome!

GH


38/43

6i,liography

>gamben& =iorgio! +,,I! States of Exception Chicago; University ofChicago 'ress!>gathangelou& >nna and LM5 Ling! +,,J! ransforming !orld Politics"

#rom Empire to$ultiple !orlds! ?e# @or% and London; outledge!>rendt& Mannah! -JJN 7-JIN8! he %uman &ondition )+ndAdition.!Chicago; University of

Chicago 'ress!*arder& >le2ander and 4aniel Levine! +,-+! 6The /orld is Too 5uch#ith Us6;

ei3cation and the 4epolitici1ing of 'ia $edia Constructivist "$illennium"

(ournal of )nternational Studies P,)G.;INI$H,P!*audrillard& :ean! -JKH! L*Echange Symbolque et la $ort! 'aris; Aditions

=allimard!*audrillard& :ean! -JK,! Le Societe de &onsummation 'aris; Aditons4enoel!*innie& :! -JJK! Coming Out of =eorgraphy; To#ards a ueerApistemology

Environment and Planning +" Society and Space -I)+.; ++G$+GK!*olgerm :ulie! +,--! /e6re Mere& /e6re ueer& /e are the JJR& hedvocate ,I

October +,--& accessed -P >ugust +,-G athttp;###!adovate!comne#sdaily$ne#s+,---,,H#ere$here$#ere$ueer$#e$are$JJpageYfull!

*ro#ne& gainst 'recarity& idal -; --$-P!*utler& :udith! +,--b! *odies in >lliance and the 'olitics of the Street&-ccupyL

.eader& v!-$G; +$-I!*utler& :udith! +,,H! Precarious Life" he Powers of $ourning and

'iolenceLondon;erso!

*utler& :! +,,P! /ndoing 0ender1 London; outledge!Currah& '! and T! 5ulueen! +,--! Securiti1ing =ender; "dentity&*iometrics& and

Transgender *odies at the >irport! Social .esearch KN)+.; IIK$IN+!

GK


39/43

4eLuca& ndy Opel! +,,N! Preempting +issent" he Politics ofan )nevitable

#uture ?e# @or%; >rbeiter ing 'ublishing!Foucault& 5ichel! +,,G7-JKH8! Society $ust 4e +efended" Lectures at

the &ollege de#rance, 56789567:! London; 5ac5illan!

Foucault& 5ichel! +,,J7-JKK8! Security, erritory, Population" Lecturesat the &ollege de

#rance 56779567;1London; 5ac5illan!Anloe& Cynthia! -JJ,! 4ananas, beaches, and bases" making feministsense of

international politics1*er%eley& C>; University of California 'ress!van =elder& Sarah! +,--! his &hanges Everything" -ccupy !all Streetand the 66ugust +,-G athttp;###!bilerico!com+,----sylviaZriveralZprojectZteach$inZatZoccupyZ#all!php!

?ash& C! :! Toronto6s =ay illage )-JHJ$-JN+.; 'lotting the 'olitics of=ay "dentity& he

&anadian 0eographer I,)-.; -$-H!Os#in& ?! +,,N! Critical =eographies and Uses of Se2uality;4econstructing ueer

Space& Progress in %uman 0eography G+)-.; NJ$-,N!

'eterson& ! S! +,-G! The "ntended and Unintended ueering ofStates?ations&

Studies in Ethnicity and 3ationalism -G)-.; IK$HN!'uar& :! +,,H! errorist ssemblages" %omonationalism in ?ueer imes14urham& ?C;

4u%e University 'ress!oberts& >lasdair! +,-+! /hy the Occupy 5ovement Failed! Publicdministrative

GJ


41/43

.eview K+)I.; KIP$H+!Scheman& ?aomi! -JJG! Engenderings" constructions of knowledge,authority, and

privilege1 ?e# @or% and London; outledge!Shepherd& Laura& ed! +,,J! 0ender $atters in 0lobal Politics1 London;

outledge!Shepherd& L! :! and L! Sjoberg! +,-+! Trans$ *odies inof /ar)s.;Cisprivilege and

Contemporary Security Strategy& #eminist .eview-,-; I$+G!Sjoberg & L! +,-+! To#ard Trans$gendering "nternational elations)nternational

Political Sociology H)P.; GGK$GIP!Sjoberg& Laura! +,,J! "ntroduction to Security Studies" FeministContributions& Security

Studies -N)+.;-NP$+-P!Suires& :udith and :utta /eldes! +,,K! *eyond *eing 5arginal;

=ender and"nternational elations in *ritain! 4ritish (ournal of Politics and)nternational .elations J;-NI$+,G!

Steans& :ill! +,,G! Angaging from the margins; feminist encounters #iththe mainstream

of "nternational elations! 4ritish (ournal of Politics and)nternational .elations I)G.;P+N$PIP!

Sylvester& Christine! +,,+! #eminist international relations" anun@nished journey!

Cambridge; Cambridge University 'ress!Tarro#& Sidney! +,--! /hy Occupy /all Street is ?ot the Tea 'arty of

the Left& #oreignAairs -, October +,--& accessed

athttp;###!foreignaDairs!comprintJNIPP!Tic%ner& :! >nn! -JJN! Continuing the Conversation! )nternationalStudies ?uarterly

P+;+,I$+-,!Tic%ner& :! >nn! -JJK! @ou :ust 4on6t Understand; TroubledAngagements *et#een

Feminists and " Theorists! )nternational Studies ?uarterly P-&H--$HG+!Tic%ner& :! >nn! -JJ+! 0ender in )nternational .elations" #eminist

Perspectives onchieving )nternational Security1 ?e# @or%; Columbia University

'ress!/arner& 5ichael! +,-+! ueer and Then he &hronicle of %igherEducation - :anuary

+,-+& accessed -P >ugust +,-G athttp;chronicle!comarticleueerThenY-G,-H-!

P,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/98544http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/98544


42/43

/eber& C! -JJI! Simulating Sovereignty" )ntervention, the State, andSymbolic Exchange1

Cambridge; Cambridge University 'ress!0ale#s%i& 5arysia! +,,G! /omen6s Troubles >gain in "! )nternationalStudies .eview

I;+J-$+JP!0immerman& Lila! +,--! Occupy /all Street; > 'rotest that 4oes ?ot4iscriminate! 0o

$agaBine J ?ovember +,--& accessed -P >ugust +,-G athttp;###!gomag!comarticlelilaZ1immerman&

0i1e%& Slavoj! +,--! Speech at Occupy /all Street! "n -ccupyL& p!I+$IP!0i1e%& S! +,,+! !elcome to the +esert of the .eal1 London; erso!

P-


43/43

-Tarro#6s )+,--. argument is that Occupy /all Street is a movement of a completelyne# type& #here policy platforms are not the point of this ne# %ind of movement!"nstead& this is a #e are here sort of movement& in Tarro#6s terms& #hich has anuncertain future!

+For a perspective on O/S6 successes& see Todd =itlin )+,-+.& #ho characteri1es themovement as pioneering& intellectual& symbolic& and eDective! For a perspective on O/S6failures& see oberts )+,-+.& #ho suggests that the attempt to #or% through e2isting

political institutions might be counterproductive!G>nna >gathangelou and LM5 Ling6s )+,,J. #ordsPhttp;occupyirtheory!infoISee the forum on Amotion and the Feminist " esearcher in the 4ecember +,--issue of )nternational Studies .eview edited by Christine Sylvester!

occupy paper

Documents