Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
15Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
postmodern city - towards an urban geopolitics

postmodern city - towards an urban geopolitics

Ratings:

4.67

(3)
|Views: 1,399 |Likes:
Published by ceren

More info:

Published by: ceren on Apr 20, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/04/020165-32 © 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1360481042000242148
C
ITY 
, V 
OL 
. 8, N
O
. 2, J
ULY 
2004
Postmortem city 
Towards an urban geopolitics
1
Stephen Graham
We tend to see contemporary cities through a peace-time lens and war as somehowexceptional. In this ambitious paper, long in historical range and global in geographical scope,Steve Graham unmasks and displays the very many ways in which warfare is intimatelywoven into the fabric of cities and practices of city planners. He draws out the aggressionwhich we should see as the counterpart of the defensive fortifications of historic towns,continues with the re-structuring—often itself violentof Paris and of many other cities toenable the oppressive state forces to patrol and subordinate the feared masses. Other examples take us through the fear of aerial bombardment as an influence on Le Corbusier and modernist urban design to the meticulous planners who devised and monitored theslaughter in Dresden, Tokyo and other targets in World War 2. Later episodes, some drawingon previously classified material, show how military thinking conditioned urbanisation in theCold War and does so in the multiple ‘wars’ now under way—against ‘terrorism’ and theenemy within.
City
has carried some exceptional work on war and ‘urbicide’ but this paper argues that, for the most part, the social sciences are in denial and ends with a call for action toconfront, reveal and challenge the militarisation of urban space.
Confronting place annihilation in urbanresearch
“As long as people have lived in cities,they have been haunted by fears of urbanruin ... Every city on earth is groundzero in somebody’s doomsday book.”(Berman, 1996, pp. 175–184)“To be sure, a cityscape is not made of flesh. Still, sheared-off buildings arealmost as eloquent as body parts (Kabul,Sarajevo, East Mostar, Grozny, 16 acres of lower Manhattan after September 11th2001, the refugee camp in Jenin). Look,the photographs say, this is what it’s like.This is what war does. War tears, warrends. War rips open, eviscerates. Warscorches. War dismembers. War ruins.”(Sontag, 2003, p. 5)“Today, wars are fought not in trenchesand fields, but in living rooms, schoolsand supermarkets.” (Barakat, 1998, p. 11)
C
ities, warfare and organized, polit-ical violence have always beenmutual constructions. “The city,the polis, is constitutive of the form of conflict called
war 
, just as war is itself constitutive of the political form called the
city
” (Virilio, 2002, p. 5, original emphasis).War and the city have intimately shapedeach other throughout urban and militaryhistory. “There is ... a direct reciprocitybetween war and cities”, writes the geogra-pher Ken Hewitt. “The latter are the morethoroughgoing constructs of collective life,containing the definitive human places.War is the most thorough-going or con-sciously prosecuted occasion of collectiveviolence that destroys places” (Hewitt,1983, p. 258).The widespread survival of massiveurban fortifications—especially in Asia,North Africa, Europe and parts of Latin
 
166C
ITY 
 V 
OL 
. 8, N
O
. 2
America
are a living testament to thefact that in pre-modern and pre nation-state civilizations, city-states were theactual agents, as well as the main targets, of war. In pre-modern times cities were builtfor defence as well as dominant centres of commerce, exchange and political, religiousand social power.
The city, with its but-tressed walls, its ramparts and moats, stoodas an outstanding display of ever-threat-ening aggression
(Mumford, 1961, p. 44).The sacking and killing of fortified citiesand their inhabitants was the central eventin pre-modern war (Weber, 1958). Indeed(often allegorical) stories of such acts makeup a good part of the Bible
especially
 Jeremiah
and
 Lamentations
and otherancient and classical religious and philo-sophical texts.
Myths of urban ruin growat our culture
s root
(Berman, 1996).
In the 15th and 16th centuries, as modernnation-states started to emerge in Europe as‘bordered power containers’, they beganseeking a monopoly on political violence(Giddens, 1985). “The states caught up withthe forward gallop of the towns” (Braudel,1973, p. 398). The expanding imperial andmetropolitan cities that lay at the core of nation-states were no longer organizers of their own armies and defences. But theymaintained political power and reach. Mili-tary, political and economic elites withinsuch cities directed violence, control, repres-sion, and the colonial acquisition of territory,raw materials, wealth and labour power fromafar (Driver and Gilbert, 2003).By the 19th and 20th centuries, industrialcities in the global north had grown insynchrony with the killing powers of tech-nology. They provided the men and materialto sustain the massive, industrial wars of the20th century. At the same time their (oftenfemale-staffed) industries and neighbour-hoods emerged as the prime targets for totalwar. The industrial city thus became “in itsentirety a space for war. Within a few years... bombing moved from the selectivedestruction of key sites within cities toextensive attacks on urban areas and, finally,to instantaneous annihilation of entire urbanspaces and populations” (Shaw, 2003, p.131). Right up to the present day, thecapture of strategic and politically impor-tant cities has “remained the ultimate sym-bol, of conquest and national survival”(Shaw, 2001, p. 1).Given the centrality of both urbanizationand the prosecution of political violence tomodernity, this subtle inter-penetration of cities and warfare should be no surprise.“After all, modernity, through most of itscareer, has been modernity at war” (Pieterse,2002, p. 3). It is no longer feasible to containcities within defensive walls or effectivecordons which protect their citizens frommilitary force (Virilio, 1987). But the deliber-ate destruction and targeting of cities and theirsupport systems in times of war and crisis is aconstant throughout 8000 years or so of urbanhistory on our planet. “Destruction of pla-ces”, Hewitt continues, writing in 1987:
“driven by fear and hatred, runs throughthe whole history of wars, from ancientTroy or Carthage, to Warsaw andHiroshima in our own century. Themiseries, uprootings, and deaths of civiliansin besieged cities, especially after defeat,stand amongst the most terrible indictmentsof the powerful and victorious. In thatsense, there is, despite the progress of weapons of devastation, a continuity in theexperience of civilians from Euripides’
Trojan Women
or The
Lamentations
of  Jeremiah, to the cries of widowed womenand orphaned children in Beirut, Belfast,the villages of Afghanistan, and those of ElSalvador.” (Hewitt, 1987, p. 469)
Cities, then, provide much more than just the
backdrop
or
environment
for war and terror.Rather, their buildings, assets, institutions,industries, infrastructures, cultural diversi-ties, and symbolic meanings have long actu-ally
themselves
been the explicit target for awide range of deliberate, orchestrated,attacks. This essential, urban, spatiality of organized, political violence is rarely recog-nized in the obsessively chronological andtemporal gaze of the historians who dom-
 
G
RAHAM
: P
OSTMORTEM CITY 
167
inate the study of the urban violence of the20th century. Thus, the architectures, urban-isms and spatial planning strategies thatsustain, reflect and are intrinsic to strategiesof informal and state terror all too often getoverlooked (Cole, 2003, Chap. 2).For this explicit concentration on the(attempted) killing of cities in modern war,Ken Hewitt has coined the term
placeannihilation
(1983).
For a social scientist
,he stresses that
it is actually imperative toask just
who
dies and
whose
places aredestroyed by violence
within such wars of place annihilation (1987, p. 464, originalemphasis). This is because such strategies areusually far from indiscriminate. Commonly,they involve a great deal of planning so thatthe violence and destruction achieves thepolitical, social, economic, ecological andcultural effects, on the target population andtheir places, that are desired by theattackers.Since the end of the Cold War, thisdominance of war casualties by civilians,rather than enlisted military personnel, hasonly accelerated further. Between 1989 and1998, for example, 4 million people werekilled in violent conflicts across the world.An estimated 90% of these were civilians
primarily women and children (Pieterse,2002, p. 1). In short, since the end of the ColdWar
with its global threat of instant urban-nuclear annihilation
we have gone fromfearing the death of the city to fearing thecity of death
(Lang, 1995, p. 71). Astraditional state-versus-state wars in openterrain have become objects of curiosity, sothe informal,
asymmetric
or
new
warswhich tend to centre on localized strugglesover strategic urban sites have become thenorm (Kaldor, 1999). As Misselwitz andWeizman suggest:
It is now clear that the days of theclassical, Clauswitzian definition of warfareas a symmetrical engagement between statearmies in the open field are over. War hasentered the city again
the sphere of theeveryday, the private realm of the house.
(2003, p. 272)
Far from going away, then, strategies of deliberately attacking the systems and placesthat support civilian urban life have onlybecome more sophisticated since the SecondWorld War. The deliberate devastation of urban living spaces continues apace. Fuellingit is a powerful cocktail of intermeshingfactors. Here we must consider the collapseof the Cold War equilibrium; the unleashingof previously constrained ethnic hatreds; theproliferation of fundamentalist religious andpolitical groups; and the militarization of gangs, drug cartels, militia, corrupt politicalregimes and law enforcement agencies. Wemust address the failure of many national andlocal states; the urbanization of populationsand terrain; and the growing accessibility toheavy weapons. Finally, the growing crisis of social polarization at all geographical scalesand the increasing scarcity of many essentialresources must be considered (Castells, 1997,1998).To this cocktail we must add the destabi-lizing effects of the USA
s increasinglyaggressive and violent interventions in awidening range of nations, and the delete-rious impacts of neoliberal restructuring and
structural adjustment
programmes,imposed on many nations by the Inter-national Monetary Fund (IMF) and theWorld Trade Organization (WTO). Suchprogrammes have added to the sense of crisisin many cities because they have resulted inthe erosion of social and economic securityand the further immiseration of the urbanpoor (and, increasingly, the middle classes,too).All this has happened at a time when thescale of urbanization is at an unprecedentedglobal level. During the 1990s alone theworld
s urban population grew by 36%. By2003 900 million people lived in slums. Andthe deepening polarization of cities, causedby neoliberal globalization, is providingmany conditions that are ripe for extremes of civil, and militarized, violence (Castells,1997, 1998; Vidal, 2003). In fact, neoliberalglobalization itself operates through a vastscale of violence, exploitation and criminality

Activity (15)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
quekaselmoy liked this
Andreea liked this
Laura Rodríguez liked this
Kamelia Sadjadi liked this
Lee Qijvan liked this
pieranger liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->