I started my academic
career as an undergraduate in sociology. Growing up in a household
that always had to make do with a modest income, my studies
emphasized economic injustice in American society and issues of race
and ethnicity. I was especially influenced by the way that economic
sociology brought social and cultural depth to scholarship on
economics that tended to focus almost exclusively on “the
maximizing, rational individual.” After completing my BA in
sociology, I pursued an interdisciplinary MA in Economic and Social
History at the University of Manchester, where I gained exposure to
theories and methods from economics, social theory, political
science, and history. Together with my supervisor, Peter Gatrell, my
research centered on the social transitions that accompanied economic
and political transformations in post-Soviet societies. My thesis on
post-war Czechoslovakia examined how Cold War politics shaped
socioeconomic institutions. Specifically, this project examined how
multilateral aid efforts had been undermined by geopolitical shifts,
creating economic challenges for the local populace and hampering the
reconstruction process. The Manchester program helped me to refine an
abiding interest in the relationship between crisis and economic
transformation.
Once I completed my MA, I
found myself living abroad with no visa and few employment options.
So, I took a job in an industry that drew on my past research,
although ultimately tested my ethical and political boundaries. Based
in Prague, the position involved working on security and economic
development in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to research,
writing, and improving my Czech language skills, my job included work
on private and institutional financing, planning and proposing
economic development strategies in war-torn areas, government
contracting, and aid work. It quickly became clear to me though that
I was flirting with war profiteering. The political and ethical
conflicts with this job created one of the most challenging periods
of my life. However, my disillusionment helped to develop my critique
of the relationship between militarism and economic and political
development. I saw first-hand how neoliberal development priorities
penetrated all facets of everyday life in developing regions,
limiting individual and collective empowerment as exploitative low
wage employment led ordinary people to make distressing choices
between feeding or protecting their families. I watched as
neoliberal institutions, corporations, and political interests worked
to “rebuild” countries and societies upon the “blank slate”
created by war and destruction.
Wanting to situate this
critique intellectually, I pursued graduate study at Central European
University in the Sociology and Social Anthropology department.
Whereas my work at Manchester was focused on macro-level
socioeconomic analysis, CEU's program was far more anthropological,
providing the opportunity to explore local systems and individual
agency to a far greater extent. Classes on development,
globalization, power, and resistance exposed me to the scholarship of
Karl Polanyi, James Ferguson, Giovanni Arrighi, David Harvey, Arjun
Appadurai, and Jean and John L. Comaroff, among others. This line of
inquiry led me to realize that the theories and methods employed in
many types of economic analysis were inadequate to the social
problems and historical contexts that comprised the focus of my
research. I was inspired by the insights sociological and
anthropological approaches could offer the study of economics and
politics.
At CEU I broadened my
interest in post-conflict societies through sustained attention to
the history and development of Sierra Leone. My research highlighted
social and economic crises in the context of the patchwork of
structural adjustment programs and various genres of civil strife
experienced there. My work centered on the theoretical concept of
“liberal peace” (or “democratic peace”), which posits that
liberal societies—with their focus on the individual, private
property, civil liberties, and free markets—are inherently more
stable and peaceful. My research suggested that, to the contrary, an
idealized notion of individualism often led to more competition.
Because competition is inherently antagonistic, it often leads not to
peace but more readily to conflict, increasing the probability of
outright war. Following my research on Sierra Leone at CEU, I
planned, fundraised for, and undertook an
investigative/awareness-raising trip to Sierra Leone to learn and to
identify opportunities for community-based entrepreneurial and
humanitarian work to help people recover from civil war. As part of
building local alliances, I worked on increasing cultural awareness,
became proficient in Krio, and used my time to set up a
community-based organization in the city of Makeni aimed at
small-scale projects that could create jobs and provide investment
for the local community. This work helped me appreciate the
logistical problems of development aid in Sierra Leone, symptomatic
of analogous situations elsewhere in the global South.
Back in the United
States, that course of inquiry shifted in the beginning of October
2011 when I became active with Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and channeled
my intellectual energy into applying this socioeconomic critique
here. For years, I had hoped to establish an online People’s Think
Tank for research and discourse using democratic and participatory
approaches. When the Zuccotti Park occupation began, I used these
skills and resources to help create and facilitate the Think Tank
Working Group, which expands direct democracy through the collection
and dissemination of ideas by directly engaging and empowering
individuals. We continue to facilitate
informal, open, and documented discussion forums
throughout New York City and have expanded the Think Tank to other
Occupations, community groups, and now to a weekly radio show here in
New York City (wbai.org).
Discussions range widely, from health care policy and corporate
personhood to race relations in Zuccotti Park and Hurricane Sandy
relief efforts. We have yet to realize the full potential of the
project and are currently working on the logistics of how ideas
generated in Think Tank discussions can be more
accessible to the public, as well as part of
public Think Tank research projects involving the ideas generated
both through this process and those surrounding the greater movement.
My involvement with OWS
has led me to a fuller appreciation of the relationship between
economic and social change and academic scholarship on societal
transition. My participation has only raised more questions for me
about the relationship between liberal democracy and neoliberalism.
In particular, I’m interested in mechanisms of social control in
neoliberal society. For instance, the state's exceedingly violent
crackdown on the protests has been largely shaped by military tactics
and narratives based on the so-called “legitimate” use of force.
These tactics have repeated modern methods of social control: a
monopoly on the use of force, control of ideas, social messages, and
protests. My experiences within the movement, and especially
my interactions with the media, have raised
unavoidable questions for me: Was there a systemic attempt to use
repressive/oppressive and ideological apparatuses to exclude ideas,
and to unfavorably skew public opinion away from the movement? What
(if any) collusion was there between public and private
actors—especially regarding the media and policing? How did the
movement's own structure and message (anarchic, amorphous, and
without clearly enunciated direction) affect coverage and public
understanding of the movement? And most importantly, what does the
Occupy movement and its interaction with state, private, and
informational apparatuses mean with regard to “democracy” in
neoliberal America and the world?
These are the questions I
hope will frame my PhD work. Broadly conceived, the crux of
my inquiry looks at a broader contradiction that has regularly
surfaced in U.S. society in the face of civil unrest: On the one
hand, U.S. national identity is often articulated in terms of rights
and freedoms to political assembly and free speech, civil liberties
and property rights, economic and social freedoms, and freedom from
the use of repressive tactics often seen in “less democratic”
regimes. Yet, this ideal has been in direct conflict with an
institutionalized response using brute force, censorship, and
coercive methods to suppress the Occupy movement. This was on
prominent display during the slow transition of public empathy for
the Occupy movement to the "law and order" and
state/corporate message that many people bought into, even despite
its obvious contradiction to the freedom of speech, expression, and
fight for economic and social justice—the true democracy—that
people are taught and wish to believe America is about. Are media,
police, and public perceptions mere outcomes of a greater
contradiction? And if so, to what origins? As the aforementioned
institutions are largely shaped by state actions and interactions
with private and corporate interests, the study's core would look at
neoliberalism's dominant position within the shaping of American
policies, worldviews, and culture, as well as exploring whether there
is a growing part of America that has become so entrenched in “the
system” (media, education, law and order, mass culture, etc.) that
they can no longer assess and critique “the system” surrounding
them.
Having spent the last
year on the ground with OWS, sleeping in the park, organizing
discussion groups, being actively involved with the media, engaging
with Occupy on every level, and feeling the very repression I look to
study, I am uniquely positioned with ties to the movement's core to
carry out this study ethnographically, historically, and archivally....
