Barely a few weeks before the OWS, in a piece in the New York Times, a number of social scientists argued that the protests that erupted in Britain and Greece were unlikely to occur in the United States. Their views were a commentary on the depressing fact that given the demoralization of the marginalized, most people were likely to individualize their problems and would more likely be depressed or suicidal than engage in public protests. They were, in Mills' words, unlikely to connect "personal troubles" to "public issues of social structure". These social scientist cannot be blamed for not anticipating the OWS. After all, what they expected to happen, has been the norm rather than the exception. As somebody towards the end of the remarkable documentary
_The Yes Men Fix the World_ remarks, perhaps the muscle that allows one to think critically about one's marginalized position and the social factors responsible for it, has atrophied in most people. Perhaps, it simply had to do with the "dull compulsion of labor" - the increasingly impossible struggle to make ends meet.
As can be expected, the mainstream media did not disappoint by predictably ignoring OWS, then by labelling it as "incoherent", "leaderless", with no "clearly defined goals" etc. Others, who could usually be counted on for supporting the movement for at least having the courage to exercise long atrophied muscles, were either silent or labeled them as "romantics" who allegedly did not quite understand what they were up against. Regardless of which direction the OWS takes or whether or not it has any tangible effects that will satisfy those demanding exacting benchmarks and parameters, surely the very fact that some actually reacted against the "world as it is" (to use the title of Chris Hedges's important book) is an encouraging first step.
