2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dis/possessive collectivism: Property and personhood at city’s end

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
198
0
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 271 publications
(215 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
198
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Their response to the collapse of a neoliberal growth-oriented lifestyle, to the increase of unsustainable lifestyles, and to the breach of the promises of modernity for progress are pressing issues (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). Feelings of nostalgia for a lost era of social cohesion, the patriotic framing of their struggles and the unquestioning approval of the liberal, colonial and individualized conceits of property ownership (see also Roy, 2017) are some examples of the general controversial responses of the citizens of Global North to the current crisis. This blurring between the polemics against neoliberalism and austerity regimes and the difficulties involved in disputing well-established values and ways of being before the crisis is the crux of the idiotypic befuddlement discussed in the present research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their response to the collapse of a neoliberal growth-oriented lifestyle, to the increase of unsustainable lifestyles, and to the breach of the promises of modernity for progress are pressing issues (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). Feelings of nostalgia for a lost era of social cohesion, the patriotic framing of their struggles and the unquestioning approval of the liberal, colonial and individualized conceits of property ownership (see also Roy, 2017) are some examples of the general controversial responses of the citizens of Global North to the current crisis. This blurring between the polemics against neoliberalism and austerity regimes and the difficulties involved in disputing well-established values and ways of being before the crisis is the crux of the idiotypic befuddlement discussed in the present research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Residents would have to start all over when their belongings were confiscated and destroyed, as they were dispossessed of their personal identification, medication, money, laptops, radios, blankets, tents, and other valuables such as ashes. This exclusionary practice of ‘racial banishment’, as Pete White conveys (in Roy, ), displaces the livelihood of the homeless. Critiques of these policing practices link them to historical practices of banishment in the United States that residents and grassroots organizations reject, demanding: ‘No Jim Crow on Skid Row!’ (Helfand and Winton, ; Woods, ).…”
Section: ‘No Jim Crow In Skid Row’: Restoring Real Property Through Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In her look at Lebanon, she shows how an examination of the articulation of land use and property interface in municipal planning discussions around “conflicting public and private interests.” Planners reify the ownership model of urban development by reproducing what she terms “a propertied landscape” (Fawaz, , p. 1). Thus, scholars working on a range of empirical sites have demonstrated that land‐use planning uncritically accepts the ownership model of private property as its basis, starting from the assumption that all landscapes are in some way “propertied” in the form of geometrically gridded parcels (see also Maandi, ; Roy, , ). Practices of planning thus trigger “the mobilization of propertied interests,” further reinforcing power differentials and negating possible alternatives (Fawaz, , p. 15).…”
Section: Land Use I: Planning Property and The Power Geometries Of mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, scholars of the global south have also made important efforts in showing the ways in which liberal formulations of land use and property have touched down in the colonial context, and the devastating effects they (continue to) have on the everyday lives of urban inhabitants in the global south (Gidwani, ; Gidwani & Reddy, ; Ranganathan, ; Vasudevan, ). Roy and others see a politics of hope in poor people's movements/practices of dwelling, resistance, and struggle, arguing that the global north and global south should be kept simultaneously in view, and that doing so can assist in the dismantling and/or subversion of liberal ideas of land use, property, citizenship, and rights (Roy, , ; Roy & Crane, ). Drawing on examples of ongoing settler‐colonial processes in Israel and Australia, Blatman‐Thomas and Porter () assert that viewing property instead as land “offers a more hopeful space” (p. 14).…”
Section: Land Use Iii: Urban Resistance and (Extra)legal Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%