The Expanding Circle

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/229473623
Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy,

Neoliberalism and Violence
Article in Antipode · November 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x
CITATIONS READS
105 1,756
1 author:
Simon Springer
University of Newcastle
113 PUBLICATIONS 1,777 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Anarchist Geographies View project
Smash Capitalism! A Radical Guide to Reclaiming Planet Earth View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Springer on 12 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Public Space as Emancipation:
Meditations on Anarchism, Radical
Democracy, Neoliberalism
and Violence
Simon Springer
Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;
simonspringer@gmail.com
Abstract: In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space as a vision

for radical democracy, this article proceeds as a theoretical inquiry into how an agonistic public
space might become the basis of emancipation. Public space is presented as an opportunity
to move beyond the technocratic elitism that often characterizes both civil societies and the
neoliberal approach to development, and is further recognized as the battlefield on which the
conflicting interests of the world’s rich and poor are set. Contributing to the growing recognition
that geographies of resistance are relational, where the “global” and the “local” are understood
as co-constitutive, a radical democratic ideal grounded in material public space is presented
as paramount to repealing archic power in general, and neoliberalism’s exclusionary logic in
particular.
Keywords: anarchism, civil society, neoliberalism, public space, radical democracy, violence
If we are to carry the lessons of the past with us, then, we must
conceive and practice struggle not with democracy as an end in view,
but democratically in its very unfolding (Todd May 2009:16–17).
Introduction
In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space
as a vision for radical democracy and development, this article proceeds
as a theoretical inquiry into how an agonistic public space might
become the basis of emancipation. Emancipation, understood here,
means perpetual contestation of the alienating effects of contemporary
neoliberalization. Central to this is imagining new forms of voluntary
association and mutual aid, where pluralism may blossom, democratic
engagement might be enhanced, and a liberatory zeitgeist may emerge.
The emancipatory thrust inherent to democracy calls for a reclamation
of its etymology and a critical re-reading of the diverse contexts and
contents—social, cultural, local, national, and global—through which
it finds its expression (Kothari 2005). I advocate radical democracy,
Antipode Vol. 43 No. 2 2011 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 525–562
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
C 2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
526 Antipode
which contra aggregative and deliberative models, places politics on a

path towards the co-constitutive promise of anarchism and non-violence.
I argue for a conceptualization of public space that emphasizes an
anti-hegemonic, anti-sovereign current, thus offering an opportunity
to surmount the technocratic elitism that characterizes neoliberal
approaches to development and problematizes civil societies. A move
towards development and democracy “from below” is recognized as
an affront to both “local” elites and “global” capital. Accordingly, I
examine the contested, forever-protean process of radical democracy
conceived as public space. Public space is understood as the battlefield
on which the conflicting interests of the rich and poor are set, as well as
the object of contestation. Within this realm, violence is acknowledged
as both an outcome of attempts to impose an “ordered” view of public
space originating “from above”, and often as an act of resistance “from
below” by those seeking radical democratic spaces of “unscripted”
interaction.1 This violence reveals an apparent paradox of democracy,
because although premised on the non-violent mitigation of conflict,
contemporary “democracies” are often anti-political and antagonistic,
which provokes violent conflict’s possibility.
Celebrations of “urban modernity” have resulted in a division between
those cities seen as sites for the production of urban theory, and
those projected as objects for “development”. This has provided fertile
ground for problematic demarcations that divide cities into systems of
hierarchy, where the West/First World/global North is imagined through
a positive frame of dynamism and innovation, while the non-West/Third
World/global South is portrayed negatively as stagnation and stasis.
Binary thinking “remains much more a driving idea than a fact of
geography” (Slater 2004:9), which suggests the need for a single urban
discourse is overdue. Robinson (2006:1) encourages scholars not to
ascribe prominence to certain cities or features of particular cities, and
instead suggests that “an ordinary-city approach takes the world of cities
as its starting point and attends to the diversity and complexity of all
cities”. An ordinary cities approach is not meant as a universalization
that denies distinctive elements by downplaying the diversity among
cities. Rather, “in a world of ordinary cities, ways of being urban and
ways of making new kinds of urban futures are diverse and are the
product of the inventiveness of people in cities everywhere” (Robinson
2006:1). Given that binary categories continue to retain broad usage
in urban theory, while nonetheless being called into question, Slater
(2004:10) proposes that they be approached “as if there is a line running
through them, canceling them out in their old form, but still allowing
them to be read”. This partial erasure encourages scholars to continue
to problematize their validity, while remaining open to the possibility of
new categories that are more aware of asymmetrical relations, enabling
of collective engagement, and take seriously the imbrications between

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Public Space as Emancipation 527
“inside” and “outside”. Thus, an ordinary cities approach forms a post-

colonial framework for understanding cities, challenging urban theory’s
tendency to privilege the experiences of the “West”.
Although the ideals of public space and the ways citizens conceive
democracy are uniquely shaped by contingent sociocultural histories,
my purpose is not to apply a “First World”/“Third World” perspective.
Instead, I want to question such dichotomies and bring a more relational
approach, precisely because the processes of neoliberalization that
are deleteriously affecting the very notion of the public are being
challenged in a diverse range of contexts that encompass all areas
of the globe. Urban scholars must recall that relational connections
across space are established by and constitutive of ostensibly “local”
cultures all over the world (Smith 2001). By employing radical notions
of public space through an ordinary cities approach, we may improve
our understandings of the relational geographies of neoliberalism, where
each “local” contestation of public space can be read as a nodal
point of interconnection in socially produced space (Massey 2005).
Through this, Hart (2008:684) argues, we may “grasp the complex back-
and-forth processes of contestation and acquiescence through which
multiple, interconnected arenas in state and civil society have been
remaking one another—and to the slippages, openings, contradictions,
and possibilities for alliances” that exist across space. My purpose
then is to acknowledge these relational geographies, wherein incidents
like the struggles over water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia in
2000 (Kohl 2006), and the “battle for Seattle” during the World Trade
Organization meetings of 1999, must be considered not as isolated
events in a “Third World” or “First World” milieu, but as moments tied
to the broader assemblage of “global” contestations over “the right to the
city” and alternative urban futures (Purcell 2008). An examination of the
controversy of public space allows for an understanding of the ongoing
struggle for a more radical democracy as fundamentally a clash between
the machinations of global capitalism, and the attempts of the poor and
marginalized to insert their voices into the development policies and
practices that adversely affect their lives.
This article is separated into two themes. The first establishes a
framework for understanding democracy in non-violent and anarchistic
terms by arguing for radical democracy conceived through agonistic
public space. I begin by investigating the relationship between
anarchism, democracy, and non-violent politics, and contend that a
radicalization of democracy’s content and meaning through an insistence
on agonism challenges the anti-political modes of aggregative and
deliberative democracy, which are considered to legitimize neoliberal
rationalities and license hierarchical power structures. I then examine
how notions of civil society are presently inadequate in providing
for “local” control over democracy, offering limited opportunity for a

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
528 Antipode
development agenda to be set by those most directly impacted by it. As a

re-imagining of civil societies by insisting on their spatialization, public
space is argued to provide the opportunity for a more radical democracy
to emerge. This potential is established in the following section,
where I recognize the “space of appearance” as vital to democratic
representation. Distinction is drawn between public space and the public
sphere, the latter of which is comparable to civil society inasmuch as
both lack physicality, an essential requirement for individuals to exert
pressure in demanding answers to issues of public importance. I also
confront the ongoing exclusions of public space, as marginalized groups
often find themselves subjected to prohibitions of access, yet their
struggles for presence reveal that the democratic potential of public
space is never entirely lost.
Building on this notion of perpetual struggle, in the second theme
I examine public space as a domain of contestation. I begin by
recognizing public space as the site where political actors, both rich
and poor, and the stratagem of neoliberalized capital continually stake
their claims. The inherently contested character of public space reveals
that it is never free from the risk of disorder, an observation that
places democracy in conflict with the need for “order” so that capital
should flow smoothly. The following section examines the interface
between public space, democracy, and violence. Public space, while
having democratic potential, is often also paradoxically a space of
violence. Violence that originates “from below” is frequently driven
by a demand for equality, and is thus sometimes considered the only
endeavor that can democratize a political system, while violence “from
above” intends to preserve the status quo of the established order. Yet
we know violence begets violence, and accordingly I examine whether
democracy exists in a disquieting nexus or an irreconcilable schism with
violence. In the conclusion I contend that when radical democracy is
conceived in anarchistic terms and materialized through public space,
it offers emancipatory potential from disciplinary neoliberal strictures.
Democratic struggle grounded in public space offers a chance not only
for those most oppressed by neoliberalism to demand social justice, but
for the integral totality of human society to seek a new way forward
through agonistic politics.
My approach throughout is theoretical, a decision informed by three
concerns. First, because Antipode is rich with accounts of contestation
to neoliberalization in a wide variety of contexts (see Brand and
Wissen 2005; Del Casino and Jocoy 2008; Grimson 2008; Kohl 2006;
Mudu 2004), the empirical application of this argument should be
relatively obvious to the journal’s readership and the intended audience
of critical scholars more generally. Second, I have published an empirical
application of this theoretical edifice elsewhere (see Springer 2009b),
and want to explore the theoretical implications more thoroughly.

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Finally, although protest movements necessarily occur in terrains that

always exceed neoliberalism (Hart 2008; Leitner et al 2007), it is
important to think through how a rising tide of contestation can be
reinterpreted through a shared sense of betrayal with what can be
broadly defined as “neoliberal policy goals”. In going beyond the “facts”
of neoliberalization, I align my arguments to the growing recognition
that transnational solidarity is inseparable from “local” movements, and
must be built upon relational understandings of both resistance to, and
the violences of neoliberalism (see Hart 2008; Seoane 2004; Sundberg
2007; Wainwright and Kim 2008). This article contributes to this
discussion by arguing that the realization of a radical democratic ideal
grounded in public space is of primary importance to the achievement
of any emancipatory goal that seeks to transform neoliberalism’s violent
geographies of exclusion, inequality, and poverty, but cautions that this
process of transformation itself lamentably runs the risk of violence
precisely because the political terrain has been so sharply narrowed by
neoliberal anti-politics. Thus, while the focus is theory, the underlying
concern is always with a view towards praxis.
Towards Democracy as Public Space

Radicalizing Democracy through Anarchism
It is difficult to choose criteria by which one may categorize a
political regime as “democratic”. Arat (1991) suggests that the meanings
ascribed to democracy vary from “a way of life” to “a form of
government”. Schmitter and Karl (1993:40) corroborate this notion,
emphasizing that “the specific form democracy takes is contingent
upon a country’s socioeconomic conditions as well as its entrenched
state structures and policy practices”. But such understandings actually
degrade our conceptualization of democracy. Accepting a “cultural
relativist” position denies universal meaning to democracy and
thereby contributes to indemnifying dictatorships that appropriate
the word (Hewison, Rodan and Robison 1993). Orwell (1993:163)
once stated:
[i]t is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic
we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime
claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using
the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.
Democracy is thus sometimes said to have a crisis of meaning,
used to justify everything from terror to compromise, and revolution
to mediocrity. Making matters potentially more confusing, Diamond
(1993:4) suggests that “democracy may approach the ‘equilibrium
version’ of the process but is open to improvement or deterioration”,

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
530 Antipode
while Young (2000:5) calls democracy “a matter of degree”. Dahl

(1971) thus chose to eschew democracy altogether, employing the term
“polyarchy” to acknowledge that democracy is never a complete project,
but rather always in a process of becoming.
Although Giddens’ (1999) “third way” treatise was published over
25 years later, in hindsight Dahl’s emphasis on proteanism can be seen
as a preemptive strike on deliberative democracy and its atemporal
declaration of the end of adversarial politics through an insistence on
consensual politics. Dahl’s ideas nonetheless still fall under the umbrella
of aggregative democracy, which uses processes like elections to solicit
citizens’ preferences to determine policy directions. In contrast to both
aggregative and deliberative models, radical democracy emphasizes
“agonistic pluralism”, which acknowledges the role of hierarchical and
oppressive power relations in society and allows for the ever-present
possibility of difference and dissent. The aim of radical democracy
is not to establish a rational consensus in the public sphere, but to
defuse the potential of human hostilities by providing the possibility for
antagonism to be transformed into “agonism” (Mouffe 2004). Agonism
refers to the idea that conflict cannot and should not be eradicated
in democratic societies. Nor should confrontation take the form of
competition between elites or struggle between enemies (antagonism),
rather contestation must be between adversaries (agonism). In its
radicalized sense, democracy is understood not as a system of rule, but
as a particular mode of power. The etymology of democracy (demos—
the people; kratia—power) exposes how its institutionalization changes
it into something entirely different, into “demoarchy”—a system of
rule by multiplicity, and ostensibly by “the people”. The aggregative
and deliberative approaches have negative consequences for democratic
politics because they seek to eliminate agonism, which Mouffe (2006)
appropriately recognizes as ineradicable in politics. Aggregative models
strip the soul of democracy by transforming its basis as a mode of power
into a system of procedural rule. We might accordingly re-label the
oxymoron “representative democracy” as “electoral authoritarianism”,
since voting encourages one to reduce opposing positions to hostile
caricature that must be suppressed (Graeber 2009). Deliberative
democracy in contrast is the “fulfillment of a tendency, inscribed at
the very core of liberalism, which, because of its constitutive incapacity
to think in truly political terms, must always resort to another type
of discourse: economic, moral or juridical” (Mouffe 2004:124–125).
Rather than opening political space for those at the margins (see Dryzek
2000), deliberative democracy contributes to an anti-political view of
society that reinforces the hegemony of the existing economic order by
forestalling our ability to articulate political alternatives.
The belief that political questions are of a moral nature, and
therefore susceptible to rational treatment, is paramount to deliberative

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
democracy. Here the objective of democratic society is reduced to

creating rational consensus, and those who question this by maintaining
that the political is a domain where one should always expect to find
discord are accused of undermining the very possibility of democracy
(Mouffe 2004:124).2 Contra deliberative democracy, a well-functioning
democracy calls for a confrontation of democratic political positions.
This means that democracy always runs the risk of violence, but
paradoxically, this potential is actually mitigated by allowing conflict to
play an integrative role. In its absence, there is an ever-present danger
that “democratic confrontation will be replaced by a battle between
non-negotiable moral values or essentialist forms of identifications”
(Mouffe 2004:125). This makes any latency of violence much more
manifest in “democratic” models that abandon agonism for antagonism,
not only because of the hierarchies built into all versions of systematized
rule, which institutional “democracies” advocate, but also because the
“them” that contrasts the “us” cannot be viewed as respected political
adversaries in non-agonistic models of democracy. The “them” can
only be defined as moral, economic, and juridical enemies, or enemies
of reason, making “them” a “savage them”, rather than legitimate
adversaries. Therefore, despite the pronouncements of a “third way”
and its benign appearance, only radical democracy can lead to a
society rooted in non-violence, which aligns its content very closely
to anarchism.3 Although anarchism is often portrayed as a symptom of
mental illness rather than a valid political position, such sensationalism
is a ploy by its detractors. Far from caricatural depictions of anarchism
as the promotion of violence, it is instead the rejection of violence
in all its forms. Violence is antithetical to anarchy precisely because
all violence involves a form of domination, authority, or system of
rule over other individuals. Violence is thus a disavowal of freedom,
not its promotion. Through the renunciation of all forms of “archy”
(systems of rule), radical democracy can be conceived as a basis
for emancipation because it emphasizes non-violence and allows for
dissent and difference. In contrast, overemphasizing consensus, coupled
with aversion to confrontation “engenders apathy and disaffection
with political participation” (Mouffe 2004:125). So while consensus
is necessary for societies to function, it must always be accompanied
by dissent, which means that democracy is a forever-protean process,
where resistance to the integral logics of sovereignty, law, and capitalism
becomes a politics of gesture—a permanent “means without end”
(Agamben 2000).
Mouffe (2004:130) maintains that in order to “establish the conditions
for effective democratic self-governance, citizens need to go belong to
a demos where they can exercise their rights of citizenship . . . [which]
does not mean that political units must be identical with the nation-
state”. I agree with the rejection of sovereign power, but I also want

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
532 Antipode
to go beyond notions of citizenship by replacing them with the free

associations, voluntary cooperation, and the mutual aid of anarchism.
As Critchley (2004:231) recognizes:
[t]he problem with much thinking about politics is that it is archic, it
is obsessed with the moment of foundation, origination, declaration
or institution that is linked to the act of government, of sovereignty,
most of all decision that presupposes and initiates a sovereign political
subject capable of self-government and the government of others.
To Rancière (1999), this is the reduction of la politique to the order
of la police, and is precisely why, as will become clear below,
I develop a distinction between “unscripted”/democratic/anarchic
and “ordered”/authoritarian/archic views of public space. Radical
democracy should not be about governance, whether directed by the
“self” as in governmentality or otherwise. There is no “self” to refer to
in an anarchic democracy.
Who are “the people” then? Levinas (1979:294) discusses the
“anarchy essential to multiplicity”, a multiplicity that is itself essential
to politics, where politics is the manifestation of the multiplicity that
is the people, of the demos. This is similar to the multitude of Hardt
and Negri (2004), where the people cannot be identified or policed
in any territorializing sense. Rather, “the people” is comprised by
what Rancière (1999) describes as that empty space which exceeds
any social quantification, precisely because a democratic politics
emerges through a presupposition of equality, meaning democracy is a
resistance against the mechanisms of an order that distributes roles
hierarchically. As Critchley (2004) contends, “the people are those who
do not count, who have no right to govern whether through hereditary
entitlement like aristocracy or by wealth and property ownership like
bourgeoisie”. In short, the people represent a contradiction to sovereign
order and juridical power, being conceived as precisely those who
are excluded from civil rights, or what Agamben (1998) refers to as
homo sacer. Radical democracy occurs when those who the sovereign
deems to not count insist on being counted, not within the existing
order, but within a new anti-order, an anarchy. Thus, the anti-political
tradition (exemplified by neoliberalism) fears the people in its radical
manifestation, not as das Volk shaped by the state, but as die Leute,
the people in their bare life liberty and irreducible plurality. The
convergence of homo sacer and the presupposition of equality turns
existing power relations on their head and overcomes the dangers
of “militant particularisms” (Harvey 1996). Identity politics can still
function, but they become nonessential to politics as antagonism is
transformed into agonism, where everyone is a legitimate and equal
claimant through their preconceived equality. This is precisely the

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
heterogeneity that Barnett (2004a) misses when he homogenizes the

work of Laclau and Mouffe (2001) in arguing that agonism spatializes
politics because it relies on clear distinctions between “inside” and
“outside” (see Thomassen 2005 for a critique of Barnett).
If the contemporary zeitgeist embraces an all-encompassing
consensus and therefore the elimination of agonism (Mouffe 2004),
then the activity of governance continually risks pacification, order,
the state, and what Rancière (1999:135) refers to as the “dark side of
the idyll of consensus”. Faith in universal consensus is not only anti-
political, it is also the exact mode that constitutes utopian thinking, as is
exemplified by neoliberalism’s grand narratives of a harmonious “global
village” and the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1992). Far from anarchism
being utopian, as is the standard critique, anarchy actually represents
the very essence of politics, “the primary reality of strife in social life”
(Mouffe 2000:113), embracing the openness that the forever protean
nature of space–time demands.4 Politics as such is materialized via the
public display of dissensus, a dissensus that disrupts the depoliticizing
order built by government. As Critchley (2004:232) argues, “[i]f politics
can be understood as the manifestation of the anarchic demos, then
politics and democracy are two names for the same thing”, where
democratization “consists in the manifestation of . . . demonstration as
demos-stration”. Democracy then is “the politics of the street”, which
necessitates a material grounding in public space (Ferrell 2001; Mitchell
2003b), aligning its content to the direct action of anarchist praxis. But
to align democracy to direct action and a material public space is not to
suggest a spatiality of limited means, which would reduce the demand
for democracy to little more than a theoretical abstraction, unconnected
to the complex histories and elaborate geographies that have unfolded
to create democratic desire. Instead, when the word “democracy” is
used in “the right place, at the right moment, it is fresh, clear, and true”
(Lummis 1996:15), precisely because its spatio-temporality takes place
in a political moment of globalized expropriation and violent injustice.
Consequently, the spatialities of radical democracy conceived as public
space are relational, stretching inwards and outwards across a “global
sense of place” (Massey 1994).5 So while radical democracy is not
about spatialization in the sense of territorialization as Barnett (2004a)
argues, it is about the intercalated geographies of space in the sense
Massey identifies, as it allows us to “envision new forms of solidarity
based on recognized interdependence” (Mouffe 2004:131). The ethics
of radical democracy cannot be conceptualized in moralistic terms as is
the current (neo)liberal democratic treatment, nor can they be bounded
in any sense that implies a sovereign. Radical democracy represents a
disturbance of the anti-political order of sovereignty itself, and is thus,
in a word, anarchy.

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
534 Antipode
Beyond Civil Society?

Civil society is often considered as a way to promote democratization
through pressure “from below”, simultaneously representing a goal to
strive for, a means to achieve it, and a framework for engagement over
ends and means (Edwards 2004). Both conceptually and empirically,
civil society possesses tremendous internal heterogeneity and is thus
more appropriately considered in the plural, with a myriad of meanings
imbricated in multiple scalar contexts (McIlwaine 2007). Despite
a tendency to homogenize important lines of differentiation, the
development literature is extensive in terms of both concrete examples
of and different theoretical approaches to civil societies, especially in
relation to democracy building.6 Some studies have identified a dialectic
between civil societies and states (Glassman and Samatar 1997; Mercer
2002), making depictions that conceptualize civil societies as “outside”
the state, encompassing the entire non-state (market-regulated, privately
controlled, or voluntary organized) realm increasingly problematic.
Civil societies are more appropriately conceived as a public sphere
of interaction between state and market, a conduit for “captured polity”,
being at once both mediated by and a mediator of the political and
the economic. Nevertheless, only a concept of civil societies properly
differentiated from the economy (and thus the bourgeois) can form the
basis of a critical sociopolitical theory where the market has already or
is in the process of developing its own autonomous logic. Otherwise, the
undifferentiated version of civil society embedded in the slogan “society
versus the state” would lose its critical potential (Cohen and Arato 1992).
In other words, for civil societies to retain their dramatic oppositional
role (particularly under authoritarianism and democratic transitions),
a three-part model distinguishing civil society from both state and
economy is required. Yet while such differentiation is a theoretical
possibility, the pragmatism of praxis is not as forthcoming.
In transitions from authoritarianism, the emergence of a civil society
is often considered the turning point from fear to public action in the
struggle for democracy. The reason for the emergence or persistence of
authoritarian rule to begin with is because powerful elements of society,
typically landowners, bankers, and industrialists accept or collaborate
with it, and according to Diamond (1992), civil society turns these
powerful actors against the state. This alludes to the notion that civil
societies can and should replace the “most oppressed” class as the
agent of historical change (Lummis 1996). The difference, however,
is that unlike what a subjugated class might do, civil societies do
not rise up against the state and seize its power for the people as
in anarchism. Rather, by rising up a civil society empowers itself
(much like a vanguard party would), so that landowners, bankers, and
industrialists (the bourgeois) may marginalize and come to control the
state. This brings us back to where we started: capital in control of

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
the state, orientated in an archic arrangement. This vicious circle is

perhaps expected in light of the unremitting theoretical misconception
that the state and capital are distinct spheres, rather than integral parts of
the totality of capitalism (Yeung 1998). Anderson’s (1991) account of
imagined communities lends credence to the conceptual fusion of capital
and the state. In this view, the nation—and its subsequent expression
as statehood—is founded upon the decidedly capitalist enterprise of
colonialism. Although “local” expressions of capitalism were present
prior to the colonial encounter, the historical experience of colonialism
intensified capitalist relations in the colonies through the very processes
of imagining communities. In other words, because civil societies are
simultaneously enmeshed in processes of capitalist usurpation and
notions of statehood, an interlocking of three thematic nuclei (Slater
1989), they may also be viewed as colonial transplants. Through colonial
occupations we can discern a coalescence of this foreign character of
civil societies around indigenous elites, who are at once both those
groups to whom Habermas (1989) attributes the capacity to commandeer
the state, and the class that assimilated and came to embody the logic
of capital. Thus, indigenous elites represent the pivots for making
the translation of civil societies across cultures. Yet, as Glassman’s
(1999) conception of the internationalization of the state recognizes,
distinctions between so-called “local” and “global” elites have become
increasingly blurred under neoliberalism. What we are left with is a
transnational capitalist class (Harvey 2005), and a thoroughly liberal,
anti-political, and state-centric version of civil society where politics in
this realm is reduced to economic competition among competing elites,
both “internal” and “external”.
Given the interface between capitalism, the state, and a civil society,
the latter is not only easy prey for corporatism (Wiarda 2003); rather
corporatism is somewhat constitutive of civil societies. This falls in
line with the qualitative hollowing-out processes espoused by the
neoliberal agenda where states become differently powerful as emphasis
on markets take on primary importance (Peck 2001),7 but it does
little to address inequality and certainly does not empower existing
marginalized groups. On the other hand, neoliberal prescriptions and
their resultant renewed commitment to authoritarianism in a wide
variety of contexts may lead to a different fate for civil societies.8
For example, the technocracies of East Asia have spawned civil
societies notable for their extent of state regulation, affording little
opportunity for the development of a critical public realm as the
state functions as gatekeeper to civil discourse (Jones et al 1995).
Hughes (2003) describes this situation in the Cambodian context,
where the predominant conception of civil society is nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), which work closely with government, subjecting
them to licensing and surveillance. Although NGOs are a commonplace

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
536 Antipode
proxy for civil societies, acknowledging that “NGOization” conditions

civil societies does not mean that they are equivalent concepts (Yacobi
2007). Nonetheless, Cambodian civil society suffers from being highly
professionalized, legalistic, technocratic, and hierarchical, where the
top often represents an international patron, tendentially linking it to
neoliberalism. Such civil societies offer another variation of the “from
above” perspective, where the agenda is set by government (making the
designation “nongovernmental” oxymoronic), an international patron
(bilateral donors), or the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Thus,
although many civil societies (ostensibly) embrace a democratic ethos,
making them part of the struggle to found a democratic public space,
often they not only fail to challenge the status quo of government, but in
line with Harvey’s (2005) contention that NGOs can be “Trojan Horses”,
civil societies may a fortiori work to reinforce neoliberal hegemony.
Hadenius and Uggla (1996:1621) advocate a definition of civil
society that “denotes a certain area of society which is dominated by
interactions of a certain kind. The area in question is the public space
between the state and the individual citizen”. Such spatialized notions
of civil societies are becoming increasingly common (see Lewis 2002;
McIlwaine 2007), an understanding I advocate not to circumvent the
concept altogether, but to infuse it with some precision in bringing civil
societies closer to the emancipatory potential they are frequently used
to envisage. As Kothari (2005:155) argues, an emancipatory democracy
will “work towards a truly radical and transformative orientation of the
whole of civil society”. Thus, civil societies should ideally not seek
to force the state to establish liberty; rather they should struggle to
found democratic space on their own (Lummis 1996), independent of
sovereign archy. It is in the making and taking of space and place that
allows us to move toward a more radical model of democracy:
If . . . place and self are mutually constitutive, then the means of
creating the ideal self for sustaining the project of democracy
have parallels in place-making. In constructing places we seek
to have them match our projects and ideals, both individual and
collective. In democracies such ideals include the desire to build
places that promote social justice, tolerance, and inclusion and that
offer public gathering spaces or places reflecting collective values
about community . . . Viewed as a form of life and as a process,
democracy involves in part the making, unmaking, and remaking of
places (Entrikin 2002:107–108).
Since democracy is meant to be inclusive, it is specifically those public

spaces and places that are of primary importance. Thus, public space
can be understood as the very practice of radical democracy, including
agonism, which might rid civil societies of hierarchy, technocracy,
international patrons, government appropriation, and co-optation by the

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
modern aristocracy. Only a conception of civil society rooted in public

space is sufficient for a radical vision of democracy. This relationship
between radical democracy and space is crucial, because democracy
requires not only spaces where people can gather to discuss the issues of
the day (Staeheli and Thompson 1997), but also places where ideas can
be contested. A democratic society must value public space as a forum
for all social groups, where there should be no structural deterrents
prohibiting the ability of individuals to participate in public affairs.
Public space as such is the site where collective performance, speech,
and agonism must be entrenched (Goheen 1998), thus allowing it to
become the primary medium through which identities are created and
disputed (Ruddick 1996).
The Space of Appearance

The idea that public space is important for identity formation is well
recognized in human geography (Lees 1994; Massey 1994). This
creative process works both ways, as identity is important in forming the
contours of public space.9 While public space allows individuals to join
collaborative efforts and still maintain distinct voices, representation
demands a physical space so that individuals and groups may make
their needs known and show themselves as legitimate claimants to
public considerations (Mitchell 2003b). Yet the right to representation
is not always recognized, as is the case under authoritarianism, and
accordingly public space can also refer to the extent of sociopolitical
interaction available to a person. Arendt (1958) calls this the “space
of appearance”, or the space needed for people to be seen. Action and
speech require visibility because for democratic politics to occur, it
is not enough for a group of private individuals to vote anonymously
as in aggregative democracy. Instead, because belonging to any public
requires at least minimal participation, individuals must physically come
together and occupy a common space (Howell 1993). While visibility is
central to public space, theatricality is also required because wherever
people gather, the space of appearance is not just “there,” but is actively
(re)produced through recurring performances (Valentine 1996).
Theatricality recognizes that space is produced, an idea popularized
by Lefebvre (1991), who draws a distinction between the administration
of space and its materialization. In Lefebvre’s (1991) terms, public space
that is controlled by government or other institutions, or whose use is
regulated, is referred to as “representation of space”, whereas public
space as it is actually used by social groups is called “representational
space”. This distinction draws attention to the difference between the
“official” status of a space, and the ability of various individuals and
groups to use it (Arefi and Meyers 2003). The power to deem particular
spaces “official” runs concomitant to the power to exclude certain groups

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
538 Antipode
from such sites on the basis of this very ascription. When might we be
certain that any particular space is “official” except when told so by
those holding archic power? Yet Lefebvre’s dichotomy also hints at
the underlying contestation of public space and its essential condition
of agonism by acknowledging its social constructedness, or spatiality.
Thus, representation not only demands space, but also creates it.
A further benefit of Lefebvre’s theorization is the significance
afforded to bodily representations, or lived experiences of space
(McCann 1999). This addresses the fundamental difference between
public space and the public sphere, which are often mistakenly conflated.
The public sphere, which is analogous to civil society insofar as
in its original Habermasian sense it is effectively silent on space
(Howell 1993), can be defined as the abstract domain of social
life, ideally separate from the coercion of state power, where public
opinion is formed (Habermas 1989). In contrast, public space must
be taken literally as a material space precisely because this dimension
provides visibility to political action (Ferrell 2001; Mitchell 2003b).
Even aggregative and deliberative democracies bear witness to protests
launched “on the ground” in material spaces providing non-electoral
feedback into “virtual public space” (ie the public sphere) when
democracy is no longer radical. Although a demonstration’s goal may
at times be to achieve greater visibility via the public sphere, the media
cannot enable such visibility without a political claim first being enacted
in public space. Absent this initial physical dimension, claims may be
audible or textual to become discursive within the public sphere, but
they still lack a space of appearance. Thus, because public space cannot
be established in the abstract, newspapers, radio, television, and the
Internet are part of the public sphere and not public space.
One could further argue against the notion of abstract spaces as
public space because they are often highly structured, dominated
by corporate and/or government interests, and thus may enhance
existing power structures (Calhoun 1998). The Internet in particular
has been championed as a revolutionary tool with the potential to
invigorate democracy (Crang 2000). Dean (2003) disregards such views,
suggesting corporate control has made the Internet a “zero institution”,
leading not to democracy, but to “communicative capitalism”. Yet
the Internet and other media are still able to provide a network that
allows social groups to disseminate information, organize, and mobilize
(Castells 2000). The circulation of images, arguments, and ideas through
various media, including individual actions carried out in private space,
but gaining access to a wider public through the public sphere, can
have important effects that may open or even close opportunities for
political action. For example, although the public was rarely provided
with unedited versions, the impact of Osama Bin Laden releasing
videotaped messages has been enormous. Yet despite the power of

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
such communications to rally support and opposition through public

broadcast, both Al-Qaeda and the United States’ “war on terror”
recognized the importance of grounding their political objectives in
physical space, hence the horrifying events of 11 September 2001, and
the equally appalling invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All groups,
whether subaltern or dominant, cannot constitute themselves unless
they produce a material space. As Mitchell (2003b:147) argues, “[a]ll
the web communications in the world would not have nearly shut down
the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization or destroyed the
Genoa talks. But people in the streets did”.
Nonetheless, Barnett (2004b:190) takes issue with a so-called
“prevailing view” that presumes Habermas’s conceptualization of the
public sphere must be grounded in real, material public spaces:
The assumption is that Habermas’s original conceptualization of the
public sphere depends on a metaphorical understanding of material
spaces . . . However, the argument that Habermas’s public sphere
is insufficiently material seems wrong-headed. The problem with
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is not that it
ignores real spaces, but that it conceptually constructs locals of
co-presence as the norm for judging the publicness of historically
viable practices of social interaction. Furthermore, geographers’
determination to translate the public sphere into bounded public urban
spaces of co-present social interaction . . . illustrates a long-standing
underestimation of the significance of communications practices
in critical human geography . . . any stark opposition between real
material spaces and virtual media spaces does not hold up because
it fails to register the extent to which various social movements deploy
a range of dramaturgical strategies of protest that construct “real”
spaces as stages through which to mobilize media attention and thereby
project their presence through spatially extensive media networks.
What Barnett is really describing is how social movements use

material public space as a co-strategy to achieving further attention
via the public sphere, as noted above. Barnett (2004b:191) continues
by arguing that “the geography of the public sphere should not be
narrowly defined in terms of selected spaces of co-present social
interaction . . . [because] the idealization of “real” and “material” spaces
closes down a full consideration of the geographical constitution of
those strategic practices of needs interpretation and legitimate decision-
making that establish the broader conditions of possibility for social
interaction guided by norms of civility and respect”. In fact, what is
being suggesting here is not novel, and it seems that Barnett is simply
playing to semantics in wanting to label this non-material “feedback”
of strategic practice as “public space”. Far from negating a thorough
contemplation of the extended spatialities of strategic practice employed

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
540 Antipode
by social movements, many geographers (see Goheen 1998; Howell

1993; Mitchell 2003b) simply assign this work to the public sphere,
which contra Barnett’s claim, is still not tantamount to public space,
a concept that is always material. In short, there is no assumption that
Habermas’s conception of the public sphere demands a metaphorical
understanding of material spaces. Rather, to many geographers the
Habermasian public sphere is always a realm of immateriality and
simply cannot be confused with material space.
Moreover, while Barnett (2004b; see also Keith 1997) may view
such promotion of the necessary physicality of public space as a fetish
that romanticizes “the street” such critiques are misplaced, serving to
undermine the potential radicalism of postmodern politics. As Call
(2002:7–8) argues, Habermas “use[s] the terms and categories of the
debate about postmodern politics to reinforce the rapidly eroding
theoretical and epistemological foundations of the modern liberal state”,
where he hopes to do this “by placing instrumental rationality—the
‘rationality’ of concentration camps and hydrogen bombs—within the
context of a broader and more hopeful ‘communicative rationality’
which, Habermas asserts, can operate within a kind of cultural and
political ‘public sphere’ to produce viable (and implicitly liberal)
communities”. What is at stake here is that:
Habermas rejects Marxism and the radical materialist perspective in
favour of an amalgam of liberal rationalism, conservative sociological
theory, and mainstream language philosophy, and he puts aside the
revolutionary goal of earlier Frankfurt School thinkers like Marcuse
in favour of social democratic accommodation with the “rational”
realities of capitalism (Ryan 1989:27).
Thus, invocations of Habermas as the alpha and omega of relevant
political theory with regard to assessments of the public sphere
(misunderstood by Barnett as public space) should be treated with a
deep skepticism that recognizes this view’s contribution to reinforcing
(neo)liberal rationalities. Ultimately, the Habermasian theory of
immateriality cannot be accommodated within the politics of radical
democracy, which is necessarily rooted in direct action and the
materialism of public space. As Lefebvre (1991:416–417) argues, those
ideas, values, or representations that fail to make their mark in space
“lose all pith and become mere signs, resolve themselves into abstract
descriptions, or mutate into fantasies”.
The exclusion of some groups from democratic processes via their
failures to attain recognition in public space underlines the critical
importance of materiality. Although many scholars recognize the
democratic character of public space (Barnett and Low 2004; Henaff
and Strong 2001; Howell 1993), this idea is contested, as public space
has paradoxically also long been a site of exploitation, oppression, and

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
prohibition for women (Bondi 1996; Massey 1994), ethnic minorities

(McCann 1999; Ruddick 1996), gays and lesbians (Duncan 1996;
Hubbard 2001), the elderly and young (O’Neil 2002; Valentine 1996),
the homeless (Del Casino and Jocoy 2008; Mitchell and Staeheli 2006),
and people with disabilities (Butler and Bowlby 1997; Freund 2001).
Feminist scholars further contest the idea of public space because the
public/private dichotomy relates problematically to social constructions
of gender and sex (Bondi 1996). In contrast, Fraser (1990) contends
that many feminists refer to public space as everything outside the
domestic sphere and thus conflate three analytically distinct spheres:
the state, the official economy of paid employment, and arenas of public
discourse. Aside from their apparent malleability, notions of private
and public are further complicated insofar as their meaning and usage
are embedded within local specificities of time and place, differing
across cultural context (Drummond 2000). This is not to advocate a
position of cultural relativism, and we should reject any suggestion that
participation, and hence public space, is a distinctive “cultural value”. A
desire to participate in community affairs is intrinsic to the human animal
as a social being, where recognizing specific contexts of public space
requires understanding that any social organization is both the outcome
of the “local” politics of the street and their relational geographies to
the wider power geometries of “global” space.
In negotiating the private/public dichotomy, Henaff and Strong (2001)
look to the entrance criteria of a particular space. A space is deemed
private when an individual or group is recognized as having the right to
establish such criteria, where meaning is imbued through acknowledged
“ownership”. A space is public by contrast, precisely because whereas
there are admission criteria, the right to enforce those criteria is always
in question. Public space is open to those meeting the criteria, but
it is not controlled in the sense of being owned and is thus always
a contestation over the legitimacy of inclusion and exclusion. Yet as
Iveson (2003:215) argues, “exclusions should be interrogated with
respect to the processes through which they are politically justified,
thus enabling critical theorists to distinguish between different kinds
of exclusion”. In particular, the liberal rhetoric of publicness actually
reinscribes particular forms of subordination and exclusion as open
and supposedly “equitable” access to the public by all individuals is
conceived only insofar as they leave their particular subjectivities behind
in the private sphere and out of the public realm (Iveson 2003). In the
liberal formulation, gays and lesbians are for example deemed to possess
the same access rights so long as they keep their sexuality private.
This bracketing of status and identity effectively excludes what are
some of the most important concerns, by suppressing, devaluing, and
truncating the exploration of possible identities (Calhoun 1997), and
reinforcing normative subjectivities as universal. Therefore, because

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
542 Antipode
Habermas’s liberal impression makes a public look like the public,

the public sphere should not be considered as a universally accessible
public space; rather, it should be regarded as “the structured setting
where cultural and ideological contest among a variety of publics takes
place” (Eley 1992:306, my emphasis).
Supporting this perspective, although still finding value in deliberative
democracy, Young (1990) emphasizes that the primacy of a material
and embodied conception of public space rests in its potential to be a
site of political participation where diverse publics can interact, thus
engendering a more radicalized version of democracy. Arguing against
the idea of democracy as public space, Miles (2002:256) inadvertently
lends his support when he asks, “when was public space ever a site
of mass democracy, except when crowds . . . took matters into their
own hands?” While public space may be exclusionary to certain social
groups, whereby some groups may even struggle to gain access in ways
that impede its usage by others, public space remains the most important
site where public claims can be made visible and contested. If at times
spaces may change in their role for accommodating different social
groups (Atkinson 2003), surely contesting one’s exclusion and taking
public space can potentially secure such accommodation and change.
To demand inclusion in a space often means forcibly occupying the
space of exclusion, reinforcing the idea that public space has never been
guaranteed, and by its very definition must be contested. In this sense,
an agonistic approach to the political becomes an essential condition
for conceiving a more inclusive public space that accepts and celebrates
difference (Watson 2006).
The Contestation of Public Space

Capitalist Machinations
Radical democracy is a messy process with an inherent uncertainty
reflecting the essential agonism of open public discussion concerning
community principles, and the possibility of sudden changes, conflicts,
and contradictions in collective goals. The spaces of democratic
societies must always be in process, constructions to be maintained
and repaired as the collective interest is defined and contested (Entrikin
2002). This processual nature of public space explains why it is
and must be the subject of continuous contestation, spanning a fluid
spectrum between debate, protest, agonism and at times, lamentably
antagonism and violence. Accordingly, it is paramount to view public
space as a medium allowing for the contestation of power, focusing
on issues of “access” ranging from basic use to more complicated
matters, including territoriality and symbolic ownership (Atkinson
2003). Public space is never a complete project, but is instead both

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
the product and site of conflict between the competing ideologies

of “order” (authoritarianism/archy/representation of space) and
“unscripted” interaction (democracy/anarchy/representational space)
(Lefebvre 1991; Mitchell 2003b).10 These competing approaches do
not result in dichotomous public spaces. Rather, emphasis must be
placed on the processual and fluidic character of public space, where
any recognizable “outcome” from either the ordered or the unscripted
is necessarily temporary, that is, a means without end.
Although claiming to advocate democratic public space, Carr et al
(1992:xi) exemplify the ordered approach by suggesting public space is
“the setting for activities that threaten communities, such as crime and
protest”. The ability to protest is what makes public space democratic
as it provides those without institutionalized power the opportunity to
challenge the status quo. Crime, for its part, is most often conceived in
terms of property rights, and accordingly the poor and propertyless are
repeatedly cast as transgressors of public space. Hee and Ooi (2003)
take a different approach to the ordered view, contending that the
public spaces of colonial and post-colonial cities are constructions
of the ruling elite. Certainly, colonial administrators and incumbent
regimes enforce their representations of space, but this ignores the
element of contestation and the possible emergence of representational
space. Beijing’s Tiananmen Square offers a case in point, as the people
took this controlled space, and, although recaptured by the state, it
remains ideologically contested in the public sphere, continuing to fire
the imagination of social movements in China and beyond (Lees 1994).
Thus, the values embedded in public space are those with which the
demos endows it (Goheen 1998), not simply the visualizations and
administrations of reigning elites.
States, corporations, and IFIs may challenge collectively endowed
values and espouse the ordered view because they seek to shape public
space in ways that limit the threat of democratic power to dominant
socioeconomic interests (Harvey 2000). Although total control over
public space is impossible, they do attempt to regulate it by keeping it
relatively free of passion (Duncan 1996). To remove the passion from
public space, corporate or state planners attempt to create spaces based
on a desire for security more than interaction and for entertainment more
than democratic politics (Goss 1996), a process Sorkin (1992) calls “the
end of public space”. Under the ordered view of public space, premised
on a need for surveillance and control over behavior, representations
of space come to dominate representational spaces. The processes of
increasing surveillance, commodification, and private usage are known
in the literature as the “disneyfication” of space, where the urban
future looms as a “sanitized, ersatz architecture devoid of geographic
specificity” (Lees 1994:446). In this light, the struggle for democracy
is inseparable from public space, as where things are said is at least as

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
544 Antipode
important as what is said, when it is said, how it is said, and who is

saying it. Thus, shielding oneself from political provocation is easily
achieved when all the important public gathering places have become
highly policed public space, or its corollary, private property (Mitchell
2003a).
Relentlessly confronting the arrogation of public space is imperative,
because the entrenched power of capital can only be repealed through
agonism, whereby a multiplicity of subject positions may be recognized
as legitimate claimants to the spaces of the public (Mouffe 2006). When
the seemingly everyday, yet “disneyfied” performances of capitalism
are ignored as normative values, unexceptional practices, and quotidian
sequences they are lent the appearance of insignificance. This is the
center of Lefebvre’s (1984:24) critique of everyday life, where such
taken for granted succession helps to explain why neoliberalism is
often understood as an inevitable, monolithic force. Such a view
ignores how hegemony, understood in the sense advocated by Laclau
and Mouffe (2001), is a discursively constructed strategy, reproduced
through “everyday” practices that are often oppressive, yet frequently go
unnoticed as such. This suggests that neoliberalism proceeds through a
dialectic of coercion and co-optation, which has significant implications
for public space. Most often public space is not the site of momentous
clashes between archy and demos, but rather a site of mundanity and
routinized conduct. Consequently, everyday life as it is mediated through
the continual (re)production of space (Lefebvre 1991), is also the terrain
in which power is reified, manipulated, and contested (Cohen and Taylor
1992). It is the everyday forms and uses of public space that inform those
moments when extraordinary contestation becomes manifest. So while
public protests may initially appear limited in scope, they are often
expressions of latent dissatisfactions, which in the current moment, are
related primarily to the strains of neoliberalism.
The neoliberal assault on all things public is unabashed in the
contemporary city (Brenner and Theodore 2002), where control of
public space represents a central strategy (Smith and Low 2006).
In a world of widespread aggregative-cum-deliberative (neo)liberal
democracy, the contestation of public space, although filtered through
cultural, religious, national, ethnic, and gender issues, has come to be
predominantly about contesting the machinations of capitalism (Brand
and Wissen 2005). So while opportunities for taking space steadily
diminish as new forms of surveillance, revanchism, and control are
implemented, in contrast to the death knell rung by Sorkin (1992),
the disneyfication of public space is fiercely contested on a “global”
scale, from Quebec City to Cancun and Seattle to Genoa. Occasionally
the reclamation of public space is so fierce that it can bring down a
government, as happened in Ecuador when protests against the ruling
neoliberal order swept through the streets of Quito and Guayaquil in

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
2005. Such events undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing profiling of the

“Third World” as a site of instability, and hence a threat to “First World”
security. Yet far from being a reflection of conditions inherent to “non-
Western” peoples, the underscoring of a thinking, reasoning “Western”
subject is synchronous to a general avoidance of the devastating impacts
of colonialism and the violence it visited and continues to inflict on “non-
Western” peoples. This suggests that the entire notion of the “Third
World” (and hence a “First World”) was called into being through
an imperial gaze that was only able to make a “Third World” flesh
insofar as it represents an object of colonial expansion. By analysing the
contestation of public space through an ordinary cities approach we are
able to move beyond essentialist accusations of “cultures of violence”
as responsible for ongoing authoritarianism and conflict in the “global
South” (Springer 2009a). Instead, any latent potential for violence
should be read not only as a reflection of colonial legacies both past, and
present in the form of intensive IFI conditionality and “peacekeeping”
missions (Gregory 2004), but also as a discursive ruse invoked to
invalidate the legitimacy of entire societies in public politics. Hence
we have exclusive groupings like the United Nations Security Council
within an institution that supposedly represents all nations as equal.
Part of the problem with contemporary development is that rather than
seeking similar patterns to diverse struggles that might offer a foundation
for solidarity across space and between heterogeneous groups, the entire
encounter is frequently seen through an Orientalist lens (Said 2003),
framed not only as a process of “self ”-affirmation, but also as a denial
of potentially beneficial associations with “others”. In Slater’s (2004:11)
view, “[t]his sense of self-affirmation is often associated with a posited
superiority which has permeated many discourses, from progress and
civilization through to modernization and neoliberal development”.
The categories of First World/Third World, West/non-West, global
North/global South and so forth, can accordingly be seen as outcomes
of the presumption that reason and reflection are qualities of the former
in these pairings, while the latter is defined by its supposed lack of these
attributes. There is almost no acknowledgement of what has been or
might be gained by the “West”, which is insistently imagined as the
bearer of progress, civilization, and modernity in contrast to the “non-
West”, conceived as a passive or recalcitrant recipient. The recency of
colonialism means that while the experiences of the “global North”
have been protracted over several centuries, “development” and the
contestation of public space that coincides with this “rationalizing”
project have been much more acute in the “global South” (Escobar
2004). What this suggests is that contestation in the “Third World” is
potentially more agonizing (in its double sense) as societies attempt to
cope with the rapidity of this change, which opens the possibility that
contestation in these sites may also be more transformative.

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
546 Antipode
The importance of this potential and possibility in terms of

anarchism’s promise to radicalize democracy is that the historical record
demonstrates that actual revolutions tend to occur when the categories
of “least alienated” and “most oppressed” vis-à-vis capitalism overlap
(Graeber 2009). This hints at the importance of indigenous movements
like the Zapatista, as they seem to synchronize these two categories.
In building relational geographies that seek to understand the similar
difficulties different groups face in various sites of neoliberalization,
it appears that the “anti-globalization” movement in the “West” has as
much, if not more to gain than the “non-West” from such solidarities.
Given the positioning of indigenous groups in the hierarchy of global
capitalism, it seems only fitting that they take a leading role in countering
its hegemony, the paradox of which is that securing an urban “right to the
city” through an agonistic, anarchic, and radical public space has a lot
to learn from rural experiences. Nonetheless, as relational solidarities
increasingly recognize space as a complex lattice of symbolism and
power (Massey 2005), so too grows awareness that hegemony is never
fully achieved. As the struggle for democracy emerges, the weapons of
the weak will inevitably become more manifest once the visible battle
for space begins to take shape, transforming covert hidden transcripts
into overt protests, rallies, and other spatially defined arts of resistance
(Scott 1990). Furthermore, whatever rights to public space have been
won, people willing to break existing laws by exposing them to be
oppressive in their geography, have often only achieved them through
concerted struggle. In this sense, public space is always a dialectic
between its beginning and its end (Mitchell 2003a).
Disquieting Nexus or Irreconcilable Schism?

The preceding interpretations highlight one central theme: public space
is ideally a medium that allows for embodied self-representation.11
When public space is deprived, individuals cannot situate themselves
existentially. Consequently, as contestation becomes impermissible,
self-representation is disembodied. Public space is in constant flux
between those who seek to deprive it, and those seeking to expand it, and
where the ordered view comes to dominate, the resulting deprivation
has two consequences: 1) the erosion of individual volition resulting
in acquiescence, presumably the desired effect by those seeking to
undermine public space; or 2) violent outbursts against those who
suppress public space, and the undesired effect of the ordered view.
Through the privation of public space an individual “acquires an eerie
sense of unreality, as happens in a mass society and under tyranny
when isolated individuals, thrown back on themselves, live a ‘shadowy’
existence and search for reality in intense private sensations or acts of

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
violence” (Parekh 1981:95). To the extent that Arendt (1958) viewed

the public and private realms as related to each other, she argued:
it was a matter of course that the mastering of the necessities of life
in the household was the condition for freedom of the polis. Under no
circumstances could politics be only a means to protect society . . . In
all cases, it is the freedom (and in some instances so-called freedom) of
society which requires and justifies the restraint of political authority.
Freedom is located in the realm of the social, and force or violence
becomes the monopoly of government. What all Greek philosophers,
no matter how opposed to polis life, took for granted is that freedom
is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily
a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household
organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere
because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance,
by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings
are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others;
violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity
of life for the freedom of the world.
In other words, in the search for reality (ie political meaning in the
world), the expression of violence becomes the only practicable form of
public self-representation available. Meaning, in Arendt’s (1958) view,
one must engage in violence to enter the public and to be free, and in
this sense violence can be a liberating process for those who participate.
Outbursts of violence can be conceived as violence “from below”,
frequently referred to as political violence, which serves to counteract
violence “from above”, often called state violence. Since both the
dominant and subordinate pole can engage in violence, and both sides
may be politically motivated, each source is appropriately considered
political violence. Likewise, the internationalized and internationalizing
character of the contemporary state (Glassman 1999) alerts us to the
ambiguity of contemporary expressions of state violence, rendering this
term equally problematic. Violence from above refers to the methods,
including both acute and structural violence, used by the established
social-political-economic order to safeguard its privileges. An acute
example is the deployment of military force against potential challengers
to the existing order’s sovereignty, while a structural example is the
prevailing hierarchical political-economic system itself. In contrast,
violence from below refers to the anger and resentment felt by the
general population towards the structures of the existing political
economy. Although violence occurs in public and private spaces, may
be categorized in myriad ways reflecting the pursuit and exercise of
power, and the above/below dualism cannot capture all conceivable
expressions or intents of violence, it nonetheless heuristically points
to where violence is impelled within the existing local-cum-global

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
548 Antipode
socioeconomic hierarchy. It also hints at the underlying values being

promoted or defended in relation to the furtherance or hindrance of
democracy.
For outbursts of violence from below to have meaning to both the
deprived and the deprivers, they must necessarily occur in public, and
are thus reassertions of the perpetual contestation of public space. It is
often through means or threat of violence that excluded groups have
gained access to public space (McCann 1999). This is the paradox
of democracy, because without confrontation manifested through an
agonistic public space, there cannot be a democratic polity (Mouffe
2000). Yet, any society that sanctions political conflict runs the risk
of it becoming too intense, producing discordance that may jeopardize
civil peace. Keane (2004) argues that violence is anathema to the spirit
and substance of democracy, a position I advance in conceptualizing
democracy in anarchic terms. On the one hand, democracy and
anarchism are predicated upon the idea of non-violent confrontation,
that is agonism rather than antagonism. On the other hand, many so-
called “democracies” are born in the violence of revolution (Rapoport
and Weinberg 2001), while anarchy is frequently sensationalized as
violence incarnate. The problem with violence as a means for either
democracy or anarchism is precisely the recognition that public space
is a means without end, and thus any achievement made on the back
of violence will only see that violence replicate. Since anarchism and
democracy are recognized here as the negation of violence, any use of
violence necessarily marks their erasure.
Nonetheless, violent revolution hints at the seemingly emancipatory
potential of violence, as violence from below may generate reallocations
of wealth and open paths to political empowerment (Iadicola and Shupe
2003). While this view acknowledges how subordinate groups at times
use violence in their attempts at democratization, any “liberationist”
use of violence is self-defeating. Violence is an act of domination, and
its use aligns an emancipatory agenda to the nomos of the oppressor.
In other words, violence is an archic force that defiles the ethos of
anarchism and democracy. Moreover, I do not want to imply spontaneity
to any such attempts at redistributive violence, as invocations of violence
are never performed as sudden inclinations without predetermination
or external impulse. Massey’s (2005) relational understanding of
space forces us to recognize that any seemingly particular “acts” of
violence are always snapshots of existing political, economic, and social
relations. Thus, expressions of violence actually represent interlinking
nodes along a continuum (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004) whose
relational geographies represent a complex interlacing of local-meets-
global, sociocultural, and political economic practices (Springer 2008),
which tendentially links such manifestations to neoliberalism in the
contemporary zeitgeist.

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Although violence is antithetical to democracy and anarchism, what

constitutes violence is often defined from above, thus enabling the
mistaken idea that some violence is impulsive and irrational. That is,
violence is frequently defined as legitimate or illegitimate depending on
whether it furthers or threatens the social order of a society. Violence
from above is often labeled as “defensive” or “peacekeeping”, allowing
archic elites greater ability to commit violence, and the violence
they commit more likely to be defined as legitimate (Escobar 2004).
Consequently, the exclusion of what is labeled as “violence” from below
in public space is frequently not actually violence at all. Instead, this
represents a moralistic attempt to remove “the political” and so exclude
“disobedient” adversaries, or those a priori defined as illegitimate and
thus threatening to the existing order (Mitchell 1996). It is important
to recognize that what (neo)liberals call an “adversary” is actually
a “competitor”. Liberalism, as Mouffe (2004:126–127) explains,
“envisions the field of politics as a neutral terrain in which different
groups compete for power; that is, their objective is to dislodge others
to occupy their place, without challenging the dominant hegemony and
attempting to transform the existing relations of power”. Politics is thus
reduced to little more than competition among elites. Such ideas speak
not only to the fundamental flaw of deliberative democracy (Mouffe
2000) and the failure of civil society, but also to the deceptive anti-
political discourse authority invokes in demonizing anarchism.
Moreover, because the existing order increasingly means the
economic order, there is an intensifying corporate imprint on the
monopoly on violence (Atkinson 2003). In the contemporary context of
global capital flows, the corollary of the corporatization of violence
is neoliberalism. Thus, the very understanding of “publicness” as
something inherently good is increasingly threatened everywhere
neoliberalism spreads its wings. The biggest threat to public space
comes not from “disorderly” homeless and poor as (neo)liberal discourse
suggests, but from the ongoing erosion of the principle of the collective,
and the use of corporate control as a apparent solution to social
problems (Mitchell 2003b). Amid widespread privatization, cuts to
public expenditure, and reduced social transfer programs, violence
has become both a conduit of societal bigotry and an attempt by
beleaguered states to regain their footing (Goldberg 2009). Violence
from above comes attendant to both “roll-back” neoliberalism, where
regulatory transformation sees the state narrowly concerned with
expanding markets to the peril of social provisions, and “roll-out”
neoliberalism which concentrates on disciplining and containment of
those marginalized by earlier stages of neoliberalization (Peck and
Tickell 2002).
While neoliberal proponents suggest that absolute poverty levels
have declined since the early 1980s (Dollar and Kraay 2002), the

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
550 Antipode
reliability of such statistics has come under fire (Wade 2003). Poverty
reduction statistics do not recognize spatial and temporal variations
in inflation or purchasing power, and if China is excluded, the 1990s
actually show an increase in global poverty (UNDP 2002). Nevertheless,
violence explodes most frequently in a sociopolitical atmosphere where
programs of regulatory change have been implemented, particularly
when the social, economic, or political position of the subordinate
group has been improved (Bill 1973). Thus, even if we accept the
validity of IFI statistics, the potential for violence is not abated, as
neoliberalism ignores the “paradox of prosperity” in assuming that
absolute rather than relative affluence is the key to contentment (Rapley
2004). Socioeconomic inequality is on the rise (UNDP 2002), and has
been so marked under neoliberalism that Harvey (2005) contends it
is structural to the entire project. Accordingly, as egalitarian dreams
are continually broken under neoliberalism, violence is an inevitable
outcome (Springer 2008). It is not poverty that provides an impetus for
violence, a problematic notion not least because poverty is violence
(Galtung 1996). Rather, it is relative inequality and its associated
humiliations that often spark violence from below, which may proliferate
where its use opens avenues to political and economic power (Tilly
2003).
Attempts to achieve the ordered view of public space through
prohibition of assembly may reduce the frequency of protests in the
short-term. Likewise, deliberative democracy’s rejection of agonism
in favour of a consensual vision of anti-politics may produce an
immediate reduction in confrontation. However, on an extended timeline
such practices function to alienate the population, suppress differences
provoking more exclusions, increase the likelihood of clashes between
police and activists, and ultimately induce an antagonistic politics that
is more likely to result in violence (Mouffe 2000). This is why any
distortion in access to public space can be so ominous, leading people to
feel powerless and frustrated. Violence has a self-replicating character,
which counteracts the goal of realizing a non-violent society. So while
violence can appear to be an act of liberation that serves to include
the excluded, even under the best circumstances, violence is morally
ambiguous (Keane 2004). The brutality of violence desecrates not only
those directly affected; it also tears the social fabric by subverting the
level of trust, interconnectedness, and the very publicness necessary for
societies to function. Public space ideally allows for embodiment of the
self, but the publicity of violence “brings one to experience one’s own
embodiment in a totalizing way that language fails. Violence turns a
speaking body dumb” (Bar On 2002:14).
Conceptualizing democracy as processual is fitting in this light, as
there is always the threat (either latent or manifest) that public violence
will ultimately tear it apart. To break this cycle, Mitchell (1996) argues

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
that a democracy must recognize the right to protest, which he suggests

is paradoxically often only ever achieved through violence. Yet this
rendering makes little sense when violence is considered antithetical
to democracy. Despite the liberatory potential of violence recognized
by Arendt in her earlier work (indicated above), her stance shifted
when she wrote On Violence during the height of the Vietnam War.
Arendt (1970:52) adopted a more pacifist position, as she was unable to
reconcile justifications for violence with actual legitimacy:
Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on appeals to the past, while
justification relates to an end that lies in the future. Violence can be
justifiable, but it never will be legitimate. Its justification loses in
plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future.
Scholars like Barnett (2009), Keane (2004) and Young (2006) have
picked up on Arendt’s distinction in advancing their own understandings
of when violence might be justified by democracies. These are important
critiques in going beyond the notion that explanation of violence is
tantamount to its legitimation. However, when the idea of revolution is
reconceived as permanent resistance, a means without end, it becomes
clear that any and all forms of violence lack both legitimacy and
justification. Thus, an anarchic model of radical democracy, where
agonism replaces antagonism, is precisely the realization of non-violent
politics.
A means without end view, in conjunction with a relational
understanding of geographies, answers Barnett’s (2009) concern for
the “ontologization of violence”, and the shared insistence of Keane
(2004) and Tilly (2003) that violence must be understood in acute terms.
Disregarding the profusion of literature that points to the importance of
understanding a continuum between the structural, aesthetic, symbolic,
and epistemic conditions of violence and its direct expression as physical
force (see Cockburn 2004; Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2004; Turpin
and Kurtz 1996), Barnett (forthcoming) suggests such an integral view
does not “address the difficult question of whether it is ever possible
not only to recognize violence in human affairs, but to justify the
use of violence for political ends”. Contra Barnett’s impoverished
conceptualization of the geographies of violence, one that privileges
the compartmentalized view of isolated, yet “meaningful” places within
an immaterial, “meaningless” space that Massey (2005) rebukes, the
confounding effects of violence ensure that it is a phenomena shot
through with a certain perceptual blindness. Benjamin (1986) exposed
the unremitting tendency to obscure violence in its institutionalized
forms, and because of this opacity, the enduring inclination to
exclusively regard violence as something we can see through its direct
effects. Yet the structural violence resulting from our political and
economic systems (Galtung 1996; Iadicola and Shupe 2003), and

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
552 Antipode
the symbolic violence born of our discourses (Bourdieu 2001), are

something like the dark matter of physics: “invisible, but [they have] to
be taken into account if one is to make sense of what might otherwise
seem to be ‘irrational’ explosions of subjective [or direct] violence”
(Zizek 2008:2). It is surprising then that Barnett insists his position
enables violence to be understood as rational, and thus able to better
answer questions of legitimacy, justification, and responsibility. In its
instrumental and strategic capacity, violence is undoubtedly a rational
phenomenon (Arendt 1970; Foucault 1996), but insisting on an acute
understanding of violence does not bring us closer to recognizing
violence in human affairs; it actually pushes us farther away by treating
violence as an “act”, an occurrence without a history or a geography,
decontextualized from the complex social processes that have informed
its expression.
Conclusion
When a society lacks a dynamic public space that allows for agonistic
confrontation among diverse political identities, a more nefarious space
may open, where alienation fosters alternative identifications along
antagonistic divides like nationalism, religion, and ethnicity (Mouffe
2004). This is the “dark side of democracy”, where demos becomes
confused with ethnos, and is responsible for some of the worst cases
of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide in human history
(Mann 2005). Yet the most extreme human mortality has occurred
under authoritarian regimes, not democratic ones (Keane 2004). When
democracy is radicalized, such comparison of regime types becomes
irrelevant, as the desired change is not for a new regime, but an end
to systematized rule and the complete renunciation of archy in all its
forms. Radical democracy accordingly has the potential to repeal the
violence that archies engender by dispersing power more evenly across
the entire social body. This occurs when “politics” conceived as an
ends oriented project of consensus and/or utopianism is replaced with
the perpetual means of democratic process through “the political” and
its acknowledgment of agonism. Powerful elites, both authoritarian and
those claiming to be “democratic”, will fervently try to impede any move
towards a radical vision of democracy. Radical democracy diminishes
their institutionalized, hegemonic, and archic grip, reorienting power
from hierarchical constructions founded on moral, juridical, and
economic frameworks, towards the fluidic voluntary associations and
anti-hegemony of anarchism, which recognizes the legitimacy of all
political adversaries, and not simply other (capitalist) competitors who
wish to play within a system that favours entrenched elites.
Radical democracy demystifies democracy by acknowledging that its
achievement is not attained through processes of “development” that

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
bring about supposedly necessary economic “prerequisites”. Radical

democracy does not look to cultural relativism in suggesting that it is an
exclusive outcome of “Western” experience or a transplanted practice to
be habituated in the “Third World”. Instead, radical democracy proceeds
though an ordinary cities approach, where it is recognized as a latent
energy found in all cities, a vitality waiting to be set in motion though
struggle and the contested politics of the street. Framed within agonistic
public space, radical democracy is the very process of exertion, where a
path towards social justice might be opened in place of utopia, as this is a
passage without destination, a permanent means without end. If violence
is recognized as more likely under archy (whether hierarchy, oligarchy,
patriarchy or otherwise), then radical democracy founded on anarchism
offers a lasting preventive measure against such violence. Freedom from
violence is something the institutionalization of power and its closed
systems of bounded territories and sovereign protections has always
promised, but only the openness of anarchism can potentially achieve
through emphasizing continuous contestation, rejecting enclosure in all
its forms, and insisting on the protean horizons of space-to-come.
As the contemporary zeitgeist of neoliberalization continues to
exacerbate the concentration of wealth, reshape political sovereignty,
and reorganize economies along increasingly exclusionary lines, the
need to establish democratic public spaces is intensified. There is
a clear need for a vision of public space that extends beyond the
market to communicate alternatives to neoliberal hegemony and its
anti-political version of politics that privileges moralistic, econometric,
and juridical applications of power. Recognition of neoliberalism’s
geographies of poverty, inequality, and violence as intertwined across
a multiplicity of sites (Hart 2008; Springer 2008) impels us to view
its geographies of protest, resistance, and contestation in the same
light. It may be the case that effective transnational solidarity can
only be built upon an emancipatory agenda lodged in such a relational
understanding of space. Although informed by contextually specific
meanings of inclusion and liberation, the struggles that occur in the
public spaces of diverse cities across the globe can also be recognized
as expressions of profound betrayal with similar “actually existing”
circumstances of neoliberalization (Brenner and Theodore 2002). The
challenge, to paraphrase Hart (2008), is in coming to grips with
how such contestation to neoliberal practices operates on terrains that
always exceed neoliberalism, yet nonetheless still extend beyond “local”
grievances.
Public space offers a spatial medium to the frustrations subalterns feel
with regard to systems of archy, neoliberal or otherwise. It allows them
to locate their anger in a material sense, thereby opening public space
to new visualizations, which may initiate new organizations rooted in
the idea of system and management without rule, and co-operation and

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
554 Antipode
contestation without repression. If those “from below” perceive those

“from above” as unwilling to listen, evidenced through a denial of public
space and a refusal to recognize them as legitimate political adversaries,
then tensions will mount and may erupt into violence. Contestation
of public space is paramount because while elite challenges may be
fierce, they are never insurmountable. Dahl’s (1971:15) axiom that,
“[t]he likelihood that a government will tolerate an opposition increases
as the expected costs of suppression increase”, illustrates that violence
from below may not always be necessary to overcome an oppressor,
as the threat of civil disobedience may be enough to impel respect for
the necessity of agonism. Employing non-violent principles ensures that
the reciprocity of reinforcement engendered by violence does not come
to characterize the emancipatory process, thereby turning agonism into
antagonism. Nonetheless, pressure for democratization still demands
ongoing physical presence in public space if dissidents are ever to be
seen and heard, which always risks potential for violence (Mitchell
1996).
The predominance of neoliberalism means that the ordered vision
of public space has become the primary model available to ordinary
cities insofar as it represents the interests of capital. What this implies
is that the answer to a continuing proclivity for authoritarianism in
the “Third Word” is not to be found in culture, but in the contextual
embeddedness of neoliberal reforms and the resultant unequal political-
economic arrangements of neoliberalization (Canterbury 2005; Springer
2009a). The corollary is that neoliberalization may also help to explain
the increasingly authoritarian tendencies found in other settings with an
ostensibly longstanding “democratic” tradition (Giroux 2004). Yet in
spite of such adverse conditions, through the struggle for social justice
and the radicalization of democracy via anarchism, even a people that has
been oppressed or mystified into believing that the power of government
is a monarchial attribute, a divine punishment, a colonial inheritance,
a market commodity, an IFI provision, or something that grows from
the barrel of a gun, may still make the discovery that the real source
of power is themselves (Lummis 1996). It is in spaces of the public
that the discovery of both power and demos is made, and it is in the
contestation of public space that democracy lives. Emancipation must
accordingly be understood as an awakening, a (re)discovery of power
that is deeply rooted in processes of mobilization and transformation,
and in this sense, emancipation cannot be conceived as a subject–
object relationship in which some are emancipators (revolutionaries,
mavericks, academics) and others are being emancipated (the poor,
the propertyless, the marginalized) (Kothari 2005). Either the whole of
humanity is liberated, or no one is. This may seem an impossible goal
to achieve, but thinking so misinterprets what is at stake. It is not a
utopian end state resulting from revolution or consensual deliberation

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
that should be pursued. Instead, through a relational, processual, and

forever-protean understanding of space, the aspiration becomes radical
democracy viewed as an agonistic means without end. Such is the
promise of public space.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Barry Riddell, Peter Goheen, Anne Godlewska, Audrey Kobayashi,
Philippe Le Billon, Jamie Peck, Jim Glassman, Sarah de Leeuw, Catherine Nolin, Noel
Castree and the anonymous referees. The usual disclaimers apply.
Endnotes
1
The categories “from above” and “from below” signify that modern political power
has been appropriated from the direct control of the people through systematized rule
(hierarchy, patriarchy etc) that strips the majority of their basic freedom. “From above”
speaks to rationalities, strategies, technologies, and techniques of power originating
from the minority entrenched in position of authority through social, economic, and
political “archies”. “From below” represents applications of power originating from
locations within the prevailing system where social, economic, and political power has
been reduced via the repressions of systematized rule.
2
Such is the position of Habermas, which signals his liberalism, and is why (as
discussed below) his public sphere is necessarily deliberative rather than material,
and thus inappropriate for conceptualizing radical democracy.
3
The word “anarchy” comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning “without rule”. In
contemporary usage there are many variants of anarchism, with differing interpretations
over the re-organization that should occur following anarchism’s achievement. My
concern here is the process of emancipation, and accordingly I leave aside questions of
post-liberation anarchist form in simply following the Greek etymology. For a recent
overview of anarchism’s diversity and its startling invisibility in the academy see Amster
et al (2009).
4
Anarchism conceived as means without end is thus an important line of differentiation
with Marxism and its utopianist thinking (cf Harvey 2000).
5
Massey (2005:6) refuses the distinction between place as meaningful versus space as
an abstract container, encouraging us to view space as the simultaneity of stories-so-
far, and place as collections of these stories. This re-conceptualization affords greater
understanding to neoliberalism’s relational geographies, where any seemingly “local”
contestation in place is necessarily tied to the wider assemblage of space. The reverse
implication is that any ostensibly “global” imperative like “neoliberalism-in-general”
always combines with place-based experiences in a myriad of hybrid ways (Peck 2004).
6
Alleviating all anxiety concerning civil society is impossible in this limited space. For
comprehensive accounts of civil society, see Cohen and Arato (1992); Edwards (2004);
Wiarda (2003).
7
Despite local variances, neoliberalism seeks to: eradicate interference with markets;
stifle collective initiative and public expenditure via privatization of common assets;
advocate individualism, competitiveness, and economic self-sufficiency as fundamental
virtues; attenuate or nullify social transfer programs; and actively “recruit” the poor into
a flexible labour regime of low-wage employment (Peck 2001; Peck and Tickell 2002).
8
Whether neoliberalism is understood as aligned to authoritarianism/archy or
democracy/anarchy depends to some extent upon the context in question. However,
if empirically neoliberalism seems to do well in democratic states this speaks to
the contemporary abuse of democracy’s etymology. Those favouring institutional
versions of “democracy” (ie demoarchy) will be less inclined to associate neoliberalism

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
556 Antipode
with authoritarianism. Yet seen through the anarchic lens of radical democracy, the
authoritarianism of neoliberalism becomes evident, as the aggregations and deliberations
of “liberal democracy” strip away individual freedoms via institutionalization. For those
readers who remain skeptical, see Canterbury (2005); Giroux (2004); Springer (2009b,
2010).
9
Identity formation also occurs in semi-public spaces, private spaces, and subaltern
counterpublics, where subordinate groups formulate oppositional interpretations of their
identities (Fraser 1990).
10
All spaces are socially scripted, if not by explicit rules then by competitive regulation.
Yet the ideal of unscripted space should nonetheless be aspired to (Harvey 2000),
because while unscripted public space is fantasy, the openness, uncertainty, and anarchy
embodied in space and place makes them potentially democratic crucibles. The challenge
is to treat them this way, as instituting democratic spaces requires the foregrounding of
exclusions (Massey 2005).
11
This idealized view of public space is universal inasmuch as humans are social
animals desiring embodied connections with others, hence the emergence of language.
The ontological priority of life is embodiment, and without a public to share our ideas
and a space in which to do this, there would be no need for language. In contextualizing
this claim, what is at issue is not the universality of the ideal, but rather what “embodied
self-representation” might mean in different sociocultural and geohistorical settings.
References
Agamben G (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford
University Press
Agamben G (2000) Means Without End: Notes on Politics. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press
Amster R, DeLeon A, Fernandez L A, Nocella A J and Shannon D (eds) (2009)
Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the
Academy. London: Routledge
Anderson B (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. New York: Verso
Arat Z F (1991) Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner
Arefi M and Meyers W R (2003) What is public about public space: The case of
Visakhapatnam, India. Cities 20:331–339
Arendt H (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Arendt H (1970) On Violence. New York: Harcourt
Atkinson R (2003) Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on public space? Control
and empowerment in the management of public spaces. Urban Studies 40:1829–1843
Bar On B-A (2002) The Subject of Violence: Arendtean Exercises in Understanding.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Barnett C (2004a) Deconstructing radical democracy: Articulation, representation, and
being-with-others. Political Geography 23:503–528
Barnett C (2004b) Media, democracy, and representation: Disembodying the public.
In C Barnett and M Low eds Spaces of Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on
Citizenship, Participation and Representation (pp 185–206). London: Sage
Barnett C (2009) Violence and publicity: Constructions of political responsibility after
9/11. Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy 12:353–375
Barnett C and Low M eds (2004) Spaces of Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on
Citizenship, Participation and Representation. London: Sage

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Benjamin W (1986) Critique of violence. In P Demetz ed Walter Benjamin Reflections:

Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings (pp 277–300). New York: Schocken
Bill J A (1973) Political violence and political change: A conceptual commentary. In
H Hirsch and D C Perry (eds) Violence as Politics: A Series of Original Essays
(pp 220–231). New York: Harper & Row
Bondi L (1996) Gender, class, and urban space: Public and private space in contemporary
urban landscapes. Urban Geography 17:160–185
Bourdieu P (2001) Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Brand U and Wissen M (2005) Neoliberal globalization and the internationalization of
protest: A European perspective. Antipode 37:9–17
Brenner N and Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of “actually existing
neoliberalism”. Antipode 34:349–379
Butler R and Bowlby S (1997) Bodies and spaces: An exploration of disabled people’s
experiences of public space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:411–
433
Calhoun C (1997) Nationalism and the public sphere. In J Weintraub and K Kumar eds
Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy
(pp 75–102). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Calhoun C (1998) Community without propinquity revisited: Communication
technology and the transformation of the urban public sphere. Social Inquiry 68:373–
397
Call L (2002) Postmodern Anarchism. Oxford: Lexington
Canterbury D C (2005) Neoliberal Democratization and New Authoritarianism.
Burlington: Ashgate
Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin L G and Stone A M (1992) Public Space. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Castells M (2000) The Rise of Network Society. Malden: Blackwell
Cockburn C 2004 The continuum of violence: a gender perspective on war and peace.
In W Giles and J Hyndman (eds) Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones
(pp 24–44) Berkeley: University of California Press
Cohen J L and Arato A (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT
Press
Cohen S and Taylor L (1992) Escape Attempts: The Theory and Practice of Resistance
to Everyday Life. 2nd ed. London: Routledge
Crang M (2000) Public space, urban space and electronic space: Would the real city
please stand up? Urban Studies 37:307–317
Critchley S (2004) True democracy: Marx, political subjectivity and anarchic meta-
politics. In L Tønder and L Thomassen (eds) Radical Democracy: Politics
Between Abundance and Lack (pp 219–235). Manchester: Manchester University
Press
Dahl R A (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press
Dean J (2003) Why the Net is not a public sphere. Constellations 10:95–112
Del Casino V J and Jocoy C L (2008) Neoliberal subjectivities, the “new” homelessness,
and struggles over spaces of/in the city. Antipode 40:192–199
Diamond L (1992) Introduction: Civil society and the struggle for democracy. In L
Diamond (ed) The Democratic Revolution: Struggles for Freedom and Pluralism in
the Developing World (pp 1–27). New York: Freedom House
Diamond L (1993) Introduction: Political culture and democracy. In L Diamond (ed)
Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries (pp 1–33) Boulder: Lynne
Rienner
Dollar D and Kraay A (2002) Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth
7:195–225

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
558 Antipode
Drummond L (2000) Street scenes: Practices of public and private space in urban
Vietnam. Urban Studies 37:2377–2391
Dryzek J (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Duncan N (1996) Renegotiating gender and sexuality in public and private spaces.
In N Duncan (ed) Bodyspace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality
(pp 127–145). London: Routledge
Edwards M (2004) Civil Society. Malden: Polity
Eley G (1992) Nations, publics and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth
century. In C Calhoun (ed) Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp 289–339). Chicago:
MIT Press
Entrikin J N (2002) Perfectibility and democratic place-making. In R D Sack (ed)
Progress: Geographical Essays (pp 97–112). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press
Escobar A (2004) Development, violence and the New Imperial Order. Development
47:15–21
Ferrell J (2001) Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy New York:
Palgrave
Foucault M (1996) Foucault Live (Interviews, 1961–1984). S Lotringer, T L Hochroth
and J Johnston (eds). New York: Semiotext(e)
Fraser N (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy. Social Text 25/26:56–80
Freund P (2001) Bodies, disability and spaces: The social model and disabling spatial
organizations. Disability & Society 16:689–706
Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press
Galtung J (1996) Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and
Civilization. London: Sage
Giddens A (1999) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Malden: Polity
Giroux H A (2004) The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of
Democracy. Boulder: Paradigm
Glassman J (1999) State power beyond the “territorial trap”: The internationalization of
the state. Political Geography 18:669–696
Glassman J and Samatar A I (1997) Development geography and the third-world state.
Progress in Human Geography 2:164–198
Goheen P G (1998) Public space and the geography of the modern city. Progress in
Human Geography 22:479–496
Goldberg D T (2009) The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalism. Malden:
Blackwell
Goss J (1996) Disquiet on the waterfront: Reflections on nostalgia and utopia in the
urban archetypes of festival marketplaces. Urban Geography 17:221–247
Graeber D (2009) Anarchism, academia, and the avant-garde. In R Amster, A DeLeon,
L A Fernandez, A J Nocella and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An
Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy (pp 103–112). London: Routledge
Gregory D (2004) The Colonial Present. Malden: Blackwell
Grimson A (2008) The making of new urban borders: Neoliberalism and protest in
Buenos Aires. Antipode 40:504–512
Habermas J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge:
MIT Press
Hadenius A and Uggla F (1996) Making civil society work, promoting democratic
development: What can states and donors do? World Development 24:1621–1639
Hardt M and Negri A (2004) Multitude. New York: Penguin
Hart G (2008) The provocations of neoliberalism: Contesting the nation and liberation
after apartheid. Antipode 40:678–705

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge:

Blackwell
Harvey D (2000) Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press
Hee L and Ooi G L (2003) The politics of public space planning in Singapore. Planning
Perspectives 18:79–103
Henaff M and Strong T B (2001) Conclusion: Public space, virtual space, and democracy.
In M Henaff and T B Strong (eds) Public Space and Democracy (pp 221–231).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Hewison K, Rodan G and Robison R (1993) Introduction: Changing forms of state power
in Southeast Asia. In K Hewison, G Rodan and R Robison (eds) Southeast Asia in the
1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism (pp 2–8). St Leonards: Allen
& Unwin
Howell P (1993) Public space and the public sphere: Political theory and the historical
geography of modernity. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11:303–
322
Hubbard P (2001) Sex zones: Intimacy, citizenship and public space. Sexualities 4:51–
72
Hughes C (2003) The Political Economy of Cambodia’s Transition, 1991–2001. London:
Routledge
Iadicola P and Shupe A D (2003) Violence, Inequality, and Human Freedom. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield
Iveson K (2003) Justifying exclusion: The politics of public space and the dispute over
access to McIvers ladies’ baths, Sydney. Gender, Place and Culture 10:215–228
Jones D M, Jayasuriya K, Bell D A and Brown D (1995) Towards a model of illiberal
democracy. In D A Bell, D Brown, K Jayasuriya and D M Jones (eds) Towards
Illiberal Democracy in Pacific Asia (pp 163–167). New York: St Martin’s
Keane J (2004) Violence and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Keith M (1997) Street sensibility? Negotiating the political by articulating the spatial. In
A Merrifield and E Swyngedouw (eds) The Urbanization of Injustice (pp 137–160).
New York: New York University Press
Kohl B (2006) Challenges to neoliberal hegemony in Bolivia. Antipode 38:304–326
Kothari R (2005) Rethinking Democracy. New Delhi: Orient Longman
Laclau E and Mouffe C (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Verso
Lees L H (1994) Urban public space and imagined communities in the 1980s and 1990s.
Journal of Urban History 20:443–465
Lefebvre H (1984) Everyday Life in the Modern World. New Brunswick: Transaction
Lefebvre H (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell
Leitner H, Peck J, and Sheppard E S (eds) (2007) Contesting Neoliberalism Urban
Frontiers. New York: Guilford Press
Levinas E (1979) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Boston: M. Nijhoff
Lewis D (2002) Civil society in African contexts: Reflections on the usefulness of a
concept. Development and Change 33:569–586
Lummis C D (1996) Radical Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Mann M (2005) The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Massey D (1994) Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press
Massey D (2005) For Space. London: Sage
May T (2009) Anarchism from Foucault to Rancière. In R Amster, A DeLeon, L A
Fernandez, A J Nocella and D Shannon (eds) Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An
Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy (pp 11–17). London: Routledge

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
560 Antipode
McCann E (1999) Race, protest and public space: Contextualizing Lefebvre in the U.S.
city. Antipode 31:163–184
McIlwaine C (2007) From local to global to transnational civil society: Re-framing
development perspectives on the non-state sector. Geography Compass 1:1252–
1281
Mercer C (2002) NGOs, civil society and democratization: A critical review of the
literature. Progress in Development Studies 2:5–22
Miles M (2002) After the public realm: Spaces of representation, transition and plurality.
International Journal of Art Design Education 19:253–261
Mitchell D (1996) Political violence, order, and the legal construction of public
space: Power and the public forum doctrine. Urban Geography 17:152–
178
Mitchell D (2003a) The liberalization of free speech: Or, how protest in public space is
silenced. Stanford Agora 4:1–45
Mitchell D (2003b) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space.
New York: Guilford
Mitchell D and Staeheli L A (2006) Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public
space, and homelessness in downtown San Diego. In S M Low and N Smith (eds)
The Politics of Public Space (pp 143–175). London: Routledge
Mouffe C (2000) The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso
Mouffe C (2004) For an agonistic public sphere. In L Tønder and L Thomassen
eds Radical Democracy: Politics Between Abundance and Lack (pp 123–132).
Manchester: Manchester University Press
Mouffe C (2006) The Return of the Political. New York: Verso
Mudu P (2004) Resisting and challenging neoliberalism: The development of Italian
social centers. Antipode 36:917–941
O’Neil M L (2002) Youth curfews in the United States: The creation of public spheres
for some young people. Journal of Youth Studies 5:49–68
Orwell G (1993) A Collection of Essays. San Diego: Harcourt
Parekh B (1981) Hannah Arendt and the Search for a New Political Philosophy. London:
Macmillan
Peck J (2001) Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in Human
Geography 25:445–455
Peck J (2004) Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress
in Human Geography 28:392–405
Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34:380–404
Purcell M (2008) Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for
Alternative Urban Futures. London: Routledge
Rancière J (1999) Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press
Rapley J (2004) Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism’s Downward Spiral.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Rapoport D C and Weinberg L (2001) Introduction. In D C Rapoport and L Weinberg
(eds) The Democratic Experience and Political Violence (pp 1–14). Portland: Frank
Cass
Robinson J (2006) Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London:
Routledge
Ruddick S (1996) Constructing difference in public spaces: Race, class, and gender as
interlocking systems. Urban Geography 17:132–151
Ryan M (1989) Politics and Culture: Working Hypothesis for a Post-Revolutionary
Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Said E (2003) Orientalism (25th anniversary ed). New York: Vintage

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
Scheper-Hughes N and Bourgois P (2004) Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N

Scheper-Hughes and P Bourgois (eds) Violence in War and Peace (pp 1–31). Malden:
Blackwell
Scott J C (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New
Haven: Yale University Press
Seoane J (2004) Rebellion, dignity, autonomy and democracy: Shared voices from the
South. Antipode 36:383–391
Schmitter P C and Karl T L (1993) What democracy is . . . and is not. In L Diamond
and M F Platter (eds) The Global Resurgence of Democracy (pp. 39–52). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press
Slater D (1989) Territory and State Power in Latin America: The Peruvian Case. New
York: St Martin’s
Slater D (2004) Geopolitics and the Post-colonial: Rethinking North–South Relations.
Malden: Blackwell
Smith M P (2001) Transnational Urbanism. Oxford: Blackwell
Smith N and Low S M (2006) Introduction: The imperative of public space. In
N Smith and S M Low (eds) The Politics of Public Space (pp 1–16). London:
Routledge
Sorkin M (1992) Introduction: Variations on a theme park. In M Sorkin (ed) Variations
on a Theme Park: the New American City and the End of Public Space (pp xi–xv).
New York: Hill & Wang
Springer S (2008) The nonillusory effects of neoliberalism: Linking geographies of
poverty, inequality, and violence. Geoforum 39:1520–1525
Springer S (2009a) Culture of violence or violent Orientalism? Neoliberalisation and
imagining the “savage other” in post-transitional Cambodia. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 34:305–319
Springer S (2009b) Violence, democracy, and the neoliberal “order”: The contestation
of public space in post-transitional Cambodia. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 99:138–162
Springer S (2010) Combodia’s Neoliberal Order: Violence, Authoritarianism, and the
Contestation of Public Space. London: Routledge
Staeheli L A and Thompson A (1997) Citizenship, community, and struggles for public
space. Professional Geographer 49:28–38
Sundberg J (2007) Reconfiguring North–South solidarity: Critical reflections on
experiences of transnational resistance. Antipode 39:144–166
Thomassen L (2005) Reading radical democracy: A commentary on Clive Barnett.
Political Geography 24:631–639
Tilly C (2003) Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Turpin J E and Kurtz L R eds (1996) The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press
UNDP (2002) Human Development Report: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented
World. New York: Oxford University Press
Valentine G (1996) Children should be seen and not heard: The production
and transgression of adults’ public space. Urban Geography 17:205–
220
Wade R H (2003) Is globalization reducing poverty and inequality? International
Journal of Health Services 34:381–414
Wainwright J and Kim S-J (2008) Battles in Seattle redux: Transnational resistance to
a neoliberal trade agreement. Antipode 40:513–534
Watson S (2006) City Publics: The (Dis)enchantments of Urban Encounters. London:
Routledge
Wiarda H J (2003) Civil Society: the American Model and Third World Development.
Boulder: Westview

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
562 Antipode
Yacobi H (2007) The NGOization of space: Dilemmas of social change, planning

policy, and the Israeli public sphere. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 25:745–758
Yeung H W (1998) Capital, state and space: Contesting the borderless world.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23:291–309
Young I M (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University
Press
Young I M (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press
Young I M (2006) Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination, and Responsibility for
Justice. Malden: Polity
Zizek S (2008) Violence. New York: Picador

C 2010 The Author
Journal compilation
View publication stats

The Expanding Circle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Expanding Circle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Expanding Circle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy,

Article in Antipode · November 2010

Anarchist Geographies View project

Smash Capitalism! A Radical Guide to Reclaiming Planet Earth View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Abstract: In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space as a vision

which contra aggregative and deliberative models, places politics on a

“inside” and “outside”. Thus, an ordinary cities approach forms a post-

development agenda to be set by those most directly impacted by it. As a

Finally, although protest movements necessarily occur in terrains that

Towards Democracy as Public Space

while Young (2000:5) calls democracy “a matter of degree”. Dahl

democracy. Here the objective of democratic society is reduced to

to go beyond notions of citizenship by replacing them with the free

heterogeneity that Barnett (2004a) misses when he homogenizes the

Beyond Civil Society?

the state, orientated in an archic arrangement. This vicious circle is

proxy for civil societies, acknowledging that “NGOization” conditions

Since democracy is meant to be inclusive, it is specifically those public

modern aristocracy. Only a conception of civil society rooted in public

The Space of Appearance

such communications to rally support and opposition through public

What Barnett is really describing is how social movements use

by social movements, many geographers (see Goheen 1998; Howell

prohibition for women (Bondi 1996; Massey 1994), ethnic minorities

Habermas’s liberal impression makes a public look like the public,

The Contestation of Public Space

the product and site of conflict between the competing ideologies

important as what is said, when it is said, how it is said, and who is

2005. Such events undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing profiling of the

The importance of this potential and possibility in terms of

Disquieting Nexus or Irreconcilable Schism?

violence” (Parekh 1981:95). To the extent that Arendt (1958) viewed

socioeconomic hierarchy. It also hints at the underlying values being

Although violence is antithetical to democracy and anarchism, what

that a democracy must recognize the right to protest, which he suggests

the symbolic violence born of our discourses (Bourdieu 2001), are

bring about supposedly necessary economic “prerequisites”. Radical

contestation without repression. If those “from below” perceive those

that should be pursued. Instead, through a relational, processual, and

Benjamin W (1986) Critique of violence. In P Demetz ed Walter Benjamin Reflections:

Harvey D (1996) Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge:

Scheper-Hughes N and Bourgois P (2004) Introduction: Making sense of violence. In N

Yacobi H (2007) The NGOization of space: Dilemmas of social change, planning

View publication stats

You might also like