The Occupy Movement, politics, and the use of words

The usual definition of the verb “to occupy” means to take over a space, although it clearly has strong political connotations also. The Spanish “conquistadores” occupied by force of arms lands long occupied by indigenous peoples. Something similar happened with “the Westward Movement” in the United States of America: the indigenous peoples were subject to a genocide that allowed white settlers to occupy lands that the natives had long occupied. Washington subsequently has frequently invaded and occupied countries whose policies are considered thorns in the desire to expand the “American Way of Life” around the world.

In general U.S. military occupations have been short lived. The latest on the long list: the military invasion and subsequent nine year occupation of Iraq, followed by the recent symbolic retirement of U.S. troops, retaining sufficient military presence to “guarantee” U.S. interests in the area. What country will be next on the list? The sense Washington has given to the term occupy is to “stabilize” an unfriendly nation or area so as to  introduce U.S. presence there and, usually,  insure the supply of needed raw resources such as oil.

However, the Occupy Movement has introduced an apparently diametrically opposed notion: the transformation of public spaces into forums of debate concerning the meaning of democracy and notions such as economic and social equality. The thousands of voices clamoring against the 1% of society accused of bringing about the present economic-financial crisis have likewise introduced a transformation of public discourse as well.

An essential aspect of learning takes place through association. In the United States today the word occupy immediately suggests aspects of the Occupy Movement. Words or phrases which previously dominated public discourse, such as “debt ceiling” or “budget crisis” have given way to notions related to the Occupy Movement. People are now talking about economic greed and inequality.

Occupy is at present associated with progressive ideas related to social justice, while previous concepts of on-going military incursions have taken an at least temporary back stage position. Occupy now is more closely tied to the notion of transforming space. Curiously enough the Oxford English Dictionary claims that “occupy” once meant “to have sexual intercourse with someone.” Words change along with changes in society.  The verb occupy has traditionally been used as a transitive verb, that is, a verb that takes an object. You occupy a space or a place. Now it is used as an adjective: the occupy movement suggests not only taking over spaces but likewise protesting.

The mass media are traditionally very fast operators: they invent terms so as to condense complicated situations in a few words. Some examples: the Watergate Scandal, the cold war, collateral damage…Such terms go through a modification as a result of political-economic-social processes.

Is occupy an adequate term to refer to the protest movement now gathering force? The term appears to be a bit milder than “take over” or “destroy” or “de-colonize.” The word itself is neither good nor bad. It depends on the intentions of those who use it: is it just to occupy or is it to expulse the previous occupiers?

The variations that terms are subject to as a result of the struggle for economic, political, cultural or religious power are of essential importance—for those who use the terminology for their specific purposes and for those who are the unwitting “victims.” Democracy no doubt means one thing to a worker, another to a union boss; one thing to an employee, another to the owner of a multinational corporation. For that reason it is essential to choose our words with extreme care and defend our ideas through the way we organize our language to express ourselves.