自治、中心性和在地持久性:基多的土著运动和城市权

IF 0.6 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY City & Society Pub Date : 2021-04-23 DOI:10.1111/ciso.12390
Jeremy Rayner
{"title":"自治、中心性和在地持久性:基多的土著运动和城市权","authors":"Jeremy Rayner","doi":"10.1111/ciso.12390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article draws on ethnography with active supporters of the <i>comunas</i> (communes) in Quito to critically engage with the theory and politics of the right to the city. Communal activists—mostly affiliated with the Indigenous movement—forcefully claim rights to the democratic production and appropriation of space advocated by right to the city theorists, as they promote communal self-management and the authority of communal assemblies over urbanization processes. At the same time, they have had little use for their constitutionally guaranteed right to the city. In carefully laying out the points of convergence between Lefebvrian right to the city theory and communal struggles, I also identify its limits and contradictions, especially: (1) the tension between “the collective power to reshape the process of urbanization” and the fixed forms and meanings of “the city,” and (2) the tension between achieving the “right to centrality” through promoting participation in a concentrated urban center or through the multiplication of centers. A critical theory of urbanization should account for these tensions and for the diversity of political responses to them.</p>","PeriodicalId":46417,"journal":{"name":"City & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ciso.12390","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autonomy, Centrality, and Persistence in Place: The Indigenous Movement and the Right to the City in Quito\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Rayner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ciso.12390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article draws on ethnography with active supporters of the <i>comunas</i> (communes) in Quito to critically engage with the theory and politics of the right to the city. Communal activists—mostly affiliated with the Indigenous movement—forcefully claim rights to the democratic production and appropriation of space advocated by right to the city theorists, as they promote communal self-management and the authority of communal assemblies over urbanization processes. At the same time, they have had little use for their constitutionally guaranteed right to the city. In carefully laying out the points of convergence between Lefebvrian right to the city theory and communal struggles, I also identify its limits and contradictions, especially: (1) the tension between “the collective power to reshape the process of urbanization” and the fixed forms and meanings of “the city,” and (2) the tension between achieving the “right to centrality” through promoting participation in a concentrated urban center or through the multiplication of centers. A critical theory of urbanization should account for these tensions and for the diversity of political responses to them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"City & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ciso.12390\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"City & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ciso.12390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ciso.12390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以基多社区积极支持者的民族志为基础,批判性地探讨城市权的理论与政治。社区活动人士——大多隶属于土著运动——强烈要求享有城市权利理论家所倡导的民主生产和空间占用的权利,因为他们提倡社区自我管理和社区集会对城市化进程的权威。与此同时,他们几乎没有使用宪法保障的城市权利。在仔细梳理列非孚的城市权理论与社区斗争的契合点时,我也指出了它的局限性和矛盾,特别是:(1)“重塑城市化进程的集体力量”与“城市”的固定形式和意义之间的紧张关系;(2)通过促进参与集中的城市中心或通过中心的增殖来实现“中心权”之间的紧张关系。城市化的批判理论应该解释这些紧张关系以及对它们的政治反应的多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Autonomy, Centrality, and Persistence in Place: The Indigenous Movement and the Right to the City in Quito

This article draws on ethnography with active supporters of the comunas (communes) in Quito to critically engage with the theory and politics of the right to the city. Communal activists—mostly affiliated with the Indigenous movement—forcefully claim rights to the democratic production and appropriation of space advocated by right to the city theorists, as they promote communal self-management and the authority of communal assemblies over urbanization processes. At the same time, they have had little use for their constitutionally guaranteed right to the city. In carefully laying out the points of convergence between Lefebvrian right to the city theory and communal struggles, I also identify its limits and contradictions, especially: (1) the tension between “the collective power to reshape the process of urbanization” and the fixed forms and meanings of “the city,” and (2) the tension between achieving the “right to centrality” through promoting participation in a concentrated urban center or through the multiplication of centers. A critical theory of urbanization should account for these tensions and for the diversity of political responses to them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
City & Society
City & Society ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: City & Society, the journal of the Society for Urban, National and Transnational/Global Anthropology, is intended to foster debate and conceptual development in urban, national, and transnational anthropology, particularly in their interrelationships. It seeks to promote communication with related disciplines of interest to members of SUNTA and to develop theory from a comparative perspective.
期刊最新文献
Provocation and urban disorder Issue Information Stational liturgy and the minority right to the city The formation of a “model city in the Anatolian steppes”: Leapfrogging effects of spatial fix in Eskişehir, Turkey Scarcity amid abundance: Navigating the waters of neoliberal austerity in Detroit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1