Dissertation by Faseeha Khalid.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The performance of masculinity: how masculinity presents itself in the subculture of skateboarding.
Figure list.
Figure 1 – Excerpt on skateboarding style from Chi Town Shred 3, photocopied zine. Edited by Chi-boy & Ras Daniel, 1989. Chicago, Illinois: Self-published.
Figure 2 - page excerpt from Rage zine, featuring BMX and skate content. Edited by Sean Cronan, 1988. Hamden, Connecticut: Self-published. From the collection of Kevin Johnson.
Figure 3 Interview excerpt from Chi Town Shred 3, photocopied zine. Edited by Chi- boy & Ras Daniel, 1989. Chicago, Illinois: Self-published.
Figure 4 – Excerpt from Naughty Nomads zine, featuring Damn It All Skateboards and European trip narrative. Edited by John Lytle, 1988. San Francisco, California: Self-published.
Introduction.
Often appearing in cities, subcultures have been fundamental to understanding the youth culture. Being viewed as communities of resistance and spaces of rebellion from normative society – subcultures certainly have a shock element to them. At the core of these communities are their values, style and rituals. Firstly, much of the academic work and research on subcultures focuses upon post-war 1960s subcultures – for example Teddy Boys or Mods. This paper highlights that there are two main gaps in subcultural research, the first being that there is less of a focus on more contemporary subcultures i.e., skateboarding, secondly women are almost never mentioned by sociologists studying this field.
The second being, cultural theorist and feminist Angela McRobbie and Jenny Garber arguement that it is not that women do not partake in subcultures, but that dominate sociology and much of the scholarship work, as a result women are often overlooked (McRobbie & Garber, 1975, p.114). At its core this paper aims to address gaps in subcultural studies. This paper will showcase how subcultural theory, and concepts can be used to look at skateboarders as subculture themselves. Moreover, this paper will attempt to present how feminist sociologist Raewyn Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity not only presents itself in skateboarding as a subculture, but also why it may be a significant factor in women not being documented/present in the subculture itself. In an attempt to truthfully honour the ‘underground’ nature of subcultures, as a case study I will use archival skateboarding zines from the ‘Skate and Annoy’ digital archive. The archive will also be used during the paper in order to assist with and provide greater understanding to the points that I make.
This paper consists of two main sections, the first being of showcasing skateboarding as a subculture and the second being how archival skateboarding zines from the ‘Skate and Annoy’ digital archive showcase hegemonic masculinity. The paper begins with discussing the difficulty with attempting to define subculture, whilst still providing a foundational understanding to subcultures. The paper then proceeds to showcase subcultural theory in the context of skateboarding – here style in skateboarding is discussed in order to demonstrate this point. It is also here that archival skateboarding zines from the ‘Skate and Annoy’ digital archive is used to showcase style as subcultural capital. The second section of the paper demonstrates the way that hegemonic masculinity can operate within skateboarding. As a case study the pages from zines in the ‘Skate and Annoy’ digital archive that displayed images of women at any point will be showcased in order to demonstrate the effects of hegemonic masculinity in portrayal of women in subculture. The paper will reach conclusion by arguing that in skateboarding, subcultural capital is inherently to embody hegemonic masculinity.
1. Skateboardingasasubculture.
The struggle with defining subculture.
Although being a term that occasional used prior to the 20th century, it would truly gain popularity in cultural and sociological studies post World War II to describe youth gangs in the urban. As established in the introduction, subcultures are often defined through their style, practices and spaces that deviate from normative society. Indeed, Australian academic Ken Gelder defines subcultures “as groups of people
that are in some way represented as marginal through their particular interests and practices, through what they are, what they do, and where they do” (Gelder, 2007, p. 2). In-fact, ironically the prefix “sub” in the term “subculture” suggests a subordination to the mainstream – an occurrence that is less than the normative. This becomes more significant when one acknowledges that at the time the term became popularised, subcultures were primarily a working-class phenomenon.
Subcultures are nuanced, for this reason defining them through a single definition becomes difficult. Gelder’s definition although useful in providing a foundational understanding, does not encapsulate the soul and nature of subcultures entirely. It can be argued that subcultures are defined by not only academics, but also by subculturalists and by those in the normative society that interact with subcultures. Certainly, American sociologist Ross Haenfler comments on this stating that “subcultures are defined not only by subculturalists, but by the reactions they provoke in a given context. It can hence be implied that subcultures have a shock value” (Haenfler, 2013, p. 23). Haenfler consequently implies that subcultures are defined not by the communities themselves, but also by their relation to wider society. Indeed, at the core of subcultures is this disruptive nature that challenges normative society. Although, it should be acknowledged that is the shock value itself can play a role with subculturalists themselves, as members of subcultures begin to bond over their shared “sense of marginalisation from or resistance to a perceived ‘conventional’ society (Haenfler, 2013, p. 38). There are several elements to defining and understanding subcultures. English theorist and sociologist Dick Hebidge acknowledges this struggle in subcultural studies, stating that the meaning of subcultures “are always in dispute” (Hebidge, 1979, p. 56). It can be suggested that
subcultures are occurrence that disrupt the linear understanding of traditional academia – hence, in order to write about subcultures one most acknowledge the struggle with pigeonholing subcultures as a concept. Rather, one must approach subcultures with broader outlook.
Style and subcultural capital in skateboarding.
Figure 1 – Excerpt on skateboarding style from Chi Town Shred 3, (photocopied zine). Edited by Chi-boy & Ras Daniel, 1989. Chicago, Illinois: Self-published.
Style plays a very significant role in skateboarding as a subculture, it is also an area that is in dispute, with Hebidge stating that “style is the area in which opposing definitions clash with most dramatic force (Hebidge, 1979, p. 56). Style in
skateboarding goes beyond merely clothes but is about the way the skater carries themselves, their tricks and their knowledge. Figure 1 above showcases the skateboarding zine Chi-Town published in Chicago in 1989, that displays a ‘essay’ about style. The figure above suggests that “style is a... figment of what skateboarding is all about” (Daniel, 1989, p. 3), the unknown writer then lists those with style in the subculture – the skateboarders listed are all men. The essay mentions that the “greatest thing a skater can achieve is his own style, without that he would be just another skater” (Daniel, 1989, p. 3). Figure 1 successfully demonstrates the way style operates in skateboarding, it is nuanced, one meet vague criteria’s in order to gain their peer’s recognition.
Sarah Thornton’s notion of ‘subcultural capital’ is significant to understanding style in skateboarding. Subculture capital at its core is about social hierarchy in subcultures, those who have subculture capital are recognised by their peers as significant. Similar to ‘culture capital’, the holder begins to see themselves as relevant (Thorton in Jenson, 2006, p. 236). Arguably, style as subcultural capital has masculine association. Figure 1 only acknowledges male skateboarders as holders of ‘style’ hence, also the holders of subculture capital. This showcases that to be a recognised skateboarder is to successfully perform masculinity. Indeed, Haenfler acknowledges this stating that “within this discussion of subcultural style, the presence of women and girls hovers like ghost like in the background” (Haenfler, 2013, p. 56), as inherently “subcultures glorify manliness” (Haenfler, 2013, p. 43). In- fact figure 1, uses only “he” pronouns, suggesting that style is something that can only be achieved by males. Style as consequence becomes a “area of subcultural
activity from which women have tended to be excluded” (McRobbie & Garber, 1975, p.124).
When a component subculture becomes a celebration of masculinity, women must also begin to perform this in order to be accepted by their peers. In an interview with British female skateboarder Helena Long, she commented upon her experience as a women attempting to enter the subculture, saying “that I kind of just wanted to blend in, I just wanted to be a skateboarder. That is kind of reflected in... till this day what I choose to wear when I skate. I do think skaters all look the same” (Long, 2025). To have style as women in skateboarding one must blend in to their masculine surroundings, as she has more to prove in these spaces. Style is arguably one of the examples of how hegemonic masculinity appears and functions within skateboarding.
2. Hegemonicmasculinityinskateboarding.
Case study: The portrayal of women in skateboarding zines.
Figure 2 - page excerpt from Rage zine, featuring BMX and skate content. Edited by Sean Cronan, 1988. Hamden, Connecticut: Self-published. From the collection of Kevin Johnson.
.
Figure 3 Interview excerpt from Chi Town Shred 3, photocopied zine. Edited by Chi- boy & Ras Daniel, 1989. Chicago, Illinois: Self-published.
At the end of the interview Feurstein is asked if he would like to “like to see more girls skating? To which he replies with “I don’t care if girls skate. It doesn’t matter to me.” (Feurstein in Chi-boy & Ras Daniel, 1989, p 3)
Figure 4 – Excerpt from Naughty Nomads zine, featuring Damn It All Skateboards and European trip narrative. Edited by John Lytle, 1988. San Francisco, California: Self-published.
The portrayal of women in the figures above perfectly highlight the point
McRobbie and Garber made in 1975 “when girls do apear, it is either in ways which uncritically reinforce the stereotypical image of women with which we are now so familiar” (McRobbie & Gerber, 1975 p. 112). The only time that women appear within the entirety of the Skate and Annoy digital archive they are overly sexualised. Both women in pages (figure 3 and 4) provide no real value to the zine in an informational
or editorial context – nor do they have anything to do with skateboarding. Rather they are used as an aesthetic in order to please the male gaze as there is the emphasis on male membership within the subculture.
These figures above are a clear representation hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, is a theoretical concept coined by Raewyn Connell that essentially was based upon “two interrelated dimensions (a) male dominance and oppression of women; and (b) hierarchical classification of masculinities (Christensen & Qvotrup, 2014 pg 23). It should be acknowledged that this theoretical concept often is cited, adapted and used by many different researchers. Within this paper hegemonic masculinity is used in relation to the ways that masculinity presents and operates in the subculture of skateboarding.
Point (a) in hegemonic masculinity, which entails male dominance and oppression of women is easily identifiable in the figures above. Sexualised images of women in bikinis (figure 2 and 4) and the dismissal of women skateboarders in figure 3 is a demonstration men oppressing women. Through doing so men become the default in the subculture, it is masculinity that one must centre in order to operate within the subculture itself. Indeed, “men = people and women the ‘other’ (Mcdonald, 2001, p. 3), these zines are not made for women – women are depicted as the ‘other’. Haenfler eludes that women who want to part take subculture “often have more to prove” (Heanfler, 2023 p. 23), these women have to accept male dominance, through performing masculinity. Arguably, the social hierarchy in hegemonic masculinity means that a women in the subculture is not as likely to gain the same recognition as her male peers as she have to live up to the “ideas, fantasies and
desires” (Connell & Messerchmidt, 2005, p. 88) of the men in skateboarding, It can certainly be argued that subcultural capital in skateboarding functions within the means of hegemonic masculinity. Subcultural capital mimics hierarchical nature of hegemonic masculinity. To gain subcultural capital one needs to embody masculinity which is also present in hegemonic masculinity.
Conclusion.
This paper has examined how the subculture of skateboarding not only operates as a contemporary youth subculture but also how it performs and perpetuates hegemonic masculinity. In doing so, it has sought to address two key gaps in subcultural studies: the underrepresentation of modern subcultures like skateboarding and the consistent overlooking of women’s roles within these subcultures. By applying subcultural theory and Connell’s theoretical concept of hegemonic masculinity, the paper demonstrates that the performance of masculinity is not merely a by product of skateboarding culture, but rather a element of how subcultures exclude women.
The first half of the paper established an understanding on subculture as a concept. It was established that there is certainly difficulty with defining subcultures with a singular definition, as subcultures are defined by not only scholars, subculturalists but also the public. Using archival material from the Skate and Annoy zine archive, it was shown that "style"— a vital component of subcultural capital—is framed almost exclusively through a masculine lens. The second section explored how hegemonic masculinity manifests through the representation (or lack thereof) of women in
skateboarding media. The use of zines intended to showcase an authentic opinion of those in the subcultures themselves, these underground knowledges were a vital component of this paper. The zines showed that women when included at all, are either sexualised or marginalised, reinforcing their status as outsiders to the subcultural core. This exclusion is not merely incidental but systemic, as subcultural capital is tied to the performance of masculinity.
Concluding, in order to possess legitimacy within skateboarding as a subculture, one must adopt and perform the values, appearances, and behaviours that are aligned with Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity. Ultimately creating a environment where women too have to perform masculinity or risk exclusion from the subculture. Future research and cultural documentation must actively engage with and centre the experiences of women and non-masculine participants in subcultures. Only then can the study of subcultures begin to reflect the diversity and complexity of the communities it seeks to understand.
(2102 words)
Bibliography.
Lytle, J. (ed.), 1988. Naughty Nomads. San Francisco, California: Self-published. Photocopied zine, 12 pages, folded letter-sized.
Christensen, A-D. & Qvortrup Jensen, S., 2014. Children, Youth, and the Body: A Sociological Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chi-boy & Ras Daniel (eds.), 1989. Chi Town Shred 3. Chicago, Illinois: Self- published. Photocopied zine, 16 pages, letter-sized.
Cronan, S. (ed.), 1988. Rage. Hamden, Connecticut: Self-published. Photocopied zine, 24 pages, folded letter-sized.
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), pp. 829–859.
Gelder, K., 2007. Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice. London: Routledge.
Gelder, K. ed., 2005. The subcultures reader. Psychology Press.
Haenfler, R., 2023. Subcultures: The Basics. London: Routledge.
Hebdige, D., 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
Jensen, S. Q., 2006. Rethinking subcultural capital. Young, 14(3), pp. 257–276.
Lytle, J. (ed.), 1988. Naughty Nomads. San Francisco, California: Self-published. Photocopied zine, 12 pages, folded letter-sized
Long, H., 2025. Interview with Helena Long. [Interview].
McDonald, M. G., 2001. The field of play: Sociology of sport and gender. Leisure Studies, 20(3), pp. 159–173.
McRobbie, A. & Garber, J., 1975. Girls and subcultures. In: K. Gelder & S. Thornton, eds. The Subcultures Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 111–120.