Reconceptualizing Resistance: Residuals of the State and Democratic Radical Pluralism

Deborah G. Martin
Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA; demartin@clarku.edu

Joseph Pierce
Department of Geography, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA; jpierce3@fsu.edu

Abstract: Arguing that resistance to the state is too narrow a conceptualization of a political project that challenges neoliberalism, we posit that there are latent, residual apparatuses of the state which can be activated as part of a systematic progressive politics. We examine Massachusetts Dover amendment, a legal framework which governs group home siting throughout the state. Dover offers a powerful tool with which to resist a neoliberal socio-spatial agenda, though it has been underutilized toward enabling an alternative landscape. We analyze how and why Dover has often remained latent as a tool for socio-spatial resistance, and consider a provocative case in Framingham, Massachusetts that suggests how residual state apparatuses may be leveraged in support of an explicitly resistive, progressive agenda. Keywords: resistance, law, state, democratic radical pluralism, group home siting, urban politics

Introduction
Extensive scholarship documents our age of neoliberalism, characterized by discourses of private markets with extensive publicprivate collaboration for capitals gain in every aspect of the political economy (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Harvey 2006, 2008; Leitner, Peck and Sheppard 2007). This work identies a broad range of resistances to neoliberalism, including anti- and alter-globalization protests (such as against the World Trade Organization and IMF; Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Peet 2007; Wainwright 2007), as well as more local, smaller scale resistance focusing on labor rights or rights to space (Boyer 2006; Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto 2008; Mitchell 2003; Purcell 2008). Purcell (2008), drawing on Laclau and Mouffe (1985), argues that successful resistance to neoliberalism builds on a network of agonistic coalitions: temporary, strategic alliances among various activist groups sharing some common goals but not seeking unity in identity and mission. We notice in these accounts an emphatic attention to the always-already entwined nature of the state and capitalism, highlighting the need to make visible, and then challenge, the fundamental support that states give to capital (Harvey 2003, 2005).
Antipode Vol. 45 No. 1 2013 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 6179 C 2012 The Author. Antipode C Antipode Foundation Ltd. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00980.x

62

Antipode

In this paper, we argue that an examination of the different and contradictory faces of the state reveals that a potential for resistance against neoliberal policies is present within the hydra-headed state itself [an argument sympathetic to Lakes (2002) assertion that government needs redirection]. These non-neoliberal residuals are laws, policies, and agencies that were created in earlier eras, and which offer latent tools for a variety of activists and institutional actors against the dominance of neoliberal thinking and actions within governments at multiple scales. Our focus on state residuals is not a plea for change initiated from or by the state, but for the tactical use of residuals by activists to disrupt and challenge the states ever-increasing support for capital. In Massachusetts, the law known as the Dover Amendment offers an illustration of the fact and promise of these residuals. Dover is a state law that limits the power of municipal zoning over the siting of land uses which provide, among other things, an educational function (Massachusetts General LawsMGL, chapter 40A, section 3, 2003). This educational function has been interpreted to include services such as addiction treatment and life-skills training in residential social service facilities, or group homes. While this law is actively employed by social service agencies in their efforts to open such facilities, a further examination of how, and to what extent, Dover is employed illustrates its latent resistive potential and, as a result, its potential for deployment as part of a more active resistance to the neoliberal project of social service devolution and marginalization. In what follows, we examine and situate the term resistance in geography, as well as the contentious and urban politics literatures, focusing on examinations of anti-neoliberalism in particular. Since neoliberalism requires active state engagement with and support of a pro-capitalist agenda, we consider how resistance may challenge and use the state via engagements with its more democratic and inclusive frameworks, or what we call residual state apparatuses. We illustrate these residuals and their potential use through an examination of the Dover Amendment, considering its resistive potential using case studies of group home sitings in Framingham and Worcester, Massachusetts. In doing so, we draw on data from a broader research project examining the legal dynamics and decision-making in land use conicts.1 In particular, our analysis here is informed by media coverage of group home siting conicts, and qualitative, in-depth and open-ended research interviews with 28 stakeholders conducted in the summer and fall of 2008 in Framingham and Worcester, including social service agency staff, lawyers, city ofcials, and residents opposed to group home sitings. We conclude with thoughts about the broader implications of conceptualizing and enacting residual apparatuses as a tool for neoliberal resistance.

Contemporary Resistive Urban Politics

The term resistance has wide usage within geography, focusing on challenging hegemonies, be they political-economic, cultural, or some combination (eg Boyer 2006; Cresswell 1996; DeFilippis 2004; Elwood 2006; Peck and Tickell 2002; Pile and Keith 1997; Routledge 1994). Mitch Rose (2002:389) argues that theories of resistance conceptualize how people creatively and diversely react to that
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

63

which already exists. He insists that whatever exists need not be hegemonic; existence is always contested and in the process of becoming. Nonetheless, we see a pervasive theme of resistance to hegemonyone Rose (2002) acknowledges as wellthroughout the resistance literatures in geography. These literatures include, for example, Routledges (1994) exploration of how particular political, economic, ecological, and cultural forces in specic places combine to create resistance; Cresswells (1996) attention to the ways that people challenge normative space via transgressive acts (doing things not usually done in particular places); and Laws (1997) exploration of the politics of bar dancing, in which gender norms can be challenged via female labour market participation. Resistance seeks to subvert or overturn power, especially institutions and relations that maintain or support capitalism. For Peck and Tickell (2002), for example, exposing the systemic rules of global capital investment offers a kind of resistance that challenges the apolitical, free ideology of neoliberalism. Wainwright, Prudham and Glassman (2000) focus on global inter-state agencies as a primary target of resistance, via networked organizing among a variety of small and large non-prot, labour-rights groups, and community and environmental activists across the global North and South, leading to coordinated protests at events such as Seattles 1999 WTO ministerial meetings. Challenges to these global agencies foster alliances and communication among alter-globalization networks, creating broad coalitions of anti-neoliberal activists (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge 2003). In these cases, resistance both exposes power/hegemony and seeks to overthrow it. Accounts of the struggle against capitalist hegemony in the critical resistance literature, then, are often centered on resistance against state and extra-state structures because of the states role as a primary instrument and enabling regulatory architect of neoliberal capitalism (cf Harvey 2005; Smith 1996). The resistance literature contains and parallels a more interdisciplinary conversation characterized by the term contentious politics (as in Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto 2008). Scholarship oriented to contentious politicsor social movementsoften seeks to theorize modes of resistancesuch as organizational structure, identities expressed in and through activism, and relations with various stateswith an eye to spatializing, or making more geographically sensitive, a relatively aspatial interdisciplinary literature (Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto 2008; Martin and Miller 2003; Miller 2000). This literature is distinct from the resistance literature primarily because of its focus on the dynamics of activism itself [although Routledge (1994, 2003) explicitly attends to activism as resistance]. Use of one term or another tends to signal orientation to different scholarly audiences: resistance as a term appears more frequently in a geographical literature, while contentious politics tends both to a more interdisciplinary theoretical and topically activistorganizational audience. For both the resistance and contentious politics traditions there is an empirical thread of anti-hegemonic activism in cities that some scholars have tried to unpack (Hackworth 2007; Mitchell 2003; Purcell 2008). Scholarship on urbanization processes broadly draws from the social movement/contentious politics, and resistance traditions, but we note a tendency in urban geographical literature in which resistance often signies activism aimed
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

64

Antipode

at checking the usually untrammeled power of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism in this scholarship refers to hegemonies of private capital: the insistence upon private market approaches to the political economy, even for social needs such as health, housing, and schools (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Hackworth 2007; Leitner, Peck and Sheppard 2007; Peck and Tickell 2002; Purcell 2008). While neoliberalism discursively celebrates private capital and its markets, it employs the state, as Peck and Tickell (2002) argue, to roll out state policies that support capital, such as charter schools that rework the relationship of teachersand their unionsto both capital and the state (Hankins and Martin 2006), or economic development programs that reinvent urban landscapes via private investments, with little formal state input beyond using state powers to assemble and clear large tracts of land. Wyly and Hammel (2005) posit a neoliberal urbanism, in which state action is not so much muted as transformed: particular kinds of state intervention and regulation to successfully reshape the urban socio-spatial landscape. In the neoliberal city, the task of the city is to make it easier to be middle class, because that is who nancially and politically supports the systemic transformation that is underway. Sometimes analyses of resistance include an explicitly scalar dimension: in Boyers (2006) examination of welfare reform in the United States, for example, resistance is enacted via legal challenges to state policies, both at the (municipal or state) scale of neoliberalized welfare service provision, and to challenge the (national) underlying framework of such revanchist policy changes. In her discussion of legal challenges, the state is both target and tool (through the law) of resistance; activists engage the state to achieve anti-neoliberal goals. The legal tools that they use to do so, however, are not the focus of her scalar analysis; instead, the outcomes are. Her attention to scalar dynamics reects the ongoing and necessary strategizing on the part of activists over the appropriate level of engagement (scale of resistance) with the state (Cox 1998). Beyond questions regarding the scale of resistance, however, lies a complex state, multivalent at a single scale as well as multiple scales. Our approach offers a theorization of state residuals as a means of resistance at any scale or many scales. The state offers a complex set of power structures against and with which resistance struggles (Holloway 2005; Scott 1988; Tormey 2004). Indeed, Holloway (2005) sees the state as so entrenched in power relations such that any resistance in or through the state is irrevocably bound up in its power logic. We acknowledge state power as always present, but not necessarily as monolithic.2 Despiteor perhaps because of the power relations inherent in state frameworks, it is in part through laws and state regulations that activists can achieve reworked economic relations such as worker ownership, community banks, or cooperative housing (DeFilippis 2004). Hackworth explicitly acknowledges the possibility of a neo-Keynesian resistance which seeks to maintain relatively left-leaning state functions. Ultimately, though, he dismisses the resistive potential of such neo-Keynesian efforts, arguing that they have yielded highly limited successes (2007:191). We argue, however, that focusing on a states ordering functions [the police component of states; as in Ranci` ere (2004)] may provide a lens for examining how resistance through the state might destabilize or subvert neoliberal hegemony. We articulate the notion of residuals, or mechanisms of the state that can, or have historically, been
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

65

wielded to mitigate inequalities of capitalism. In order to explore this arena as potentially productive for resistance, we rst consider radical democracy as an already-articulated conceptualization of neoliberal resistance (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Purcell 2008). Radical democracy does not seek to enroll the state in resistance to capital, per se, but recognizes the simultaneous co-presence of a hegemonic (but always changing) state, and anti-hegemonic resistances.

Radical Democracy: Responding to Hegemony?

The concept of radical democracy provides a framework for articulating where residual state apparatuses stand amidst the myriad layers of state functions, power, and hegemony (cf Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Ranci` ere 2004). We imagine a politics in which the state whether capitalist or not is always hegemonic, and thus always produces an outside or excluded that is resistant to the hegemonic order. Radical democracy as initially described by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) offered a theory of resistancealthough they did not use that termto capitalist hegemonies.3 Their goal was to identify a leftist, anti-hegemonic political project that did not rely on unitary categories such as class, in response to the identity politics of the 1970s to 1990s and post-structural theorizing of the absence of any common (structural or cultural) basis for political transformation. The theory of radical democracy posits that any order is an hegemonic order; the post-Marxist socialist project of Laclau and Mouffe seeks to destabilize the hegemonies of capitalism and work towards more democratic articulations that marginalize capital, even as forms of inequality may persist (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Nonetheless, they can seek more articulations, more opportunities for social protest and struggle over multiple inequalities. Each struggle will produceor seek to producenew orders, or hegemonies, but these will be unseated by other struggles; this process describes a democracy not dened solely by a capitalist hegemony. As scholars have increasingly taken neoliberalism as the distinct form of contemporary capitalism in response to which resistance is engaged, they have explored the ways that its intense market logic constricts possibilities for traditional political activism to engage the state: the state is responsive primarily to the logic of facilitating the work of private capital (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Harvey 2005; Mitchell 2003; Peck and Tickell 2002; Purcell 2008). At the same time, however, neoliberalism opens possibilities for resistance because of its internal contradictions (like all hegemonic orders); it simultaneously engages the state to facilitate capital expansion, yet rhetorically rejects the state as an active player in market logics (Leitner, Peck and Sheppard 2007; Peck and Tickell 2002; Purcell 2008). In doing so, the door is opened for alternative projects and resistances. Purcell (2008) takes up the ideals of radical democracy to focus on how it might provide specic means for resistance to neoliberalism. He wants to take the insights of Laclau and Mouffe and apply them to a particular, empirically informed framework for engaged activism that actually interrupts, if not challenges (and mostly not, in his examples), neoliberalism. As a result, Purcell engages specically with the idea of chains of equivalence, which he denes as entities [which] must simultaneously be both different and the same (2008:74). Political coalitions and actors with
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

66

Antipode

shared or complimentary challenges to neoliberalismbut distinct in character, goals, and identitiesform networks of equivalence [Purcell (2008), drawing from Hardt and Negri (2004) as well as Laclau and Mouffe (1985)]. Simply put, networks of equivalence conceptually allow for multiple groups with different specic interests and identities to band together to challenge the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism. The crucial point for Purcell, however, and the key radical pluralist component is that those groups can work together without having to resolve their internal differences; they need only share a common questioning of the neoliberal prioritizing of private capital. They share a struggle, then, for a different hegemony (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Purcell 2008). In the battle against global nance, for example, activists with different specic interests (agriculture or trade policy or environmental protections) confront the state in the form of police in the streets of Seattle or Cancun (Wainwright 2007); their objections are to the state policies and agreements which support and create frameworks for world trade. In Purcells (2008) networks of equivalence in Seattle, a similar, yet more spatially circumscribed network of neighborhood community activists, environmental activists, and a Native American tribe work together to challenge the terms of the environmental clean-up of toxins in and around the Duwamish River. Their target is the corporate interests being held responsible for actually funding the clean-up. The agent helping to hold the corporate interests accountable is the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Seattle area environmental activists have been able to form a chain of equivalence with the EPA in the Duwamish clean-up in part by inserting themselves into an EPA framework that seeks stakeholder input through a participatory planning structure. The shared interests of the EPA and environmental activists are not obvious or easy to negotiate; the EPA, as a bureaucracy with many actors situated within the US federal system, is positioned as a complex institutional agent. But its particular mandate with regard to environmental protection offers a difcult relation to capital, one sometimes allied with non-state actors seeking limits to capital. Purcells (2008) account of this case is insightful and engaging. We are highly sympathetic to his project of conceptualizing resistance and, by connection, a better, more complete democracy. But we differ over some of the detailsessential detailsof how best to enact successful resistances. In his case study of the Duwamish River clean up in Seattle, Purcell (2008) cites government policies as the factor enabling community resistance and involvement. His account is historically detailedand necessarily so, for the complexities of the state have everything to do with the sedimented and sometimes inherently contradictory nature of its policies and procedures. In brief, he points to the EPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (also known as Superfund), and associated environmental laws as a sort of environmental Keynesianism that the federal government enacted in the decade of the 1970s (through 1980) (Purcell 2008:137). For Purcell, the neoliberalisation of these laws is evident in the increasing local devolution of governance authority over particular Superfund sites, including his case of the Duwamish River, resulting in a proliferation of ad hoc and special purpose entities [that] increasingly carries out the everyday decision-making in Superfund cleanups (2008:137). At the same
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

67

time, however, Purcell (2008:138) acknowledges that such exibilization . . . tends to create political opportunities that social movements can exploit. We want to engage the idea that such exibleor Keynesiantools of the state are levers that can force the state to act in ways that might be counter to capital and in the service of greater democracy. In particular, we hope for a more complex, and, we expect, more practically productive conceptualization of resistance in relation to the state. While Purcell (2008:38, 183, note 2,2) acknowledges resistive possibilities from engagement with the state, he also notes that the state is fully imbricated in the project of neoliberalization (a point also made elsewhere; cf Harvey 2005; Holloway 2005; Mitchell 2003; Smith 1996; Wainwright 2007). We do not disagree with the basic contention that the state regulates and administers a hegemonic political economic order of and for capital. But the state is complex; following the persuasive arguments of Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and the example of the EPA in Purcell (2008), the state ought to be conceptualized like any actor: as multifaceted, with many possible subjectivities in relation to any particular conict. This complexity offers the possibility that the state can be a tool for resistance, one we explore further in the rest of this paper. In the next section, we conceptualize how such a theory of the resistance with the state might appear, drawing on the case of the Dover Amendment in Massachusetts, in order to argue that resistance cannot and ought not abandon the state to neoliberalism. If we accept that the state is primarily a shill of neoliberalism, we cede too much to neoliberalism, challenging it on its own terms rather than, say, reclaiming the state. Claiming the state will not erase state power or hegemony, but may force the state to be an agent of change and challenge of its own hegemonies. In order to conceptualize how we might [re]claim the state, we turn to conceptualizations of the state in the resistance literature and our notion of residuals of state power and policy.

Reconceptualizing Resistance: Residuals of the State

The increased engagement of state power in the defense of the interests of capitalists since the 1970sand the concomitant decline in the use of state power to support the interests of non-capital interestshas been widely reported (Harvey 2003; Peet 2007). This process, headlined by the pullback of the state from social service provision (Laws 1989; Peck and Tickell 2002; Wolch 1989) and the glocalization of economic activity (Swyngedouw 2004) has produced (in the American context) a somewhat smaller, more entrepreneurial state (Harvey 1989) with reduced capacity to support, or take responsibility for, its most vulnerable citizens (Brenner and Theodore 2002). But the complexity and heterogeneity of actually existing states is often not captured by this overarching narrative. The particularities of the shape of the state may offer more resistive potential than is often acknowledged. The state is neither monolithic nor static: it is a sedimentary agglomeration of statutes and specic bureaucracies at a variety of scales that evolve over time (Brenner 2004). Some scholars have described the corpus of more Keynesian bureaucracies still
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

68

Antipode

existing within the more entrepreneurial, neoliberal state that has emerged as the residual welfare state (Lee 2005, 2006; Murphy 2003). This notion of a residual or sedimentedstate is particularly productive for thinking about resistance, as it points to a variety of contingent, historical and scalar potential relations between states and resistance movements, from hostile to accommodating (for example, the US federal governments several positions on the civil disobedience of the civil rights era, and the contrasting regional and municipal state crackdowns on the same disobedience; McAdam 1982). A variety of historical ideologies about the goals of the application of state power (ie New Deal state welfare, post-war Keynesian) that produced various (now residual) state apparatuses have since been largely supplanted by neoliberalism. Yet because these embedded narratives predate contemporary neoliberalism, and because they support discourses about the role of the state which have since been superseded, they may contribute to a basket of state-supported outcomes somewhat orthogonal to the nominal goals of neoliberalism [a point also made by Lake (2002) and Purcell (2008)]. Yet in some cases, their continued existence is tolerated and even enrolled in contemporary economic projects, operating as legal mandates or government agencies and institutions. These residual apparatuses have varying resistive potential, even if they are not actively used resistively. State apparatuses become deactivated (or relatively less activated) through a process that is subtle and lapidary: over time, they are deprioritized, devalued, and defunded, leaving their capacity to regulate private and public interests defanged. Whether the broad political project of defunding the state is an intentional and strategic strategy for isolating its welfare-oriented mechanisms (Harvey 2005), or the casual and to some degree unconscious result of political horsetrading, re-activating these mechanisms can be a part of an ongoing resistive politics. A resistance that conceptualizes itself as partially tactically allied with rather than wholly against the state would want to seek out and deploy these residuals systematically. The EPA, for example, forces business, capital etc to sit down at the table with government dened stakeholders including various communities, environmental groups, or indeed nearly anyone who owns property or has an organized interest in the ecosystem being examined. We argue, then, that left-leaning activists should not concede that state power has been straightforwardly and wholly enrolled in the contemporary project of neoliberalism. Certainly, the state is made up of a heterogeneous assemblage of actors and institutional tools, some of which offer immediate opportunities for resistance. Additionally, though, an ongoing engagement with different residual apparatuses borne of varying historical hegemonic regimes offers not only tactical opportunities but discursive ones as well. Such engagements challenge the framing of state action in the service of capital as politically neutral by identifying the existing obligations of the state, as embodied in its own structure, to regulate or interfere with unbridled prot orientation. Working to realize the latent resistive potential of residual state apparatuses is not a replacement for other modes of resistance. We most emphatically are not arguing that the decentered, network-oriented new politics which Purcell and others have identied should be abandoned, or are not relevant. Rather, we argue that the state
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

69

is a eld within which such politics are enacted, and is itself fragmented not just by formal scalar divisions (as identied in Boyer 2006; Brenner 2004; Cox 1998), but by sedimented or residual logics. State apparatuses have particular leverage and legitimacy which can be incorporated in resistive efforts to great effect. We illustrate such potential with reference to the Dover Amendment, below.

Case Study: Activating Dover

Dover amendment is like a great shield . . . it was our biggest tool in our arsenal in this discussion (Social Service group home provider interview with rst author, December 2008). Dover is a law [that] allows [social service agencies] to do anything they can do and not what they should do (Worcester resident, interview with rst author, July 2008).

The Dover Amendment in Massachusetts, as suggested above, offers social service agencies (SSAs) great power in the group home siting arena. Legally, Dover provides a framework that ensures non-prot, educational institutions (broadly conceived)4 the ability to bypass local zoning restrictions as they make locational decisions. By eliminating most local zoning from the group home siting process, Dover potentially circumvents conventional, market-driven limitations on property use. It is useful to unpack the history and contemporary use of Dover to see how this state housing law functions to resistive effect. Dovers resistive potential lies in the way its deployment can challenge to the logic of segmentation and segregation embedded within conventional land use zoning. Strictly speaking, the amendment is a part of Massachusetts statutory housing laws, the MGL (chapter 40A, section 3, second paragraph, 2003).5 Dovers resistive potential was certainly not apparent or intended when it was initially passed in 1950, preventing the town of Dover from using its zoning code to restrict religious educational institutions from residential areas (Healy 2005). Since 1950, several legal decisions have established that social service agencies that offer residential programming to address chronic homelessness, addiction, or other mental health issues fall under the framework of Dover. The law has been altered over the years, mostly to clarify that while zoning cannot restrict land uses that are non-prot, religious and/or educational, local governments may apply reasonable regulations to the physical elements of structures and lot layout (MGL, chapter 40A, section 3, second paragraph, 2003). The ideologies of 1950s Massachusetts that produced Dover, essentially in defense of the Catholic Church and its parochial schools, situate the law squarely as a residual of another era. The promise of Dover is an opportunity of access to landaccess which offers greater choice than that accorded to other prospective landowners, precisely because local zoning is set aside for organizations that qualify for Dover. The law allows social service agencies to site in land use zones that would otherwise be restricted from group home uses: single family residential zones. Dover is wholly a state apparatus, but it protects devolved social service agencies. Despite the protections and promises of Dover, however, SSAs exist inside a privatized, individual rights-oriented property market. Dover does not offer SSAs
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

70

Antipode

the ability to buy any property that they wish; it offers them the promise of being able to site their educational programs in any location that they can obtain (given reasonable physical limitations such as adequate parking, set backs of buildings from the street etc) While most social service agencies receive government funds for their programs, via contracts for services relating to public health, they do not receive any programmatic or legal assistance in siting their programs (author interviews 2008). Following a neoliberal logic (Peck and Tickell 2002), the state supports social services nancially, but expects agencies to deliver services with market-oriented efciency in the private market, including nding suitable property for sale and obtaining nancing. Administrators of SSAs in central Massachusetts acknowledge the property market realities in which they operate, but nonetheless describe themselves as having a great deal of siting latitude (author interviews 2008). In particular, they cite Dover as giving them the leverage that they need to choose the locations which suit their needs best, over the sometimes vocal opposition of local residents. According to one administrator, Dovers very important [if it were to be repealed] it would really open a door to shutting down programs [or] stopping them from [siting] (author interviews 2008). When asked about Dover, many social service administrators reected on how they would do their work in its absence. Another administrator talked about the saved legal costs of not having to make federal anti-discrimination claims (under, for example, the Fair Housing Act): if Dover were to be removed . . . it could be we would be in federal court doing federal fair housing law . . . Which means more time more money . . . [and] they dont pay you for the legal stuff (author interviews 2008). This quote points to the constraints of the governing neoliberal context in which SSAs must act, sometimes in contradiction to SSAs discourse of the importance and freedom of Dover. We highlight two key mechanisms through which constraint is exercised: damaging discursive framing in the media and politicized state funding organs. While SSAs which serve relatively high-risk populations are to some degree insulated from market pressures, in that their clients do not pay for their services (or are highly subsidized), they are not immune to concerns about how they are represented in public. Highly critical commentary in visible outlets (such as local or regional newspapers) are threatening to SSAs, who work in concert with other service organizations throughout the region in their efforts to deliver adequate services. As a result, the threat of vocal opposition from either local residents or, more potently, local or regional governmental leaders can sway SSA decision-making even before potential sites are publicly known. According to public statements by Worcesters city manager, for example, social service agencies [have] legal right[s] to proceed with their plans. Laws and statutes provide them with exceptional rights, but these rights come with great responsibility to their clients and the community that they are within (Hammel 2006). Agencies are expected to behave in certain ways, and when they challenge such behavior, there may be costs, both in terms of perception and more directly, via budgetary constraints. In the case of a group home siting in Worcester, Massachusetts, a State Senator removed state funding for a shelter that an agency was to open (Hammel 2006). Eventually, funding was restored and the home was opened; it relied on more than one source
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

71

of government funding. But the fact that such cuts can be made in politically heated environments acts as a strong inducement for SSAs to avoid political controversies. The bulk of SSA funding for residential services comes from local and regional governments, largely in the form of service contracts as state responsibilities are devolved from state bureaucracies to private organizations in cost-competitive bidding processes (author interviews 2008). Two dynamics result from this nancial relationship. First, as indicated above, state legislators may seek voter approval by exercising direct limits on social service funding as a response to public opposition to some sitings. Second, all state funding sources are increasingly limited by evertightening state budgets, even those relatively insulated from legislative interference. In the rst case, in Massachusetts, some agencies receive funds directly as part of state budgets, as line items, rather than via state contracts (agencies may obtain funding from both sources, as well as other private sources). As one SSA administrator described in an interview (author interviews 2008): when youre out there like we are, a . . . line item the legislators have to insert each year in the budget makes a really sensitive prospect, and so has a lot of impact on where were gonna decide to site. Clearly then, siting decisions are mediated by more than the protections or promises of Dover. The broader structural context, in which states chronically underfund social services and agencies seek sites in the private land market, represent signicant contemporary and neoliberal constraints on social service agency siting. These structural constraints shape SSA administrators siting processes, likely considerably more than any perceptions of freedom offered by Dover. As a result, even though SSA administrators may experience a great deal of latitude in siting decisions as a result of Dover, the aggregate pattern of the siting decisions that are actually made follow a straightforwardly revanchist neoliberal logic: social services for lower-income residents are concentrated in neighborhoods with low-value real estate and minimal capacity for organized homeowner opposition, as shown in Figure 1.6 Dover offers the nominal possibility of the ability to site at willat least within the context of physical requirements for the buildings they hope to occupy but that ability appears to go systematically under-exercised.

Resistance is Futile? Enabling the Resistive Power of Residuals

While Dovers resistive utility has often gone underutilized, the case of the South Middlesex Opportunity Council (SMOC) in Framingham, Massachusetts offers a provocative example of the kind of resistive siting that Dover can enable. SMOC is a SSA which provides a range of housing, mental health and substance abuse, and economic independence programs for low-income individuals and families in both Middlesex and Worcester, counties in East-Central Massachusetts. SMOC has been in existence since the mid 1960s, created as a Community Action Program to address poverty in western-metropolitan Boston (centered on Framingham). Some, but not all, of their housing programs qualify for Dover protections. Many are funded via state contracts. Since the early 1990s, SMOC has operated a program
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

72

Antipode

Figure 1: Location of residential service agencies (group homes) in relation to regions of high household poverty in Worcester, MA (source: US Census 2000; City of Worcester 2006)

in Framingham called Sage House that provides housing and substance abuse treatment and counseling services to homeless families (author interviews 2008; SMOC 2010). In 2005, the state agency with whom they are contracted to operate the program asked them to expand its size so that more families could be served; expansion required a new site with more space. SMOC was able to identify an empty building that had previously functioned as a nursing home; the facility was located in a higher value residential neighborhood than the original location of Sage House (author interviews 2008). When SMOC bought the facility and tried to obtain a housing permit and Dover exemption, they encountered some resistance from neighborhood residents, and from various agencies of the Town of Framingham, including the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board (author interviews 2008). After a great deal of procedural delay, including multiple hearings by the Planning Board, SMOC eventually was granted their Dover exemption and a certicate of occupancy from the town planning board (Saltzman and Noonan 2007). The entire Sage House relocation process, which included multiple Town Board hearings and heated debates on a city listserv, prompted a federal anti-discrimination lawsuit brought by SMOC under the Fair Housing Act against the Town of Framingham.
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

73

In fall 2010, the suit was settled, with Framingham paying SMOC $1 million and agreeing to anti-discrimination training for Town ofcials (Noonan 2010). The SMOCFramingham case of Sage House illustrates the potential resistive power of Dover; using it, SMOC was able to site a social service group home that in all likelihood would not have otherwise been locatable in the neighborhood (Sage House was sited before the lawsuit was settled; Dover enabled the siting regardless of the Federal discrimination claims). Without Dover, town zoning would simply have prevented the new Sage House location. SMOC made a siting decision (eg to choose a site) that contradicted a core expectation of higher-value property owners: that high-value property should be (through the nancial mechanisms of the market and state mechanisms of regulations like zoning) reserved for highvalue uses, and that the governments role in the land market is to protect land owners from socially problematic uses (Knox 1994; Wyly and Hammel 2005). The fact of zoning barring group homes in certain residential neighborhoods means that without Dover, SSAs would not be able to site in those zones. Thus, the Dover Amendment in Massachusetts provides the widest possible landscape for a potential group home site. SMOC was able to take that landscape of promise and turn it into a site that truly challenged or interrupted the usual status quo of land useand the vociferous opposition to the siting reects the degree to which the intended use of the property violated neighborhood expectations of what uses were appropriate, and which were not (SMOC v Town of Framingham et al 2007). SMOC was able to achieve the siting because they could nd the right property in terms of size, it was available, and they had the money to buy it. They were also willing and able to withstand the local opposition and wait 2 years to obtain residency permits. SMOCs steadfastness indicates an agency seemingly immune to nancial and public pressure. In Middlesex and Worcester counties, where SMOC provides services, residents who object to sitings complain that SMOC disregards the character of their neighborhoods, concentrating poverty in a few central Massachusetts cities and towns (Hammel 2006; Saltzman and Noonan 2007). SMOC as an organization receives a lot of negative press and public opinion. Some organizations might fear such popular disdain, but SMOC seems to hold it in abeyance. Clearly they, like other SSAs we interviewed, believe that the law in Massachusetts gives them the right to site and they intend to exercise their rights (author interviews 2008). Yet the high-prole opposition to SSAs locating group homes in residential areas, especially higher income areas, offers a strong disincentive to challenge the status quo, if SSAs perceive any link between public opinion and their abilities to purchase property, secure Dover exemptions, or even state contracts. SSA administrators do point to their experiences of connections between public opinion and their abilities to successfully site group homes: in our interviews with 10 SSA staff and administrators of different agencies operating in Worcester and Framingham, all agreed that they could not publicly indicate their intentions to purchase a property. Public notication, they argued, had to proceed after a nal sale was complete. Otherwise, they argued with some illustrations to past experience, sales would fall through, sometimes because the sellers suddenly found other buyers with better offers.
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

74

Antipode

The existence of Dover does not in itself create resistance, nor does it motivate resistance on the part of SSAs. The social and political pressures that constrain SSAs in the current political-economic context do not disappear because of Dover in Massachusetts. However, for a SSA with the motivation to resist the ongoing state-led nancial and discursive devaluing of their contributions to society, Dover enables resistive siting acts by tying the hands of both state and non-state political actors who might otherwise deploy formal state power toward reinforcing existing, inequitable development patterns. SMOCs action is resistive in at least two different ways. First, their insistence that they would site Sage House in a context that the processes of local land politics would otherwise prohibit is an incremental step in producing a more just landscape of social service provision. The agency made a conscious choice to pursue the site that they believed was the most effective setting for their social service provision, despite the clear opposition they faced in doing so. In this sense, when SSAs use Dover resistively, they contribute the construction of a different kind of landscape. Despite the storm of local opposition it can produce, this sort of resistance through individual moments of spatial reorganization has limited individual impact. To be substantively disruptive, this spatial incursion must be one of many similar re-organizing moments. In insisting on using Dovers protective umbrella from the conventional mechanisms of local development politics, however, SMOC also discursively exposes the ways that neoliberal logic of the contemporary local land market promotes unjust outcomes. Other local political actors (in Framingham, Selectpeople and Town Meeting Members) were forced either to accept SMOCs efforts at spatial redistribution or to position themselves publicly in opposition to the alternative logic of development enabled by Dovers residual state apparatus. The volume of public opposition to siting highlights how the state residual of Dover inscribes an alternative logic, one offering a more just distribution of social goods. Dovers status as a formal state apparatus is an important part of the discursive power SSAs can wield by making use of it. Its political viability and continued use in the face of widespread condemnation of its effects directs attention to the widely shared social benets of Dovers implicit logic. SMOCs insistence on siting against public preference via the power of Dover opens a space for a public forum for debating which state logics serve best to produce public good.

Strategies for Resisting/Contesting Through Tactical Use of State Residuals

The experience of SMOC in Framingham illustrates both the multiple ways in which SSAs siting choices are in practice constrained and the potential for using a state residual to resist and partially circumvent that constraint. This case illustrates that a search for, and intervention through the use of, state residuals can challenge neoliberal hegemony both by building new geographies and disrupting normative claims about the appropriate distribution of goods. Dover is a government mechanism of the regional state that is routinely used by SSAs, but its resistive potential more often than not remains latent, as demonstrated in the extant landscape of residential SSA facilities in cities like Worcester. We suggest that it
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

75

takes a conuence of nancial wherewithal, motivation, and institutional capacity, to realize this latent potential. Some scholars have questioned whether the institutionalization of community organizing and capacity building has undercut the possibilities for resistance, coopting groups that initially sought to challenge hegemonies but which have become reliant on steady funding streams, professional staff, and institutional ties to various state and corporate entities (Lake and Newman 2002; Lustiger-Thaler and Shragge 1998; Martin 2004; Stoecker 1997). In contrast, institutions such as SMOC go about their business despite their imbrication in broader systems of governance. They are the kinds of actors who are exploring what it means to resist in the shadow of neoliberal hegemony. In the case of SMOC, this willingness to resist has ensured it some critical attention in central Massachusetts. After the city of Worcester contracted with SMOC to run its homeless shelter, and subsequently SMOC sought to open some group homes in the city under the Dover framework, a city councilor was quoted in the city newspaper with a characterization that captures the impact of the organizations willingness to act resistively: We cautioned the city about SMOC coming in, because we knew SMOC had tremendous political power, tremendous nancial assets, and they would not necessarily partner with the city because they were powerful enough that they didnt have to, said Haller (Kocian 2005). As in the case of Sage House in Framingham, the agency faced a hail of political pressure to abandon its chosen sites, but continued unabated. In Framingham, indeed, SMOC did more than persist; it went on the offensive in ling a federal lawsuit. With a $50 million annual budget, it may be less dependent on any specic, particular grant than most of its peer SSAs. As one Worcester social service administrator noted, discussing SMOC: they just kind of charged in there . . . protected by the Dover Amendment . . . They knew how to handle it . . . with regards to loss of funding. This administrator was comparing SMOCs ability to withstand legislative funding cuts with his organizations more precarious nancial situation. Simultaneously, SMOC is atypically situated as a regional SSA that is not embedded within a larger health bureaucracy (such as a state agency or hospital system). Its constraining duciary responsibilities, then, have an unusual degree of separation from the structuring of the neoliberal, devolving, entrepreneurial state. In addition to their nancial capacity, SMOCs leadership has shown in this case a willingness to challenge the social/political, soft constraints from which similar SSAs have shied away. As evidenced above, other SSAs and local politicians alike view SMOC as operating more independently, even deantly, in cases where their sitings face opposition. SMOCs success in siting Sage House in a relatively higher-income neighborhood of Framingham points to the possibilities of state residuals such as the Dover Amendment in Massachusetts to enable resistance to neoliberal logics such as property markets and social services. In another state, local zoning might have foreclosed the potential site altogether, by limiting land uses to residential households with no more than three or four unrelated persons. In such a situation, resistance has no leverage. Dover, however, makes such restrictive zoning moot where social services offer the range of life skills education that they routinely provide
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

76

Antipode

in group homes settings. Thus, it gives SSAs a big stick to interrupt prevailing land use patterns. Given a tool like Dover, we can imagine a landscape in Massachusetts in which a determined, deep-pocketed SSA could deliberately and successfully redraw the land use pattern of residential districts across the state. Yet such a pattern does not exist: Dover has promise, but remains unfullled (A. Scherr, Starved equality: funding limits and distribution requirements for group homes under the fair housing act in progress, in progress). Arguably, an SSA which did seek to use Dover to realize more of its promise might initiate a rebuke or even elimination of the law itself. But doing so would also provoke open and public commentary on the law, opening conversations about the public responsibilities for mental health services, and the extent of privatization of social services. Debates about appropriate state intervention may result in evisceration of protections like Dover, but they may also point to the limitations of neoliberal logics and policies. While Dover is in force, it can be used to demonstrate that private property markets suffer little harm from social service uses (Dear 1992). The current failure of Dover to enact a more explicit challenge to prevailing property markets may be the result of the weak nancial and institutional status of many SSAs. Yet Dover already provokes debate about social service siting; a more confrontational, deliberate use of Dover could produce a subversive political confrontation about the devolved and chronically underfunded position of social services under the neoliberal state. Such a confrontation, in the face of the resistive actions enabled by Dover, could force reevaluation of the underlying assumptions of urban neoliberalism, particularly of discursive practices which constitute mental health needs as subordinate subjectivities (Mouffe 1992).

Conclusion
Conceptualizing Dover as a tool for resistance to neoliberalism requires recognizing the neoliberal state as a particularly complex and contradictory actor. Understanding the state as multiple and fractured opens the door to viewing the state itself as potentially resistive that is, as containing the seeds (or residuals) of its own ` vis capital. Dover constitutes a specic example of such contradictory stance vis a a residual apparatus that can be exploited and constructed through an interaction between state and non-state actors at the scales of the regional and local states in Massachusetts. This particular scalar conguration of Dover should not be overlooked, as scale is important to the dynamics in the case. However, the fact of the scalar (and thus, territorial) limits to Dover ought not to obscure the fundamental character of Dover as more than simply a tool of a regional state, but also a state residual: an echo of past state logics, which can beand may bepresent at any and many scales. An understanding of the state as composed of many partially contradictory, residual faces is fully compatible with radical democracy, which emphasizes the multiple positionalities of any actor, and the contingencies of political stances (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Radical democracy posits an always-hegemonic power structure, regardless of whether the state is aligned with capital; state power produces hegemonies outside of its economic alliances. A resistance that can build chains of equivalence with actors positioned in the state, or frameworks
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

77

of the state, can challenge assumptions aboutand by extension, the practices ofthe straightforwardly neoliberal state. Residuals such as Dover, then, offer an opportunity for resistance that engages the state itself toward an antineoliberal stance (and necessarily towards an alternative hegemony, which itself will produce resistances) (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). One of the requirements for such engagement is actorscitizens, agencies, organizationswho consciously deploy or seek to enact state residuals as elements of resistance. Resistance thus needs to intentionally and deliberately employ the state to sow greater lines of contradiction within the states neoliberal project.

Endnotes
1

We gratefully acknowledge support for this research by the National Science Foundation: NSF-BCS 0730195. The analysis, conclusions, and opinions offered here are our own and not necessarily shared by the NSF. 2 We differ therefore with Lakes (2002) call for a return to big government because we see any form of state powereven ones seeking to limit capital as necessarily hegemonic and productive of resistance (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; see our discussion below). 3 Their focus was less on resistance per se and more on conceptualizing a basis for political participation, founded not on essential identities but on fragmented, exible subjectivities always in denition and engagement. 4 State and federal courts have interpreted the term educational when applying the statute (Fitchburg Housing Authy v Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg, 380 Mass. 869, 874, 1980). A commonly cited standard in these decisions is that education is the process of developing and training the powers and capabilities of human beings (Mount Hermon Boys School v Gill, 145 Mass. 139, 146, 1887). 5 Dover does not apply to the cities of Boston and Cambridge, which have separate, but not dissimilar, state home rule/municipal enabling laws. Cambridges law allows it some regulation over educational and religious facilities over a certain size (Massachusetts Council of Human Service Providers 2006). 6 An extensive exploration of the dimensions of this spatial distribution is beyond the scope of this paper, although we hope to discuss it in a separate publication.

References
Boyer K (2006) Reform and resistance: A consideration of space, scale and strategy in legal challenges to welfare reform. Antipode 38(1):2240 Brenner N (2004) Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 19602000. Review of International Political Economy 11(3):447488 Brenner N and Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of actually existing neoliberalism. Antipode 34(3):349379 City of Worcester Technical Services (2005) City of Worcester: Social Service Agencies [Map] Cox K (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or, Looking for local politics. Political Geography 17(1):123 Cresswell T (1996) In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press Cumbers A, Routledge P and Nativel C (2008) The entangled geographies of global justice networks. Progress in Human Geography 32(2):183201 Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58(3):288300 DeFilippis J (2004) Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital . New York: Routledge

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

78

Antipode

Elwood S (2006) Beyond cooptation or resistance: Urban spatial politics, community organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(2):323341 Hackworth J (2007) The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Hammel L (2006) SMOC, OBrien mum after talks. Worcester Telegram and Gazette 31 January Hankins K and Martin D (2006) Charter schools and urban regimes in neoliberal context: Making workers and new spaces in metropolitan Atlanta. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(3):528547 Hardt M and Negri A (2004) Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin Harvey D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity . Malden, MA: Blackwell Harvey D (2003) The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Harvey D (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development . New York: Verso Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Review 53:2340 Healy M R (2005) Massachusetts Zoning Manual . Boston: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc Holloway J (2005) Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today . London: Pluto Press. Knox P (1994) Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Kocian L (2005) SMOC takes ak in Worcester, Too. Boston Globe 18 August Laclau E and Mouffe C (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. New York: Verso Lake R (2002) Bring back big government. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26: 815822 Lake R and Newman K (2002) Differential citizenship in the shadow state. GeoJournal 58: 109120 Law L (1997) Dancing on the bar: Sex, money and the uneasy politics of third space. In S Pile and M Keith (eds) Geographies of Resistance (pp 109123). New York: Routledge Laws G (1989) Privatization and dependency on the local welfare state. In J Wolch and M Dear (eds) The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life (pp 238257). Boston: Unwin Hyman Lee E (2005) The renegotiation of the social pact in Hong Kong: Economic globalization, socio-economic change, and local politics. Journal of Social Policy 34(2):293310 Lee E (2006) Welfare restructuring in Asian newly industrialised countries: A comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Policy & Politics 34(3):453471 Leitner H, Peck J and Sheppard E (2007) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York: Guilford Press Leitner H, Sheppard E and Sziarto K (2008) The spatialities of contentious politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33:157172 Lustiger-Thaler H and Shragge E (1998) The new urban left: Parties without actors. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22(2):233244 Martin D (2004) Non-prot foundations and grassroots organizing: Reshaping urban governance. Professional Geographer 56(3):394405 Martin D and Miller B (2003) Space and contentious politics. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 8(2):143156 Massachusetts Council of Human Service Providers (2006) A Legal Guide to the Siting of Community-Based Social Service Programs and Special Needs Schools. Boston: Lynch and Fierro LLP McAdam D (1982) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 19301970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Miller B (2000) Geography and Social Movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Reconceptualizing Resistance

79

Mitchell D (2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press Mouffe C (1992) Feminism, citizenship and radical democratic polices. In J Butler and J Scott (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political (pp 369384). London: Routledge Murphy L (2003) Reasserting the social in social rented housing: Politics, housing policy and housing reforms in New Zealand. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(1):90101 Noonan E (2010) Antipoverty group to get $1m in suit. The Boston Globe 27 October http://www.boston.com/yourtown/framingham/articles/2010/10/27/group_that_aids_ poor_to_receive_1m_in_suit/ (last accessed 4 January 2011) Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3):380404 Peet R (2007) Geography of Power: Making Global Economic Policy . London: Zed Pile S and Keith M (1997) Geographies of Resistance. New York: Routledge Piven F and Cloward R (1978) Poor Peoples Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail . New York: Vintage Purcell M (2008) Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York: Routledge Ranci` ere J (2004) Disagreement: Politics And Philosophy . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press Rose M (2002) The seductions of resistance: power, politics, and a performative style of systems. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20:383400 Routledge P (1994) Backstreets, barricades, and blackouts: Urban terrains of resistance in Nepal. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12:559578 Routledge P (2003) Convergence space: Process geographies of grassroots globalisation networks. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28:333349 Saltzman J and Noonan E (2007) Antipoverty group sues Framingham over rights: Says town targets disabled people. Boston Globe 25 October Scott J (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Smith N (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrication and the Revanchist City . New York: Routledge SMOC (2010) Sage House Family Shelter . http://www.smoc.org/index.asp?pgid=87 (last accessed 2 March 2010) SMOC v Town of Framingham et al (2007) US District Court ling, http://www. smoc.org/index.asp?pgid=164 (last accessed 15 July 2008) Stoecker R (1997) The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs 19:122 Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or glocalisation? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17(1):2548 Tormey S (2004) Anti-Capitalism: A Beginners Guide. Oxford: Oneworld US Bureau of the Census (2000) Census of population and housing: 2000 Census [Computer le]. Geolytics version CensusCD 2000. East Brunswick, NJ: Geolytics, Inc Wainwright J (2007) Spaces of resistance in Seattle and Cancun. In H Leitner, J Peck and E Sheppard (eds) Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers (pp 179203). New York: Guilford Press Wainwright J, Prudham S and Glassman J (2000) The battles in Seattle: Microgeographies of resistance and the challenge of building alternative futures. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18:513 Wolch J (1989) The shadow state: Transformations in the voluntary sector. In J Wolch and M Dear (eds) The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life (pp 197221). Boston: Unwin Hyman Wyly E and Hammel D (2005) Mapping neoliberal urbanism. In R Atkinson and G Bridge (eds) Gentrication in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism (pp 1838). New York: Routledge

2012 The Author. Antipode

Antipode Foundation Ltd.