TWEETING TRUTH TO POWER:
CO-INCIDENCE AND CONSPIRACY IN THE #OWS [OCCUPY WALL STREET] MOVEMENT
“To study a social movement is to participate in it.”—Dr. Patricia Malesh
Abstract: This study seeks to understand and “complicate” the role [or function] that rhetoric is
playing—and may have historically played—in the success, failure, or return of social
movements that depend upon the deployment of words, signs, and gestures to incite publics into
collective action. In studying how publics are “now,” at present—within the Occupy Wall Street
Movement—emerging [and “taking shape”/form] both “on the streets” and “through the waves,”
this study seeks to draw attention to how social change is “brought about” [or comes into being]
through one’s presence in [or “occupation” of] those material and “virtual” communicative
domains within which it’s subjects [or “occupiers”] may be said to be a part. This study, then, is
but one account—of what will likely be many—of what one has observed, “witnessed,” or seen
“happen” through one’s participation ‘on the streets’ [in both the #OWS events, encampments,
marches, and general assemblies in Boulder and Denver, Colorado] and through the virtual
domains [and streaming channels] of Twitter and Facebook. I will ultimately make a case for the
role that “presence” or “participation” plays [or is playing] in the coming of an event “whose
time has come”1and why this conversation is critical to the functioning [and well-being] of a
democratic economy. Lastly, there are more ways to speak about Revolution than we may have
thought possible; what follows [above and below] is an attempt to speak into that notion.
I am beginning this paper with [what I consider to be] an ‘outstanding’2 quote from the
syllabus of our ‘Rhetorics of Social Change’ seminar; I do this because it was not until after my
own attendance at—and “participation” with—the Occupy Wall Street Movement [in both
Boulder and Denver, Colorado and upon certain virtual communicative domains3] that I have
come to understand what participation means [or could] in a movement of “occupation” and why
this activity is pertinent to our understanding of social change. As has been made manifest—in
ways and through forms and by degrees that I can only hope to account for in part or partiality—
the “study” or “observation” of movements [social or otherwise] cannot “take place” in isolation
This is taken from a commonly-quoted/articulated/spoken Movement cry, that “you cannot stop an idea whose
time has come.” [Insert image here.]
2
I use the term “outstanding” to refer to the way in which it “stood out” in ways that other quotes or material [within
the same body or corpus of text] did not, where it—in retrospective manner—came to take on a level meaning of
signification before I [“fully”] understood the quote in it’s totality, on an experiential level.
3
I.e.: Twitter [@OccupyRhetoric/ http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyRhetoric] and Facebook [Occupy
Rhetoric/www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Rhetoric/274346542608996] These domains or “spaces” were created
or “occupied” [or “dedicated” to a certain public] for purposes of drawing attention to the dialogue and discussions
surrounding both "Occupy" [#OWS] rhetoric and to the "occupation" of Rhetoric, as a domain.
1
of one another or without one’s #presence within it. As Patty Malesh has noted, “the context and
audiences that shape these processes [of change] are living ones, rather than static
characterizations that emerge after the action. Studying contemporary campaigns involves more
than passive scholarship; it demands that we engage in praxis—the relationship between theory
and practice that sponsors socio-civic resistance and transformation.”4 This account, then—of the
Occupy Wall Street Movement, hereafter referred to as OWS or #OWS—is an attempt to capture
that which has #emerged from one’s [own] engagement within, presence upon, and occupation
of those space and places determined to be “common” to all.
As this movement continues to reveal, there are [and have been] times—whether in our
recent or not-so-recent pasts—when it becomes necessary or critical to be as “present” or
“participatory” in our actions and practices as we are through our language and voice. It is in this
sense, or upon this premise—that [the success or failure of] social movements may be dependent
upon [or may be attributed to] the “proper” execution of [or correspondence between] theory and
praxis—that this study of the OWS movement has taken root. As I will mention both “here” and
in/upon other virtual sites/domains dedicated to the topos at hand, rhetoricians—both #now as in
the past, whether the former yet realize it—are great stakeholders in those movements [and the
#event(s) taking place within them] that must subvert typical modes of resistance and
“occupation” by the use of words, signs, gestures, and one's “presence” to locate, mobilize (and
at times, disperse) great collectivities. If there is any “truth” [or ‘knowledge’] to be culled from
[or ascribed to] the history of words, then “words”—as has been indicated or as it would seem—
have played a vital part or constitutive “role” in [or “as”] the subjects “occupying” rhetorical
domains. According to the Oxford English Dictionary—“the definitive record of the English
language”—the word “word” comes from the Greek word “ῥήτωρ” meaning “rhetorician.”
4
Dr. Patrica Malesh, Rhetorics of Social Change (COMM 6200) Syllabus, Fall 2011.
Before that, the earlier word [for “word”] was “ϝρήτωρ” or “orator.” Perhaps we should not take
lightly, then, what it may mean—or may have once meant—to “speak truth to power”5 through
the vernacularity of one’s own language and through the “force” of one’s own words.
Given, then, that it is with and through words—in their deployment and arrangement,
whether in whole or in part—that that rhetoricians have been historically [if they are no longer
“traditionally”] concerned, this study seeks to return to (or “complicate”) what it may mean for
word and deed [or rhetoric and action] to exist coincidentally, conspiratorially, and ‘in
conjunction’ with one another, arm in arm or hand in hand. In order to bring this correspondence
to light, it will likely be necessary to “define my terms”—or “embellish” them in their
“vernacular” accompaniment of certain symbols, i.e. ‘#’ or ‘@’—which, at times, may seem to
resist the academic praxis which often dictates or shapes the “scholastic” manner in which we
speak. However, given the nature and subject of this treatise—and the fact that Rhetoric owes its
existence [as the discipline that it “is”] due to it’s contingency upon the [linguistic, material]
conditions of the present—it is [or in this case, has been] necessary to incorporate this mode or
manner of “speaking” into the corpus of this text in order to simultaneously address two
[independent, but “connected”] audiences. Thus, if we are to speak into the idea or notion of
“practicing what one preaches”—where action and deed are “coincidental” to such a degree that
substance and style become indistinguishable as separate entities—I have had to make use of or
“incorporate” certain stylistic or rhetorical “conventions” at the expense of others. Given the
exigencies that the concept of “freedom of speech” is currently facing, I feel such considerations
to be warranted.
5
See Michel Foucault, “Fearless Speech”
I. The November 26th [#OccupyDenver/#IOccupyBecause] Children’s Day Speech: Written, but
not Delivered:
As it would appear, a #revolution is #now6 upon us. For as we stand here today, in this
Greek Amphitheater in Civic Center Park, thousands more of us—across the globe and
throughout the nation—continue to march as the world watches on. In watching, they are
witnessing the march of those who have heeded a call—a call that speaks to one in that language
that only one can hear—a call that resonates within oneself, that has “moved” one’s being, that
heralds us in ways and through forms and by degrees that changes what it means for “movement”
to be possible. For movement must begin within long before it can be seen without. It is in this
sense that such a call has taken root: for it signals our attendance to meaningful ‘phenomena’ [or
‘affective’ events] which have risen [above], fallen [below], exceeded [beyond], gone [against]
or ‘coincided’ [with] a given ‘norm,’ ‘threshold,’ or boundary in [or of] one’s experience. And it
is a call that will continue to incite oneself and others to action long after the movement has
departed. And though we might not know—or be able to say—where it is that this movement
might take us, there is a reason why are standing here today; and that reason grows more and
more lucid, more and more material, with the convening of every assembly and with the passing
of every march.
We stand here today, in #solidarity with one another—“arm in arm” if not hand in
hand—in this mile-high city of Denver, Colorado, as the world watches what it means not to
fight against power, but to embody it, where we have sought to give voice to the spirit of that
which we say that we are: a great and growing social collectivity, born of individual voices,
who—through a certain manner, mode, and medium of address—have chosen to engage [and coexist] with one another as a collective presence upon [and in “occupation” of] those places and
spaces determined to be “common” to all. For it is in, with, and thorough the interests, ideas, and
ideals of what a “community” is—and what a social mass could be—that our campaign continues
to give shape to that which we cannot help but become. We, the 99%, through our sit-ins and our
signs—through our protests and our march—are demonstrating what it means to be in
correspondence [and co- -respondence] with one another through our vision and our voice. We
are changing what it means to communicate with another—what it means to speak into that
which has moved us to Speak—and why this conversation is so essential to the functioning of a
democratic society where “what is the city but the [voices of the] people”?
And here, it might be prudent to point out—even at the risk of redundancy—that nonviolence is something that should be as evident in our actions as it is in our speech, if peace and
nonviolence is what we say that we stand for. We owe it not only to ourselves and to others—but
to the movement we represent and those whom have yet to play a part—to practice what we
preach and preach only when we must. For words can inflict far more harm than good when they
are used as a force against [and, at times, as a force for] that which—and those whom—we do
The etymology of [the word] “now” can be traced to Greek, νυ, which translates to: “NY.”
Given the origin of the Occupy Movement in Zucotti Park—in New York, NY—I found this to
be a “coincidental” point of consideration. This coincidental return—in terms of those origins [in
the history of things] that movements appear or are made manifest within—speaks to the idea or
notion of “revolution” as an orbital recurrence, in the sense that I am using [and others have
used] the term “now” and before now.
6
not completely understand. We must take caution, then, to demand from others what we do not
first demand of ourselves; for as this Occupy movement has demonstrated, there will come a
time when those in positions of “authority” or “power” will be held accountable for doing the
things that they say that they do. And we cannot expect others to stay true to their word if we
cannot be as equally transparent in ours. The future of this movement may in fact depend on this
very notion: the ability to show one another what is possible when word and deed go hand in
hand. When what we say and what we do are coincidental to such a degree that the two become
indistinguishable.
So if this Occupy Movement really is, in fact, about what many of us have come to
believe that it is or could be—or have known it to be, all along, but without voice or courage or
opportunity to say so—then we are likely to see the coming of great changes if we continue to
“come together” in ways that might expand and re-think what it is to be “present” and what it
means, as a community, to “speak truth to power.” The latter is a concept that Michel Foucault
spoke of in “Fearless Speech” when addressing the ancient Greek notion of parrhesia [par-heeze-ah]: “a word that appears for the first time in Greek literature [in Euripides[,] c.484-407 B.C.]]
and occurs throughout the ancient Greek world [in the form] of letters from the end of the Fifth
Century B.C. Ordinarily translated into English by [or as] ‘free speech,’”7 parhessia is a word
meaning to “speak boldly,” “to speak everything,” and to speak all—even or especially—at the
risk one’s life or in the presence of danger.
So, before I close this speech with what might be a parhessiastic call to arms, let me
quickly mention that this movement could not be a “movement”—as what it is and where it is
today—were it not for the bodies and voices of those “occupying” those places and spaces within
it. I wish to defer here to another great scholar and activist, the Slovenien philosopher Slavoj
Zizek who addressed the Occupy Wall Street demonstration on Sunday, October 9th in Zuccotti
Park, and spoke of the need for “blue ink” and what it means to present in spirit. In his closing
remarks, Zizek is quoted as saying,
“Communism has failed absolutely. But the problems of the commons are here.
They are telling you we are not American here. But the conservative
fundamentalists who claim they really are American have to be reminded of
something: What is Christianity? It’s the holy spirit. What is the holy spirit? It’s
an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other, and
who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense, the
holy spirit is here now. And down there on Wall Street, there are pagans who are
worshipping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience. The only thing I’m
afraid of is that we will someday just go home and then we will meet once a year,
drinking beer, and nostalgically remembering “What a nice time we had here.”
Promise yourselves that this will not be the case. We know that people often
desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you
desire.”8
This movement, then, may largely depend on the role we assign to desire—and what forms such
longings take—when it becomes not only possible, but necessary, to seek out in “actuality” what
7
8
exists only, at present, in the realm of “possibility” or potential. The love we have or harbor for
the things that we do—depending, of course, on the nature of that desire—can attract things to
oneself [and transport us to others] that give credence to those things we always believed to be
true.
As for me, I dare not give name to that which [or he whom] I desire until it is deemed
necessary or warranted to do so. But for the sake of transparency—and because there is little left
to do but to Speak what comes to mind—I can say, at very least, that I desire the company of the
one and the many who embody what it means for great talent, great knowledge, and a great heart
to exist hand in hand. Who not need be told that with great knowledge and great freedom comes
great responsibility. And who seek a world wherein the voices of this new generation may be
heard. As we are learning through this movement, there is great need in finding ways to align the
work that our voices ‘do’—the labor they produce—with an outlet and medium or environment
and forum to do that work in. Sometimes it is not a matter of one not having a voice, but of not
knowing what to do with the voice that they have. I can think of no better time than now, on
Children’s Day, to speak into this notion.
Now, if you would—if you can, and wouldn’t mind—I’d like for us to envision a time
[whether in our distant or not-so distant past] when we believed in things we saw not as
“beliefs,” but simply as how things “really are.” What did we accept as “true” that we no longer
entertain, even as possibility? As children, what did we aspire to be, to have, and to hold? What
things spoke to us then that speaks to us no longer? What did it mean to believe in a kind of love
that spoke to us on a level that only we could hear? What was possible with it? Through it?
Because of it? Let me share a story that might prove embarrassing, though hopefully not
unwarranted: When I was about 8, I used to believe I could “telepathically” communicate with
someone I very matter-of-factly took to be [or knew to be] my soulmate. Having little to do with
romance or lust—given the late-bloomer I was on these biological and ideological frontiers—it
was, quite simply, how I saw things to be. And being the ever-determined 8 year-old that I was, I
thought it prudent to decide upon a “secret” word that we would utter to one another—on the
playground, naturally, while at school—whenever it was that we met so we would know, with
certainty, who it is that we were. It was a word both commonplace enough to integrate into the
vernacular of an elementary school playground, but covert enough to go unnoticed by those who
were not meant to hear it. Apparently even 8 year-olds take their precautions.
I mention this now because it is a word I have carried with me all my life, a word I had
recently engraved on the ring I wear on my right hand; a ring that was picked out by my sister to
replace the one she purchased when she was 6 years with the first $3.00 dollars she had to her
name. So regardless of what may come for having done so—or what may not—I tell this story
now because entertaining the possibility of a kind of love or “connection” that has “spoken” to
you in ways [or through forms] that one simply takes as a “given” has been a guiding force in
shaping the path that I have taken to get here, today. And while this has not come without it’s
costs, it’s sacrifices, and it’s mistakes, it is precisely this desire which I attribute to my being
here now, doing what I am now, with all that I am and all that I have to give. It has done me only
the greatest of good to follow an idea and ideal as far as it would take me. And the end, as it
appears, is not yet over. We must not underestimate what is possible when we commit ourselves
to an idea or a desire that brings us to places and spaces—and ways of being—that we had
hitherto thought impossible. Love, as it would seem, has it’s own form of currency.
Let us now return, then, on this Children’s Day, to what it is we owe to those who are to
follow in the wake of this movement: our emphasis and insistence [should such times become
necessary] of what it is to be in “communion” or “in common” with another, whether that
community is here, in Denver, or in Paris, France or upon the outer banks and fringes of lands
[or realms] that we that do not know exist or we have not given sufficient attention to. We may
find that this “communion” is nothing more [or nothing less] than ‘just, exactly’ what it has been
defined as ‘being’ all along: “the action or fact of sharing or holding something in common with
others; mutual participation; the condition of things so held, mutuality, community, union.”
9For those who are not yet part of movement “whose time has come,” please consider
this an invitation to join us in challenging what it means to be part of a vibrant and transparent
“community,” even if this challenge is one that is leveled against the movement itself. However,
to take up the call of the latter might come at the “cost” of setting aside all that we think that we
know [or “knew” at one time] if we are to truly seek that which so many others now feel or
consider to be True. But just as it takes one rotation for the minute hand of a clock to return to
the place that it once began or once was, we cannot come full circle until we have occupied that
position which—at first glance—might seem to be farthest away from an origin that we, in so
many other ways, are actually most closest to.
In closing, then, let me return to the position where this speech first began: for we now
find ourselves at that point [or position] that ‘has been’ once before: at the co- -incidence [or
trincidence] of word and event10. While a “coincidence” is typically a word ascribed to an event
or ‘thing’ that that has no apparent cause or connection or reason for its occurrence, to
“coincide”—as an action—is a term defined as meaning: “to fall together and agree in position;
to occupy the same area or portion of space; ”11 “to occur or happen at the same time; to occupy
the same space of time,” and “to be identical in substance, nature, or character; to agree exactly,
to be in precise harmony or accord with.”12 The Occupy Movement, then—the one we now
witnessing, now watching, or now find ourselves a part—seems to be largely a product of co- incidence and event. In fact, it might be said that “coincidence” is what this movement is all
about: the ways that we have come together—in ‘agreement,’ in ‘alignment’ and in #solidarity—
with one another, in order to give voice to what it really means to be “present.” As we are
coming to learn—more and more everyday—it is, now, as it [once] was once before, and “you
cannot stop an idea whose time has come.”
13While there is much more that could be said—and likely, will be—about this topic, it
may be enough to say, for the present: that language has, at times, a life unto itself. It takes
revolutions and returns—or iterations and incarnations—in ways that we have only [just] begun
to explore and/or in ways that we [have only, just now] believed to be possible. And it is with the
realm or place or topos of the “possible”—with the idea of [what it would look like] in a more
perfect world—that our story has begun and which may [one distant day in the future] return
again once more. While it may slightly trite or clichéd or sing-songy to end on such a note, let
me bring this to a close with these words: We are the 99; we exemplify that which we say by that
which we do; we each know a kind of Love and in that knowing, speak into what we believe to
be True.
See OED, s.v. “communion, n.” From “ < commūnis common adj. + -iō -ion suffix1.”
[(s)—as they are disseminated through certain channels or streams of communication]
11
If by words we mean ‘the voices we use to speak to [and unto] one another in the joint [or collective/collected]
efforts and presence of those upon whom their partisanship depends.
12
See the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed.,1989, s.v. “coincide, v.” Online version March 2011.
13
Ibid.
9
10
I. History of the Movement
On September 17, 2011, the birth of the “Occupy Wall Street” (or “#OWS”) movement
took place in Zuccotti Park,14 a 33,000 square-foot expanse of privately-owned-public-space in
Lower Manhattan, New York. Only two days before it’s two month anniversary (as I’m writing
this), the movement has spread to an international level.
Liminal space.
II. Role of Transparency
The #OWS movement has brought to light, once more, what it means [and may have
meant] to speak in unison and co-incidence with one another, even if that ‘speaking’ is done
through a demographically-fragmented populace and even if those voices are miles apart. As the
movement has demonstrated—or has cast criticism upon those who do not enforce it—
transparency has become necessary to a functioning economy and the well-being of one’s [and
one another’s] #personhood and life.
III. Role of Rhetoric
If there is any ‘truth’ to history of words, then rhetoricians—now as was in the past,
whether they realize it or not—are great stakeholders in those events and movements that must
subvert typical modes of resistance and “occupation” by the use of words to mobilize [and at
times, disperse] great collectivities. And it is [with and through] words that rhetoricians have
been historically a part. The word “word” itself comes from the Greek word “ῥήτωρ” meaning
“rhetorician.” Before that, the earlier word [for ‘word’] was “ϝρήτωρ” or “orator.”15 Its
etymology is as follows:
Given the implications of this word—and it’s great and many meanings—the occupation
movement, perhaps more than anything else, has brought attention to the power of words [when
articulated or made present upon or through virtual communicative environments] to organize,
mobilize, and locate the voices of individuals who
then, has brought attention to the fact that the word is under attack.
The park has been re-called “Liberty Park” by protestors, “an informal return to a version of the park's original
name.”
15
Partial etymology of the word “word”: “Cognate with Old Frisian word (West Frisian wurd), Old Dutch
wort (Middle Dutch wort, word, Dutch woord), Old Saxon word (Middle Low German wort), Old High
German wort (Middle High German wort, German Wort), Old Icelandic orð, Old Swedish orþ (Swedish
ord), Old Danish orth (Danish ord), Gothic waurd, all denoting both ‘an utterance’ and ‘an element or unit
of speech, a word’ < the same Indo-European base as Lithuanian vardas name, forename, title, Latvian
vārds word, forename, promise*, classical Latin verbum word, showing an extended form of the IndoEuropean base of ancient Greek ῥήτωρ*[/RHETORICIAN]15 (earlier ϝρήτωρ[/OFF orator]15) speaker,
(Epic and Ionic) ἐρέω (earlier ϝερέω; Attic ἐρῶ) I shall say, and perhaps also Sanskrit* vrata behest,
command.” See OED, s.v. “word, n.”
14
As others have spoken of already, how we define or ‘give shape to’ our efforts—
especially as those efforts address or redress notions of “possessions,” resources, and goods—
will determine the [scope of] ideational matter that we believe to be possible and thus, influence
the action we take upon those ideas within the movement itself. As has been noted by
rhetoricians past and present, (i.e. Atwill, Poulakos, Aristotle), the power of rhetoric does not lie
solely in the products or fruits of it’s labor16, but in the labor itself—in the process through which
that material is produced and comes to be, as such. Rhetoric functions, in this sense, to bridge the
realm of “possibility” to the realm of “actuality,” where it is through the absence of a ‘normative
subject’ that it must orient itself [and be contingent upon] the ‘everyday’ conditions [and
communicative resources] of the present.
IV. Twitter & the Emergence of Publics
As the #OWS movement continues to comingle, intersect with, and ‘happen upon’ those
multiple factions [and virtual domains] within the public sphere, it becomes more and more
evident—based on the emergence or “trending” of certain topics/topoi of discussion—that there
is much more at stake [or at work] than is on the surface or that meets the eye. Twitter, as case in
point—as a “powerful collectivity born of individual voices”17—has exemplified [or made
#manifest] the ability for others to locate one another through the “tweeting” of news and
‘happenings’ of [#ows] event(s) through both the agential capacity [and vernacularities] of
language(s) and their appearance or occurrence through the ‘streaming’ of voices in or upon
communicative domains. Twitter “is literally the binding agent between time, place, and space”
where the collective identity of a geographically [and demographically] fragmented community
is united/made possible through a medium that heralds transparency in one’s communication.
…
There is nothing left to do but to speak at this point.
We must respond with #transparency—and in #solidarity with one another—if we are to
speak to, into, or on behalf of those who occupy spaces or places or ‘positions’ of power. Power,
as it has been noted, goes both ways; it is not what power ‘is’ that [necessarily] determines it’s
value or essence or worth, but what it does [or affects/effects] and how it is applied which ‘gives
shape’ or formation to worlds, ideas, and possibilities of “being” hitherto unfathomable or
hitherto forgotten.
…
V. The Vernacularity and Vernaculars of Twitter versus the Occupied Sites/Sites of Occupationß
16
17
One of the postulates of the #NYC_GA is about “redefining how labor is valued.”
Patty Malesh, [during meeting]
These vernacular languages—and the langues correspondent to them—are those that
have been historically granted, conferred, or associated with a certain “authority” and which are,
at present, functioning to both appropriate and co-opt ‘authority’ [to and from those not yet in
power] in a similar manner. It is here—in the liminal space between the vernacular of the street
protestors and the vernacularity of [X]—that we see the emergence or convergence of
that we may perhaps be bearing witness to the intersection of the vernacular and
authoritative language. That is to say: just because certain languages carry “authority” now,
doesn’t mean that those languages were not vernacular in a previous instance, iteration, or
incarnation, as it were.
“A hashtag is defined as a pound symbol followed by a word or phrase (i.e.
#OccupyWallStreet). In essence, it’s a community of people that engage by creating and
sharing content around a specific topic, conference, event, crisis or news story. A hashtag
enables people to easily search and track related tweets and spread ideas digitally to amplify your
message.” [http://www.blackenterprise.com/2011/11/02/how-to-start-a-movement-with-atwitter-hashtag/]
Questions:
1. Why is this the site? [*no distinction between public and private—twitter technological
equivalent of transparency, transparency key issue of movement.]
2. How does Twitter integrate discourse and embodiement for a movement that demands
physical participation, and why else is Twitter interesting? Synergistic relationship between body
and language; Twitter as technological embodiment and ideal of movement.
3. How does twitter create a community across difference? How to corral the diverse 99%...what
are the rhetorical tropes and dominant vernacular discourses emerging from this larger collective
identity?
4. In what ways can or is the vernacular langues of the movement being co-opted by others
[seemingly] wishing to see it fail?
5. In what ways is collective identity borne/created through this movement (and sustained)
through Twitter?
VI. The Co-option of Movement Vernaculars.
Some have been quick [and eager] to exploit the fact that words have power and power,
at times, can speak—and gather forces—through certain spaces [i.e. virtual domains] and at
certain places (#OWS movements) across the country. This paper endeavors to complicate what
it means to “locate” one another through voice where it is through our words—and through our
rhetoric—that event-ality and [collective] presence is and has been made known. While this
vernacular seems to be one that grants agency to presence and speaks truth to power, the
protesters in [or of] the #OWS movement, however, have not been the only ones to take notice.
There are those who have known or who have learned that people “come together” through
language in a way that other modes of mobilization have failed. Beware of co-option.
Abstract/Twitter as Movement Site
I will be exploring the domain and “information network” of Twitter, the online social
networking and “microblogging” website and service that publishes user-generated “tweets”: bits
of information or “messages” [less than or equal to] 140-characters that are designed to address
“what’s happening?” by those whom use their service. According to Twitter’s user-guide,
Twitter is “a new and easy way to discover the latest news (“what’s happening”) related to
subjects you care about” and facilitates the “find[ing] of what matters most to you” through the
“discovery of sources,” “building a voice,” and “get[ting] fancy”: concerns which are arguably
as much rhetorical as they are technological and sociological. By addressing the roles that time,
transparency, and engagement play in the moment-to-moment unfolding of tweeted events, this
study—conducted through an ethnographic lens—seeks to contribute to discussions concerning
the public sphere, it’s formations and disintigrations, and the ‘coming together’ of people (and
things) which speak [or speak into] “the same language” or same genera18 of experience or
encounter with Other.
Twitter as a Vernacular Public
According to Michael Warner, “a public is a[n] [autotelic] space of discourse organized
by nothing other than discourse itself”19—which “comes into being only in relation to texts and
their circulation”20—and thus “exists by virtue of being addressed.”21 In a similar manner,
tweeted events are determined to be “eventful” by virtue of the appearance or manifestation of
the tweet as a ‘tweet.’22 “Event-ality” then, is bound up with if not “prior to” the tweet as tweet
itself. This may have implications for [or speak into] Bitzer’s notion of the rhetorical situation:
“a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence
which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so
constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the
exigence.”23
A topos [and the topoi] of transcription: The Medium is the Message
In addition to exploring how publics [and potential counter publics] are formed through
the act of “tweeting”—where people come to learn of others and “events” by attending to [and
engaging with] messages that address or speak into those experiences, encounters, and
‘everyday’ interactions that give rise to one’s twittering—I will address the ‘vernacularity’ of the
Twitter site itself, where “site” refers to both a ‘virtual’ and ‘terrestrial’ location, where the first
may be considered: the larger corpus of text(s) which “houses” [or ‘holds’] the separate and
18
[Διο γένης/Dio genes]
Warner, 67.
20
Warner, 66.
21
Warner, 67.
22
…given the function or value that the user ascribes to the term or uses the term “tweet” ‘to be.’
23
Bitzer, 6.
19
individualized tweets which “make up” the heteroglossic streams or “flows” within this larger
dialogic community. The second site is—and Jerry, I would like to suggest this secondary site
and the “phenomenon” this site is ‘recording’ as part of my dissertation topic and proposal—the
Library of Congress, where, according to an April 18th, 2010 audio transcript by NPR, “every
public message in the history of Twitter will be included in the library's holdings.”24 If true, this
would add another dimension to conversations surrounding ideas of surveillance [i.e. Foucault]
and publicity.
In order to draw parallels between the vernacularity of Twitter—in it’s form, function,
and the continuous formation between the two—and that of rhetoric, I will first draw attention to
the technological language that Twitter ‘users’ must use in order to make public or make visible
one’s message or “news” or “tweeting” to certain ‘spheres’ or publics. Using Twitter’s glossary
of terms [and the service itself] as a primary source for this study, I intend to draw parallels
between the terminology or “lingo” used by Twitter and it’s account holders—such as
“geolocation/geotagging25,” “direct message,” “re-tweeting,” “parody,” “trending topic,” and
“twitterer”—and the rhetorical terms such as locus, audience/rhetor, anaphora/epistrophe
[ἀναφορά/ἐπιστροφή or “carrying back” and “return”], topos, exigence/situation, and kairos. The
parallels between these terms—among what are likely [or are likely to be] invariant others—
might bring nuance to what it could mean to share “news” with others through streaming
channels of tweets and how this medium gives “voice” to (or back to) the people, regardless [or
independent] of “position,” that are in need of or desirous of such an outlet.
I [feel that I] will eventually make the claim that: this form or channel or stream of
communication—and the movements that take place within such channels and the [social]
movements that this medium could be said to have given rise to, i.e. the 2011 Tunisian and
Egyptian Revolution—assist in the development of an embodied and mediated ‘invitational’ and
inventional rhetoric that performs multiple communicative roles that function simultaneously or
in concert or “conspiracy” with one another. Thus, the locus of this research will address how it
is possible for social collectivities (and the individuals within them) to ‘build a voice’—through
the actions of retweet[ing], reply[ing], [and] react[ing]—where, according to the Twitter user
guide, it is through the use of “existing information (other people's Tweets) on Twitter to find
your own voice and show others what you care about.”26 This concept has significant
implications for the ways that “voice” operates to expose or ‘lay bare’—and at times, cover and
cloth—articulations ‘designed’ for another, those designed for one other, those designed for a
‘few’ others, those designed for the many, and lastly: those designed for the all. The research
question(s) of the project then, are this:
1. How does ‘vernacular rhetoric’ and ‘vernacularity’—as a state or condition of using
[or enacting] one or more vernaculars—in the transcripted (i.e. Scott) ‘tweeting’ of everyday
events, facilitate the discovery of one’s voice [and finding of those who “hear” one’s message]
through the publics it addresses and the channels that it must cross?
24
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126086325
Geolocation is “the use of location data in Tweets to tell us [your “audience”] where you are in real time.”
26
See https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/104-welcome-to-twitter-support/articles/215585twitter-101-how-should-i-get-started-using-twitter
25
Principles of Solidarity
What follows is a living document that will be revised
through democratic process of General Assembly
On September 17, 2011, people from all across the United States of America and the
world came to protest the blatant injustices of our times perpetuated by the economic
and political elites. On the 17th we as individuals rose up against political
disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice. We spoke out, resisted, and
successfully occupied Wall Street. Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square
constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil
disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love. It
is from these reclaimed grounds that we say to all Americans and to the world,
Enough! How many crises does it take? We are the 99% and we have moved to reclaim
our mortgaged future.Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as
individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that
include but are not limited to:








Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
Exercising personal and collective responsibility;
Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all
interactions;
Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
Redefining how labor is valued;
The sanctity of individual privacy;
The belief that education is human right; and
Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source.
We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of
equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will
follow.
SCRAP:
The #revolution, as it would appear, is now upon us. For we have arrived at that point [or
position] that ‘has been’ once before: at the co- -incidence [or trincidence] of word and event.
While a “coincidence” is typically ascribed to an event that has no apparent cause or connection
or reason for its occurrence, to “coincide”—as an action—is a term defined as meaning: “to fall
together and agree in position; to occupy the same area or portion of space.”27 In it’s secondary
senses, to coincide is “to occur or happen at the same time; to occupy the same space of time,”
and “to be identical in substance, nature, or character; to agree exactly, to be in precise harmony
or accord with.”28 The Occupy Movement, then—the one of which we now witnessing, are now
watching, or now find ourselves intimately a part—seems to be largely a product of co- incidence. In fact, it might be said that “coincidence” is what this movement is all about: the
ways that we have come together—in ‘agreement,’ in ‘alignment’ and in #solidarity—with one
another, in order to give voice to what it really means to be “present.”
27
28
See the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed.,1989, s.v. “coincide, v.” Online version March 2011.
Ibid.
As some of us have articulated in the [recent or not-so recent] past, this movement cannot
“take place” without making our collectivity visible to others who are just as much a part of this
revolution as we are, whether or not they realize it. And while I am in agreement with this
sentiment, it is going to take more than ‘putting oneself in the eye of the public’ to sustain a
movement that began not with visibility, but with voice. We ought to take the time and the care
to remind ourselves [and one another] of why we are here in the first place: to give voice to that
which—or those who—have been historically silenced or denied legitimacy within the larger
political, educational, institutional, and environmental realms with which we are a part. Let us
not forget what it means to speak in “one's own language” [through our #vernacular] and/or in
that of another, be these languages mutually exclusive or co- -respondent to a degree hitherto
unnamed.
It may not be coincidence, then, that [the word] “now” comes from the ancient Greek
[and enclitic] word “νυ” which translates simply to “NY.” Hence, the revolution of word and
event: “now”29 marks the moment just as ‘X’ marks the spot.
It is now as it was in the beginning, and “you can’t stop an idea whose time has come.”
If there *is* any ‘truth’ to [be culled from the] history of words, then rhetoricians—now as in the
past, whether the former yet realize it—are great stakeholders in those #events and [social]
#movements that must subvert typical modes of resistance and “occupation” by the use of words
to locate, mobilize [and at times, disperse] great collectivities. And it is [with and through] words
that rhetoricians, as whole or in part, have been historically concerned. According to the Oxford
English Dictionary, ["the definitive #record of the English language"] the word “word” comes
from the Greek word “ῥήτωρ” meaning “rhetorician.” Before that, the earlier word [for "word"]
was “ϝρήτωρ” or “orator.”
Given the implications of this word—and of words, themselves—the 'Occupation Movement'
[perhaps more than anything else as of yet] has brought our attention [back] to the power and
#potential of language(s) to organize and embody the voices of a silenced majority. When these
voices are articulated [or made present] in, upon, or through certain virtual communicative
environments, [i.e. Twitter] we are likely to witness the [great and many] ways that discourse is
constitutive of (and exemplified by) those publics through which it circulates.
The revolution is #now upon us. The etymology of "now"? From [the] Greek [word] "νυ." The
translation of νυ? "NY."
While there is much more to be said and done concerning this topic/topos [of "Occupation"
rhetoric] as it relates to the disciplinary or canonical functions with which it is a part, it is hoped
that this page might serve as a space or domain where such discussions may occur and continue
to take shape.
If this etymology is correct, then “now” can be traced to “ancient Greek (enclitic) νυ [which Google translate
converts to “NY”] and ancient Greek νῦν [translated to “now”].” Ibid., s.v. “now, adv., conj., n.1, and adj.”
29
Consider this then, a parrhessiastic call to arms. Help us bring to light what it means to "bridge"
the realm of possibility to the realm of actuality through the #kairos of language, #voice, and
event. As we may come to learn—if we have not already—there is much more at stake [than the
rhetoric used to frame it] in a movement that involves the co- -incidence and "conspiracy" of
word and event. NOW marks the moment. X marks the spot.
In terms of it’s origins, to “conspire”—from conspīrāre—means “to breathe together’,
whence, ‘to accord, harmonize, agree, combine or unite in a purpose, [and] plot mischief
together secretly.”30
And rhetoric, as it would happen—or at times, comes “to be”—could not be more critical
[or more kairotic, more timely] to the #emergence of this revolution and the progressions taking
place within it. Consider this then, a parrhessiastic call to arms. As we will come to learn—if we
have not already—there is much more at stake [than the rhetoric used to frame it] in a movement
that involves the occupation31 or “possession” of time, place, and space. To “occupy” is to
_____________ and to ______________ is to hold. But the movement—as a ‘movement’—has
only just begun, and “there are [still] miles to go before [we] sleep.”
Now, perhaps more than [ever which] we have witnessed or heard of in times recent past,
has there been so much at stake—even if only in terms of it's potential—in a movement of
#occupation
encountered or countered by those in "authority" of (or on) the subject matter.
See the Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 2010, s.v. “conspiracy, n.”
“I. Senses relating to space. 1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building,
land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to
such action. II. Senses relating to time. 4. a. The state of having one's time or attention occupied; what a person is
engaged in; employment, business; work, toil.” See OED, s.v. “occupation, n.”
30
31
PAPER TWO:
#OCCUPY RHETORIC AND THE VERNACULAR OF THE OCCUPATION MOVEMENT
PAPER THREE:
CO-INCDENCE AND EVENT IN THE OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT