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] © 2006 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0309132506071516 2 Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management 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