[-empyre-] "Urban resilience"

[Ethel Baraona Pohl]

I just found this article:
http://criticalenvironmentalism.org/2012/01/19/occupy/

And I really liked the idea they express when pointing *"This thing,
this occupation is an idea as much as it is an act. It is an idea that no
one place or group can own. It is an inhabit-able idea, an enact-able idea.
It is a platform. A recipe."* —Kamen asked how can we map that out? So for
me, relating the article with previous comments, emerges the question if it
is possible to "map ideas" and how we can use the generated knowledge to
create new resilient urban environments.

Ana has shared with us also some historical and interesting examples about
resilience (and also resistance), and is interesting to think what can we
learn from those situations and which responses can be translated and
improved for the current moment. Have we learned something or are we in a
cyclical and permanent state of urban experimentation?
As you have seen, I always have more questions than answers... so let's
think about it!

Best,
Ethel
---
Ethel Baraona Pohl | dpr-barcelona <http://www.dpr-barcelona.com/>
twitter @ethel_baraona <https://twitter.com/ethel_baraona> |
about.me<http://about.me/ethel_baraona>
ethel.baraona at gmail.com
(+34) 626 048 684

*Before you print think about the environment*


On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Kamen Nedev <kamennedev at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Antonas,
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Antonas Office <antonasoffice at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The appearance of an already deconstructed field, a non hegemonic, not
> > hierarchically structured multiplicity of fragments, described by Negri,
> can
> > propose different strategies of resistance. I believe that resilience
> fits
> > to a theoretical background where resistance is no longer possible. It is
> > not applicable if no power is obvious. Resistance is an old word that
> > corresponds to naive powers: new powers can hide and cannot be resisted.
> But
> > it seems that from a strategic point of view we need to reinvent
> resistance,
> > to unveil anew the hidden hegemonic powers that lay under this
> appearance of
> > the multitude.
>
> Good point(s). This brings to mind some of the first publications by
> the Critical Art Ensemble ("Electronic Civil Disobedience", etc.).
> While everyone in that field was working under the fascination with a
> certain techno-utopian idea of being "nomadic" (only slightly premised
> on some serious misreadings of Deleuze and Guattari), C.A.E. were
> arguing that what had become global, nomadic and yet ubiquitius, was
> power itself. "Resistance" had no choice but to follow suit.
>
> Have power structures become resilient, then?
>
> But I like your suggestion that, in this non-hegemonic multiplicity,
> hegemonic power structures are most likely interiorised. So acts of
> resistance need to also go in that direction.
>
> But, how can we map that out (without getting stuck in Foucault, I mean...)
>
> Best,
>
> Kamen
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.waitingforcargo.net
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120305/9349b412/attachment.htm>