Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Don’t Occupy This Movement: Thinking Law in Social Movements

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reflecting on the Occupy movement, particularly Occupy Wall Street, this article begins by addressing two major questions: how are social movements understood by legal academics; and how do social movements engage with law? Our aim is to present an alternative frame to understanding law and social movements. We draw on the work of Jean-Luc Nancy to explore law as both present and constituted in the coming together of persons in common which occurs in social movements. While the Occupy movement does engage with a form of law that is legislated and enacted through the government and legal system of a nation-state, the movement also forms and enacts law as part of its own processes. In this article we shift perspectives and attempt to think law within social movements. This involves a critical reading of some dominant approaches that explore social movements and law. Rather than situate our discussion within boundaries that seek to identify what is inside or outside a law and legal system that is determined and enforced by a nation-state (government and judicial system), our discussion of law involves a re-thinking of law. This law is part of a constant negotiation and it is involved in the dynamic processes of movements. Law involves establishing a limit and tracing this limit, but this limit is un-working itself as soon as it is constituted. The Occupy movements live law by existing not outside the law, but by rethinking the role and function of law in the movement and processes of community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Certain local occupy groups have issued demands—London is a primary example, the occupation at St. Paul’s Cathedral drafted a manifesto and a set of demands.

  2. In April 2012 Tara Mulqueen conducted several unstructured interviews with active participants in OWS in NYC.

  3. In this article we refer specifically to a body of literature considered as ‘law and social movements’. The argument we are pursuing could be seen to parallel debates on legal pluralism made by legal scholars such as Teubner (1991), de Sousa Santos (2002), Buchanan (2008). New legal realism, as posited by Merry (2006), could be critiqued for its adherence to a fixed form of law as a predefined entity found in a ‘different’ system, the study of which involves identifying ‘legal consciousness’. However, our discussion here is specific to the construction of OWS and literature concerning social movements, therefore we will not explore the debates in legal pluralism and new legal realism.

  4. Occupy movements have also been criticised for their use of the term, ‘occupy’, which is a particular and negative term in the context of groups indigenous to a geographical area. Similarly, the claim, ‘we are here’ that is appropriated by Tarrow resonates in the context of aboriginal rights and land claims, see Wilmsen (1989). This problematic negotiation of terms and claims is beyond the scope of this article.

References

  • Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (trans. Caryl Emerson and Mihael Holquist) Texas: University of Texas Press.

  • Barclay, Scott, Lynn C. Jones and Anna-Maria Marshall. 2011. Two spinning wheels: Studying law and social movements. In Studies in Law, Politics and Society. Sarat, Austin ed. 54, 1–16.

  • Brown, Wendy. 2011. Occupy Wall Street: Return of a repressed Res-Publica. Theory & Event Supplement 14: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Ruth. 2008. Reconceptualizing law and politics in the transnational: Constitutional and legal pluralist approaches. Socio-Legal Review 5. http://nls.ac.in/ojs-2.2.3/index.php/slr/issue/view/15

  • Blecher, Michael. 2008. Mind the gap. Law and Critique 19 (3): 297–306.

  • Cotterrell, Roger. 2008. Community as legal concept? Some uses of a law and community approach in legal theory. In Living law: Studies in legal and social theory, ed. Roger Cotterrell, 17–28. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2002. Toward a new legal common sense: Law, globalization and emancipation. London: Reed Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, Jodi, James Martel and David Panagia, eds. 2011. Introduction. Theory and Event Supplement. 14: 4.

  • Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Force of law—the mystical foundation of authority. In Acts of religion, ed. G. Anidjar. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 2001. Of hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle invites Jacques Derrida to respond. (trans. Rachel Bowlby) Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Duneier, Mitchell. 2002. What kind of combat sport is sociology? The American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1551–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel. 1970 (2002). The order of things. London: Routledge.

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

  • Gupta, Arun and Michelle Fawcett. 2012. Occupying the unexpected. The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/166815/occupying-unexpected. Accessed 25 May 2012.

  • Hogue, Ilyse. 2012 Occupy is dead! Long live occupy! The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/166826/occupy-dead-long-live-occupy. Accessed 25 May 2012.

  • Lillis, Teresa. 2008. Ethnography as method, methodology, and ‘deep theorizing’: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication 25: 353–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, Michael. 2004. Law and social movements. In The Blackwell companion to law and society, ed. Austin Sarat, 506–522. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. New legal realism and the ethnography of transnational law. Law & Social Inquiry 31: 975–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nancy, Jean-Luc. 2000. Being singular plural. (trans. Robert Richardson and Anne O’Byrne) Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Nancy, Jean-Luc.1993. Experience of freedom. (trans. Bridget McDonald) Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1991. Inoperative community. ed. Peter Connor Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Narayan, Kirin. 1993. How native is a ‘native’ anthropologist? American Anthropologist 95: 671–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New York City General Assembly. 2011–2012. City General Assembly. NYCGA—#OccupyWallStreet. http://www.nycga.net/. Accessed 25 May 2012.

  • Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, Sydney. 2011. Why Occupy Wall Street is not the tea party of the left. Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136401/sidney-tarrow/why-occupy-wall-street-is-not-the-tea-party-of-the-left. Accessed on 25 May 2012.

  • Teubner, Gunther. 1991–1992. The two faces of Janus: Rethinking legal pluralism. Cardozo Law Review 13: 1443–1462.

  • van Gelder, Sarah. 2011. This changes everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsen, Edwin N. (ed.). 1989. We are here: Politics of Aboriginal land tenure. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Writers for the 99%. 2012. Occupying Wall Street: The inside story of an action that changed America. New York: OR Books.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to the interviewees who offered their time and thoughts in NYC, and to Daniel Matthews and Dimitrios Tzanakopoulos for bringing together this edition and for continuing conversations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tara Mulqueen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mulqueen, T., Tataryn, A. Don’t Occupy This Movement: Thinking Law in Social Movements. Law Critique 23, 283–298 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9103-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9103-z

Keywords

Navigation