Daniel Kalinowski

5 Comments

  1. Squatting is generally an effect of people having no place to go. As we found in the article, “The politics of the Governed” by Partha Chaterjee, those who lived in the slums were displaced and not given another place to go and they didn’t have the means to decide another place to go. Eventually even if they could move on, the space of the slum has become a home and has provided them with an ability to feel ownership over their own space even if it is deemed as temporary by the government. It is important to note that these people are allowed by the government to maintain the condition of the slum because the government has no alternative. These people are displaced from the slum only of it disrupts other plans the State might have. Otherwise in most cases the people are left alone.

  2. I can see your point, and this will lead to a great amount of discussion for tomorrow’s readings.

  3. I’d like to see a critical definition of ownership here – in your lexicon you briefly lay out an idea of ownership, but I would argue the provided one is very uncritical. You provide a very limiting view of the term, one confined to a legalistic outlook on the human use of things and property. I would like to see ownership as a concept exploded into ownership as the idea of a (thing, place, property, person) as something in relationship with the self. In this framing, legal ownership has no place, as I can argue that a piece of paper that I do not have personal relation to cannot describe or define my relationship to the thing or property that that piece of paper intends to lay out. Ownership can be occupation or squatting, yet ownership is my own claim on something that I need, use, or desire. My ownership over something implies power relationships to resources, to other people who share that desire, and ultimately, a claim above anyone else’s claim to ownership over an object.

    • Hi Paul. Your differentiation between legalistic ownership and ownership as a thing/concept in relationship to a person is super interesting. Maybe I’m a bit confused, but wouldn’t legalistic ownership just be one type of possible relationship between things and people? So the bigger category would be ownership as a relationship of one thing claiming another, and the subcategory would be legalistic ownership?

  4. Your definitions made me realize how little our government and citizens understand about occupying and squatting. I really liked in the sub categories of squatting that the Miguel Martinez reading brought up. I think the general population basically understands squatting as being lazy or blighted (and needs to be removed). I would have liked to have seen the different forms of squatting or occupying in your diagram.
    In Copenhagen there is a micro nation called “Christiania.” In the 60’s the government disbanded their no longer military forces and the 90 or so acres were occupied. After 20 years or so of occupying they asked for national sovereignty and received it. Chrisitania is still in effect as its own micro nation inside of Copenhagen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *