Using the community brand, "Occupy Burlington".
I begin with premises which are various and might lead to conflicting conclusions.
§ We believe in the equal authority of every person. § We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and the obligation of the community to create that space in which personal decisions can and will be respected, for every person. § We oppose doctrine, hierarchy, and systems of power which function without the consent of those affected by its actions. § We imagine that we represent the interests of the 99% of Americans who are disenfranchised from the ultimate power in our country. § We believe that diversity of opinion is a strength, and that with commitment to the unity of our community, diversity can be used to strengthen our movement and the culture of our community. § We believe that our power comes from each other, from our sense of shared fate, and the commitment we live to act in solidarity and in support of each other. § We are building a community of solidarity (in which institutions may arise to provide certain services, but is not itself an institution). § Although our roots are in anarchist philosophy, we are not obligated to them. Our consciences guide us.
Why do we need to define who can use the label "Occupy Burlington"?
Within the Occupy movement are uncountable different approaches to the best outcomes, strategies and tactics. Among these may be goals and actions we do not agree with. The danger this question responds to is that someone, somewhere, will use the Occupy rubric to cover an action we do not support.
Discussion
Religious communities and institutions of every kind (for-profit, non-profit, governmental) seek to identify a single coherent explanation of beliefs or policies. These orthodoxies, when vested with the power of money or of the police power, become the basis of oppression. The orthodoxy that privilege is deserved and deserves to reinforce itself is one of the principle reasons the Occupy movement has become necessary. As this orthodoxy spreads its influence, the police state is strengthened and diversity of opinion is suppressed. I believe we must stand for diversity of opinion.
Diversity of opinion is inherent in any human community, and the health of that community depends upon its tolerance for or even celebration of that diversity.
Moreover, we cannot expect to build a community and a movement of solidarity, in which every person has equal authority, without diversity of opinion. Without a tolerance - or better, a celebration - of diversity, we will fail.
But with diversity comes the nagging problem, what if someone renders actions, under the banner of "Occupy", which are fundamentally at odds with our values or just our strategies? Or worse, what if someone co-opts the rubric, perpetuating a media campaign to discredit us?
There are two dangers. That we are too narrow in who we allow to use the rubric. This implies that our response is too institutional, and that we cannot tolerate diversity. That we are too broad in who we allow to use the rubric. This endangers the credibility of the movement and our community.
Solutions
The usual solution - which we can challenge because we are seeking fundamental change - is to institute rules or policies. This way leads to hierarchy and inequality of personal authority, and limits on diversity.
An alternative solution is to build a culture of mutual respect and accountability. I believe we have all entered the movement ready for mutual respect and mutual accountability.
For this to work, we must re-commit ourselves, often, to relational solutions to our conflicts. How can we eschew hierarchy and instituted power, and avoid relationships too?
Everything the Occupy movement stands for, in my mind, implies relationships. Establishing relationships, bonding with each other, resorting first and foremost to relationship-based solutions to our conflicts.
Under these terms, Everyone is held accountable for how they use the Occupy rubric. Everyone is free to use it, and everyone must learn to make judgments about when and how it is used. When in doubt, they should consult the group. When mistakes are made, mutual accountability will make it known. Hopefully tolerance for diversity will assist in the resolution of these conflicts. When poor judgment is exercised consistently and damagingly to the movement, the person doing can be challenged or even discredited.
Under these terms, When someone tries to co-opt the rubric to damage the movement, we must be ready to confront, disavow, and discredit in return.
Recommendation:
Build relationships, build culture, build mutual accountability, party and train together, bond, establish trust groups and trust group clusters, engage in actions together, engage in mutual education, build practices which support members to have families, and empower everyone through our community of solidarity.
