Deny Anarchic Spaces and Places: An Anarchist Critique of Mosaic-Statist Metageography

18 Pages·2010·0.21 MB·English

181 181
AnarchistDevelopmentsinCulturalStudies
“Post-Anarchismtoday”
2010.1
Deny Anarchic Spaces and Places:
An Anarchist Critique of
Mosaic-Statist Metageography
∗
Xavier Oliveras González
Abstract
Thisarticleexploreshowanarchic/anarchistspaces/placesarede-
nied/rejected.Thisrejectionisdueto,first,anideologicalrejection
ofanarchismand,second,ametageographicalimpossibility.Withre-
gardstothissecondrejection,itisshownthatthecurrenthegemonic
conceptionofmetageography,theso-calledmosaic-statistmetageogra-
phy(wherebyspaceisdividedintoterritorialunits;wherebyterritorial
unitsarehierarchicallyordered;etc.)isrelatedtoissuesofpowerand
domination.Metageography(whichisasetofgeographicalstructures
andframeworksthroughwhichspaceisconceived)mustberecon-
structedaccordingtoanarchistprinciplesthatmakeanarchicspace
onceagainconceivablewhilesimultaneouslycriticizingallspacesof
domination.
Introduction
Anarchic/istexperiencesandprojectshavealwayshadaremark-
ableterritorialdimensionandthisisbeginningtobewidelyrecog-
nized (or conceived). The territorial dimension not only refers to
∗
XavierOliverasGonzálezisaresearcherattheGeographyDepartmentoftheUni-
versitatAutònomadeBarcelona(inCatalonia,Spain).Hisresearchinterestsinclude:
metageography(especiallyhowhegemonicgeographicalframeworksareconstructed),
anarchistgeography,andcrossbordercooperation(atthesubnationallevel). Heis
professorof: GeographyofSpain,GeographyofEuropeandRegionalGeography.
HisPh.D.thesis(2009)wasabouttheconstructionoftransnationalmacroregionsin
Europe.Partsofthisarticlewerepresentedatthe“AnnualInternationalConference
oftheRoyalGeographySocietyinLondon”(2010).
181 181
182 182
182 XavierOliverasGonzález
geographicallocalizationbutalsotothecapacityandpotentialtocon-
struct“spaces”and“places”,outsideofdominionrelationsspace(like
statistspace),basedonegalitarianandanti-authoritarianrelations,
non-hierarchical social practices, collective and individual auton-
omy,cooperativestructures,etc. Soanarchic/istspacesandplaces
canbedefinedasthe(constructed)territoriesbasedonanddueto
anarchistprinciplesandpeoples,muchlikestatelesspeoplesspaces,
libertariancommunities, socialcentres, municipioslibres, Spanish
Revolutioncollectivizations,TemporaryAutonomousZones(TAZs),
situationsconstruites,parties,revolts,etc.,everywhereandanytime.
Thesearethe“anarcho-territories”asAnarco-Territoris(ajournalof
anarchistterritorialthought)hasnamedthem. Inthissense,anar-
chyandanarchismhaveabroadervisionthanthemoretraditional,
commonandrestrictedsense,proposedbysomeanarchistscholars
(Shukaitis,2009;Rebolloetal.,2009).
For many people (perhaps excluding anarchists) anarchic/ist
spacesandplacesdonotfitwithinthecurrenthegemonicgeographi-
calstructuresandframeworks(inaWorldorderedbyStatesandcap-
italism),thatwecallthemosaic-statistmetageography. Asaresult,
anarchic/istspacesandplacesarenotunderstood,muchlesscon-
ceived. Themosaic-statistmetageography(producedandimposedby
Statesandtheirapparatusesandalliesincludinggovernment,school,
massmedia,etc.) hashinderedtheconceptionandvisualizationof
anarchicplacessinceXIXth. Buttodayanewmetageographyisin
development.
Despitetheideologiesofgeographicalframeworks(usedevery-
dayfromthemostcommonconversationstopoliticalandscientific
speechesandconcepts),metageographyhasbeenpaidlittleatten-
tionfromwithinthedistinctiveanarchistperspective. Nevertheless
someanarchistsareconcernedwiththisquestion. TheTurkishpost-
anarchistsEvren&Öğdül(2002)andEvren(2006)havearguedthat
thereisarelationshipbetweenmosaic-statistmetageography,euro-
centrism,capitalismandglobalization.
Metageography: MakingSpaceConceivable
Beforecharacterizingthemosaic-statistmetageographyitisnec-
essary to define the very concept of “metageography”. There are
veryfewdifferentmeaningsinacademicliterature. HereIadoptthe
definitionprovidedbyLewis&Wigen(1997)andTaylor(2003),and
182 182
183 183
DenyAnarchicSpacesandPlaces 183
Raffestin(1978,1983). Metageographydescribestheinternallycon-
sistentsetofspatialstructuresorconceptualframeworksthrough
whichindividualsandgroupsconceive,order,andinterpretspace
and/orthespatialdimensionoftheworld,thecosmosand/orthe
universe. Someexamplesofspatialstructuresorframeworksinclude
thefollowingconcepts: “region,”“country,”“continent,”“culture,”“cli-
mate”or“eco-region”;thedualisticdivisionbetweenruralandurban
spaces;thecardinalpoints(North,South,WestandEast). Itisim-
portant to think these concepts through with all of the ideas and
valuesthatareoftenassociatedwiththembecausetheysetpolitical
priorities which concern real and imaginary space. In this sense,
Toldrà (2010) has explained how Catholic Heaven and Hell were
constructedintheMiddleAges: bothofthemwereaperfectcopy
offeudalterritorialandsocialorganization.
Historically,thefirstmetageographiesweredevelopedatthepre-
cisemomentthatHumansbecameconsciousoftheworldaround
them and of themselves as beings within it. This was when the
worldbecameconceptualizedandcommunicatedthroughanykind
oflanguage(asetandsystemofsignsandsymbols). Conceptssuch
as“space,”“world,”or“universe,”amongothers,havebeennothing
morethanmetageographicalframeworksthroughwhichspaceasa
realobjecthasbeenconceived. Forinstance,intheModernEuro-
peanworldview“space”isunderstoodasanunlimited,continuous
andthree-dimensionalenvironmentthatcontainsphysicalobjects.
Metageographyallowsustothinkandtalkaboutspaceandspatial
relationshipsand,inturn,itallowsustoproduceadvancementsin
geographicalknowledge. Howeverthispossibilityislimited. Meta-
geographyalsofixestheconceptualandmentallimitsinwhichthe
worldandthetermsthroughwhichtothinkaboutitarepossible. It
“tellsus”whatspatialprocessesorelementswemustobserve,aswell
asthewayinwhichtheseprocessesandelementsmustbeobserved
andordered. Inshort,metageographicalstructuresimposeaninand
anoutwhichitmakespossiblewithinestablishedtermsanddisables
anythingwhichgoesbeyonditslimits. Inotherwords,itdisables
otherpossiblemetageographies.
In another sense metageography is both (a) an instrument (or
a means) through which to develop goals and actions, and (b) an
environmentinwhichtodevelopthem.
183 183
184 184
184 XavierOliverasGonzález
1. Metagragraphy(Instrument): Functions
Asaninstrument,thebasicmetageographicalfunctionistocon-
ceiveofthespaceandthespatialrelationshipsthatexistbetween
humansandotherelementscontainedinspace. Fromthispointof
viewotherspecificfunctionscanbedefined:
• Toorientspace: toplacereferencepoints,cardinalpoints,etc.
• Tounderstandspace: toexplainspatialphenomenaandelements
(particularly physical, meteorological, seismic, forms of relief,
vegetation,etc);topredictspatialphenomena.
• Toorderspace: toclassifyandstructurehierarchicalspacesand
places.
• Tointerpretspace: toprovideethical,economic,symbolic,etc.,
valuestospaceand/ortoitselements.
• To communicate in and about space: to give place names (to-
ponyms).
• Toidentify: toassociateidentitieswithplaces.
• Tomeasurespace: tocountspaceandspatialelements.
• Todominateandcontrolspace: tomanagespace(humanand
physicalelements),toexploititsresources.
2. Metageography(Environment): Components
Asanenvironment,ametageographyhasthreecomponents:
• Pattern: corresponds to the territorial model through which
space and spatial relationships (between actors and spatial el-
184 184
185 185
DenyAnarchicSpacesandPlaces 185
ements)areordered. Tomakeanarchitecturalsimile,patternis
likeabuilding.
• Content: corresponds to the characteristics that define space,
eventsandspatialelementsandactors. Tomakeanarchitectural
simile,contentiswhatisputinsideabuilding.
• Meaning:correspondstotheinterests,ethical,aesthetic,emotion
values,prejudices,etc.,thatareloadedintopatternandcontent
components(orintothebuildinganditscontent).
MetageographyandPower&Dominion: TheMosaic-Statist
Metageography
Thereisanimportantrelationshipbetweenmetageographyand
power(&dominion),asisdemonstratedbymetageographicalfunc-
tions(metageographyasaninstrument). Ametageographyisnever
neutral,especiallyinasocio-spatialcontextofdominionrelations.
Firstofall,itisasocialconstruction(notnatural)developedbya
particularsocialgroup. Thisgroupissocially,ideologicallyandgeo-
graphicallylocatedandimposesitsconceptionsonotherindividuals
andcollectives. Asaconsequence,itsproductionandreproduction
reflectstheinterestsandmeaningsofthatspecificterritorialactor.
Paraphrasing George Orwell’s “He who controls the past con-
trolsthefuture”(1984),itcanbesaidthatthegroupwhocontrols
metageography(anditsconstruction)controlstheterritory(witha
hegemonicdesireandwithimposedterms)(Figure1). Thisisthe
caseformetageographiesconstructedbygroupsthatholddominion
ofanykind(includingpolitical,economical,andreligious,among
others). Thesevariousconstructionstendtoconvergeintoasingle
internallyconsistentmetageographywhilelegitimizingthepower
relationshipsestablishedbyassociatedgroups. Groupsaregranted
theappearanceofnaturalness,inevitability,ahistoricity,and/orsci-
entism.
Themajorityofpre-modernsocieties(priortothefifteenthcen-
tury)havebuiltstates(suchasAztec,Inca,Egyptian,Chinese,Greek,
Roman,etc.),inthisrespecttheyhavedevelopedsimilarmetageo-
graphicalstructures. Despitethecultural,socialorenvironmental
differences,allofthesesocietieshaveincommontheirsedentariness
185 185
186 186
186 XavierOliverasGonzález
Control Metageography
relationsofpower&dominion
Space
Figure1 TheRelationshipbetweenControlandMetageography
Source:OwnElaboration
(based on agriculture and urban development) and a clear hierar-
chicalsocialdivision. TheNeolithicandUrbanrevolutionshadan
enormousimpactonmetageographicalconstruction. Infact,their
metageographycoveredallfunctionsfromspatialorientationtothe
dominion,controlandexploitationoftheirterritoryandthespaces
beyond. Similarly,almosteverysuchsocietyhashada“tendency
[...]tosituatethemselvesatthecentreoftheirworlds,toexaggerate
theextentoftheirterritorialcontrol,andatthesametimetoenvis-
ageoneormorezonesbeyond”(RaaflaubandTalbert,2010: 4). The
metageographicalsimilaritiesallrevolveespeciallyaroundthepat-
terncomponent,andcanbeclassifiedasa“mosaicmetageography”:
ethnocentrism(creatingan“us”locatedinthecentreoftheworld
anda“them”intheperiphery)andpolygonism(creatingterritorial
unitsdelimited,defined,andhierarchicallyordered).
Althoughthecurrentmosaicmetageographyishegemonicinmod-
ernEuropeansociety(inheritedfromGreek,RomanandChristian
metageographicalstructures),therearesomedifferences(inthecon-
tentandmeaning)(LewisandWigen,1997). Recently,ithasbeen
exportedandimposedgloballythroughcolonialism,imperialismand
globalization(EvrenandÖğdül,2002). Thistypeofmetageography
changedsignificantlysincethesixteenthcenturyandhasbeenespe-
ciallyintenseinthenineteenthcentury(thatis,duringtheModern
world-systemasImmanuelWallersteincalledit): ithasbeencom-
binedwithstatistandcapitalistideology,givingrisetowhatcanbe
calledthe“mosaic-statistmetageography”(Taylor,2003). Thisisthe
hegemonicmetageographicalstructureintheEuropeanizedworld
today.
Withinthepolygonalcomponent,mosaic-statistmetageography
ordersgeographicalspacethroughparcels,asifitwereamosaicora
186 186
187 187
DenyAnarchicSpacesandPlaces 187
puzzlewhereeverypieceisanindependententitycontinuoustothe
others. Overlappingspaces,spaceswithoutdescription,voidspaces
orintermediatespacesareaberrations.
Statistideologyconceivesthe“state”astheonlysovereignentity
overadelimitedterritory. Theresultistheriseoffractionaldivisions
oftheworldintoclearlydemarcatedandcontiguouspieces,suchas
states,regions,languages,cultures,ecosystems,etc. Everypieceis
endowedwithuniquecharacteristics. Themosaic-statistmetageog-
raphyhasalsobeencombinedwithotherideassuchaseurocentrism
andEuropeanuniversalism(i.e.,puttingEurope,Europeansociety,
anditsvaluesatthecentreandonahigherhierarchicalposition),
economismandcapitalism(i.e.,toassignprimaryimportancetoeco-
nomicrelationsandthedominionofcapitalisteconomy),scientism
(i.e.,thedominionofphysicalandbiologicalsciencesinthedevelop-
mentofspatialmetaphors),ortheideaofhistoricalprogression(i.e.,
linearandrisingevolutionofHistory). Asaresultofthevarious
combinations,mosaic-statistmetageographycanbecharacterized
asfollows:
a. Spaceisorderedasamosaic(orapuzzle),whereeverypieceis
anindependententitycontinuoustoothers.
b. Territorialdelimitationisessential.
c. Any place must be assigned to one territorial unit; therefore,
emptyspaces(ofstatepower,capital,etc),multipleassignments,
overlapsandcrosscutsmustberemoved. Everythingmustbe
mapped,namedandcontrolled.
d. Thereisaterritorialsovereigntywithinanarea,aswellasamain
characteristic,homogeneityoressence(likeaStateistheonly
sovereignentityoveraterritory).
e. Territorialunitsandphenomenaarehierarchicallyordered,ac-
cordingtotheconcentrationofpowerandvaluesassociatedwith
everyone.
f. Alloftheaboveconsiderationsandtheirconsequencesareas-
sumedandsupposedtobenormalornaturaland,therefore,in-
evitable(whethercreatedbyGodsorNature,andreligiouslyor
scientificallydemonstrable).
187 187
188 188
188 XavierOliverasGonzález
Finally,theproductionandreproductionofthatmetageography
isaccompaniedbytwomoreprocesses(infact,thesearecommonin
othermetageographicalconstructions): namingandgraphicallyrep-
resentingthespace. Throughtheseactionsspaceisprovidedwith
names (toponyms and taxons) and images (maps). Both are sym-
bols. Visionandverbalizationhaveapreponderantrole(aboveother
senses and forms of expression) in mosaic-statist metageography,
unlikeotherpossiblemetageographies. Theirdominanceisbasedon
thepresumptionofanobjectivityinwhichonebelievesoneselfto
beabletoviewandword. Inthissensecartographyandlanguage
(the set formed with maps, place names, scales, orientations and
projections)actasamechanismandmetaphor: tonameanddrawa
spaceistoconvertnothingintoametageographicalstructure. The
paradigmaticexampleisundoubtedlythepoliticalmapofthestates
(andtheirsubdivisions).
DenyingAnarchic/istSpaceandPlaces
Thegeographicalimaginaryproducedbymosaic-statistmetageog-
raphyrendersotherspatialrealitiesunimaginable. Forexample,in
officialhistorytheHanseaticLeagueortheMalaymaritimeempire
arenotconsideredasStates,sinceitsstatespacewasanetworkof
portsandcities(betweenwhichthereweretheseaandotherterri-
tories)(Scott,2009). Thesemetageographiesfaceametahistorical
impossibility: the idea of historical progression can enable us to
conceive pre-modern states as “states”. In a similar sense, Pierre
Clastres(1974)showedhowstatelesssocietieswereimpossibleto
conceiveintraditionalWesternanthropology: “society”wasalways
associatedwithdominionpowerrelations. Epistemologically,the
obstaclefacedwasduetoaWesternculturalethnocentrismandan
exoticviewofnon-Westernsocieties.
Anarchic/istterritorialityisneglected,negated,despised,underes-
timated,orreduced. Everyanarchistcouldsayasmuchfromher/his
ownexperience: theobjectionsagainstanarchyareproducedand
reproduced in cultural texts and by everyday people. The meta-
geographicalpositioningtowardanarchicspacesisillustratedvery
clearlybyDavidGraeber(2004: 38–9),whoprovideswhatcouldvery
wellbeatypicalandplausibleconversationbetweenananarchist
andasceptic:
188 188
189 189
DenyAnarchicSpacesandPlaces 189
Sceptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more
seriouslyifyoucouldgivemesomereasontothinkitwould
work. Canyounamemeasingleviableexampleofasociety
whichhasexistedwithoutagovernment?
Anarchist: Sure. Therehavebeenthousands. Icouldnamea
dozenjustoffthetopofmyhead: thebororo,theBaining,the
Onondaga,theWintu,theEma,theTakkensi,theVezo,etc.
Sceptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking
aboutanarchisminamodern,technologicalsociety.
Anarchist: Okay,then. Therehavebeenallsortsofsuccessful
experiments: experimentswithworker’sself-management,like
Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift
economy,likeLinux;allsortsofpoliticalorganizationsbased
onconsensusanddirectdemocracy,etc.
Sceptic: Sure,sure,butthesearesmall,isolatedexamples. I’m
talkingaboutwholesocities.
Anarchist: Well,it’snotlikepeoplehaven’ttried. Lookatthe
ParisCommune,therevolutioninRepublicanSpain,etc.
Sceptic: Yeah,andlookwhathappenedtothoseguys! Theyall
gotkilled!
Theabovediscussionshowsthereasoningderivedfrommosaic-
statistmetageography. Thisisnotasimpleideologicalrejectionto-
wardsanarchism. Themetageographicalimpossibilityofanarchic
spacesandplacesisnotonlyreducedtoaconsciousideologicalre-
jection,butalsotoamoreprofoundandwidespreadrejectionand
inabilitytooperateunconsciouslythroughmosaic-statistmetageog-
raphy. Thisrelationisschemedasfollows(Figure2).
Inthisway,metageographicalstructuresactthroughtwomech-
anisms. First,thereisaconsciousorunconsciousrejectionofthe
anarchic/istpossibility. Andsecondly,thereistheinabilityorimpos-
sibilitytoconceiveofanoutsidetothegiven,learnedandinternal-
ized,metageographicalparameters. Relatedtothat,thecharacterof
thescepticimpliesaneedforthedemonstrationofrealanarchic/ist
practicesaccordingtoscientistparametersandmethods.
As David Graeber explains, the impossibility of conceiving an-
archic/ist “societies” (and therefore its spaces and places) in the
189 189
190 190
190 XavierOliverasGonzález
mosaic-statist
metageography
impossibility
rejectionofthe toconceive
anarchic(ist) outsidemeta-
possibility geographical
parameters
neglect,
negate,despise,
underestimate,
reduce,...
anarchic(ist)
spaceandplaces
Figure2 MetageographicalDenyingofAnarchicSpaces
Source:OwnElaboration
givenexampleisduetothemetageographicalcorrespondencebe-
tween“society”and“state”—oreven“nation-state”. Sothesceptical
characterisactuallydemandinganexampleofan“anarchiststate”:
thatis,amodernnation-statethat,subtractedfromthegovernment,
nonethelessremaineda“harmonious”statelikethe“normal”states.
Secondly, the example also shows the metageographical assump-
tionthatpowerrelationsareexercisedandregulatedpredominantly
bythestate. Sothescepticalcharacterwantsonly“societies”that
replacethestatedominionrelationship.
According to the internal logic of the mosaic-statist metageog-
raphy, anarchicspacesandplacesarenotpossiblebecauseofthe
followingreasons(groupedaccordingtotheirnature):
• Historical: distantintime(pre-modern);nodeterminantforthe
historicalprogressivedevelopment;reductionofthehistorical
scopeofanarchism.
• Geographical: distantinspace;demographicallyweak;smallsur-
face;spatialdispersion;poorconnection;ambiguousterritorial
delimitation;reductionofthegeographicalscopeofanarchism.
190 190