{"id":49,"date":"2018-12-20T10:23:08","date_gmt":"2018-12-20T15:23:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010-spring-2018\/?page_id=49"},"modified":"2019-04-12T18:26:27","modified_gmt":"2019-04-12T22:26:27","slug":"log-11","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/data-collection-logs\/log-11\/","title":{"rendered":"March 27: Research Log #1 – Theoretical Framework"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reflection & Data:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout the last few weeks, I have reviewed numerous academic articles to develop a better understanding of the history of informal housing in the United States, as well as explore different typologies of squatting. Although research on this phenomenon in \u2018developed\u2019 countries proves quite limited, I have found several scholars who, I believe, provide sufficient material for me to develop a unique theoretical and conceptual framework. Below, I synthesize my principle findings and, instead of annotating sources separately, place them in direct dialogue.<\/p>\n

According to urban planning scholars Noah Durst and Jake Wegmann (2017), research on informal housing, such as squatting, focuses overwhelmingly on \u2018less developed\u2019 countries, where researchers predict that over 40% of the total urban population lives in \u201cextralegal conditions\u201d (282). Despite such massive prevalence, studies rarely seek to examine informal housing in the \u201cglobal North,\u201d particularly in the US, where domestic discussions of this issue remain woefully absent. While the majority of the estimated 600 million to 1 billion people residing informally around the world undeniably concentrate in the \u201cglobal South,\u201d such practices have long existed in other regions, although admittedly on a smaller scale (Vasudevan 2015). In the US particularly, informal housing has surged since the 1970s, differing in form depending upon location, yet often interwoven with legal housing and landownership, as well as hidden from public view (Durst & Wegmann 2017).<\/p>\n

This investigation specifically assesses squatting, which sociologist Hans Pruijt (2012) defines as \u201cliving in \u2013 or otherwise using \u2013 a dwelling without the consent of the owner\u201d (19). The purposes of this practice as identified by scholars vary considerably, ranging from a tactic to redistribute economic resources and address housing insecurity to a manifestation of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) projects and middle-class countercultural expression. Some researchers even classify such occupation as a left-libertarian movement or, in contrast, a Leninist form of political activism. However, Pruijt (2012) deems none of these assessments entirely accurate, given that squatting projects differ markedly between countries and within cities. Accordingly, Pruijt suggests a more comparative analysis that assumes a foundational diversity of this occupation and thus contests its analytical bifurcation as a measure to satisfy either housing needs or countercultural expression.<\/p>\n

Pruijt (2012) proposes multiple forms of squatting, the two principal of which appear particularly relevant for my investigation. Constituting the most prevalent type, \u201cdeprivation-based squatting\u201d involves \u201cpoor, working-class people\u201d responding to severe housing insecurity (23). These squatters possess virtually no lodging options other than a homeless shelter and, accordingly, elect to occupy abandoned buildings, foreclosed homes, vacant lots, or other spaces. Non-profit organizations often support these movements, helping squatters mobilize legal demands to formalize housing, as well as publicize issues pertaining to gentrification and rent control. However, Pruijt (2012) also suggests that these same activist groups often co-opt squatter movements, coordinating with local authorities to rent out temporary public sector accommodation in exchange for the dissolution of organized, extralegal occupation \u2013 thus arguably provoking more insecurity (24-5).<\/p>\n

Squatting can also constitute an \u201calternative housing strategy,\u201d which, while less restrictive than deprivation-based occupation, frequently complements and emerges from this prior type. Within this category, middle- and lower-class people, although not at immediate risk of homelessness, seek an alternative to increasingly unaffordable (sub)renting. Organizing autonomously, often without institutional support, these squatters frequently form peer-based networks \u2013 \u201csquatter scenes\u201d \u2013 to coordinate mutual assistance, building maintenance, utility expenses, energy supplies, and emergency plans (i.e. developing \u2018telephone trees\u2019 in case of eviction threats). Contributing to general movement building, participants might also organize campaigns to occupy other properties, resist anti-squatting legislation, and support other local protest movements (Pruijt 2012:25-8).<\/p>\n

Pruijt (2012) considers these two categories of squatting not mutually exclusive, but rather as inextricably intersectional, coalescing in what human geographer Alexander Vasudevan (2015) terms as \u201cmakeshift urbanism.\u201d Viewing occupation through this lens destabilizes the \u201ctotalizing vision\u201d of informal housing as an example of \u201curban implosion\u201d and instead reimagines possibilities of resistance, liberation, and empowerment (Pieterse 2008:2 in Vasudevan 2015:338-9). Makeshift urbanism accordingly reconceptualizes squatting as a site whereby radical insurgency complements and even facilitates attempts to secure housing. Given the \u201ccomplex material geographies through which cities are differentially composed,\u201d this framework recognizes squatting as a diverse project of everchanging \u201cincremental assemblage\u201d (348). For example, in the process of completing maintenance repairs, squatters often challenge normative assumptions about \u2018home\u2019 by altering basic spatialities. Removing walls to increase shared areas, for instance, occupiers engage in \u201carchitectural experiments\u201d that reimagine \u201cnew micropolitics of connection and solidarity\u201d (Vasudevan 2015:349).<\/p>\n

Makeshift urbanism\u2019s assumption that tactics of occupation depend upon available material geographies even allows us to deconstruct the binary between squatting as either an autonomous or institutionalized movement. Pruijt and Conny Roggeband (2014) propose that the possibility for and success of mobilization occurs \u201cin response to manifest opportunities\u201d (147). While autonomous initiatives can trigger \u201cinstitutional disruption,\u201d avoid the \u201cconstraints of representative politics,\u201d and mobilize without massive resources, institutionalization often facilitates public support, ensures sustainability, and limits repression. Combining the assets of both these models without jeopardizing squatting projects, Pruijt and Roggeband (2014) propose a \u201cdual movement structure,\u201d which consists of self-contained social movements that, while addressing similar issues, are differentially institutionalized (145-6). While the efficacy of such collaborative networks remains unclear, the flexibility of this approach will prove useful in comparing occupation amongst US cities.<\/p>\n

In summary, the aforementioned studies provide an apt theoretical framework for analyzing squatting movements not solely as strategies to secure more stable housing but also as subaltern sites of radical insurgency. Supplementing this research, I hereafter plan to read James C. Scott\u2019s Domination and the Arts of Resistance <\/em>(1992), drawing upon his understanding of infra-politics to better articulate the relationship between occupiers and state institutions. In addition, I hope to review literature concerning how squatting might not only actively contest but also inadvertently reproduce neoliberal subjectivities of a \u201cright to the city\u201d (i.e. Uitemark et al<\/em>. 2012) and propertied citizenship (Sparks 2017). I furthermore intend to examine homesteading in New York City, an example around which Pruijt and Roggeban (2014), as well as Vasudevan (2015), partially structure their analysis.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n

Durst, Noah J. & Jake Wegmann. 2017. \u201cInformal Housing in the United States.\u201d International Journal of Urban and Regional Research <\/em>41(2):282-97. Retrieved February 28, 2019 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1468-2427.12444<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Pruijt, Hans. 2012. \u201cThe Logic of Urban Squatting.\u201d International Journal of Urban and Regional Research<\/em> 37(1):19-45. Retrieved February 28, 2019 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1468-2427.2012.01116.x<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Pruijt, Hans & Conny Roggeband. 2014. \u201cAutonomous and\/or institutionalized social movements? Conceptual clarification and illustrative cases.\u201d International Journal of Comparative Sociology <\/em>55(2):144-65. Retrieved February 28, 2019 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0020715214537847<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Vasudevan, Alexander. 2015. \u201cThe makeshift city: Towards a global geography of squatting.\u201d Progress in Human Geography<\/em> 39(3):338-59. Retrieved February 28, 2019 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0309132514531471<\/a>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lopez’s Comments:<\/p>\n

Brandon, you are making excellent progress on your project.\u00a0 It looks like you’re well off in terms of writing your paper. I think that the theoretical ideas you been looking at would work really well with the project that you proposed. Most of all, I like that you bring in pieces that complicate the nuances found in squatting movements. The thing I like to make note of. From my own experience in doing work in Mexico, squatting is not always the action of sitting on someone else’s land. At times the poor get caught up in bureaucratic processes that keep them from holding title of the land even though they may own it in principle. While this is the case in many places in the global South, it may also be something you might want to look into it more developed places like New York, Detroit, and Seattle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reflection & Data: Throughout the last few weeks, I have reviewed numerous academic articles to develop a better understanding of the history of informal housing in the United States, as well as explore different typologies of squatting. Although research on this phenomenon in \u2018developed\u2019 countries proves quite limited, I have found several scholars who, I … Continue reading “March 27: Research Log #1 – Theoretical Framework”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":15,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-49","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/49","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/49\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.bowdoin.edu\/sociology-3010a-spring-2019-bmorande\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}