KEY TOPICS:
ECO-ANARCHY
Reimagining land: How the intersections between Anarchism and Indigenous knowledges can contribute to the reimagination of the city
.
The city
“The freedom to make and remake ourselves and our cities is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights”
David Harvey (Harvey, 2015, p. 56)
Cities are integral to everyday life within western contemporary societies, cities are spaces that have managed to outlive business and people, often they are the creators of culture and economics. Yet, the city is also a problematic man-made space that has its foundations in Imperialism and Capitalism, the city arguably functions to uphold these oppressive systems. Within the Critias of Plato the city is viewed as the image of the world, or rather of the cosmos (Plato, cited in Lefebvre, 1974, p. 79). In other words, the city is the reflection of the way that the world or
13
states function. If true, one must begin by challenging the city first, in order to eventually begin challenging the state. As stated by British American academic David Harvey whose work focused on geography, is that the cities are spaces that can be remade, which he views as a human right – then, it’s essential for everyday people to reimagine the city as a space that works for them and not for Capitalism.
The urban problem.
The urban problem encompasses all that is wrong with the city. This dissertation emphasises that at the core of the urban problem is the problem with the land, this includes who owns it, what it lacks, who it excludes and who it operates for. For example, here in London foreign investment means that Qatari royals own more land than the royal family. This demonstrates a wider issue in the city where land becomes privatised, gatekept and owned by those that do not even physically occupy the land itself. The process of privatisation creates components of the city which is gatekept from the everyday person. French Marxist philosopher and sociologist Lefebvre comments on this stating that “for the working class, victim of segregation and expelled from the traditional city... deprived of a possible urban life” (Lefebvre, 1974, p. 128). Lefebvre comments demonstrate that it is not the urban itself that is to be blamed, but, it is the way that the urban functions that is problematic and exclusive.
The urban problem arguably becomes most evident through the housing problem. In English, the world for ‘housing’ can be used as a verb or noun, meaning that when a noun ‘housing’ is a commodity or product – but, as verb ‘to house’ describes the
14
process of housing (Ward, 1996, p. 83). The commodification of accommodation (which is essential to human living) creates the basis for Capitalism to thrive. In London this became most apparent post “Margaret Thatcher’s privatization of social housing in central London to create rent and housing price structures throughout the metropolitan area that precludes lower income” (Harvey, 2015, p. 5). As a consequence, a wealth divide is created and this creates segregation within the city itself. This means that there are those who are able to partake in exclusive luxuries of the city i.e, private tennis courts, whilst for the working-class house sharing becomes the norm.
The city as space.
Philosopher and Marxist theorist Fedrick Jameson is known for his analysis of Postmodernity and Capitalism argues “space has become more important in social theory and postmodernism” (Jameson, 1991, p. 21). Indeed, arguably the city and way it functions can only be understood fully through viewing and examining it as a space. Cities are made from habitual spaces (homes) and ‘uninhabited’ or ‘inhabitable’ spaces such as monuments, public buildings, streets (Lefebvre, 1974, p. 95). At the centre of most cities lies the inhabitable and uninhabitable spaces such as offices or shops – only a privileged few are (very rarely) able to inhabit these spaces as their homes. Through examining the city as a space, it becomes evident that it is a space that functions for Capitalism and not for the person that moves through the space – as a result urbanisation becomes an ideology and practice. It can be argued that this is because “the city is associated to industrial enterprise: it figures in planning as a cog, it becomes the material device and to organise
15
production, control of daily life of the production and consumption of products” (Lefebvre, 1974, p.124).
If true, this means that most city planners and architects uphold Capitalism, only once they begin to stop becoming a ‘cog’ in Capitalism can the city begin to be reimagined. It is central to change one’s relationship with space in order to begin to imagine change in the city.
Reimagining the city.
Urban sociologist Robert Park wrote that ‘man’s most consistent and whole, his most successful attempt to remake the world he lives in more after his heart’s desire. But, if the city is the world which man created, it is the world which he is henceforth condemned to live in” (Park, 1925, p. 30). Indeed, the struggle with the city ideologically lies in the fact that the city has become fashionable and is often viewed as an accomplishment in the Capitalist lifestyle. A recent study in the Economist found that “across the world, 25% of people live in cities of over a million, up from just 15% six decades ago” (Economist, 2025). This demonstrates that people still want to occupy urban spaces, if the urban cannot be dismantled then it is essential for it to be reimagined. In contemporary society this reimagination is starting to occur as ‘sanctuary cities’ that deny cooperation with the government in enforcing immigration law appear in the United States. A desire to change the city is certainly not something new, movements like the Situationists operating primarily in 1960s would set out to reimagine the city and everyday life through a comprehensive programme. Situationists like Guy Debord would advocate for alternative thinking stating that “the imaginary is what tends to become real” (Debord cited in McDonough, 2010, p. 54 ). If true, imagination is a revolutionary act that challenges the exploitive system. Consequently, if one wants to change the contemporary city one must begin by reimagining it.
Anarchism.
“Since one cannot know a radically better world is possible, are we not betraying everyone by insisting on continuing to justify, and produce, the mess we have today” (Graeber, 2004, p. 31)
Understanding Anarchism.
In order to begin discussing Anarchism in relation to the reimagination of the metropolitan city, one must first understand Anarchism as a theory and practice. Peter Kropotkin a key founding figure of Anarchism defines it as “the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society conceived without government – harmony in such society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised human being” (Kropotkin, 1995,p. 238). Anarchism can be viewed as product of key 19th century thinkers, although it shares many intersections with Marxism, it can be perceived more as an ‘attitude’ than being as theoretical as Marxism. At its core Anarchism is about practice, Britain’s greatest Anarchist thinker Colin Ward would state that Anarchism is “a theory of organisation” (Ward, 1996, p. 21). Indeed, Anarchist theory is a call for action which includes “self- organisation, voluntary action, mutual aid referred to forms of human behaviour they assumed to have been around as long as humanity. The same goes for the rejection of the state and all forms of structural violence, inequality or domination (Anarchism literally means, without rulers)” (Graeber, 2004, p. 12). In short, Anarchism is rooted in collective power against the state, it advocates for the people to work towards change by not accepting the corrupt contemporary state.
It is important to understand the meaning of the ‘state’, as Anarchism is fundamentally against the state. American Anarchist Graeber defines the ‘state’ as society (Graeber, 2004, p. 23), although the state can also be conceptualised in space as nation/countries – but, also as institutions of power such as
governments. The ‘goal’ arguably of Anarchism is to uproot the state, as the state itself is a corrupt manmade idea, through reimagining “social order as something one could get a grip on” (Graeber, 2004, p. 44) one can then begin to dismantle the state. This determination for uprooting and reimagining power through practice, is why Anarchism still holds significant value today.
Reimagining the city through collective effort.
As established before in the city is a site of corruption due to Capitalism, Anarchist argue that the fault of contemporary society is that it views Capitalism as a western achievement. Capitalism and the contemporary city puts considerations of profit above any human concern (Graeber, 2004, p. 67). If true, Capitalism and the state is to be blamed for issues such as the lack of access to housing, green spaces and community spaces. Indeed, Ward argues that “urban development is the Capitalist definition of space. It is one realisation is the technically possible and it excludes all alternatives” (Ward, 1996, p. 23). If true, Capitalism structures space and the city into a unaltering system of profit, that only benefits the wealthy. Yet, if power in contemporary cities and spaces is rooted in reality which suggests that this system cannot be altered, then counter-power is rooted in imagination. Imagination is central to Anarchy, imagination is an revolutionary act, it is a revolutionary act in itself to question the system. Graeber too speaks of this in a practical sense stating that the project of Anarchy is “to reanalyse the state as a relation between a utopian imaginary, and a messy reality involving strategies of fight and invasion, predatory elites, and a mechanic of regulation control” (Graeber, 2004, p. 89). Indeed, reimagination can only be possible through strategy, arguably Anarchism has not been completely successful as a movement in history because of a lack of strategy for day-to-day actions that lead to their reimagined spaces.
There can only be real change through collective effort and collaboration – individualistic behaviour arguably only serves the corrupt system. Collectives and collaboration in the city is already present in the cities’ “block of houses, in every street” where “groups of volunteers will have been organised, and these commissariat volunteers will find it easy to work in unison and keep in touch with each other” (Ward, 1996, p. 89). Indeed, the ability of collective volunteer collaborations for protecting spaces is already something that is present in contemporary life. The state is unable to stop this as “self-organising networks persist ‘like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and capitalism and its waste” (Johnson & Ferguson, 2019 p. 702). Truly, they often are
forgotten about as acts of rebellion, spaces like these are spaces of hope within the contemporary city. It can be argued that Anarchists should utilise these collectives in communities and to initiate general projects, which coincide with the Anarchist goal of reimagination of spaces.
Eco-Anarchy.
Eco-Anarchy looks at the reimagination of relationship between land, person and ecology as a means of rebellion against the state. John Clark defines Eco-Anarchism as a form of “radical communitarianism that has a primary ecological commitment to promoting the flourishing of the entire global community-of-communities, and a primary Anarchic commitment to defending that community from all destructive forces that would crush and extinguish it” (Clark, 2020 p. 14). Indigenous knowledges are central to Eco-Anarchism, alongside Eco-Anarchist often state the intersections between both ways of thinking is of value. Indeed, academics Levy and Adams acknowledges this stating that the links between Indigeneity and Anarchism is to be thought “critically” and “creatively” of (Levy & Adams, 2018, 702). Eco- Anarchists advocate for using new communication technologies to include Indigenous communities for “global revolutionary alliances, as well as local resistance and revolt’ (Graeber, 2002 p. 12). Eco-Anarchism broadens the importance of community that is already present in mainstream Anarchism to include Indigenous knowledges and also believes that kinship with land is fundamental to human health. At its core Eco-Anarchy has the ability to reimagine the city to become more ecological through Indigenous knowledges.
colonial studies, Patrick Wolfe adds to this conversation through emphasising that “settler colonialism is a structure not an event. In the process of settler colonialism, land is remade into property and human relationships to land are restricted to the relationship of the owner to his property” (Wolfe, 2006, p. 397) If true, this demonstrates the importance of decolonisation to the reimagination of land and to the relationship one has with land that they occupy in the city. Imperialism has an effect on everyone and only benefits the wealthy, imperialism benefits Capitalism. Indigenous ways of knowing threatens Capitalism, hence, to begin engaging with Indigenous ways of knowing is an act of rebellion.