——————–October 11, 2017 | Denver, Colorado ——————–
A free mini-conference directly preceding the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) conference
While planning offers hope for better cities, radical scholars and planners have exposed a troubled history of the complicity of planning in perpetuating spatialized inequity, injustice, and domination. This mini-conference addresses both the theoretical and practical aspects of an invigorated contemporary radical planning agenda, posing critical questions in pursuit of better ways forward. Inspired by the first Spaces of Struggle held in 2016 in Portland, Oregon, this year’s mini-conference offers a space of exchange for the many voices who believe radical practice and scholarship are crucial to understanding and challenging mainstream systems and practices.
We assemble doctoral students, scholars and faculty from across the globe, as well as activists, artists, and community representatives. Spaces of Struggle is a commentary on and complement to ACSP 2017 events, activities and presentations. While we welcome a variety of critical and radical perspectives, proposals should engage directly with the histories, theories, and practices of urban planning. Applicants will be selected and organized into panels and roundtable sessions based on the relevance of their proposal to the conference themes and the potential for dialogue among participants.
Submission deadline: May 1, 2017
Paper Panel Sessions: These sessions will consist of panels of three to four scholarly papers addressing different themes or concentrations in radical planning. Presenters will have 15-minutes to read or discuss their paper, followed by audience questions and discussion.
To apply to present a paper, please submit a 250-word abstract proposal outlining (1) the subject of the paper and your research approach (community project, research project, dissertation project, etc.), and (2) how it intersects with other themes and issues of radical planning. Include 3 keywords.
Special Topic Roundtable Discussions: These less structured sessions will be organized around themes or specific topics that emerge from both the paper and roundtable submissions. Three to five discussants will have 5-minutes to introduce how their scholarship intersects with radical planning and then engage the audience in an open conversation.
To apply to participate as a discussant in a roundtable discussion, please submit a 250-word statement of interest. The statement should (1) describe how you position your research, activism and/or community experience within the themes and issues of radical planning, and (2) conclude with one or two specific questions for discussion. The questions that will shape our discussion will be drawn directly from selected panelist submissions.
Please submit your application to email@example.com by midnight on Monday, May 1 with the subject line “Space of Struggle 2017: application”.
Include your full name, affiliation and position, and contact information. You may apply to present at both the paper and roundtable sessions but will be limited to one presentation. Selected presenters will be notified by mid-June. Participants will be required to submit their conference papers or discussion outline by the end of September 2017.
Statement on Accessibility and Accommodation: In keeping with radical values and positions, we are dedicated to working with our colleagues and communities to find reasonable accommodations whenever possible to facilitate alternative presentation or participation formats for those who may face barriers due to political, financial, medical, ability or other accessibility concerns and restrictions. This may include but is not limited to the use of digital technologies or presentations read by proxy.
Radical planning movements and practices
- Radical practice, policy, and professionals
- Anarchist, socialist, feminist, and/or queer planning
- Direct action and social movements
- Informality and insurgency across the globe
Radical planning issues and themes
- Dissensus, democracy, and agonistic pluralism
- White supremacy, racism, and xenophobia
- Colonialism, migration, and indigeneity
- Neoliberalization/market fundamentalism
- Gentrification, race, eviction, and displacement
- Policing, law, and the State
- Technology, software, and innovation
- Labor, energy, and work
- Intersectionality and identity
- The body, gender, sexuality, and social reproduction
- Ability and access
- Infrastructures, logistics, and networks
- Environments, ecologies, and natures
- Housing, property, and the Commons
- Zoning, regulation, and control
Radical planning epistemologies and pedagogies
- Radical and activist research methodologies
- Expertise, data, and knowledge
- Teaching radical planning, publishing, media, and knowledge networks
- Historical and comparative analyses of radical planning practice
There is no fee to participate or attend the conference.
Bri Gauger, University of Michigan
Sarah Gelbard, McGill University
Carla Maria Kayanan, University of Michigan
Julie Mah, University of Toronto
Danielle Rivera, University of Colorado Boulder
Stephen Sherman, University of Illinois
Raksha Vasudevan, University of Texas
Lecture at the Simpson Center for The Humanities : The Same River Twice: Ethics and Entities in the Anthropocene
Etienne Turpin, Research Scientist
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Wednesday, April 5, 2017, 3:30-5 pm
Communications 120, Reception to follow in Communications 206
The Same River Twice: Ethics and Entities in the Anthropocene
What do contemporary urban ecologies teach human residents about ethics, epistemology, and media? First attributed to Heraclitus of Ephesus by Plato, the remark that we cannot step in the same river twice is at once a statement about the nature of perpetual change and an acknowledgement of a tension between sensation and abstraction in human understandings of nature. More than twenty-five centuries later, the Indonesian island of Java is now inhabited by more residents than lived on Earth during Heraclitus’s time, with many living in densely arranged megacities. In fact, the greater metropolitan area of the capital, Jakarta, has more than 30 million people residing alongside thirteen rivers that run from the mountains of the Sunda Arc to the Java Sea.
What can we learn from the residential knowledges and itinerant practices that characterize this megacity? By way of a survey of his recent design projects with anexact office, Urban Lab Network Asia, MIT, and PetaBencana.id, Etienne Turpin will suggest how the Anthropocene is being locally instantiated through a parametrization of life on earth. Considering the ethical and epistemic consequences of residential life in the city—including dispositions toward nonhuman entities, mediations that enable collaboration and contestation, and contributions to postnatural ecologies—the presentation will unfold some concepts and concerns emerging from this torrential formation.
Etienne Turpin is a philosopher and Founding Director of an exact office, a design research office in Jakarta, Indonesia. He studies and designs knowledge infrastructure and produces platforms, exhibitions, and publications by combining design, archival research, documentary, and ethnography. Turpin also works as a Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he coordinates the Humanitarian Infrastructures Group and co-directs the PetaBecana.id disaster mapping project for the Urban Risk Lab. He is the editor of Architecture in the Anthropocene (Open Humanities Press, 2013) and co-editor of Fantasies of the Library (MIT Press, 2016), Art in the Anthropocene (Open Humanities Press, 2015), and Jakarta: Architecture + Adaptation (Universitas Indonesia Press, 2013).
Organized by The Anthropocene, a cross-disciplinary research cluster of the Simpson Center for the Humanities. Co-sponsored by the Center for Creative Conservation, the Southeast Asia Center, and Urban@UW.
The University of Washington is committed to providing access, equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation in its services, programs, activities, education and employment for individuals with disabilities. To request disability accommodation contact the Disability Services Office at least ten days in advance at: 206.543.6450/V, 206.543.6452/TTY, 206.685.7264 (FAX), or e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
As we regularly check ourselves about the nature of governance, political economies, participation in the polis, oppression, exclusion, and power… perhaps one of our next readings ought to look to an older source of wisdom. We have touched on indigeneity, and have read some feminist scholars. But we haven’t really looked at anything that combined the two, and the book below apparently does that. This from a food systems list I’m on, from poster Debbie Hillman, a consultant in Evanston, Illinois:
New System? If anyone wants to read about a model for the new system, I would recommend diving into the details of the Iroquois Constitution and the Iroquois League. I think the answers have been right under our noses, in plain sight.
Here’s the post to which they are both responding.
Yesterday afternoon I went to see Michael Hardt talk about leadership in social movements. The title of the talk was “Where have all the leaders gone?” and his goal was to think through some of the recent “leaderless” movements: BLM, Occupy, etc. One aspect of the talk really resonated with our last discussion on Bifo’s recent book, and that’s what I wanted to post about here.
To set up his analytical framework, he began with the distinction between strategies and tactics. Typically, strategy is the realm of leaders: taking the long view, gauging the field of action, and making plans, while tactics are the purview of the followers, or the grassroots: they involve specific interests, short term action, etc. Rather than doing away with leadership altogether and noting the spontaneity of political events (which is often a mischaracterization of careful planning, in his view), Hardt instead wants to think through what might happen if the realms of strategies and tactics were inverted. In this case, it would be grassroots movements that define the strategies (what he ends of calling the entrepreneurship of the multitude, in an effort to recapture the “e” word from the enthusiasts of neoliberalism) and to have tactical leadership to execute these strategies, which would take place in the short term, serve specific purposes, and rely on leaders’ technical expertise.
But I found this particularly compelling when he spoke about how we should look to other spheres to identify our virtual capacities to strategize politically. Following the increasing sociality of production that has arisen in the post-Fordist era, he suggests that if people can manage to do this in economic production, for example, then why not in politics? His examples were the role of caring by hospice nurses — who serve as points of contact for the patient and their loved ones — and the role that coding plays in Google’s pagerank algorithm, which continuously makes new connections between the search engine’s performance and the collective intelligence making use of it. Beyond the economic, if this can also be done in other social or cultural relationships, then isn’t the capacity also transferable to political organizing?
It’s this point that I find to be the most compelling. I’m thinking particularly about my comment on the eight-hour immersive play Gatz, and how I — as someone who is not likely to protest in the street — am drawn to this sort of collective aesthetic experience (and want to be more involved, want to discuss and “share breath,” as Bifo says). Or like this reading group, which has functioned as a self-organized body for 6.5 years. In Hardt’s formulation, the ability to organize these sorts of interactions attests to the capacity to organize, and therefore to strategize. The challenge, politically, is to then actualize these (virtual) capacities toward political ends, and to then select leaders/experts that can carry them out.
I’ve been hearing & reading a recurring sentiment since the election: I can’t read fiction right now. That I hear it most commonly from those I consider “serious readers” (those who don’t read fiction strictly for entertainment or diversion), is cause for concern — as I understand both the importance they place on reading and the mournful loss they’re experiencing […]
Regarding our conversation on why Bifo was interested in poetry, rather than, say, music: this is a short passage from Philip K. Dick’s The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, in which the title character is discussing Beethoven’s Fidelio with his daughter-in-law:
“It goes beyond beauty,” Tim said. “It involves an apprehension of the nature of freedom itself. How can it be that purely abstract music, such as his late quartets, can without words change human beings in terms of their own awareness of themselves, in terms of their ontological nature? Schopenhauer believed that art, in particular music, had — has — the power to cause the will, the irrational, striving will, to somehow turn back onto and into itself and cease to strive. He considered this a religious experience, although temporary. Somehow art, somehow music especially, has the power to transform man from an irrational thing into some rational entity that is not driven by biological impulses, impulses that cannot by definition ever be satisfied…”
Perhaps of interest in the wake of Lazzarato and Bifo.
Ruccio has posted three incredibly clear and insightful installments on the state of class relations in the US since WWII. They’re great empirical support for many of the economic trends that those of us who deal in political/urban theory are used to reading, but without any concrete evidence.