Making Space For Free Subjects Squatting, Resistance, and The Possibility of Ethics

Edinburgh Research Explorer
Making space for free subjects

Squatting, resistance, and the possibility of ethics
Citation for published version:

Grohmann, S 2018, 'Making space for free subjects: Squatting, resistance, and the possibility of ethics',
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 506-521. https://doi.org/10.1086/701113
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1086/701113
Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Published In:
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy

The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 10. jun.. 2024

2018FHAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8 (3): 506–521
ARTICLE
Making space for free subjects

Squatting, resistance, and the possibility of ethics
Steph G R O H M A N N , School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography,
University of Oxford and Centre for Homeless and Inclusion Health,
University of Edinburgh
Anthropologists working on ethics have emphasized the importance of freedom for the becoming of ethical subjects. While
some have therefore aligned themselves with the later work of Foucault, his earlier work has been identified as part of a “science
of unfreedom” antithetical to the study of ethics. In this article, I suggest that the “early Foucault” can nevertheless be relevant
for the anthropology of ethics, specifically by looking at contexts where freedom is not a given, but has to be actively created through
the overcoming of conditions of unfreedom. Drawing on Faubion’s discussion of ethical subject positions, as well as Foucault’s work
on disciplinary architectures, I discuss how subject positions, ethical and otherwise, are also and especially produced through prac-
tices of ordering material and symbolic space. Different socio-spatial orders can therefore either be designed to impede the flour-
ishing of free ethical subjects, or to facilitate it.
Keywords: ethics, subject position, space and place, territoriality, squatting, homelessness
Introduction ticularly ingenious to their efforts (e.g., in different ways,

Hirschkind 2006; Zigon 2007; Mahmood 2011; Mattingly
Anthropology’s recent “ethical turn” has seen a revival 2012), as it specifically speaks to the notion of ethical be-
of interest in questions of morality and ethics. Within coming as a “technology of the self.” One of the most
the fast-growing literature on the ethical dimension of prominent examples of such work in recent years is cer-
human life, a number of approaches have emerged, con- tainly James Faubion’s An anthropology of ethics (2011).
cerning themselves with the embeddedness of ethics in In a decisive development of Foucauldian ethics, Fau-
everyday life (Lambek 2010; Das 2015), with extraordi- bion argues that becoming an ethical subject is not only
nary moments of ethical crisis (Zigon 2007; Faubion 2011), a matter of cultivating particular virtues or dispositions,
the experiential dimension of the ethical (Csordas 1990, but also involves actors gradually aligning themselves
1993, 1994, 1999, 2008; Desjarlais and Throop 2011), with particular “ethically marked subject positions” (2011:
moral reasoning (Sykes 2012), and moral narratives (Mat- 14), i.e. becoming occupants of predefined standpoints
tingly 1998, 2010; Faubion 2001; Zigon 2012), to name within a given network of symbolic relationships. “Eth-
just a few. While it is impossible to do justice to all these ical autopoiesis,” in this view, is therefore to a degree cir-
contributions in this article, I will draw specifically on a cumscribed by the availability of such socially produced
set of approaches that galvanize around the notion of the subject positions to the individual, thus situating indi-
ethical subject, and the various ways that individuals cul- vidual freedom within an “encompassing web” (Robbins
tivate the kind of self they associate with ideas of “the 2012) of social relations.
good” (Laidlaw 2002, 2013; Widlok 2004; Hirschkind In this article, I would like to take up the notion of
2006; Lambek 2008; Mahmood 2011; Mattingly 2012). subject “positions” in what is perhaps a more literal sense
As Laidlaw relates, a number of anthropologists work- than the one Faubion has in mind: I want to talk about
ing in this vein have found the “neo-Aristotelian” ap- the ways that (ethical) subjects are produced by position-
proach exemplified in the work of Michel Foucault par- ing bodies in material and symbolic space. I will draw on
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. Volume 8, number 3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/701113

© The Society for Ethnographic Theory. All rights reserved. 2575-1433/2018/0803-0011$10.00
This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
507 MAKING SPACE FOR FREE SUBJECTS
ethnographic data taken from my research with home- to be widely known as “disciplinary architectures” (Fou-
less people and squatters, conducted between 2010 and cault 2012) i.e. socio-spatial arrangements that are de-
2012 in Bristol, England, to illustrate this argument. signed to produce particular kinds of subjectivities and
The limitations of format do not allow me to provide social relations. Foucault argues that such architectures,
a comprehensive introduction to my field site here, found for example in prisons, hospitals, barracks, etc.,
for which I therefore have to refer the reader to my act as technologies of power, epitomized in an emblem-
forthcoming book. However, to briefly contextualize, my atic example that has become the namesake for loci of
fieldwork was conducted around the time that squat- discipline as such: the Panopticon. The concept is so well
ting in England was turned from a civil dispute into a known that it hardly requires much of an explanation:
criminal offence. Before this change in law in 2012, squat- a Panopticon, as originally devised by Jeremy Bentham,
ting had, for practical purposes, been considered “legal,” is a type of architectural arrangement which distributes
and the ongoing housing crisis across England, in con- bodies in space in such a way that they become subject
cert with post-2008 austerity, meant that for thousands to constant and unbroken surveillance. It therefore pro-
of people, squatting was a last-resort measure to alleviate duces, by virtue of its spatial properties, a range of lit-
pressing housing need. My field site at the time harbored eral and figurative subject positions within a disciplin-
a lively community of several hundred squatters, con- ary discourse comprised of brick-and-mortar as much
nected in an ever-shifting network of dwellings, vehicle as of language and practice. For the interned, occupancy
sites, and social spaces, which specifically understood of both the architecture and the discursive subject posi-
itself as a self-help network for homeless and precari- tions it imposes is quite clearly a matter of coercion rather
ously housed people. As squatters viewed it, squatting than choice—their behavior options are starkly restricted
was a remedy for homelessness in the simple sense that and scripted through the relation to the other imposed
as soon as a homeless person took possession of a squat, by the spatial properties of the inhabited space. More-
they were no longer homeless, and thus, passively at the over, while the original Panopticon was a specific ar-
mercy of the elements as much as their fellow man. In- chitectural innovation, its internal logic—as Foucault
stead, they became “a squatter,” that is to say, a person himself shows—can be easily transposed between, and
who by virtue of actively taking occupation of a space had enacted in, different socio-material spaces. When taken
deliberately taken on a new social identity and position. as an abstract ordering principle, Panopticism can thus
“A squatter,” in this view, was therefore not simply an- equally come to characterize a workplace, a school or
other variety of homeless person (as the responsible so- even a “home.” The Panopticon is therefore what in this
cial services would have it), they were an entirely different article I will call a “socio-spatial configuration,” i.e. an as-
breed: someone who through deliberately resisting their semblage of spatial and social properties and practices
exclusion from shelter had turned themselves not just that produce particular subject positions and their inter-
into a dweller, but effectively, a rebel. This transformation relations. Such an ideal configuration is not only trans-
of homeless people into squatters was inexorably tied up posable between different contexts, as the term “Panop-
with their physical occupation of the space of the squat, ticism” indicates, but it is also what different systems
and therefore aptly serves to illustrate how assuming a theories refer to as “scalable”: as a principle or model, it
particular spatial position can, quite literally, translate can be applied to social systems of any size. In the fol-
into assuming a particular subject position. lowing, I will argue that such abstract, transposable con-
Faubion’s understanding of the term “subject posi- figurations are not limited to disciplinary architectures,
tion” certainly goes beyond such a “geographical” inter- but rather, that subject “positions,” ethical or otherwise,
pretation. At the same time, however, one also does not can also and especially be understood as literally con-
have to stray too far from Foucault’s work on ethics to structed and enacted through spatial practices.
find a well-known example of what I mean by this. Be- Admittedly, while discussions of disciplinary archi-
fore turning his attention to what he calls “power rela- tectures have a long tradition in the social sciences, they
tions” between free subjects, Foucault devoted a great may appear oddly placed in the context of anthropo-
part of his work to thinking about their opposite, namely logical discussions of ethics. As anthropologists have
relations of domination and the various discourses and convincingly argued, the study of ethics fundamentally
practices that subjugate the embodied self. A special role requires moving beyond the “science of unfreedom”
in these processes of subjugation falls to what has come approach characterizing Foucault’s early work (Laidlaw

Steph GROHMANN 508
2014), and a Panopticon could therefore be seen as a der to resist spatially mediated power in order to create
space antithetical to ethics—where the majority of indi- conditions under which free ethical subjects can flour-
viduals are in a state of being totally controlled by out- ish? In the following, I want to address this question by
side forces, the emergence of free ethical subjects ap- thinking not so much about how people become ethical
pears to be at the very least severely restricted. Indeed, subjects, but rather, how they produce the conditions of
if ethics first and foremost requires self-governance, and possibility for this to be possible: how they manipulate
those who are not free to govern themselves, such as slaves material and symbolic space in order to allow for free
or the “inmates” of a Panopticon, are therefore restricted ethical subjects to potentially emerge, not only in the
in their possibility of becoming occupants of ethical sub- context of specific disciplinary architectures, but rather,
ject positions, then the “early Foucault” with his empha- in the context of inhabited space more generally.
sis on domination would have little to contribute to our The connection between squatting and freedom—
understanding of ethics. However, even before turning most commonly understood as the absence of political
his interest away from domination and toward the free oppression—has been noted in the small but growing
subject, Foucault was not content to think of disciplinary literature on squatting as a practice. Most commonly,
structures simply as inescapable sites of total control— this literature makes a distinction between squatting in
he was careful to note that even in the most repressive the global south—mostly in the form of illicit land oc-
settings, resistance always remains an option. Through cupations—and the kind I am talking about here, namely
the concept of resistance, even in a Panopticon-like dis- the occupation of empty buildings in the cities of the
ciplinary architecture, an element of freedom remains West. Different squatting scholars have approached the
a possibility—at the same time, however, this potential subject from the perspective of legal and political theory
must be realized in struggle against the disciplinary ar- (Cobb 2012, 2014; Dee 2014; Waring 2014; O’Mahony,
chitecture itself, and the literal and discursive position- O’Mahony, and Hickey 2014), social policy (Reeve and
ality it imposes upon body and experience. In the con- Batty 2011; Reeve 2014), the securitisation of the nation
text of disciplinary architectures, one could therefore state (Manjikian 2013), and activist networks and social
say that the possibility of being ethical itself becomes movements (Squatting Europe Kollective 2013; Cattaneo
the focus of a struggle—the possibility of freedom de- and Martínez 2014; Dadusc 2014; Dadusc and Dee 2014;
pends on the overcoming of conditions of unfreedom. Kadir 2016; Milligan 2016). Notably, this literature often
Resistance against conditions of unfreedom, if not part makes a distinction between the “vulnerable homeless”
of the “ethical proper,” can therefore be seen at least as and so-called “lifestyle squatters” (e.g. Prujit 2013; Cat-
one of its conditions of possibility, and could thus be taneo and Martínez 2014; critical: Middleton 2014),
called a “proto-ethical” practice. a.k.a. “political squatters,” echoing a political discourse
The Panopticon, while emblematic, is certainly an that has fairly consistently attempted to delegitimize
extreme example of a spatial order: most spaces humans squatting by driving a conceptual wedge between the
inhabit do not, on the face of it, encourage such stark “deserving” homeless and “undeserving” political activ-
power differentials. Thinking of architectures of power ists. As some scholars have noted, however, this distinc-
not so much in terms of concrete sites, such as a specific tion is not uncontroversial—in Britain, squatting move-
prison, but rather as transposable and scalable discur- ments since World War II have consisted of both those
sive assemblages involving material objects, practices and in need of shelter and those committed to political change
subject positions, however, allows us to think of them (Ward 1976; Reeve 2014). As I expand upon elsewhere
not as “things” but rather, as qualities or tendencies which (Grohmann forthcoming), in my field site this distinc-
can characterize specific socio-material settings to a tion did not only not apply, but rather, was actively chal-
greater or lesser degree. At the same time, the fact that lenged by those who saw squatting as a practical solution
Panopticism is hardly the only way to organize human to homelessness. Moreover, however, the connection be-
inhabitation of space also poses the question of what tween squatting and freedom within the community I
other possible configurations there can be, and what qual- studied was not limited to simply the idea of being free
ities or tendencies they impose on socio-spatial relating. from oppression, although that certainly figured into it.
If architectures of power are inimical to the emergence Included in the idea of freedom was also the notion that
of free subjects, then what kind of socio-spatial configu- the act of ordering space, in and of itself, could produce
ration would encourage it, and what do people do in or- new and more equal social relations.

Making space ting crews, and each new squat was therefore to an ex-
tent terra nullius as far as entitlement to occupancy was
Squatters were most often organized in small groups concerned.
of 3–10 people called “crews” who moved into empty This recurring need to allocate space without caus-
properties and stayed there until evicted, which, de- ing social friction (along with the need to house as many
pending on the owner, could take anywhere between people as possible) was one of the reasons many squats
a few days and several years. While until 2012, some attempted to devise formal policies to organize social
squats enjoyed decades-long quiet due to an absent or relations within them (another reason was, as mentioned
disinterested owner, most crews had to move into a above, that while squatters acknowledged that squatting
new space several times a year, necessitating the explicit was, for many, born out of acute material deprivation, it
or implicit creation of, and adherence to, some kind of was also understood as a political practice aimed at cre-
mutually accepted normative framework on how the ating social relations based in equality and freedom).
newly acquired space should be distributed. Since squat- Most squatters subscribed to a more or less theoretically
ting crews did not necessarily adhere to the kinds of so- founded version of anarchist politics, at the core of which
cial relations expected of the inhabitants the houses were was a belief in radical egalitarianism and communal de-
built for—for example, they rarely fit the description of cision making. While fulfilling a need for shelter, many
a nuclear family who would need a master bedroom, squats were therefore also intended as social laborato-
children’s bedrooms and a space to eat together—they ries where such egalitarian relationships could flourish.
most often had to make up their own rules about how By far the most common strategy of achieving this was to
the space should be used. In concert with the frequent adopt a code of conduct widely known in leftist-activist
moves that squatter crews, including the one I was part circles as a “Safe Space Policy.” These policies set out, of-
of during my fieldwork, were subjected to, meant that ten in writing, that discrimination of any kind on the
with every new architecture, the rules of inhabitation basis of gender, race, sexuality, age, disability, and a
had to potentially be re-negotiated. The first squat I moved number of other identity categories was prohibited. Safe
into when I arrived in the field, for example, operated a Space policies (or, acknowledging the impossibility of
form of seniority principle—since the house was larger a totally safe space, “Safe(r) Space policies”) could often
than the original crew who had “broken” (i.e. opened) be found printed out and displayed publicly within a
it, additional people had subsequently moved in one after squat, but where such systems of rules were not explic-
another, and it was generally assumed that this temporal itly displayed, squats within the network usually involved
difference translated into a difference in degree of au- an expectation that anyone who used the space adhere,
thority. The implicit assumption was that the person at minimum, to the proscription of “sexism,” “racism,”
who lived there the longest had the highest investment and other such forms of discrimination based on identity.
in the space, and thus their voice was given more weight The concept of “Safe Space” has come to a certain
in collective decision making. At least in our crew, this notoriety among academics in recent years, largely owing
construction of “authority” was bound up not so much to its adoption by various student groups on university
with a belief in leaders, but rather, with a peculiar under- campuses. Campus “Safe Spaces” have come under fire
standing of being considerate toward the connection of because, as their critics claim, they have come to be used
personal identity and place—the person who lived in as a means to silence political dissent and curb free
the house the longest was seen to be most strongly en- speech. The controversy has produced curious alliances
tangled with the space, it was his or her “home,” in the between feminists, conservatives, religious people of dif-
sense of an extension of personhood, more than that ferent stripes, and self-proclaimed “free-thinkers” who
of whoever came later. When this squat was eventually worry about the suppression of science and reason. Trac-
evicted, we moved into a new building as a group, and ing these debates would require a book of its own; how-
the differences that had structured the crew along tem- ever, it is worth noting that despite the widespread moral
poral lines were wiped out—we were now all “equal” outrage and ridicule campus “Safe Spaces” have recently
regarding the duration of our connection with the place, attracted, the concept itself is much older and, for most
and each had as much to lose as any. This move was the of its history, was relatively uncontroversial among those
first of a total of 13 within the space of a year, a number committed to social equality. Vaughan Bell, a neurosci-
that, although relatively high, was not unusual for squat- entist and psychologist, traces its history to the work of

Steph GROHMANN 510
psychologist Kurt Lewin, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Ger- port of a sometimes impressively high number of indi-
many who went on to become director of the Center vidually named identity categories. To an extent, this was
for Group Dynamics at MIT. Lewin—inventor of now due to the fact that some areas of presumed discrimi-
ubiquitous concepts such as “social dynamics” and “feed- nation were not as clear-cut as others, and “Safe Space”
back”—developed a range of self-technologies for cor- policies therefore also implicitly communicated a group’s
porate managers, including a form of group discussion position of specific issues. For example, while one group
called “sensitivity training” (Bell 2015). It was designed included “race, gender, sexuality, age, ability, religion” in
to enable managers to address their own shortcomings its list of supported categories, “religion” was notably ab-
through structured employee feedback, and therefore re- sent in a number of other versions. Within anarchist pol-
quired an atmosphere in which concerns and criticism itics, religion is often regarded with suspicion, as it is seen
could be freely expressed to the boss’s face (in the 1940s as one form of social domination among many (as the
not a common occurrence). It was therefore necessary saying goes: “No Gods, No Masters”), and the fact that
to establish a set of shared rules that enabled every par- at the same time some people experience discrimination
ticipant to express themselves without fear of later re- because of their religious beliefs made this a complex and
percussions—one could thus say that the first “Safe often contentious issue.
Space” was created to facilitate speaking truth to power. On the other hand, the listing of individual “modes
It was only during the 1960s that feminist and gay and of oppression” can be understood as a political statement
lesbian groups adopted the concept to refer to a space that each of the supported groups was recognized in its
in which normally marginalized standpoints could be particularity, while at the same time, they all were as-
expressed free from political repression, and “Safe Spaces” sumed to have something in common—namely the very
did not become ubiquitous on university campuses until fact that they warranted protection through a formal
the second decade of the twenty-first century. policy. In the context of squatting, “Safe Space” policies
Squatters on the whole subscribed to the 1960s view were thus essentially codified versions of an anarchist
that “Safe Spaces” were not primarily intended as safe- ethics of mutual aid and protection—the fact that osten-
guards against ideological contamination, but rather, sibly disparate groups such as gays and lesbians, people
were designed to prevent forms of violence which were of color, the disabled, and Muslims, were protected un-
seen as pervasive in “mainstream society.” BHAM,1 the der the same policy pointed toward the underlying as-
largest publicly visible association of squatters in Bris- sumption that what they shared in common was precisely
tol, state on their flyer: “we operate a safe space policy a vulnerability to the sort of thing the policy protected
at our meetings, this means we do not allow racist, sex- them from. As the Bristol Anarchist Federation put it:
ist, homophobic or any type of discriminatory behav- “gender, sexuality, age, physical ability, social class, skin
iour.” In this negative formulation, “Safe Space” refers to colour and being part of a specific ethnic group are all
a set of behaviors that are forbidden on the basis that used as excuses for society undertaking and accepting
they are seen as common forms of structural oppres- a catalogue of abuses against people.”2 Inherent in this
sion. Another group, running a semi-public social cen- view is an understanding of social power that acknowl-
ter, uses a more positive formulation: its purpose is edges particular identity categories not as an essential fea-
“providing a space that is equally welcoming to every- ture of the oppressed, but as “excuses” in the eye of the
one (except cops, fascists, etc.) irrespective of age, race, oppressor. “Safe Spaces” were thus designed not so much
gender, background, sexuality and (dis)ability.” This to protect particular identity groups, but rather, as a prac-
somewhat convoluted wording points to the contradic- tical critique of the binary logic of domination that was
tory nature of “Safe Spaces”; while on the one hand in- seen to produce them in the first place. One could call
tended for “everyone,” it was also assumed that some it an “intersectional” approach in that it acknowledged
(here, “cops and fascists”) had to be excluded so that that domination functioned along multiple axes. It re-
“everyone” could feel welcome. At the same time, while mained, however, firmly situated at the very point of in-
“everyone” would appear to be as inclusive as one could tersection, where all axes of oppression came down to the
be, “Safe Space” policies usually also expressed their sup-
2. Author anonymous, http://floaker.net/2013/03/31/organised

1. Bristol Housing Action Movement -safer-space-2/, accessed 17 December 2013.

same principle: domination and subjugation. It was, in and oppression, including but not exclusive to misog-
this sense, anarchist ethics in its purest form—instead yny, sexual violence, bullying and intimidation, it was
of a formal application of the theories of Stirner or Prou- agreed that X. would be excluded from involvement
dhon, this was, at least in principle, a radical ethics of di- with the projects, organisations and groups named be-
rect action against any and all forms of institutionalized low. These groups will also, where they are able, take
steps to exclude him from public events and actions in
social power of people over one another. In contrast
which they take part.
to what is (perhaps unfairly) claimed of campus “Safe
Spaces,” the logic of these spaces was therefore only su-
perficially related to “identity politics,” in the sense of Squatter’s “Safe Space” policies were thus instruments
the partisan interests of specific groups. Underlying the for configuring socio-spatial relationships in such a way
acknowledgement of these interests was a peculiar form that they tended toward more equal power relations. I
of moral universalism, based on a shared vulnerability to say “tended toward” rather than “represented” since
the harmful effects of social power. (as the notion of “SafeR Space” acknowledges), it was
In practice, “Safe Space” policies were most often in- accepted that enacting such a policy merely gave mo-
voked in the context of gender relations; more precisely, mentum to change, it did not, in and of itself, implement
in instances of sexual assault. Women were by far the a new fixed state of being. In producing and maintain-
largest recognized “oppressed” group within the squat- ing this momentum, however, squatters pursued a clear
ting network, while other groups (such as people of color) agenda: they aimed to address injustice specifically by
were relatively underrepresented. For this reason, as the regulating access to, and control over, material and sym-
anonymous Anarchist Federation writer puts it, “while bolic space across a range of concrete settings. “Safe
[discriminatory] cultural norms can be seen wherever op- Space” in this context was therefore not a term applied
pression takes place . . . the most pervasive and wide- to specific places as much as it was what I have called
spread of these affecting all our radical spaces today are a socio-spatial configuration—a culturally scripted pat-
carried over from our dominant culture’s acceptance of tern of symbolically and materially ordering space, which
rape and sexual violence.” Preventing such violence— could be superimposed upon any number of locales, and
and where it could not be prevented, at least retrospec- made a specific place instantly recognizable as a partic-
tively keeping the victim safe from repeatedly having to ular type of space. Moreover, the rationale for imposing
face the perpetrator—thus was the most frequent rea- this spatial order was not so different from Foucault’s
son “Safe Space” policies were enacted in practice. In discussion of disciplinary architectures: the relations of
these instances, the moral order implied in “Safe Spaces” oppression characterizing the “mainstream” were seen
thus most clearly appeared in its specifically spatial di- to create spaces in which some were exposed to the co-
mension—it was assumed that the power the perpetra- ercive control of others—women, for example, were
tor held over the victim also and especially consisted in seen to inhabit a space characterized by the threat of a
him3 occupying space that was, for this reason, not ac- sexually aggressive male gaze, and consequently had to
cessible to the victim. The ethical imperative in this situ- monitor their own behavior in the style of a Panopticon
ation was thus to balance the scales by affirming the vic- inmate in order to anticipate and avoid this aggression.
tim’s right to occupy space, and removing the threat. In This, it was acknowledged, limited and restricted their
one instance, the following statement was publicly is- spatial and social repertoire, and thus, their freedom.
sued by a number of radical groups: In so far as “Safe Space” pointed to a specific spatial con-
figuration, it was therefore set up as a counterbalance to
Following notification from [a social center] that X. has another configuration which one aimed to overcome—
been banned from the centre and its activities due to al- a spatial order of freedom set against a spatial order of
legations of a serious sexual assault, an emergency meet- “oppression.”
ing of individuals and radical groups in Bristol was held.
One could, of course, accuse these anarchists of sub-
As individuals and networks opposed to domination
scribing to an outdated, overly binary worldview, which
sorts people into pairs of “oppressors” and “oppressed”
3. Theoretically, this also applied to female perpetrators of without much concern for nuance. This binary absolut-
sexual violence and male victims, although in practice, no ism sits somewhat uncomfortably with the view, more
such constellation ever occurred within my field site. or less hegemonic in the social sciences today, that power

Steph GROHMANN 512
lies within the network, and actors are always to a degree condition of possibility for ethics to emerge. Resistance,
exerting power as much as they are subject to it. Surely, if not an ethical practice as such, is thus at the very least
the argument goes, while relations of absolute domina- “proto-ethical” in that it aims to even the social playing
tion may still be found in the most repressive of pris- field in such a way that moving into ethical subject po-
ons or in the context of “modern slavery,” normal human sitions proper becomes an option for those who previ-
affairs are, on the whole, not a matter of brute-force ously were restricted from it.
power of some over others. In concert with the fact that This view appears to sit well with how squatters saw
these squatters were not exotic Others from some re- the world: they too acknowledged that within social
mote place far away, but active participants in the same space, relations of domination exist between certain sub-
Western cultural context as the author of this article, ject positions (specified in terms of gender, “race,” etc.)
this poses a certain dilemma for the ethnographer: with- and at the same time, that the ideal space would be one
out the option of escaping into notions of radical alter- where these relations have been overcome and all sub-
ity, what to make of the fact that these people held views jects have the opportunity to become self-governing and
about the way society is organized that fly in the face of free. Pointedly speaking, they saw the world as a prison,
how “we” have learned to think about the very same so- and their resistance (a term that they readily embraced)
cial context? It would certainly be an option to simply as aimed against the disciplinary nature of a society in
assert that they were wrong—that they had fallen prey to which they saw themselves very much as inmates. Like
ideological figures not applicable to the time and place a resisting prisoner, they aimed to remove themselves
in which they lived, and that perhaps precisely therein as far as possible from the control of this disciplinary
lay a reason they were excluded from what they called apparatus and its totalitarian eye, by creating spaces in
the “mainstream.” In order to do justice to them, and which its proponents had no place (“no cops, no fas-
take their worldview as seriously as the ethics of ethnog- cists”). Their alternative vision was an ideal of a “good
raphy demand, I do, however, want to make an alterna- space” in which the deadlock of oppressive pairs of sub-
tive suggestion: that they were not mistaken about how ject positions was broken, and people could therefore
society works so much as they had access to a dimen- relate as free subjects. One could therefore say that an-
sion of it that members of the “mainstream” are shel- archist practice in this context formed an angle or turn-
tered from precisely due to that status. ing point between the “older” and the “newer” Foucault—
In doing so, I hope to also remain faithful to the where the philosopher merely shifted his focus, squatters
Foucauldian tradition in the anthropology of ethics, with- were busy shifting reality from its present state as a prison
out, however, using it as a way of diagnosing my respon- to a desired state as an association of free ethical beings.
dents with holding an “incorrect” idea of power. Rather, But what are we to make of the anarchist claim that
I want to retrace the great philosopher’s own steps back- society is characterized by relations of brute-force, spa-
wards to where he was coming from before turning his tially mediated domination that requires remedial pol-
attention to freedom: as many commentators have noted, icy? Panopticism, while helpful to explain how subject
Foucault did not disavow his theory of domination in positions are spatially produced, also has its limits in
favor of a theory of the self-governing subject so much thinking about what the concrete space of unfreedom
as he underwent a shift in emphasis (see Rabinow 1986). squatters tried to overcome looked like. Even the most
At no point, however, did he revise his earlier idea that pessimistic political theory of “mainstream society” as
disciplinary relations of domination can and do charac- a disciplinary apparatus cannot seriously claim that, on
terize certain human relations, and it is thus interesting the whole, it fixes people in space and subjects them to
to ask whether and how we could think of them not total and inescapable control (and not even the most
as a sphere separate from and unrelated to the ethical, ardent anarchist claimed such a thing). Similarly, while
but rather, as underlying and complementing it, while “the state” was a natural staple of anarchist critique, the
at the same time forming its conceptual antithesis. “Sub- relations of domination that “Safe Space” policies were
ethical” relations of domination would then not appear designed to address were by no means limited to resis-
as irrelevant to the study of ethics, but rather, as one of tance against the state and its organs such as the police,
its central problems—where domination rules and free- although these were certainly part of it. On the whole,
dom is restricted, so is the emergence of ethical relations; the power that anarchists aimed to address was not sit-
and the overcoming of domination is then a necessary uated solely in disciplinary structures or “institutions

of biopower,” however widely one may want to define I want to suggest that Bloch’s distinction can help to
these terms. Rather, it was to be found in immediate illuminate a peculiar feature of the spatial construction
spatial relations of bodies among each other, such as of subject positions; in the context of spatial relations,
when one violent individual, most likely without any the interaction between the transcendental and the trans-
institutional power whatsoever, could single-handedly actional social is very much a two-way road. On the one
block access to a particular space for others through his hand, it is not difficult to see how access to space is reg-
mere presence. Power here was very much flowing be- ulated according to transcendental assignments: a per-
tween individuals, but at the same time, it did so by son’s belonging to a particular group also means that
virtue of them being assigned to particular groups or they are assigned the spatial entitlement associated with
subject positions (unjustly so, if anarchists were to be be- this group. Squatters recognized this in assuming that
lieved). So how can we frame this relationship between particular persons, by virtue of being “women,” “mi-
political categories and individual embodiment to un- grants,” “queers,” etc., were subject to a contested claim
derstand how squatters arrived at their binary view of to space, which consequently had to be defended. At
power? the same time, however, the reverse also applies: tran-
In the second part of this article, I would like to dis- scendental subject positions are constructed, to a cer-
cuss this question, drawing on the work of an anthro- tain extent, according to the de facto position of bodies
pologist who is more readily associated with the cogni- in space relative to one another. The seniority principle I
tive side of the discipline: Maurice Bloch. In his 2008 encountered in my first squat, for example, constructed
article “Why religion is nothing special but is central,” transcendental authority according to the length of time
Bloch discusses the difference between human and non- a specific body had dwelled within a specific building
human primates by suggesting a distinction between relative to the others. In terms of spatiality, therefore,
two different but interrelated spheres of the social. One, the transactional and transcendental spheres of human
which he calls the “transcendental social” “consists of relating can be seen to be mutually co-constitutive: tran-
essentialised roles or groups” (2008: 2056), comparable scendental assignments follow de facto control over space
to the notion of “imagined communities.” This sphere, as much as control over space is granted according to
Bloch argues, is exclusive to homo sapiens, and makes transcendental assignments. In order to understand the
it possible to assign individuals to abstract social posi- binary view of power which squatters held, it is there-
tions that exist separately from the individuals them- fore helpful to start not from the way they constructed
selves. This notion shows some parallels to the idea of binary relations between transcendental subject posi-
“subject positions” as transcendental symbolic loci, which, tions, but rather, from the other end: the way that these
too, exist independently of the specific individuals oc- subject positions themselves were constructed accord-
cupying them. Next to this, Bloch argues, there exists ing to the degree of transactional spatial power they im-
a sphere he calls the “transactional social,” which con- plied. What this means becomes clearer when we re-
sists in immediate, embodied relations between indi- place “transactional spatial power” with a more familiar
viduals, based on power differentials (2008). This level, term: human territoriality.
according to Bloch, is shared between humans and other
primates, and essentially comes down to the direct en-
Beyond territoriality
actment of dominance hierarchies. The term “subject
position” here only applies in the most unsophisticated “Territory” is most often considered a “juridico-political”
(and certainly un-Foucauldian) of senses: that of an in- (Foucault 1976) concept, associated with theories of the
dividual with a first-person perspective being positioned state and of political and military power. In its most ba-
in space relative to another. It was precisely this imme- sic sense, however, territoriality can be taken to mean
diacy, however, that the anarchist approach to spatial simply “the attempt by an individual or group to affect,
justice addressed: while justifying its interventions into influence, or control people, phenomena and relation-
the nature of relationships between groups who were de- ships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geo-
fined in terms of the “transcendental social,” the practical graphic area . . . this delimitation becomes a territory
application of “Safe Space” rules most often came down only when its boundaries are used to affect behaviour
to physically regulating access to space, and thus played by controlling access” (Sack 1986: 19). What distin-
out very much in terms of transactional relations. guishes the notion of territory from that of mere space

Steph GROHMANN 514
is therefore, on the one hand, the element of border- collision followed by chastisement. The lower the rank,
ing, which involves the interruption of the continuity therefore, the more an animal must adapt the position
of space in the shape of a strict demarcation of inside of his body in space relative to that of more powerful
and outside, and the subdivision and ordering of the individuals, which also involves anticipating their fu-
inside. On the other hand, “territory” is an active so- ture movements to plan his own. Dominant animals thus
cial form—its maintenance involves effort in the exer- function somewhat like black holes of social power—
cise of control over boundaries and internal structure, their very presence warps and bends the spatial and tem-
as territory is always potentially contested. Most im- poral trajectories of subordinates, like centers of gravity
portantly, as implied in Sack’s definition, “territory” is in the fabric of social space-time.
space delimited for a particular purpose: that of exer- Human primates, as anthropologists are well aware,
cising control over others. Territory thus implies social are in contrast entangled in complex symbolic systems
power, not in the egalitarian sense of Foucault’s power which appear to have removed them far from the phys-
relations between free subjects, but quite in the binary ically enacted dominance hierarchies of other species.
sense that squatters understood “oppression.” The sub- It would certainly be mistaken to reduce human terri-
ject positions it produces are, on the one hand, “insid- toriality to mere animal instinct, or to imply that un-
ers” and “outsiders” and, on the other hand, those who derneath the cultural “fluff,” we are just apes jockeying
control the territory and those who are being controlled. for rank. However, as Bloch’s transactional/transcen-
Territory, understood as a socio-spatial configuration, is dental model implies, our capacity to produce “culture”
thus based on a dual logic of internment and exclusion: as a transcendental system of meaning does not mean
in so far as it produces outsiders, it excludes, in so far as that we have entirely left these forms of interaction be-
it establishes internal hierarchy, it interns the “insiders” hind (Bloch 2008). Following Bloch, in humans, the rem-
under the control of the territorial actor. As a mecha- nants of dominance hierarchies therefore co-exist with
nism to distribute spatial entitlement, territory thus works enduring cultural “superstructures,” and there is no a
to concentrate this entitlement in the hands of those who priori reason to assume that one takes precedence over
control both access as well as internal power relations. the other. There is equally no reason to assume that
As Sack argues, territorial behavior can be designed these domains should be entirely separate, and that re-
to benefit those controlled (e.g. a parent limiting the curring patterns of dominance and subordination would
spatial range of a child to keep it safe), or to harm them. therefore not also find expression on a symbolic level, or
But whether benign or malevolent, by turning on the conversely, that symbolic power relations would not also
factor of control over access, territoriality crucially in- impact the relationship between individual bodies. This
volves the production of space as a scarce resource, and is especially true when it comes to the ordering of space
thus has the potential to engender competition between according to status—it is, for example, widely accepted
territorial actors. In non-human animals, this is fairly among homo sapiens that the highest-ranking individ-
uncontroversial—rank in many species is crucially ne- ual in any social context should be assigned the most fa-
gotiated through controlling access to space. In chim- vorable sitting spot. A human towering over others on a
panzees, for example, dominant individuals not only throne, or in the executive chair at the head of the board-
pick the most favorable feeding and resting spots (and room table, affirms social status as effectively as any
hold on to them), they also control the spatial position chimpanzee’s insistence on occupying the tallest rock
of subordinates through body language, vocalization, and, around.
where territorial claims are challenged, physical aggres- Human ways of negotiating such spatial assignments
sion, thus banishing lower-ranking animals to the social among themselves are, at a basic bodily level, equally
and spatial periphery of the group (Murray, Mane, and similar to those of non-human animals—eye contact
Pusey 2007). But territorial control not only means lim- oftentimes establishes whether or not a claim to control
iting access to specific places—it also means controlling over space will be made or contested (think two drivers
other’s ways of traversing space. Where a dominant in- gauging each other’s willingness to give way at a cross-
dividual’s chosen trajectory from A to B intersects with ing), and where it is, bodily posturing and vocalization
that of a subordinate, the dominant will claim his right (“get out of my way”) are used to pull rank. If one went
to keep moving in a straight line, while it falls upon the out in Bristol city center on a Friday or Saturday night,
subordinate to negotiate a detour in order to avoid a one could thus observe a ritual which can be found in

similar form in many places: mostly young men, under At the same time, men determine women’s position
the influence of copious amounts of alcohol, were wan- in, and trajectory through, space in myriads of differ-
dering around looking for a physical confrontation. One ent ways, and their culturally scripted way of spatial re-
very effective strategy of finding it consisted in picking a lating is designed to not only establish, but reinforce
potential opponent, walking into his path, and then to just dominance hierarchies. This concerns, for example, the
keep walking as if his body was not there, so that one traditional fixation of female bodies within the space of
bumped into him. This ritual had the function of estab- the “home,” but also the gendering of bodies through
lishing rank by challenging the opponent’s spatial posi- their positioning in public spaces. Many of the forms of
tion, and to drive home the message that he better watch “everyday sexism” that have become the subject of public
where he was putting his body since a more dominant male debate in recent years affect women’s spatial existence—
was demanding right of way. As with all self-respecting the neologism “manspreading,” for example, refers to the
primates, the gesture was reliably understood as a chal- phenomenon of men routinely taking up more space on
lenge, and if it was accepted, the combatants would keep public transport than their bodies require, thus limiting
pounding at each other until the police arrived. women’s access to seats. Another neologism, “manslam-
These territorial displays on a bodily level are not coming,” has been coined to describe the observation that,
incidentally also rituals of masculinity on a symbolic level, once women deliberately stop moving out of men’s way
and they therefore illustrate how bodies are assigned to in public, inevitable collisions ensue—just as the domi-
the transcendental category “gender” in terms of trans- nant individuals among other primates expect to move
actional territoriality. In so far as territoriality establishes from A to B in a straight line, so too do human men,
rank, and men, on the whole, socially rank higher than and women must therefore adjust their trajectory or
women, cultural ideas of masculinity have often involved “slam” into them. Finally, ubiquitous forms of gendered
elements of territorial dominance. The ritual of “walking violence such as street harassment and the ever-present
into” another man also worked as an insult because it threat of sexual assault mean that women must plan their
rested on the assumption that a “real man” should be movement through space according to the presence of
capable of defending his turf, first and foremost that of potentially dangerous male bodies—men thus become
his own body. As Brace (1997: 144) notes, masculinity is “centres of social gravity” warping women’s experience
inherently bound up with the idea of sovereign control of space and time, not so much because “space is gen-
over the territory of the body, and male anxiety about dered” as has often been said (e.g. Massey 2013), but be-
boundary loss and invasion therefore finds its expression cause gender, as a social hierarchy, is also and especially
in homophobic fears of potential penetration. Women, spatially produced.
on the other hand, were traditionally seen not so much Gendered identities can therefore be said to be spa-
as territorial actors as they were seen as territories—their tially constructed in a double sense—in the sense of
bodies are constructed as uninhabited spaces, hollow and gendered bodies being constructed as particular kinds
quite literally full of holes, and thus fit to be penetrated, of spaces, and in the sense of the kind of position and
invaded, and colonized. While men occupy space, women trajectory assigned to them within larger spatial config-
thus are occupied, and, quite frequently, they have to de- urations. At the same time, gender illustrates the mu-
fend their inhabitation of their bodies against the “rights” tual co-constitution of transactional and transcendental
of other residents, such as unborn fetuses. Bloch’s some- relations: belonging to the transcendental category “men”
what cavalier assertion that “we” go “in and out of each entails certain spatial entitlements, but conversely, pos-
other’s bodies . . . like in birth and sex” (2013) therefore sessing spatial entitlement is also what makes one a
only tells half the truth—it is women’s bodies that are “man.” What goes for gender equally goes for “race.”
here frequented like hotels, and it is precisely this pre- Although, ideologically speaking, “race” is a very dif-
sumed permeability and hollowness, that makes a body ferent figure, a central element of racializing bodies is
feminized.4 not only to spatially segregate them from the dominant
group, but to simultaneously assign them a less desir-
4. Gay males, then, are demeaned because of the suspicion able (and thus subordinate) spatial position, be it at the
that the boundaries of their bodies might be equally per- back of the bus or in the “ghetto.” In gendering and
meable, putting them closer to women than to ‘real men,’ racializing bodies, physically enacted dominance hierar-
and thus assigning them a lower social status. chies therefore coincide with cultural narratives of un-

Steph GROHMANN 516
equal symbolic value, and both work to reinforce one tions may be as complex and nuanced as we, as anthro-
another. Gender and “race” as particular instances of pologists, are used to framing them, on the level of the
transcendental categories here point to an underlying transactional they are, in fact, very much binary: in the
principle—our cultural forms are never wholly divorced context of dominance hierarchies, one can be the top-
from our existence as embodied animals, also and es- ape or the bottom-ape but not much in between. On
pecially when it comes to the fundamental need of hu- the other hand, as Luhrmann’s example shows, there
mans to be able to occupy space. Space is thus intimately are situations even in the midst of our “advanced” West-
connected to power precisely because, in controlling ac- ern societies, where transcendental assignments are de
cess, territorial actors also control a resource essential to facto stripped away and people are reduced to “bare
physical survival. territoriality”: homelessness as a phenomenon epito-
Granted, in Western nations most of us—certainly mizes this state. Given that squatters, their utopian ideas
most anthropologists—are far removed from survival con- notwithstanding, saw their practices also very much as a
cerns when it comes to their occupancy of space. How- reaction to the desperate absence of shelter, it is there-
ever, one only has to walk the streets of almost any West- fore not difficult to understand how they would arrive
ern city to find out what happens to those for whom the at an idea of power in line with the binary nature of ter-
transcendental layer of culture recedes and leaves the ritorial dominance hierarchies—they were, in fact, the
body physically and symbolically exposed: we usually very people whose political and economic position re-
refer to them as “homeless.” As Tanya Luhrmann (2006, duced them to the necessity of defending their physi-
2007, 2008) observes, street-homeless people (from whom cal “turf ” against territorial aggression. Moreover, while
squatters were only one step removed by virtue of their their political analysis took into account both levels—
very squatting), in the widespread absence of protection the transactional and the transcendental—their practice
through the state, often adopt a certain aggressive style addressed the problem “bottom up”: “Safe Space” pol-
of interaction in order to protect themselves from as- icies, while framed in terms of transcendental groups,
sault. Luhrmann compares this to “the ‘code of honour’ effectively regulated territorial relations between concrete
commonly found among nomadic peoples, pastoralists bodies.
and ranchers . . . (who), because they are isolated . . . In a sense, “Safe Space” practices thus replaced the
have few others to help to defend them. In such poorly absent (and in any case, undesired) protection of the
policed settings, physical survival may depend upon an state with an “alternative transcendental”—an imagined
ability to defend one’s turf so aggressively . . . that the community based on a moral notion of solidarity in the
trouble slinks away” (2008: 17). Crucially, this behavior light of shared vulnerability to territorial exposure. In en-
is necessitated in large part by the absence of transcen- forcing rules that essentially prohibited the establish-
dental social institutions designed to intervene on behalf ment of physical or symbolic dominance hierarchies (not
of the attacked, such as the state, the police, or the legal always successfully, but qua intention), it thus pre-empted
system, be it because such institutions do not exist, as for the necessity for individuals to assert themselves against
the pastoralist, or because individuals have no access to territorial challenge. In this sense, “Safe Space” policies
them, as for the homeless. In Bloch’s terms, the homeless paradoxically had the effect of turning squats into some-
therefore have lost access to the level of the transcen- thing like diminutive versions of the territorial state: they
dental social, and are reduced to enacting transactional bundled individual territorial claims into a collective ven-
dominance hierarchies in much the same way as other ture, and thus channeled aggressive energy away from
primates.5 competition on the inside, and into the defense against
The notion of territoriality can therefore here illu- the outside. The state, of course, consists of a multitude
minate two things: one is that, while on the level of the of complex layers of social relations, of which the basic
transcendental, power relations between subject posi- logic of territoriality is just one, in so far as it involves
a collective form of territorial practice. However, one
of its central legitimizing claims is that it serves as the
5. I am not aware that Bloch has specifically addressed idealized expression of the collective territorial inter-
homelessness in this context in his writing. I do, however, ests of its citizens. In the same way as it ensures indi-
recall attending a talk by him at the LSE in 2014 where he vidual claims to property, it also works to assure indi-
explicitly made this point. vidual entitlements to space through mutual contractual

obligation, on the understanding that all participants therefore a political act, not only because it protected
must take part in defending the outer boundary. Seen a specific, acutely threatened social group, but also be-
from the outside, such states can thus commonly be cause, in the aforementioned moral universalism of an-
observed to behave much like territorial individuals, de- archist ethics, it was designed to counterbalance (spatial)
fending their turf through aggressive posturing while inequality as such. For each instance of a “Safe Space,”
on the inside, a more or less functional ordering regime it therefore had to be determined who, at present, was
ensures that every body is in its proper place. In the part- at the receiving end of territorial subjugation—and in
incidental, part-intentional absence of the state, squat- the heat of everyday resistance, that could, occasionally,
ters therefore began to do the same. The difference lay become quite a complex question.
mostly in the nature of the internal ordering mecha- To illustrate this with a final example: In “my” first
nism: whereas squats actively worked to undermine the squat, our crew had shared the house with a man, I will
emergence of internal hierarchies, the state most often here call him Tariq, who was reluctant to share more
does the opposite. about his background than that he had come from North
The construction of “Safe Spaces” can thus, once again, Africa and had no intention to return there. It was gen-
be seen as a “transformational device” between two dis- erally assumed that he was a so-called “illegal” (i.e. un-
tinct but interrelated states of being: just as it serves as documented migrant), but nobody cared enough about
a mediator between a Foucauldian state of domination immigration law to investigate the matter. Tariq even-
and free subject relations, so too does it work to trans- tually drifted away and was not seen for several weeks,
form Bloch’s binary dominance hierarchies into tran- but as soon as we had moved into our new squat, he
scendental human relations, in the absence of the sym- turned up at our door one evening and asked to be al-
bolic ordering mechanism of the state. Granted, fleshing lowed to move in. Since the squat was spacious enough,
out the continuities and differences between Foucault’s he was admitted, but it soon emerged that he had since
and Bloch’s models would require careful theorization developed a cocaine habit, and the drug caused him
that is beyond the scope of this paper. We can, however, (or gave him license to) systematically mistreat those
observe some obvious commonalities between them: around him. To the particular chagrin of the female
both models imply that human relations can reflect an squatters, he appeared to have decided that it was wom-
extreme of absolute, embodied and enacted power differ- en’s role to keep the house clean, cook for him, and gen-
entials, as well as an opposite pole of free human relating, erally wait on his whim, which he noisily and aggres-
in which the Foucauldian may recognize the sphere of sively demanded. This situation persisted for a few weeks,
the ethical, and the “Blochian” the realm of the genu- until one day Tariq crossed the line with a female squat-
inely human. Combining these views, one could therefore ter by transgressing on the space of her body without
speak of two spheres of spatial relating: a “transactional- consent, and a “Safe Space” was officially invoked. Tariq
territorial” sphere, and a “transcendental-ethical” one. In was summoned to a house meeting (a full assembly, re-
the context of spatiality, these two realms may again be flecting the gravity of the situation), confronted with
recognizable as what I have called socio-spatial configu- his behavior, and, since no promise of betterment was
rations: assemblages of material objects (including the forthcoming, asked to remove himself from the squat
body), practices and beliefs that produce specific socio- while being offered an alternative place to sleep. He did
spatial positions and the type of relationship between not take well to this, in his view, unjust and despotic de-
them. As we have seen, these configurations are trans- cision, stomped back to his room in a flurry of anger,
posable and scalable—just as the logic of territorial be- locking himself in, and as the afternoon progressed,
havior may apply to a pastoralist’s small field as much as drank himself into a rage and periodically stepped out-
to a nation state, so too can a “Safe Space” be declared— side his door to shout abuse at everyone present. As it
in theory—on a space of any size. At the same time, had become fairly obvious that he would not leave vol-
these two spatial orders produce fundamentally differ- untarily, squatters from nearby houses were summoned
ent types of social power—where territoriality always to assist with the eviction.
tends toward domination, an egalitarian spatial order, Around nightfall, the situation had escalated to such
such as implied in “Safe Space” approaches, implies the an extent that Tariq was angrily pacing up and down
opposite, namely a tendency toward freedom. The de- the corridor, brandishing an axe and threatening to kill
liberate invocation of a “Safe Space” configuration was anyone who dared come near him. At the other end of

Steph GROHMANN 518
the building, a small mob of twenty squatters armed the logic of “Safe Space” and the logic of territory thus
with assorted blunt objects huddled in a corner, trying came into direct conflict, as both patterns were alternately
to summon the courage to disarm him. Once in a while, imposed on the space of the squat in short order. De-
one of the group would venture across the yard to try pending on which paradigm dominated, individual actors
and talk sense into Tariq, only to come back unharmed such as Tariq thus occupied different and contradictory
but without result. The standoff lasted until, finally, one subject positions: from a territorial aggressor threaten-
of our crew, more sensitive to the threat of violence than ing others’ spatial entitlement, he transformed into the
others, lost his nerve and phoned for the police. As he spatially vulnerable party in need of protection, and back
announced their imminent arrival, a shower of abuse again. At the same time, these pattern switches involved
rained upon him from both sides of the battlefield. “You jumps in scale—depending on how the relevant space
f****** idiot” someone shouted, “Tariq is illegal!” In an was defined, the pattern was scaled up to include the ter-
instant, the weapons vanished on both sides, and when ritory of the state, or down to include only the inside of
the police rang the doorbell a few minutes later, they en- the squat. Moreover, the enactment of the pattern was
countered a scene of blissful tranquility, as squatters sat strangely hybrid: in order to establish the moral order
around a table drinking tea. The police in general had no of a “Safe Space,” squatters had to paradoxically act in a
particular interest in squatters’ internal conflicts, and so territorial fashion. This paradox reflects the same con-
just grumbled something about wasting their time and tradiction that plagued squats more generally: despite
climbed back into their vehicle. During their short ap- their egalitarian and open principles, they were still sur-
pearance, someone had thankfully hidden Tariq’s axe rounded by a hostile outside which made defense a de
out of sight, and thus disarmed, he realized his battle was facto necessity, and they were thus always suspended in
lost. Presumably both placated and intimidated by his a precarious balance between the two types of symbolic
narrow escape from the law, he packed his things and order.
was eventually assisted in carrying his belongings to a
friend’s house nearby.
Conclusion
This incident illustrates how our two spatial configura-
tions—the transactional-territorial and the transcendental- I began this paper with the Panopticon as a well-known
ethical—can overlay each other in a single physical space, example of how subjectivities are also and especially spa-
and how actors can quickly change register from the tially produced. As the Foucauldian distinction between
enactment of a “Safe Space” to that of a “territory” and “domination” and “power” implies, this does not mean
back again. The first to emerge as a territorial actor was that these subjectivities are necessarily synonymous with
Tariq—his attempts to control those inside the space of what anthropologists of ethics, such as Faubion, have re-
the squat, so they would comply with his demands, co- ferred to as “ethically marked subject positions.” Rather,
incided with his bid to exert control over the spaces of whether or not such distinctly ethical subject positions
women’s bodies. This resulted in the invocation of a can emerge is very much a question of what type of spa-
“Safe Space” and the moral order implied in it: in order tial configuration one is dealing with. In trying to tease
to counterbalance this display of territorial dominance, out what this approach can contribute to the anthropo-
and to protect those who were most spatially vulnerable logical study of ethics, I have suggested looking at prac-
(in this case the women), the person who behaved in tices, exemplified in the “Safe Space” policies used by
a territorial way had to be removed. This territorial con- squatters. These are designed to inhibit the emergence
flict was interrupted by the arrival of a more powerful of a particular kind of spatial order—which, following
territorial actor, namely the state, in the shape of the po- Bloch, I have called a transactional-territorial order—and
lice. Spontaneously and without much debate, the squat facilitate the emergence of another, which I have called
therefore reverted to “Safe Space” mode, and sided with “transcendental-ethical,” and which, according to Bloch,
the one who, in this configuration, was the most spatially separates human from non-human primates. As the Pa-
vulnerable, only this time it was Tariq who was in need nopticon itself shows, most of the spaces humans inhabit
of protection vis-à-vis the state. Finally, once the police are not examples of one or the other of these configura-
were gone, the squat effortlessly switched registers once tions in their pure form—they are blends, or more pre-
again, to re-establish the original “Safe Space” and re- cisely, they show inherent tendencies toward one as much
move Tariq to protect the women. In this interaction, as the other. To which side they fall, in any given moment,

is very much a matter of the extent to which actors enforce ———. 2013. In and out of each other’s bodies: Theory of
one or the other tendency on a space. Even a Panopticon, mind, evolution, truth, and the nature of the social. New
with its distinct tendency toward relations of domina- York: Paradigm.
tion, can be “flipped” to become a space in which free Brace, L. 1997. “Imagining the boundaries of a sovereign
ethical subjects can potentially flourish by enhancing the self.” In Reclaiming sovereignty, edited by L. Brace and
degree of freedom and self-governance available to its J. Hoffman, 137–54. London. Pinter.
inhabitants. This involves an agreement by all partici-
Cattaneo, C. and M. A. Martínez, eds. 2014. The squatters’
pants to resist the emergence of dominance hierarchies movement in Europe: Everyday commons and autonomy as
and to co-operate in balancing the distribution of social alternatives to capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
power; in other words, solidarity. In referring to abstract
identity categories (essentialized roles), squatters thus Cobb, N. 2012. “Property’s outlaws: Squatting, land use and
established who this solidarity should apply to (namely criminal trespass.” Criminal Law Review 2: 114–27.
those assumed to be the weakest territorial actor). Their ———. 2014. “The political economy of trespass: Revisiting
practice, however, addressed this problem by radically Marxist analysis of the law’s response to squatting.” In
distributing control over material space, and thus over- Moral rhetoric and the criminalisation of squatting: Vulner-
throwing the transactional order. able demons?, edited by L. F. O’Mahony, D. O’Mahony,
What I have aimed to demonstrate is thus that if we and R. Hickey, 13–37. London: Routledge.
take seriously the notion of freedom as a precondition Csordas, T. J. 1990. “Embodiment as a paradigm for anthro-
for ethics, then we must also ask how people go about pology.” Ethos 181: 5–47.
producing this freedom in the first place. Self-governance
———. 1993. “Somatic modes of attention.” Cultural Anthro-
is not always self-evident; it has to be socially produced,
pology 82: 135–56.
or in many cases, fought for. For want of a better term,
I have therefore called such practices “proto-ethical”— ———. 1994. Embodiment and experience: The existential
they may not fit the bill for notions such as the “auto- ground of culture and self. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
poietic subject,” or the deliberate assuming of specifically sity Press.
ethical subject positions. By creating the conditions that ———. 1999. “Embodiment and cultural phenomenology.”
are required for actors to engage in such things, how- In Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature
ever, they create spaces in which ethical life becomes a and culture, edited by G. Weiss and H. F. Haber, 143–
possibility, and they aim to expand this possibility to as 162. London: Routledge.
many people as possible. This involves creating a sym- ———. 2008. “Intersubjectivity and intercorporeality.” Sub-
bolic space in which specific essentialized roles are not as jectivity 22: 110–21.
important as the quality of the relations between them—
the logic of “Safe Spaces” implied, after all, that what Dadusc, D. 2014. “Power, knowledge and resistances in the
identity category one fills is secondary, as long as one study of social movements.” Contention: The Multidisci-
plinary Journal of Social Protest 1 (2): 47–60.
was territorially disadvantaged. Finally, speaking with
Bloch, homo sapiens could thus also be seen to be the ———, and E. T. C. Dee. 2014. “The criminalization of squat-
only species involved in actively undermining its own in- ting: Discourses, moral panics and resistances in The Neth-
herent dominance hierarchies—which would make an- erlands, England and Wales.” In Moral rhetoric and the
archism a uniquely human phenomenon indeed. criminalisation of squatting: Vulnerable demons?, edited
by L. F. O’Mahony, D. O’Mahony, and R. Hickey, 109–
132. London: Routledge.
Das, V. 2015. “What does ordinary ethics look like?” In Four
References
lectures on ethics: Anthropological perspectives, by M. Lam-
Bell, V. 2015. Professional blog. https://mindhacks.com/2015 bek, V. Das, D. Fassin, and W. Keane, 53–125. Chicago,
/11/12/the-real-history-of-the-safe-space/. Last accessed Oc- IL: HAU Books.
tober 2017.
Dee, E. T. C. 2014. “The right to decent housing and a whole
Bloch, M. 2008. “Why religion is nothing special but is cen- lot more besides: Examining the modern English squatters
tral.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon- movement at its beginnings and in the present day.” In The
don B: Biological Sciences 363 (1499): 2055–61. squatters’ movement in Europe: Everyday commons and

Steph GROHMANN 520
autonomy as alternatives to capitalism, edited by C. Cat- Mahmood, S. 2011. Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and
taneo and M. A. Martínez, 85–109. London: Pluto Press. the feminist subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Desjarlais, R., and C. Jason Throop. 2011. “Phenomenological
approaches in anthropology.” Annual Review of Anthropol- Manjikian, M. 2013. Securitization of property squatting in
ogy 40: 87–102. Europe. London: Routledge.
Faubion, J. D. 2001. “Toward an anthropology of ethics: Fou- Massey, D. 2013. Space, place and gender. Hoboken, NJ: John
cault and the pedagogies of autopoiesis.” Representations Wiley & Sons.
74 (1): 83–104.
Mattingly, C. 1998. “In search of the good: Narrative reason-
———. 2011. An anthropology of ethics. Cambridge: Cam- ing in clinical practice.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly
bridge University Press. 123: 273–97.
Foucault, M. 1976. “Questions on geography.” In Power/ ———. 2010. “Moral willing as narrative re-envisioning.” In
knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972– Toward an anthropology of the will, edited by K. M. Mur-
1977, edited by C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books. phy and C. Jason Throop, 50–68. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
———. 2012. Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison.
New York: Vintage. ———. 2012. “Two virtue ethics and the anthropology of
morality.” Anthropological Theory 122: 161–84.
Grohmann, S. 2019 (forthcoming). The Ethics of Space.
Middleton, T. 2014. “The role of rhetoric in the criminalisation
Hirschkind, C. 2006. The ethical soundscape: Cassette ser-
of squatting.” In Moral rhetoric and the criminalisation of
mons and Islamic counterpublics. New York: Columbia
squatting: Vulnerable demons?, edited by L. F. O’Mahony,
University Press.
D. O’Mahony, and R. Hickey, 87–108. London: Routledge.
Kadir, N. 2016. The autonomous life?: Paradoxes of hierarchy
Milligan, R. T. 2016. “The politics of the crowbar: Squatting
and authority in the squatters movement in Amsterdam.
in London, 1968–1977.” Anarchist Studies 24 (2): 8–32.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murray, C. M., S. V. Mane, and A. E. Pusey. 2007. “Domi-
Laidlaw, J. 2002. “For an anthropology of ethics and free-
nance rank influences female space use in wild chimpan-
dom.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8 (2):
zees, Pan troglodytes: towards an ideal despotic distribu-
311–32.
tion.” Animal Behaviour 74 (6): 1795–804.
———. 2013. The subject of virtue: An anthropology of ethics
O’Mahony, L. F., D. O’Mahony, and R. Hickey. 2014. Moral
and freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
rhetoric and the criminalisation of squatting: Vulnerable
———. 2014. “The undefined work of freedom: Foucault’s demons? London: Routledge.
genealogy and the anthropology of ethics.” In Foucault
Prujit, H. 2013. “Squatting in Europe.” In Squatting in Eu-
now: Current perspectives in Foucault studies, edited by
rope: Radical spaces, urban struggles, by Squatting Europe
J. D. Faubion, 23–37. Cambridge: Polity.
Kollective. New York: Minor Compositions.
Lambek, M. 2008. “Value and virtue.” Anthropological The-
Rabinow, P. 1986. The Foucault reader: An introduction to
ory 82: 133–57.
Foucault’s thought. London: Harmondsworth Press.
———. 2010. Ordinary ethics: Anthropology, language, and
Reeve, K. 2014. “Criminalising the poor: Squatting, home-
action. New York: Fordham University Press.
lessness and social welfare.” In Moral rhetoric and the
Luhrmann, T. M. 2006. “Subjectivity.” Anthropological The- criminalisation of squatting: Vulnerable demons?, edited
ory 6 (3): 345–61. by L. F. O’Mahony, D. O’Mahony, and R. Hickey, 133–
54. London: Routledge.
———. 2007. “Social defeat and the culture of chronicity: Or,
why schizophrenia does so well over there and so badly ——— and E. Batty. 2011. The hidden truth about homeless-
here.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 31 (2): 135–72. ness: Experiences of single homelessness in England. Lon-
don: Crisis.
———. 2008. “‘The street will drive you crazy’: Why home-
less psychotic women in the institutional circuit in the Robbins, J. 2012. “On becoming ethical subjects: Freedom,
United States often say no to offers of help.” The American constraint, and the anthropology of morality.” Anthropol-
Journal of Psychiatry 165 (1): 15–20. ogy of this Century 5.

Sack, R. D. 1986. Human territoriality: Its theory and history. squatting: Vulnerable demons?, edited by L. F. O’Mahony,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D. O’Mahony, and R. Hickey, 178–203. London: Rout-
ledge.
Squatting Europe Kollective. 2013. Squatting in Europe: Rad-
ical spaces, urban struggles. New York: Minor Composi- Widlok, T. 2004. “Sharing by default? Outline of an anthro-
tions. pology of virtue.” Anthropological Theory 4 (1): 53–70.
Sykes, K. M. 2012. “Moral reasoning.” In A companion to Zigon, J. 2007. “Moral breakdown and the ethical demand:
moral anthropology, edited by D. Fassin, 169–85. Chich- A theoretical framework for an anthropology of morali-
ester: Wiley-Blackwell. ties.” Anthropological Theory 7 (2): 131–50.
Ward, C. 1976. Housing: An anarchist approach. London: ———. 2012. “Narratives.” In A companion to moral anthro-
Freedom Press. pology, edited by D. Fassin, 204–20. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Waring, E. J. L. 2014. “Adverse possession: Relativity to ab-
solutism.” In Moral rhetoric and the criminalisation of
Steph GROHMANN is a Research Associate at the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University
of Oxford, and currently holds a position as Research Fellow at the Centre for Homeless and Inclusion Health, Uni-
versity of Edinburgh. She received her PhD in Anthropology from Goldsmiths, University of London, in 2015. She is
interested in the intersection of ethical life and spatial existence; power and hierarchy; the intersubjective moment of
cognition; and in bringing anthropological tools to the fight to end homelessness and housing precarity. She is the au-
thor of a monograph, The ethics of space, to be published in 2019.
Steph Grohmann
Centre for Homeless and Inclusion Health
University of Edinburgh
Doorway 6, Teviot Place
Edinburgh EH8 9AG
[email protected]


Making Space For Free Subjects Squatting, Resistance, and The Possibility of Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Space For Free Subjects Squatting, Resistance, and The Possibility of Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Space For Free Subjects Squatting, Resistance, and The Possibility of Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edinburgh Research Explorer

Making space for free subjects

Citation for published version:

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Take down policy

Download date: 10. jun.. 2024

Making space for free subjects

Introduction ticularly ingenious to their efforts (e.g., in different ways,

HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. Volume 8, number 3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/701113

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

2. Author anonymous, http://ﬂoaker.net/2013/03/31/organised

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

This content downloaded from 129.215.019.038 on January 21, 2019 08:00:18 AM

You might also like