When we can’t handle the truth: Occupy, “dangerous speech,” and public administration

Abstract

The Occupy Movement (“Occupy”) was largely ignored by public administration scholars. In this paper we argue that letting Occupy pass by without substantive analysis is unfortunate because it represented an opportunity for public administration to learn and reflect on critically important issues. Occupy was an important moment of truth-telling in US politics and prefiguring of a different way of life, yet it revealed the field’s inability to hear and constructively engage with the “truth” of contemporary social movements. We elaborate these matters and contend that Occupy should be read as a moment of what the ancient Greeks and, more recently, Michel Foucault, call parrhēsia, or frank, direct, truthful speech. We consider Occupy within the broader context of public administration as a field of practice that engages with particular forms of truth-telling and use this as a fulcrum to theorize the particular ways in which public administration could or could not “handle” Occupy’s truth-telling. The final sections of the paper outline concrete lessons about how public administration may respond differently to the truth-telling of current and future social movements.

Keywords:

• Public Administration
• occupy Movement
• social movements
• Michel Foucault
• parrhēsia

Notes

1 Neoliberalism may be understood as the political and administrative process of extending market rationality, in particular an ethic of competition, to all domains of social life (Dardot & Laval, 2013; Eagan, 2014; Harvey, 2004; Peck & Tickell, 2002).

2 See Gilens and Page (2014) for empirical data that demostrates how economic elites subvert democractic practices.

3 Bourdieu’s notion of a field of practice is evoked here to show that public administration exists as a field with a set of norms and practices, including truth-telling, that are distinct to public administration though perhaps overlapping with other political arenas. A partial reason why public administration fails to respond to the Occupy Movement adequately is incommensurate forms of truth-telling: outlined below as the tension between technē and parrhēsia.

4 See for example, the community norms of Occupy Portland: http://occupyportland.org/occupation/community-guidelines/

5 On this point, Occupy was not unique of course. There are other important historical examples: Hoovervilles in the US, Indigenous land movements/landless movements (e.g., Brazil), and Indignados in Spain.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thomas J. Catlaw

Thomas J. Catlaw is a writer and musician living in Tempe, Arizona. Until 2017, he was Associate Professor and Frank & June Sackton Professor of public administration in Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs, where he was a faculty member for 14 years. He left academia to explore his interests in music and sound.

Jennifer L. Eagan

Jennifer L. Eagan is a Professor of Philosophy and Public Affairs & Administration at California State University, East Bay. Working at the intersection of theory and praxis, she has published articles in the areas of feminist philosophy, critical theory, political philosophy, ethics, and the philosophy of public administration. Her ongoing research interests include organizing and activism and the works of Adorno, Marcuse, Foucault, and Butler. She has also serves as a leader in her labor union, the California Faculty Association.