How Do Squatters Deal with the State? Legalization and Anomalous Institutionalization in Madrid

Abstract

Radical and autonomous urban movements like the European squatters' movement tend to resist integration into the institutions of the state, although particular legal and political conditions in each country or city may significantly alter this tendency. In this article, I examine the controversial issue of ‘institutionalization’ among squatters, focusing on the few cases of legalized squats (social centres) in the city of Madrid. Negotiations with the state authorities and processes of legalization are the major forms of institutionalization involving squatters. However, an anomalous kind of institutionalization also emerges once squats, whether legalized or not, become consolidated and socially accepted. For squatting to have a successful impact, then, depends on both the type of autonomy achieved by squatters and the different outcomes of the processes of institutionalization. The case of Madrid provides empirical evidence that: (1) negotiations with state authorities were very frequent among squatters, but most were defensive; (2) the few cases of legalization were due to specific conditions such as the urban centrality of the squats, single‐issue identities, social network solidarity, favourable media coverage, formal organizations working as facilitators and the squatters' leadership of the process. Furthermore, legalized squats in Madrid preserved a high degree of autonomy, self‐management and ties to other radical social movements. In conclusion, both the legalized squats and the squatters' movement in Madrid as a whole, avoided ‘terminal institutionalization’ and, instead, gave shape to a ‘flexible’ one.

Subjectification in Times of Indebtedness and Neoliberal/Austerity Urbanism

“…Concerning strategies, the “Tsunami” marks a novel phase in respect to the recent past in terms of typologies of buildings squatted. Indeed one of the main strategies of the squatting movement in Rome has consisted for a long time in occupying mostly abandoned public buildings (or vacant social housing units) to denounce the lack of serious engagement of public institutions with the housing question, while opening (mostly informal) negotiations with the owning institutions in order to get the legal assignation of the building, thus ensuring the survival of the initiative (the issue of “institutionalization” of squatting initiatives has represented a main concern in the literature; see, for instance, Martinez ). On the contrary, the “Tsunami” has concerned mostly privately owned buildings in order to denounce the speculative character of vacant real estate stocks as stores‐of‐value under financial capitalism.…”

Spatial dialectics and the geography of social movements: the case of Occupy London

“…The legal battle presented a particular contradiction for Occupy because, no matter how transparent and open the legal working group attempted to be, there was a daily need (in the court room) to operate within the dominant institutional apparatus and ‘political technologies’ of state territoriality (Elden ). Similar tensions have been highlighted in research on squatters movements, noting both a tendency for activists to become institutionalised within hierarchical territorial structures (Martínez ) and dominant groups to form around those with what Kadir () terms ‘squatters’ capital’: skills and experience of building occupations. In Occupy, the seemingly external logic of top‐down territoriality was gradually internalised in camp through mundane material practices (e.g.…”

Subterranean Commodification: Informal Housing and the Legalization of Basement Suites in Vancouver from 1928 to 2009

“…Writers focusing on the global South show how diverse property rights may stand in tension with regu lar ization and titling projects (van Gelder, 2013;Kuyucu 2014;Wigle, 2014) and how dif fer ential access to state and class power mediate decisions over the legalization and illegalization of land and housing (Roy, 2011). In the global North, research has often revolved around the partiality of state efforts to enforce municipal ordinances, and building codes and standards, and around the struggles to which such schemes give rise (Ward, 2004;Tanasescu et al, 2010;Martinez, 2014). Consequently, 'analysis should include not only the state's role in setting the parameters for what constitutes irregu larity, but also consider the ways in which these categories are produced, enacted and contested through planning processes and practices' (Wigle, 2014: 577-78).…”