sign in sign up
<<
Home , Market fundamentalism, Prefigurative politics

-from below: and a "postneoliberal" urbanism.

Richard J White

ROUGH DRAFT - NOT FOR CITING BUT COMMENTS WELCOME

Senior Lecturer in Economic Geography, Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield, S1 1WB. Email: [email protected]

------

Abstract Now, more than ever, truly innovative, alternative and sustainable responses to the urban challenges posed by the current global economic crisis are needed. However the way in which the crisis has been defined, governed and narrated within political economy has been dominated by a capitalocentric ideology. This is deeply problematic insofar as capitalocentrism "involves situating at the centre of development narratives, thus tending to devalue of marginalize possibilities of noncapitalist development." (Gibson-Graham, 2006 :41). Seen in this context the economic crisis not only focuses attention on strategy: how to act and respond, but invites a more searching and deeper question: how can we unleash our economic imaginations in such a way that transcends the dominant propaganda that "there is no alternative" to . Importantly, throwing off the shackles of capitalocentrism and seeking a “post-neoliberal” urban society, one which is economically, socially and environmentally just, should hold no fear. It is not certainly not akin to taking a leap of faith and falling bravely into some 'new' utopian world. Rather, the paper proposes that a post-neoliberal urbanism would be one that celebrates and develops the multiple forms of anarchist praxis, (understood here as a coherent and rigorous theory of organisation from below) that are already present in our economic landscapes, and thus are both known and familiar to us. The paper draws attention to several influential theoretical frameworks that promote a more diverse multifarious and heterodox understanding of "the economic". These subvert the capitalo-centric ideology in significant ways, not least as they encourage 'the market' to be more properly understood as just one mode of economic organization among many. Then, in order to evidence just how central the "formal economy" is in contemporary urban society, the paper draws on empirical evidence taken from the household work practice surveys. In particular the geographies of community self-help are explored in the context of two communities in the UK city of Leicester.

Key words: Anarchism State Neoliberal Community Self Help Urban Leicester

1 “It is not our social nature to go it alone. It does not follow that one must conform to Society. It is enough to find-and-make-a band, to hundred, of the like-minded, to know that oneself is sane though the rest of the city is batty” (Goodman, 1962[2011]: 39)

Introduction

The Problem

The city of Detroit is running out of . This problem has been building for decades and has reached the point where immediate action is necessary just to keep the city running.

City leaders made many attempts over the years to fix the financial problem, including cuts to city services and increased borrowing, but the results have remained the same - the city spends more money than it receives and the problem has only worsened.

After a detailed review of the city's finances in February 2013, the independent Financial Review Team unanimously concluded that Detroit is in a financial emergency and it has no plan in place that will fix its financial problems. (State of Michigan, 2013)

On Thursday 18th July Detroit - with at least $18.5bn debts and liabilities - became the largest U.S. city to file for bankruptcy (Rushe, 2013). Since 2008, thirteen other general-purpose local governments have filed for bankruptcy protection, including: Gould (Arkansas); Vallejo (California); Westfall Township (Pennsylvania); Village of Washington Park; Town of Moddett (Oklahoma); Prichard (Alabama); Boise County (Idaho); City of Central Falls (Rhode Island); City of Harrisburg (Pennsylvania); Jefferson County (Alabama); City of Stockton (California); Town of Mammoth Lakes (California) and the City of San Bernardino (California) (see Machiag, 2013). In a Europe held hostage by dangerous state-led measures, the formidable economic and social crises that have erupted within its cities suggest no easy solutions. That this current crisis threatens to cast a long shadow over the longer term future, note least understood in terms of closing down aspirations, identity and meaning, is demonstrated when a cursory look at the formal statistics are considered. Insertion into formal employment being seen by political parties of all stripes as the best way of engaging people actively and meaningfully into (their) society. At a European and Member State Level the latest Eurostate estimates are that 26.654 million men and women in the EU-28 were unemployed in 2013, of which 5,560 million were under the age of 25 (EUROSTAT, 2013). Within the EU countries the contours of the economic crisis (and disastrous responses to this) continue to impact unevenly: rates in Greece were 27.6% in May 2013, in Spain 26.3% while the lowest unemployment rates were recorded in Austria (4.8%) and Luxembourg (5.7%) (EUROSTAT, 2013). Moving in still closer to focus in still closer on British cities, the polarisation of and opportunity, between affluence and deprivation within cities is becoming more acute and entrenched. For example, when using the Gini coefficient as an overall measure of inequality Lee et al (2013: 17) report that: 2 "The city with the highest inequality on this measure is London, followed by Reading & Bracknell and Aberdeen. These are all affluent cities. In Luton & Watford and Guildford & Aldershot - both affluent cities near London - there are also high level of inequality by this measure."

The failure of the - market fundamentalism - and the state in the so called "advanced economies" of the global North to offer the most basic protection and provision to those citizens in most need is writ large in our the cities. A range of sobering examples could be used to illustrate this. Consider just one: the Trussell Trust, as charitable organisation that seeks to fight poverty and exclusion by helping those most in need reported that: "in 2012-13 foodbanks fed 346,992 people nationwide. Of those helped, 126,889 were children."

This should not surprise us: urban disorder, division and crisis have resulted from a generation of exposure to the neoliberal virus. As Posey (2011: 299) argues:

Over the last 30 years, a hyperglobalized form of capitalism has exercised hegemonic control over the world economy. Legitimated by an ideology known as neoliberalism, the economic order has been characterized by , , welfare state retrenchment, , mobility, and attacks on organized labor. The economic turmoil of the last 2 years has shown that three decades of neoliberalism have failed to produce an economy that is not bubble-prone and that is capable of improving the living standards of most people in the world. Articulating an alternative to neoliberalism is therefore an urgent task. (Posey, 2011: 299).

Imagining and presenting a real alternative to neoliberalism is indeed an urgent task, and yet the difficulty of achieving this is considerable. For Shukaitis, (2010: 303):

"It's one thing to say that we want a world where people manage our own lives, the environment isn't destroyed, and life (isn't) desolate and alienating - but it's another to start talking about what such (life) might actually look like. And starting to actually create forms of practice, to re-envision utopian thinking as lived reality, is another."

We must not - we cannot - to allow old (neoliberal) ways to close down or "cage" (see Eva, 2012) our ways of thinking and of responding to the economic crisis any longer. Ya Basta!, Enough! It is the intention of this paper to construct this alternative narrative on foundations that are understandable, identifiable, familiar and rational. Importantly, the alternative urban imaginary envisaged and pursued here is not one that is the conceived in the moment of crisis, but rather reveals a long and rich history. The neo-liberal alternative is embedded in mutuality, reciprocity, co-operation, self-organisation and non-violence: it is in otherwords anarchist. Such is the almost universally hostile and negative propaganda surrounding this term, that, for the majority of readers perhaps, such a proposal sounds at best dangerously extreme and utopian. However the paper seeks to firmly impress upon the reader that anarchism is neither of these: it is infinitely plausible. As will be demonstrated, anarchist praxis embodies and underpins many of the instinctive, natural, and rational forms of economic, political and

3 social organisation that symbolises everything good and positive in society. This sentiment is perfectly captured by the anarchist geographer , (1973: 4) when speaking of:

“an anarchist society, a society that organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustice, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism.”

Advocating anarchism and an anarchist praxis focuses critical attention on types of governance. For the first self-declared anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1923:293-4):

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

An extreme view? In our contemporary cities the severe, brutal, naked violence and repression exacted by the "democratic" state on popular movements across Europe that sought to resist and reject the draconian state enforced neoliberal prescriptions and programmes to the crisis (austerity, public spending cutbacks) makes Proudhon's observations hard to refute. For further evidence one need only recall the extreme levels of violence that dominated the European Day of Action and Solidarity (14 November 2012) and related "anti-austerity" marches: exemplified by the ugly clashes between demonstrators and police in Spain (Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon); Greece (Athens) Italy (Rome, Milan and Naples) and Greece (Athens),

We should expect nothing more living in a western society subjected to the policies of an undemocratic neoliberal state. The successful takeover of the state by market fundamentalists, while a protracted, complicated, uneven and messy affair, was absolutely central in ensuring the ascendency of neoliberalism. As Peck (2010: 4) argues "capturing and transforming the state was always a fundamental neoliberal objective…. Notwithstanding its trademarks anti statistic rhetoric, neoliberalism was always concerned - at its philosophical, political, and practical core - with the challenge of first seizing and then retasking the state." The notion that a post-neoliberal urban society

4 can be envisaged and enacted through, by or with the state is absurd. Absurd insofar as it is neither desirable nor necessary to fetishize any hierarchical structures of power embedded the state - even one defrocked of its neoliberal garments - as being our best - or only way of emerging from the current urban crisis. Inspiration should be taken from those who have rightly drawn attention to the fact that capitalism is not so much in crisis, but is crisis, and extend this to the state. To seek to reform the state, and refashion it into a force for good for the majority is to fatally misunderstand its nature: an argument often made by anarchists, particularly in their critique of , and one that has held long held the test of time. As (2004: 27) observed: “Of the essence of government, I have already said, it is a thing apart, developing its own interests at the expense of what opposes it; all attempts to make it anything else fail.”

What this paper aims to develop most urgently is the fact that there already exists a tremendous range of vibrant economic and political forms of organisation in western society, that in some significant ways act as lived alternatives beyond the market and state. And yet, such is the dominant propaganda that extols the neoliberal state: captured most memorably by the acronym attributed to TINA: there is no alternative, we fail to recognise or appreciate them in our day to day lives. This is most evident perhaps within the "ordinary, everyday" spaces we engage with: the home and the communities.

This is an incredibly important point: that crisis is one which is very much rooted in our political and economic imaginary: that we talk about the end of capitalism, or the state, but we cannot envisage what would be in their place. In this way the narrative of the economic crisis and its possible solutions (further doses of market fundamentalism: unwavering commitment to the not-so-free free market) are singular, fixed, and orientated along impotent neoliberal lines of flight.

In order to comprehensively reject this servitude to neoliberal state propaganda the paper focuses attention on the pervasive nature of non-capitalist forms of work and organisation in the advanced economies of the western world. To do this the paper highlights empirical work obtained through the Time Use Survey, and the Household Work Practice Survey, focusing on the qualitative research undertaken in UK cities in particular. Here a particular emphasis on the geographies of community self-help - the extent, social embeddedness, rationales for participation and barriers to participation - within two urban wards in the UK city of Leicester will be made.

Responding to Ward's argument that: "Anarchism seeks a self-organising society: a network of autonomous free associations for the satisfaction of human needs.” (1976: 7) the paper moves to focus on more examples of anarchism in action – community self help - that have emerged in the city. The paper considers the ways in which these promise far more than a temporary coping strategy in the face of economic and political crisis, but actually offer empowering, real and permanent glimpses of exciting post-neoliberal alternatives. 5

Before continuing though, it is important to have a sense of what “anarchism” is understood to mean and represent in the context of this paper, with its focus on the city. It is to this that attention now turns toward.

Anarchism, and the city.

Writing in “What is ? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, published in 1890, Pierre Joseph Proudhon was the first to declare: “I am an Anarchist.” Throughout its history, Anarchism has since been subjected to the most grotesque and wilfully malicious propaganda. Whenever anarchism or anarchists are mentioned, Hobbesian-inspired images of violence, chaos, disorder and a nihilist gaze still dominate the popular imagination. Yet a radically different picture emerges when due care and attention is paid to anarchism and what it actually stands for. From an etymological perspective, the word anarchism comes from the Greek phrase which means contrary to authority. This rejection of a central authority – which reaches its archetypical epitome in “The State” – certainly explains the attention and emphasis that anarchism has brought to recognise the serious limits within this form of representation and governing since its late 19th Century origins. Bakunin captures many of these limits in his inspiring declaration for , which Chomsky considers as “a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition” (Notes on Anarchism 97). It is worth quoting in full:

“I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measure our and regulated by the State, and eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and the other schools of bourgeois , which considers the world-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each – and idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to ero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being – they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom.”

However, anarchists' focus on the domination of the State must not - as Marxists critiques of anarchism make the mistake of - obscure its uniquely broader critique of dominations in all its forms and guises. As David Wieck (Reinventing , p. 139) argued:

"Anarchism … is more than anti-statism. But government (the state) because it claims ultimate sovereignty and the right to outlaw or legitimate particular sovereignties, and because it serves the interests, predominantly, of those who possess particular spheres of power, stands at the centre of the web of social domination; it is appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique."

6 Thus anarchism is considered in the plural, and it is this appeal to a broad range of distinct, or

intersectional critiques of power that captures the diversity of anarchist critique. As Williams

notes (2010: 256)

"Anarchists belong to a plethora of organizations, ranging from the small, formal to informal, radical to less-radical, diverse to homogenous, and global to local…. it is obvious that anarchists are often very "organized," even if their actions and words seem to suggest things that may seem, superficially, to be more spontaneous, decentralized, or less organizable."

A contemporary summing up of the anarchism, and one of great relevance to the focus of this paper, comes from Critchley (2013: 4) who suggests that:

"Anarchism is not so much a grand unified theory of based on a socio-economic metaphysics and a philosophy of history, as a moral conviction, an ethical disposition that finds expression in practice and as practice. Anarchism is a different way of conceiving and enacting social relations between peoples, where they are not defined by the authority of the state, the law and the police, but by free agreement between them." Critchley (2013: 4)

Importantly, from a spatial or geographical perspective, the anarchist (ethical) gaze has frequently engaged with “the urban problem”, always seeking to evolve an anarchist philosophy of the city. This may seem surprising, as Ward (1976: 87) argues:

"Anarchism - the political philosophy of a non-governmental society of autonomous communities - does not at first sight seem to address itself to the problems of the city at all. But there is in fact a stream of anarchist contributions to urban thoughts that stretches from Kropotkin to historically, and from to the International Situationists ideologically."

The extraordinary legacy of Paul Goodman, captured in his influential works Growing up Absurd (1960) and Communitas (1947) certainly added depth and rigour to an anarchist critique of the city. Moreover the legacy of Goodman, Ward and others stand as a permanent rebuff of the lazy idea that anarchists are merely de-constructive (destructive) rather than standing for something. As Stoehr (2011: 15-16) observes:

“For Goodman, genuine power resided in the creativity of individuals banding together to solve their mutual problems and to experiment with new ways of fostering health and happiness for everyone, not just the rich and powerful. His utopian ideals, spelled out in Communitas, called for many confederated neighbourhoods organized around work-places where workers themselves were in charge of production and all its conditions, and where public good – residing in product, means of production, or ultimate use – outweighed efficiency or the

7 motive... For him , the models were Williams Morris’s guild , Dewey’s education for , and the of French and Spanish anarchists.”

Adding to this constructive critique, the next section critically advances four key arguments (a) that the current economic crisis is as much ideological as it is practical: the product of capital-centric ideology and representation (b) that the current economic crisis of capitalism should not be overstated. A more comprehensive and nuanced understanding and representation of the economic modes of production, exchange and consumption in our society unearths a vibrant range of non-commodified modes or work and organisation. It is these already existing forms of work which we should consider harnessing and developing through desire (more than necessity) to move toward a post-neoliberal society of full engagement.

An Economic Crisis? Or a Crisis of Capitalism

Reflecting on the great ideological, social, and economic transformation of European society in the mid-twentieth century, Polanyi argued that the transformation away from a non- was so complete, "that it resembles more the metamorphosis of the caterpillar than any alteration that can be expressed in terms of continuous growth and development." (1944: 44). Considering a (capitalist) market economy to be "an economy directed by market prices and nothing but market price" (1944: 45) he went on to give further insight into the changing relationship between societies and their economic systems:

"No society could, naturally, live for any length of time unless it possessed an economy of some sort; but previously to our time no economy has ever existed that, even in principle, was controlled by markets. In spite of the chorus of academic incantations so persistent in the nineteenth century, gain and profit made on exchange never before played an important part in the human economy. Though the institutions of the market was fairly common since the later Stone Age, its role was no more than incidental to economic life."

I wish to argue that neoclassical economists are the modern day successors and heirs of the 'chorus of academic incantations' that Polanyi refer to in The Great Transformation , and who he rebukes for a particularly erroneous reading of economic life. Neoclassical economists mystifyingly still exert a tremendous power, privilege and influence over the teaching of economics, and indeed, as argued in the introduction, within the formal corridors of power: the state. To see economics and politics as somehow separate and independent is - as it always was - a gross misrepresentation of reality. This is particularly so at a time of economic crisis. As Peck (2010: 9) remarks

“There is something faintly Orwellian about the claims of political elites and media commentators that the end of the free-market period has been marked by a “return of the state”.. 8 as if it every went away. Neoliberalism, in its various guises, has always been about the capture and reuse of the state, in the interests of shaping a pro-corporate, freer-trading "market order,” even though this has never been a process of cookie-cutter replication of an unproblematic strategy.”

The global economic crisis shows no sign of striking a fatal blow to the current configuration between state and capital. Indeed, paradoxically somewhat, the crisis has been used to assert for greater faith in the ability of the state and the market to steer society through these difficult times, and toward this promised land! The dominant mantra is one based on fear: there is no alternative (to a capitalist market). Seeking alternative solutions and new visions for a more equitable and sustainable future - not least in our cities - are futile. This line of argument has been played out ad nauseoum, and can be traced back to much earlier in the 20th century; as (1933) argues:

The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed. (italics added)

But what is "its place"? Importantly the framing of the crisis as being an "economic", makes the implicit claim that all economic life is synonymous with "the market". This is an important point, as the reifying or dictatorship of the market - as the beginning and the end - effectively forecloses the possibility of "the alternatives". As Hall (et al, 2013: 1) observe

The market has become the model of social relations, exchange the only value. Western governments have shown themselves weak and indecisive in responding to the environmental crisis, climate change and the threat to sustainable life on the planet, and have refused to address the issues in other than their own - market - terms. (Hall et al. 2013: 1)

From a critical economic perspective the mythologizing of a market economy needs urgently unpacking. Effectively such an interpretation a narrow capital-centric or 'thin' reading of economic exchange (see White and Williams 2010). Gibson-Graham (2009) used the term "capitalo-centric" so indicate a perspective that represents all economic activities in terms of their relationship to capitalism. This effectively promotes is a particularly narrow, atomised, competitive, selfish, individualistic reading of exchange, and one which views monetary transactions as always market-like and motivated by personal financial gain. As Buck (2010: 68) argues, such an interpretation of the

9 economic effectively "excludes participation from so much of human existence." Happily, this interpretation has been increasingly contested by an increasingly diverse array of critical thinkers and disciplines in the last twenty years: and has gained renewed traction in response to the on-going financial and economic crisis. One key way in which a postneoliberal world can be envisaged, and enacted is to recognise the limits of neoliberalism: of capitalo-centrism. This is essential project for reclaiming the "crisis" and properly situating it, in order to go beyond it in some significant sense. It is this that the paper now turns toward. Here city-based evidence from the household work practice survey will be incorporated into the analysis, with a particular focuses on the geographies of community self help in the UK city of Leicester.

Living in a "post-neoliberal" world

One of the main accusations against anarchism, is that even if it were desirable, it is unworkable and dangerously utopian (see Springer forthcoming). Yet, once more, such a pejorative viewpoint has a

wilfully tenuous grasp on reality. In many ways anarchism is anti-utopian, in that great effort is made

to focus on the "here and now", explore the messiness of reality, and look to identify and harnessing

those practices that are empowering and "good" in society. For example, when reflecting on his own

approach to anarchist praxis, Ward (1982:5) argues:

"Many years of attempting to be an anarchist propagandist have convinced me that we win over our fellow citizen to anarchist ideas, precisely through drawing upon the common experience of the informal, transients, self-organising networks of relationships that in fact make human community possible, rather than through the rejection of existing society as a whole in favor of some future society where some different kind of humanity will live in perfect harmony"

The spirit of this approach, by engaging people in what they know and is familiar to them is extremely

important when re-thinking dominant stories told about our economy. Simply put, despite the popular

impression that western society has increasingly transformed - "advanced" - into a (captalist) market

economy, the extent of capitalism seeping into every nook and cranny of daily life is widely

overstated. To appreciate this, the reader only has to imagine the many forms of work and

organisation that they are embedded within. In a similar pedagogic exercise Gibson-Graham

constructed an Iceberg model (see Figure 1) to represent the multiple, heterodox forms of economic

10 organisation in society that were identified by respondents. Crucially the majority of these are in a very real since "outside", and not reducible to, a market based representation of "the economic".

Figure 1: Gibson-Graham's Iceberg Model: A diverse economy: rethinking economy and economic representation

This visual way of representation the multifarious economic realities that exist within contemporary

society is arresting. As Gibson-Graham (no date: 1) argue:

"This image is one way of illustrating that what is usually regarded as ‘the economy’—wage labor (sic), market exchange of commodities and capitalist enterprise—comprises but a small subset of the activities by which we produce, exchange and distribute values. It honors (sic) and prompts into expression our common knowledge of the multifarious ways in which all of us are engaged in economic activity. It opens up conceptions of economy and places the reputation of economics as a comprehensive and scientific body of knowledge under critical suspicion for its narrow focus and mystifying effects." (Gibson-Graham, no date: 1)

Various typologies have subsequently been proposed to better capture and represented the complex diversity within "the economic", by mapping the plurality of labour practices in societies. To date the most important of these has been developed by Colin Williams (2009: 405) who adopted a variant of what Glucksmann calls “a total social organisation of labour” approach.

11 Figure 2: Williams's Total Social Organisation of Labour

Monetised

Formal paid Formal paid job Informal Monetised Monetised job in in in public/third employment community family private sector exchanges labour sector

Formal Informal Formal Formal Off-the- One-to-one Non- unpaid unpaid radar non- non- exchanged work in work in monetised monetised labour private public/third work in exchanges sector sector organisation

Non- Monetised

This representation is particularly important in emphasising the blurring of lines between types of economic practices, rather than the traditional approach which was to seek unique and absolute binary differences (e.g. between formal and informal economic practices). This is helpfully reinforced by the inclusion of both marketized (x-axis) and monetised (y-axis) spectrums of difference between these key forms of labour. For Williams (2009:412) "this conceptual lens therefore allows the limited reach of the market to be identified as well as a fresh perspective on the nature of work cultures and how they vary spatially."

One influential ways in which empirical research has sought to examine the geographies of work practices at the city level (extent, nature, social embeddedness, barriers to participation has been through the household work practices. This is the focus of the next section.

The Household Work Practice Survey

The Household Work Practice Survey draws direct inspiration from the approach developed by Ray Pahl (1984) who sought to understand the divisions of labour within a local population on the Isle of Sheppey. Pahl was particularly interested in: “find[ing] out how people get by in a number of specific circumstances… I want to know how the ordinary routines of life and the sexual divisions of labour within the domestic unit may be changing, as a result of the growth of a wide range of economic activities outside the formal economy… It is now possible for people to get by without necessarily engaging in formal employment. A man can own his own tools – power drills, chain saws, welding equipment; he can control much of his own time whether or not he is formally employed… (1984: 9-10)

Taking the household as the principal unit of economic analysis, is an important part of distancing the dominance of capitalo-centric economics. Rather than preserve and privilege the formal workplace in 12 a understanding go the economic, the household - so often invisible, marginalised, and viciously un- valued in mainstream economic analysis: witness the dreadful capitalo-centric oxymoron use of "unemployed" to describe the individual(s) who undertake work in this space! Indeed privileging the 'ordinary' and 'routine' work that is undertaken in (urban) households has potentially revolutionary implications. As Byrne et al (1998: 16) argue:

"We can view the household as hopelessly local, atomized, a set of disarticulated and isolated units, entwined and ensnared in capitalism’s global order, incapable of serving as a site of class politics and radical social transformation. Or we can avoid conflating the micro logical with the merely local and recognize that the household is everywhere; and while it is related in various ways to capitalist exploitation, it is not simply consumed or negated by it. Understanding the household as a site of economic activity, one in which people negotiate and change their relations of exploitation and distribution in response to a wide variety of influences, may help to free us from the gloom that descends when a vision of socialist innovation is consigned to the wholesale transformation of the ‘capitalist‘ totality.

In the UK, the most influential use of the household work practice survey has been undertaken in Sheffield and Southampton (see Williams and Windebank, 2002; Williams, 2010). This research involved undertaking 511 interviews in higher-and lower income neighbourhoods, and explored the extent, character and reasons why households undertook work using different forms of labour types. Forty four tasks were considered. There was a particular emphasis to explore more thoroughly the reasons why households engaged in community self-help: i.e. self-provisioning ("unpaid household work undertaken by household members for themselves or for other members of the household" (Williams, and Windebank, 2002: 232)) and mutual aid ("unpaid work done by household members for members of households other than their own).

The results make a profound intervention in de-mystifying the perceived dominance of the for-profit market. In both deprived and affluent urban areas, the tasks completed were overwhelmingly undertaken by the household themselves (self-provision), compared to formal labour.

Table 1: Economic practices used by urban households to undertake 44 domestic services: by geographical area % of Tasks last conducted using:

Unpaid Unpaid Paid informal Formal domestic community labour labour work exchange

% of 44 tasks completed

Deprived areas: 45.3 74.8 3.6 4.4 17.3 Southampton

13 Deprived areas: 49.0 77.4 3.9 5.4 13.3 Sheffield

Affluent suburb: 53.3 71.3 1.9 6.5 20.3 Southampton

Affluent suburb: 57.3 72.8 1.9 11.2 14.1 Sheffield

Source: Adapted from Williams (2004: 514, Table 9)

The household work practice survey has also been undertaken in the city of Leicester within comparatively affluent ward of South Knighton, and the deprived ward of Saffron: (White, 2009, 2011) (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Contrasting Multiple Deprivation Indicators between Saffron and West Knighton, Leicester. Leicester Wards: Index of Multiple Neighbouring wards of Saffron and West Knighton (please note that both wards were abolished as part of new Deprivation 2000 ward boundaries being adopted in 2003)

Ranking Among National Wards According to Deprivation Levels In the 10% of most deprived nationally In the next 11-50% of the most deprived nationally In the next 51-100% of the most Deprived nationality Multiple Deprivation Indicators Saffron West Knighton 2000

(by Rank)*

Index of Multiple Deprivation 383 4787 Income Domain 224 4004 Employment Domain 762 4678 Health Domain 891 4983 Education Domain 297 4588 Housing Domain 820 2632

14 Child Poverty Index 216 4097

Source Leicester City Council (2002) * Out of 8,414 wards in the UK (1=most deprived) www.leicester.gov.uk/departments/page.asp? Source: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 pgid=3395

Though using the same categories as previous research (including property maintenance/ improvement; routine housework; gardening activities; caring activities and vehicle maintenance) the research in Leicester focused on 24 domestic tasks (see Table 2)

Table 2: Tasks explored through the household work practice survey in Leicester

Nature of the task Individual tasks

Property maintenance Outdoor painting; indoor decorating (i.e. wallpapering; plastering) replacing a broken widow; maintenance of appliances; plumbing; electrical work.

Property improvement Putting in double glazing; house insulation; building an extension/ renovating; putting in central heating; DIY activities (carpentry/ putting up shelves etc.)

Routine housework Routine housework (washing dishes/ clothes/ cooking meals) cleaning the windows; doing the shopping, moving heavy furniture.

Gardening activities Sweeping paths, planting seeds/ mowing lawn

Caring activities: Childminding; pet/animal care; educational activities (tutoring); giving car lifts; looking after property.

15 Vehicle maintenance Repairing and maintenance

Miscellaneous Borrow tools or equipment; any other jobs

One hundred households responded to this face-to-face semi-structure questionnaire. For each task the respondent was asked whether it had been undertaken. If 'yes' they were then asked who had conducted the work; why that particular individual had been chosen; whether they had been paid in anyway or given a gift in lieu of payment (and why). If formal labour had not been used again the householder was questioned as to why this was the case. The respondent was also asked to what extent they (or members of the household) engaged in community self help with other households.

Questions focused on the barriers to participation in community self help, were also explored. The results from this research are highlighted below (Table 3).

Table 3: Completing work in West Knighton and Saffron using formal and informal coping strategies.

Leicester Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs completed Jobs Jobs wards completed completed completed using self- completed completed overall using the using paid provisioning using using paid (%) formal informal (%) unpaid mutual aid economy (%) work (%) informal (%) mutual aid (%)

West 79 9 4 62 18 7 Knighton (affluent)

Saffron 71 7 1 60 26 6 (deprived)

ALL 75 8 3 61 22 7 TASKS

The table suggests that in Leicester, as with Sheffield and Southampton - three cities within a society

of "" - the majority of work undertaken takes place in other "alternative" economic typologies. This reality poses a direct challenge to a capitalo-centric imagination. Far from

16 penetrating every nook and cranny of our lives, the spectre of capitalism would appear to cast an altogether smaller and less impressive shadow. Thus, when the economic crisis is seen as predominantly a crisis of capitalism then not only can we imagine what real alternatives may look like, put we can see them in action within our households and wider communities. The resilience and pervasive nature of these spaces that lie beyond the private and public sector is striking: but not unexpected. When a critical interrogation of our own economic imagination is forthcoming, and we depart from a capitalo-centric perspective of "the economic", there emerges an opportunity to appreciate the very real value and diversity of these largely autonomous activities that afford us meaning, identify and expression. As Kropotkin (1901 [1998]: 184) observed:

Although the destruction of mutual-aid institutions has been going on in practice and theory for full three or four hundred years, hundreds of millions of men [sic] continue to live under such institutions; they piously maintain them and endeavour to reconstitute them where they have ceased to exist. "

And we continue to live under such institutions: the histories of mutual aid and self-help within our urban households and communities still runs strong in our contemporary urban fabric. All offer potential anarchist lines of flight to move purposefully away from the current crisis of state and capitalism.

Some thoughts and reflections

"Today's governance is global both in its spatial dimension and in its inner nature. People felt the need for a new word ('governance' or 'governmentality' instead of 'government' ) because the thing itself has changed. No longer the centralized, vertical power of the modern nation state, governance denotes a reticular and decentralised form of power …. It is a transformation that can offer possibilities for liberation, but also open the path to the most horrible servitude. Power can today more than ever control the deepest mechanism(s) of life, as well as the way in which we think about it. (Bottici, 2013: 26-27).

Gibson Graham et al (2013: xiii) argue that "(O)ur economy is the outcome of the decisions we make and the actions we take." Such an privileging of the individual and their community as a central locus of power and change; the avoidance of unnecessarily reifying either “the economic” or “the state”; places emphasis on prefigurative politics, rather than postponed change for some (unspecified) time in

17 the future; and seeks change through peaceful practice rather than violent revolution is characteristic of an anarchist spirit. Landauer (1910 [2010]: 24) for example argued that:

A table can be overturned and a window can be smashed. However, those who believe that the state is also a thing or a fetish that can be overturned or smashed are sophists and believers in the Word. The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently."

Such an argument also speaks to a positive faith in the human condition: that given the right circumstances, change is possible through people thinking and acting differently. As de La Boetie (1911: 309) observed:

"I refuse to divide people into those who are the masters of the state and those who are the state's servants. Human relationships depend on human behaviour. The possibility of anarchy depends on the belief that people can always change their behaviour. In order to change ourselves and our social conditions, we must use the limited freedom that we have. It is up to no one but ourselves to do so and to create as much freedom and unity as possible. Who can deny that we have made very little use of the possibilities we have? (de La Boetie 1911: 309)

This quote also speaks to the responsibilities of the individual to claim their freedom: to take control of their destiny, and actively participate in the decisions that affect them and their milieux. In itself such an argument decries the abdication of these responsibilities to others. Buck (2010: 63-64) for example argues that:

Elective, generic representation is not democracy; it is an abdication of democracy: "Go make decisions for me in all areas of life for X amount of time." This is democracy deferred. State reification economies cannot be democratic, for the bodies that make decisions are not federative and issue orientated.

By contrast, anarchism advocates decisions followed immediately by actions: gathering materials, organizing into task groups, laying out relations, carrying out the work. This is why is embraces participation, voluntary association, first-order federation, and at best only loose second order confederation. It dismantles state forms by replacing them with habit-formed and habit-forming face -to-face processes, leaving no vacuum for third-party management of experiencing ." (Buck, 2010: 63-64)

The paper has argued strongly though that resisting and escaping the current economic crisis necessitates both action, but equally by questioning and decolonising our current ways of thinking. Decolonisation our imagination requires resisting and rejecting capitalocentric ways of representing and valuing modes of work and organisation in society. This process has already begun, but it is far from complete. The challenge before us is great, as Byrne et al (1998:3) argue:

"To re-read a landscape we have always read as capitalist, to read it as a landscape of difference, populated by various capitalist and noncapitalist economic practices and institutions 18 - that is a difficult task. It requires us to be content not only with our colonized imaginations, but with our beliefs about politics, understandings of power, conceptions of economy, and structures of desire."

Drawing inspiration from anarchist praxis though, which as has been demonstrated is pervasive in the geographies of community self-help in the city, will better equip us to take that challenge forward.. promises a meaningful alternative to orthodox, authoritarian, hierarchical and institutional approach Anarchism, that beautiful "doctrine that aims at the liberation of peoples from political domination and economic exploitation by the encouragement of direct or non-governmental action." (Kinna, 2005:3) opens up infinite visions and possibilities that draw us away from the current crisis of neoliberalism, and ever nearer toward the promise of a truly post-neoliberal world.

References

Bookchin, M (2005) The Ecology of Freedom: the emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Oakland:AK Press.

Bottici, C. (2013) Black and red: the freedom of equals in J. Blumenfeld J, C. Bottici and CS.

Brenner N (2009) ‘What is Critical Urban Theory?’, City 13(2–3): 198–207.

Byrne, K., Forest, R., Gibson-Graham, J.K., Healy, S. and Horvath, G. (1998) Imagining and Enacting Non-Capitalist Futures, Rethinking Economy Project Working Paper no.1 www.arts.monash.edu.au/projects/cep/knowledges/byrne.html

Buck, E. (2009) The flow of experiencing in anarchic economies. in R. Amster, A. DeLeon, L.A., Fernandez, A. Nocella and D. Shannon (ed) Contemporary : an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy. London: Routledge.57-69

Critichley The Anarchist Turn: London. Pluto Press. pp 9-34

Critchley, S. (2013) Introduction in J. Blumenfeld J, C. Bottici and CS. Critichley The Anarchist Turn: London. Pluto Press. pp 1-6

Cumbers, A. (2012) Reclaiming Public Ownership. Zed Books: London de Cleyre, V. (2011) Anarchism and American Traditions in A.J. Brigati The Voltarairine de Cleyre Reader. Edinburgh: AK Press. de La Boetie, (1911 [2010]) Letter to in G. Kuhn (ed) Gustav Landauer, Revolution and other writings: a political reader. Oakland: PM Press.

EUROSTAT (2013) Unemployment statistics. (available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics [last accessed 03.09.2013])

Eva, F. (2012) Caging/ Self-Caging: Materiality and memes as tools for geopolitical analysis, Vol. 5 (2) pp. 1-14.

Gaarder, E. (2010) 'Addressing violence against women' in R. Amster, A. DeLeon, L.A., Fernandez, A. Nocella and D. Shannon (ed) Contemporary Anarchist studies: an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy. London: Routledge. pp. 46-56. 19 Gibson-Graham JK (2006) The end of capitalism (as we knew it) A feminist critique of political economy: with a new introduction. University of Minnesota: Minnesota Press

Gibson-Graham JK (no date) A diverse economy: rethinking economy and economic representation. (available at http://transformationcentral.org/solidarity/solidaritydocuments/diverseeconomies.pdf [last accessed 05.09.2012])

Goodman, 1962 [2011]) Reflections on Drawing the Line. In T. Stoehr (ed) The Paul Goodman Reader, Oakland: PM Press.

Goodman, P (1966 [2011]) The Anarchist Principle in T. Stoehr (ed) The Paul Goodman Reader, Oakland: PM Press.

Hodkinson, S. (2012) The return of the housing question http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4hodkinson.pdf

Kinna, R (2003) Anarchism. Oxford: One World Publications.

Landauer, G. (1910 [2010]) in G. Kuhn (ed) Gustav Landauer: Revolution and other writings: a political reader. Oakfield: PM Press.

Lee, N, Sissons, P and Jones K (2013) Wage inequality and employment polarisation in British cities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York. (http://www.theworkfoundation.com/DownloadPublication/Report/334_Wage%20inequality %20and%20employment%20polarisation%20in%20British%20cities%20FINAL.pdf available at [last accessed 03.09.2013])

Maciag, M. (2013) How rare are municipal bankruptcies? Governing: The States and Localities, 24 January 2013. (available at: http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/municipal- bankruptcy-rate-and-state-law-limitations.html [last accessed 02.09.2014])

Pahl, R.E. (1984) Divisions of Labour, Blackwell: Oxford

Posey, J. (2011) 'The local economy movement: An alternative to neoliberalism?', Forum for Social Economics, 40(3), 299-312.

Proudhon (1923) General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson London: Freedom Press.

Rushe, D. (2013) Detroit becomes largest US city to file for bankruptcy in historic 'low point'. The Guardian 18.07.2013 ([available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/18/detroit- formally-files-bankruptcy?guni=Article:in%20body%20link last accessed 02.09.2013])

Shukaitis, S. (2010) 'An ethnography of nowhere: notes toward a re-envisioning of utopian thinking' N. J. Jun and S. Wahl. New Perspectives on Anarchism. Plymouth: Lexington Books 303- 311.

Shukaitis, S. (2010) 'Infrapolitics and the nomadic educational machine. R. Amster, A. DeLeon, L.A., Fernandez, A. Nocella and D. Shannon (ed) Contemporary Anarchist studies: an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy. London: Routledge. 103-124.

20 Springer, S. (forthcoming 2014) Why a radical geography must be anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geography.

State of Michigan (2013) Detroit's Financial Ctisis: What You Need to KNow (available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/detroitcantwait/DetroitFactSheet_412909_7.pdf ([last accessed 02.09.2013])

Stoehr, T. (2011) Introduction in T.Stoehr (ed) The Paul Goodman reader, Oakland: PM Press.

Trussel Trust (2013) UK Foodbanks. (available at http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects [last accessed 03.09.2013])

Wakefield, S. (2013) Reiner Schurmann's faultline topology and the anthropocene. in J. Blumenfeld J, C. Bottici and CS. Critichley The Anarchist Turn: London. Pluto Press. pp 172-184

Ward, C. (1976) Housing: an anarchist approach. London: Freedom Press

Ward C (1982) Anarchy in Action. London: Aldgate Press White, RJ (2011) Re-visiting the barriers to participation in mutual aid. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol 31, Issue 9/10. pp. 392-410.

White, RJ (2009) Explaining why the non-commodified sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in the advance economies: some case study evidence from an English city. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol 29, 9/10, pp. 457-472 White, RJ and Williams, CC (2010) Re-thinking monetary exchange: some lessons from England. Review of Social Economy,Vol.68, Issue 3, pp.317-338

Williams, CC (2009a) Geographical variations in the nature of community engagement: a total social organization of labour approach, Community Development Journal, Vol 46, 2, 213-228. Williams, C.C. (2009b) Beyond the market/ non-market divide: a total social organisation of labour perspective, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 37, No.6: pp. 402- 414).

Williams, C.C. (2010) Geographical variations in informal work in contemporary England. In E. Marcelli, C.C. Williams and P. Joassart. Informal Work in Developed Nations. Abingdon: Oxford. pp. 97-113

Williams, C.C. and Windebank (2002) The uneven geographies of informal economic activities: a case study of two British cities, Work, Employment and Society, 16(2), pp. 231-250.

Williams, C.C. (2004) Rethinking the 'Economy' and Uneven Development: Spatial Disparities in Household Coping Capabilities in Contemporary England, Regional Studies, Vol. 38 (5), pp. 507-518.

21 Williams, D.M. (2010) 'An anarchist-sociologist research program'. in N. J. Jun and S. Wahl. "New Perspectives on anarchism. Plymouth: Lexington Books 243-266.

BIBLIOGRAPHY http://csp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/3.full.pdf+html

22