To Transform the Political Speech in Facts, Finally.
Carlos Garaicoa


Oliver Musoviќ

Cardboard Maps
Ferhat Özgür

Original Adidas
Vlad Nanca

K9 Compassion
Zlatko Kopljar

On "Kiezism"
Ingo Vetter and Annette Weisser

On "Kiezism"
Ingo Vetter and Annette Weisser


Souvenirs Made In
Lara Badurina

To Transform the Political Speech in Facts, Finally.
Carlos Garaicoa

Model City
Bik Van der Pol

Hilary Koob-Sassen



The Making of ‘Glocal’ Urban Modernities: Exploring the Cracks in the Mirror1

Cities are—and have always been—highly differentiated spaces expressive of heterogeneity, diversity of activity, excitement, and pleasure. They are arenas for the pursuit of un-oppressed activities and desires, but also ones replete with systematic power, danger, oppression, domination and exclusion. Mediating the tensions between this dialectical twin of emancipation and disempowerment has of course been the bread and butter of urban planners, designers, social engineers, architects and an assorted array of visionaries since the earliest days of urbanisation2. Yet, the city—and, in particular, the modern city—does not invite easy taming. In recent decades, parameters of urban life have shifted in new directions and moved rapidly out of the straightjacket in which modernist urban design and managerial urban practices had tried to capture it. The domain of the urban began to flow beyond the limits imposed by the master planners’ sketch books, while its internal ordering collapsed as a whirlwind of social, cultural, economic, political, aesthetic and ideological change blew away the last vestiges of a presumably moribund urban order. The urban multiplex has become, more so than ever before, a fragmented kaleidoscope of apparently disjointed spaces and places, a collage and patchwork of images, signs, functions and activities that are nevertheless globally connected in myriad ways3.

This contribution asserts, first, that this new urbanity signals a dramatic re-assertion of the forces of modernity rather than announcing a radically new post-modern figure of the city. The prefix [post-] that has accompanied much of urban and cultural debates over the past two decades gleefully ignored the relentless and accelerating re-assertion of the contradictory movements of modernity. Together with David Harvey in The Condition of Post-Modernity4, we would like to argue—contra the advocates of the ‘post-modern turn’—that the last two decades have seen, if anything, the re-assertion with a vengeance of the process of modernisation, whose contradictory dynamics were wrestling free from the modernist cocoon in which the managed capitalism and the planned modernity of the post-war era had tried to contain it; forces that work through spatially in new, complex, and contradictory configurations. While modernism was the cultural expression of the post-war social order, post-modernism is the cultural expression of the intensified development of modernisation over the past few decades, a modernisation that has fundamentally redrawn the time-space co-ordinates of everyday life and re-articulated the local and the global to form a new geo-political and geo-economic ordering5. In short, modernism is seen here as the collective of aesthetic, technical, and managerial practices that attempted to contain the whirlwind of contradictory and explosive cultural and political-economic forces of modernity and modern urbanization.

In a second part, attention will turn to the new conditions and fissures that infuse contemporary urbanisation. Differentiation and fragmentation at all levels have become the corollary of internationalisation, globalisation and the creeping imposition of a total(ising) commodity culture. The tensions between a set of decidedly local/regional cultures, the growing inter- and intra-regional disparities and the fragmentation, pulverisation and proliferation of bodily, local, regional or national identities in a homogenising global cultural landscape of production and consumption prompted more intense (local) resistances to the imposed cultural norms that revolve increasingly around the tyranny of a spreading market-Stalinism and often take global forms.

The final section of this paper will turn to questions of urban social justice in this new figure of the city. While urban planning and urbanisation during the post-war period became wrapped up in a Rawlsian view of ‘Justice as Fairness’ and framed in largely redistributive terms, the mirage of a just redistributional city and region was shattered to the bone as the geo-politics of capital accumulation took a decisive new route after the cataclysmic transformations of the past two decades. Much of the underlying quest for justice that inspired many urban planning efforts during the 20th century appealed to a Rousseauian ideal that Michel Foucault described as “a transparent society, visible and legible in each of its parts, the dream of there no longer existing any zones of darkness, zones established by the privileges of royal power or the prerogative of some corporation, zones of disorder. It was the dream that each individual, whatever position he occupied, might be able to see the whole of society, that men’s hearts should communicate, their vision be unobstructed by obstacles, and that the opinion of all reign over each”6. However, the re-invigorated belief in the powers of the hidden-hand of the market to facilitate the trickling down of wealth shifted the ideological terrain from fostering a collective perspective to celebrating the virtues of individualism. The ‘communitarian’ ideal that had been the leitmotiv of many urban utopians, from Owen and Proudhon to Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright is seen (by self-styled post-modernist critics) as a potential harbinger of a totalitarianism that excluded the different and repressed the ‘unassimilated Other’. Moreover, the framing of emancipation and the scripting of justice around a body politics at a time when the sceptre of individualised market liberalism reigns high completed a socio-cultural and ideological turn which relegated considerations of social justice to the backburner of urban politics. The future of the city resides, so it seems, in embracing an entrepreneurial stance in which state, architect, urbanist, and entrepreneur join forces to construct urban ‘growth machines’ that permit successful development and a vigorous competitive stance in the spiralling inter-urban competition that governs urban dynamics today. Within this market led urban development, attention to issues of distribution and socio-economic power shrink and pervasive mechanisms of exclusion, social polarisation and diminishing citizenship rights come to the fore7. In a context of fragmentation, dissolution and disorder, can there still be a basis to begin to chart an alternative urban trajectory? Is the clarion call for a more just urbanisation inevitably caught in a modernist straightjacket that necessarily leads to repression and dominance, or is an enabling and empowering urbanisation process still possible to contemplate and to act out in the present time? Our answer to these questions will be an unqualified yes. This new urbanism will demand a new urban vision that revolves around decidedly pluralist ideals in which the unoppressed expression of desires, dreams and aspirations can be achieved via a distinct politics of difference; a politics that unashamedly captures utopian desires in a progressive and emancipatory fashion; a politics that is decidedly local, that revels in the ‘militant particularisms’ of distinct localised identities and struggles for empowerment, but also a politics that aspires to universalist inclusions and inserts itself in the globally connected networks of the contemporary rhizomatic and globalised circuits8.

We conclude that the accelerating contradictory dynamics of present day hyper-modern urbanisation open up all sorts of cracks and fissures. The city as the mirror of modernity is fractured, kaleidoscopic and all but coherent. It is exactly in these interstitial ‘Thirdspaces’ that the possibilities for creative intervention and for all manner of innovative urban experimentations reside. It is also in these spaces that issues and practices of justice in the midst of difference, of empowerment in the midst of exclusion and marginalisation, and of pleasurable living are negotiated and enacted9. Indeed, in the interstices of the commodifying logic of ‘glocal’ urbanisation lurks with all its vibrant potentiality, the possibility for a truly humane urban form and urban living. The maelstrom of modernisation that has infused, driven and shaped our cities is still rushing ahead. What is at issue here is to dive headlong into the whirlpool of change and transgress the boundaries imposed by those who call the shots.

1. The city and the maelstrom of modernisation.

The 1970s announced the beginning of an era of major upheaval as the cracks in the managed urbanism of the post-war period began to widen. The symptoms of this ‘new’ urban condition will be outlined in the context of the broader and often contradictory processes that have swept through the world, leaving cities in a state of permanent flux and transformation. Modernist planning and urbanism as a strategy and method of intervention may be under severe attack, modernisation as a decidedly urban-based process of social change is alive and kicking. The contemporary dynamics of modernisation, expressed in rapid and unprecedented urban change, are part of wider social, cultural, technological, and political-economic transformations. Internal fragmentation and external integration into a global space-economy situate the city as the material and metaphorical nexus from where bodies enter the cyberspace of what Manuel Castells defines as the new informational world10. The City of the Spectacle in which the body participates only as a passive consumer and not as a stage actor has turned the city into a kaleidoscopic experience in which some call the shots, others lament the end of all certainties and most try to survive in the turmoil unleashed by an unfettered market dominance.

For Henri Lefebvre, the modern city is something akin to a vast and variegated whirlpool replete with all the ambivalence of a space full of opportunity, playfulness and liberating potential, while being entwined with spaces of oppression, exclusion and marginalization11. Ironically, relations of domination and power that infuse urban practices and which are contested and fought against in innumerable ways help create the differentiated public spaces that give cities their sweeping vitality. At the same time, these forms of resistance and subversion of dominant values tend only to perpetuate the conservative imagery of cities as places of chaos, disintegration and moral decay rather than as spaces where the prospects of hope, joy and freedom reside. Guy Debord’s Situationist manifesto Society of the Spectacle also revolved around the dialectical nexus of the city as the site of freedom and the space of tyranny and exploitation12. His political programme revolved squarely around recapturing the modern spirit of the urban, especially as an embodiment of jouissance; even though his prophetic vision spotted the coming of the 1990s anodyne theme park urbanism13 of the late capitalist ‘spectacular order’, with its war of attrition against the city as a public space. Venice and Florence have long ago surrendered the erotic pleasure of the fleeting and melancholic encounter that novelists like Thomas Mann or Goethe dwelled upon to the commodified prostitution of street life. Of course, other cities like Paris or Amsterdam whose streets Rimbaud, Proust and Jacques Brel roamed, revelling in the permanent excitement of the turbulence that Baudelaire coined as “modern life” followed suit, as have the burgeoning metropolises of what was once called the ‘Third World’. The jouissance of the immersion in urban life that inspired entire generations of artists, novelists and poets is replaced by the quick fix of the organised city tour and the commodified pleasure of a staged event. This process of ruination of the modern experience through spectacularising the city is what we shall turn to next.

The city as ruin: modernisation as spectacle.

In Spring 2000, the Tate Modern opened its doors on London’s South Bank and met with immediate critical and public acclaim. Long queues meandered along the landscaped gardens and visitors queued patiently in the drizzling rain to get a glimpse of what the new cosmopolitan cultural elite had staged and celebrated as the cultural icons of and beacons for our times. The Tate Modern is only a stone-throw away from Greenwich’s ill-fated millennium Dome project. The latter, another bid to re-create the city in the assumed image of what is expected of a cultural spectacle at the turn of the millennium, was situated as an extension of London’s show-case Docklands Development, which was conceived to be the thriving hub of a globally networked and competitive city.

In many ways, these two millennial projects embody two widely diverging and contradictory, yet uncannily related, visions and practices of contemporary modern urbanity; the sort of urbanity that is becoming an all too familiar image of cities around the world. The Dome aspired to herald and materially celebrate the enduring significance, politically and culturally speaking, of UK Inc. and was staged as a ‘National’ experience. Even the choice of its location in Greenwich—the site of the world’s meridian—symbolically attests to the national mission that the Dome’s advocates imagined. It embodied an economic national project, supported by the State, designed by a national cultural icon and state appointee (Richard Rogers), co-financed by the national lottery, and portrayed as a showcase to advertise the achievements of British technological know-how, cultural achievements, and vision for the urban future. Of course, it is as much a shrine to corporate power and the fusion of national interest with a privatised liberal economy. British Telecom, British Airways, Marks & Spencer, Thames Water, and a host of other prominent companies, sponsored, supplied officially, or otherwise partnered with what was conceived, planned, and commercialised as a national flagship project, first by the Conservative Government, but also embraced by Tony Blair as a symbol of the principles and practices of the ‘Third Way’14. The market-driven and market-led shrine to corporate ethos and national culture, for which your average citizen would pay a considerable entry fee (in the end, grand urban development schemes are these days supposed to be profitable), became a grandiose disaster, a ruin before its date of expiry. The ruination of the Dome and the doomed urban vision that underpinned it, signals the failure of spasmodic attempts to re-instil national identity and national pride within the harness of the new cultural and economic orders of the 21st century. The hyper-technological Dome was turned into ruin before it even began to embark on its mission to become the national cultural-technological shrine that resonated in tune with the vibrations of the new century.

The Tate Modern, in sharp contrast, takes a decidedly different turn and celebrates an urbanism and cultural cosmopolitanism that has taken the ruins of modernity as its aesthetic and material foundation to re-enact a vision and practice of the city in which decay, museum, and 21st century urban experience blend together in an uncannily de-centred and supposedly de-nationalised yet decidedly localised, but cosmopolitan experience. Housed in the former Bankside power station that was built as a shrine to national power and modernising progress in the mid-20th century, Tate Modern has now become a lynchpin of the cultural district of the South Bank that epitomises ‘Cool Britannia’15. This hub of faded national pride and landmark for London is now turned into a new urban experience, designed by Swiss architects Herzog + de Meuron, originally headed by Swedish curator Lars Nittve, and adjacent to one of the world’s largest modernist centres of culture, i.e. the South Bank’s unashamedly modernist 1950s re-development. Barely two months after its openings, it had already welcomed its millionth visitor. Of course, also here, the private sponsors are prominently listed among the benefactors that the Tate foundation thanked, but entry is free. Inside, the new and the ruin are combined as Bill Viola or Damien Hirst mingles with Warhol, Picasso, or Monet. The very sense of time as history, progress, and building up of ever new layers geographies of places as distinct historical-cultural entities is replaced by a celebration of the collage, the juxtaposition of works of art whose temporal and geographical frame of reference is transgressed and subtly disrupted. The displays produce an uncanny feeling with time apparently out of joint and space strangely out of place, but which create a unique sense of hybrid, multi-cultural location, identification and remembrance, where past, present and future, the here and distant, blend in ways that subvert received meanings of time and space, and transcend the celebration of ruination and decay that for Benjamin constituted part of the essence of the Modern experience. Of course, it is easy to forget today that the area’s revival has as much to do with the desire of the culture elites to re-position London in the global cultural and economic order as with the very successful struggle that local community groups and grassroots organisations (and notably the Coin Street Community Group) have waged since the 1960s to maintain affordable and decent housing for local people16. It is exactly the perseverance of community action that has preserved the area as a lived space and has succeeded in producing an urbanity in which the lived, the everyday, and the porosities that define urbanity are maintained and nurtured.

However, regardless of the deep rift in the urban visions articulated by these two emblematic projects, they, of course, share the satanic geographies that choreograph the underbelly of contemporary globalised urbanism. Indeed, neither of them can escape the contradictions that rampage through the city as the political-economic parameters and discursive-ideological apparatuses that have infused every-day life over the past two decades re-shaped the urbanisation process in decisively new, but often deeply disturbing, directions. While the Bankside re-development re-asserts the position of London on the cultural map of the world by paying homage to a de-nationalised hybrid cosmopolitan culture and associating with those who aspire to or celebrate similar multiple constructions of identity, the inevitability of the re-territorialisations upon which such revamped experience is based, makes deep cuts in the social, political, economic, and cultural fabric of the city. Homelessness is spreading rapidly, social polarisation and exclusion have reached dizzying heights, immigrants die at the ports of entry. It is ironic, if not perverse, how capital as commodities and money are freely floating around the globe, while immeasurable violence is inflicted on capital as labouring people —the neo-liberal utopia’s reality. Urban land rents are sky-high and rapidly re-configure the social geography of the city, while the colonisation of everyday life by the commodity has completed its full spectacular and phantasmagoric form. The London public remains conspicuously absent from the boardrooms and drawing tables were the alternative visions for 21st century London are dreamt-up and take shape. London may be a ‘cool’ (read culturally hybridised, cosmopolitan, and globally and competitively well-positioned and connected) place, but it is a place designed, manicured, and financed by a particular global-local (‘glocal’) elite, and revelled in through the staging of cultural spectacles that try (although by no means always successfully) to subvert, undermine, and marginalise the cultures of everyday urban life. Cultural commodities like museums, exhibits, and events shape an urbanity that is colonised. The re-conquest of the city by the commodity and capital (after decades of wilful neglect and rampant de-territorialisation and emptying out) has produced a revanchist city17 that has draped itself in the phantasmagoria of the spectacular commodity. The latter announces, in its turn, no longer the ruination of a particular site, building, or social group, but the ruination of urban culture itself. As Gilloch remarks: ‘[j]ust as the experience of the commodity involves the commodification of experience, so the experience of the ruin is the ruination of experience’18. In the millennial city, embedded in a neo-liberal utopian dream-cast, spectacle as the commodity-culture has become seemingly total. The ruination of the city is all there is apparently to see and experience. And this is the theme that we shall turn to next.

Urbanisation as ruination: reversing the porosity of the interior/exterior.

For Walter Benjamin, the ruin epitomises modernity and the modern city. The kaleidoscopic, mesmerising, fleeting, and perpetually re-cast materiality and porous experiences that constitute urbanity create the forever new. The commodity, with its emphasis on exchange- and exhibition-value, of course is for Benjamin the material expression of modernity19. The maelstrom of modernity in which ‘everything that is solid melts into air’20 is nothing more than the eternal re-creating of phantasmagoric images devoid of substance and meaning. The inevitable fate of the commodity-form within the cycle of production and consumption is to become old-fashioned, out-of-date, and obsolete. In its hollowed-out existence, the commodity turns into what it really is, a ruin. The accelerating circulation of capital demands premature aging and ruination long before the date of expiry: computers need upgraded, mobile phones replaced, clothes refashioned, cities remodelled. Modern spectacular urbanisation revels in and is predicated upon perpetual ruination and thes subsequent staging of the ruin as a phantasmagoric spectacle. The spectacle as commodity represents a process of ruination, of decay and mortification. As David Harvey notes with respect to the commodification of the urban experience: ‘[m]any … cultural institutions – museums and heritage centers, arenas for spectacle, exhibitions, and festivals – seem to have as their aim the cultivation of nostalgia, the production of sanitised collective memories, the nurturing of uncritical aesthetic experiences, and the absorption of future possibilities into a non-conflictual arena that is eternally present. The continuous spectacles of commodity culture, including the commodification of the spectacle itself, play their part in fermenting political indifference. It is either stupefied nirvana or totally blasé attitude that is aimed at … [T]he multiple degenerate utopias that surround us do as much to signal the end of history as the collapse of the Berlin Wall ever did’21 . The contemporary city—this fantastic geographical celebration of progress, change, and innovation—has become the space of ruination and ruin. The commodified and spectacular museum-city as the heralded booster-strategy to revive urban economies represents nothing else than the universalisation of sedimenting the tumultuous re-orderings of history into the ossified ruins of theatrically staged places: time frozen as place, a mere moment of space. When the museum-experience is turned into a pure gazing at the commodified spectacle and the city the generous, but conspiring, prostitute to stage it, the real life of everyday urban experience is replaced by a 3-D reel life of the ever-the-same.

While the city-as-spectacle epitomises the acceleration of the process of ruination, the experience of the museum as the space for displaying ruins of past experience as exhibits, has become externalised. The divide between the museum in the city and the city as museum has become more porous, if not totally obliterated. In the contemporary city-as-spectacle, the experience of the ruin-in-museums is radically transformed. While the classically modern museum was a practice of interiorizing what was originally outside/experiential/lived, i.e. turning the public space of the strange encounter, the public meeting, and the social process into the crystallised display of the frozen ruined display-moment, in the spectacularised city-museum, the porosity of inside-outside and public-private is turned topsy-turvy as the porosities between inside-outside and public-private evaporate. Whereas Benjamin22 could still picture and, on occasion, mock the bourgeois interior or the shopping displays of the arcades as housing the obsolete, the ridiculous, the faded (yet blindly, pompously, and arrogantly displaying the ruined artefact as desirable, permanent and enduring – as utopia redeemed), the outside has now become itself part of the interiorised commodified spectacle. While the porosity between inside and outside used to reveal the sense of decay and mortification whenever the interiors were exteriorised again in junk-yards and flee-markets —that is the moment when they enter the public again as sublime phantasmagoric allegories—in the spectacularised city, the old is refashioned in the context of the present. As with the city-as-museum, the exteriorised archaeological remnants of bourgeois homes have quickly become part of the city-as-spectacle. The accelerating gentrification of many of the world’s inner-cities testify to this in their own parochial mediocrity as much as the more visionary and emblematic Tate Modern, Bilbao’s Guggenheim, or Seattle’s Rock Museum have been staged as integral parts of the city-as-museum, where the permeability of the inside and the outside has now been rendered total. The city itself has become part of the spectacularised commodity. It is exactly this process of interiorising the exterior within the phantasmogaric web of the commodity that led Baudrillard23 to proclaim that the spectacle is all there is to see, gaze at, and contemplate; urban life turned into a staged archaeological theme park experience24.

However, the assertion of modernity with a vengeance over the past two decades or so (not least exactly because of the tumultuous re-ordering of the time-space co-ordinates of everyday life and the perplexing re-configurations of the choreographies and chronologies of every-day practices in which the most familiar is staged at the other side of the globe, while the most exotic appears around the corner), questions, if not subverts, the hegemony of the city as spectacular museum. In addition, the ruin produces an uncanny feeling – what Freud described as unheimlich25 – a feeling of being strangely-out-of-place. Of course, when the homely, the interior, blends seamlessly with the exterior; when the creative tension between interior/exterior fades away, exposing both as mere phantasmagoric forms, emptied-out receptacles of literally disembodied spaces and experiences; when the erotic, the sensuous, the life-as-play is violently seen and experienced as vacuous, home itself becomes strangely unfamiliar, alienated and a grinding subdermal angst starts creeping in. This is of course particularly strong whenever those processes that the spectacle relegated to the invisible spaces of the urban margins (suburbanised ghettos, the ecological catastrophes produced through the relentless demand of cities for energy or materials and need for ever larger garbage depositories) or underground (skaters, illegal immigrants, sewage pipes, garbage, dirt, hooligans) surface, become part of the gaze in unexpected ways26. They claim not only their participation in the spectacle, but rather they demand staging the urban itself. It is exactly in the spatialisation and territorialisation of these ‘marginalised’ spaces, the ruins outside ruination, that strange new possibilities might emerge. The abandoned and squatted buildings in Brussels, the ‘free-zones’ appropriated for experimental forms of urban living, the playful occupations of ‘Reclaim the Streets’, Zurich’s ‘Red Factory’, the informal urban festivals in many of Europe’s summer city centres, the ‘free-spaces’ taken by undocumented immigrants in Paris or Berlin all testify to the possibilities generated by the cracks in the mirror, by the fractured traces left behind by the forces of modernisation. It is exactly out of these close encounters with the unfamiliar and the unheimlichheit of the ‘officialised’ urban experience that the possibility (however problematic it might turn out to be) for imagining and practicing a different form of urbanity resides; it is at these moments as well that the hegemonic discourse and practice of elite power configurations is threatened; the moments when officially condoned violence and repression (whether in the form of permanent surveillance, CCTV panoptical control, or sheer bodily violence), or the resurgence of traditional values by a New Right inevitably surface.


2. The emergence of the fragmented ‘glocal’ city.

The past two decades have indeed unleashed a profound restructuring process in virtually all aspects of daily life as well as in the broader technological, spatial, social and political ordering of our cities. The contradictory forces of modernity are accelerating again as they jumped out of the managed straightjacket that tried in vain to contain both the promises of liberation and the practices of submission that characterise the Janus-face of modernity. At the beginning of the new millennium, city life has more than ever become the norm for most of the planet’s inhabitants. On a world scale, we are rapidly approaching a situation in which more than half of the world’s population lives in urban settings, many of them in mega cities of over 1 million inhabitants27. One in six of the world’s population is on the move, migrating to often unknown and usually unwelcoming if not outright hostile places. However, the beginning of the 21st century does not display a vision of a humane urban world of the kind that urban reformers at the beginning of the 20th century imagined it to become. A series of rather disturbing tendencies have become magnified at the scale of the urban. In an environment in which socio-spatial ordering by and for the market has become the dogma of the day, urban regions have become, more than ever before, landscapes of power28 where islands of extreme wealth and social power are interspersed with places of deprivation, exclusion and decline. The accelerating and spatially deeply uneven processes of ‘creative destruction’ leave some urban communities uprooted and displaced while propelling others on to new commanding heights of privilege, money and control. The process of ‘globalization’ that is trumpeted by a new global elite as announcing a ‘new’ world order of stability, prosperity and growth, but vilified by others as the harbinger of irreversible decline is indeed a double-edged affair. For the privileged —those who are able to benefit from new technologies and new modes of communications that span the globe—movement, access and mobility – and the power that comes with the ability to overcome space have augmented. Meanwhile, there are those at the receiving end of the process—like the impoverished, the aged, the unemployed and the third world poor—who have increasingly been imprisoned by it. New forms of technologies have enabled all manner of geopolitical reorganisations29. The powerful, for example, are now able to insulate themselves in hermetically sealed enclaves, where gated communities and sophisticated modes of surveillance are the order of the day, both in the public spaces controlled by panoptical CCTV cameras, in the closely surveilled spaces of leisure and mass consumption malls and in their surburban housing estates. Concurrently, the rich and powerful can decant and steer the poor into clearly demarcated zones in the city, where implicit and explicit forms of social and bodily control keep them in place30. The efficacy of such a ‘militarization of urban space’ as Mike Davis appropriately calls it31, correlates directly with intensifying social polarisation and processes of social exclusion and fragmentation. The contradictions of modernisation re-assert themselves with a vengeance in the re-ordering of our urban spaces32.

In light of the real or imagined threat of owners of presumed (hyper)mobile capital that they might relocate their activities, regional and national states feel increasingly under pressure to assure the restoration of a fertile entrepreneurial culture. Fiscal constraint has to be exercised, social expenditures kept in check, labour markets made more flexible, environmental and social regulation minimised, etc... This, then, is heralded as the golden path that would lead urban and national economies to the desired heaven of global competitiveness and sustained growth. Surely, such territorial production systems are articulated with national, supra-national and global processes. In fact, intensifying competition on an ever-expanding scale is paralleled exactly by the emergence of locally/regionally sensitive production milieus33. Yet, these localised or regionalised production complexes are organisationally and in terms of trade and other networks highly internationalised and globalised. In fact, the ‘forces of globalization’ and the ‘demand of global competitiveness’ prove powerful vehicles for the economic elites to shape local conditions in their desired image: high productivity, low direct and indirect wages and an absentee state34. Companies are become simultaneously intensely local and intensely global35; they have ‘glocalised’. All this is, of course, closely associated with hard and soft technologies that enable to move quickly from place to place, to ‘annihilate space by time’.

Different groups and individuals consequently bear different relationships to global flows of money, capital, technology and information that become all condensed in urban arenas which have become ever greater containers of all sorts of capital36. The ‘bulls and bears’ of the urban financial enclaves and their associated business service districts, the smart buildings and office towers, neatly packaged in decorative post-modern architectural jackets, have displaced traditional urban economic activities and have begun to act as pivotal relay centres in organising and capitalising on the flows of increasingly state-less global capital. The break-down of the financial order at a global scale after 1971 unleashed a ballooning speculative flow of capital from one place to another, whizzed through the digital lines of cybernetic information systems. These ‘Spaces of Flows’37 amount to a daily total turnover of over 2 trillion US$ that is moved from city to city38. The practices of de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation by transnational corporate capital have intensified the economic restructuring of urban regions. Many have seen a rampant de-industrialisation, sometimes followed by a hesitant transformation into a service economy. Global cities like Tokyo, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Singapore, or London have become the central nervous system of these flows, where financial managers and services reign over an economy whose support structure is maintained by a growing army of often part-time and insecure jobs. The service sector is not the glittering panacea to cure all socio-economic ills as some pundits of a high-tech service based urban development model tend to make us believe. While elite business services cater for the financial and other needs of the new urban gentry, most jobs have been created in the dead-end, low wage segments of personal services, security, catering and retailing, together with a booming ‘sweated’ industry in the construction, garment and food industries of the world’s major cities39. Needless to say that a new breed of city builders, the real estate developers in association with banking interests, have moved in to replace the State and their Master Planners in shaping the urban fabric40. London Docklands has, of course, become the classic example of this new form of urban enterpreneurialism, but Berlin, Paris, Jo-burg, Singapore, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, New York, and other cities have been thrown into this development frenzy as well. While financial and service capitals flock to or flow through the reconquered (by capital) city, industrial production moves to the exopolises surrounding the metropolitan areas or expands in the third world41. The process of commodification of city spaces has taken unprecedented forms. City imaging, city marketing and the packaging of city life as chunks of commodified units for sale to a burgeoning tourist and business services industry has taken root in most of our cities42. Bejing, Atlanta, or Athens hustle to become organisers of the Olympic Games. The spectacle of urban life has been transformed into the spectacle of the commodity. Time-space patterns have accelerated at an unprecedented rate: instantaneous production and consumption have reduced the turnover-time of production, consumption and even ideas to a minimum, again accelerating ruination, where even high-tech spaces and commodities outlive their useful shelf life even before their date of expiry. The transformation of cities into packaged holidays and tourist theme parks for the leisure industry collides with the permanent free time that characterises daily life in the job-free zones of many urban and suburban neighbourhoods. In the face of the market tyranny that has become the gospel of dominant political, economic and cultural groups, it is not surprising to find that those most disempowered in cities often have had to resort to desperate forms of protest. The satellite cities of Paris and Lyon, for example, so captivatingly displayed in the French film noir La Haîne, testify to the crumbling social cohesion that feeds a rampant racism and to the boiling rancour that can easily blow the lid off the rumbling urban discontent. The frequent street revolts in cities like Brussels, Lyon, Zurich, Bethlehem, or London illustrate the fragility of public acquiescence when marginalised citizens confront a deepening economic, political, or cultural crisis. Violence would seem the only effective conduit to communicate the voice of the dispossessed and politically disenfranchised.

The ecological footprint of the contemporary city extends from the local milieu to global problems. Unhealthy high ozone concentrations in our summer-time city centres, the proliferation of asthmatic and other respiratory diseases (Tuberculosis is now again endemic in the rat infested poor Bengali neighbourhoods of East London), the proliferation of HIV and AIDS (particularly in African cities) are reshaping urban landscapes and may claim more casualties than even the most pessimist predictions of the human consequences of global warming. Meanwhile, the bursting life of the city can only be sustained at the cost of unsustainable environmental degradation in other parts of the world. While companies in our cities and regions desperately try to instil an image and practice of environmental sensitivity, they continue to ransack the ecologies of less protected spaces in the post-colonial worlds43. While the mobilities of money as capital has reached dizzying heights, the movements of goods and services remain uneven and subject to the self-interested geo-political whims of the sole remaining imperial power. The mobility of labour as capital, finally, is still caught in the straightjacket of national interests and territorial fragmentations. For example, the mass migration of economic, political and ecological refugees from Africa and elsewhere to the imagineered honey-pots of West-Europe and the USA has resulted in a proliferation of urban asylums and refugee prisons. While money moves freely, the body of the migrating labourer is still subject to intense forms of violence. The ‘biopolitics’44 of control have extended to all spheres of life; the body has become a central urban battlefield. As Celeste Olalquiaga attests: “[P]erhaps the most striking account in the struggle over the … body is its very literal manifestation in the fight over territory. In New York City, the value of people has sunk below that of objects, as the growing numbers of homeless people – bodies without homes, dislocated to leave room for real-estate speculation—bear witness. The substitution of use for exchange value is seldom so blatant: families inhabit parks and streets while hundreds of habitable buildings stand by empty, awaiting the best market opportunity to be reopened’45. Indeed, while the bodies of refugees, immigrants, homeless, sweatshop workers—often mainly women — and other ‘outsiders’ are reconfigured, wounded, often molested, under the aegis of authoritarian political or economic control, the new elites cherish the re-configuration, the cultivation, the culture of the body —the self-conscious construction of cyborg bodies—as the sign of a self-realising living.

However one-sided this bleak picture may be, it casts a light on the condition of the urban that is somewhat different from the glossy image most cities try to present. Surely, cities are still very much the pivotal sites where creative action and emancipatory practices emerge and reside. Cities are containers of the world, they are where the world, the global, becomes localised and rooted. The remotest of things appear just around the corner, the exotic has become our neighbour. The enabling and exhilarating experiences associated with this close encounter with the ‘Other’, the different, opens up the possibility of endless new configurations that are explored in new forms of music, art, design, and life-styles. The process of global integration has reached its azimuth in the contemporary urban environment. But at the same time, this very global-local condition is wrought with all manners of tension, conflict as well as with benevolent chaos, potential creative encounter and enabling social practices. Each and every one of the above processes that summarise the contemporary urban condition hammer home how social, political, cultural, ecological and economic action are inscribed in space and revolve around the meaning and (re)appropriation of space and place. It is exactly these dynamics that force the question of ‘Justice’ back on the agenda of urban theory and practice. And that is what we shall turn to next.

3. ‘Glocal’ Urbanity and Urban Justice(s)

Recapturing the utopian moment.

For Iris Marion Young, the terrain of social justice in the city needs to be recaptured, but on terms that are in striking contrast to the Rawlsian redistributional, assimilationist and eventually totalising principles of justice that dominated before. For her, a renewed scripting of justice lies in developing a politics of difference and proposing a normative ideal of life that revolves around four themes that are and have always been an integral part to city life: (i) social differentiation without exclusion, (ii) variety, (iii) eroticism and (iv) publicity46. The multiplicity of affinity groups, the overlapping and interweaving relations of participation and non-participation, the public spaces of strange encounters and fleeting passages produce this kaleidoscopic collage that constitutes city life. Freedom, then, she argues, resides in the possibility of expressing difference and ‘Otherness’ in unoppressive ways. Observing modern city life through rose-coloured spectacles displays the embryonic conditions of this vision of a just urban order; a vision already explored in the musings of Baudelaire, Simmel or Benjamin. Yet, the dialectics of urban life produce at the same time the forlorn dystopias where difference becomes expressed and experienced as exclusion, domination or repression. Indeed, the obstacles to this ideal of a just politics of difference are formidable: corporate power, bureaucratic domination, hidden mechanisms of redistribution and processes of segregation and exclusion rampage through our metropolitan spaces as cities and regions attempt to re-position themselves in the competitive world order. A humanised and just urbanisation therefore requires a global reach that brings to the fore a commitment towards a more socially and ecologically inclusive urban life. The challenges for theory and practice this century revolve around recapturing the spirit of modernisation with a re-assertion of the need for a just and humanising urban order that is sensitive to the excluded, to the Other that has become our neighbour and to an environmental justice that does more than pay lip-service to possible remedies for deep (environmental) injustices.

In ‘Spaces of Hope’, Harvey urges us to recapture utopian moments in the envisioning of alternative urban futures. For him, it is not sufficient to re-visit the potentials of past utopian thinking, but it is imperative to embrace the manifold desires and possibilities for imagining, creating, and actively producing a free-er, more equitable, enabling, inclusive, and fulfilling spatiality contra the stale and plainly de-humanising territorialisations of the spectacularised late-capitalist urban order and the perverse realities of its utopia of the market.

While producing new spaces involves—at least for a while – a certain closure, it invariably also constructs possibilities hitherto unheard or undreamed. Negotiating the cliff between tending to the specific and the local, while aspiring to the universal and the common, spatio-temporal utopias recognise the importance of closure, of choosing, of – if need be – excluding, yet are sensitive to the processual dynamics of emancipatory change. This requires not only the mobilisation of enormous creative powers, but also a courage and will (something critical intellectuals seem to have cowardly retreated from) to search for the universal in the particular, to painfully carve out the niches where possibilities for change reside, to enter the troubled waters of forging alliances and to connect the threads that emanate from all those that resist the forces of globalisation.

Such projects are necessarily urban, often already embryonically present in some of the streets, corners, and public spaces of our cities where a kaleidoscopic melange of insurgent architects is already actively at work. James Joyce’s ‘Shouts in the Street’ as the defining adagio of modernity are all around. Re-capturing utopia as a process-of-becoming, but one that is already geographically realisable within the interstices of everyday urban practice, constitutes precisely the foundation for transformative urban programmes. Enrolling and celebrating the imagination to prefigure possible configurations is of course necessarily connected to the process of producing alternative urban practices. In other words, imagination and practice are integral parts of the process by which alienation through the spectacle can be countered, while at the same time facilitating consciousness to become concrete in the world.


Negotiating the making of authenticity: an urbanism of jouissance

The latter brings us squarely to what in the current political-theoretical climate is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and yet centrally important considerations. As much as Baudrillard has questioned the notion of ‘authenticity’ and rejected the possibility of excavating an ‘authentic’ condition below the surface of the simulacrum, a string of other influential intellectuals from a diverse range of perspectives, such as Althusser, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, or Deleuze, have attacked and questioned the very notion of ‘alienation’. Yet, both ‘alienation’ and ‘authenticity’ are central to the emancipatory urban thinking and politics. Jettisoning both of these quintessentially modern conditions jeopardises fighting for any alternative and genuinely humanising urban geography. Indeed, post-modernist and post-structuralist philosophy rejects the claim that the subject is endowed with an essential, non-reducible identity that can either be modified or transformed by society (and hence lead to ‘alienation’) or that is sufficiently robust to withstand or resist alienating forces and, thus, is able to fight for maintaining or recapturing a ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ self. Indeed, to the extent that social structures (with Althusser), language (with Derrida), power (with Foucault), or libidinal drives (with Lacan or Deleuze) are the ‘subjects’ shaping history and, consequently, producing identities, the possibility of humans possessing an ‘essence’ that can be (mis)directed by ‘alienating’ forces and to which the subject longs to return to cannot possibly exist. It was exactly in the aftermath of the 1968 events that these ideas began to gain currency and became the super-radical [Post-]everything doctrines of the latest capitalist order. The modern utopias became thereby relegated to a set of views that presumably still held on to an antiquated Cartesian notion of the subject as possessing an authenticity and essence that could be perverted and for whom liberation resided in recapturing the authentic and essential. However, jettisoning the concept of ‘alienation’ and its roots in historical-geographical materialist processes not only gave way to a politics and history of ‘identity without a subject’, it simultaneously perpetuated an inherently conservative and deeply non-dialectical (and primarily categorical or Cartesian, rather than historical) notion of authenticity, essence, and alienation. Also here the notion of [Post-] needs to be re-conquered by a desire for the production of a [Pre-]authentic modernity. In sum, both ‘alienation’ and ‘authenticity’ need to be recaptured as potentially empowering and mobilising concepts and practices. Not as remnants from the past that require reconstitution, but rather as possibilities that dwell in the future and are there for the making. Transcending alienation and making ‘authenticity’ should be seen as social and political projects, as promises that may and can be realised in the future; modernisation as a project of making authenticity, of reaching essence.

Guy Debord’s vision of authenticity and essence is indeed one that resides exactly in the politics of resistance and libidinous transformation of the everyday47, and in the making of an alternative delightful urban living. For him, transformative (urban) praxis is centrally about the realisation of consciousness becoming practice. Authenticity and essence are not innate ‘things’ or ‘conditions’ that humans intrinsically possess (and arguably once upon a time were united with, but became alienated from as a result of processes of commodification and reification), but authenticity and essence have to be historically, actively, and materially created, produced, and spatialised. In this sense, authenticity and essence are there to be made, fought for, captured. They are always up for grabs, contested and contestable, forged in the very process of making history; a process that is always necessarily spatialised. It is about, as Debord puts it, the active and imaginative creation of new—and hitherto undreamed – desires, possibilities, and forms of living. In his Hegelian Marxism, Debord puts it this way: “The subject of history can be none other than the living producing him/herself, becoming master and possessor of his/her world which is history, and existing as consciousness of his/her game48”. Emancipation, therefore, resides in the actively lived process of consciousness taking control of and over life itself. ‘Essence’ and ‘authenticity’ are, consequently, not static and immutable, but fundamentally dynamic and in flux. They do not exist prior to or outside processes of alienation, but reside as a concrete possibility in time, in a future that has already begun. In 1958, Debord summarises this as follows: “It is a matter of producing ourselves, and not things that enslave us49”. It is in this context that alienation thus fundamentally matters. For Debord, alienation is the very real process through which the process of life as conscious practice is turned into non-life, that is where things (commodities, money, the spectacle) rule our life rather than the other way around. Of course, it is exactly the extreme reification that the society of the spectacle produces that turns ‘life’ into the passive celebration of the commodity(-sign). Alienation then is nothing else than the historical process through which humans become passive consumers of the spectacle rather than active producers of life. Alienation prevents consciousness from becoming master of life and itself. As such, the conditions of the spectacle render the participants mute, turning them into passive spectators and engulfing them to such an extent that the production of an ‘authentic’ life as an active historical process has become dramatically stalled, if not impossible. Alienation is, for Debord, a condition produced, among others, through the spectacle of the commodity, a condition that stands in sharp contrast to the fluidity, flux, movement, and conscious pleasurable living associated with the process of becoming ‘authentic’. The dialectic of alienation/life for Debord relates to the tension between alienating conditions produced by the spectacle, which severs the link between being, and the restless process of becoming as living and active consciousness trying to appropriate and master the world in ways that express the manifold and still largely unexplored possibilities that humans are capable off.

The concrete expressions of the living, spatial practices that Debord considered to form the germs of a different form of urbanism reside in the proliferating number of active re-possessions and conscious real and symbolic reconstructions of everyday urban spaces and practices of the kind we have seen mushrooming lately in many parts of the world. One of these examples is a group of loosely organised activists that operate under the banner of ‘Reclaim the Streets’. They engage in practices that subvert received meanings and established spatial routines. For example, they cordon off busy city streets, cover it with sand, install a sound system, and organise a beach party in a space that is otherwise colonised by the car and surrendered to the delights of commodified urban displays and hectic shopping. Other examples of spectacular re-capture and re-colonisation of urban space as part of a political strategy of social transformation are the successive occupations of the central streets of cities like Seattle, London, Prague, Nice, Davos, Barcelona, Genoa, or Rome by an eclectic coalition of anti-capitalist activists, or when peace demonstrators take to the squares of the cities to shout their indignation with the neo-imperialist politics of the world’s hegemonic power. This happens whenever the great and the good of the world convene to chart the contours of their own utopian paradise, that is a liberalised de-regulated global space that would be interconnected by free-flowing commodities and integrated e-commercial cyber-networks, yet managed under the ‘benevolent’ command of the world’s global policeman. These activists testify to a situationist practice that imagines and practices another form of urban and global life50. It is people like these activists who are actively creating—however fleetingly—a space that is simultaneously locally embedded and globally connected51 and in which the participants move as easily from ecological politics to intellectual property rights, from traditional forms of class struggle to defending the cause of the Zapatista movement, from demanding the right to their locality to asserting the right of the Palestinians to their own space. In the process, they move spatially as easily through cyberspace as physically from Seattle to Prague, from Porto Alegre to Genoa.

Perversely, it is precisely at moments like these, when alternative and concrete urban practices (and not mere words or semiotic deconstructions) hit the streets that the repressive apparatus of state violence is mobilised in full force. Such urban practices are no longer respected by the powers that be (in contrast to the celebrated aestheticised exhibition displays they sponsor or the glossy coffee-table re-editions of past revolutionary movements). The gathered police forces usually many times outnumber the activists. Italian protesters were denied entry into Switzerland when the Davos meeting took place in early 2001. While commodities and certain people can freely travel the globe, Italian activists were treated as mere criminals that threatened the continuation of the spectacular order. The creation of differential spaces and the actual staging of different forms of urban life seem to be experienced by the elites as a serious threat to their hegemony and to the continuing domination of the spectacle. In Gothenburg and Genoa, the re-conquest of the city even met with the state’s killing guns. The last thing the order of the spectacle desires is people becoming conscious of themselves, waking up from the amnesia instilled by the spectacle and taking their lives into their own hands, rather than living life as simulacrum that cannot do anything else than promise utopia at every corner, just to pervert and frustrate that promise at the next turn.

In his search for possible humanising urban worlds, David Harvey concludes that “the tensions of heterogeneity cannot and should not be repressed. They must be liberated in socially exciting ways—even if this means more rather than less conflict, including contestation over socially necessary socialisation of market processes for collective ends. Diversity and difference, heterogeneity of values, lifestyle oppositions and chaotic migrations are not to be feared as sources of disorder. Cities that cannot accommodate to diversity, to migratory movements, to new lifestyles and to new economic, political, religious and value heterogeneity, will die either through ossification and stagnation or because they will fall apart in violent conflict. Defining a politics that can bridge the multiple heterogeneities ... without repressing difference is one of the biggest challenges of twenty-first century urbanisation52”. The politics of emancipation and freedom require a decisively urban programme and the call for a more humane city demands a decidedly urban project; but one that transcends the aestheticised packaging of urban spaces in which so much of our contemporary efforts to remodel the city dwell. Ed Soja refers to these spaces as Thirdspace53: the lived, interstitial space that is worked out through perception and imagination; a space simultaneously real and imagined, material and metaphorical, ordered and disordered. Visionary thinking does not become realised between the covers of scholarly books or in the corridors of fashionable urban museum, but in the active construction of an urbanism that permits and encourages the living of un-oppress(ed)ing desires and in the realisation of an urban programme that revolves around recapturing the urban as embodiment of jouissance.

In the cracks and fissures that are opened up in our contemporary fragmented ‘glocal’ cities, there already brews a potentially vibrant and hybrid amalgam of new urban experiments, often in the midst of social exclusion and deeply entrenched practices of disempowerment. It is here that the radical margins emerge that have become an integral part of the new forms of the 21st century urbanity. It is exactly these practices that require attention and nurturing. It is these practices that need spatialisation, that demand their own geographies and the creation of their own material and symbolic cultural landscapes. Not only considerable urbanistic and architectural creativity needs to be mobilised, but also a reconsideration of the meaning of urban citizenship in terms of a multitude of identities constructed through myriad of spatially overlapping relations and networks. All this also demands development of visionary urban programmes.

Without the imagination, the dream, and the creative powers of committed architects and urban designers (whether professional or just anyone trying to create a space, their space), nothing is possible. Let’s meet there. What have we got to loose but the boredom of everyday commodified life.


1 This paper is partly based on a forthcoming chapter of a book on architecture and the city.

2 Merrifield Andrew (2002a) Dialectical Urbanism. New York: Monthly Review Press. Merrifield Andrew (2002b) MetroMarxism. London/New York: Routledge.

3 See Swyngedouw Erik (1997) “The Specter of the Phoenix -- Reflections on the contemporary urban condition”, in Bosma K., Hellinga H. (Eds.) Mastering the City I, Netherlands Architecture Institute, Rotterdam/EFL Publications, The Hague/Distributed Art Publishers, New York, pp. 104-121.

4 Harvey David (1989) The Condition of Post-Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

5 Hardt Michael and Negri Antonio (2000) Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

6 Foucault Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon

7 Moulaert Frank, Rodriguez Arantxa, and Swyngedouw Erik (Eds.) (2003) The Globalized City. Oxford: University Press.

8 Harvey David (1997) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

9 Swyngedouw, Erik (2003) ‘The Politics of Scale of Glocal Urban Interventions’. Paper presented at the Conference BRUXXEL GLOCAL. Palace des Beaux Arts, Brussels, 22 February.

10 Castells Manuel (1989) The Informational City Oxford: Blackwell

11 Lefebvre Henri (1974) La Production de l’Espace, Paris:Anthropos, translated in 1989 as The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell; Lefebvre Henri (1972) La Révolution Urbaine, Paris: Gallimard; Lefebvre Henri (1968) Le Droit à la Ville, Paris: Anthropos; see also Lefebvre Henri (1996) Writings on Cities/Henri Lefbvre. Selected, translated and introduced by Kofman Eleonore and Lebas Elizabeth, Oxford: Blackwell

12 Debord Guy (1971(1968)) La Société du Spectacle. Paris: Champs Libre

13 See Sorkin M. (Ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, New York: Noonday Press

14 See Antony Giddens (1998) The Third Way. Cambridge: Polity Press.

15 For an account of the Tate Modern’s visionary conceptualisation, see Blazwick Ivona and Wilson Simon (Eds.) (2000) Tate Modern: The Handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press; Moore Rowan, Ryan Raymond, Hardwick Adrian, and Stamp Gavin (2000) Building Tate Modern. London: Tate Gallery Publishing.

16 See Baeten Guy (2001) “Urban Regeneration, Social Exclusion and Shifting Power Geometries on the South Bank, London”, Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol. 89, Nr. 2+3.

17 Smith Neil (1997) The Revanchist City. London: Routledge

18 Gilloch Graeme (1996) Myth & Metropolis – Walter Benjamin and the City. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 138

19 For excellent accounts of Benjamin on the City, see a.o. Gilloch G, o.c. and Buck-Morss (1989) The Dialectics of Seeing. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

20 From Marx Karl, Engels Friedrich (1848) The Communist Manifesto.

21 Harvey David (2000) Spaces of Hope, University Press: Edinburgh, p. 168.

22 Benjamin Walter (1999) The Arcades Project. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

23 Baudrillard Jean (1981) For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. Telos Press, St. Louis; Jean Beaudrillard (1983) Simulations. Semiotext(e): New York.

24 See Sorkin Michael (Ed.) Variations on a Theme Park – The New American City and the End of Public Space, New York: The Noonday Press, or Boyer Christine (1996) The City of Collective Memory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

25 Freud Sigmund (1990(1919)) Art and Literature. London: Penguin.

26 Kaika Maria and Swyngedouw Erik (2000) “Fetishising the Modern City: The Phantasmagoria of Urban Technological Networks”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, pp. 120-138.

27 United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (HABITAT) (1996) An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements. Oxford: University Press

28 Zukin Sharon (1991) Landscapes of Power. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University Press

29 Graham Stephen and Marvin Simon (2001) Splintering Urbanism. Routledge: London.

30 See Merrifield Andy and Swyngedouw Erik (Eds.) (1996) The Urbanization of Injustice. London/New York: Lawrence and Wishart/New York University Press.

31 Davis Mike (1991) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of L.A.. London: Verso.

32 Moulaert Frank, et al., o. c.

33 Amin Ash (Ed.) (1994) Post-Fordism. Oxford: Blackwell

34 See De Groep van Lissabon (1994) Grenzen aan de Concurrentie. Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Pers; Ohmae K. (1995) The End of the Nation State, London: Harper Collins; Drache Daniel and Gertler Meric (Eds. (1991) The New Era of Global Competition. Montreal: Mc Gill-Queens University Press; Cox Kevin (Ed.) (1997) Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. Guilford/Longman, New York/London, pp. 137-166

35 Cooke Philip, Moulaert Frank, Swyngedouw Erik, Weinstein Olivier, Wells Peter (1992) Towards Global Localisation. London, University College Press; Swyngedouw Erik (1997) “Neither Global Nor Local: ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale”, in Cox Kevin, o.c., pp. 137-166

36 Ash Amin and Thrift Nigel (2002) Reimaging the City. Polity Press, Oxford.

37 See Castells Manuel., o.c.

38 Swyngedouw Erik (1996) “Producing Futures: Global Finance as a Geographical Project”, in Daniels P.W. and Lever W.F. (Eds.) The Global Economy in Transition. Oxford and London: Longman, pp. 135-163

39 Sassen Saskia (1991) The Global City, Princeton,.NJ: University Press; Castells Manuel and Mollenkopf John (1991) Dual City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

40 Fainstein Susan (1994) The City Builders. Blackwell, Oxford.

41 Soja Edward (1996) Thirdspace. Oxford: Blackwell

42 Philo Chris and Kearns Gary (Eds.) (1993) Selling Cities. Oxford: Pergamon; Moulaert Frank, et al. (2003) o.c..

43 Harvey David (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell

44 see Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, o.c.; Foucault Michael (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

45 Celeste Olalquiaga (1992) Megalopolis – Contemporary Cultural Sensibilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. 18

46 Young Iris Marion (1989) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton NJ: University Press

47 For further discussions of the work of Debord and the Situationist International, see, among others, Sussman Elisabeth (1989) On the passage of a few people through a rather brief moment in time: The Situationist International 1957-72. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; Sadler Simon (1998) The Situationist City. Cambride, Mass: The MIT Press.; Knabb Ken (Ed.) (1995) Situationist International Anthology. Berkeley, CA: Bureau of Public Secrets; Jappe Anselm (1999) Guy Debord. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press; Gray Christopher (1998) Leaving the 20th Century – The Incomplete Work of the Situationist International (first published in 1974 by Free Fall Publications). London: Rebel Press; Bracken Len (1997) Guy Debord Revolutionary. Venice, CA: Feral House; Debord Guy (1967) La Société du Spectacle, Paris: Buchet-Chastel (first English translation in 1979 Society of the Spectacle, Detroit: Black and Red; second English translation (by D. Nicholson-Smith) in 1994 The Society of the Spectacle, New York: Zone Books; Debord Guy (1991) Panegyric Volume 1. London: Verso; Debord Guy (1993) Le Déclin et la Chute de l’Economie Spectaculaire-Marchande. Paris: Jean-Jacques Pauvert aux Belles Lettres (originally published in 1966); Debord Guy (1998) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. London: Verso; Merriefield Andrew (2002b) o.c..

48 Debord Guy (1967) o.c., thesis 74

49 International Situationniste 1/21/ Oct, 90.

50 See, for example, see Klein Naomi (2000) No Logo. London: Harper Collins.

51 Cohen Robin and Rai Shirin (Eds.) (2000) Global Social Movements. Athlone: London.

52 Harvey David (1996) o.c., p 438.

53 Soja Edward (1996) o.c.


Cardboard Maps, Ferhat Özgür
Cardboard Maps
Ferhat Özgür

On the Difficulty of Being Glocal
Bruno Latour

The Conceptual Promise of Glocalization: Commonality and Diversity
Roland Robertson

The Making of ‘Glocal’ Urban Modernities: Exploring the Cracks in the Mirror
Erik Swyngedouw and Maria Kaïka

‘Glocalization’ as a State Spatial Strategy: Urban Entrepre-neurialism and the New Politics of Uneven Development in Western Europe
Neil Brenner

On the Concept of Global City Regions
Edward W. Soja