On the indecision of the occupy movement (translated and edited)

One of the most often made critics to the occupy movement is that its members ‘don’t know what they want’. Rebels without a cause, demanding changes without proposing how they could be made, the occupiers were often received with annoyance and impatience by those who, confronted with the indecision of these protesters on what, after all, they want to be done, would like they decided already what to do.

Against this sort of critic, it’s been already pointed out in a number of ways how this indecision, in its negative aspect (that is, in the sense of not immediately deciding on what is to be done), is essential and productive in many ways. As a matter o fact, it is this indecision that allows for a truly honest debate, a discussion open to new ideas and possibilities, that isn’t determined by presuppositions and prejudices put beyond any critic, any test through their discussion and questioning in an open dialog. This indecision, even in its negative aspect (of not deciding on what is to be done),  isn’t to be taken as negative (as meaning something bad, prejudicial). On the contrary, this indetermination is fundamental, in order to make possible a truly honest politics, one that doesn’t guide itself through presuppositions and prejudices, through ideas or proposition pre-defined or rashly proposed, before they can be serious and consequently evaluated and discussed. The important thing now isn’t to take action as fast as possible; rather, it is to take it the best possible way. Thus, the priority isn’t to have a proposal – rather, it’s the quality (one could also say, the legitimacy)  of the proposal that is built. Or, to put it in another way: what matters isn’t to have a proposal, but rather to have a satisfactory proposal.  According to this point of view, it would seem even absurd to gather around an proposal due more to the faith in it than from the fact that it resulted from an extended debate from those who gather around it.  The indecision of the occupiers about what to do is thus essencial in order to not take simply any action, but rather the action that is the most adequate to the current development of events. And this can only be done through dialog, openness, reflection.

However, without aiming to dismiss the relevance of the negative aspect of the indecision of the occupiers,  I would like to emphasize, in this article, what I take to be its positive side.

Continuar lendo