''By being out of place, by doing private things in
public space, homeless people threaten not just the space itself, but also the very ideals
upon which we have constructed our rather fragile notions of legitimate citizenship.
Homeless people scare us: they threaten the ideological construction which declares
that publicity – and action in public space – must be voluntary.''
(mitchell, p.16)
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
SOLUTIONS?
Now one question we face as a society – a broad question of justice and social policy –
is whether we are willing to tolerate an economic system in which large numbers of
people are homeless. Since the answer is evidently, “Yes,” the question that remains is
whether we are willing to allow those who are in this predicament to act as free agents,
looking after their own needs, in public places – the only space available to them. It is a
deeply frightening fact about the modern United States that those who have homes and
jobs are willing to answer “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second (Waldron,
1991:304).
is whether we are willing to tolerate an economic system in which large numbers of
people are homeless. Since the answer is evidently, “Yes,” the question that remains is
whether we are willing to allow those who are in this predicament to act as free agents,
looking after their own needs, in public places – the only space available to them. It is a
deeply frightening fact about the modern United States that those who have homes and
jobs are willing to answer “Yes” to the first question and “No” to the second (Waldron,
1991:304).
from D. Mitchel annihilatin of space laws
''As Lipietz (1986:19) argues, a “regime of accumulation” materializes in “the form of norms, habits, laws, regulating networks, and so on that ensure the unity of the process, i.e. the appropriate consistency of individual behaviours with the schema of reproduction;”
and as Harvey (1989:122) further comments, such talk of regulation “focuses
our attention on the complex interrelations, habits, political practices, and cultural forms that allow a highly dynamic, and consequently unstable, capitalist system to acquire a sufficient semblance of order to function coherently at least for a certainperiod of time.”
Hence cities are grappling with two, perhaps contradictory, processes.
On the one hand they must seek to attract capital seemingly unfettered by the sorts of locational determinants important during the era when fordism was under construction. That is, they must make themselves attractive to capital – large and small – that can often choose to locate there or not.'"
If a built environment possesses use value to homeless people (for sleeping, for bathing, for panhandling), but that use threatens what exchange value may still exist, or may be created, then these use values must be shed..... '
That is, through these laws and other means, cities seek to use a seemingly stable, ordered urban landscape as a positive inducement to continued investment and to maintain the viability of current investment in core areas (by showing merchants, for example, that they are doing something to keep shoppers coming downtown)...
interesting to think of destabilising activities... things that are feared to bring the exchange value down... or unpredictable ones like creative acts that come to be lauded (e.g. in the case of graffiti becoming art, such as Banksy, nb previous dissertation).... other destabilising activity - occupy amsterdam... how is this managed?
and as Harvey (1989:122) further comments, such talk of regulation “focuses
our attention on the complex interrelations, habits, political practices, and cultural forms that allow a highly dynamic, and consequently unstable, capitalist system to acquire a sufficient semblance of order to function coherently at least for a certainperiod of time.”
Hence cities are grappling with two, perhaps contradictory, processes.
On the one hand they must seek to attract capital seemingly unfettered by the sorts of locational determinants important during the era when fordism was under construction. That is, they must make themselves attractive to capital – large and small – that can often choose to locate there or not.'"
If a built environment possesses use value to homeless people (for sleeping, for bathing, for panhandling), but that use threatens what exchange value may still exist, or may be created, then these use values must be shed..... '
That is, through these laws and other means, cities seek to use a seemingly stable, ordered urban landscape as a positive inducement to continued investment and to maintain the viability of current investment in core areas (by showing merchants, for example, that they are doing something to keep shoppers coming downtown)...
interesting to think of destabilising activities... things that are feared to bring the exchange value down... or unpredictable ones like creative acts that come to be lauded (e.g. in the case of graffiti becoming art, such as Banksy, nb previous dissertation).... other destabilising activity - occupy amsterdam... how is this managed?
eliminating the homeless
“One way of describing the plight of a homeless individual might be to say that there is no place governed by a private property rule where he is allowed to be” (Waldron, 1991:299).
What is emerging – and it is not just a matter of fantasy – is a state of affairs in which a million or more citizens have no place to perform elementary human activities like urinating, washing, sleeping, cooking, eating, and standing around. Legislators voted for by
people who own private places in which they can do these things are increasingly deciding to make public places available only for activities other than these primal human tasks. The streets and the subways, they say, are for commuting from home to office. They are not for sleeping; sleeping is what one does at home. The parks are for recreations like
walking and informal ball-games, things for which one’s own yard is a little too confined. Parks are not for cooking or urinating; again, these are things one does at home. Since the public and private are complementary, the activities performed in public are the complement
of those performed in private. This complementarity works fine for those who have the benefit of both sorts of places. However, it is disastrous for those who must live their whole lives on common land. If I am right about this, it is one of the most callous and tyrannical exercises of power in modern times by a (comparatively) rich and complacent
majority against a minority of their less fortunate fellow human beings (Waldron, 1991:301–2).
What is emerging – and it is not just a matter of fantasy – is a state of affairs in which a million or more citizens have no place to perform elementary human activities like urinating, washing, sleeping, cooking, eating, and standing around. Legislators voted for by
people who own private places in which they can do these things are increasingly deciding to make public places available only for activities other than these primal human tasks. The streets and the subways, they say, are for commuting from home to office. They are not for sleeping; sleeping is what one does at home. The parks are for recreations like
walking and informal ball-games, things for which one’s own yard is a little too confined. Parks are not for cooking or urinating; again, these are things one does at home. Since the public and private are complementary, the activities performed in public are the complement
of those performed in private. This complementarity works fine for those who have the benefit of both sorts of places. However, it is disastrous for those who must live their whole lives on common land. If I am right about this, it is one of the most callous and tyrannical exercises of power in modern times by a (comparatively) rich and complacent
majority against a minority of their less fortunate fellow human beings (Waldron, 1991:301–2).
what are the reasons for criminalising the homeless?
'"....reasons that revolve around insecurity in an unstable global
market and a rather truncated sense of aesthetics developed to support the pursuit of capital"' (D. Mitchell, p.9)
explore the relationship between aesthetics and economy
market and a rather truncated sense of aesthetics developed to support the pursuit of capital"' (D. Mitchell, p.9)
explore the relationship between aesthetics and economy
homelessness: annihilating space
No one is free to perform an action unless there is somewhere he is free to perform it. . . . One of the functions of property rules, particularly as far as land is concerned, is to provide a basis for determining who is allowed to be where (Waldron, 1991:296).
Waldron, J. (1991) Homelessness and the issue of freedom. UCLA Law Review 39:295–324.
Waldron, J. (1991) Homelessness and the issue of freedom. UCLA Law Review 39:295–324.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)