Notes Towards Autonomous Geographies: Creation, Resistance and Self-Management As Survival Tactics Jenny Pickerill1* and Paul Chatterton2

Home , Autonomous Action, Movement of 1977

Progress in Human Geography 30, 6 (2006) pp. 1–17

Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics Jenny Pickerill1* and Paul Chatterton2

1Department of Geography, Leicester University, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK 2Department of Geography, Leeds University, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Abstract: This paper’s focus is what we call ‘autonomous geographies’ – spaces where there is a desire to constitute non-capitalist, collective forms of politics, identity and citizenship. These are created through a combination of resistance and creation, and a questioning and challenging of dominant laws and social norms. The concept of autonomy permits a better understanding of activists’ aims, practices and achievements in alter-globalization movements. We explore how autonomous geographies are multiscalar strategies that weave together spaces and times, constituting in-between and overlapping spaces, blending resistance and creation, and combining theory and practice. We flesh out two examples of how autonomous geographies are made through collective decision-making and autonomous social centres. Autonomous geographies provide a useful toolkit for understanding how spectacular protest and everyday life are combined to brew workable alternatives to life beyond capitalism.

Key words: activism, alternative spaces, autonomy, creation, everyday life, interstitial, localization, resistance.

I Introduction increasingly employed by anti-capitalist This paper is about what we call activists such as the Wombles, Disobidientis ‘autonomous geographies’ – those spaces and Dissent! to structure and articulate their where people desire to constitute non- practices and aims. At the same time, a rein- capitalist, egalitarian and solidaristic forms of vigoration and reinterpretation of autonomist political, social, and economic organization Marxism has provided a pathway towards a through a combination of resistance and cre- more socially just society (Cleaver, 1979; ation. Inspired by groups such as the Mexican Katsiaficas, 1997; Hardt and Negri, 2000; Zapatistas, the concept of autonomy is being 2005; Wright, 2002).

*Author for correspondence. Email: [email protected]

We have coined the term ‘autonomous seeks to challenge, disrupt, and reimagine our geographies’ as part of a substantive and lin- understandings of political, economic and guistic intervention, responding to multiple cultural processes (Featherstone, 2003). crises. We make no excuses for this; calling Alter-globalization is the preferred term as it forth autonomy does not simply lead to con- emphasizes anti-capitalist and social justice crete solutions to change the world. Nor is movements’ creativity, celebrating the move- the term a panacea; to offer it as such would ment’s transnationality and their solidarity sustain the problems of blueprints which networks. This multiscalar and multifaceted plague the contemporary world. However, activism manifests itself through global and autonomous geographies are part of a vocab- regional convergences (such as People’s ulary of urgency, hope and inspiration, a call Global Action meetings or large-scale demon- to action that we can dismantle wage labour, strations coinciding with ministerial meetings the oil economy, or representative democ- of the G8, the World Trade Organization or racy, and that thousands of capable and the European Union), through localized workable micro-examples exist. A focus on autonomous spaces and alternative processes autonomy is simultaneously a documentation (such as social centres, eco-villages, alterna- of where we are, and a projection of where tive currencies, food production, housing we could be. As a narrative of realism and cooperatives and self-education), and experi- idealism, this paper – and our research – is an ments in non-hierarchical organization and attempt to document radical and workable consensus-based decision-making. Most ‘futures in the present’ (Cleaver, 1993) and importantly, we explore the role of everyday to find escape routes out of this capitalist practices in these movements’ constitution, existence (Gibson-Graham, 1996). as they work alongside – indeed comprise The paper’s objectives are threefold. First, vital building blocks for – mass protests. in order to understand autonomy’s impor- Second, a growing critique of movements’ tance, we need to explore its usage, meanings failure to suggest, or indeed deliver, workable and widespread practices in activists’ every- alternatives stems from autonomous activists’ day activities. Second, we discuss how reluctance to build permanent organizations, autonomy can facilitate a more nuanced formulate strategies, or adopt traditional understanding of anti-capitalist movements. representative structures. Hence, the Finally, a politics of hope infuses this paper; mainstream media often treat them making autonomous geographies comprises inaccurately, seeking the familiarity of spokes- important moments of resistance. people, manifestos and organizational Autonomous practices have already resulted coherence. Some scholars have also critiqued in real changes for some participants – for their localization, arguing that local responses example, social centres’ provision of space are inadequate to challenge globalization and food, and survival strategies in Argentina (Bauman, 2002; Peck and Tickell, 2002; (Chatterton, 2005). Beyond examples of Cameron and Palan, 2004). To clarify, we pro- success, we look further than constrained pose to use the concept of autonomous geog- pragmatic visions and ‘interrupt space and raphies to understand alter-globalization time . . . to open up perspectives on what movements as a progressive politics, not might be’ (Pinder, 2002: 229). grounded through a particular spatial strategy Our focus on autonomy is an attempt to but as a relational and contextual entity clarify what can seem a diffuse concept, and a drawing together resistance, creation and way to explore the materialization of utopian solidarity across multiple times and places. visions. First, autonomy has become one of We begin by defining autonomy. First, the hallmarks of varied activism, forming part autonomy is a contextual and situated ten- of the alter-globalization movement which dency which has many trajectories. We are Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 3 concerned with movements that seek free- heteronomy). Hence, we are unashamedly dom and connection beyond nation states, commentators on – and also embedded par- international financial institutions, global cor- ticipants within – autonomous projects. Our porations and neoliberalism – what we might encounters are as academic-activists, under- otherwise call global anti-capitalism. Second, taking embedded or participatory forms of autonomy is a sociospatial strategy, in which action research which are empathic and inter- complex networks and relations are woven active rather than extractive and objective between many autonomous projects across (see Pain, 2003). This contact, however, does time and space, with potential for translocal not blind us to activism’s limitations; in fact solidarity networks. Third, the interstitial some of the strongest critiques have emerged nature of autonomy means the lack of an ‘out from within such movements.1 there’ from which to build autonomy, hence creating a constant interplay between auton- II Defining autonomy omy and non-autonomy tendencies. Fourth, The word ‘autonomous’ comes from the autonomy is resistance and creation, a Greek autos-nomos, meaning ‘self-legislation’. tendency that proposes but also refuses. It shares many similarities with anarchism, Finally, autonomy is praxis, a commitment to meaning ‘without government’. Together the revolution of the everyday. A necessary they combine to make a powerful toolkit for rejection of routes to power means a faith in social and environmental justice politics (see collective process, non-hierarchical decision- Joll, 1979; Kumar, 1987; Cook and Pepper, making and mutual aid. In the second part of 1990; Marshall, 1992; Bookchin, 1996; Blunt the paper, we look at how autonomy is made and Wills, 2000; Sheehan, 2003; Berkmann, and remade by activists in two examples 2003). In this section, we examine autonomy (decision-making structures at a recent in five main ways: as a concept comprising convergence space; autonomous social different tendencies and trajectories; as a centres). We conclude by considering the temporal-spatial strategy between and power and limitations of autonomy and ask beyond the ‘global versus local’axis; as a form ‘to what extent can autonomous geographies of interstitial politics; as a process of resist- challenge everyday realities of capitalist ways ance and creation; and as a coherent attempt of organizing society?’ at praxis with its strong sense of prefigurative The inspiration for this piece has been per- politics and commitment to the revolution of sonal, political and academic (Chatterton, the everyday. 2002; Chatterton and Hollands, 2003; Pickerill, 2003a; 2003b; 2004; Gordon and 1 Autonomies: tendencies and trajectories Chatterton, 2004; Chatterton, 2005). A Autonomy is moveable, historically specific, strong body of geographical work has sought highly contextual and contested and used to to be socially relevant and pursue participa- pursue a variety of ends and ideologies tory and ethical approaches, often beyond (Brown, 1992). It has been variably used within the academy (Blomley, 1994; Kitchen and traditions of autonomous Marxism, social Hubbard, 1999; Cloke, 2002; Pain, 2003). anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, regional sepa- We are closely embedded in a number of ratism, national socialism, anarcho-primitivism, activist groups (in particular a social centre in Zapatismo, ecologism and anti-capitalism. Leeds called The Common Place, Dissent! a Such flexibility in usage and interpretation network of Resistance against the G8, as well makes it a dangerously fuzzy concept. as an ecological land project, and a housing Autonomy can better understood by consider- cooperative), which represent these difficult ing these tensions in depth, and making a claim moments of negotiating between tendencies for the validity and normative worth of certain towards autonomy and non-autonomy (or tendencies over others. 4 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management

The individual-collective dichotomy is a devolution and autonomy have found their key tension. In the first case, autonomy can way into mainstream government and com- be seen as the free-floating disconnected indi- munity policy debates (in the UK, see, for vidual with highly egoistic desires, tendencies example, the Future Foundation Group, the enshrined in classic, eighteenth-century liber- New Economics Foundation, and DEMOS). alism and based upon nation states’ sovereign More worryingly, autonomy is often rights and market interactions between asserted in reinvigorating nationalisms rational, autonomous and self-interested indi- (Rupert, 2003). Separatist, insurrectionary viduals. Such individual autonomy is promi- and fundamentalist groups may lay claim nent in modern-day consumer societies, to autonomy as a means of gaining where autonomy is stripped down to con- absolute control over territory, resources and sumer choice or the practices and discourses populations, often using violence. Such of highly individualized capitalist entrepre- groups include terrorist networks, Islamic neurs whose aims are to reduce government fundamentalist groups such as Hamas or legislations in order to make money (see western proto-revolutionary groups such as Ruggie, 2004). Unrestrained capitalism, then, the Weather Underground, Symbionese is itself a quest for autonomy. However, in the Liberation Army, Bader Meinhoff in second case, autonomy is a collective project, Germany and the Angry Brigade in the UK. fulfilled only through reciprocal and mutually The contemporary USA also sees a far-right agreed relations with others. Ideas of collec- anti-state tendency that seeks to assert its tivism and mutuality are key, emerging as autonomy through non-payment of taxes. strong currents in nineteenth-century anar- Moreover, there are varying definitions chist notions through thinkers such as Peter of autonomy from within the varied alter- Kropotkin (1987) who sought to prove that globalization movement, including non- the dominant tendency in human relations governmental organizations (NGOs), direct was cooperation not competition, and Pierre action, peace and anti-fascist groups, Joseph Proudhon and Michel Bakunin who Trotskyite parties and organizations such as envisaged autonomous individuals living Workers Power and Globalise Resistance, as freely and trading within a federation of well as by national-socialist governments communities (Joll, 1979; Marshall, 1992). such as Chavez’s Venezuela and universalist Some of the concrete differences in usages humanitarian movements such as the World and contexts are worth expanding upon. Social Forum (Starr and Adams, 2003). First, the project of autonomy as self-rule is While some of these groups and movements not simply the terrain of confrontational or have a commitment to non-hierarchical utopian politics. Various causes have enlisted organizing, many remain embedded in organ- it to renew participation in market democra- ized party socialism or vertical institutional cies, where it is also associated with devolu- structures and hence have been criticized for tion or subsidiarity where the individual or the their continuing use of hierarchical decision- local/regional level seeks greater power from making, secrecy and closure (Sen et al., 2004). the bureaucratic centre (Wolman and This brings us to what we define as the core Goldsmith, 1990; Clark, 1984). More cooper- values of autonomous geographies which will ative versions of capitalism – Thrift’s ‘soft inform this paper. Castoriadis’(1991) conceptu- capitalism’ (1998) – attempt to re-embed the alization showed that the autonomy project’s market into community structures and individual and collective aspects are highly make corporations more accountable to interrelated, when it is regarded as a project of civil society. Hence, ideas of localism, the renewal of democracy. Individual auton- self-management, the cooperative or soli- omy implies individuals’ capacity to make darity/economy, sustainable communities, choices in freedom, while collective autonomy Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 5 implies a given society’s or group’s self-rule Callinicos, 2003; Kingsnorth, 2003). Many through the freedom of its institutions and groups have taken on an explicit autonomy equal participation in institutions. These inter- agenda to maintain a non-aligned and con- relations are vital. As de Souza (2000: 189) frontational attitude and distance themselves notes, ‘strong individual autonomy in a proper from reformist elements in the anti-capitalist sense will be a fiction . . . in a society which is movement. As a result, direct democracy and characterised by structural asymmetry in the spokecouncils are widespread tools in today’s distribution of power’. Castoriadis rightly peace, ecological and anarchist movements. understood that the individual would never Self-management and voluntary organization be free within the confines of capitalism, is central within the housing cooperative and authoritarian socialism or representative eco-village movement. Urban social centres democracy. This project of simultaneous col- have taken on issues of gentrification and pri- lective and individual autonomy as a tool for vatization, while ecological direct activists and renewing democracy is defined through per- summit siege activists at Seattle, Genoa and sonal freedom, a mistrust of power and a Cancun have shown the validity and successes rejection of hierarchy, and the advocacy of of civil disobedience. We can also point to the self-management, decentralized and voluntary Wombles (White Overall Movement Building organization, direct action and radical change. Libertarian Effective Struggles) in the UK and Several groups define these tendencies, the Disobidienti in Italy, while groups like many taking their cue from Italian autonomism Earth First! highlight the need to confront and the autonomous Marxism tradition. industrial capitalism directly. The most inspir- Groups such as Autonomia Operaio (Workers’ ing autonomy project versions come from Autonomy), Potere Operaio (Workers’ struggles in the majority world, best captured Power) and Lotta Continua (The Struggle by Argentina’s Piqueteros, and the Zapatistas Continues) extended the struggle from the in Chiapas state, Mexico. In the latter, factory to the wider city, focusing on commu- autonomous municipalities and direct democ- nity and working-class struggles and helping to racy have been established, along with an spark countless strikes, factory occupations, autonomous infrastructure of health, educa- sabotages and squats (Lotringer and Marazzi, tion and production. Zapatista self-rule is dis- 1980; Wright, 2002). The movement of 1977 tinguished by a commitment to openness, full was the apogee of Italian autonomy, promot- participation and desire for others to experi- ing experiments in class confrontation such ment, without making exclusive claims on the as squatting, looting and pirate radio. The governance of the Mexican nation state. Situationist International – along with a range To specify our conceptualization then, we of other groups involved in the May 1968 upris- agree with Carmen’s (1996) suggestion that ings – provide a key backdrop for today’s autonomy rests on four pillars: political owner- autonomous struggles. The Situationists ship and control; cultural and media literacy; demanded that an insurrectionary imagination the self-determination of organizational forms; be brought into everyday life, challenging the and economic self-reliance. Katsiaficas (1997) contradictions which shape society and replac- goes further by outlining several principles ing it with a sense of a possible immediate which have defined European autonomous revolution (for example Vaneigem, 1979). movements: collectivism; independence from Today’s alter-globalization activists con- political parties, trade unions and capital circu- tinue this tradition, by combining attacks on lation; popular power, self-determination and corporate globalization with proposals for decentralized direct democracy; consensus- everyday alternatives (for example, Cockburn based decision-making (or horizontality); and St Clair, 2000; Duffuor and Bové, 2001; diversity and pluralism; the revolution of the Houtart and Polet, 2001; Schalit, 2002; everyday; internationalism; and conscious 6 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management spontaneity, militancy and confrontation as As Castells (1983) argues, through such tactics. This freedom with connection – con- interventions we become ‘auteurs’ of our frontation with proposition – is key, the core own geographies; these are Lefebvre’s repre- principle informing autonomous geographies. sentational, or directly lived, spaces. The struggle to represent and promote these pop- 2 Autonomy as a temporal-spatial strategy: ular histories is nothing new. Hence, auton- between and beyond globalization-localization omy is a temporal strategy – a struggle against To understand the quest for autonomy, there amnesia, of not forgetting the successes and needs to be a more nuanced understanding of failures of past struggles (Featherstone, what activists are seeking to attain in relation to 2005). Collecting, preserving and talking globalization (especially corporate globaliza- about collective memories of previous strug- tion). As well as a material reality, globalization gles across times and spaces is the lifeblood of is a narrative, a mediated discourse constructed autonomy, providing sociospatial reference from multiple stories (Gibson-Graham, 1996), points for projecting autonomous visions into which is attractive due to its appearance as a the present and future. plausible explanation and a clear image of the Many autonomous campaigns are future, where globalization is inexorable and grounded in particular places and (re)localiza- the only option for action is to adapt and react tion is a strong thread of such struggles to it. Thus the theories of globalization are (Schumacher, 1972; Douthwaite, 1996; understood as ‘common sense’. Moreover, the Mander and Goldsmith; 1996; Hines, 2000). ‘labour of representation’(Bourdieu, 1991: 243) For many groups, especially those in the ‘through constant repetition in daily practice, global south, the harsh realities of neoliberal serve[s] to reinforce narratives of ‘normal’glob- economies are strong justifications for a alization’(Cameron and Palan, 2004: 85) at the place-bounded, and often exclusionary, desire everyday level. Mundane acts, such as ‘using for self-rule and legislation (Reynolds, 1989; credit cards, accessing the Internet, investing in Escobar, 1995; Yunupingu, 1997). When the stock markets, buying “global” branded prod- current phase of capitalist growth is predi- ucts, consuming global “lifestyles” . . . ulti- cated on dispossessing people, often by force, mately produce the “reality” of globalization from control over previously unexploited itself ’ (p. 86). resources (Harvey, 2003), autonomy con- However, there are always counternarra- cerns reclaiming land and dignity for survival, tives (Escobar, 2001). By acknowledging the identity and history-making. discursive construction of economic neoliberal Participants in autonomous place politics globalization, an instability appears that per- are acutely aware of the local’s limitations as mits the construction of alternative narratives. an arena for struggle. Whether in terms of a By recognizing that actions serve to constitute misplaced nostalgia for ‘nationalist’ capitalism globalization’s ‘reality’, we can begin to chal- or a ‘community’ (Bauman, 2002), being sep- lenge globalization through changing everyday arated from the wider world can equate to practices. Autonomous geographies are part being marginalized as outsiders, being viewed of the constitution of other realities, creating as disengaged, unrealistic or naïve, and as what Harvey terms ‘spaces of hope’ which leaving capitalism unchanged and unchal- can lead to creative futures: lenged. However, autonomous projects are never just of the here and now. Featherstone There is a time and place in the ceaseless (2005) discusses how local militant particu- human endeavour to change the world, when larisms are not simply locally bounded and alternative visions, no matter how fantastic, provide the grist for shaping powerful political then networked globally, but from the start forces for change. I believe we are precisely at are a product of mobile transnational, or such a moment. (Harvey, 2001: 195) extra-local, geographies of resistance and Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 7 solidarity. To suggest that resistance is either powerful and inflict harm. Hence, some local or global closes us to the creative inter- places, processes and flows need to be dele- connections that fuels resistance movements, gitimized, countered and reduced, while oth- being facilitated through numerous flows ers are relegitimized and promoted. Following (speaker tours, visits and exchanges between Massey (2004b), a politics of autonomous activists, conferences, meetings and conver- geographies does not concern linear progres- gence gatherings, or information from the sion towards some desired place-bound internet, zines and magazines). Gatherings utopia or equilibrium, but an obligation to and convergence spaces (Routledge, 2003) recognize co-existence, negotiations and are used explicitly to allow individual and conflict. Autonomous geographies are group networking to share and build ideas and ‘entanglements and configurations of multiple tactics. Autonomous practices are not dis- trajectories, multiple histories’ (Massey, crete localities, but networked and connected 2004b: 148). spaces, part of broader transnational net- Yet it is more than a sense of multiplicity or work, where extra-local connections are vital negotiation. Autonomous geographies entail social building blocks. Escobar (2001) terms both conflict and proposition, and clearly such practices ‘multi-scale, network- these occur in every place. Swyngedouw’s orientated strategies of localization’ (p. 139) (1997) discussion of ‘glocalisation’ suggests and the ‘supra-place effects of place-based practices of resistance are orientated around politics’(p. 142). Through autonomous action networks of global solidarity. The use of the we can forge new identities, which can internet, prevalent in alter-globalization rebuild solidarities and teach about the multi- movements, serves to reinforce the connec- scalar workings of economic globalization. tivity and ‘cross-appropriation’ of placed- For example, squatting a building leads to a based practices (Pickerill, 2003b): greater awareness of national-global property It is no longer the case, as neoliberal globalizers speculation or how the state marshals foot- would have it, that one can only contest loose investment, while a local campaign dispossession and argue for equality from the against school closure can unravel global perspective of inclusion into the dominant agreements on privatization and tradable culture and economy. In fact, the opposite is becoming the case: the position of difference services. Locally grounded autonomous proj- and autonomy is becoming valid, if not more, ects allow an unpacking of the power working for this contestation. (Escobar, 2001: 169) at different levels through governments, corporations and local elites, and the building of Autonomous geographies are part of a web extra-local solidarity and resistance. of stories and lessons across the world and In this respect, an autonomous politics of other periods of history, inspiring people to place is not a mere privileging or protecting of act for themselves in their locality. the local as authors such as Escobar (2001) Participants are active in extra-local net- sometimes suggest. As Massey (2004a) com- works through solidarity with globally distrib- ments, developing a nuanced ‘geography of uted groups through actions, fund-raising, responsibility’requires a more complex, nego- awareness-raising, information-sharing and tiated sense of place, moving away from a skill-sharing, or through virtual organizing sense of a fixed globality (Dirlik, 2000) or networks, which facilitate extra-local locality, towards an appreciation of the count- communication. less times and spaces which are the building blocks of both. Overcoming the oversimpli- 3 Autonomy and interstitiality fied global-bad, local-good dichotomy means Autonomous spaces are an incomplete ter- appreciating that, while some local places are rain where daily struggles are made and vulnerable and worth protecting, others are remade, both symbolically and materially, and 8 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management where people live by their beliefs and face tions with the family, workplace, consumer contradictions from living between worlds – society, institutions and the state that impose the actually existing and the hoped for. a series of compromises. These negotiations Activists, ‘in their day-to-day activism show a are manifest in everyday ‘realities’ such as pragmatism and a reflexivity of purpose as to paying rent, finding work, negotiating the what is feasible’(Purkis, 1996: 212). Although benefits system and government legislation, autonomy by necessity occurs in a locality, it to depending on corporate controlled goods, is not the transformation of the locality which services and information, or being monitored is of paramount importance, but the ten- and surveyed. For many people, such bound- dency towards autonomy which has the aries create a sense of living between worlds: potential for multiscalar change. DeFilippis the one they are struggling against and the notes that: one they are trying to achieve. Moreover, the peaks and troughs between we need to understand autonomy as a form of power and that autonomy is therefore a periods of intense activity during demonstra- relational construct . . . autonomy is not a tions/actions and more mundane movement- discrete commodity that is possessed or not building locally also create a sense of possessed, by individuals or localities. Instead in-betweenness, unreality and disorienta- autonomy is a set of power relations. tion. During periods of latency, solidarities, (DeFilippis, 2004: 29 and 24) identities and communities are formed and If autonomy is a ‘set of power relations’, a sustained through submerged networks relational tendency rather than a possession, (Melucci, 1996; Tarrow, 1998). In these then there no clear boundaries between spaces of latency, activists translate ideas into autonomous and non-autonomous processes action. While they have to engage with wider and space exist. Rather there is a constant politics to realize their goals, they also recog- negotiation between competing tendencies nize the ‘importance of acting for the present’ towards autonomy and non-autonomy (or (Melucci, 1996: 213). The affirmation of ideas heteronomy). Autonomy is necessarily an combined with action (or praxis) of prefigura- emergent, and in many cases residual, prop- tive politics, permits autonomous groups to erty within – and often against – a dominant make ‘the future begin’ (Jordan, 2002: 74), order, a desire rather than an existing state of through an embedding of micropolitical tac- being. tics (de Certeau, 1988; Creswell, 1996; Pile Thus there is no ‘out there’ external to and Keith, 1997; Sharp et al., 2000). capital relations from which to build an autonomous politics. New worlds are con- 4 Resistance and creation stantly built in the ashes of the old, although Central to autonomy is an explosive combi- the conditions for facilitating this building con- nation of making protest part of everyday life, stantly change. Mann (1986) refers to these but also making life into workable alternatives as ‘interstitial locations’ where new forms are for a wider social good. Autonomous geogra- constituted, experienced and practised. phies are thus about exploring the practicali- Autonomous projects’ realpolitik is their exis- ties of multiscalar influence – of building a tence in a global capitalist economy where broader oppositional politics through multiple profit, a wage economy and the corporate strategies beginning by enacting change in control of goods and services prevail. Hence, everyday lives. In practice a fusion of the tendency for autonomy is always con- moments of protest, intensity and transgres- tested and fractured, contradictory and over- sion (such as attending summit mobilizations, lapping. On a practical level, there are the subterranean networks and collective constant and multiple negotiations between actions of protest camps, squatting buildings, those seeking autonomy and their interac- occupying workplaces, or blocking roads) Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 9 with more mundane activities (such as facili- but at least it is the path we have chosen to tating meetings, skills sharing, communal take’. Autonomous geographies are based cooking, collective education, or running a around a belief in prefigurative politics local food cooperative) occurs. Autonomy (summed up by the phrase ‘be the change you projects destroy and propose, resist and cre- want to see’), that change is possible through ate. Refusing an ‘instituted social hetero- an accumulation of small changes, providing nomy’– the institutions, norms and laws from much-needed hope against a feeling of pow- distant others (religion, the family, or the erlessness. Part of this is the belief in ‘doing it state) which limit autonomy (Castoriadis, yourself ’(see McKay, 1998) or creating work- 1991: 150) – becomes an act of creation, evok- able alternatives outside the state. Many ing different forms of power. Hardt and Negri examples have flourished embracing ecologi- (2000) talk about the tactics of desertion, cal direct action, free parties and the rave exodus and nomadism, where we turn our scene, squatting and social centres, and open- backs on institutionalized power and build source software and independent media counterpowers from our own resources. (Wall, 1999; Seel et al., 2000; Plows, 2002; Peak moments of resistance rest upon the Chatterton and Hollands, 2003; Pickerill, often hidden but vital support structures 2003a; 2006). Resources are creatively where resistance is defined and planned, and reused, skills shared, and popular or participa- everyday alternatives are put into practice. tory education techniques deployed, aiming Autonomous convergence spaces created at to develop a critical consciousness, political recent summit events for activists to meet, and media literacy and clear ethical judge- plan resistance and create exemplify this, ments (Freire, 1979). such as in mobilizations against the G8 sum- In the terrain opened up by the failure of mits in Evian (France, 2003) and Gleneagles state-based and ‘actually existing socialism’, (Scotland, 2005). Here autonomous neigh- autonomy allows a rethinking of the idea of bourhoods were created temporarily as a liv- revolution – not about seizing the state’s ing alternative to capitalism (providing cheap power but, as Holloway (2002) argues, food and accommodation, alternative tech- ‘changing the world without taking power’ nology, collective decision-making, site secu- (Vaneigem, 1979). Autonomy does not mean rity and free communications and information an absence of structure or order, but the access), and as spaces to plan resistance. rejection of a government that demands obe- dience (Castoriadis, 1991). Examples of post- 5 Praxis and the revolution of everyday life capitalist ways of living are already part of the In essence, autonomy is a coming together of present (Gibson-Graham, 1996). The docu- theory and practice, or praxis. Hence, it is not mentation of the ‘future in the present’ has solely an intellectual tool nor a guide for living; been a hallmark of work by anarchist, liber- it is a means and an end. Autonomous geog- tarian and radical scholars from Peter raphies represent the deed and the word, Kropotkin (1972) to Colin Ward (1989) and based around ongoing examples and experi- Murray Bookchin (1996). Their work looks for ments. Autonomous spaces are not spaces of tendencies that counter competition and con- deference to higher organizational levels such flict, providing alternative paths. Some of as non-governmental organizations, political these disappear, others survive, but the chal- representatives or trade union officials. They lenge remains to find them, encourage people are based around a belief that the process is as to articulate, expand and connect them. important as the outcome of resistance, that Autonomous projects face the accusation the journey is an end in itself. As the that, even if they do improve participants’ Zapatistas say: ‘we don’t know how long we quality of living, they fail to have a transfor- have to walk this path or if we will ever arrive, mative impact on the broader locality and 10 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management even less on the global capitalist system version of the future, where autonomous (DeFilippis, 2004). Consequently, in talking of visions link up multiple locations and become local resistance, Peck and Tickell (2002) sug- generalizable across space without recreating gest that ‘the defeat (or failure) of local the burden and violence of powerful organi- neoliberalisms – even strategically important zations. Using the concept of autonomous ones – will not be enough to topple what we geographies to analyse alter-globalization are still perhaps justified in calling “the sys- movements’ aims and processes permits an tem”’ (p. 401). However, commentators exploration how these networks deal with make the mistake of looking for signs of power. The necessity to rewrite the dominant emerging organizational coherence, political narratives and shift the ‘commonsense’ of leaders and a common programme that bids globalization is, of course, no easy task, as an for state power, when the rules of engage- alternative way of life cannot be easily imag- ment have changed. A plurality of voices is ined and the power and resources to ‘self- reframing the debate, changing the nature construct our own life narratives’ (Lash, and boundaries of what is taken as common 1994) are lacking. Yet a wealth of examples sense and creating workable solutions to exists, inviting others to experiment and erode the workings of market-based propose. economies in a host of, as yet, unknown ways. Rebecca Solnit’s writings on hope III Making autonomous geographies remind us that, while our actions’ effects are In this section, we explore two examples to difficult to calculate, ‘causes and effects begin to understand the practicalities of mak- assume history marches forward, but history ing autonomous geographies as examples of is not an army. It is a crab scuttling sideways, continuing experiments that speak of the suc- a drip of soft water wearing away stone’ cess and problems of enacting change through (Solnit, 2004: 4). autonomous practices. Crucially, their limita- The wider effects of autonomous spaces tions do not signal outright failure, but experi- and movements on localities’ culture, politics ences from which lessons can be drawn. and spatiality are difficult to gauge and to a large extent unknowable. Reflecting on 1 Reinventing political process: direct socialist and national governments’ abuses of democracy and horizontality power, many autonomous groups are reluc- The desire for autonomy is underpinned by a tant to use projects to create a counterpower reinvention and reinvigoration of political bloc, which can literally ‘take on’ corporate process, decision-making and communication and state power. As Holloway (2002) notes, through experimentation with particular taking over state power simply reproduces organizational principles such as direct that power, albeit with different leaders, and democracy, decentralization and consensus the ability to have ‘power over’ other groups. (Butler and Rothstein, 1988; Starhawk, 1988; More than a reluctance to take power, auton- Seeds for Change, 2003; Indymedia, 2003). omy is a commitment to freedom, non- Such principles speak clearly to the hallmarks hierarchy and connection and a desire of autonomy outlined above: they are flexible to eliminate (or reduce) power relations. tools which mutate between times and Connections across local and transnational, places; they are creative processes acting as creative networks of solidarity generate a building blocks for resistance; they are feeling of being powerful and not condemned embedded in reinvented everyday social rela- to neoliberalism (Cumbers and Routledge, tions, encouraging participants to communi- 2004: 819). cate more consensually; and they are Increasingly global networks for freedom interstitial, existing alongside other forms of and solidarity form an incomplete and plural political process. Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 11

The loose, ephemeral network form is key coordinated into ‘neighbourhoods’, similar to to autonomous practices (Castells, 1996; the ‘barrios’ used as convergence spaces dur- Notes from Nowhere, 2003). It has become ing the 2003 G8 summit in Evian, France. common to think not of a single movement, These neighbourhoods facilitated the site but of a ‘movement of movements’ (Mertes, visitors’ arrival, accommodation, feeding 2004), which – lacking a centre – makes them and orientation, helping to make connections difficult to control, monitor and police. Such and build affinity between individuals with principles are flexible tools rather than dog- few previous contacts. Each evening, the mas, and are used to guard against the forma- convergence space had a spokes-council, tion of hierarchies, leaders and centralization based around a ‘hub and spoke’ model of rep- of power. Practically, we can point to the use resentatives - ‘spokes’ from each neighbour- of affinity groups (based around the desire to hood forming a hub in the centre connected take action or organize in small groups sharing to all those they represent. The spokes- common goals and areas at a human scale), council considered and made decisions on spokes-councils (a federated structure of the proposals through conversations with each previous groups, offering proposals and mak- neighbourhood’s nominated ‘spoke’. The ing decisions at a wider level), and consensus spokes discussed each point through decision-making techniques (a rejection of iterations with their group and then took decision-making by majority voting, hierarchy information back to the neighbourhood for and committee in favour of techniques for further discussion. Meetings were facilitated reaching decisions by consensus) as examples by the facilitator, stacker, note-taker and of this organizational framework (Pickerill, ‘vibe’ watcher. Testing for consensus rather 2004). Such techniques became common- than majority voting was used for reaching place within resistance movements since the decisions. Through this process, decisions 1960s and are now widely used by the global involving over 1,000 people were made grassroots network People’s Global Action relatively quickly and effectively. (PGA) and activist networks in the UK such The whole site was an organic experiment as Rising Tide, Dissent! and Earth First!. in autonomous politics, and hence faced Similarly, those involved in alternative and many problems as well as successes. There independent media, such as IndyMedia, have were issues with the viability and attractive- developed non-hierarchical techniques for ness of the hori-zone. At its peak it only communication (Kidd, 2003; Pickerill, 2006). attracted 3,000 people, and its external Such techniques (like the collaborative web appearance placed it firmly within the subcul- page ‘Wikis’ used by social forums) allow tural activists’ ghetto. As a result, it was sub- wide participation and discussion on visions ject to negative stereotypes from the public and practical alternatives. and aggressive policing. In terms of decision- During the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles, making, the participatory processes were Scotland, a convergence space was formed unfamiliar and required more participant based upon such organizational principles. involvement than in their daily life. Hence, Named the ‘hori-zone’ (horizontal-zone), the the day-to-day running of the camp often fell space was intended to act as a living example to a small group of people. Further, while of horizontal politics through direct democ- consensus practices were deliberately aimed racy and without leaders, a living testimony at removing centres of power by removing to the feasibility of low-impact living and a hierarchies and employing facilitators, place to plan and carry out confrontational informal hierarchies still remained. These politics. Developed by working groups over could be gendered (for example machismo) several months, water, roads, food, safety, or are reflected in ghetto lifestyles that welcome, energy and structures were appear exclusionary to newcomers. 12 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management

The micro-scales of internal power relations they confined by restrictive present ways of were also important; without well-trained communicating such as mandated power and facilitators, certain individuals dominated dis- majority voting. cussions and decisions. A heightened awareness of internal power relations is necessary 2 Creating autonomous spaces: social for such spaces to run successfully. centres Finally, and most challenging, is the work Our second example, autonomous social cen- of political theorists such as Mouffe (2005) tres, illuminates the processes and practices who suggest that, rather than seek con- of making autonomy: they draw upon exam- sensus, difference should be celebrated. ples of resistance and solidarity from many Although establishing convergence spaces times and spaces. Being interstitial, they was an act of defiance (and a moment of incorporate the desire for autonomy as well antagonism) against the G8 agenda, activists as the realities of compromise with the state sought to reach consensus within the zone. and police. They are laboratories for resist- Mouffe argues such consensus is not only ance and creation, being ongoing forums for impossible to achieve, but politically obstruc- action and reflection or praxis. Times of radi- tive. In other words, when done well, consen- cal protests have often been ‘where space has sus enables activists to listen to others’ views been reclaimed, transformed and subverted’ and incorporate them in groups’ actions, but (Begg, 2000: 198). However, due to state when done poorly seeking consensus creates repression or a desire not to be recuperated, extremes and can marginalize – not accom- many such place experiments are – often modate – those with different views. Mouffe intentionally – limited and ephemeral (for calls for ‘agonistic pluralism’ (Mouffe, 2000) example, Bey, 1991). Other autonomous proj- whereby political structures are able to ects aim to be more permanent, offering accept that differences always occur in soci- ongoing experimentations with non-capitalist ety and seek to ‘appreciate the pluralistic ways of organizing social and economic life nature of the world’ (Mouffe, 2005: 115). If (Begg, 2000). Whereas earlier communes we create space for agonistic politics, antago- and cooperatives illustrated the negative con- nistic responses expressed in violence or sequences of isolation, recent spaces terrorism are less likely. In relation to acknowledge the power of interaction with autonomous activists, ‘the central question of society. The interstitial location of these democratic politics, the question which the spaces between worlds is one of their key anti-globalization movement needs urgently strengths, being able to survive and commu- to address [is] how to organize across differ- nicating ideas. Often difficult and marginal, ences so as to create a chain of equivalence spaces permit links and, however problemati- among democratic struggles’ (p. 113). Mouffe cally, bring disparate groups together. Spain, focuses her attention on the scale of world Germany, the Netherlands and Italy have order and concedes that consensus is at times been home to the most dramatic growth of necessary (albeit always accompanied by social centres (Ruggiero, 2000; Mudu, 2004). dissent). Since the 1960s, autonomous groups have Despite these problems, however, the very focused on the setting up social centres, usu- commitment to the process, as a utopian ally through squatting. Social centres have vision and a materialization of a desire for become the focus of struggles over the right something better, working through and evolv- to hold property in common and public own- ing the use of direct democracy and horizon- ership, the right to challenge wage labour and tality, offers the hope of creating the future in increasing productivity and the commercial- the present. Such processes do not defer to ization of free time, and the decline of free or the idea of a future revolution but neither are cheap services. Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 13

There is an ever-changing and growing list activities including a vegetarian kitchen, of rented, bought and squatted social centres cinema, bar, garden, community projects and in the UK, but the better-known ones include: gig space. the Basement in Manchester; the Cowley Again, we do not wish to suggest that Club in Brighton; the London Action such spaces are unproblematic or particularly Resource Centre (LARC); the Institute for stable. Given that there is no place outside Autonomy and 54A Resource Centre in the reach of capitalist relations, ‘new places’ London; the 1-in-12 Club in Bradford; the have to be created from within, through an Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh; Lancaster attempt – however complicated, contested Autonomous Resource centre; the Sumac and fractured – to alter and challenge every- Centre in Nottingham; and the Common day places. Within such ventures, many Place in Leeds. Many of these centres owe activists have felt compromised due to their precarious existence in high-cost central engagement with legislative requirements, areas to wealthy benefactors, the use of cen- bureaucratic red tape and the wage economy. tral government and lottery finding, and long- For example, fire-regulations infringements standing ethical property owners (such as temporarily closed the Common Place in church groups and the Ethical Property Leeds in 2005. Many alternative, resistant Company). A small group of active volun- groups are also accused of hypocrisy for selec- teers normally run the centre with more tive engagement with wage labour, com- occasional membership of several hundred. merce and consumerism. A recent pamphlet Each centre’s exact focus varies according to entitled ‘You can’t rent your way out of a the core group’s vision; some are more eco- social relationship’discussed how groups who logical, some more community-oriented, oth- let property to open social centres, as ers more connected to punk and anarchist opposed to squatters, are merely reproducing scenes. Cross-fertilization with other squat- the very values they seek to undermine. ter, traveller and direct-action groups exists, Continuing problems of internal hierarchies as well as a desire to make connections with (of knowledge and competence) and bound- local struggles in surrounding neighbour- aries of inclusion/exclusion exist within social hoods, around issues such as policing, asylum centres. Many participants are acutely aware and privatization. Activities vary but normally of outsiders’ perceptions. Do they appear as include affordable food and drink provision in ghettos that stop people from participating? the context of food politics (food miles, Are they really connected to everyday issues? veganism, organic), support for grassroots Is it easy for people to come and get involved? entertainment (film, music, spoken word), While no easy answers to these issues exist, media-lab based around independent journal- addressing them is the bedrock of making ism, meeting space for political groups, and a autonomy. Interstitial living can also be a resource centre with books/magazines. In the source of creativity, producing hybrid, flexible Common Place social centre, supported by and transient identities, challenging the norms one of the authors, a desire exists not just to we live by and creating potent new inter- build a physical space but to strengthen com- actions (Sibley, 1995; Hetherington, 1998; mon bonds of affinity and understanding. In Chatterton and Hollands, 2003). this sense, while the project has a limited life- span in any location, its longer significance is IV Conclusions the formation of a dense network of social We have argued for a need to re-examine the relations based around experimenting with practices of activists, specifically in their new decision-making methods, extended cri- everyday lives. Autonomy ‘opens up’ place to tiques of social and economic relations, and broader possibilities, as it is not about ‘anchor- self-management of not-for-profit accessible ing’ capital to place (Douthwaite, 1996) or 14 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management creating human-friendly capitalist economies, merely indicative of the broader societal rejec- but about making times and spaces for alter- tion of difference and the continued search for native visions. Thus, unlike an explicit and ‘like-minded’ communities? The key then is arguably restrictive focus on the ‘local’, it how these autonomous visions become linked offers the hope of connected and transforma- and generalizable without recreating exclu- tory practices. As DeFilippis (2004) notes, sions and power concentrations. these spaces and practices may be fractured, Many persistent differences in ideology incomplete and transitory, but if they can and strategy exist between those claiming improve the lives of participants they will be autonomy as a guiding principle, as illustrated better understood and repeated. It is disin- by the differences within the contemporary genuous to disregard such activities because anti-capitalist movement. Those seeking ‘no coherent oppositional position has devel- autonomy also face the very real issues of oped, no positive or very convincing alterna- embedded power in many areas of everyday tives have been formulated’ (Cameron and lives. Furthermore, few workable examples Palan, 2004: 41). To do so ignores such move- exist to be inspired by, an absence that weak- ments’heterogeneity, longevity and creativity ens their appeal compared to the relative and, more importantly, it misunderstands security of an adaptable capitalist system. It is participants’ aims and practices. difficult to sustain loyalty to an autonomous As we have established, autonomy is a politics which is nothing more than a ten- contextually and relationally grounded con- dency and may in all likelihood fail. Such cept in specific networks of social struggles visions require an openness of experimenta- and ideas across different times and spaces. tion, an acknowledged contestation and flux Autonomous geographies are not new, and which is ‘an approach toward, a movement each has its own important history which are beyond set limits into the realm of the not- increasingly replicated and imbued with new yet-set’ (Brammer, 1991: 7, emphasis in origi- meanings and practices. Autonomous geogra- nal). As the poet Antonio Machado said, we phies allow us to move beyond the dichotomy make the road by walking. We have to of global-bad, local-good. Hence, autonomy become accustomed to uncertainty, which is can be a tool for understanding how hybrid not a sign of failure as the search is not for and interstitial spaces are (re)made and meta-theory or new dogmas. Instead, the (re)constituted. So what of the concept’s util- way forward is through connecting with oth- ity theoretically and practically? Clearly, ers who are also experimenting with auton- autonomy is not a panacea, nor should it omy, and recovering a collective memory become a new blueprint. We have adopted based on past examples largely denied by offi- the term autonomous geographies to develop cial channels. The idea of autonomous geog- a theoretical vocabulary around urgency, hope raphies provides researchers, activists and the and inspiration. It is a plea for us to think our public with pieces of a toolkit for ongoing way out of multiple crises, and also a practical practical and theoretical engagements with call to action. Making autonomy is not easy or building a more socially, environmentally and unproblematic. Problems within the activist ethically just future. Moreover they provide community such as machismo, limited life- hope that ‘there are many alternatives’. spans, disengagement from local communities, illegality, and ghetto and political lifestyles Acknowledgements are difficult to shake off. There remain ques- We would like to thank Stuart Hodkinson, tions as to whether those engaged in auton- Angus Cameron, three anonymous review- omy recognize, challenge and overcome such ers, and participants at the 4th International issues. Indeed, are such autonomous spaces Critical Geographers Conference in Mexico Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 15

City, January 2005, for the constructive Brammer, A. 1991: Partial visions: feminism and utopi- comments on earlier versions of this paper anism in the 1970s. London: Routledge. and all of those worldwide struggling for a Brown, M.P. 1992: The possibility of local autonomy. Urban Geography 13, 257–79. more autonomous future. Butler, C.T. and Rothstein, A. 1988: On conﬂict and consensus: a handbook on formal consensus decisionmaking. Food Not Bombs Publishing. Available at http://www. Note consensus.net/ (last accessed 30 August 2006). 1 Anderson (2004) rightly notes that a speciﬁc Callinicos, A. 2003: An anti-capitalist manifesto. activist identity is enacted during environ- London: Polity Press. mental direct action, an identity which sets Cameron, A. and Palan, R. 2004: The imagined the activist-self apart from normal society economies of globalization. London: Sage. through particular spatial practices, moral Carmen, R. 1996: Autonomous development. London: Zed Books. codes and politico-cultural preferences. Castells, M. 1996: The rise of the network society. Collective identity is normally strengthened Oxford: Blackwell. through bonds of trust, loyalty and affection, — 1983: The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory as well as antipathy to non-members of urban social movements. London: Edward Arnold. (Goodwin et al., 2001). While an ‘activist Castoriadis, C. 1991: Philosophy, politics, autonomy: mentality’ sets activists apart as specialists in essays in political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford social change, the concept of ‘activist’ and University Press. their ‘other’ is far from simple as those Chatterton, P. 2002: ‘Squatting is still legal, necessary involved in autonomous projects represent and free’. A brief intervention in the corporate city. highly mobile, multilayered and contradictory Antipode 341, 1–7. — 2005: Making autonomous geographies: Argentina’s identities. Hence, the large grey area between popular uprising and the ‘Movimiento de Trabajadores the ontological extremes of activist and public Desocupados’ (Unemployed Workers Movement)’. suggests that the position of ‘non-activist’ Geoforum 36, 545–61. excludes and marginalizes a large majority Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. 2003: Urban (Halfacree, 2004), many of whom would nightscapes. Youth cultures, pleasure spaces and corpo- be sympathetic to autonomous projects’ rate power. London: Routledge. practices and politics. These more hybrid, Clark, G.L. 1984: A theory of local autonomy. Annals of contingent notions of self are used here. the Association of American Geographers 74, 195–208. Cleaver, H. 1979: Reading Capital politically. Brighton: Harvester. References — 1993: Kropotkin, self-valorization and the crisis of Anderson, J. 2004: The ties that bind? Self- and place- Marxism. Anarchist Studies 2(2). Available from identity in environmental direct action. Ethics, Place www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/Kropotkin. and Environment 7, 45–57. html (last accessed 30 August 2006). Bauman, Z. 2002: Society under siege. Cambridge: Cloke, P. 2002: Deliver us from evil? Prospects for living Polity Press. ethically and acting politically in human geography. Begg, A. 2000: Empowering the earth: strategies for social Progress in Human Geography 26, 587–604. change. Totnes, Devon: Green Books. Cockburn, A. and St Clair, J. 2000: Five days that Berkman, A. 2003: What is anarchism? London: AK shook the world: the battle for Seattle and beyond. New Press. York: Verso. Bey, H. 1991: The temporary autonomous zone, ontological Cook, I. and Pepper, D., editors 1990: Anarchism and anarchy, poetic terrorism. New York: Autonomedia. geography. Contemporary Issues in Geography and Blomley, N. 1994: Activism and the academy. Education 3(2). Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12, Creswell, T. 1996: In place, out of place. Geography, ide- 383–85. ology and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Blunt, A. and Wills, J. 2000: Dissident geographies. Minnesota Press. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Cumbers, A. and Routledge, P. 2004: Alternative geo- Bookchin, M. 1996: Social anarchism or lifestyle anar- graphical imaginations. Introduction. Antipode, chism: an unbridgeable chasm. Oakland, CA: AK Press. 818–29. Bourdieu, P. 1991: Language and symbolic power. de Certeau, M. 1988: The practice of everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 16 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management

DeFilippis, J. 2004: Unmaking Goliath: community con- Indymedia 2003: On conflict and consensus. The IMC – a trol in the face of capital mobility. London: Routledge. new model. Indymedia, in association with Hedonist de Souza, M. 2000: Urban development on the basis of Books. autonomy. Ethics, Place and Environment 3, 187–201. Joll, J. 1979: The anarchists. London: Methuen. Dirlik, A. 2000: Place-based imagination: globalism and Jordan, T. 2002: Activism! Direct action, hacktivism and the politics of place. In Dirlik, A., editor, Places and the future of society. London: Reaktion Books. politics in the age of globalization, New York: Rowman Katsiaficas, G. 1997: The subversion of politics: European and Littlefield. autonomous movements and the decolonization of Douthwaite, R.J. 1996: Short circuit: strengthening local everyday life. New York: Humanity Books. economies for security in an unstable world. Totnes, Kidd, D. 2003: Indymedia.org: a new communications Devon: Green Books. commons. In McCaughey, M. and Ayers, M., editors, Duffuor, F. and Bové, J. 2001: The world is not for sale. Cyberactivism: online activism in theory and practice. London: Verso. London: Routledge. Escobar, A. 1995: Encountering development: the making Kingsnorth, P. 2003: One no, many yeses: a journey to and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: the heart of the global resistance movement. London: Princeton University Press. Free Press. — 2001: Culture sits in places: reflection on globalism Kitchen, R. and Hubbard, P. 1999: Research, action and subaltern strategies of localization. Political and ‘critical’ geographies. Area 31, 195–98. Geography 20, 139–74. Kropotkin, P. 1972: Mutual aid: a factor of evolution. Featherstone, D. 2003: Spatialities of transnational London: Freedom. resistance to globalization: the maps of grievance of — 1987: Fields, factories and workshops tomorrow. the inter-continental caravan. Transactions of the London: Freedom. Institute of British Geographers NS 28, 404–21. Kumar, K. 1987: Utopia and anti-utopia in modern times. — 2005: Towards the relational construction of militant Oxford: Blackwell. particularisms: or why the geographies of past strug- Lash, S. 1994: Reflexivity and its doubles: structure, gles matter for resistance to neoliberal globalization. aesthetics, community. In Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Antipode 32, 250–71. Lash, S., editors, Reflexive modernization: politics, tra- Freire, P. 1979: The politics of education: culture, power, dition and aesthetics in the modern social order, and liberation. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. 1996: The end of capitalism as we Lotringer, S. and Marazzi, C., editors 1980: Italy: knew it. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. autonomia. Post political politics. Semiotexte 3(3). New Goodwin, J., Jasper, J. and Polletta, F., editors 2001: York: Columbia University. Passionate politics. Emotions and social movements. Mander, J. and Goldsmith, E., editors 1996: The case Chicago: Chicago University Press. against the global economy: and for a turn toward the Gordon, N. and Chatterton, P. 2004: Taking back con- local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. trol. A journey through Argentina’s popular uprising. Mann, M. 1986: The sources of social power, vol. 1. Leeds: University of Leeds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halfacree, K. 2004: ‘I could only do wrong’: academic Marshall, P. 1992: Demanding the impossible. A history of research and DIY culture. In Fuller, D. and Kitchin, R., anarchism. London: HarperCollins. editors, Radical theory/critical praxis: making a differ- Massey, D. 2004a: Geographies of responsibility. ence beyond the academy?, Vernon/Victoria, BC: Geografiska Annaler 86B, 5–18. Praxis (e)Press, 68–79. — 2004b: For space. London: Sage. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2000: Empire. London: McKay, G. 1998: DIY culture party and protest in nineties’ Harvard University Press. Britain. London: Verso. — 2005: Multitude. London: Hamish Hamilton. Melucci, A. 1996: Challenging codes: collective action in Harvey, D. 2001: Spaces of capital. Towards a critical the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. University Press. — 2003: The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Mertes, T. 2004: The movement of movements. A reader. University Press. London: Verso. Hetherington, K. 1998: Expressions of identity. Space, Mouffe, C. 2000: The democratic paradox. London: performance, politics. London: Sage. Verso. Hines, C. 2000: Localisation: a global manifesto. — 2005: On the political. London: Routledge London: Earthscan. Mudu, P. 2004: Resisting and challenging neoliberalism: Holloway, J. 2002: Change the world without taking the development of Italian social centres. Antipode power. London: Pluto. 36, 917–41. Houtart, F. and Polet, F. 2001: The other Davos: the Notes From Nowhere, editors 2003: We are every- globalization of resistance to the world economic where, the irresistible rise of anti capitalism. London: system. London: Zed Books, 7–16. Verso. Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton 17

Pain, R. 2003: Social geography: on action-oriented Schumacher, I. 1972: Small is beautiful. London: research. Progress in Human Geography 27, 649–57. Penguin. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 2002: Neoliberalizing space. Seeds for Change 2003: Consensus decision making. Antipode 34, 380–404. Available at http://seedsforchange.org.uk/vcs/ Pickerill, J. 2003a: Out in the open: Indymedia net- consens (last accessed 30 August 2006). works in Australia. Paper presented at the Seel, B., Paterson, M. and Doherty, B., editors 2000: Information Communication and Society Direct action in British environmentalism. London: Symposium, Oxford University, September. Routledge. — 2003b: Cyberprotest: Environmental activism online. Sen, J., Anand, A., Escobar, A. and Waterman, P. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 2004: World social forum: challenging empires. New — 2004: Rethinking political participation: experiments Delhi: Viveka Foundation. in internet activism in Australia and Britain. In Sharp, J., Routledge, P., Philo, C. and Paddison, R., Gibson, R., Roemmele, A. and Ward, S., editors, editors 2000: Entanglements of power: geographies of Electronic democracy: mobilization, organization and domination and resistance. London: Routledge. participation via new ICTs, London: Routledge. Sheehan, S.M. 2003: Anarchism. London: Reaktion — 2006: Autonomy on-line: Indymedia and practices of Books. alter-globalization. Environment and Planning A, in Sibley, D. 1995: Geographies of exclusion. London: press. Routledge. Pile, S. and Keith, M., editors 1997: Geographies of Solnit, R. 2004: Hope in the dark. New York: Nation resistance. London: Routledge. Books. Pinder, D. 2002: In defence of utopian urbanism: imag- Starhawk 1988: Truth or dare: encounters with power, ining cities after the ‘end of utopia’. Geografiska authority, and mystery. San Francisco: Harper. Annaler 84B, 229–41. Starr, A. and Adams, J. 2003: Anti-globalization: the Plows, A. 2002: Praxis and practice: the ‘what, how and global ﬁght for local autonomy. New Political Science why’ of the UK Environmental Direct Action EDA: 25, 19–42. movement in the 1990s. Unpublished thesis, Swyngedouw, E. 1997: Neither global; nor local: glocal- Department of Sociology, University of Wales. isation and the politics of scale. In Cox, K., editors Purkis, J. 1996: Daring to dream: idealism in the philos- Spaces of globalisation: reasserting the power of the ophy, organisation and campaigning strategies of local. London and New York: Guilford. Earth First!. In Barker, C. and Kennedy, P., editors, To Tarrow, S. 1998: Power in movement: social movements make another world: studies in protest and collective and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge action, Aldershot: Avebury, 197–215. University Press. Reynolds, H. 1989: Dispossession: black Australians and Thrift, H. 1998: Soft capitalism. In Herod, A., white invaders. London: Allen and Unwin. Ó Tuathail, G. and Roberts, S., editors An unruly Routledge, P. 2003: Convergence space: process geog- world: globalization, governance and geography, raphies of grassroots globalization networks. London: Routledge. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS Vaneigem, R. 1979: Revolution of everyday life. London: 28, 333–49. Rising Free Collective. Ruggie, J.G. 2004: Reconstituting the global public Wall, D. 1999: Earth First! and the anti-roads movement: domain – issues, actors, and practices. European radical environmentalism and comparative social move- Journal of International Relations 10, 499–531. ments. London: Routledge. Ruggiero, V. 2000: New social movements and the Ward, C. 1989: Welcome thinner city. Urban survival in ‘centri sociali’ in Milan. The Sociological Review 48, the 1990s. London: Bedford Square Press. 167–85. Wolman, H. and Goldsmith, M. 1990: Local auton- Rupert, M. 2003: Globalizing common sense: a omy as a meaningful analytic concept. Urban Affairs Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision of the politics of gov- Quarterly 26, 3–27. ernance/resistance. Review of International Studies Wright, S. 2002: Storming heaven: class composition and 29, 181–98. struggle in Italian autonomist Marxism. London: Pluto Schalit, J., editor 2002: The anti-capitalism reader: anti- Press. market politics in theory and practice, past, present and Yunupingu, G., editor 1997: Our land is our life. future. New York: Akashic Books. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.