Space & Polity: Special Issue on Neoliberalism

SPECIAL ISSUE: IN, AGAINST, BEYOND NEOLIBERALISM: THE “CRISIS” AND ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL FUTURES

GUEST EDITORS: David Featherstone, Andrew Cumbers, Kate Driscoll Derickson, Danny Mackinnon, Paul Routledge and Kendra Strauss

INTRODUCTION

In, against and beyond neo-liberalism: The “crisis” and alternative political futures
David Featherstone, Kendra Strauss and Danny MacKinnon 1

PAPERS

Thinking the crisis politically: lineages of resistance to neo-liberalism and the politics of the present conjuncture
David Featherstone 12

Topologies and topographies of Ireland’s neoliberal crisis
Cian O’Callaghan, Sinéad Kelly, Mark Boyle and Rob Kitchin 31

Towards resonant places: reflections on the organizing strategy of the International Transport Workers’ Federation
Jeremy Anderson 47

Constructing a global commons in, against and beyond the state
Andrew Cumbers 62

Remunicipalization in German cities: contesting neo-liberalism and reimagining urban governance?
Sören Becker, Ross Beveridge and Matthias Naumann 76

Knowing about crisis
Kate Driscoll Derickson, Gehan MacLeod and Verene Nicolas 91

Advertisements

Conference in Rome on the Neoliberal City

THE NEOLIBERAL CITY: WHAT’S LEFT, WHAT’S BEYOND
University of Rome La Sapienza, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, Roma (Italy)
November 14th 2014, 11:00

While European cities are struggling to cope with recession, austerity, foreclosures, rising inequalities, this open workshop will address the question of what’s left and what’s beyond three decades of neoliberalism at the urban scale. Is the crisis creating opportunities for progressive urban transformations, or is neoliberalism still – and will remain – the dominant technology of power? As radical reactions take often the form of grassroots activism, localism and the creation of autonomous spaces within cities, may urban neighbourhoods and communities insulate from the invasiveness of neoliberalization, and even indicate the way to a post-neoliberal future? Does the term “neoliberal” help in understanding today’s urban political economies – and its opponents – or is it unable to grasp the varieties of contemporary capitalism?

11:00–Manuel Aalbers, KU Leuven: The political economy of neighbourhood decline (Discussant: Alessandro Coppola)
11:50–Alberto Vanolo, Università di Torino, Autonomous spaces in the Neoliberal City: Christiania, Copenhagen (Discussant: Francesca Loi, La Sapienza)
12:40–Cesare Di Feliciantonio, La Sapienza and KU Leuven: Squatting, or the politics of possibilities: processes of subjectfication in times of indebtedness (Discussant: Pierpaolo Mudu, University of Washington)
15:00–Ramon Ribera-Fumaz, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya: The internet of cities and the new science of cities: a new policy turn? (Discussant: Simona De Rosa, La Sapienza)
15:50–Alessandra Prampolini, La Sapienza and T6: Community-based initiatives: niches in transition? (Discussant: Giovanni Attili, La Sapienza)
16:40–Antonella Carrano, La Sapienza: The factories of territoriality: the self-recovered plant “Officine zero” (Discussant: Massimiliano Tabusi, Università per stranieri di Siena)

19:30–Visit to Nuovo Cinema Palazzo (Occupied Movie Theatre) and the Free Republic of San Lorenzo neighbourhood, Piazza dei Sanniti (Roma)

The full programme is here: http://www.memotef.uniroma1.it/sites/dipartimento/files/NeoliberalCity_Rome_14Nov2014.pdf

Hope to see you there!

Filippo Celata & Cesare Di Feliciantonio

Schools of Our Own

Here is the piece I wrote for the Antipode symposium on the Communifesto for Fuller Geographies.  (I promised in my last post to post it here)…

I think the “Communifesto” is an important document that will push the conversation about what is to be done in the academy in productive new directions.  My contribution will think on a relatively longer time scale than the authors, and in some ways I will work against the grain of the document, but I hope my comments will be taken to complement the authors’ proposals more than contravene them.

Let me start by raising a question I think the authors don’t: should we fight to defend the public university against neoliberalization?  I think the answer is: Yes and no.  Yes, in the sense that within the limits of our present society a university degree is important key to material wealth, and we want that key to be widely accessible.  The state-funded university is a way to socialize the cost, keep education affordable for students, and thus relieve the corrosive and growing reliance on student debt.  There are important stakes here concerning the equitable distribution of material fortunes.  But, at the same time, this way of thinking conceives of the question only within established norms.  It accepts a system in which state-controlled institutions stamp individuals with an imprimatur so that they may rise in the capitalist economy.  While it is true that greater equality within that system is preferable to greater inequality, nevertheless the system itself is badly broken.[1]  So, no, we should not defend the public university against neoliberalism if it means struggling to maintain some measure of equality within a system we should abandon.

So then is there anything about the university that is worth fighting for?  I think there is.  I think the university’s value is that it offers people an institutional, temporal, and spatial caesura, a bubble where they are able to set aside labor and work[2] and devote themselves instead to schole.[3]  Schole, for Aristotle, is the lifelong struggle to develop our human potential, to hone our particular excellence as a species.  This excellence has many aspects, including knowledge, practical wisdom, physical skills, and social intelligence.  He thinks our potential can only be realized in fellowship with others, through active participation in a political community.  He stresses that schole requires serious effort.  Indeed the word does not designate the ability itself (to think or speak or judge), rather it means the time and effort devoted to developing one’s human excellence.

Though there are differences of course, Aristotle’s schole resonates greatly with Marx’s arguments in the Grundrisse about what he calls “really free working,” which he says is an intense effort people undertake to understand the conditions of their own existence and reappropriate control over those conditions by becoming active and taking up the project of managing their lives for themselves.[4]  It is essentially the project the workers in Jacques Rancière’s Nights of Labor (1991) were engaging in: in their off hours they read, discussed, learned, played, communed, grew, and developed their potential on their own terms, outside the demands of capitalist labor.  So if we pass Aristotle’s schole through the mesh of Marx and then through Rancière’s workers, it becomes not just a general project of developing our human potential, but the revolutionary project of developing our full humanity beyond a capitalist political-economy that reduces value to exchange value, human relations to competition, and human beings to workers and consumers (q.v. Engels, 1996, pp. 47-48).

Schole is always an ongoing project, and so of course it is not one we can complete in the university’s bubble.  Our whole life must be a continual struggle to understand and manage the conditions of our existence.  All we can hope for from the university as an institution, I think, is to offer a sort of kick start.  It can be an opportunity to practice schole intensely, a place where we can be surrounded by others also devoted to schole, some of whom are even professional scholars.[5]  It is a chance to practice the techniques and develop the habits (logic, poetry, critical thinking, rhetoric, philology, etc.) that are essential for schole.  To the extent this kick-start is useful, and given that universities (and schools) are the main institutional form this kick-start takes in our society, then in that sense I agree we should preserve the university.  But the point is never the university itself, the institution, its structure and degrees, or whether or not it is managed by the state.  The point is always the active, difficult, and joyous project of schole itself.  We only need the university if it is useful for schole.  We must recognize that even if we were to successfully defend the public university by preserving it as a state-funded institution, we would still have to hope the state values schole.  Even if we achieved a robust public university in which state support drawn from fair taxation ensured the academy was accessible to everyone, we would still have no guarantee students will get to practice schole in a way that will stoke their lifelong project.  In fact, if we are honest, we should guess it is probably more likely such an academy would train students to be loyal citizens, or soldiers, or state officials—whatever the state finds most useful—none of which encourages the active thought and self-management of schole.

So I am not so sure about the value of the public university, at least in the long term.  Sure, in the short term it is better than the neoliberal university, which is merely a corporate R&D division and technical training school.  But I think ultimately, in the long term, we need to figure out how to do schole on our own, without corporations or foundations or the state.[6]  Like the workers in the Nights of Labor, we need to create encounters in which we work together to augment each other’s schole.  Those encounters might be supported by autonomous associations of mutual aid and solidarity—let’s call them “schools”—where we collectively strive to develop our schole.  It seems to me that should be the long-term vision.  Unfortunately, there is probably good reason to believe the public university as we know it (even the good-old, free, UK one) is more hindrance to that long-term vision than it is a help.

One of the many strengths of the Communisfesto is that it offers concrete, practical steps that we can take today.  What would the steps be if we want to create the “schools” I have proposed?  Certainly, in our current climate, we should not vociferously attack the public university.  It seems instead we should start from the (correct) assumption that such “schools” already exist.  People are already doing schole together, on their own, in different ways and in different settings, both inside and outside the academy.  The tactics we need, it seems to me, would involve a habit of looking for these associations and developing our ability to recognize them.  And, as we get better at perceiving them, we will need to develop ways to help them grow, spread, and flourish.  We should help them propagate themselves to the point where they pervade our societies, to the point they are able to crowd out the corporate and state schools and cause them to wither away.  Autonomous schools might proliferate to the point they create a world in which schole no longer has to be carved out of the night by tired bodies and minds, but rather becomes a habit, a normal activity in an active, vital, and joyous life-in-common.


[1] See Ranciere’s argument that we should think about equality as a presupposition to be demonstrated rather than as a quantifiable end to be achieved (e.g. 1995; 1999).

[2] In Hannah Arendt’s (1998) sense.  Of course they are increasingly less able to do so in the neoliberal university.

[3] The university is by no means the only place for schole, nor is it the only means of prying open this caesura.

[4] In Notebook VI, in the Section on “Adam Smith: work as sacrifice.”  See also Merrifield (2011, esp. pp. 155-157).

[5] Which of course simply means a person who does schole for a living.

[6] More generally, we need desperately to decouple “public” and “state,” and we need to figure out together what it means to be public (not to mention common) without the state.

Works Cited

Arendt, H. (1998 [1958]) The Human Condition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Engels, F. (1996 [1845]) The Great Towns. The City Reader. Edited by R. LeGates and F. Stout. New York, Routledge, pp. 46-55.

Merrifield, A. (2011) Magical Marxism. London, Pluto Press.

Rancière, J. (1991 [1981]) The Nights of Labor: The Workers’ Dream in Nineteenth-Century France. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

Rancière, J. (1995 [1992]) On the Shores of Politics. Translated by L. Heron. New York, Verso.

Rancière, J. (1999 [1995]) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by J. Rose. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Communifesto Symposium

Antipode, a radical journal in geography, has a series of symposiums around various themes.  This symposium is a set of responses to the “Communifesto for Fuller Geographies: Towards Mutual Security,” by the Participatory Geographies Research Group.  It proposes a series of ideas and practices for resisting the ongoing privatization of the contemporary university.  I have a response piece in the symposium called “Schools of Our Own.”  I will post that piece separately as well, but of course it will make the most sense in the context of of the symposium and the other responses.

Lefebvre, Habitat, and the Dystopia of the Contemporary Public University

Like many universities, the University of Washington is being systematically defunded by the state and is scrounging for new revenue wherever it can find it.  Of course the main strategy, as elsewhere, is to increase the burden on students and their families by raising tuition and fees.  But there is another piece to that strategy, and it is becoming very apparent in the space of the city.  Over the last few years, all over the University District, the university’s Housing and Food Services division has built new dorms complete with grocery stores, health clubs, restaurants, etc., all of which are intended to function as new-and-improved machines to extract money from students and their families.

I am struck by how useful Lefebvre’s concept of “habitat” is in this context.  He argued that the capitalist city stores its inhabitants in sterile, meaningless spaces, almost like warehouses, in order to keep track of them, to order their lives, and to continually reinforce their roles as workers and consumers.

Habitat also separates inhabitants from each other, preventing them from encountering each other in the street where they can discuss, play, create, and build common lives.  In short, habitat prevents what he calls l’inhabiter, which is when inhabitants come to understand the conditions of their existence and resolve to collectively manage those conditions for themselves.  L’inhabiter is, more or less, the texture of life in the socialist city to come.  Lefebvre wants to stress the importance of habitat’s physical warehousing and separating inhabitants in a way that feeds the imperatives of the capitalist city (and, it appears, the neoliberal university).