Squatting in Madrid: opportunity structures and processes of

Squatting in Madrid: opportunity structures and processes of

XVII world congress of sociology // ISA // Gothenburg // 2010
Squatting in Madrid:
opportunity structures and
processes of institutionalisation
in three social centres
Miguel Martínez
University Complutense of Madrid
miguelam@ cps. ucm. es
1. Movement and Institution within Squatting: the
controversy
2. Hypothesis, concepts and empirical evidence.
3. Conclusions: no general patterns?
summary
1. Movement and Institution within Squatting: the
controversy
movement and institution
Institutions: to be or not to be?
// M. Bookchin (intuition vs. institution): Individualistic,
narcissistic, insurrectionary and 'lifestyle anarchism' vs. “social
institutions, political organizations, radical programs” and
building a revolutionary movement ('social anarchism').
// F. Alberoni (institution or death): To become an institution
recognised by the State and/or integrated into everyday life is
the natural destiny of any social movement... Otherwise, it
faces decline or death without leaving any relevant footprint in
society. But no institution (defined by formal rules, coercion
and duration) can truly reflect and preserve the effervescence,
creativity, challenges and utopianism of rising movements.
movement and institution 1.1
Institutionalisation: a contradictory process
// R. Lourau, T. Negri: even radical movements aim to keep
the essences of the movement while becoming a new
institution or while integrating into an old one.
// A. Touraine, D. Rucht, Piven and Cloward: radicals
participate in already existing institutions in order to modify and
overwhelm them through disruptive actions.
// C. Offe, S. Tarrow, R. Koopmans: 'organisational maturity'
like a political party is needed in order to overcome the lack
of resources, the absence of mobilisation, internal conflicts and
decline.
movement and institution 1.2
Specific ways of institutionalisation within squatting
// H. Pruijt (vs Uitermark):
(1) Flexible:
(1.1) mix of legalised and non-legal squats, mix of conventional
and disruptive actions, mix of repression and negotiations;
(1.2) cooptation of some squatters by the State or private
companies, but general autonomy of squatters' activities.
(2) Terminal:
(2.1) most of the squatters does not practice disruptive actions
and most of the squats are legalised (and the new ones are
early aborted);
(2.2) general cooptation of squatters and market or State
control of their activities.
movement and institution 1.3
State's actions
Squatters' actions
-
// Legal prohibition
// Public legitimation
// Police repression
// Resist repression
// Negotiation
// Negotiation
// Subsidies to squats
// Apply for subsidies
// Rehabilitation of squats
// Formal organisations
// Cooptation of squatters
// Participation in plans...
// Legalisation of squats
// Pay rent
forced /
minimum
+
institutionalisation
subsidiary /
intermediate
maximum
movement and institution 1.4
2. Hypothesis, Concepts and Empirical Evidence.
ideas and data
Hypothesis
// Institutionalisation is a complex process of change, made of
specific mechanisms and steps, under particular circumstances
(according to the context), and dealing with strategic dilemmas
(according to actors involved and interactions between them) and
no-return crossroads.
// Splits among the movement and legal status of some social
centres do not affect substantially autonomy and self-management.
// General anti-institutional attitudes and closed political
framework can result only in flexible processes of institutionalisation
of squatting.
ideas and data 2.1
The concept of institutionalisation
// An increasing degree of formalisation, coercion and rules (like
families, language, education... at some point recognised by the
State).
// An increasing participation of individuals and organisations into
already existing State (or market) formal institutions.
// The creation (or promotion) of new institutions in order to be
legitimised and preserved by the State.
// Patterned interactions between State officials and movements'
activists.
ideas and data 2.2
Empirical evidence: attitudes, outcomes and mediations
SECO
Attitudes towards
negotiations
Evolution
Legal process
Strengths
Increasingly and
fully favourable
PATIO
MALAYA
Favourable, but too
Oppositional but
difficult
respectful
Eviction, new squatting Soon evicted (8
months) but new
municipal property and uncertain future
squatting (4 months)
(3 years)
(18 years)
From squatting to
Indirect threat of
Threats of eviction
eviction (urban
avoided due to
renewal plan)
mobilization
Alternative urban
plan and alliance
with neighbours
Wide social and
media attraction
Fast eviction and
activists arrested
Urban centre and
movements-node
ideas and data 2.3
3. Conclusions: no general patterns?
conclusions
What makes institutionalisation possible?
// Persistent negotiation
// Reciprocal acknowledgement of rights and autonomy
// Supportive media and formal organisations
// Positive image of the squat linked to a particular public
policy (housing, youth, education, gender, etc.)
// Disposition to move and to accept payment of a rent
// Opponents to legalisation are only positive in case
authorities want to divide the movement
// Authorities do not understand multiple, transversal and
radical politics of squatting
conclusions 3.1
Is institutionalisation unavoidable?
// On the one hand, a minimum degree of self-institutionalisation is
inherent to autonomy and self-organisation. On the other hand,
while squatters tend to resist high degrees of institutionalisation,
even the most nomadic and informal groups need to deal with low
degrees of forced negotiation with authorities.
// The more advanced the processes of institutionalisation are, the
more conflictive the splits between 'radicals' and 'moderates'
become. There are also a more specific split between (1) those
who negotiate, (2) those who don't negotiate but respect those
who do it, (3) those who don't negotiate and don't respect those
who do it.
conclusions 3.2
Use it & Reform it!
Contradictory
Concept of the State
Concept of the
Squatters' Movement
Destroy it!
Powerful
Long lasting
Radical politics:
stability of activities
squatting as means
/ projects (means)
and end
To protest against
To get rid of the ghetto,
To analyse effects
and criminal laws
into squatting
legalisation
repression of squatting
to get society involved
of negotiation and
conclusions 3.3
Consequences of flexible institutionalisation
// Those interacting more with authorities basically aim to build
stable and new hybrid and anomalous institutions, while preserving
the autonomy of every social centre (and they get it after
legalisation).
// Those opposing any contact with the State basically aim to build
a cohesive and powerful movement (which is always quite difficult
and legalisations don't help).
// Legalisations of squats were not so frequent. Thus 'flexible
institutionalisation' (and resistance to 'terminal institutionalisation')
seems to point out a pattern.
conclusions 3.4
References
// Alberoni, Francesco (1991 or. 1989) Genesis, Ramsay: Paris.
[http://www.alberoni.it/versione-inglese/download-the-books.asp]
// Bookchin, Murray (1995) Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable
Chasm. [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/soclife.html]
// Castells, Manuel (1983) The City and the Grassroots. A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban
Social Movements, Berkeley: University of California Press.
// Frisetti, Mario et al. (1994) Contra la legalización de los espacios okupados, Turín: El
Passo Occupato y Barocchio Occupato. [
http://flag.blackened.net/pdg/textos/textos/legalizacion.htm]
// González, Robert (2004) “La okupación y las políticas públicas: negociación, legalización
y gestión local del conflicto urbano”, en Adell, Ramón; Martínez, Miguel (eds.) ¿Dónde están
las llaves? El movimiento okupa: prácticas y contextos sociales, Madrid: La Catarata,
pp.151-177.
// Koopmans, Ruud (1995) Democracy from Below. New Social Movements and the Political
System in West Germany, Colorado: Westview.
// Lourau, René (1980 or. 1978) El Estado y el inconsciente, Barcelona: Kairós [L'EtatInconscient, Paris: Minuit].
references
// Mayer, Margit (1993) “The career of urban social movements in West Germany”, en
Fisher, R., Kling, J. (eds.) Mobilizing the community: local politics in the era of the global city,
Newbury Park: Sage.
// Membretti, Andrea (2003) Leoncavallo. Spazio Pubblico Autogestito. Un percorso di
cittadinanza attiva, Milan: Mamme del Leoncavallo.
// Mikkelsen, Flemming; Karpantschof, Rene (2001) “Youth as a Political Movement:
Development of the Squatters' and Autonomous Movement in Copenhagen, 1981-95”,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25-3, pp.609-628.
// Mudu, Pierpaolo (2004) “Resisting and Challenging Neoliberalism: The Development of
Italian Social Centers”, Antipode 36(5) pp.917-941.
// Negri, Antonio (1994) El poder constituyente. Ensayo sobre las alternativas de la
modernidad, Madrid: Libertarias/Prodhufi [The Constituent Power, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press]
// Offe, Claus (1992, or. 1990) “Reflexiones sobre la autotransformación institucional de la
actividad política de los movimientos: un modelo provisional según estadios”, en Dalton, R.
J., Kuechler, M. (eds.) Los nuevos movimientos sociales. Un reto al orden político, Valencia:
Alfons el Magánim, pp. 315-339 [Challenging the Political Order. New Social and Political
Movements in Western Democracies, Polity Press].
// Owens, Lynn (2009) Cracking Under Pressure. Narrating the Decline of the Amsterdam
Squatters' Movement, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
references
// Piven, Francis F.; Cloward, Richard A. (1979) Por People's Movements. Why they suceed,
how they fail, New York: Vintage.
// Platt, S. (1980) “A decade of squatting. The story of squatting in Britain since 1968”, en
Wates, Norman; Wolmar, C. (eds.) (1980) Squatting. The real story, London: Bay Leaf Books.
// Pruijt Hans (2003) “Is the Institutionalization of Urban Movements Inevitable? A
Comparison of the Opportunities for Sustained Squatting in New York and Amsterdam”,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27-1, pp.133-157.
// Rucht, Dieter (1992, or. 1990) “Estrategias y formas de acción de los nuevos
movimientos”, en Dalton, R. J., Kuechler, M. (eds.) Challenging the Political Order. New
Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies, Polity Press.
// Sabaté, Irene (2009) Ein Zuhause. Etnografía del aprovisionamiento de vivienda en el
barrio berlinés de Friedrichshain, Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.
// Tarrow, Sidney (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and
Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
// Toret, Javier et al. (eds.) (2008) Autonomía y metrópolis. Del movimiento okupa a los
centros sociales de segunda generación, Málaga: ULEX y Diputación Provincial de Málaga.
[http://ulexmalaga.blogspot.com/2007/04/descarga-gratuita-de-la-coleccion.html]
// Touraine, Alain (1981, or. 1978) The voice and the eye. An analysis of social movements,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [La Voix et le Regard, Paris: Seuil]
references
SQEK // Squatting Europe Kollective // 2010
www.miguelangelmartinez.net