I was scanning through pictures of the Occupy Wall Street protest this week, trying to put this new movement in perspective, when two pictures caught my eye. The first was a Japanese man wearing a mask over his mouth with 99% on the front – a reference to the unofficial slogan of the Occupy movement that states ‘We are the 99%.” The second was a woman holding a sign that said “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”

In a country and world where the loudest 1% has captured media attention, how can we understand this new movement? Is this just another angry voice amongst the many or, in the words of this month’s Time, is this “the return of the silent majority?”

I first heard of Occupy Wall Street a few weeks ago and, to be honest, I assumed it was just “Tea Party 2”. That isn’t a knock on the Tea Party’s ideals, but rather an observation on its sustained significance. From the crest of the 2010 Congressional Elections, the Tea Party wave has since crashed with only a 27% favorable view in recent polls. Will Occupy follow a similar pattern? How can it continue that momentum and stick in a way that the Tea Party was unable to?

—-

Every day at 9:30am and 4:00pm, the New York Stock Exchange rings a bell to signal the opening and closing of trades. Occupy Wall Street marks the ringing of a different bell – an innovation theory based off of a bell curve by Everett Rogers. According to Rogers’ theory, innovations (whether ideas or technology) move through a consistent spreading process that Rogers called the “diffusion of innovation.”

A remarkably small number of individuals are true “innovators” (around 2.5%), but it is these individuals who create various movements (think Steve Jobs or Adbusters, who started Occupy). However, these innovations can’t take hold unless they are picked up by “early adopters” (around 13.5% of population) who are, by and large, young and well-educated individuals who synthesize information well and communicate that on to a wider base. Following these first two categories are the majority: “early majority” (34%), “late majority” (34%), and the “laggards” or “change resisters” (16%).

From looking at this theory, it would seem as though Occupy Wall Street is looking to make the transition from its “early adopters” stage to the “early majority.” This is, by far, the most critical time for any innovation. It is one thing for “innovators” to inspire “early adopters”, but a wholly other thing for the “early majority” to be inspired. We saw the Tea Party briefly touch majority with the 2010 elections, but their numbers have since faded. A recent Time poll showed that the Occupy movement had a 54% favorable view, while 81% of respondents think America is on the wrong track. For a movement that claims to represent the 99%, can merely paying attention get people angry enough to participate. I would argue no. And that’s where our voices come in.

—-

After reading the great theological reflections by Yaira Robinson, Mary Ann Keiser , and Anna DeWeese on this Occupy movement, it seems clear that people of all faiths can support a movement dedicated towards fighting economic injustices. And yet, as Mary Ann Keiser notes, there has been a sad history of the religious institutions being in the “late majority” or possibly in the “laggards” category. This wasn’t always the case. Early abolitionists, the “innovators”, were by and large Christians. Many in the “early majority” of the civil rights movement were led to do so by their faith.

However, recent history has shown the church lagging behind in recent issues – in part, perhaps, because of the unprecedented speed with which the innovation cycle moves in our technological word. If we as young religious leaders truly believe in the principles of this Occupy movement, many of us are in unique positions as bloggers/community leaders/pastors to reach out to the “majority.” As a Christian, the Gospels clearly show Jesus advocating for “the lost, the last, and the least” as Elam Davies, a former pastor at Fourth Presbyterian Church, put it. I believe we are called to advocate for them as well. So how can we make this Occupy Wall Street movement stick?

Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory lists 5 factors by which an idea/technology will take hold:

1. Relative Advantage – Is this new thing better than the old?

2. Compatibility – Is this compatible to our lives?

3. Complexity – Is this new thing too difficult for users to adopt?

4. Trialability – Can people experiment with this new idea?

5. Observability – Is this innovation visible to others?

Looking at this list, the Occupy movement seems to have #1 and #5 grasped. Ending economic injustice and being highly visible through media outlets have been cornerstones so far. But how will this progress? How will people be able to experiment with this idea and will there be easy ways to get on board? The answers to those questions aren’t clear at the moment, so the success of the movement relies on the first and last items on Rogers’ list. If we as religious leaders support this, it is our responsibility to make this movement as visible and clear as we can. The bell has been rung by the Occupy Wall Street movement, the “innovators”. It’s up to us, the “early adopters”, to make sure that ringing continues.

This image is reproduced from the open-source website, Wikimedia Commons.