Author: Jason
Nearly fifty years ago, the U.S. federal government began to mandate widespread citizen participation in urban development and planning efforts through HUD's Model Cities program. Since then, debate has continued to circulate around the meaning, effectiveness, and desired outcomes of participatory mechanisms in local decision-making processes (Gross, 2014). In her precis, Li applies Sherry Arnstein's (1969) classic Ladder of Citizen Participation to a case study of a "new localism" development project in London's South Bank (Raco, Street & Freire-Trigo, 2016) in order to highlight how meaningful democratic deliberation with the public was constrained by the "development machine." She also (1) underscores three potential reasons why democratic participation was circumscribed in this particular instance; (2) questions how spaces in cities can be co-produced with the conflicting interests of the development machine and local community members; and (3) suggests that "the relative weights" of the key stakeholders in urban politics "should be reallocated and reevaluated to make sure the final proposals are truly promoting the core values of the public" and not merely the interests of elite groups.
While I agree with Li's call for a more democratic and justice-oriented technocratic approach to urban development and planning, I don't believe that such an approach is likely to happen through rational deliberation without some sort of critical juncture (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012) since the majority of key decision-makers and stakeholders' interests and livelihoods are dependent on the urban growth machine (Logan & Molotch, 1997). Like Li, urban geographer David Harvey (2012) also recommends a new urban politics that is rooted in social justice. However, as opposed to rational deliberation, Harvey pleads for protest and conflict based on the notion of the "right to the city."
Harvey states, "the right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to change it after our heart's desire.” Fundamental to this idea, which was initially proposed by Henri Lefebvre, is that space is socially produced; and thus the production of urban space reproduces social relations. In short, Harvey contends that the modern process of urbanization is a central feature to the reproduction of capitalism itself since urbanization absorbs the surplus value produced by capitalism which is extracted from labor – labor being those who have built and maintained the city and its infrastructure and contribute to the vitality and culture of the neighborhoods that make the city unique and desirable. As the process of urbanization requires and continues to attract and absorb surplus capital to sustain growth, land values and costs rise and those who control the means of urban space production (the growth coalition, property owners, “rentiers”) benefit and shape the city according to their interests at the expense, for the most part, of the most vulnerable (the homeless, immigrants, the underclass, struggling artists, renters, working class). This process, which exacerbates inequalities inside and outside of the city, is termed “accumulation by dispossession.”
Therefore, the right to the city, to my understanding (even though Harvey claims the term is an “empty signifier”), is about the right of the marginalized and vulnerable to acquire political power and have a voice in the production of urban space rather than being overlooked or ignored subjects by the shapers of the urban (the growth coalition/development machine). Moreover, it is about a challenge to capitalist urbanization and the existing spatial, social, political, and economic order by which people are exploited, alienated, and oppressed. It is about subordinating the exchange value of the city to its use value, and “the rolling back of public spaces controlled by the state and turning them into a commons controlled by the people” (Harvey, 2013).
Over the past few years, I have been trying to wrap my head around Harvey’s idea of accumulation by dispossession and his revival of Lefebvre’s notion of the right to the city. I have found the former, which is derived from Marx’s primitive accumulation, a useful analytical tool for my thinking on the growing problem of rentier capitalism and the rising cost of housing in cities across the U.S. Nonetheless, I have grown skeptical about the revolutionary promise of the latter for several reasons.
First, and beginning with a partial side note, I argue that the dominant narrative in academia, civil society, and media about the rapid pace of urbanization is commonly misunderstood. When most folks hear “urbanization,” I think it’s fair to say, especially in the context of the U.S., that they think of the urban, the city proper, and skyscrapers. However, most statistics on urbanization also include the less exciting peripherals of the city proper – known as the metropolitan area, the suburban, or the suburbs – which some have become and others are increasingly becoming the sites of poverty and decline. Additionally, since the process of urbanization impacts the rural, as argued by Brenner (2015), as well as the wilderness, I agree that we need to re-conceptualize urbanization and consider these areas in our discussions about improving cities, social justice, and environmental conservation.
With that said, Oliver (2014) emphasizes how the majority of the U.S. population actually lives in suburban areas as opposed to large cities. He further stresses that the suburbs are generally homogeneous, bias-free and devoid of conflict, and that large cities tend to be heterogeneous, biased, and conflict-ridden. Accordingly, I find it difficult to believe that a right to the city movement that manifests itself exclusively in urban areas will have any sustainable impact or influence on the minds of suburban dwellers, whom the majority are homeowners with interests tied into their regional growth machine, and whom I would argue are crucial to any sort of revolutionary change in the United States. Second, protest generated by minority interests might gain short-term sympathy, but since the interests of the right to the city conflicts with the majority’s interests in growth/development, why would the majority trade order for the improbability and potential chaos of a horizontally-ran democratic society without a convincing alternative or proven method of coordination, production, and distribution in place?
Third, although my critique of the right to city has thus far focused solely on its feasibility in the U.S., the right to the city idea has actually been incorporated into the struggles of movements across the globe over the past decade or so. In particular, the shack dwellers’ movement in South Africa, known as Abahlali baseMjondolo (Ab), has received worldwide attention for its organizing successes and is considered to be at “the forefront of a new wave of mass political mobilization" (Patel, 2013). Nevertheless, this movement has suffered sustained repression and violence on the behalf of the government, which seems to be severely limiting the kind of revolutionary potential that Harvey envisions. Germane to Saskia Sassen’s (2004) discussion in Local Actors in Global Politics, Ab has previously engaged with modern technologies to organize in solidarity with other global movements. Nevertheless, they remain critical of and reject partnerships with NGOs, whose purposes they view as antithetical to the movement’s mission and goals (de Souza, 2010). This begs question whether the right to city in theory is too radical in practice to ignite a broad movement that would transform society.
Lastly and conversely, the concept of the right to the city has also seemed to drift away from its original radical meaning over time due to (1) its broad appeal as a catchphrase for dissent in general, and (2) it having become institutionalized. In 2001, the Right to the City was written into Brazilian law, and there have been other attempts by UN agencies and municipalities to incorporate the concept into their laws and procedures. This raises the question about whether or not a less radical and state-controlled right to the city weakens its fundamental intention to address and transform the current social, political and economic relations produced by capitalist urbanization (Lamarca, 2009).
External Sources
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
Brenner, N. (2015). Dean’s Lecture Series 2015. YouTube Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXhwDwPzH2Y
de Souza, M. L. (2010). Which right to which city? In defence of political-strategic clarity. Interface, 2(1), 315-333.
Lamarca, M. G. (2009). The Right to the City: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Polis: The Blog.
Patel, K. (2013, September 16). Shack dwellers take the fight to eThekwini – and the ANC takes note. The Daily Maverick.
Nearly fifty years ago, the U.S. federal government began to mandate widespread citizen participation in urban development and planning efforts through HUD's Model Cities program. Since then, debate has continued to circulate around the meaning, effectiveness, and desired outcomes of participatory mechanisms in local decision-making processes (Gross, 2014). In her precis, Li applies Sherry Arnstein's (1969) classic Ladder of Citizen Participation to a case study of a "new localism" development project in London's South Bank (Raco, Street & Freire-Trigo, 2016) in order to highlight how meaningful democratic deliberation with the public was constrained by the "development machine." She also (1) underscores three potential reasons why democratic participation was circumscribed in this particular instance; (2) questions how spaces in cities can be co-produced with the conflicting interests of the development machine and local community members; and (3) suggests that "the relative weights" of the key stakeholders in urban politics "should be reallocated and reevaluated to make sure the final proposals are truly promoting the core values of the public" and not merely the interests of elite groups.
While I agree with Li's call for a more democratic and justice-oriented technocratic approach to urban development and planning, I don't believe that such an approach is likely to happen through rational deliberation without some sort of critical juncture (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012) since the majority of key decision-makers and stakeholders' interests and livelihoods are dependent on the urban growth machine (Logan & Molotch, 1997). Like Li, urban geographer David Harvey (2012) also recommends a new urban politics that is rooted in social justice. However, as opposed to rational deliberation, Harvey pleads for protest and conflict based on the notion of the "right to the city."
Harvey states, "the right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to change it after our heart's desire.” Fundamental to this idea, which was initially proposed by Henri Lefebvre, is that space is socially produced; and thus the production of urban space reproduces social relations. In short, Harvey contends that the modern process of urbanization is a central feature to the reproduction of capitalism itself since urbanization absorbs the surplus value produced by capitalism which is extracted from labor – labor being those who have built and maintained the city and its infrastructure and contribute to the vitality and culture of the neighborhoods that make the city unique and desirable. As the process of urbanization requires and continues to attract and absorb surplus capital to sustain growth, land values and costs rise and those who control the means of urban space production (the growth coalition, property owners, “rentiers”) benefit and shape the city according to their interests at the expense, for the most part, of the most vulnerable (the homeless, immigrants, the underclass, struggling artists, renters, working class). This process, which exacerbates inequalities inside and outside of the city, is termed “accumulation by dispossession.”
Therefore, the right to the city, to my understanding (even though Harvey claims the term is an “empty signifier”), is about the right of the marginalized and vulnerable to acquire political power and have a voice in the production of urban space rather than being overlooked or ignored subjects by the shapers of the urban (the growth coalition/development machine). Moreover, it is about a challenge to capitalist urbanization and the existing spatial, social, political, and economic order by which people are exploited, alienated, and oppressed. It is about subordinating the exchange value of the city to its use value, and “the rolling back of public spaces controlled by the state and turning them into a commons controlled by the people” (Harvey, 2013).
Over the past few years, I have been trying to wrap my head around Harvey’s idea of accumulation by dispossession and his revival of Lefebvre’s notion of the right to the city. I have found the former, which is derived from Marx’s primitive accumulation, a useful analytical tool for my thinking on the growing problem of rentier capitalism and the rising cost of housing in cities across the U.S. Nonetheless, I have grown skeptical about the revolutionary promise of the latter for several reasons.
First, and beginning with a partial side note, I argue that the dominant narrative in academia, civil society, and media about the rapid pace of urbanization is commonly misunderstood. When most folks hear “urbanization,” I think it’s fair to say, especially in the context of the U.S., that they think of the urban, the city proper, and skyscrapers. However, most statistics on urbanization also include the less exciting peripherals of the city proper – known as the metropolitan area, the suburban, or the suburbs – which some have become and others are increasingly becoming the sites of poverty and decline. Additionally, since the process of urbanization impacts the rural, as argued by Brenner (2015), as well as the wilderness, I agree that we need to re-conceptualize urbanization and consider these areas in our discussions about improving cities, social justice, and environmental conservation.
With that said, Oliver (2014) emphasizes how the majority of the U.S. population actually lives in suburban areas as opposed to large cities. He further stresses that the suburbs are generally homogeneous, bias-free and devoid of conflict, and that large cities tend to be heterogeneous, biased, and conflict-ridden. Accordingly, I find it difficult to believe that a right to the city movement that manifests itself exclusively in urban areas will have any sustainable impact or influence on the minds of suburban dwellers, whom the majority are homeowners with interests tied into their regional growth machine, and whom I would argue are crucial to any sort of revolutionary change in the United States. Second, protest generated by minority interests might gain short-term sympathy, but since the interests of the right to the city conflicts with the majority’s interests in growth/development, why would the majority trade order for the improbability and potential chaos of a horizontally-ran democratic society without a convincing alternative or proven method of coordination, production, and distribution in place?
Third, although my critique of the right to city has thus far focused solely on its feasibility in the U.S., the right to the city idea has actually been incorporated into the struggles of movements across the globe over the past decade or so. In particular, the shack dwellers’ movement in South Africa, known as Abahlali baseMjondolo (Ab), has received worldwide attention for its organizing successes and is considered to be at “the forefront of a new wave of mass political mobilization" (Patel, 2013). Nevertheless, this movement has suffered sustained repression and violence on the behalf of the government, which seems to be severely limiting the kind of revolutionary potential that Harvey envisions. Germane to Saskia Sassen’s (2004) discussion in Local Actors in Global Politics, Ab has previously engaged with modern technologies to organize in solidarity with other global movements. Nevertheless, they remain critical of and reject partnerships with NGOs, whose purposes they view as antithetical to the movement’s mission and goals (de Souza, 2010). This begs question whether the right to city in theory is too radical in practice to ignite a broad movement that would transform society.
Lastly and conversely, the concept of the right to the city has also seemed to drift away from its original radical meaning over time due to (1) its broad appeal as a catchphrase for dissent in general, and (2) it having become institutionalized. In 2001, the Right to the City was written into Brazilian law, and there have been other attempts by UN agencies and municipalities to incorporate the concept into their laws and procedures. This raises the question about whether or not a less radical and state-controlled right to the city weakens its fundamental intention to address and transform the current social, political and economic relations produced by capitalist urbanization (Lamarca, 2009).
External Sources
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
Brenner, N. (2015). Dean’s Lecture Series 2015. YouTube Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXhwDwPzH2Y
de Souza, M. L. (2010). Which right to which city? In defence of political-strategic clarity. Interface, 2(1), 315-333.
Lamarca, M. G. (2009). The Right to the City: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Polis: The Blog.
Patel, K. (2013, September 16). Shack dwellers take the fight to eThekwini – and the ANC takes note. The Daily Maverick.