Uncovering views from the occupy movement : Johannesburg leg

Abstract

This exploratory study set out to uncover views from the Occupy Movement’s Johannesburg leg. The Occupy Movement arose in late 2011, aiming to occupy public space and challenge conventional economics, politics, and governance. Data were collected by means of an online survey amongst 39 ‘core’ members of the group. The study took up a mixed methods approach underpinned by critical realism. Basic descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were used to analyse 6 closed-ended survey items in a quantitative fashion; thereafter, 4 open-ended items were qualitatively examined by delineating responses into discursive themes based on response content and positions taken up by respondents in their claims and statements. Finally, a cluster analysis was performed in order to cluster or profile significant groups that emerged from the data based on demographics, selection of closed-ended items, and quantitatively transformed response content to qualitatively examined open-ended items. It was found that the sample mirrored the demographics present in foreign movements as it was primarily male (61.5%), white (87.2%), highly educated (51.4% holding a bachelor’s degree or higher) and young (74.4% in the 21 to 40 age range). Furthermore, it was found that within a group that stood against various macro-level social systems, confidence in all social institutions was extremely low, in particular for big corporations, national government, and political parties. This sample was highly comparable to a representative South African sample as regards their views on the causes of social division; the factors that were seen as most socially divisive (in descending order) were: (1) socio-economic status; (2) race; (3) politics; (4) cultural differences; (5) language; (6) religion; (7) AIDS/disease. Qualitatively, the first item asked whether or not they believed that their movement lacked focus. Upon analysis it was found that four distinct themes existed in response: (1) duality (those revealing support for the movement but disdain for its processes); (2) aggressive justification (vehement justification and defense of the Occupy stance); (3) denial (lacking full knowledge of Occupy processes but ardently defending them while moving away from the difficult questions); (4) straddling the fence (vague and contradictory positions). Members responded to the question of whether their movement differed from foreign movements by stating that it did, based primarily on local socio-historical, economic, and contemporary issues peculiar to South Africa – these members sought a special place for their movement and acted in contradiction to the global Occupy stances; others said no and based this on appeals to homogeneity of cause, global concerns, and an Occupy solidarity. When asked why they, personally, were motivated to engage with the movement, the sample maintained either: (1) the unfair world argument (a strong theme in which perceived ‘systemic unfairness’ proved motivation enough); (2) socialist argument (a string of socialist-based positions connected to classic socialist disdain for the creation of capital, accruing of personal wealth, estrangement of labourers from produce etc.); (3) personal plight argument (exclusively personal standpoints appealing to individual socio-economic woes). Finally, pressure was placed upon the Occupy protestors to reveal what their ideal, utopian society would look like, given the option. The sample called for: (1) orthodox anarchy (stark calls for 4 absolute anarchy); (2) anarchic socialism (marrying socialism and anarchy – less extreme than anarchy, more equal than capitalism, incorporating multiple freedoms and backed by orthodox socialist rhetoric); (3) advancing through decentralized civil society (no clear ideology, rather providing a special place for civil society with few central power structures; driving forth through family and community); (4) fundamental equality and freedom (emphasis of final desires over process and ideology with a belief that society does not require strict regulation, it rather holds its own ‘homeostatic’ capabilities). The hierarchical cluster analysis for this study found 4 distinct clusters; each cluster was defined by a generally homogeneous set of responses and demographics. Significantly, cluster 3 included 50% of the cases analysed (50% of the sample) and uncovered a common profile (homogeneous demographics, vastly similar stances on sources of social division, similarity in terms of confidence in social institutions, and agreement on the rationale and motivation to be personally involvement in Occupy). Cluster 4 consisted of so-called outliers.