Advertisement

Keep Your Piece of Cake, We’ll Squat the Bakery! Autonomy Meets Repression and Institutionalisation

  • Luisa Rossini
  • azozomox
  • Galvão Debelle
Chapter
Part of the The Contemporary City book series (TCONTCI)

Abstract

Squatting is usually subject to institutionalisation, co-optation and repression. Legalisation of the squats is also a controversial issue among activists. This chapter provides an overview of these topics in Central-Northern European cities (Berlin, Copenhagen and Paris) and Southern European cities (Madrid, Barcelona and Rome). The authors explore how local authorities respond to squatting in different protest cycles and the consequences of those responses. Resistance to negotiations and legalisation are eventually considered within the framework of the anti-capitalist orientation of most squatters’ movements. Furthermore, the authors’ comparison across cities takes into account local conditions in terms of social diversity, squatters’ needs and urban policies.

References

  1. azozomox. (2014). Besetzen im 21.Jahrhundert, Die Häuser denen, die drin wohnen. In A. Holm (Ed.), Reclaim Berlin. Berlin: Assoziation A.Google Scholar
  2. Balestrini, N., & Moroni, P. (1997). L’orda d’oro. Milan: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots. A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  5. Colin, B. (2010). Pas de quartier pour les squatters! L’espace controversé des squats: reperes de militance ou repaire de militants. In B. Aiosa, F. Nait-Bouda, & M. Thévenon (Eds.), Repères et Espace(s). De la pluridisciplinarité à la polysémie (pp. 252–266). Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  6. Collectif Mauvaise troupe. (2014). Constellations: Trajectoires révolutionnaires du jeune 21e siècle. Paris: Éclat.Google Scholar
  7. Day, R. J. (2005). Gramsci is dead: Anarchist currents in the newest social movements. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Debelle, G. (2015). La stigmatisation des squatteurs dans les médias catalans. French Journal for Media Research, 4. Retrieved from http://www.frenchjournalformediaresearch.com/lodel/index.php?id=516
  9. Dee, E. T. C. (2016). The production of squatters as folk devils: Analysis of a moral panic that facilitated the criminalization of squatting in the Netherlands. Deviant Behavior, 37(7), 784–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domínguez, M., Martínez, M., & Lorenzi, E. (2010). Okupaciones en movimiento. Derivas, estrategias y prácticas. Madrid: Tierradenadie.Google Scholar
  11. Flesher, C. (2015). Debunking spontaneity: Spain’s 15-M/Indignados as autonomous movement. Social Movement Studies, 14(2), 142–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karpantschof, R. (2009). Ungdomshusoproret 2006–2008: Baggrund, forlob og konsekvenser. In R. Karpantschof & M. Lindblom (Eds.), Kampen om ungomshuset: Studier i et opror (pp. 43–101). Copenhagen: Frydenlund Monsum.Google Scholar
  13. Katzeff, A. (2014). Tag Byen Tilbage: Autonome Zoner in den Neoliberal By. Phd Afhandling, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  14. Kranz, S., & Mayer, M. (1985). Gimme shelter: Self-help housing struggles within and against the state in New York City and West Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 9(1), 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krøijer, S. (2013). Security is a collective body: Intersecting temporalities of security around the climate summit in Copenhagen. In M. Holbraad & M. Pedersen (Eds.), Times of security: Ethnographies of fear, protest and the future (pp. 33–56). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Kurik, B. (2016). Emerging subjectivity in protest. In D. Courpasson & S. Vallas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of resistance (p. 51). New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manjikian, M. (2013). Securitization of property squatting in Europe. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Martínez, M. (2014). How do squatters deal with the state? Legalization and anomalous institutionalization in Madrid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 646–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mudu, P., & Chattopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2017). Migration, squatting and radical autonomy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Piqué, D. (2009). El fenomen okupa/antisistema circumscrit al districte de Gràcia (Barcelona), com a factor de risc per a la convivència i potencial focus de percepció d’inseguretat. In Polítiques públiques de seguretat aplicables per evitar que esdevingui un problema d’ordre públic o delinqüencial i conseqüentment de solucióúnicament policial. La Síndrome de Sherwood. Retrieved from http://www.setmanaridirecta.info/sites/default/files/la%20s%C3%ADndrome%20de%20sherwood.PDF
  21. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. Pruijt, H. (2003). Is the institutionalization of urban movements inevitable? A comparison of the opportunities for sustained squatting in New York City and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossini, L. (2016). Conflicting citizenship and (re)active zones in the urban areas: Confronting the case of Berlin and Rome—Policies and practices for defining processes of ‘reclaiming’ urban public spaces. PhD dissertation in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Palermo—TU Berlin.Google Scholar
  24. Shaw, P. (2005). The place of alternative culture and the politics of its protection in berlin, Amsterdam and Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Springer, S. (2014). Why a radical geography must be anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Uitermark, J. (2004). The co-optation of squatters in Amsterdam and the emergence of a movement meritocracy: A critical reply to Pruijt. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vasudevan, A. (2011). Dramaturgies of dissent: The spatial politics of squatting in Berlin, 1968. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(3), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luisa Rossini
    • 1
    • 2
  • azozomox
    • 3
  • Galvão Debelle
    • 4
  1. 1.University of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Technical University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)BerlinGermany
  4. 4.Autonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations