Territory has been increasingly interrogated within Anglophone human geography, yet it has been little examined beyond the context of the modern, Eurocentric state. Developing an open definition of territory, the appropriation of space in pursuit of political projects, this paper opens epistemological dialogue with diverse Latin America strategies to decolonise territory in thought and practice, oriented around the themes of land, terrain and the state. In so doing it aims to contribute to the dismantling and reversing of colonial hierarchies that are both reproduced through Anglophone scholarship and sustained through dominant imaginations and practices of territory.

Taking space has been a common feature of recent social movements worldwide, and was a defining act of the Occupy movement. This article examines the taking of two spaces by Occupy London in October 2011, and argues that there was a tension between taking space as a moment of rupture, lived space-times of intensity that provide an opening to new possibilities, and everyday life, the routines and rhythms through which social life is reproduced. My argument builds on the work of Lefebvre, bringing together his conceptualisation of "moments" and everyday life, and his radical theory of the production of space. I argue that examining the tensions over taking space provides a useful angle to explore some of the challenges faced by the Occupy movement, such as an unequal division of labour on camp, and may help in negotiating them. Resumen: La toma de espacios ha sido una característica común de los movimientos sociales recientes en el mundo, y fue un acto definitivo del movimiento Occupy. Este artículo investiga la toma de dos espacios por Occupy London en Octubre del 2011, y sostiene que hubo una tensión entre la toma del espacio como un momento de ruptura, espacios-tiempos vivos de intensidad que dan una apertura a nuevas posibilidades, y la vida cotidiana, las rutinas y ritmos por los cuales la vida social se reproduce. Mi argumento amplia el trabajo de Lefebvre, combinando su conceptualización de "momentos" y la vida cotidiana, y su teoría radical de la producción del espacio. Sostengo que el estudiar las tensiones de la toma del espacio crea un útil punto de vista para la investigación de algunos de los desafíos que el movimiento Occupy enfrenta, tales como la división de trabajo desigual en los campamentos, y que, por ende, puede ayudar a negociarlos.

No abstract

This paper develops spatial dialectics as an analytical method capable of exposing and explaining the contradictions, dilemmas and tensions that cut through the spatialities of social movements. Despite scholarly recognition of internal divides in movements such as Occupy, there is greater need to conceptualise the inherently contradictory nature of social movements, in particular by reflecting on the role of spatiality. Building on recent work on multiple spatialities of activism, the paper shifts attention to contradiction as a key factor in spatial mobilisation, further arguing that the recent turn to assemblage thought is ill equipped for such a task. Dialectics is introduced via Bertell Ollman's influential account of its ontological and epistemological bases, before turning to Edward Soja's reading of Henri Lefebvre to incorporate spatiality. Spatial dialectics disrupts the linearity of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, placing contradictions not only within the historical unfolding of relations but also within co-dependent yet antagonistic moments of space, through Lefebvre's 'trialetic' of perceived, conceived and lived space. Building on 'militant research', which combined a seven-month ethnography, 43 in-depth interviews and analyses of representations of space, spatial dialectics is put to work through the analysis of three specific contradictions in Occupy London's spatial strategies: a global movement that became tied to the physical space of occupation; a prefigurative space engulfed by internal hierarchies; and a grassroots territorial strategy that was subsumed into logics of dominant territorial institutions. In each case, Occupy London's spatial strategies are explained in the context of unfolding contradictions in conceived, perceived and lived spaces and the subsequent dilemmas and shifts in spatial strategy this led to. In conclusion, the paper highlights broader lessons for social movements' spatial praxis generated through the analysis of Occupy London.

No abstract

In this paper I examine the practices of encountering o f Occupy London, and argue that they provide a means for rethinking the production o f territoriality. Specifically, I argue that boundary making not only involves hierarchical relations o f power-over but also the articulation o f bottom-up power-to. I first examine literature on boundary making, and propose encountering as a more appropriate vocabulary to represent this practice in the context of urban activism. I then conceptualise encountering as the articulation o f powerto, a moment in the production of territoriality from below, bringing together Holloway's dialectical understanding o f power and Lefebvre's writings on territorial autogestion and urban encounters. In the remainder o f the paper I examine practices o f encountering in Occupy London on the basis o f militant research with the movement that combined ethnography, interviews, and archive analysis. The paper focuses on the spaces of the General Assembly and the protest camp, exploring how encounters were productive of new social relations and highlighting key tensions. In particular I note the inevitable ephemerality o f activist encounters and tensions over institutionalising encounters, and I end by calling for greater attention to the power relations involved, warning against assumptions that encounters o f power-to necessarily lead to positive outcomes.

No abstract

This paper examines the increasingly popular approach of militant research and argues for the need to conceptualise it as a contradictory approach that exists against-and-beyond any form it takes. It understands militant research as a committed and intense process of internal reflection from within particular struggle(s) that seeks to map out and discuss underlying antagonisms while pushing the movement forward. Based on the author's experiences of doing militant research with Occupy London from both inside the university and through the Occupy Research Collective created outside, it argues that there are no ideal sites for doing militant research. It explores the opportunities of doing militant research within the university, pointing towards the potential for subverting the resources available, and highlights the barriers, in particular with relation to ethics. The Occupy Research Collective (ORC) is then examined as an alternative space for doing militant research. In turn, a number of limitations of ORC are noted, including both its lack of resources and tendency to (re)create a form of doing militant research detached from broader struggles. While recent work has highlighted the need for militant research to operate antagonistically to the neoliberal university, and there have been calls to create new institutions outside it, this paper extends previous arguments by emphasising the need to criticise all forms of militant research in order to push struggles forward. It draws on John Holloway's widely referenced 'in-against-and-beyond' dialectical approach to emphasise the inevitable challenges of institutionalising militant research, no matter where this takes place. It concludes by suggesting that militant research should not shy away from embracing critiques of particular struggles and that further theoretical work needs to be done in terms of developing a more open and relational understanding of militancy.