“We live in a world where the rights of private property and profit rate trump all other notions of rights.”
That above quote, by David Harvey, describes what the 21st century worldview is like. What happens in this kind of society is that our morality is no longer based upon human relations, but in material objects. All that was unquantifiable — water, land, housing, treatment of other humans — suddenly becomes commodified. What can be commodified can suddenly be exploited for our benefit. Our perspectives and beliefs of this world are based on these very notions until we become what Harvey describes as neoliberal individualists.
These kind of individuals see their life’s purpose as appropriating more wealth. We’re faced with the Faustian dilemma – “reinvest to get more money, or consume surplus”. There’s no room for thinking about the other person as someone with equal footing. You’re constantly thinking about how your interactions satisfy those two requirements – making or spending money. In a neoliberal society, capitalism and urbanization feed into each other. Which means that the in order for one to grow, there needs to be an expansion in the other. Capitalism is inherently imperialistic, and that’s a problem, eventually there’s going to be nothing left to conquer.
I thought Susan Fainstein’s article was a great complement to Harvey’s chapter. Harvey talks a lot about what it looks when the “intense possessive individualism can be a template for human personality socialization”. Basically, he’s saying that you can’t live in a society and not be personally effected. But while Harvey’s chapter leaves us own a downside, Fainstein proposes several actions that would appear to break this vicious cycle.
Fainstein begins with the political divorce of public policy determination from political influence. This divide between politics and administration was because of the noble belief that experts could develop policies in isolation from selfish interests. But, as they say, good intentions line the pathway to hell. This traditional belief is based on a classical, rational ideology – the assumption that humans will always make logical, patterned, and expected choices. Obviously, this is not the case. As Harvey as demonstrated, neoliberalism is what the traditional political attitude got us. Fainstein, however, is trying to reconnect what was formerly divided. In her planning theory, she’s especially keen on looking at the background, effects, and underlying principles. Her theory isn’t just about what’s rational – it’s about the irrational – human nature.
Taking into consideration what our current society is like, both Harvey and Fainstein agree that to claim a right to the city, you have to claim some kind of shaping power. Therefore, we need a way to redistribute power to the disenfranchised. Fainstein’s ladder of citizenship participation argues for a stronger role of the disadvantaged groups in formulating + implementing policy. “Without redistribution of decisional power, there is no redistribution of benefits.” This is what grassroots initiatives like Picture the Homeless are trying to do. By rallying together homeless people, and having these folks express their needs and suggest policies, the disadvantaged are creating a stronger voice.
Of course, a strong voice is one thing, but to what extent does the political system need to be re-evaluated? The disadvantaged might not be following the neoliberal ethic, but the politicians might. What are specific ways that the public can demand for reform without revolt?
