A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) The New Formulation* Vol.2, #2 - Social Control, Repression, and the Role of the State: Controlling Radical Movements - Review by Luis Fernandez

From Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>
Date Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:32:35 +0200 (CEST)


________________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
News about and of interest to anarchists
http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
________________________________________________

For years, the state has used various forms of social control to attack
radical social movements that challenge its power. The three works
reviewed here explore the power mechanisms behind the repression
and pacification of political dissent. They help us understand the
various ways that the state intervenes to suppress radical movements
and prevent social transformation.

In order to make more sense of social control, repression, and the role
that the state plays in it, it is useful to make at least two distinctions
between modes of social control. The first mode can be thought of as
“hard-line” social control, which includes the “hard”
tactics used by such groups as the FBI to directly undermine and
abolish radical movements. The first two works reviewed here,
Christian Parenti’s Taking Liberties: Prison, Policing, and
Surveillance in an Age of Crisis and Ward Churchill’s In a
Pig’s Eye: Reflections on the Police State, Repression and Native
America, examine this kind of social control. Both selections are
recorded lectures distributed by AK Press in CD format.

The second mode of social control is not generally discussed within
the anti-authoritarian literature. The “soft-line” mode of
social control includes less direct modes of oppression, such as the
control of dissent through the legal regulation of physical space.
Stanley Cohen’s Visions of Social Control attempts to understand
how “soft-line” social control is an equally effective tool of the
state for maintaining control. As anti-authoritarians, we need to start
thinking about “soft-line” social control and the effects that it
has on our movements, since both “soft-” and
“hard-line” modes tend to work in unison.

Taking Liberties
Christian Parenti, the son of the Marxist scholar Michael Parenti,
focuses his work on the study of repression and state power in the
United States. He is the author of Lockdown America(1) and his
writings appear in magazines such as The Nation and Monthly
Review. Parenti’s latest work, entitled Taking Liberties: Prison,
Policing and Surveillance in the age of Crisis, is a CD recording
compiled from lectures delivered in April 2000, October 2001, and
December 2001. The CD focuses on three broad issues. First, it
presents an explanation of the function of poverty in a capitalist
society. Second, it delves briefly into political surveillance, focusing
on the powers of the FBI prior to and after the USA Patriot Act.
Finally, it contains a long, detailed discussion of the intricacies of the
rise of political Islam.

Parenti starts by noting a paradox within the capitalist system.
“Capitalism needs poverty,”(2) states Parenti unequivocally,
arguing that without enough poor people around workers start
demanding better conditions and higher wages. However, at the same
time, capitalism is threatened by too much poverty. Poverty, he
argues, tends to breed dissatisfaction, which makes revolt more likely.
The question is “How do you have poverty and manage the threat
of poverty?”(3) The answer, for Parenti, is by expanding social
control mechanisms through the criminal justice system. The buildup
of prisons and policing in the last two decades is not a result, as some
might have it, of corporations expanding into the criminal justice
system for profits.(4) Rather, the growth comes from an increasing
need by the capitalist class (in collusion with the state) for greater
social control, a growth necessary to keep the poor from revolting.
Prisons, mandatory sentencing, and the “war on drugs”
become the means by which the state is able to subdue the working
class and keep poverty at a level that maximizes profits while
minimizing dissent. Here we see a clear example of
“hard-line” social control.

Parenti also describes a second, softer tactic of social control, mainly
co-optation. He briefly describes the way that workers’
movements in the 1960s were co-opted by turning their leaders into
administrators of low income housing and social services. This
co-optation happened at a time when the Unites States was
economically strong enough to absorb the poor in order to legitimize
the system. However, the economic crisis in the 1970s put an end to
this tactic and brought with it the harder modes of social control.
Parenti concludes that, “In a class society, rule comes down to
two things, as Machiavelli said. The prince has two choices. He can
either treat men [sic] well or crush them. . . . Sometimes economic
conditions are plush enough that people can be treated well, but more
often then not, in a capitalist society, the ruling class, through the
state, must crush and intimidate people to reproduce their system.
And that is what the criminal justice system is all about.”(5)

The CD also contains several tracks devoted to the issue of political
surveillance as a means of social control. One of the tools that the
state has for suppressing dissent and reducing the impact of radical
movements are the powers grated to the FBI for the purpose of
surveillance.

Analyzing the powers granted to federal agencies before and after
September 11th, Parenti makes the argument that the changes in the
USA Patriot Act are not as serious as they might seem. However, this
is not because the FBI has little power over political dissidents, but
because the organization already had all the repressive power it
needed prior to the adoption of the act. The FBI has always been well
funded, with over “30 billion dollars devoted every year to
intelligence gathering,”(6) even before the Patriot Act. They also
had plenty of power to search premises, to tap telephones, and look
over e-mails. If they wanted to search your home or tap your
telephone, they could do so by getting a Title 3 warrant. If this
warrant was too difficult to acquire, which often it was, then they
could use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to acquire
the needed search warrant. In the history of the FBI only one FISA
warrant was ever denied. Parenti’s point is that the FBI had
plenty of funding and full powers of observation prior to September
11, 2001. The USA Patriot Act only solidified existing powers.

According to Parenti, the main change resulting from the USA
Patriot Act is that “it merges FISA and Title 3 warrants, even
when intelligence is not the primary reason . . . In other words, they
get carte blanche. But in a way that is what they were already
doing.”(7) The Patriot Act also allows for “judge
shopping,” which gives the FBI the ability to seek a FISA or Title
3 warrant in any jurisdiction and apply it to any other jurisdiction.
“Judge shopping” means that the FBI can now use a
conservative judge to give them the power of surveillance anywhere
in the United States, thus successfully getting around any civil
libertarian judge that might want to protect civil liberties.

The last section of the CD lectures shift sharply away from issues of
suppression and surveillance. In this section, Parenti provides a
detailed (and sometimes tedious) description of the rise of political
Islam, arguing that to understand it one has to study capitalism,
modernity, and the state. According to Parenti, political Islam
develops in response to colonialism and capitalism. However, he
presents this movement as deeply embedded in the modernist project,
seeking the state as its final prize through the means of a
vanguard-like party organization. Even though slow going, I would
recommend this section to anybody needing an introduction to the
political landscape of Islamic politics and the role that the CIA played
there.

With Taking Liberties, Parenti gives important political information
on recent changes to the powers of the FBI, presented in an
accessible format. This CD lecture could easily be used for teach-ins
and classroom education as a quick way to expose people to radical
ideas. However, the more seasoned radical will discover little new
information not already found in other works by Parenti. Finally,
some of the information contained in the lectures is quickly becoming
dated. The current political mood in the United States is changing so
quickly that some issues that were topical in 2000 and 2001 have
been superseded by newer developments, such as the War on Iraq.
Nonetheless, the lectures contain important reminders of the
continuing increase of the state’s “hard-line” powers.

In a Pig’s Eye
Ward Churchill has spent a lifetime studying political repression in
the United States, uncovering and documenting the bloody legacy of
the FBI in suppressing radical movements. He is a professor of
Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado and the author of
numerous books, including Agents of Repression and A Little Matter
of Genocide.(8) AK Press recently released a two CD set of Ward
Churchill’s lectures recorded in May 2001. The release is entitled
In a Pig’s Eye: Reflections on the Police State, Repression and
Native America(9) and contains almost two hours of dialogue.

The primary purpose of the lecture is to explain and contextualize the
firefight that occurred at Oglala Village, on the Pine Ridge reservation
in 1975, where two FBI agents were killed, resulting in the
controversial imprisonment of Leonard Peltier. Churchill argues that
in order to understand this incident, and the symbolism of Leonard
Peltier, one needs to “understand two lines of history that feed
into that particular event.”(10) The two lines are the history of the
Native Peoples’ struggle and the history of the FBI. It is only by
looking at these two long trajectories, he argues, that we can fully
comprehend Peltier’s arrest and what it means. Churchill devotes
the entire two CD lectures to the examination of the two historical
lines.

Churchill starts by describing the historical context of the native
people’s struggle, particularly focusing on the American Indian
Movement (AIM). To Churchill, Peltier is a prisoner of war, “a
prisoner of the longest on-going war in this hemisphere.”(11) He
reminds us that in 500 years the native people were reduced in
population by ninety-seven percent. Their land assets, if recognized
as property prior to the arrival of Columbus, were also reduced by
approximately ninety-eight percent. But even with this genocide and
mass expropriation, the two million or so Native Americans alive
today still own fifty millions acre of land. This land, Churchill argues,
is some of the richest land in natural resources, with two-thirds of the
US domestic uranium reserve, twenty-five percent of coal, and
twenty-five percent of oil and gas. Yet, Indians on the aggregate are
the poorest people on the continent. Life expectancy for an Indian
male is fifty-four years, and fifty-seven for females. Infant mortality is
fourteen times higher than the national average. The unemployment
rate on the Pine Ridge reservation has been a calamitous ninety-two
percent for the last fifty years. How can we explain the catastrophic
discrepancies between resources and Indian wealth? For Churchill,
the answer lies in the US Government and their self-proclaimed
trustee and fiduciary responsibility over Indian land, which it uses to
extract wealth while leaving behind a devastated population. It is this
devastation and colonial oppression that frames the uprising at Pine
Ridge, Peltier’s imprisonment, and the American Indian
Movement.

The context of the insurgency of 1975, then, is poverty,
subordination, and the extraction of resources. This was the nature of
the set of circumstances that were confronted by the American Indian
Movement at the Pine Ridge Reservation. What happened at Pine
Ridge was an “assertion of the rights to sovereign control over
lands, lives, and destiny”(12) that is an inherent right of
American Indian people. And it was this assertion of rights that
brought the repression of the American Indian Movement by the FBI.

Churchill explores the second line by tracing the history of the FBI as
a repressive tool of a police state for the control of radical movements.
The myth, according to Churchill, is that the FBI is an investigative
agency having to do with the unbiased application of the rule of law.
In reality, the FBI is an institution set up, from the start, as a political
police force at the national level to preserve the interests of the
capitalist class by maintaining the status quo. Using a similar
argument found in Parenti’s CD lecture, Churchill describes the
function of the FBI as a tool for “hard-line” social control,
that is, a form of state control that “neutralizes” political
dissidents by any means necessary, including violence, repression,
and assassination.

Churchill places the origins of the police state not with the founding
of the FBI in 1913, but in 1852 with the creation of the Pinkerton
Detective Agency. The Pinkerton Detective Agency was a private
investigative organization hired by both the federal government and
the leaders of private industry to investigate labor dissent. It is here
that Churchill finds the first connection between industry and
government, and all the necessary ingredients that ultimately lead to
the establishment of the FBI.

It is in the Pinkerton Agency that we see the future tactics adopted by
the FBI. A poignant example, which sheds light on the current FBI
practices around the “War on Terrorism,” comes when
Churchill describes the way that the Pinkerton Agency provided
security for Abraham Lincoln. According to Churchill, the Pinkerton
Agency manufactured an assassination attempt on the president, then
pretended to prevent it, thus proving how effective the organization
was. This is a technique used by the FBI today that Churchill
describes as the “manufacturing of a total hallucination, spinning
it so that it sounds scary, no matter how impossible, and then
preventing this fiction from occurring and proving, therefore, that you
are a barrier against devastation, protecting the well-being of the
population, demonizing opponents and gaining license to naturalize
them.”(13)

Between the creation of the FBI in 1913 and its attack on the
American Indian Movement in the 1970s, there is an extensive
history of oppressive campaigns on political dissidents that looks
eerily familiar to recent FBI activity around the “War on
Terrorism.” For example, shortly after World War I, the FBI
undertook the Palmer Raids. The Palmer Raids was the roll up of the
Anarchist and Anarcho-syndicalist movement, where 15,000 people
were arrested overnight primarily because they were recent
immigrants to the United States. Each person was questioned
regarding subscriptions to radical magazines or their involvement in
radical organizations, resulting in mass deportation to Russia without
a hearing.

Churchill discusses several other examples of movement
suppression, such as the attack on the Industrial Workers of the
World, The United Negro Improvement Association, the Communist
Party, and the Black Panthers. He details the various tactics
developed and used by the FBI, including discrediting movement
leaders, infiltration, agent provocateurs, manufacturing legal
evidence, and assassination. By the time the American Indian
Movement arrives at the scene in 1970, the FBI had fully developed
methods of suppression, which it wasted no time in using.

What happened at Pine Ridge, then, is the result of the struggle
between people asserting their autonomy and an organization that
had sixty years of experience in social control. “The most
intensive of all these operations that were carried out [by the FBI] was
against the American Indian Movement” asserts Churchill,
“because [the FBI] had benefited, ultimately, from all the
experience it had obtained . . .”(14) In the end, Churchill
describes the imprisonment of Leonard Peltier, and the sixty-nine
deaths of Indians on the Pine Ridge reservation in the expanse of two
years, as the arbitrary ability of the federal government to repress the
legitimate aspirations of liberation within its boundaries. “And in
so far that they can repress us, they can repress you,”(15)
concludes Churchill.

Vision of Social Control
Stanley Cohen is a professor at the London School of Economics,
where he teaches courses in crime and deviance.(16) Cohen is a
renown scholar who has written about social control for over thirty
years. While Cohen is primarily an academic writer, his works provide
insight into how social control might work and how it might be
challenged.

Cohen’s classic book, Visions of Social Control, focuses on the
history of social control movements within the state. He describes the
changing nature of social control in “post-industrial” society
and the “organized ways in which society responds to behavior
and people it regards as deviant, problematic, worrying, threatening,
troublesome or undesirable in some way or another,”(17) with
“planned and programmed responses to expected and realized
deviance.”(18) He centers his analysis on the various ways that
the state has evolved as it deals with the control of “deviant”
behavior and people. Unlike Parenti and Churchill, Cohen’s work
is broader in nature, only peripherally including the social control
mechanism applied directly to political “deviance.” However,
his focus on the use of social control allows a look at the way the state
uses “soft-line” methods to control.

In the first chapter, Cohen describes the shifting societal strategies
and beliefs regarding social control. He begins by focusing on
criminal justice, then traces the shifting behaviors of concern, the
strategies employed by the criminal justice system (i.e., the state),
and the quite different “visions” and interpretations of the
nature of such change. Cohen presents a master narrative regarding
the development of social control, explaining how it develops and the
ideologies behind each change.

If you are familiar with Foucault’s Discipline and Punish,(19)
then the outlines of Cohen’s argument will sound familiar: the
optimism born from the Enlightenment led to the construction of
prison and mental asylums, each designed to “correct”
deviant behavior. Then, a criminal justice system develops through
the aid of professional discourses such as psychoanalysis; traditional
notions of punishment which focused on inflicting pain on the body
were replaced by moralistic theories of punishment focusing on
treatment and the study of criminal behavior. The key to the analysis
is that, in the end, the forms of social control expanded and became
more prevalent throughout society, even through numerous
reformists attempts to dismantle various state apparatus of control,
such as prisons. The state appears to have an amazing ability to
incorporate and co-opt reformist approaches that attempt to challenge
the core of state power. It is this ability that Cohen finds curious.

Cohen argues that there is a struggle between what he identifies as
the “exclusion” and “inclusion” modes of social
control. By “exclusion” he means a system of social control
that was dominant in the 19th century, where deviants are excluded
or separated in order to protect society. “Exclusion,” as a
mode of social control, includes practices of segregation, expulsion,
classification, and stigmatization. They are practices that leave the
“deviant” person or group isolated from the larger society.
Examples of this “hard-line” mode of social control abound.
The Red Scare (and the Palmer Raids described by Churchill) are
perfect examples of the state identifying political “deviants”
and excluding them by expelling them from the country. A more
recent example is the case of the Arab-Americans abducted by the
Bush administration as a measure of “national security.” It is
this mode that both Parenti and Churchill describe well in their
works.

If “exclusionary” modes of control represent the
“hard” side, then methods of “inclusion” are
characterized by “soft” approaches to deviance. Cohen
describes “inclusion” as the desire to deal with offenders and
deviants in the community, to dismantle state apparatus, to
decentralize, and to root the solutions in a community-based
approach. Under this mode of social control, “deviants are
retained, as long as possible within conventional social boundaries
and institutions, there to be absorbed.”(20) Cohen argues that as
reformers created and implemented programs designed to replace the
“hard” approaches (such as imprisonment), the unintended
consequence was an expansion of the social control “net”
that captures people into the system, while leaving the larger more
coercive system in place. The ultimate paradox, according to Cohen,
is that soft interventions (or reformist practices) tend to expand social
control into areas that were otherwise free from state intervention;
they supplement rather than replace the old institutions of control. As
a result, the boundaries of the system are less visible, but more
intrusive. The state grows its tentacles into new spheres.

Cohen’s book is a little convoluted, somewhat academic, and
written mostly for individuals familiar with the criminological
literature. The lay person may find some of the arguments unclear,
which is why I would not recommend this book. However, the
important point to draw from the book is that, for Cohen,
“hard-line” approaches to social control may not be the only
(or even the primary) way of controlling populations. In contrast to
Parenti and Churchill, Cohen states that “Telephone tapping,
agents provocateurs, censorship of political writings, interference
with academic freedom are not, after all, part of the everyday
experience and concerns of the vast bulk of the population.”(21)
Therefore, he argues, populations are controlled not only through
“hard-line” tactics, but also through less menacing strategies
that were once developed by reformists to challenge state power.

Conclusion
There are a number of lessons that anti-authoritarians can draw from
the works reviewed here. First, as Parenti reminds us, it is important
to keep the changes brought by the USA Patriot Act in context. That
is, while the powers of the state grows, we must remember that the
state already has plenty of repressive power, a fact the Churchill
makes poignantly clear in his retelling of the history of the FBI.
Second, we need to be aware of the history of repression of radical
movements as we build our own. The more informed we become of
past assaults, the more we are likely to defend ourselves and fellow
radicals. As Parenti makes clear, the only reason the state does not
deploy even more repressive tactics is because we will not let them. It
is up to the people to stop them.

Third, we must be vigilant of the soft-line mode of social control.
While there is no denying that “hard” modes of social control
were and are used to repress social movements, there is increasing
evidence that softer modes are being developed, modes that are
harder to spot and fight. While the state has retained the ability to
suppress movements violently, it now has more subtle techniques to
control dissent. For example, the state (through the police) learned
early on that it is easier to manage mass demonstration through
negotiations (often carried out through their community policing
departments) than it is through direct physical means. Rather than
violently beating protestors and strikers, which tends to create
martyrs and to radicalize people, the state has found ways to
“regulate” the time, location, direction, and nature of
marches and picket lines through the use of permits and “protest
zones.”(22) It is these types of “soft” techniques that are
ignored by some. The focus on the “hard” suppression of
movements that dominates much of the work of writers like Parenti
and Churchill tends to obscure the “softer” side of control,
which in the long run is equally destructive.

Endnotes:

1. The full citation for the book is the following: Christian Parenti,
Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis (New
York: Verso, 1999).

2. Christian Parenti, Taking Liberties: Prison, Policing, and
Surveillance in an Age of Crisis [CD-ROM] (Oakland, California: AK
Press, 2002), track #1, “Capitalism: Crisis and Response.”

3. Ibid., track #1, “Capitalism: Crisis and Response.”

4. Parenti elaborates on this point in Lockdown America, where he
documents that prisons are not economically profitable.

5. Parenti, Taking Liberties, track #1, “Capitalism: Crisis and
Response.”

6. Ibid., track #4, “Surveillance Prior to 9-11.”

7. Ibid., track #5, “Deciphering the U.S.A. Patriot Act.”

8. Other books by Ward Churchill include The COINTELPRO
Papers, Indians are Us, Fantasies of a Master Race, and FBI Secrets.

9. Ward Churchill, In a Pig’s Eye: Reflections on the Police
State, Repression, and Native America. (Oakland: AK Press, 2002)

10. Ibid., disk one, track #4, “A 500 Year War.”

11. Ibid., disk one, track #4, “A 500 Year War.”

12. Ibid., disk one, track #7, “A Nation of Their Own.”

13. Ibid., disk one, track #12, “You have a Police State.”

14. Ibid., disk 2, track #8, “Repression Evolves.”

15. Ibid., disk 2, track #12, “Our Obligation.”

16. Stanley Cohen is best known within academic and mainstream
circles for coining the term “moral panic” back in the late
1970s. The term describes the tendency for societies to
“panic” and overreact to perceived deviant behavior, such as
we are currently experiencing around “terrorism.”

17. Stanley Cohen’s book, Visions of Social Control: Crime,
Punishment, and Classification (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985),
describes this tendency of the state.

18. Ibid., 2.

19. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).

20. Stanley Cohen, Visions of Social Control, 217.

21. Ibid., 142.

22. Don Mitchell, The Right to the City: Social Justice and the
Fight for Public Space (New York: Guilford Press, 2003).
================================
* [Ed. Note: an antiauthoritarian initiative of the Anarchist studies
Institute.]


*******
********
****** The A-Infos News Service ******
News about and of interest to anarchists
******
INFO: http://ainfos.ca/org http://ainfos.ca/org/faq.html
HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
SUBSCRIPTION: send mail to lists@ainfos.ca with command in
body of mail "subscribe (or unsubscribe) listname your@address".

Options for all lists at http://www.ainfos.ca/options.html


A-Infos Information Center