Monday 23 February 2009

A Personal Account of the Occupation - Successes, Failures and Opportunities for Transformation

On Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 around 50 students from Goldsmiths entered Deptford Town Hall - the main administration building for the university - and declared it occupied.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.

Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).

It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.

This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compaƱeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.

PLANNING

Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).

On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.


ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES

The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.

FIRST GENERAL MEETING

The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.


WORKING GROUPS

The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.


INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING

This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.


FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS

It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.


THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION

At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people


FINAL NEGOTIATIONS

During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.


FINAL THOUGHTS

To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.
On Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 around 50 students from Goldsmiths entered Deptford Town Hall - the main administration building for the university - and declared it occupied.
The occupiers demanded that two scholarships should be awarded to students of Al-Quds University in Palestine and the upper floors of the building were converted into a free space in which discussions, talks, music and parties would be hosted.

Autonomy & Solidarity were involved in the occupation and supported the demands made. As anarchists the question of becoming involved with campaigns of national liberation often presents a difficulties. The groups involved tend to propose a simple rearrangement of existing authoritarian structures, which is incompatible with anarchism’s rejection of the state and its hierarchy. However, we viewed the Palestine Twinning Campaign’s scholarships struggle as legitimate as it represents solidarity with people (the students) rather than ideologies (Hamas, Palestinian nationalism).

It was clear from the outset that engaging in direct action – in this case an occupation - would raise further issues. The widened discussion that ensued once inside the building took the action beyond solidarity with a besieged people; questioning what constitutes property, what a real democracy would look like and the feasibility of these processes within the status quo. For all of us in Britain, the situation in Palestine is abstracted, a situation we have little power to alter. During the 2 days of occupation, aspects of our reality were altered: we were offered a glimpse of new ways of organising our reality. These methods are transferable to other aspects of our lives: in school, in our workplaces and in our local neighbourhoods.

This leaflet attempts to evaluate tactics and modes of organisation that were used, in the hope of providing a model for how the situation could be repeated, and our mistakes learned from. The occupation was a collective effort: everyone present was directly involved both in the decision making process and the implementation of what was decided and the failures that followed. We are experimenting: there is no absolute method so what is important now is to prevent the events of those few days becoming an alienating myth. Throughout the occupation, despite the fact that there were disagreements and tactical errors which occurred on all sides, there was a sense of companionship as well as a general valuation of what seemed to be an extremely democratic decision process. We made friends, acquaintances and compaƱeros and hope that the relationships built within that space can withstand (and of course respond to!) critical evaluation.

PLANNING

Prior to the occupation th to carry out reconnaissance. this, the expeditions gave us an idea of entrances and exits, fortifiable areas (in our case, the two staircases in the building), the existence and location of facilities such as toilets, kitchens, offices and boardrooms. Additionally we made sure access would be possible: Deptford Town Hall has a key card system that only works with certain cards (held by staff and students who use the building for lectures).

On the eve of the occupation a planning meeting was held: This was the first meeting the majority of A&S had been present at and as such we are not sure how typical it was of previous meetings though it struck many as poorly and undemocratically facilitated. Processes were muddy, especially when it came to setting an agenda and electing a chair. As the meeting continued this observation was hard to dispel; for example the chair appeared to answer questions directly rather than facilitating the discussion. This may have been one of the reasons such a large, diverse and committed group were not as multi-vocal as one would expect. The suggestion for an amended flyer (NOT an additional demand, which was a separate issue) seemed to be grossly misrepresented: The vote that was held seemed completely unrelated to what we had attempted to propose. Were we just there to be the muscle, with no voice in the proceedings? While the meeting was disheartening, thankfully, it was to become the exception rather than the rule.


ENTRY AND INITIAL ACTIVITIES

The assumption made was that entering the building initially would not be a problem: locking it down in anticipation of our arrival could have caused just as much disruption as our action and we assumed the university would shy away from heavy handed measures at least in the immediate future. With that in mind we gathered as a group of between 30-40 before moving to Deptford Town Hall.
Upon entering we received no resistance and quickly moved to the top of the stairs before dropping banners from the balcony and windows. A flyer was immediately issued stating that the initial occupation was successful.
There was not a clear plan as to which rooms to take control of immediately and we consolidated our position on the balcony, the large hall at the top of the stairs and the small kitchen. In hindsight more effort should have been made to secure other rooms as security quickly locked many leaving us with fewer options later on. Due to the nature of the occupation, damage to the building was not considered suitable, though in another situation somehow blocking the locks (with superglue?) could solve the problem of an understaffed occupation, allowing the rooms to be entered later after discussion had been held.
After an hour or so, a music student appeared saying she had a recital booked for the large hall. It was spontaneously decided to let this go ahead and she performed with minimal disruption.

FIRST GENERAL MEETING

The initial meeting was far better organised than the planning one held the night before. The vast majority of individuals involved in the occupation were present and someone was nominated to chair the meeting. The position of chair was subsequently rotated at each meeting A brief agenda was proposed, though there seemed like little in the way of a formal structure to amend or add to it, which had the affect of muddling parts of the discussion as issues bled into each other (Throughout the occupation however many meetings were based around the negotiations and as such had little need for a particular agenda as there tended to only be a single issue to discuss).
Additionally, working groups of between 5-10 people were set up for organisation of social events, media and negotiation with the administration with the aim of creating a balance between efficiency and democratic accountability.


WORKING GROUPS

The groups had been given a level of autonomy which was appropriate considering that most of their tasks had already been decided on by the general meeting: Their mandate was largely to implement these decisions and work out the details. If a group went beyond this mandate it could be called to account at the next meeting.


INITIAL MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL MEETING

This meeting exposed some of the manipulative tactics that would be repeatedly employed by management throughout the negotiations. Those present complained of obfuscation, attempts to divert the issue and requests by the management for meetings with small groups of delegates in order to create hierarchies and manufacture splits and tensions within the occupation.
Once management left a General meeting was held in which it was agreed that a working group would be mandated to meet with management to discuss proposals. That group would however have no power to come to an agreement with management before it relayed the results of that meeting to the rest of the occupation who could then vote. Additionally, concerns were raised about the modes of interaction with management: Negotiations from that point on should avoid becoming personal and there should be no sign of the occupation making any concessions or taking steps back before the demands were met satisfactorily.


FIRST NIGHTS SOCIAL AND RELATED SITUATIONS

It had been decided in an earlier meeting to bill the first night as a ‘social’ rather than a party on the grounds of keeping the demands focused. As it happened, this distinction didn’t seem to have a substantial influence on the events of the nights.
The working group for the social organised a flyer and put boards in front of anything particularly fragile or expensive (the hall contained a grand piano) as well as putting up a few signs asking people not to smoke indoors etc in response to a request in the general meeting. A PA was found in the building which meant people could DJ with mp3 players reducing the need for extra equipment.
The first night was fairly sparsely attended aside from the occupiers, though various groups came and went during the night.
The socials were not only a chance to celebrate or revel in our position, they were also intrinsically political and quite possibly a factor in the managements decision-making. They asserted that the building was no longer under the control of the university authorities and that it was our space to hold whatever events we chose, whenever we chose. Additionally they illustrated the fact that what was happening was not simply a political demonstration aimed at achieving concessions from authority, but an autonomous, revolutionary space in and of itself. The building was active almost 24 hours a day and come 6pm we didn’t lay down our ideologies and go to our beds, rather we turned a symbol of power and bureaucracy into a plateau on which to enact and experiment with our desires and passions with a minimal level of external suppression.


THE FIRST MORNING: ESCALATION

At 7am, before any of the office workers arrived barricades were erected on both of the staircases with signs stating that whilst students were welcome to pass through, anyone in an administrative position was forbidden.
Several hours in we discovered after debating whether to allow a music department ‘Masterclass’ to go ahead in the main hall that all events for that room had already been rescheduled by the various departments.
By placing the barricades the situation was immediately escalated and the dynamic of the building was radically altered: Upon walking through the front door you were confronted with a physical barrier, manned at all times by at least two people


FINAL NEGOTIATIONS

During the final day things moved exceptionally fast with meetings been called almost hourly and by mid afternoon all demands had been met by management with these gains concreted for a minimum of ten years. A student vote to continue the programme at the end of the ten year period was also instated.
However the system of bringing the administrations response back to the occupation before making any decisions broke down on this final occasion. The perceived victory was announced immediately and there was little opportunity to thoroughly debate the content of the response. As it stands, the final response from the administration contains various ambiguous and vague statements, some of which potentially undermining the whole issue of the funding of the scholarships.
This was immediately followed by a spirited and freshly informed ‘anarchism vs. socialism’ debate and a talk. Much of what went on at the victory party is probably best kept out of print but by morning the building was cleared and vacated.


FINAL THOUGHTS

To win such a concrete victory in just 29 hours is a fantastic success and hopefully vindicates direct action as a viable tactic in many situations. However, the revolutionary spirit of the occupation, which seemed to grow as time marched on, felt neutered by the sudden cease in activities. The difference in atmosphere between the planning meeting the night before the occupation (which was characterised by poor organisation and paranoid accusations of sabotage) and even the first afternoon was staggering. Networks of trust and mutual aid began to appear and individual attempts to take charge tended to lessen.
The occupation was far from utopia, and had it lasted longer it is likely that further difficulties would have been encountered, perhaps even complete splits. That we did not have time to deal with these occurrences was in some ways more disheartening than the potential challenges themselves.
Additionally, the demands we had were ultimately reasonable and easily quantified. That the administration gave in so readily could be read entirely as testament to the strength of our action, or perhaps that ultimately it wasn’t that much of a concession for them to make. The situation never reached the stage where we had to deal with the police or other authorities
Regardless of the specifics of our situation, through the smokescreen of student politics and bureaucratic wrangling, some of us caught a glimpse of an emancipatory, direct form of participation that could be taken up and manipulated to transform the very fabric of our existence.

No comments:

Post a Comment