Radicalspeak

There, I think that's a good term for it. An example from here via here.

[T]he “non-affiliate” is the central element that both shapes the administrative gaze and reveals its operative logic. Structurally, the “non-affiliate” plays a similar role to the “outside agitator” (a figure that has for its part also made some significant appearancesin recent East Bay struggles), those excluded bodies that transgress the constitutive boundaries of a particular political formation or community. What is at stake in the definition of the “non-affiliate” is a spatial politics of both inclusion and exclusion, since by defining who is excluded this language at the same time defines who is included. To the extent that the target of protesters at the UC and beyond has been precisely the privatization of public education, these protests — which have consistently faced repression at the hands and batons of UCPD — are about redefining the spatial logic of inclusion/exclusion that drives the decision-making of the UC administration.

I understand what this is trying to say, I really do. But I just can't get over all the shibboleths: "administrative gaze" "excluded bodies" "spatial politics of inclusion and exclusion." What's being described is the fact that the UC administrations (with a special attention to UC Davis, about which a report just came out), in responding to protests, have used the supposed presence of "non-affiliates" (and associated warnings that they might rape your daughter) as a pretext for clearing camps, violently if necessary. There's a way in which bringing to bear all of this radicalspeak amounts to taking this mere pretext far too seriously. The administrations wanted the occupiers gone, and they hit upon this as a way to present that, but it's strong odds that if it had not been available, they would have thought up something else.