>

About admin


Website:
admin has written 109 articles so far, you can find them below.


The ‘New epistemology for the urban’ debate: Moving on…

An until now one-sided potential debate has arisen over a disagreement with Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid over the inclusion and placing in 19.2-3 of Richard Walker’s reply to their paper, ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’

This is, of course, a deeply sad development but one in which after going backwards and forwards through the correspondence over several weeks, and meeting and corresponding with Richard Walker, I find it impossible to attribute the primary blame to any of us. We each had different and possibly conflicting  roles and expectations. For my part I see it as my right and duty as the Editor of CITY to include material that is relevant to the discussion and to put it in the most relevant place – in terms, should there be any conflict between the two, of the journal’s rather than individual contributors’ agenda. Contributors have a right to reply and this has been indicated to the authors throughout the lengthy discussions of the publication of Walker’s article. (There was also much discussion of the whole Brenner and Schmid agenda preceding the appearance of 19.2-3).

We are at work now on an analysis of the subsequent reply by Brenner and Schmid to Walker’s paper. CITY has throughout continually emphasised its commitment to following up the Brenner-Schmid paper in relation to their other work and that of their associates.

1. An early report to CITY members (29 April)

I have followed up the short footnote appended on page one of the reply by Brenner and Schmid, ‘Combat, Caricature & Critique in the Study of PlanetaryUrbanization’ which seems to inform and mislead some critiques of my role. The footnote states:

‘Both the article and the response are published in CITY, 19, 2/3 (2015). While Walker informed us via email that he was writing a critique of our article (a pre-publication copy of which had been shared with him by a colleague) neither he nor the journalʼs Editor, Bob Catterall, sent us the text in advance of publication. We learned of its existence, and of the Editorʼs plans to publish it immediately alongside our own text, only several days before the journal issue went into production.’

Some points directly and then indirectly related to  this:

(i) The paper was sent to Neil at his request (after I had referred to it in email to him) by our Production Editor at my requestt

(ii) It is not my general practice to send other material from an issue to  which an author is contributing because of the danger of outside interference with editorial decisions whether through threats or sweet talk.

(iii) Neil pointed Richard Walker towards CITY for a reply. Walker notes: ‘I looked back at my emails from Neil in February and he did, indeed, say that their paper was coming out in City and that you would probably welcome a response (and he gave me your email).’ (29 April)

(iv) I had already raised the question of possible disagreement with Neil. He replied:

(“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”) (26 March)

Two further comments:

(a) From Walker:

‘Why this has become a point of honor in publishing is beyond me. Why MUST a reply appear in the same issue, as long as the journal allows the injured party the space to respond? One would hope that this is all a tempest in a teapot that will soon blow over.  All I know is that several people who talked to me said it was a good critique and much overdue.’

(b) From  Brenner:

(“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”)  (26 March)

Three more matters arise:

1) If CITY is (“………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….”), would not reasoned criticism  and discussion be more appropriate than talk from some quarters of cutting all ties with CITY? Certainly there is need to look very closely again at Walker’s paper and  Neil and Christian’s reply, and learn from them. We will do so and welcome correspondence from all concerned. (Self-criticism all round, perhaps?) There is also a need to look at the hurt of Neil and Christian but also at the motivation of some who may be seeking to exploit these difficulties for their own ends.

2) CITY is heterodox, fast-moving, and controversial. I would not normally quote without permission but there is an occasional need to move beyond the orthodoxies. The current landscape, the rural, urban, post-urban condition, does need appropriate forms of study, ones that are occasionally (“……………”).

3) Praxis, praxis, praxis…

2. Moving on…

In the furore that arose over the Walker paper, its inclusion and nature, at the AAG and in subsequent limited correspondence and communication what somehow got lost was that these were only two items in a double issue of CITY that also included major papers which are relevant to understanding the journal’s substantive socio-econonomic, political, bio-cultural and intellectual/academic agenda:

-  by Steve Graham, David Simon, and by Mark Davidson and Elvin Wyly,

- in a major special feature edited by Hillary Angelo and Christine Henschel on infrastructure,

– and in a long editorial, pp 143-50, exploring connections between these items in relation to the long-term project of CITY (presented in a series by Melissa Wilson and/or myself, ‘CITY’s project ,1996-2016‘, of which the second episode has just appeared: Melissa Wilson (2015), “City’s Holistic and Cumulative Project (1996–2016): (2) Towards Millennium?” CITY 19 (4): forthcoming. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2015.10345900. One of the distinctive aspects of CITY is that though each item  stands alone as a result of selective downloading (including, of course, the two papers under discussion) each issue has an editorial which seeks to work against the commodification of knowledge presented by the dominant technology.

This issue of the journal, 19.2-3, is a major stepping-stone in this holistic and cumulative project towards 2016 (the key turning-point in CITY’s project so far), to be followed by two seminal papers: one in 19.4, Marcelo Lopes de Souza’ s  ‘ From the ‘right to the city’ to the right to the planet: Reinterpreting our contemporary challenges for socio-spatial development’, and in 19.5, Steve Graham’s ‘Luxified Skies: How Vertical Urban Housing became an Elite Preserve’ (1); and by the 2016 AAG in San Francisco. in which we intend to feature key themes, retrospective and prospective, from our work.

Conspicuously absent from the comments of our critics and from their discussions with us has  been the  grounded, earthed, and bio-cultural dimension  of the city, the urban, and the planet, and what we are to do about it(praxis). Getting beyond what our colleague Miguel Robles-Duran (2) accurately refers to as “the hyper-academic discourse without an outside” should be a prime focus of our common endeavours not on a dispute and threatened closure of dialogue over the presence of a particular paper in an issue of this journal. There is real work to be done.

Let’s do it.

Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY.

  1. The abstract is as follows:  This essay is a call for critical urban research to address the vertical as well as horizontal aspects of social inequality. It seeks, in particular, to forge the important but neglected causal connection between the demonization and dismantling of social housing towers constructed in many cities between the 1950s and 1970s and the contemporary proliferation of radically different housing towers produced for socio-economic elites. The argument begins with a critical discussion of the economist orthodoxy, derived from the work of Edward Glaeser, that contemporary housing crises are best addressed by removing state intervention in housing production so that market-driven verticalisation can take place. The following two sections connect the rise of such orthodoxy with the ‘manufactured reality’ — so central to neoliberal urban orthodoxy — that vertical social housing must necessarily fail because it deterministically creates social pathology. The remainder of the essay explores in detail how the dominance of these narratives have been central to elite take overs, and ‘luxification’, of the urban skies through the proliferation of condo towers for the super-rich. Case studies are drawn from Vancouver, New York, London, Mumbai and Guatemala City and the broader vertical cultural and visual politics of the process are explored. The discussion finishes by exploring the challenges involved in challenging, and dismantling, the hegemonic dominance of vertical housing by elite interests in contemporary cities.
  2. Miguel Robles-Duran, of COHABITATION STRATEGIES, Cooperative for Socio-Spatial Development,  based in New York,  Ecuador and elsewhere, with whom a project is being considered in discussion with David Harvey. As is apparent from a recent email from Robles-Duran, his approach  is strongly related  to CITY’s urgent, grounded and action-related perspective. He writes: ‘Even though I am officially an academic and speak the language, I consider myself a very active urban practitioner with an exaggerated interest in urban theory. Through the years I have developed good friendships and acquaintances with many of your contributors, this obliges me to continue to critique some internalized debates which I consider a-political, futile and irrelevant to the transformation of material reality towards other forms of producing space in the outer edges of capitalism…’

CITY at the AAG 2015, Chicago, April 21-25

‘What are the dimensions and nature of the  urbanisation processes? What forms of action – resistance, reform, and/or revolution are needed to transform urbanisation from something that we largely undergo or react to and against into something that we produce?’ These questions will be explored in the City panel ‘Dimensions of Urbanisation: Resistance, Reform and/or Revolution? (2117).

A second panel will debate the definition of urban in relation to social justice.

Debates: (Re)defining the urban and the question of social justice

is scheduled on Tuesday, 4/21/2015, from 12:40 PM – 2:20 PM in Water Tower, Hyatt, West Tower, Bronze Level

Organizer(s): Alex Schafran

Chair(s): Alex Schafran

Panelist(s): Teresa Caldeira – University of California, Berkeley

Christian Schmid – ETH Zurich

Michael Storper – London School of Economics

Ozan Karaman – University of Glasgow


Artwork: Giovanni Battista PiranesiSession Description: Urban studies has recently returned to a series of debates surrounding the definition of the urban. How and where do we understand urbanization? How do we grapple with the variegated history and geography of the urban? Do concepts need refining, redefining or both? A related question involves the impact of these questions, in particular for questions of social justice and inequality. This panel invites leading urban theorists to revisit contemporary debates on the urban, and to speculate as to what they mean for social movements, questions of social justice and the future of urban inequality.




City panel: Dimensions of Urbanisation: Resistance, Reform and/or Revolution? (2117)

is scheduled on Wednesday, 4/22/2015, from 8:00 AM – 9:40 AM

in Columbus H, Hyatt, East Tower, Gold Level

Organizer(s): Bob Catterall – CITY

Chair(s): Bob Catterall – CITY

Panelist(s):

Antonios Vradis – Durham University

Adam Elliott-Cooper – University of Oxford

Bob Catterall – CITY

Sharon M. Meagher – Widener University


CITY Issue 19.2-3

CITY, Issue 19.2-3 April 2015; ‘Cosmopolitan multinational music group’, in the aptly named Greenmarket Square, Cape Town.

Session Description: Drawing on a wide range of experience, research and activism, this session explores two questions and their interconnections. What are the dimensions and nature of the  urbanisation processes – as discussed notably in  Brenner and Schmid’s recent paper, ‘Towards  a new epistemology of the urban?’  (City, 19.2-30) -that we are undergoing, reacting to/against, and/or producing? What forms of action – resistance, reform, and/or revolution -are needed to transform urbanisation from something that we largely undergo or react to and against into something that we produce? The panelists are editors of CITY, an academic, cultural and activist journal, engaged in action-research.  The work of those contributing to this session ranges from Brazil and Greece, from London and Birmingham, from Latin America and Africa to the USA, and from women’s to racial, and class struggles.

Answers to these questions can only come, we argue and report, from  multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary action-related  studies, that address racial/ist, cultural, social, ‘environmental’,  and economic/financial  dimensions of  the places , times of and beyond urbanisation.

Editorial: ‘You’re surrounded … ’

‘Urban residents are surrounded by discrepant infrastructural capacities … Being surrounded from all sides, and with such thick textures of surveillance and calculation, promises both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing altogether.’ (AbdouMaliq Simone) (1)

We are surrounded, negatively, by infrastructural capacities or, positively, extended by them? Or perhaps both, surrounded and extended? If so, in what proportions? And is it/was it ultimately a choice, or series of choices, ones that can still be made, or not?

And what are these externalities, contexts? Are they media/technologies or perhaps the one-time project of ‘the city’ now taking on the (increasingly alien?) form of urbanisation?

Or, beyond that, is there the now marginalised realm of the country/nature? And, ‘space’? Are those realms, best characterised perhaps as ‘nature’, outside or inside us?

If inside/outside, are we, somewhat paradoxically, surrounded by ourselves? Or by aspects of ourselves, whose inner/outer separation and possible distortion we need to recognise and address if we are to avoid ‘the promises (of) both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing altogether’? Or …

****

Such questions and some answers are suggested by our special feature in this issue on infrastructures, from which AbdouMaliq Simone’s words are taken, by papers from three other substantial projects, one on urbanisation by Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid, with a reply from Richard Walker, a second on Africa by David Simon, and a third on technologised and politicised realms by Stephen Graham, now looking into ‘urban air’.

Introducing one of a series of particular temporal dimensions as explored in this journal, Melissa Wilson draws in part on a reading (2) of a particular period, looking into the early pages of City, an early stage of its project, as elites and ‘multitudes’, edged towards 2000, towards and away from ‘millennium.’

Further investigations are undertaken in papers on the nature of smart cities as contexts, on a possible basis for social transformation in Poland, and on London’s class structure and struggles. Only the third, Mark Davidson and Elvin Wyly’s paper following, as does Chris Hamnett, our occasional series on London’s class structure, is touched on here.

We conclude with a return to Simone’s thoughts on infrastructure’s more than marginal role in social organisation and to a summing up and a polemical conclusion.

Windows: ‘Towards millennium?’

‘Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds’, the special feature to which Simone contributes, explains and explores ‘a method for critical urban studies’. Its explorations are set out in six papers grouped, as Hillary Angelo and Christine Henschel explain in their introduction, according to three sets of interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds:

‘They condition the social world by shaping subjects and publics; they become tools through which people interpret large-scale change and develop a picture of their wider environment; and they allow scholars to literally connect the dots between very different experiences and places to make sense of broader social developments.’ These are supplemented by two Afterwords, one by Fran Tonkiss on ‘Economies of infrastructure’ and the other by AbdouMaliq Simone, ‘Come on out, you’re surrounded: The betweens of infrastructure’. From the introduction to the Afterwords, this is a valuable contribution to advancing critical urban studies. On this occasion it is to Simone’s invitation to ‘come out’ that we shall return.

A more dynamic, though essentially unilinear, account of the one-time project of ‘the city’ now taking on the form of runaway urbanisation is given in Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid’s seminal paper, ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’ They distinguish, as have others, between context and ‘the context of contexts.’

‘(A)ll engagements with urban theory, whether Euro-American, postcolonial or otherwise, are in some sense ‘provincial’, or context-dependent, because they are mediated through concrete experiences of time and space within particular places. Just as crucially, though, conditions within local and regional contexts under modern capitalism, have long been tightly interdependent with one another, and have been profoundly shaped by broader patterns of capitalist industrialization, regulation and uneven sociospatial development. The recognition of context dependency—the need to ‘provincialize’ urban theory—thus stands in tension with an equally persistent need to understand the historically evolving totality of inter-contextual patterns, developmental pathways and systemic transformations in which such contexts are embedded, whether at national, supranational or worldwide scales.’

The major achievement of Brenner and Schmid’s paper is its delineation of this ‘totality of inter-contextual patterns, developmental pathways and systemic transformations … at national, supranational or worldwide scales.’ It is also a supremely useful, in fact essential, guide to the plethora of such studies, a cornucopia, that Brenner, Schmid and their associates are producing faster than many of us can read them. Stekhanov is not dead!

Our preliminary discussion here expresses some doubts about their notion of ‘the urban’ and the related discounting of ‘the rural’/nature, hence its unilinearity. We are surrounded, and yet … Walker, in his response, ‘Building a better theory of the urban’ has some doubts. Seeking to interpret together the theses that Brenner and Schmid discuss largely separately—in this case, Theses 1(‘the urban and the non-urban are theoretical categories, not empirical objects’) and 4 (‘the fabric of urbanization is multidimensional’)—Walker argues

‘ … because the elemental problem of ontological first principles is not engaged in Thesis 1, it recurs again and again in subsequent theses. For example, it is simply not tenable to dismiss ‘the putative non-urban “outside”’, as they do under Thesis 4; if nothing is outside the urban, then the urban is everything; and if it is everything, it is nothing in particular and therefore not an interesting problem.’

A somewhat polemical statement. Nevertheless, the point does need to be made. More balanced is Walker’s account in a later section where he moves between logical points and empirical observations concluding:

‘to leap from a relational process to the conclusion that this makes rural areas ‘internal to the urban’ remains sorely undialectical …  the urbanization of the countryside is always underway but always never complete. Indeed, there is a reverse ruralization of cities that is altering the urban fabric in important ways.’

To Greenmarket Square and beyond (letting in a little ‘urban’ air)

At one point in his wide-ranging paper, ‘Uncertain times, contested resources: Discursive practices and lived realities in African urban environments’, David Simon touches this theme:

‘ … another reality is that growing numbers of erstwhile migrants lead urban lives until death, even while often maintaining rural connections and performing periodic oscillating migration or visits to rural extended family homes. In other words, processes of urban assimilation are at work but these need not and often do not have the assumed Eurocentric end point of an eventual loss of rural ties. Hybridised identities embracing different locations and categories of place—even across national boundaries—may be becoming new cultural norms in such societies’

He illustrates the point with one of his photographs, captioned: ‘Cosmopolitan multinational music group’, in the aptly named Greenmarket Square, Cape Town.

‘The key point to make’, he argues, ‘is that Greenmarket Square in the Cape Town CBD (where the photo was taken) has, since the end of apartheid, become a market for curios and curiosities from across Africa, sold by traders from all over the continent. As such it has acquired a distinctive post-apartheid cosmopolitan identity and atmosphere that still characterises only a handful of non-elite places in the city.’ (Email from Simon, March 2015)

Of course, to say that such places are hybrid or cosmopolitan is not to say that they are rural (or urban). It may be to at least to suggest, though, that they are neither-and-both, something simultaneously less and potentially something more – as indeed were/are many such squares only recently Occupied and more recently re-possessed, for the time being. We are surrounded, and yet … Greenmarket is indeed well-named: ‘green’ yet not so much embedded in and yet ‘transcending’ organic processes and local rural production as traditional markets were; a ‘market’ in that sense and yet also subordinated to and at the same time resistant to and resisting capitalist and imperialist marketisations. The to-ings and fro-ings and intimated surpassings of such considerations would take us to an advanced form of the dialectics and ‘reverse re-ruralisation’ that Walker mentions in passing and to the analytical/interpretive contrasts between discursive practices and lived realities that are invoked by Simon:

‘Drawing on both political economy and post-structural/postcolonial approaches in search of hybridised theoretical progress, the paper explores how elite preoccupations and interests confront the diverse and often culturally rich lived realities of the urban majorities and their respective contingent senses of identity and belonging. The former remain framed by discourses of modernity expressed in terms of segregated land uses, aesthetics and ‘order’, whereas the latter generally relate to more mundane instrumentalities of shelter, basic services and survival/livelihood strategies in complex social realities, sometimes giving rise to syncretic or novel alternative cultures.’

It is the failure of Brenner and Schmid to embrace such an analytical/interpretive programme that predetermines the difficulties they encounter with ‘the rural’ (not even addressing the deeper problem of ‘nature’) There are, as Walker hints, new rural potentialities. But, as Simon reaches out to them, there are signs of ‘complex social realities, sometimes giving rise to syncretic or novel alternative cultures.’

At this point in the search for ‘hybridised theoretical progress’ we might let in a little air. Unfortunately, as Stephen Graham points out in his paper on the significantly neglected field of ‘the political ecology of urban air’, it is urban air and increasingly antithetic to actual life support. Graham works from Latour and Sloterdijk to his own characteristically truly global (3) and passionate yet cool empirical research: ‘As Bruno Latour has emphasised so elegantly, Sloterdijk’s work hammers home the enormous stakes that surround the essential technopolitics of a species inhabiting environments of increasingly manufactured and “conditioned” air.’

Graham’s research takes up ten themes, to which, he suggests, a political ecology of urban air should attend:

- the links between global warming, urban heat-island effects and killer urban heatwaves;

- urban pollution crises;

- the paradoxes of urban pollution;

- horizontal movements of polluted air;

- the vertical politics of urban air;

- the construction of vertical condominium structures for elites;

- the vicious circles that characterise air-conditioned urbanism;

- heat-related deaths of workers building air-conditioned structures in increasingly hot climates;

- the growth of large-scale air-conditioned environments;

- and, finally, the manipulation of urban air through military action.

We are indeed surrounded. Critical urban studies, however, seems logically now to lead to critical bio-cultural and spatial studies of settlement and unsettlement.(4)

Doors: ‘Come on out, you’re surrounded.’

We return to Simone’s thoughts, moving from our special feature’s introductory emphasis on ‘interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds’ to Simone’s emphasis on ‘the various doors they (the intervening papers) seem to collectively open.’ His first sentence in our epigraph, ‘Urban residents are surrounded by discrepant infrastructural capacities’, is followed in the full text by a listing of such cases leading to an interim conclusion: ‘For the majority of urban residents these various techniques and material supports of being surrounded appear designed to foster the fullness of inhabitation wherever residents are located.’ However, he continues his dialectical exploration of this context of contexts towards a deeply pessimistic characterisation of coming out: ‘there also seems to be a gnawing dissatisfaction and disorientation with any specific place in particular. In the midst of such rampant contradictions, individuals are left little choice but to ‘come on out’, as if they are going to be ‘outed’ anyway. Simply to show up, to appear, to be visible is the purported solution to these dilemmas’. The position he takes is close to, but even more bleak than that taken by Elvin Wyly in his reference in our previous issue to ‘a globalised precariat…struggling to find an audience, to “go viral” and have a chance at…something.’(5)

Simone continues, concluding with the sentence taken as the second and final sentence of our epigraph:

‘To appear as something specific, as something consonant with the truth of a situation, of one’s being or background, is not important. For ‘coming on out’, far from engendering particular modes of subject-making, becomes a dispersal of sense and action across all kinds of composite, temporary identities. Being surrounded from all sides, and with such thick textures of surveillance and calculation promises both the possibility of being really ‘pinned down’ and disappearing.’

Checking back from the dangerous threshold of Simone’s doors to a windowed, watchful gaze of one of the scholars who informed, inspired and curated this special feature, Hillary Angelo. She ventures, off-the-cuff, the following fine reading of these passages:

‘I understand him to be saying that being so thickly surrounded by infrastructure (that distributes benefits so unequally and forces all kinds of interactions) traps people in a way — into “coming out”, as he calls it, in response to whatever inadequate situation the infrastructure corners you into. And this, then, can only be a partial/situational presentation of self or political position that is more a product of those constraints than a positive statement of whatever/whoever the person/group is or wants to be/say. And in that sense, infrastructure traps us even if it seems to make some people more visible sometimes.’(6)

Bearing this in mind as an accurate reading of relatively moderate, disturbing nevertheless, mainstream experience we have to ‘connect the dots’ from AbdouMaliq Simone’s profoundly telling account (earlier in his paper) of black struggles and eliminations, to David Simon’s ‘uncertain times, contested resources’ in Africa, Stephen Graham’s tracking down of ten dimensions of the decidedly non-urbane ‘urban air’ that envelopes us, and to the unilinear ‘planetary urbanisation’ to which Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid commit us to despite Richard Walker’s protestations about ‘reverse ruralisation.’ Within and beyond this lie the uncertain promise of spaces symbolised by Greenmarket Square, the perhaps untimely glimpses of millennium, and contestations.

Missing from such a gently loaded summing-up are less gentle positions often enough argued in City.

Brenner and Schmid’s last section advances the thesis that ‘the urban is a collective project in which the potentials generated through urbanisation are appropriated and contested’. The contestation is not too evident in that section nor does the continuous repetition throughout of Schumpeter’s term ‘creative destruction’ without quotation marks or qualification help to establish the dialectics (‘live working or die fighting’?) of these struggles.

By contrast, the basis of the struggles is considered as indicated from the outset in City even in the subtitle to Mark Davidson and Elvin Wyly’s paper (in this issue): ‘Same, but different: Within London’s ‘static’ class structure and the missing antagonism’. See also their important remarks about 1830′s Paris, drawing on Ranciere’s The Nights of Labour: The Worker’s Dream in the Nineteenth Century France (1989).

Bringing such analyses together with our frequently expressed articulations on ‘the rural’/nature/planet/earth/cultivation/culture, we now turn to a polemical form of expression:

Urbanisation now is not about the urban, it is about the non-creative destruction of the urban – and of the rural. It is the surrender of those interweaving polar identities.

We are surrounded, then, by our surrenders. The planet is not a dismembered billiard table but a living ‘wild-flowered’ (Abrams 2011, cited in Catterall 2013) entity. Millennium is not a time, it is a process of reclaiming the planet-and-the-city. It is a process of reversing those surrenders so that we can find ourselves in our surroundings.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 2-3; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.2-3

Editorial: ‘You’re surrounded … ’ Bob Catterall, pages 145-150

Towards a new epistemology of the urban? Neil Brenner & Christian Schmid, pages 151-182

Building a better theory of the urban: A response to ‘Towards a new epistemology of the urban?’ Richard Walker, pages 183-191

Life support: The political ecology of urban air Stephen Graham, pages 192-215

Uncertain times, contested resources: Discursive practices and lived realities in African urban environments David Simon, pages 216-238

The changing occupational class composition of London Chris Hamnett, pages 239-246

Same, but different: Within London’s ‘static’ class structure and the missing antagonism Mark Davidson & Elvin Wyly, pages 247-257

IBM’s smart city as techno-utopian policy mobility Alan Wiig, pages 258-273

The transformative power of cooperation between social movements: Squatting and tenants’ movements in Poland Dominika V. Polanska & Grzegorz Piotrowski, pages 274-296

Debates

There is a politics of urban knowledge because urban knowledge is political: A rejoinder to ‘Debating urban studies in 23 steps’ David Madden, pages 297-302

The future of the urban academy Alex Schafran, pages 303-305

Special Feature: Interactions with Infrastructure as Windows into Social Worlds: A Method for Critical Urban Studies

Interactions with infrastructure as windows into social worlds: A method for critical urban studies: Introduction Hillary Angelo & Christine Hentschel, pages 306-312

The birth of the urban passenger: Infrastructural subjectivity and the opening of the New York City subway Stefan Höhne, pages 313-321

Hierarchies of happiness: Railway infrastructure and suburban subject formation in Berlin and Cairo around 1900 Joseph Ben Prestel, pages 322-331

Infrastructure as a divination tool: Whispers from the grids in a Nigerian city Eric Trovalla & Ulrika Trovalla, pages 332-343

Networked infrastructures and the ‘local’: Flows and connectivity in a postsocialist city Liviu Chelcea & Gergő Pulay, pages 344-355

Toward an infrastructural critique of urban change: Obsolescence and changing perceptions of New York City’s waterfront Boris Vormann, pages 356-364

Rent gap, fluid infrastructure and population excess in a gentrifying neighbourhood Anant Maringanti & Indivar Jonnalagadda, pages 365-374

Afterword: Come on out, you’re surrounded: The betweens of infrastructure AbdouMaliq Simone, pages 375-383

Afterword: Economies of infrastructure Fran Tonkiss, pages 384-391

Reviews

Today and tomorrow gangs: Youth and violence at the margins of the global city Katherine Saunders-Hastings, pages 392-395

Accessing public spaces Tara Saharan, pages 396-399

References

1. Abram, David. 1997. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage Books.

2. Abram, David. 2011. Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books.

3. Catterall, Bob. 2013. “Towards the Great Transformation: (10) Earthing ‘Planetary Urbanisation’.” City 17 (6): 835–844 doi: 10.1080/13604813.2013.869084 (Taylor & Francis Online)

4. Mason, Paul. 2007. Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. London: Harvill Secker.

Notes

  1. AbdouMaliq Simone (this issue).
  2. Melissa Wilson (2015), “City’s Holistic and Cumulative Project (1996–2016): (2) Towards Millennium?” City 19 (4): forthcoming.
  3. Graham is also working towards a major study, Vertical (Verso, 2017), covering many other aspects of the politics of verticality: elevators; housing; skyscrapers; plus sewers, walkways, flyovers, satellites, drones, geology …
  4. A more holistic or transdisciplinary (rather than multidisciplinary) extension, one attuned to epistemological dimensions, to all the approaches discussed above would require phenomenological expertise and practices, as deployed by David Abram (see his Becoming Animal, cited in Catterall (2013) and in Wilson (forthcoming) and subsequently and, particularly, in his The Spell of the Sensuous (1997), the chapter on non-urban air, ‘The Forgetting and Remembering of the Air’)
  5. Wyly in a quote that provides the epigraph to our previous “Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’” – using a recent advertising slogan that seems to be a deliberate commercial send-up of a slogan, one coined in a seminal moment of working-class history, the Lyons silk-weavers revolt of 1831, as discussed by Paul Mason in his book Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global (2007) (see City 19 (1), p. 2).
  6. Email from Hillary Angelo, March 2015.

Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’

‘(The) globalizing working class is now put into dialogue with what the science historian George Dyson has called the ‘universe of self-replicating code,’ in an intensifying global meritocracy. That’s the playful, retail side of “Go Viral or Die Trying” — but the harsh, wholesale warehouse side of it is a globalized precariat, downgraded by intensifying, accelerating neoliberalization and put into competition with robotics and the widespread elimination of jobs for human beings, struggling to find an audience, to ‘go viral’ and have a chance at … something.’(1)

Is the somewhat sombre figure gazing inwards-outwards from a keyboard in an advertisement placed somewhere along the Delhi-Jaipur Expressway, also to be placed, as authors and scholars are increasingly, within ‘a globalized precariat, … struggling to find an audience, to ‘go viral’ and have a chance at … something’? Is that something a matter of (apparently?) gaining a place within the ‘intensifying global meritocracy’? But what is that? Where is that? Is this the nexus between ‘the city’ and literacy at which we have arrived, the ‘cognitive capitalism’ in which literacy ‘reconstituted through partially automated constellations of quantification and commodification’ serves, and is served by, planetary urbanisation? Is this the somewhere where something is found? Is this our scene?

These questions arise here through a reading of Elvin Wyly’s ‘Where is an author?’, subsequent discussion with him of this particular image and slogan, ‘Go viral or die trying’, followed up through the context(s) presented in this issue, beyond these to the historic associations of the slogan, and, beyond that, to ‘the human condition’ at this point in urban and planetary history.

Scenes

What, then, is our scene or scenes? There are so many uncertainties: Something, Somewhat, Somewhere, Sometime. And so many questions: What? Where? When? Who? ‘There must be someway outa here’? Which? And how do we come to characterise these scenes and possible exits?

There are at least eight scenes or combinations of scenes presented in this issue. A ninth, giving perhaps the origin of the advertiser’s slogan is added.

Taking them in the order in which they are presented, Wyly’s combination of an intensifying global meritocracy and a downgraded globalised precariat comes first. In it he takes an insight from Foucault through ‘an intertextual dialogue with contemporary critical urban theory as well as earlier elements of Comte, Marx and Kant.’ What should also be noted is his use at times of particularly resonant photographs, such as this one, that more than merely illustrating a point also, in the case considered here, opens it up to further possibilities?(2)

Two further papers take up specific scenes, in Cyprus and Turkey, associated with conflict. In Cyprus, Paul Dobraszczyk’s atmospheric photographs and descriptions, in his ‘Traversing the fantasies of urban destruction’, take the reader through the off-bounds, former Greek resort town of Varoshka, abandoned at the time of the Turkish invasion in in 1974. He asks how, in a world saturated with images, real and imagined, where the line between them becomes increasingly blurred, we might (in Zizek’s terms) ‘traverse the fantasy’. He concludes: ‘I suggest, like Zizek, that fantasies of large-scale ruination allow us access to a potentially redemptive form of imaginative thinking … ’ In Turkey, authors Tahir Abbas and Ismail Hakki Yiggi are relatively optimistic about the implications of the ‘Scenes from Gezi Park’ that they witnessed.

Two subsequent scenes are both in New York. One as represented by the Phun Phactory, or Institute for Higher Burnin’, in Queens. And the other in our special feature compiled and introduced by David Madden on the late Marshall Berman, ‘a radical New York intellectual’, with contributions by Todd Gitlin, Daniel Skinner, and Gareth Millington, whose implicit and explicit theme of ‘faithful to the city’ is one to which we shall return.

The sixth scene is in ‘London’s Olympic State’ and the seventh has perhaps a place for authors and ‘the people’ somewhere ‘Toward the Horizon of Democracy’.

The penultimate scene, ‘City’s holistic and cumulative project’ as presented by Melissa Wilson and Bob Catterall, draws on Los Angeles, sometime, then and now, as CITY nears its twentieth year and seeks to uncover its roots and advance its growth. The concluding scene, presented here in this editorial, takes us from the slogan ‘Go Viral or Die Trying’ to its origin in Lyons in 1830-1 and to ‘the human condition’ at this point in urban and planetary history.

What, whose scene?

What is a scene? In an introduction to Joseph Heathcott’s piece on New York’s late Phun Phactory, Anna Richter gives a democratic slant to a definition, generalising from her experience and that of her predecessor as editors of our long-running series, ‘Scenes and Sounds’. The series presents a scene which ‘invites readers to follow urban dwellers through their everyday lives, using navigational skills that correspond with spatial grammers and practices.’ But that democratic element can be negated, as Heathcott shows in his article, following the neoliberal imperatives that undermined and eliminated both the ‘phun’ and the ‘phactory’? What then? Heathcott concludes with two alternatives. But, Richter suggests, these are ‘perhaps not too far away from creative-class discourse in urban planning’. Nor, much more threatening to Higher Burnin’, is the agenda of ‘self-replicating code,’ in a combination of an ‘intensifying global meritocracy’ with the increasingly downgraded globalized precariat, in which acutely marginalised citizens are now invited to ‘“go viral” and so, by implication, have a chance at … something.’ Nor can we expect too much from Todd Gitlin/s celebration of Marshall Berman’s ‘perennial modernism’? To what extent is ‘Hurling the little streets aganst the great’ now the answer? What, then, is the ‘something’? Wyly spells it out:

‘You could be famous. You could become known, get a job, get admission to an elite institution that will give you entry to the disappearing rungs of the middle class—but as those rungs disappear faster, it’s a widening gap between those on the top—the viral global celebrities—and every other step lower on the ladder.’(3)

Live working or die fighting

‘The widely cited story is Kodak vs. Instagram: at the peak, Kodak employed 140,000 before the company died amidst the digital shift; Instagram, when it was bought by Facebook for a billion dollars, had a total full-time employee roster of … thirteen.’(4)

Wyly concludes:

‘So that’s part of what I think of when I think of this image—a global competition that is spinning faster and faster. And a lot of it is about education (somewhere in my collection I have an image for one of the schools outside Delhi promising to educate the ‘global child’), and thus it is about an unassailable meritocracy (who can be against everyone trying to be ‘the best’?)’(5)

But the dialogue, and struggle, that Wyly points to between ‘the globalizing working class’ and an ‘intensifying global meritocracy’, with its “universe of self-replicating code” can only succeed when we turn to the actual processes described in Paul Mason’s seminal book (2007, (6), Live Working or Die Fighting, How the Working Class Went Global. It cannot be, as Andy Merrifield (2013, (7) would have it, a matter of mere encounter. What it has to be, as Mason brings out so clearly in his chapter on the Lyon silk weavers’ revolt of 1831, is also a matter of organisation. As Pierre Charnier, a master weaver, argued it out with his colleagues:

‘It’s our sedentary lifestyle … which shapes our morale. It is etiolated, just like our bodies. In order to remedy this double weakness. We have to create within our profession an esprit de corps. And there’s only one way to get there: organisation … ’(8)

Charnier set up the Society of Mutual Duty. What was involved is described by Mason. An aspect of this organisational activity was the setting up of the first worker’s newspaper in history, L’Echo de la Fabrique. It forecast a revolt. In the ensuing revolt one contingent carried a black flag. On the flag was a slogan: ‘Live Working, or Die Fighting’. It is, of course, a necessary alternative to ‘Go Viral or Die Trying’. It is part perhaps of what the somewhat etiolated figure gazing inwards-outwards from a keyboard in an advertisement placed somewhere along the Delhi-Jaipur Expressway, and many others, are waiting for, a city that exceeds Berman’s and Millington’s optimism, a city which becomes ‘faithful to the earth’.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY

Editorial to CITY, Vol. 19 Issue 1; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 19.1

Editorial: ‘Go viral or die trying’ Bob Catterall, pages 1-4

Where is an author? Elvin Wyly, pages 5-43

Traversing the fantasies of urban destruction: Ruin gazing in Varosha Paul Dobraszczyk, pages 44-60

Scenes from Gezi Park: Localisation, nationalism and globalisation in Turkey Tahir Abbas & Ismail Hakki Yigit, pages 61-76

Scenes and Sounds

Introduction: Hacking the redevelopment script Anna Richter, pages 77-78

The bold and the bland: Art, redevelopment and the creative commons in post-industrial New York Joseph Heathcott, pages 79-101

Special Feature: On Marshall Berman (1940–2013)

On Marshall Berman (1940–2013): A radical New York intellectual: Introduction David Madden, pages 102-103

Hurling the little streets against the great: Marshall Berman’s perennial modernism Todd Gitlin, pages 104-108

Remembering Marshall Berman Daniel Skinner, pages 109-111

Remaining faithful to the city: Marshall Berman’s provocative optimism Gareth Millington, pages 112-120

Reviews

Adventures in the art of dissent and London’s Olympic State Andrew Harris, pages 121-125

Towards the horizon of democracy: Nurturing our desires, giving space to possible path Francesca Governa, pages 126-130

City’s holistic and cumulative project (1996–2016): (1) Then and now: ‘It all comes together in Los Angeles?’ Melissa Wilson & Bob Catterall, pages 131-142

Notes

  1. Email from Elvin Wyly, 6 January, 2015.
  2. Particularly resonant photographs, are selected for most issues, often with invited comments from the photographer/author such as this one, that more than merely illustrating a point also open up the image and implicit meanings to further possibilities.
  3. Wyly, ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Mason, P. 2007. Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. London: Harvill Secker.
  7. Merrifield, A. 2013. The Politics of the Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest Under Planetary Urbanisation. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
  8. Mason, p. 32.

Take the Money and run! An evening exploring London’s response to the crisis, with films, talks and debate

Centre of Media Studies, SOAS and CITY Journal present

Take the Money and run! Trickledown Economics: From Hedge Funders to the London Riots

“Riots are the voice of the unheard” – Reverend Martin Luther King

http://www.haimbresheeth.com/category/blog/

Saturday January 24th, 2015, 4:00 pm to 8:30 pm

at the Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS, Russell Square

No need to book – all welcome

An evening exploring London’s response to the crisis, with films, talks and debate

The financial crisis following the banking collapse in 2008, has been a purely man-made phenomenon, an unsurprising result of the suicidal economics of short-term, casino economics of the international financial sector, and its capital, the City of London. The link between production and ‘wealth creation’ has been shattered by the financialisation of international capital, hence creating a market detached from economic realities. This has led to the deepest financial crisis in our lifetime, with hundreds of millions all over the world suffering, and having to pay the cost of the reckless financial market. In its wake, ten of thousands have ransacked London shops, taking a bottle and running.

Have we learnt anything from these events? Have we changed society to take account of the two related disasters? Are we now immune from a further crash? What is the price being paid for the last crash, and who is paying it? Are further riots likely, or will society take political action instead to efficiently transform the financial sector? Is this a crisis of financial capital, or of capitalism?

Instead of dealing with the banks and financial institutions of Capitalism which have brought about this latest crisis, the UK Coalition government has launched a massive attack on the victims – the unemployed, the low-wage earners, migrant workers, people on benefits, the old and the infirm. They are to ones who are paying the cost of the banks profligacy.

To answer the question, two filmmakers and a number of researchers have come together to think about London and the crisis, at a point in time when positive change seems further than ever.

Programme

16:00            London is Burning (2012, 45Minutes), a documentary film by Prof. Haim Bresheeth (SOAS)

17:00            Secret City (2012, 72 minutes) a documentary film by Prof. Michael Chanan (Roehampton University)

18:30 Panel presentations and discussion:

Chair: Prof. Annabelle Sreberny (SOAS)

Panel Presentations

Prof. Jeremy Gilbert (UEL)

Property and Power in the post-political City

Adam Elliott-Cooper (Oxford University)

Resistance: Disruption at the point of consumption

Michael Edwards (UCL)

London: a class struggle waged from above, and resistance

Q&A Session with Panel and directors

Editorial: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’

“First, the working classes and bohemians were priced out … That was gentrification. Now comes plutocratisation: the middle classes and small companies are falling victim to class cleansing. Global cities are becoming patrician ghettos … Global cities are turning into vast gated communities where the one per cent reproduces.” 1

Seen as a series of accumulating stages, this characterisation – gentrification followed by plutocratisation followed by a third stage in which patrician ghettos are moving towards domination – is, to say the least, alarming. Concluding their careful analysis in this issue of London’s changing class structure and residential mosaic, David Manley and Ron Johnston turn to the tripartite characterisation by Saskia Sassen of recent urban developments(s). The source in which they came across this formula was an article by the anthropologist and journalist Simon Kuper, in which concentrating on Paris he equates changes there with London, New York and Tokyo (2)

This characterisation and its implications are considered here on the basis of the studies assembled. Does the tripartite model stand up in this light? Or could it be that the various situations and analyses assembled point to a condition that is much more alarming? Whatever the intensity of this condition, is or are there a way or ways out? What do different analytic approaches have to contribute to understanding the situations and their possibilities? Are there any signs of emergence?

That the condition is much more than alarming, in fact terminal, is argued in Adrian Atkinson’s paper in which he looks at urbanisation as ‘a brief episode in history’, as it speeds into decline and self-destruction. Moving on to one of our three special features, ‘Cities in the Arabian Peninsula’, and taking up a paper on environmental costs of coastal urbanisation in the Arabian Gulf, one can see the biological dimension of this possibly terminal condition.

The signs of an emerging alternative to decline and eventual collapse are discerned and documented in Atkinson’s article and in the introductions to and papers in the other two special features. In both ‘Assembling Istanbul’ and ‘Labour Resistance across Global Spaces’, new directions are identified in, for example, the paper that each includes on Romani struggles, one in Istanbul and the other in Italy. Returning to London, a further paper from the Labour Resistance feature, on ‘Precarious Workers’, there are in the struggles of the cleaners signs of an alternative to Sassen’s charted course of mounting progression/ regression for urbanisation.

Terminal?

The near-terminal state of environmental degradation in at least one major world region is now becoming evident. John Burt brings this out in the case of the coastal areas of the Arabian Peninsula. He notes the impact of urbanisation on sabkhas (salt-flats), mangroves, beaches, seagrass beds, and coral reefs (70% of them are now ‘effectively lost’). In addition to coastal development, other factors impacting on coastal ecosystems are overfishing, the production of desalinated water (whose waste products, including toxic pollutants, are discharged back into the Gulf), and pollution from the oil and other industries. Some of this is familiar from newspaper stories, or through glamorised treatment in colour supplements but is marginalised or ignored when the relationship of ‘urban’ to non-urban/rural and to their bio-cultural foundations is missed. ‘Taken together their cumulative impact’, Burt concludes, ‘could trigger the collapse of those productive habitats that for millennia have supported coastal populations … ’

Much of Atkinson’s earlier work in this journal has concentrated on cities. Here his emphasis is on the wider spatial and historical context of urbanisation, the consequent deepening exploitation and decline of rural/ agrarian areas (to which should be added coastal areas), and on a topic much neglected by the social sciences, civilisation. On the rural/agrarian dimension, Atkinson argues that the current global population will soon enough become ‘un-feedable’:

‘indeed, due only to irrational distribution and wastage, rather than a shortfall of supply, we already have more than 1 billion hungry and undernourished people, many of whom were made so by the globalisation of their rural food production industries as a result of international trade agreements.’

The neglect of the topic of civilisation is not to the credit of the social sciences. One can note how in the quest for an, in fact, crudely reductive notion of scientificity earlier work on qualitative dimensions of social life by philosophers and, for example, founding figures in the development of sociology, notably Marx, Weber and Durkheim, has been marginalised or abandoned – a tendency furthered by the neoliberalisation of universities. It is to the credit of Atkinson that as a consultant, working on urban, environmental and local economic development issues, one fully aware (unlike many) of the need for a grass-roots rather than elitist ‘professional’ approach, he has also devoted much of his life to reworking this vast qualitative territory. The bearing of such grounded scholarship on current activist concerns can be seen, for example, in the treatment in his concluding paragraphs of the relevance of a seminal 1980 book on, academically-speaking, ‘moral philosophy’, Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue , to the Right to the City movement:

‘The book analyses how Occidental culture lost the very ability to formulate moral principles at any more than the personal or interpersonal level. We thus see notions asserted—readers of this journal may think of the Right to the City—that swim around in a void, having lost any meaningful foundation or effective connection into a more basic or coherent or systematic moral universe.’

To say this is not, of course, to write off the Right to the City movement but to point to a problematic dimension of its praxis so as to be able to direct attention towards engaging with it.

‘Swimming around in a void’? Romani struggles in Istanbul and Rome

The signs of an emerging alternative to decline and eventual collapse are set out in Atkinson’s article and in papers in the other two special features. In both ‘Assembling Istanbul’ and ‘Labour Resistance across Global Spaces’ new directions are indicated in the introductions and, for example, in the paper that each includes on Romani struggles, one in Istanbul and the other in Italy. But are these struggles nevertheless swimming around in the void to which Atkinson points? Or is there a way out? How might we know?

Each of these papers on Romani struggles is housed in a different analytic approach, set out in an introductory paper in each case, assemblage theory and a broadly cultural orientation for the ‘Assembling Istanbul’ papers, and a broadly political economy and labour-oriented approach in the papers of the ‘Labour and Resistance across global spaces’ special feature.

In their introductory paper, ‘Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies in a world city’, Elizabeth Angell, Timur Hammond and Danielle van Dobben Schoon make it clear where it is that readers will find themselves assembled. Nevertheless they consciously and deliberately use a political economy narrative in a section providing ‘A brief primer on contemporary Istanbul’ while noting ‘the potentially incompatible commitments of assemblage urbanism and political economy.’ This introduction and the feature as a whole provide a valuable contribution to that debate – one in which they acknowledge that ‘this journal has played a crucial role (Amin 2007; McFarlane 2011; Swanton 2011) between potential incompatibles.’

Among the papers one, “‘Sulukule is the gun and we are its bullets’: Urban renewal and Romani identity in Istanbul”, by Danielle van Dobben Schoon, provides a valuable cultural emphasis in following the progress of a hip hop video (3) – in and beyond Istanbul. But how can such cultural forms take Romanis and others through and beyond ‘urban renewal’, the ‘storm’ of building that Asu Aksoy (2012) has so eloquently described, so as embody their needs? ‘Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies’ is the title of the feature. But what forms of analysis and action in what socio-economic spheres are needed for liberatory embodiment?

In her summing up the feature, ‘Cultures of assemblage, resituating urban theory’, Amy Mills provides ‘a response to the papers’, apparently from within the assemblagist position, allowing David Harvey a walk-on part in the last three paragraphs. But it is not clear that the feature has succeeded in ‘resituating urban theory’, as Mills claims. A return to their political economy ‘primer’ might help? In the Introduction to their special feature, ‘Labour and Resistance across global spaces’, a valuable contribution to understanding and action, Adam Elliott-Cooper, Amber Murrey, Ashok Kumar and Musab Younis adopt a broadly political economy labour-oriented approach with a close focus on forms of resistance and organisation from ‘different sides of the North–South divide: juxtaposing the office custodian and the garment factory; gentrification and the modern prison; state-led repression enabled by transnational corporations and the emerging forms of anti-capitalist resistance’.

Among the Roma in Rome, Gaja Maestri in her contribution sees ‘the economic crisis as an opportunity.’ The paper shows how austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome but lacks the dimension of cultural e ́lan that the equivalent assemblage paper provides. Assemblage and political economy seem, on this showing, to need each other – at least if we are to be clear about the full potentials, negative and positive, of the progression/regression of mounting urbanisation and environmental degradation so as to inform and motivate people towards seeking and finding a way out.

London (and beyond) revisited: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’

Revisiting London in another political economy and labour-oriented paper, the same problem arises. Jamie Woodcock’s ‘Precarious workers in London: New forms of organisation and the city’ is, on the one hand, weak on the tactilities of socio-economic and cultural processes, but, on the other, there is, as with other papers in this special feature, an acute sense of the contradictory particularities and potentialities of precariousness/‘pre ́carite ́’ which Bourdieu ( 1998 ) described as a

‘new mode of domination in public life … based on the creation of generalized and permanent state of insecurity aimed at forcing workers into submission, into the acceptance of exploitation. (W)hat is presented as an economic system … is in reality a political system which can only be set up with the active or passive complicity of the official political powers.’

To illustrate the new forms of organisation Woodcock considers two recent university campus struggles, of casual staff and of cleaners in London. In the first, the casual staff at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) launched a campaign, ‘Fractionals for Fair Play’, which began with a survey and then proceeded beyond research to action (successful). The second, the ‘cosas’ campaign (Spanish is widely spoken by the workforce) of University of London cleaners’ started in 2012 – a strike slogan, ‘We are not the dirt. We clean’, shown in the photograph, was erected at the University of London Senate House in February 2014 – is ongoing but has already met with some success. ‘The campaign’, Woodcock reports, ‘had workers’ self-organisation at its heart, but was also able to build links of solidarity with other groups of workers and students’. He refers to inter-relations between the workers, London Citizens, the established unions and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) Cleaners Branch.

Returning to Sassen’ s three stage model, it has not been the intention here to say much about the first two stages. The first two, gentrification and class cleansing plutocratisation, are already familiar. The third stage of patrician ghettos should be seen in their attachment to ways of life such as those exhibited in and around the Arabian Peninsula. Returning to Burt’s paper on the Gulf, we note:

‘Today chronic oil pollution from ballast discharge, industrial spillage, ship collisions and related causes continue to affect coastal ecosystems. Continued growth in shipping activity, oil production and sewage discharge that will occur alongside urban expansion is likely to be linked to increased occurrence of harmful algal blooms, excess nutrient input, oxygen deficiency and increased heavy metal and organic pollution.’

How can this be dealt with? Burt suggests

‘only the engagement of the highest state authorities may trigger meaningful and long-lasting improvements in coastal management. Improving awareness of the value and importance of coastal ecosystems among senior leadership in Gulf countries should be considered a critical first step towards enacting positive change (the engagement of these decision-makers could trigger comprehensive improvements in the legislative and regulatory framework guiding coastal urbanization.’

Such notions could, though, be deployed as part of the new mode of domination to which Bourdieu referred. Or, to repeat Atkinson’s diagnosis, they could ‘swim around in a void, having lost any meaningful foundation or effective connection into a more basic or coherent or systematic moral universe’. Or they could be deployed by workers’ movements with self-organisation at their heart, research in their programs, claiming the Right to the City, able to build links of solidarity with other groups of workers and students, and continuing to assert and act upon the slogan: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’

References

Aksoy, S. 2012. “Riding the Storm: ‘New Istanbul’.” City 16 (1– 2): 93–111

Amin, A. 2007. “Re-thinking the Urban Social.” City 11 (1): 100–114.

Bourdieu, P. 1998. Contre Feux . London: Raisons d’agir.

Catterall, B. 2004. “Is It All Coming Together? Further Thoughts on Urban Studies and the Present Crisis: (2) What Time is this Space?” City 8 (2): 307–335.

Lisiak, A. A. 2014. “Navigating Urban Standstill.” City 18 (3): 334–348.

McFarlane, C. 2011. “Assemblage and Critical Urbanism.” City 15 (2): 204–224.

Shao, Q. 2013. Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Megacity . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Shin, H. B. 2014. “Contesting Speculative Urbanisation and Strategising Discontents.” City 18 (4– 5): 509–516.

Swanton, D. 2011. “Assemblage and Critical Urban Praxis – Part Four.” City 15 (6): 727–730.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY
Editorial to CITY, Vol. 18 Issue 6 ; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 18.6

Editorial: ‘We are not the dirt. We clean.’ Bob Catterall, pages 603-608

Urbanisation: A brief episode in history Adrian Atkinson, pages 609-632

London: A dividing city, 2001–11? David Manley & Ron Johnston, pages 633-643

Special Feature 1: Assembling Istanbul: Buildings and Bodies in a World City

Assembling Istanbul: buildings and bodies in a world city: Introduction Elizabeth Angell, Timur Hammond & Danielle van Dobben Schoon, pages 644-654

‘Sulukule is the gun and we are its bullets’: Urban renewal and Romani identity in Istanbul Danielle van Dobben Schoon, pages 655-666

Assembling disaster: Earthquakes and urban politics in Istanbul Elizabeth Angell, pages 667-678

Matters of the mosque: Changing configurations of buildings and belief in an Istanbul district Timur Hammond, pages 679-690

Cultures of assemblage, resituating urban theory: A response to the papers on ‘Assembling Istanbul’ Amy Mills, pages 691-697

Special Feature 2: Roundtable on Arabian Peninsulas

Cities in the Arabian Peninsula: Introduction Pascal Menoret, pages 698-700

Visualizing the margins of Gulf cities Manuel Benchetrit & Roman Stadnicki, pages 701-707

Real estate and political power in 1970s Riyadh Paul Bonnenfant, pages 708-722

Public space and public protest in Kuwait, 1938–2012 Farah al-Nakib, pages 723-734

Urban margins in Kuwait and Bahrain: Decay, dispossession and politicization Claire Beaugrand, pages 735-745

Searching for Nasser Square: An urban center in the heart of Dubai Yasser Elsheshtawy, pages 746-759

The environmental costs of coastal urbanization in the Arabian Gulf John A. Burt, pages 760-770

Special Feature 3: Labour Pains: Resistance Across Global Spaces

Labour and resistance across global spaces: Introduction Adam Elliott-Cooper, Amber Murrey, Ashok Kumar & Musab Younis, pages 771-775

Precarious workers in London: New forms of organisation and the city Jamie Woodcock, pages 776-788

Interwoven threads: Building a labour countermovement in Bangalore’s export-oriented garment industry Ashok Kumar, pages 789-807

The economic crisis as opportunity: How austerity generates new strategies and solidarities for negotiating Roma access to housing in Rome Gaja Maestri, pages 808-823

Does school prepare men for prison? Karen Graham, pages 824-836

Reviews

The civil relevance of geography between power and knowledge Matteo Bolocan Goldstein, pages 837-841

Bordered subjects Kate Hepworth, pages 842-845

Notes

  1. David Manley and Ron Johnston were drawing on an article in the Financial Times (15–16 June 2013) in which the anthropologist and journalist Simon Kuper, concentrating on Paris but equating changes there with London, New York and Tokyo, quotes this tripartite characterisation from Saskia Sassen (not referenced).
  2. The application of this set of changes can be extended and is further intensified by taking up, as we did in our previous issue, Qin Shao’s (2013) work on Shanghai and Hyun Shin’s (2014) related account of aspects of ‘development’ in China and elsewhere in which they deploy the notion of domicide.
  3. or earlier work in this journal on hip hop see Lisiak (2014), and Anna Richter’s introduction to it and my own deliberately ex-centric ramble ten years earlier, ‘What time is this space?’ (2004).

Editorial: ‘City makes your life happier’?

‘Clearly, everyday domicide is as systematic and widespread as the pursuit of economic interest. It has affected and will continue to affect large numbers of mostly powerless people, especially in the developing world. The murder of homes is an intentional act.’

Issue 18.4-5 editorial

Relatively comfortable readers, North and South, may read the first two sentences without too much discomfort. The third may arouse in some feelings of unease and dissent about mixed categories (do, for example, the notions of murder and intention belong to this context?). Comfortable readers, though uneasy, may accept this as a perhaps permissible exaggeration of ‘such things’ elsewhere but not a perspective that comes ‘home’ to them. We shall see.

Hyun Bang Shin begins his analysis of contemporary Chinese development, in this issue (1), with the full paragraph from which this epigraph is taken. It is from Qin Shao’s recent book, Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Mega-city.(2) Shin does not dissent. ‘While her findings are largely based on the city of Shanghai,’ he observes, ‘the stories of uprooted families and flattened dwellings are reminiscent of millions of other similar cases around the world.’

Shin does, however, present another perspective. He includes a photograph of slogans from the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. The one in English is comforting, ‘Better City, Better Life’. And it is accompanied (to the right) by a cartoon-like character. It is ‘Expo’s mascot called Haibao holding a firecracker, a usual way of celebrating in times of new year’s eve, etc.’(3)  The other slogan Shin translates (literally) as ‘City makes (your) life happier’, and comments: ‘While the slogan in ‘English was emphasising the importance of improved urban management, the slogan in Chinese was simply an emphasis on ‘city living’ itself. In other words all that is required for a happy life is to live in cities.’ Ultimately, without radical changes that are not on the public agenda, these two slogans are not opposed. ‘Better City, Better Life’ fits neatly within ‘City makes your life happier.’

There is, though, a possible, though complex, combination of ideological opposition and practical unity between the two perspectives presented by Shin. If one argues that ‘domicide’ is not only practised far away from the comfort zones of elitist exceptionalism and ‘democracy’ but also within them, then existing cities or urban/ised forms may not make our lives happier. But how can citizens be encouraged or forced into the acceptance of the slogan ‘City makes your life happier.’ And how can such seduction or enforcement be resisted and superceded?

Such possibilities are touched on here through a brief sketch and interpretation of some of the various contributions gathered together in this issue – two standalone papers, one on Vancouver, the other on urban governance, two special features, one on Northern Ireland, and the other on the ‘crisis-scape’ of Athens and beyond (including Mexico City and Shin’s powerful paper on Chinese urbanisation).

In supplementing and challenging mainstream readings of urbanisation and domicide, relevant attention is given here, as part of a continuing emphasis on the value of personal, artistic, fictional accounts of some of the processes at work, to the contribution of the humanities to a new paradigm for planetary urbanisation rather than to purely empirical or analytical approaches. See the brief references below to reflexivity in Andy Merrifield’s paper, to film and to Lefebvre’s dictum in Adele Lee’s contribution to the special feature on Northern Ireland, and in the crisis-scape Special Feature, to the attention given to their own film ‘Future Suspended’ and to Angelopoulos, particularly his film ‘Ulysses’ Gaze’. What follows are essentially notes towards future reading(s) and discussion.

As interpreted here, Shin’s contribution, ‘Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents’ suggests, first, the question of ‘urban’ forms shaped by speculative urbanisation, resistance to them, and their relation to notions of ‘the city’ and of domicide, to which is added consideration of what kinds of thought and action can represent them. A second question, is then a major ethical and practical question one about the planetary future, post-urbanised futures, and of what kinds of thought and action, urban and rural/agrarian (added at this point), might make us happier, if happiness is to be our major criterion. What can represent and reshape them, could and should contest and undermine domicide, ‘strategising discontents’, the second half of Shin’s title.

It is these two overlapping questions – of urbanised forms and of post-urbanised futures – that, haunted by the counterforces of domicide and resistance, shape this reading of the various papers assembled here. The preferred term in this issue is urbanised rather than urban as a pointer to the question of whether the city ideal has been and is being increasingly marginalised, distorted and undermined, urbanisation as a close companion of urbicide as well as domicide.

Urbanised forms

In the first of the two stand-alone papers Vancouver’s relatively recent development is presented through a revelatory use of Geertz’ concept of involution as ‘the over-driving of an established form in such a way that it becomes rigid through an inward over-elaboration of detail.’ Picking up further on, Jamie Peck, Elliot Siemiatycki and Elvin Wyly, refer twice to its ‘overdriven’ quality. It is, first, a ‘phenomenon [that] has been an involutionary one, rather than an evolutionary or revolutionary one, in the sense that it has been marked less by clean historical breaks or linear incrementalism, but by the continued “overdriving” of sub/urban patterns, processes and practices’. Secondly, on the urbanised, not urban, nature of this powerful form, the authors comment: ‘More than interurban reorganization, more even than postmodern juxtaposition, Vancouver’s development pattern reveals an “overdriving”, complexification and recombination of extant sub/urban forms.’ There seems no end to this continual churning except that, as the authors note, it is not stable.

Moving from the exotic quality of Vancouver and the appropriately exotic quality of its analysis, Northern Ireland presents another urbanised form, problematic both for its inhabitants and its social analysts. Crucial for the ‘cityness’ of a city are its spaces and their uses. It is the sharing of the spaces across religions and, latterly, with new ethnicities that constitutes the problem on the ground. For the first section of the feature, on policies and practices, it is also, with exceptions, the somewhat distanced and distancing discourse of standard forms of research that is the problem. In the second section on ethnic and cultural diversity, the distance narrows. The title of one of the papers, ‘Are you a Catholic Chinese or a Protestant Chinese?’, suggests a lightening of touch. It is, perhaps significantly, by a Lecturer in English Literature, Adele Lee who introduces the analysis of two narrative films from and about migrant communities referring to Henri Lefebvre’s dictum that ‘the most important thing is to multiply the readings of the city’, and that the city contains ‘plentiful detritus to construct different stories which can challenge and provide an antidote to dominant discourses’.

The second standalone is a characteristically deeply felt and acutely observed paper, a fine exercise in reflexive writing, on another aspect of urbanised forms, ‘accountancy governance’. Andy Merrifield even manages to maintain his narrative flow in the abstract to his paper:

‘A new nobility assumed the mantle of political and authoritative power, a para-state of accountants and administrators, of middle managers and think-tank “intellectuals”, of consultants and confidants who reside over our privatized public sector, filing the paperwork and pocketing the rents and fees, together with the interest payments and bonuses, in our ever-emergent rentier and creditor society.’

However, he omits one of the most important aspects of the paper; ‘a new urban collective consumption.’ In the last few pages, following discussion of Castell’s notion of collective consumption as a defining characteristic of the urban in ‘ The Urban Question ’ (1997 in English translation) , he builds a discussion of the possibility of and necessity for a people’s form of accountancy, partly building on Bourdieu’s critique (Acts of Resistance, 1998) of the new ‘state nobility’ and on his own experience and thoughts, leading to the proposed initiative, a movement rather than an institution, for ‘a new urban collective consumption’, correctly and importantly noting that his discussion has entered a normative zone:

‘We, on the Left, need to affirm another value yardstick, free from the cynics’ speculative grip, another form of human solidarity, one that might enrich urban life beyond wealth.’

Towards post-urbanised forms

‘Athens is already heralded in international media (even supposedly “progressive” ones for that matter) as a city that is about to be reborn from its ashes, the “investment opportunities” posed by the city, and so on.’ (Vradis)

Yet another urbanised form is ‘the city that is about to be reborn’. The slogans ‘Better City, Better Life’ and ‘City makes your life happier’ are not, of course, uniquely domiciled in China. Nor, indeed, is their partner, domicide.

Much, much has to be said about domicide. We need to refer to the full quotation (only the first part was used in the epigraph above) from Shao that Shin gives in his epigraph. It is a deeply disturbing account of domicide as a universal form of oppression and psychic destruction into which the apparently less threatening Western/Northern forms of gentrification and relocation fit:

‘Domicide … severs its victims’ lifetime attachment to homes and community and deprives them of the built environment that has shaped their tradition and identity. It also wounds their sense of dignity. Everyday domicide, in other words, in many ways cruelly redefines the existence of its victims and severely diminishes, if not destroys, the quality of their lives … ’ (Shao)

The two partners, in varying degrees of intensity, land wherever they are least needed by the many and are most needed by the few.

That partnership is tracked and resisted in our Special Feature, ‘Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond’, edited by Antonis Vradis on the basis of the conference in May 2014 organised in Athens with his colleagues in the crisis-scape research team whose productions included the film ‘Future Suspended’.(4)

Vradis provides a valuable introduction to the twelve contributions. He concludes with particular reference to discussion of their film and to one other film, Ulysses’ Gaze , and the illuminating gaze of its great director, Angelopoulos. Of the latter he refers to him as ‘easily the most important documenter of the turbulent recent political history of the Greek territory.’ It is a gaze, urbanists please note, that extends out to and back to the villages. Their film, too, ‘Future Suspended’ has a penetrating gaze as it looks into contemporary Athens. As Nasser Abourahme asks in his review of the film:

‘Is the anxious, authoritarian, militarized city of self-avowedly fascist police and pitched civil war our present-future? Is this the fate of urbanity itself in our millennial, post-historical times? Is Athens, the purported birthplace of those secular forms we came to so faithfully value — democracy, the polis, the public — the harbinger of their demise?’

It is in this full context that we return to Shin’s paper ‘Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents’. He sums up his analysis as follows:

‘China’s speculative urbanisation is both an ideological and a political project that disrupts and/or destroys the lives of the masses, while it is the few that benefit from it. As the state and capital proceed with their heavy investment in fixed assets and rewrite the built environment, displacement becomes the norm for villagers and urbanites.’

As the reference to villages suggests, Shin is introducing a rural/agrarian dimension here as well as one that includes migrants and ethnicities, a key dimension of the Greek experience. The strategy that he puts forward is that ‘China’s particular trajectory of urbanisation requires the right to the urban struggles to be inclusive of the struggles by the new working class, who are fighting for their access to the “redistribution” of surplus value and for their “recognition” as legitimate citizens and not simply migrants … The alliance is in need of further inclusion of village farmers whose lands are expropriated to accommodate investments to produce the urban, and of ethnic minorities in autonomous regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang whose cities are appropriated and restructured.’

Not only in China but across the globe such alliances, urban with rural populations, are needed against the domicidal forms of urbanisation. The murder of homes and ways of life, though permitted by ruling ideologies, law and associated contained consciences, is intentional. City, without the rural/agrarian dimension, won’t make us happier. City takes note.

by Bob Catterall, Chief Editor of CITY
Editorial to CITY, Vol. 18 Issue 4-5 ; see contents list below.

Contents list for Issue 18.4-5

Editorial: ‘City makes your life happier’? Bob Catterall, pages 381-385

Vancouver’s suburban involution Jamie Peck, Elliot Siemiatycki & Elvin Wyly pages 386-415

Against accountancy governance: Notes towards a new urban collective consumption Andy Merrifield pages 416-426

The Production of Shared Space in Northern Ireland: Part 1

Introduction: Beyond the divided city: policies and practices of shared space Milena Komarova & Dominic Bryan pages 427-431

‘Shared space’ as symbolic capital: Belfast and the ‘right to the city’? Mary-Kathryn Rallings pages 432-439

The psychological dimensions of shared space in Belfast Rosaleen Hickey pages 440-446

Beyond the walls: Dismantling Belfast’s conflict architecture Jonny Byrne & Cathy Gormley-Heenan pages 447-454

Changing direction: Defensive planning in a post-conflict city Tim Cunningham pages 455-462

The Production of Shared Space in Northern Ireland: Part 2

Introduction: Ethnic and cultural diversity Adele Lee pages 463-465

Possibilities for change?: Diversity in post-conflict Belfast Carey Doyle & Ruth McAreavey pages 466-475

‘Are you a Catholic Chinese or a Protestant Chinese?’: Belfast’s ethnic minorities and the sectarian divide Adele Lee pages 476-487

Beyond Derry or Londonderry: Towards a framework for understanding the emerging spatial contradictions of Derry–Londonderry—UK City of Culture 2013 Peter Doak pages 488-496

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 1: Future privatised

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 1: Future privatised page 497

Crisis-scapes suspended: Introduction Antonis Vradis pages 498-501

Crisis and land dispossession in Greece as part of the global ‘land fever’ Costis Hadjimichalis pages 502-508

Contesting speculative urbanisation and strategising discontents Hyun Bang Shin pages 509-516

Unravelling false choice urbanism Tom Slater pages 517-524

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 2: Future devalued

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 2: Future devalued page 525

Infrastructural flows, interruptions and stasis in Athens of the crisis Dimitris Dalakoglou & Yannis Kallianos pages 526-532

Is the crisis in Athens (also) gendered?: Facets of access and (in)visibility in everyday public spaces Dina Vaiou pages 533-537

Strange encounters Jaya Klara Brekke pages 538-544

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 3: The present fighting back

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 3: The present fighting back page 545

Emerging common spaces as a challenge to the city of crisis Stavros Stavrides pages 546-550

The crisis and its discourses: Quasi-Orientalist attacks on Mediterranean urban spontaneity, informality and joie de vivre Lila Leontidou pages 551-562

Crisis, Right to the City movements and the question of spontaneity: Athens and Mexico City Christy (Chryssanthi) Petropoulou pages 563-572

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 4: Future reflected

Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond: Section 4: Future reflected page 573

Ross Domoney and Giorgos Triantafyllou: an interview Ross Domoney & Giorgos Triantafyllou pages 574-576

Ruinous city, ruinous time: Future Suspended and the science fiction of the present Nasser Abourahme pages 577-582

What is to be done? Redefining, re-asserting, reclaiming and re-shaping land, labour and the city Bob Catterall pages 583-588

Reviews

Deleuze and research methodologies: The impact on planning Hooman Foroughmand Araabi pages 589-593

For creative appropriation: John Protevi’s Life, War, Earth and urban studies Keith Harris pages 594-597

Reframing the ‘creative city’ through tailored and context-sensitive policies Eduardo Oliveira pages 598-602

Notes

  1. Hyun Bang Shin (this issue)
  2. Shao, Q. (2013), Shanghai Gone: Domicide and Defiance in a Chinese Megacity, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  3. Email from Shin, 2014-09-07.
  4. Future Suspended is available to watch and download at https://vimeo.com/86682631

Athens and beyond…cities in financial/economic/social crisis

‘How does a global financial crisis permeate the spaces of the everyday in a city?’

An exploration through film, presentations, and discussion of Athens, a city in crisis and under authoritarian control. Are the same features appearing, if less starkly but just as insidiously, elsewhere? What is to be done? Check out the virtual special issue of CITY here for related articles – free access! http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/pgas/ccit-vsi-athens

How does a global financial crisis permeate the spaces of the everyday in a city?

Contributions from:

Costas Lapavitsas, economist, SOAS

Lila Leontidou, geographer, Hellenic Open University

Dimitris Dalakoglou, anthropologist, University of Sussex

AntonisVradis, geographer, University of Durham

Adam Elliott-Cooper, geographer, University of Oxford

Bob Catterall, editor, CITY

Saturday, 11 October, 6.00-9.00pm, at the Khalili Theatre, SOAS

The Khalili Lecture Theatre is on the lower ground floor of main College buildings (see http://www.soas.ac.uk/visitors/location/maps/#InteractiveMap)

Presented by CITY with crisis-scape (http://crisis-scape.net/) and co-organised with RMF at SOAS (https://www.soas.ac.uk/rmf/)

An introductory quote (below)?

‘Is the anxious, authoritarian, militarized city of self-avowedly fascist police and pitched civil war our present-future? Is this the fate of urbanity itself in our millennial, post-historical times? Is Athens, the purported birthplace of those secular forms we came to so faithfully value— democracy, the polis, the public—the harbinger of their demise?’’

Nasser Abourahme in his contribution to a special feature ‘Crisis-scape: Athens and beyond’, a special feature in CITY, 18.4-5 (early October, 2014)

Introducing and resituating a debate about ‘planetary urbanisation’

Editorial to the Virtual Special Issue of CITY

Available online now – articles free to download: http://bit.ly/cityvsi

Permaculture, Philippines; Adrian Atkinson.

‘Planetary urbanisation has assumed significance in recent urban studies debates, given its provocative questioning of the precise nature of the city and the urban, especially the neat demarcations separating urban, suburban and rural zones.’

That is the way the debate about ‘planetary urbanisation’ is introduced in the abstract for this session, entitled ‘Reclaim the City and the Planet’, at the 2014 RGS-IBG Annual International Conference. The sentence seems to provide a straightforward introduction to the topic but for the attentive, critical reader doubts may begin to creep in. Is it the actual material process of planetary urbanisation on the ground or is it a particular academic discourse, ‘planetary urbanisation’, that has ‘assumed significance’? And do discourses actually assume or do they acquire significance, a significance that is not only assumed but also empowered by actual individuals, particular academic groups engaged as much in a struggle for recognition, influence and power as in a struggle for truth?

Introducing a selection of relevant material from nearly two decades of publication in CITY, this brief survey seeks to resituate two approaches to planetary urbanisation within wider debates, intellectual, cultural, and activist/‘political’ as well as academic, one led by Neil Brenner at Harvard and Christian Schmid of the ETH Zurich, the other led by CITY. The latter adopts a transdisciplinary approach (including biology and the humanities) rather than the interdisciplinary one (largely dependent on the socio-spatial ‘sciences’) of the former. CITY’s approach seeks to bring this expanding field of ‘planetary urbanisation’ closer to the actual human and material changes and struggles on the ground (the bio-social planet itself).

The  tendency that ‘has assumed significance’ since Brenner’s inaugural lecture at Harvard in November 2011, entitled ‘The Urbanization Question, of the Field Formally Known as Urban Studies’, features in the very impressive and valuable compilation (34 chapters and over 570 pages) edited by Neil Brenner, ‘Implosions/Explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanization (2014)’. Two founding figures in this tendency are Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey. The two key ‘historic’ texts in the first section, ‘Foundations – The Urbanization Question’, of the book, are by these two leading Marxist analysts/theorists, Lefebvre and Harvey. But Harvey’s piece, ‘Cities or Urbanization?’ (Item 1 here) is in fact reprinted from the first issue (1996) of CITY, whose early entry into the field of ‘planetary urbanisation’ was, or so it would seem, inconveniently premature.

CITY could, then, be conveniently located at the  margins as not having ‘assumed significance’, with no specific university base and many non-academic contributors (including in that first issue a cartoonist as an irreverent historian, an opera director as a social commentator, and, among others, a developer, architects, journalists, and a social/communal entrepreneur). The project, led since 1996 by Bob Catterall, has had four figures in its background, gradually foregrounded later: Levebvre himself; the much travelled grassroots consultant and occasional academic, Adrian Atkinson, an anarchist; the major anarchist theorist, Murray Bookchin; and a mainstream urbanist with both capitalist and anarchist sympathies, the late Peter Hall (all represented in this issue). This unorthodoxy led some academics to suppose that CITY was not quite ‘kosher.’  Despite its re-establishment in 2000 as an academic journal published by Routledge it is still unorthodox and not quite ‘kosher’, and in fact challenging – not only in its range of contributors, now including independent scholars and activists, but also with its choice of themes and their treatment.

Planetary urbanisation, the theme that has now ‘assumed significance’, first emerged in this journal not only in Harvey’s article but, not with that label, also in the wide-ranging editorial in that first issue of 1996, partly influenced by the, evident to some, ‘urbanistic’ conditions on the ground and also by Bookchin’s work. The still partly marginalised theme of the extreme physical vulnerability of the city/urbanisation was introduced by Atkinson with reference to oil (item 2), an analysis not outdated (see 12) by the fact that fracking has ‘assumed significance’.

The need for critical (‘CUT’), rather than mainstream, urban theory  (and action) was brought into the journal by Peter Marcuse (4), Neil Brenner and Margit Mayer in the context of the global North, applied to Palestine/Israel by Oren Yiftachel with an emphasis on the global phenomenon of urban ‘grey space’ (5), and has been presented with a continuing double challenge by Marcelo Lopes de Souza (9) in an assertion of the centrality of the global South to understanding the nature of cities and urbanisation and of the work of anarchists such as Bookchin  to understanding and resisting urbanisation. A cautiously empiricist approach to understanding the nature of cities and urbanization in the global South is presented by Pushpa Arabindoo (11).

The move towards what can and should be done was taken up by a CITY panel at the American Association of Geographers conference in 2007, as reported here by Bjorn Surborg (3). In ‘Reclaim the City!’ was one version of this move, in relation to the ‘Right to the City’, it is taken up by Peter Marcuse (4) and Mehmet Baris Kuymulu (10). It was also considered by an early contributor (and since Associate Editor of this journal),  Andy Merrifield (7), in a Lefebvrian re-conceptualization directed to what lies beyond … A pragmatic and imaginative approach to what can and should be done now is set out by Tom Bliss (6) in ‘The Urbal Fix’  (‘urbal’ as distinct from ‘rurban’).

The struggle towards the re-appropriation of the city, from a black and anti-racist perspective, is presented by Adam Elliott-Cooper (12). His conference blurb for this session , with its reference to ‘post-Duggan Britain’  – i.e., after the 2011 ‘disturbances’ arising from the police killing of a youth – echoes the work of Greek scholar-activists associated with CITY. Antonis Vradis and Dimitris Dalalakoglou, who refer to the subsequent period after the eruption following the police killing of a youth in 2008 as post-Grigoropoulos Greece. An important practice- related intervention, applying Guattarian insights, to our assemblage debate, was made by Bertie Russell, Andre Pusey and Paul Chatterton in their ‘Seven propositions for a more strategic and politicized assemblage thinking’ (8).

The moves towards reclaiming the land,’ transition’, are reported, analysed and enacted* by Adrian Atkinson and Julie Viloria (12), and are to be taken up in a future issue of the journal by Melissa Wilson (see her conference abstract, ‘Back to the Land’). The contrasting paradigms and/or epistemologies on urbanisation and its future are: in the approach to be presented by Brenner, a major associate of CITY, and Schmid, later this year (15); and by Catterall (14) who, returning an unsung late Marx (with Kropotkin and anarchism) to Russian communal struggles in the late nineteenth century, characterises the rural, the urban and the planet as biosocial phenomena, and argues for a transdisciplinary, rather than an interdisciplinary approach.

From the point of view of Wilson  and Catterall  the rural is not, as presented in the epigraph, a mere ‘zone’ but something fundamental  to life that is threatened by over-urbanisation and associated capitalist and neo-colonialist/imperialist developments. The debate over ‘the land’ and ‘the city’ now has a new and vital urgency. It is not by ‘re-thinking the city’ that we can reclaim the city and the planet. The particularities of their joint significance cannot be assumed, they will have to be claimed and reclaimed in the fields and urban and post urban spaces by work, struggle and praxis.

by Bob Catterall and Melissa Wilson

* What the photograph shows (on the inset cover above) is the work of Atkinson and associates in the Philippines. ‘The photograph’, he notes, “is looking from the edge of a regenerated forest area, across one of the rice fields to one of the buildings built to house various training exercises (almost a laboratory) which, as is evident, is built out of bamboo with thatch roof”. Disturbed by an approach to revolution that seems to devote almost total attention to street battles, Atkinson suggests that such (spreading) alternatives (including the notion of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture as the bridge to a more balanced mix of urban and rural) may be ‘the real Revolution’. That issue and editorial were entitled ‘Reversing Urbanisation?’

Reclaim the city and the planet

Available online now!

Virtual Special Issue of CITY: ‘Reversing Urbanization?’

Editorial to the special issue: Introducing and resituating a debate about ‘planetary urbanisation’

Virtual Special Issue flyer: Reversing urbanization?

Download flyer (pdf.)

CITY Panel at the Annual International Conference of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS-IBG) 2014

Sponsored by CITY: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action.

Planetary urbanisation has assumed significance in recent urban studies debates, given its provocative questioning of the precise nature of the city and the urban, especially the neat demarcations separating urban, suburban and rural zones. While the questions raised by this discourse pose a fundamental challenge to basic epistemological assumptions, categories of analysis, and object of investigation, is it holistic enough to rethink the urban (and the non-urban) as a planetary condition, and more importantly, is it radical enough to provide adequate solutions, making sense of what is happening on the ground in the process? The objective of this panel discussion is to draw on the recent debates in the CITY Journal where by rethinking the urban, one is able to reclaim the city and the planet. But in order to do so, the journal recognises the need for a commitment to follow it out in the universities and on the ground. Thus, following this year’s theme of co-production, this session explores theoretical and empirical encounters across the global to reveal not just a comparative analysis but a disruption of prominent conceptual innovations. In arguing for a radical ‘post-urban’ analysis, it considers the kind of planning movement that will be necessary to facilitate this.

Number 395
Friday 29 August 2014, Session 4
Convenors: Bob Catterall (CITY Journal) and Pushpa Arabindoo (University College London)

Panel Contributors:

Gray space and the new urban regime

Oren Yiftachel (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel)

Using the concept of ‘gray space’ as both an analytical tool, and a description of an undeclared planning strategy, Yiftachel’s discussion will use examples from Europe, Africa and Asia (with a special focus on Israel/Palestine) to outline the emergence of new urban regimes across the globe. These accommodate and institutionalize late-capitalist, liberal, collective identity and legal forces to condemn vulnerable populations to a semi-permanent position between the ‘lightness’ of membership, approval and legality and the ‘darkness’ of criminalization, punishment and eviction. Gray spaces have become the hallmark of urbanization in the early 21st Century. The ‘gray spacing’ of contemporary cities forces us to rethink our traditional understandings of urbanizing societies, in the context of a ‘creeping urban apartheid’, and its social and political implications.

Back to the land

Melissa Wilson (CITY Journal)

Melissa Wilson will share from her experience as a scholar-activist working with ‘City’ on the transition from urban life to off-grid ecological living. In the context of contemporary urban struggles for autonomy and health, her work explores the bridge between urban and rural, including the potential of permaculture and ecological knowledge for living harmoniously and co-productively with nature. Given the current alarming developments in climate change and ecological degradation, a biological perspective on the industrial and centralised form of modern urban survival – and especially its implications for the agrarian world out of which it is reproduced – urges us to seek alternative forms of everyday living that restore content to active participation, especially in the realm of food production, localised economic development, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and building community resilience to systemic shocks. There is a growing agrarian and food movement worldwide (discussed by Adrian Atkinson in ‘City’) that acknowledges this challenge in practical terms, but challenges still remain on how to bridge the cultural and political communication mainly located in urban centers, and the ecologically restorative agrarian work to urban communities as well.

Reclaiming the city from the state: Race and activism in post-Duggan Britain

Adam Elliott-Cooper (University of Oxford)

As deindustrialisation tears apart industrial labour, it becomes replaced, and controlled, by securitisation. While G4S herald themselves as the world’s largest employer, state security, namely the police and prisons, intensify their control over both the unemployed, and the never-employed. It is Britain’s black communities face that the brunt of both labour-market exclusion and police repression.

Both capital and the state see black communities, still occupying potentially profitable urban neighbourhoods, as sections of a surplus population. As police stops, searches, strip-searches, ASBO’s, detentions and dispersal orders are a regular feature for black youth on Britain’s city streets, the police taser, charge and plan to water canon those who dare to revolt in signifiant numbers. While deaths in the hands of police continue to face organised resistance, the state sanctions spying, infiltration and smearing of black community campaigns. This paper looks not only at how London and Birmingham’s black inner-cities are policed, but how resistance is organised to defend and reclaim the cities these black communities once helped to build.

A planet of Asians

Pushpa Arabindoo (University College London)

Twenty-first century is not only ‘urban’ but it is also Asian if we go by the demographic claims of international financial institutions such as the UN and the World Bank. While more than fifty percent or nearly two billion will be Asian (with a billion plus living in Asia’s teeming cities), there isn’t much beyond this statistical construct that enquires critically about the nature of this urbanisation. This paper in reviewing the current theorisations within urban studies about the ‘Asian city’ also draws on the opportunities as well as constraints of a discourse such as planetary urbanisation, emphasising the need to, first of all, consider conceptually what is the urban in an Asian context, specifically the epistemological challenges posed by countries like India and China. Secondly, we will also need to consider more carefully struggles of the elite and marginalised groups to reclaim the urban, as such encounters tend to defy our empirical understandings of the urban.
See also: http://conference.rgs.org/AC2014/395
Visit the conference homepage here >>

Conference details:

Location: Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) and Imperial College London RGS-IBG: 1 Kensington Gore, London, SW7 2AR (Registration & helpdesk) Imperial College London: Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ
Dates: Opening event and pre-conference workshops on Tuesday 26 August, then sessions running Wednesday 27 to Friday 29 August 2014
Theme: Geographies of co-production Conference chair: Wendy Larner (University of Bristol)

Page 1 of 1112345»10...Last »