The Pre-emption of Resistance: Occupy Oakland and the Evolution of State Power By Laleh Behbehanian A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Michael B. Burawoy, Chair Professor Raka Ray Professor Cihan Z. Tugal Professor Michael J. Watts Summer 2016 The Pre-emption of Resistance: Occupy Oakland and the Evolution of State Power Copyright 2016 by Laleh Behbehanian Abstract The Pre-emption of Resistance: Occupy Oakland and the Evolution of State Power by Laleh Behbehanian Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Michael B. Burawoy, Chair This dissertation aims to contribute to our understanding of the contemporary state strategies that target social movements by examining the case of Occupy Oakland. Emphasizing how state strategies, both tactical and discursive, dynamically evolve through their iterative relation to movement strategies, it presents a detailed empirical account that is disaggregated into three “moments”, each of which are characterized by the predominance of a distinct state strategic repertoire. The objective is to highlight an underlying transformation through which state’s strategies evolve from being highly reactive, indiscriminate and vulnerable to spectacularization to becoming increasingly pre-emptive, targeted and discursively buttressed. The first “moment” commences with the movement’s occupation of Oscar Grant Plaza. Faced with Occupy Oakland’s highly disruptive tactics and its firm rejection of any forms of negotiation or cooperation with City officials, the state resorts to a strategy of Naked Coercion (reactive, indiscriminate violence that is highly vulnerable to spectacularization) which backfires and results in an internationally televised disaster on the evening of October 25th. This creates an extraordinary window of opportunity for the movement, dramatically increasing public support and enabling it to undertake the first general strike in the U.S. since 1946. This fuels a process of adaptation as the struggle proceeds into the second “moment”, and the state shifts to a strategy of Targeted Repression that is increasingly pro-active, targeted and discursively buttressed so as to diminish the danger of its spectacularization. The new strategy succeeds in permanently dislodging the occupation of Oscar Grant Plaza, as well as criminalizing the tactic of occupation and excising it from movement’s repertoire. Still unsatisfied with the repression it had achieved, in the third and final “moment” the state introduces a strategy of Pre-emptive Neutralization that is pre-emptively oriented, targeted at high “risk” populations and discursively buttressed by powerful spectacles of “risk”. This enables a thorough incapacitation of the movement – fully neutralizing its potential for collective action by rendering Occupiers a target population that could no longer even publicly assemble without inciting highly militarized police responses that were now pre-emptively justified by the risk of “violence” they collectively posed. 1 For my mother, Kali, and all those who seek to occupy a better world… i The Pre-emption of Resistance: Occupy Oakland & the Evolution of State Power Preface: WHAT IS AT STAKE? vii Introduction: THE “VIOLENCE” OF RESISTANCE 1 - The Spectacular Backlash of Repression - The Spectacle of Occupier “Violence” - Occupy Oakland’s Diversion from “Nonviolence” - The Statist Accusation of “Violence” - The Boogeyman of “the Black Bloc” - A (Re)Vision of “Nonviolence” - Strategies of “Nonviolence”: Non-Provocation or Gandhian Spectacularization Chapter 1: THE EVOLUTION OF STATE POWER 20 - Conceptualizing “Political Repression”: Repertoires of Protest Policing - The Contemporary Repertoire of “Strategic Incapacitation” - Strategic Incapacitation: Targeted Pre-emption - The Strategy and Tactics of Targeted Pre-emption - Containing the Danger of Repressive Backlash - A Strategy of “Nonviolence” in the Era of Strategic Incapacitation - Approaching State Power Beyond the Confines of “Protest Policing” - The Case of Occupy Oakland: Mapping the Evolution of State Power Moment 1: Naked Coercion Moment 2: Targeted Repression Moment 3: Pre-emptive Neutralization Chapter 2: NAKED COERCION (“Holding Ground”) 37 - Occupy Oakland Strikes: The Occupation of Oscar Grant Plaza The Tactic of Occupation ii - The State’s Initial Strategy: Non-Enforcement and the “Balance” of First Amendment Protection - The Crisis of Soft Management: Occupy Oakland’s Tactical Repertoire Horizontalism Direct Action & Non-Cooperation with the State Provoking Open Confrontation with Police & Defending the Camp as a Police-Free Space - The Discursive Shift to Enforcement The “Balance” Tilts: “Public Safety,” “Small Business” and “Violence” “Lodging”: Disassociating Occupation from First Amendment Protection - The October 25th Raid - Occupy Oakland Strikes Back: Re-Occupation - State Strategy: Naked Coercion (“Holding Ground”) - The Spectacle of Naked Coercion - The Achilles Heel of Naked Coercion: The Spectacular (Mis)Targeting of Scott Olsen - Backlash: State Fragmentation and Paralysis - Occupy Oakland Strikes Again: The Political Opportunity of Spectacular Backlash The Second Encampment The November 2nd General Strike & Port Shutdown - The “Violence” of Nighttime “Agitators” and the Discursive Targeting of Police Force - Discourses of “Violence,” “Crime” and “Economic Decline” - “Lessons Learned”: Reconsolidating the State through “Reform” - The State’s New Strategy: A “Peaceful Eviction” – The November 14th Raid - From “Containment” to Targeted Regulation: The Constitution of the “Violent” Occupier - Conclusion: Dislodging the Encampment Chapter 3: TARGETED REPRESSION (“Violent Occupiers” vs. “Peaceful Protesters”) 97 - Occupy Oakland Strikes: The Tactical Adaptation of Occupation The Occupation Seeks a New Home State Strategy: Swift Enforcement against “Lodging” and “Trespassing” The “Vigilance” of Occupation: Tree Occupations, Guerilla Gardening and Mass Feedings State Strategy: The “Porta-Potty Raid” and the Targeting of Unpermitted “Structures” A New Model of Occupation: The “Vigil” Strategy iii - State Strategy: Enforcement Shifts to Targeting “Encroachment” - The Auxiliary Tactic of Permits and the Expanded Realm of Enforcement - Occupy Oakland Strikes Again: The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown - State Strategy: The Tactic of Targeted Raids (“Violent Occupiers” vs. “Peaceful Protesters”) The December 16th Raid: The Pre-text of “Obstruction” and the Shift to Targeted Repression The December 30th Raid: Extralegal Detention and the De-spectacularization of State Violence The January 4th Raid: Surveillance Practices and the Terror of Targeted Repression - The Evolution of Targeted Repression: The Demise of the Occupation of Oscar Grant Plaza - Occupy Oakland Strikes Back: “Fuck the Police!” – Provoking Spectacles of Confrontation with OPD - State Strategy: Discursive Dominance and the New Dynamics of Spectacularization - Occupy Oakland Strikes Back: “Move-In Day” – OO’s Last Mass Occupation Effort - The State’s New Strategy: Incapacitation & Spectacularization Incapacitation through Tactics of Containment: Barricades, Kettles and “Less Lethals” Mass Arrests and the De-Spectacularization of State Violence The Spectacularization of Occupier “Violence” and the Criminalization of Occupation - Conclusion: (The) Occupation is Dead… Chapter 4: PRE-EMPTIVE NEUTRALIZATION (“Deterring Violence”) 159 - The State Strikes First: The Shift to Pre-emption - January 28th— The State’s Spectacular Window of Opportunity - City Council Strikes: “Deterrence” through “Zero Tolerance” Enforcement - “Civil Society” Strikes: The Spectacle of “Stand for Oakland” - The Prosecution Strikes: The District Attorney’s Office and the Prosecutorial Power of Pre-emption The Shift to Prosecutorial Tactics The Prosecutorial Spectacle of the “Move In-Day 12”: A “Violent Fringe” of “Outside Agitators” Stay Away Orders: The Delineation of a New Targeted “Risk” Population The Prosecutorial Spectacle of the “Ice Cream 3”: “Rioters” and “Hate Crimes” The Pre-emptive Power of the Prosecutor - The “Reform” of OPD and the Rise of Pre-emptive Policing - OO’s Last Strike: May Day and the Pre-emptive Neutralization of Occupy Oakland - Epilogue – City Council Strike Again: “Tools of Violence” and the Criminalization of Risk iv Conclusion: THE PARASITIC DYNAMISM OF STATE POWER & RESISTANCE 236 Notes 237 Bibliography 259 Appendix 1: Three Strategies of State Power 264 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is the product of an enormous collective effort. While I bear full responsibility for any shortcomings of this research, it is my community that deserves credit for its completion. While I may have been the one to sit and write this story, it belongs to the thousands of Occupiers who collectively made that history. I am enormously grateful to the countless comrades in Oakland with whom I occupied, and who have contributed in so many ways to this work. It is your courage, resilience, and unrelenting determination to struggle for a more just world that motivated and sustained this project. Long Live Occupy Oakland! In particular, this dissertation would not have been possible without my Anti-Repression Crew (the Bay Area Anti-Repression Committee). It is through our years of work together that I came to truly understand the meaning of solidarity. I am also immensely