If the mass protest is a communicative act, but the protesters haven't come together to decide what exactly it is that they're trying to say, then what the hell is it saying? What is the victory condition? How do they negotiate with power?
Occupy had this problem.
It'll be interesting to see what structures come out of this.
Totally agreed. Bevins does a great job with exactly that.
I have this extremely radicalizing memory of being at Occupy with a friend, who was an accomplished, award-winning economist (who has since passed; drink a toast to an old and missed friend for me). A national news network spoke to him for some time, and told us that the segment would air at a certain time. We all tuned in to watch it, only for them to give him some 10 seconds of air time, and play the entire interview that they did with a probably homeless guy who was quite unwell, who was at the camp for free food, and, to the camp's credit, was being fed and taken care of there. Not only was it grossly exploitative of that guy, but it was so dishonest as to the reality that I was witnessing on the ground. I'll never forget how they portrayed that guy, as a representative of the protest and complete lunatic, rather than as someone society had tossed aside who was, for once, being taken in somewhere.
From his book:
To sum up the dynamic at work here—in Egypt, in Turkey, and indeed across the mass protest decade—Tuğal paraphrased one of Marx’s most famous lines, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: “Those who cannot represent themselves will be represented.”