This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]On: 18 September 2014, At: 02:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Territory, Politics, GovernancePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtep20

Rights to the Neoliberal City: The Caseof Urban Land Squatting in ‘Creative’BerlinInge L. M. van Schipstala & Walter J. Nichollsa

a Sociology, University of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsPublished online: 19 May 2014.

To cite this article: Inge L. M. van Schipstal & Walter J. Nicholls (2014) Rights to the NeoliberalCity: The Case of Urban Land Squatting in ‘Creative’ Berlin, Territory, Politics, Governance, 2:2,173-193, DOI: 10.1080/21622671.2014.902324

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2014.902324

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Rights to the Neoliberal City: The Case of UrbanLand Squatting in ‘Creative’ Berlin

INGE L. M. VAN SCHIPSTAL and WALTER J. NICHOLLS

(Received October 2013: in revised form January 2014)

ABSTRACT This paper asserts that activists can carve out a political space between cooptationand autonomy in neoliberalizing cities but that strategic options vary according to the micro-pol-itical spaces activists operate in. This assertion is examined through an in-depth ethnographicstudy of two trailer encampments in Berlin. These trailer encampments occupy previously aban-doned wastelands in Berlin and have strong ties to the squatter movement. The dominant dis-course of the ‘creative city’ has served as both constraint and opportunity. Activist-residents inboth camps are conscious that their abilities to maintain their communities require them topresent themselves in a way that coincides with the dominant ‘creativity’ discourse of the city.Both have fashioned their own discursive frames and introduced events that demonstrate howthey contribute to making Berlin dynamic and creative. However, the encampment in the con-servative district faces more severe constraints than the one in the left-wing district. These con-straints have favored a strategy that stresses identification with the governing urban norms. Weconclude by arguing that using ‘creativity’ as a strategic frame may provide rights for some, butalso reproduces a neoliberal model of citizenship that rights need to be earned by demonstratingdeservingness in the city. Those lacking cultural resources have greater difficulty asserting theirdeservingness of rights and therefore face greater risk of marginalization and displacement.

EXTRACTO En este artículo se afirma que los activistas pueden crear un espacio político entre lacooptación y la autonomía en ciudades neoliberales, pero que las opciones estratégicas varían enfunción de los espacios micro-políticos en los que trabajan los activistas. Se examina esta afirma-ción mediante un exhaustivo estudio etnográfico de dos campamentos de caravanas en Berlín.Estos campamentos de caravanas ocupan terrenos previamente abandonados de Berlín y tienenfuertes vínculos con el movimiento de okupas. El discurso dominante de la “ciudad creativa”ha servido para poner limitaciones pero también para brindar oportunidades. Los residentes acti-vistas en ambos campos son conscientes de que para poder mantener a sus comunidades, debenmostrarse de una forma en la que coincidan con el discurso dominante de “creatividad” en laciudad. Ambos han elaborado sus propios marcos discursivos y han introducido eventos quedemuestran cómo contribuyen a convertir Berlín en una ciudad dinámica y creativa. Sinembargo, el campamento en el barrio conservador sufre limitaciones más estrictas que el delbarrio de ideología izquierdista. Estas limitaciones han favorecido una estrategia que hace hincapiéen identificarse con las normas que rigen el espacio urbano. Para terminar, argumentamos que alutilizar la “creatividad” como un marco estratégico, se pueden otorgar derechos a algunos, perotambién se reproduce un modelo neoliberal de ciudadanía en la que los derechos en la ciudad seganan al demostrar que se merecen. Las personas que carecen de recursos culturales tienen másdificultades para defender que se merecen tales derechos y, por consiguiente, corren másriesgos de sufrir marginación y desplazamiento.

Author details: Inge L. M. van Schipstal, Sociology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; WalterJ. Nicholls, Sociology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Emails: ingevanschipstal@gmail.com;w.j.nicholls@uva.nl

Territory, Politics, Governance, 2014Vol. 2, No. 2, 173–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2014.902324

© 2014 Regional Studies Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

本文认为，行动主义者能够在新自由主义化的城市中，开闢出介乎拢络与自主性之间

的政治空间，但该策略性的选择，却根据行动主义者所操作的微观政治空间而有所不同。此一主张，将透过对柏林两个拖车营区的深度民族志研究加以检视之。这些拖车营区佔领了柏林过去被遗弃的荒地，并与佔屋运动有着深厚的连结。“创意城市”的主流论述，同时提供做为限制与机会。两个营区内的行动主义居民皆意识到，他们维繫

社群的能力，必须使自身以符合城市主流“创意”论述之方式，进行自我呈现。两造行动者皆塑造了自身的论述框架，并引入活动证明他们如何协助将柏林打造成为动态且饶富创意之地。但位于保守地区的营区，较位于左翼地区的营区，面临了更为艰困的限制，这些限制偏好强调认同城市治理常规的策略。我们于结论中主张，运用“创意”做为策略性框架，或可为部分的人提供权益，但却同时复製了新自由主义公民权的模式，意即必需藉由证明其值得在城市生活来争取自身权益。缺乏文化资源者，在主张其权益应得性时有着较大的困难，因而面临了被边缘化与迫迁的更大风险。

RÉSUMÉ Cet article affirme que les activistes peuvent se tailler un espace politique entre la coop-tation et l’autonomie dans les grandes villes en voie de néolibéralisation alors que les options stra-tégiques varient selon les espaces micropolitiques au sein desquels opèrent les activistes. Onexamine cette affirmation à partir d’une étude ethnographique détaillée de deux parcs demaisons mobiles situés à Berlin. Ces parcs occupent les zones friches à Berlin qui avaient été aban-données et ont des liens forts au movement des squatters. Le discours dominant de la “grande villecréatrice” s’est servi à la fois de contrainte et d’opportunité. Les activistes-habitants des deux parcssont conscients du fait que leurs capacités d’assurer la survie de leurs communautés nécessitentqu’ils se présentent d’une manière qui va de pair avec le discours de “créativité” dominant dela grande ville. Tous les deux ont créé leur propres cadres discursifs et ont introduit des événe-ments qui démontrent comment ils contribuent à la dynamisation et à la créativité de Berlin.Cependant, le parc situé dans le district conservateur affronte des contraintes d’autant plussévères que les contraintes auxquelles fait face le district de gauche. Ces contraintes ont favoriséune stratégie qui souligne l’identification avec les normes urbaines en vigueur. Pour conclure,on affirme que l’emploi de la “créativité” comme cadre stratégique pourrait fournir des droitspour les uns, mais aussi reproduit un modèle néolibéral de la citoyenneté où les droits doiventêtre mérités en ville. Il s’avère plus difficile pour ceux qui n’ont pas de ressources culturelles dedémontrer qu’ils méritent ces droits et par la suite ils font face à un risque plus important de mar-ginalisation et de déplacement.

KEYWORDS urban land squatting creative city right to the city legitimation strategyBerlin political geography social movements

INTRODUCTION

The literature on neoliberal urbanism and the post-political city suggests the decliningpossibilities for transgressive politics in European and North American cities (SWYNGE-

DOUW, 2009). ‘Accumulation by dispossession’ has meant that private property rightshave squeezed out alternative understandings of individual and collective rights(HARVEY, 2005). The pre-eminence of private property rights has been coupled withneoliberal norms of citizenship (HINDESS, 2002; ONG, 2006; SCHINKEL and VAN

HOUDT, 2010). The good urban citizen is conceived as a person who can make a con-tribution to the economic vitality of the city. The ‘right to have rights’ (ARENDT, 1973;BENHABIB, 2004; SOMERS, 2008) in the neoliberal city depends on demonstrating value aseconomic subjects. They must ‘earn’ the right to be considered deserving citizens ratherthan this right being bestowed upon them by birth or residency (VAN HOUDT et al.,2011). Those failing to demonstrate their value often become targets of disciplineand/or banishment. They may protest their marginalization but their lack of recognitionas rights-deserving human beings renders their claims into the ‘noises’ of an inarticulatemob rather than the ‘voice’ of a legitimate political subject (DIKEÇ, 2004).

174 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Within such a context, how is it possible that certain activist groups continue to exerttheir right to stay in the city? This paper explores this question through a close study oftrailer encampments (Wagenburgen) in Berlin. These are settlements on squatted publiclands made up of countercultural radicals. While the Berlin government has embraceda market-driven land use policy and a ‘creative city’ agenda, these squatted settlementshave continued to sustain themselves in central areas of the city. By providing a concretespace where Berlin activists connect, talk, and organize, the trailer encampments play astrategic role in sustaining Berlin’s radical political milieu. The trailer encampments areby no means unique. Indeed, social centers and squats have continued to operate inmany European cities in the face of land commodification, criminalization, policerepression, cooptation, and stigmatization (SQUATTING EUROPE KOLLECTIVE, 2012; MAR-

TÍNEZ LOPÉZ, 2013). Through a detailed study of the Berlin case, we hope to shed somelight on the possibilities and perils facing activist communities in neoliberalizing cities.

This paper suggests that politically hostile environments reduce the margins of man-euver for urban activists but they do not necessarily shut them down. Even in the mostinhospitable contexts, discursive and institutional cracks open up and provide somegroups small, niche openings to advance their cause (NICHOLLS, 2013). Following onthe work of NOVY and COLOMB (2013), we suggest that the ‘creativity discourse’ has pro-vided trailer encampments such an opening in the face of constant displacement threats.However, we also suggest that the strategic options facing activists vary sharply accordingto the political opportunities found in borough-level electoral districts: left-wing districtsprovide activist-residents with allies in local government and a supportive population forencampments. In this context, activist-residents have developed an ‘in-between’ strategythat draws both on dominant creativity discourses and their credentials as authentic rad-icals. By contrast, right-wing districts provide few allies in local government and rela-tively low levels of support from its inhabitants. In this context, activist-residents ofthe encampments have fewer strategic options available to them. They are morelikely to pursue a strategy of ‘identification’ in which they strongly embrace a creativitydiscourse and distance themselves from their radical past. They are more inclined toremake themselves into good creative citizens who deserve the right to stay in the city.While the paper highlights important strategic differences between these strategies, wealso stress commonalities: they both draw upon the language of creativity to asserttheir right to stay in the city but they do so in different ways and with different levelsof intensity. This presents a dilemma because using the creativity discourse reinforcesthe neoliberal idea of citizenship that rights should be accorded to those with thecapital (cultural in this instance) to make a contribution to the city. Those withoutcertain cultural capital and attributes are therefore viewed by default as less deservingof the right to stay in the city.

The paper is composed of four parts. Part one outlines a general theory of neoliberalurban citizenship and identifies the kinds of opportunities and openings within this kindof citizenship regime. Part two provides a general description of Berlin’s discursive, pol-itical, and institutional structure. Part three lays out the case illustrating the ‘identifi-cation’ strategy. Part four presents the case on the ‘in-between’ strategy.

RIGHTS TO THE NEOLIBERAL CITY

Neoliberal urban citizenship

Critical urban scholarship suggests that the breakdown of territorial Keynesianism andincreased inter-urban competition spurred greater dependency on markets. Local offi-cials have been compelled to develop policies aimed at attracting investors and middle

Rights to the Neoliberal City 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

class residents to live and visit their cities (MAYER, 1998, 1999; PECK and TICKELL, 2002;BRENNER, 2004). Local officials have experienced greater pressures (real and perceived)to prioritize groups that would expand revenue flows, create jobs, attract more investors,and reduce costly welfare expenditures. Contributors to the economic vitality of the city—because of their skills, money, and/or culture—are deemed more deserving of urbanrights. Others are likely to be framed as drains and threats to the community. Thisprompts urban governments to adopt measures to either discipline or banish them,depending on the degree of risk they pose to the urban community (ISIN, 2002; WAC-

QUANT, 2004; DIKEÇ, 2006). Neoliberal citizenship also entails a shift in the moral andnormative underpinnings of citizenship (SCHINKEL, 2008; SCHINKEL and VAN HOUDT,2010; TONKENS, 2011). Individuals are obligated ‘to take on more responsibility fortheir own welfare requirements’ (RACO and IMRIE, 2000, p. 2188). The ‘good citizen’assumes responsibility for their own lives and becomes an active member of their com-munity. Those who assume responsibilities for their lives and actively engage in civic andeconomic life are deemed more deserving of rights than those who ‘passively depend’ onthe welfare state. Thus, rights are no longer conferred by birth or residency. Rights mustbe ‘earned’ by demonstrating a contribution to the community and conformity with itsvalues, moralities, and norms (VAN HOUDT et al., 2011).

FLORIDA’s (2002, 2004) intervention helps to provide local policy-makers with anarchetype of the good urban citizen. In his view, the good urban citizen belongs to theso-called creative class: a group of active, responsible, and creative members of the com-munity whose conduct generates environments brimming with buzz and collective effer-vescence. According to Florida, members of this class possess values and resources thatimprove civic and economic life and attract more creative people to cities. Moreover,the geographic concentration of creative people attracts high-value firms seeking awell-educated, dynamic, and innovativeworkforce. PECK (2012) argues that the creativitydiscourse has not necessarily precipitated substantial changes in actual practices or policies,but rather provided local officials with the language and rationale to frame pre-existingneoliberal policies. In discussing the case of Amsterdam, Peck notes that

urban creativity represents a largely symbolic, but nevertheless consequential, ‘meta-policy’. As such, it is utilized in order to rebadge and reframe extant commitments, legit-imating ‘soft’ economic-development policies in a (global) context in which municipal adminis-trations have been subject to far-reaching ‘responsibilization’ … . (2012, p. 464, emphasisadded)

The discourse of urban creativity has therefore provided city officials with a discursiveframework to justify preferences for creative (upper middle class) over less creative(working class or unemployed) residents.

Municipal governments have responded by attracting creative people to their cities butalso by privileging civic associations with middle class members, norms, and discourses.This has contributed to the embourgeoisement of urban civic life (UITERMARK, 20131).Local governments provide important levels of financial, political, and symbolicsupport to organizations and associations (community, social movement, professionalorganizations, among others) that adhere to the values and cultures of the upper middleclass. For example, in his study of immigrant organizations in Amsterdam, UITERMARK

(2013) showed how municipal subsidies in the 1990s shifted sharply from working classimmigrant associations to professionalized middle class immigrant organizations. Theleaders of these latter organizations employed language and displayed cultural dispositionsthat cohered with the city’s normative embrace of middle class values (diversity, individu-alism, ‘civility’, and entrepreneurialism) and, they eschewed the working class values of

176 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

older immigrant associations (anti-racism, collectivism, class struggle, and socialism).Moreover, the process of supporting associations and organizations on the basis of theiradherence with middle class values can change the normative underpinnings of urbancivil society, as organizations with specific goals, discourses, values, and modes of oper-ation become more prominent than others (MAYER, 2000; RACO, 2007; BLAKELEY,2010; KRUEGER and BUCKINGHAM, 2012). When urban inhabitants come out andbecome active in public life, they often join these organizations (community gardens,neighborhood associations, and recreational groups) and learn about the values of urbanlife through them. These grassroots organizations help teach newly activated inhabitantswhat constitutes a good citizen, who has the right to make rights claims, and what are thebest methods to express rights claims in the public sphere. In this way, organizations thatadhere to dominant discourses and norms help socialize their members in urban politicallife and influence their political subjectivities (FRASER, 1990; ONG, 1996; CRUIKSHANK,1999). The embourgeoisementof the grassroots therefore helps to inculcate urban inhabitantsinto the norms and moralities of neoliberal citizenship.

Finding openings and developing strategies in the neoliberal-creative city

Within the context of neoliberal citizenship, contentious and critical activism by margin-alized groups is constrained but not impossible (PRUIJT, 2004; UITERMARK, 2004; PICK-ERILL and CHATTERTON, 2006). Political systems contain countless contradictions andsuch contradictions produce small, niche-openings for some activist groups in possessionof strategic attributes (NICHOLLS, 2013).

The creative city discourse and agenda presents a definite constraint, but it also pro-vides a niche-opening for some urban activists (HARVEY, 2001, 2012; NOVY andCOLOMB, 2013). Inter-urban competition contributes to aesthetic homogenization. Asthe idiosyncratic charms of European cities fade (CASTELLS, 1996), they lose the qualitiesthat made them attractive places for capital and people. Maintaining a vibrant urbanculture has become an important means to maintain a city’s ‘competitive edge’ and dis-tinction in the face of growing homogenization (NOVY and COLOMB, 2013, p. 6). ‘Theimplication of this is that urban policy-makers around the world are now explicitly tar-geting the “off-beat”, “alternative”, and “underground” subcultural and artistic sectorsin their local economic development, place-marketing strategies and urban policies’(COLOMB, 2012, p. 143). As culture and creativity become priorities for the economicdevelopment of cities, activists with access to cultural resources are well positioned toleverage those resources to improve their negotiating hand with city officials. Thegrowing dependency of cities on culture therefore transforms the cultural resources ofsome activists into strategic attributes to assert their rights to the city.

We suggest that cultured activists may enjoy some leverage in these cities but whetherthey can use this leverage to challenge the local government depends on the specific pol-itical and discursive opportunities available to them in local electoral districts (e.g. bor-oughs, local councils, arrondissements, etc.) (TARROW, 1998; KOOPMANS and STATHAM,1999). Similar activists with similar levels of cultural resources are likely to employ differ-ent types of mobilization strategies according to the opportunities/constraints found intheir political districts. We focus on three elements that make up mobilization strategies:(1) the discursive frames used to articulate activist arguments; (2) the networks cultivatedby activists to enhance their mobilization capacities; and (3) the methods used by activiststo create and reproduce their own groups.

Urban activists in politically conservative districts are less likely to have allies in gov-ernment and are less likely to have support from the local population. In such a context,

Rights to the Neoliberal City 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

activists with cultural resources may have some leverage to negotiate with officials butnot enough external support to amplify their negotiating power in the district. If theirprimary goal is to avoid displacement, their strategic options are limited to ‘politicalidentification’. Such a strategy consists of crafting arguments, support networks, and agroup that reinforces conformity with the governing goals and norms of the city.Claims do not necessarily question or destabilize existing norms of urban rights and citi-zenship. Instead, they stress that they earned these rights because of their identificationwith established governing norms. They are good, responsible, creative, and contribut-ing members of the urban community and therefore they deserve a right to the city. Bycontrast, in left-wing political districts activists may have allies in government and enjoysupport from a public that is amenable to leftist discourses. Deploying their culturalresources in a more supportive context enables them to amplify their negotiatingpowers with city officials. Activists in such a context enjoy larger margins to pursuewhat we call a strategy of ‘political in-betweenness’. By nourishing their credentials asboth cultural producers and authentic left-wing activists, they enhance their claimsmaking capacities by enlisting government support and mobilizing supportive left-wing allies in their district. Their opportunities and leveraging capacities allow themto maintain ‘one foot in’ (engage in on-going negotiations with the government) and‘one foot out’ (engage in critical protests of certain government policies).

The cultural resources of activists therefore provide them with some leverage tosustain themselves but their strategies for making rights claims vary by the politicaland discursive opportunities found in local political districts. Within the same city, wecan find similar activist groups with similar cultural resources pursuing different strategiesto assert their rights to the city. Whereas some groups can maintain a certain degree ofautonomy, others internalize the discourses and norms of the governing regime andbecome important relays of governmental power in urban civil society. These lattergroups are able to stay open in the city but this comes at the cost of remaking themselvesinto good, responsible, and creative citizens of the neoliberal city.

In spite of differences between them, activist-residents in both districts are presentedwith a similar dilemma: On the one hand, facing many constraints and neoliberalizingtrends, creativity and culture provides urban activists with one of the openings toassert their continued right to the city. On the other hand, asserting rights on thebasis of their cultural contributions, activists inadvertently contribute to the reproductionof the neoliberal city. Deservingness of rights is contingent on their abilities to producespaces amenable to middle class cultural dispositions and contribute to the city’s place-marketing strategy. Moreover, they reinforce the neoliberal idea that rights need tobe ‘earned’ by activating forms of economic and cultural capital (SCHINKEL and VAN

HOUDT, 2010). In a context where culture becomes a dominant way to exert a rightto the city, those people (poor, disabled, recent immigrants, elderly, etc.) lacking theappropriate culture may have greater difficulty gaining resonance for their own rightsclaims. As the possession of middle class culture becomes a legitimate way for obtainingrights to the neoliberal city, those lacking this culture are rendered into undeserving sub-jects (noise rather than voice). Unless they can reveal their cultural value (e.g. ‘streetartists’), they face greater risk of dispossession, marginalization, and repression.

Methods

The activist groups under study are the so-called Wagenburgen or trailer encampments,which are located on squatted wastelands all over Berlin. Camps consist of a numberof wagons, trucks, and mobile homes that are used as permanent dwellings. In 2009,

178 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

the city counted 12 Wagenburgen, housing at least 316 people (ABGEORDNETENHAUS

BERLIN, 2009). The members are part of the left-alternative (squatters) scene and theirenergy is directed towards forming free spaces where alternative economies and activitiescan be pursued.

The first case that we studied was die Windrose2 in the former conservative district ofTreptow-Köpenick. The Windrose community is the home of 20–30 individuals whoall built or arranged their own wagon, cohabitate in a well-organized manner and host awide array of cultural events. The second case, Der Siebensprung, is located in the left-wing Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district. This community houses approximately 30people and hosts a weekly communal dinner and film evening that is open to thepublic. We chose to compare these two encampments because our interest lies in exam-ining whether local political contexts shape strategies for asserting a right to the city.

One of the most challenging tasks in this research was to gain access to the encamp-ments. Camp residents were not eager to talk initially, for reasons varying from beingtired of publicity to fear that their privacy would be invaded. Participant observationwas performed in the form of voluntary work at various events and a two-week resi-dency in one of the encampments. All camp residents were informed about thenature of the study. After working a few shifts and regularly visiting the camps, trusthad been built and 17 in-depth interviews were conducted with members of thetrailer encampments accordingly. Participant observations and open-ended interviewsenabled us to detect the ways in which the three components of the strategies(frames, networks, and group making) were formulated and enacted by each of theencampments. These sources were supplemented with an analysis of activist documents(flyers, posters, badges, and leaflets) and local newspaper articles. The content analysis ofdocuments helped us to trace the ways in which activist-residents constructed theirpublic arguments for a right to the city. Flyers and posters made by camp residentswere checked for the words ‘creative’, ‘creativity’, ‘open’, ‘children’, ‘neighbors’ and‘neighborhood’ to find out which camps adhered to the creativity discourse. Thelocal newspaper articles were used to define what claims the trailer communitiesmade in the public sphere.

URBAN POLITICS AND THE CREATIVE CITY AGENDA IN BERLIN

Constraints and opportunities

Berlin has been governed by a ‘black-red coalition’ (Christian-Democrats [CDU] andSocial-Democrats [SPD]) since 2011 (BODE, 2011). Both the center-right and center-left parties have largely accepted many of the core principles of competitive, neoliberalgovernance. Moreover, the CDU have favored repressive measures regarding urbansocial movements. The CDU won the first common elections of unified Berlin in1990 and went on to form a coalition with the SPD in 1991. The decade that followedpresented trailer encampments with a particularly hostile environment because the gov-ernment placed a ban on squatting. This repressive environment resulted in an increasein evictions (HOLM and KUHN, 2011) in general and marked an important constraint onthe trailer encampments in particular. The only remaining legal option to inhabit publicproperty was to buy or lease a site from the borough. For the majority of trailer encamp-ments, however, their limited revenue restricted the pursuit of this option. 2001 markedan important turning point in the city with the establishment of a Social-Democrat andLeft Party coalition which lasted until 2011. This provided a somewhat more hospitableenvironment for urban activists.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

While the government shifted to the left in the 2000s, Berlin’s large long-term debtbound it to the previous government’s economic policies. As of 2013, the city continuesto have a debt of 61 million euros (STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT, 2013). The city hasembraced policies to stimulate new sources of revenue and it has also sought to privatize‘vacant’municipal lands. In 2001, the city council established the Liegenschaftsfonds (prop-erty-fund), which aimed at selling ‘vacant’ urban lands that were not earmarked forimmediate development. Local districts have been obliged to sell land to the city govern-ment of Berlin who can then resell those properties to private investors. For local districtofficials in need of revenue, this provides an important opportunity to identify and selloff strategic lands in their jurisdictions. The Liegenschaftsfonds has made the city into a landentrepreneur in its own right. It employs its authority to buy lands at a reduced cost,assemble, and deliver these lands to private markets, and employ its leverage to maximizethe returns on its investment. In addition to providing the city with new revenue, thisprocess has created strong incentives for district and city officials to privatize propertiesand prioritize private property rights. This has increased the pressures on the trailerencampments by reducing the physical space available to them while also underminingthe legitimacy of claims based on collective property rights.

Since the 2000s, political officials in Berlin have also embraced the creativity discourseand agenda. Authorities have created projects—like PROJEKT ZUKUNFT (1997) and thenetwork CREATE BERLIN—that aimed to promote the creativity of the city(LANGE et al., 2008, p. 536). Berlin’s city council also launched a website that promotesthe city as a creative hub: ‘Berlin is the epicenter of power and yet symbolic of freedomand autonomy, hosting both high art and counterculture’ (BE BERLIN CAMPAIGN, 2011). Themayor of the city explains the economic rationality for embracing the creativity strategy:

Berlin has to be the city of talents. We want to be attractive for creative people fromscientific, cultural and economic fields. [… ] My goal is to make Berlin into one ofthe top addresses for the creatives of the world in the next five years, because theybring along growth and employment accordingly. [… ] Visitors should become inhabi-tants! (Klaus Wowereit, in EBERT and KUNZMANN, 2007, p. 65)

This mayor has played an influential part in the ‘creatification’ of Berlin (LANGE et al.,2008, p. 535). According to one source, ‘voters credited him with enhancing Berlin’simage as hip, tolerant, cultural city [… ] and under his watch the city has increasinglybecome a magnet for artists, fashion designers, writers and high-profile exhibitions’(CROSSLAND, 2006).

The prominence of the creativity discourse and agenda has provided a small butimportant opportunity for alternative urban movements because they have been recog-nized as key contributors to the city’s ‘hip’ culture (VIVANT, 2010; NOVY and COLOMB,2013). Berlin’s city council uses the slogan ‘Berlin: poor but sexy’ and states that ‘it’s pre-cisely this mixture of established cultural institutions and experimental alternative scenesthat accounts for the special charm of Berlin’s cultural landscape’ (BE BERLIN CAMPAIGN,2011). According to Antje Kapek, official with the Green Party in the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district, the Berlin squatter movement has contributed in important waysto the popularity of the city: ‘some parties apparently still have not quite understoodthat the attractiveness of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is inherent to the alternative projectsand forms of living that reside here’ (GRÜNER NEWSLETTER FRIEKE, 2009).

Berlin officials have therefore restricted squatting, privatized land, accelerated prop-erty speculation by establishing the Liegenschaftsfonds, and embraced the creative city dis-course. This has contributed to shaping the political context of the city’s squattingcommunities. While activists in trailer encampments have faced eviction pressures,

180 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

some politicians have come to recognize the importance of encampments and squats forgenerating the alternative ‘Berliner Szene’. This has provided them a small but importantopening to assert their urban rights by virtue of their contributions to the city’s attractive,hip, and buzzy culture.

The unevenness of the local opportunity structure

On 1 January 2001, Berlin’s former 23 districts were fused into 12 districts (Figure 1),each with 5 councilors (Bezirksstadträte) and a district mayor (Bezirksbürgermeister). Theresidents of the district vote for the district assembly (Bezirksverordnetenversammlung),which in turn selects the district council. Whereas citywide elections dilute the electoralweight of smaller and more radical political groups, district-based elections providegreater opportunities because the spatial concentration of groups magnifies electoralinfluence.

The district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg counted 274,386 inhabitants in 2012 andconstitutes the vibrant heart of the left-alternative scene, housing many of the squatsand trailer encampments in Berlin. The Green Party, led by mayor Frans Schulz, isthe most influential party in the district assembly and forms a coalition with the SPD.The third and fourth largest parties are the Left Party (Bündnis ’90 / Die Linke) andthe Pirate Party. Facing competitive pressures from its left-flank, the governing coalition

Figure 1. The division of districts in Berlin as of January 2001, the former division represented bythe thin lines. (Retrieved 23 January 2014 from: http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Berlin_

Subdivisions.svg).

Rights to the Neoliberal City 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

of the district is compelled to maintain its left-wing credentials in this district. This pol-itical climate suggests that the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is a more hospitableenvironment for urban activists than more conservative districts of Berlin. Mayor Schulzhas expressed strong support for alternative living and deems the trailer encampments tobe enriching the cultural and economic life of the district. ‘We got this place [land for thetrailer encampment] thanks to the mayor of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg: Schulz from theGreen Party. The police was outside of the gate, but then he said: “Let them stay here fornow” (Anton, Siebensprung resident, personal interview).

The district of Treptow-Köpenick has a more conservative political tradition. Thedistrict assembly now consists of a coalition between SPD and the Left Party (Bündnis’90 / Die Linke), but center-right CDU dominated the district until 2011. The partyremains a major competitive force in the district and serves to check the more leftwardtendencies of the governing coalition. This context has presented squats and trailerencampments with a less hospitable environment. Political leaders have been less recep-tive to countercultural movements, they did not enjoy broad support by the electorate inthe district, and such movements had not achieved a critical mass. In contrast to Frie-drichshain-Kreuzberg, the squatting movement was marginal and politically isolatedin Treptow-Köpenick. Being part of East Berlin during the era of the German Demo-cratic Republic, the district was devoid of trailer camps whereas camps and squattersettlements were more common in former West Berlin districts like Friedrichshain.Facing these conditions, the Windrose activist-residents have had to work harder atcreating support among district residents and convince elected officials that they werenot a threat to the community but instead a contributor to its growth and vitality.

THE STRATEGY OF POLITICAL IDENTIFICATION: THE CASE OFTHE WINDROSE TRAILER CAMP

The membership of the Windrose trailer camp in Treptow-Köpenick has undergone achange during its 20-year existence. In the early days, members were mainly interestedin sustaining its radical and alternative political spirit and not so much concerned withpreserving their spaces. The diverse makeup of the community (from dedicated activiststo drug addicts) and its particular vision of political struggle resulted in tense relationswith the surrounding area. Neighbors complained about loud music, waste, barkingdogs, and drunken stragglers. In this context, elected officials viewed the trailer campas a nuisance and a threat to neighborhood stability. Officials threatened the campwith eviction on multiple occasions between 1992 and 1997. It was at this point thatcamp residents realized that their distance from district residents and politicians madethem vulnerable to eviction. Moreover, some camp residents themselves grew tired ofthe nuisance of the more deviant residents.

The Windrose has continued its efforts to challenge capitalist consumer society. It hasdone this by promoting alternative living practices based on the principles of collecti-vism, sustainability, and experimental cultural production. Activist-residents havesought to create a space that serves as an incubator for alternative ways of living, produ-cing, and consuming. They believe that the capitalist system is at its limits and alternativesare needed for a better world. While Windrose views itself as anti-establishment politicalspace in the city, it operates in a traditionally conservative district of neoliberal Berlin.The abilities of camp residents to continue their existence as a viable political spacestimulated them to pursue a strategy of political identification. They justify theirurban rights by stressing their cultural contribution to the city. They have also cultivatedthe support of gentrifying middle class residents and selected camp residents that conform

182 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

to dominant norms and expectations. In this way, the strategy to stay in the city hasresulted in an active role of making camp residents into citizens who are not incompa-tible with dominant neoliberal-creative norms.

Framing the argument: good contributors to the creative city

Windrose-residents claim to enrich the cultural realm by organizing a wide array ofevents. These events include an exhibition wagon, children’s creativity workshop,jazz concerts, punk concerts, communal dinners (Vokü), ecological tours, seminars,theatre shows, dance cafés, summer festivals, flea markets, poetry festivals, documentarynights, etc. Their rights claims are directly tied to their abilities to produce cultural ser-vices in the city. According to Windrose’s eldest resident who goes by the nickname of‘mayor’, their argument rests on three basic claims.

The first claim holds that a dynamic and creative city needs experimental spaces thatare publicly accessible and non-commercial:

A city that wants to be worth living in needs experimental places that are publicly acces-sible and where something is created for the public. It is necessary that a Platz that is runin an experimental manner has low financial charges. When the financial charges arehigh, it has to enter the commercial, with all the consequences. That uncannilyreduces the free space that I have for experiments, because I am just chasing money.(Kuno, Windrose encampment, personal interview)

If the city wants to sustain the experimental qualities that make Berlin culturally unique,it must carve out non-commercial spaces for cultural producers like the Windrose.

The second claim is that the district saves money because camp residents work volun-tarily, musicians perform for free, and the camp receives no municipal subsidies. Theyprovide critical cultural services at no charge to the city.

Another cultural project would be subsidized with 100,000 euros. The project hererefuses subsidies and sets up the collective organization voluntarily. That’s the bestthing that can happen to a municipality! They save an immense amount of moneythis way. (Kuno, Windrose encampment, personal interview)

Whereas a formal enterprise would cost a bankrupt city significant resources, the Wind-rose and similar groups allow the city to retain its cultural edge at a very low cost.

Lastly, some Windrose-residents assert that their cultural work stimulates theeconomy by attracting tourists. They are producers of the creative underground citys-cape that draws tourists from around the world to Berlin and the district:

The district office is very much interested in our organizing of cultural events, it is ourmain task. We will continue doing that and many tourists will visit the events as well.Because of course, the district is interested in the fact that there is an attractive range ofactivities for tourists in Berlin… tourists bring a lot of money in the city. The BerlinSenate thinks it is important that Berlin keeps its image of underground city in the future,simply because it raises money and the city needs money. This is a reason why we survived onthis piece of land: because we fitted perfectly in this underground concept. (Kuno, Windroseencampment, personal interview)

The city needs to support the encampment in order to maintain its positioning in globaltourist markets. This results in a dilemma for the activist-residents. While serving thisfunction helps them to assert their right to stay in the city, the draw of more touriststo the encampment disturbs camp residents and the surrounding urban environment.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Thus, activist-residents in the Windrose encampment consciously view their relationwith the city and their rights to the city in utilitarian and transactional terms. They haveearned a right to the city because they furnish key cultural services that add directly to thecity’s economic bottom line. They produce cultural events in exchange for access toland:

Essentially, it’s the service on return: We don’t pay any rent, but therefore we have towork here for a certain amount of hours and in this way we work for our rent so to say.And that amount of money is being written in the district’s budget as cultural expense( … ) You could say that the events and the culture that are being made here, has actu-ally become the legitimation here. It has grown like that…We don’t pay any rent orlease. The district decides on an amount of money, which they would actually like tohave as rent for the site. This sum is booked in the budget as cultural expense. Like‘Furtherance Wagenplatz die Windrose’. This is the deal so to say and it formally obli-gates everybody who lives here to do cultural work. So a certain amount of time permonth. (Emmy, Windrose encampment, personal interview)

Residents are aware that their right to stay in the city depends on fulfilling culturalobligations:

When we would not want to organize cultural events anymore, the district officewould definitely want us to pack our stuff and leave. We have to provide somethingfor the neighborhood when we want to stay here, because this site is not just a site… it is a site in the inner-city, which is situated on the waterfront, it is highly soughtafter. (Kuno, Windrose encampment, personal interview)

The city and the Windrose are therefore bound to one another in a mutually beneficialtransaction: citizens from the surrounding neighborhood can enjoy the cultural servicesindirectly sponsored by the district, while the camp residents benefit from living in ahigh-value central location that enables them to spread and practice their alternativeways of living.

Networks: building support from the gentrifying middle classes

Developing good relations with the residents of the district is a central part of the identi-fication strategy. Resident-activists position themselves as good neighbors that contrib-ute essential resources to a flourishing neighborhood and they conceive of the Platz as anopen and common space that needs to be made available to the broader community.Rather than closing themselves off from their neighbors, opening themselves to theirsurroundings allows them to connect to neighbors, perform key neighborhood func-tions, and build lasting political support in the district. Support from the district’smiddle class residents can be used as additional leverage in their negotiations with pol-itical officials. This sentiment is reflected in a saying coined by the senior activist-resi-dent: ‘The relation with the district is good when the relation with neighbors is good.’

The first step in this direction was made at the end of 1990s when the camp’s imageimproved by changing the name from ‘Trailer Fortress of the Windrose’ to ‘CommunalArtwork Windrose’. They sought to shed the stigma typically attributed to ‘trailer for-tresses’. Windrose-residents also made the encampment accessible 24 hours a day andcreated clear paths to provide pedestrians access from all sides. Two trailers have beenmade available for guests: they can request to stay in one of them and experiencewhat it is like to live in the community. A playground for children has been constructedin the middle of the terrain, which is often used by neighborhood families and children.

184 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Openness has been aimed at breaking down prejudices and showing that the encamp-ment is an important part of a vibrant community and neighborhood.

Why is it good that the place is open and public? Because it gives legitimation that wecan be here, it is a very big site and it doesn’t belong to me and I’d like to share it withpeople. (Anna, Windrose encampment, personal interview)

While the Windrose holds many events that attract area residents, certain events havebecome very popular in Treptow. During the summer, the Windrose organizes jazzconcerts on a bimonthly basis. This amounts to approximately five concerts per year,with each event attended by approximately 400 visitors. Most visitors are (upper)middle class residents of the district and are not members of the left-alternative sceneof the Berlin. The discrepancy between these two lifestyles is very apparent duringthe events, but it is not an issue for the visitors. They drink beer out of the bottle, usethe same wineglass multiple times, go to the wooden toilet that does not flush, and siton dusty plastic chairs. The romantic and bohemian atmosphere of the Platz enchantsmany of the visitors. Many of the camp residents are not fond of jazz or of the peopletheir events attract but they recognize the importance of the concerts (and the accom-panying revenue from the beverage sales) for their legitimacy and survival.

The Windrose also holds an annual summer festival, which has replaced the ‘neigh-borhood street festival’. This event has become an important part of neighborhood life.It provides an opportunity for neighbors to connect to one another in an enjoyable andculturally hip environment. This helps to produce a neighborhood identity associatedwith Berlin’s countercultural feel. For many middle class gentrifiers, this identity is animportant part of their own stock of cultural capital. Living in a place with a ‘hip’ identityand reputation contributes to their own status position, giving them a direct interest insupporting this and other Windrose events. Neighbors meet at the Platz, interact withone another at events, and develop a common sense of identity that is integrallylinked to the Windrose. The Windrose in this instance becomes a major institutionwithin the neighborhood, providing a space for both socializing and nourishing astrong place identity. By making themselves indispensable to the neighborhood’s soci-ality and identity, Windrose builds support among the neighbors, making it politicallydifficult for district officials to evict it from the district.

In addition to reaching out directly to neighbors, the Windrose also has fostered goodrelations with reporters and producers of the Berlin press. These good relations allow theWindrose to attract and shape media coverage of their most important events. Goodmedia relations allow them to steer how the media actually represents the camp andits events to the broader public. Positive representations of the trailer camp improvetheir image in the public imagination. Lastly, politicians are personally invited to haveguided tours of the site and events. At the Platz, politicians are welcomed with coffeeand cake. The invitations are aimed at creating a relation of trust with politicians,many of whom have to be convinced of the reliability of encampment residents.Most politicians in Treptow-Köpenick have developed a positive impression of theWindrose and appreciate its activities in the neighborhood. This has contributed tothe extension of the lease-contract by five years in 2011.

These efforts have contributed to changing public perceptions of the camp. TheWindrose is sometimes referred to somewhat derisively as the ‘the petting zoo’ of theBerlin trailer encampments because they have the reputation of being the most opento the public. These efforts have contributed to a change in image of the camp.Whereas trailer encampments were largely viewed as deviant and dangerous spaces in

Rights to the Neoliberal City 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

the 1980s and 1990s, the activist-residents of this encampment have made it into a vitalcenter of hip cultural productivity for the city.

This transformation did not simply result from a change in the name and marketingtactics. It required a substantial effort in building supportive networks among the so-called creative class. In the past Windrose residents mainly catered to likeminded radicalswho shared their own taste in music, politics, and fashion. They came to recognize thatbuilding intra-group bonds would not help expand broader support for their project inthe politically inhospitable environment of Treptow. It only reinforced their political,symbolic, social, and spatial isolation. They learned that they should look beyondtheir own preferences and produce cultural products and services that resonated withthe tastes of the inhabitants of the district, who had high degrees of cultural and edu-cational capital. When a local jazz venue was forced to close, the Windrose-residentswere asked to host the jazz concerts. These events grew to become the largest magnetfor visitors. This has not resulted in the abandonment of more radical activities and cul-tural practices but in their co-existence with events catering to their more bourgeoisneighbors.

You have to make sacrifices and compromises, that is important, but you should notlose your identity in the meantime. I can still organize punk concerts. I can also organizecritical political events on my Platz. That is not the problem. The only thing is, youhave to give away a part of the place to others. (Kuno, Windrose encampment, personalinterview)

Group making: selecting members who can produce culture

During the 1990s, the Windrose community consisted of an array of people, includingstudents, punks, political activists, and ‘hippies’. The important strategic changesdescribed above prompted changes in the makeup of the community and the adoptionof internal disciplinary measures. This has contributed to increasing the middle classcomposition (embourgeoisement) of the community. Residents that acted aggressively,were addicted to substances, or disregarded peaceful cohabitation with the other acti-vist-residents were asked to leave the community. The members of the Windrose com-munity also began to recruit new members in the 2000s, many of which possessed highlevels of cultural and educational capital. The shared habitus of new members with thehabitus of their neighbors made the pursuit of the creativity strategy more acceptable.While new recruits continued to assert their distinction from the gentrifying middleclasses, their common class backgrounds helped bridge the gap.

The process of selecting ‘good’ members has been ongoing. The norms of creativityand openness are important criteria for selecting new members. The fact that theWindrose has been successful for 10 years makes it a secure place to live. This hasincreased its popularity, with many people seeking out residency in the community.This results in the need to develop strict criteria to select the ‘best’ people. Candidateshave to be creative (which means he or she can pitch ideas or is willing to help executethe ideas of others), willing to dedicate a substantive part of his or her time to theevents taking place at the Platz (this comes down to about 20 hours a week), and fore-most, he or she has to be able to get along with the other residents. The selectionprocess is intensive and can last several weeks. During the fieldwork, the co-authorencountered a woman who was being considered for membership at the Windrose.During the selection process, the candidate lived in one of the guest trailers and par-ticipated in activities and events. She felt that she had to earn a place in the community

186 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

by demonstrating her commitment to the community and its cultural projects. Candi-dates who demonstrate their aptitude for producing cultural products are given pri-ority, reinforcing tendencies of group embourgeoisement. ‘It’s like this that everyonewho moves here has to agree on the fact that this is an open, public culturalproject. That is the basis of the project and everybody knows that’ (Anna, Windroseresident, personal interview). This statement illustrates the drift in the encampment’spolitical vocation. The older residents viewed culture and openness as a means to main-tain an activist space in a difficult political environment. The newer generation per-ceives the production of culture as an end in its own right. The political and radicalvocations of the camp have slowly faded to a background ethos while its culturaland civic virtues have been pushed to the fore. In spite of the general process of remak-ing the group, there remains an important level of diversity within it. Among the campresidents we find hard-core anti-capitalists living next to highly educated residents witha preference for art and culture.

Adopting new methods of social control has accompanied the process of remakingthe group. The ‘plenum’was instituted as the principal means for achieving and enactinga consensus among activist-residents. The plenum consists of weekly meetings wheredaily affairs and future plans are discussed and made. This method of collectivedecision-making has helped improve operations and legitimate decisions. However,these improvements have been seen by some as a form of social control that marginalizesalternative ideas that do not fit with the group consensus. For several residents, theplenum paralyzes the group by reducing the levels of freedom once enjoyed by campresidents. In addition to the plenum, social control has been achieved thorough theadoption of four basic rules to govern camp behavior: volume down at night, nowaste, no violence, and no hard drugs. These rules were introduced due to pressurefrom the surrounding environment, as well as to serve camp-residents themselves.Those members who failed to follow these rules were given warnings and, if theirimproper behavior continued, eventually asked to leave the camp. The rules providedthe community with better methods to identify and restrain deviant behavior in the1990s. The explicit expression of these rules became less necessary as camp residentsbecame more disciplined over time.

THE STRATEGY OF IN-BETWEENNESS: THE SIEBENSPRUNGENCAMPMENT

The Siebensprung trailer camp is situated in the leftist district of Friedrichshain-Kreuz-berg. In the context of neoliberalizing Berlin, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg provides socialmovements with more favorable conditions. The Green Party in Friedrichshain andmayor Schulz have expressed their sympathy with the local activist and counterculturalscene. There are two motivations for this. First, the strength of a left constituency andcompetition from more radical left parties makes the governing coalition more suscep-tible to protests and public mobilizations. The availability of rich activist networks in thisdistrict allows Siebensprung residents to mobilize them in those rare events when theyare threatened with eviction. Second, the local government is sensitive to the demandsof the activists because they enhance the district’s attractiveness and diversity. In thiscontext, there is less need for Siebensprung residents to develop the legitimation strat-egies described above. Activist-residents have therefore developed a two-prong strategythat consists of asserting cultural contributions to Berlin andmobilizing support from thedistrict’s left-alternative scene.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Framing the argument: good contributors but still radical

The first part of Siebensprung’s strategy builds upon Berlin’s efforts to capitalize on itsunderground subcultural scene to attract tourists. This part of the strategy is consistentwith the Windrose, but it is executed with less intensity. They argue that their culturalservices and events reinforce the reputation and feel of Berlin, which in turn attractstourists to the city and to the Friedrichshain district. Activists and left-wing politiciansargue that tourists visit this district partly because of the presence of trailer encampmentsand other alternative spaces that are open to the broader public. They provide an oppor-tunity for strolling tourists to get a more direct feel of the underground culture of Berlin.They have earned the right to occupy this space because they contribute to one of thecity’s most important tourist attractions: its underground culture.

Siebensprung residents perform their cultural services by organizing a weekly, pub-licly accessible dinner. The meal consists of a high quality, three-course communaldinner (Vokü) that can be enjoyed for two to three euros. Everyone picks up a plateand cutlery, pays at the counter, gets the food from the kitchen and finds a seat atone of the tables around the fireplace. Drinks can be bought at the counter and after-wards guests are expected to wash their own plates. At dusk, a free film or documentaryis presented on a big screen and sometimes a singer-songwriter performs. These eventsare popular, with an average of 60–70 people in regular attendance. They draw diversevisitors, including squatters, tourists, activist friends, and neighbors. Siebensprung resi-dents explicitly use the tourist visits to support their arguments that they are contributingto the industry. While the weekly dinner events constitute their core activities, the Sie-bensprung also organizes an array of workshops on regenerative energy, lessons in artsand crafts with recycled materials, tango courses, and a children’s circus. These variousworkshops are ways in which the activists use culture as a way to achieve legitimacyamong the politicians and neighbors in the district.

We as a trailer community are part of the city and we contribute to the image of Berlin.People come to Friedrichshain because there are trailer encampments. They can’t visitthem intensively, but there is a public day, this Vokü Wednesday. We organize non-com-mercial events, so that we can say: “This Platz is public and it brings something good for the neigh-bors. (Amara, Siebensprüng resident, personal interview)

One part of the strategy stresses their contribution as creative producers while the otherpart depends on mobilizing Berlin’s left-alternative scene in times of political difficulty.When eviction pressure increases, allies and friends in the left-alternative scene arereached through email and social media, flyers, posters, and by word of mouth. TheVokü and film nights also function as ways of sustaining contacts with other activistsand radicals in the scene. Solidarity has a high priority in the left-alternative scene anddifferent branches are connected by informal contact, which can be activated in timesof need. Protest actions against evictions comprise approximately 200–300 people andparticipants often dress in extremely colorful or dramatically black clothes. ‘By stressingtheir numbers, they bring across the message: “You decide upon us and our friends andwe are with many, so consider it well”… ’ (Josef, Siebensprung and Windrose ally, per-sonal interview). Because mobilizing numbers is of great importance, maintaining goodrelations with leftist activists in the district is a central part of their general strategy toexert their right to stay in the city. Although the size of these mobilizations is relativelysmall, their effect on the local government is extensive. The protesters are takenseriously, because the local Green government is sensitive to their demands: therecent effort to evict the Siebensprung and replace it with a sports facility has been

188 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

postponed indefinitely. Even though there is a spacious sports terrain 400 meters furtherdown the road, the need for sport- and leisure facilities in the district was used by con-servative parties as a reason to evict the trailer camp. Here, the sympathy of the GreenParty and the mobilization of allies in the district contributed to the Siebensprung’s (tem-porary) survival.

Networks: building support to the public and to local activists

The Siebensprung has been fortunate because it has no direct neighbors. Complaintsconcerning noise and nuisances are rare. The site is adjacent to a kindergarten. Whilethey originally had a distant relation with the activists, the employees changed theirview when they noticed that Siebensprung contributed to a substantial decrease in bur-glary rates. Furthermore, inhabitants of Friedrichshain are accustomed to the presence ofthe left-alternative scene. The semi-openness of the camp has provided residents of thedistrict with an opportunity to visit and develop a positive image of life in the trailercamp. This diminishes prejudice and negative stigmas associated with the site, whichhas contributed to better relations between Siebensprung residents and other residentsof the district.

Siebensprung only reaches out to the press during rare occasions when it is threatenedwith eviction. During such occasions a press campaign is set up which consists of invitingjournalists from magazines and newspapers to perform interviews and take photographsof the camp. Activists have learned from experience that the tone of press coverage tendsto be more positive when journalists are invited to the camp than when they come ontheir own. Lately, Siebensprung’s weak press strategy has resulted in two negative articlesin 2012. Some residents have viewed this as a potential problem but there are no realefforts to develop a well thought-out press strategy like that of the Windrose. The rela-tively hospitable political context and their strong connections to local activists havereduced the need to take an active role in shaping public and political perceptions oftheir camp. They engage in such activities but it is not viewed as central to their survival.

Group making: a loose community

There is less concerted effort to construct a disciplined group. According to one resident,the central rule is to not enforce many rules, ‘Our dogma is to be undogmatic’ (Wande,Siebensprung encampment, personal interview). The Siebensprung community consistsof individuals who are free to decide their contributions to the group. Some go as far tosay that there is no such thing as a Siebensprung community at all.

We live together, we throw ourselves together and mobilize when it is needed and wealso think that everybody lives their own life. That is the way things go around here,because… you know… There is no such thing as a community here. (Gretchen Sie-bensprung encampment, personal interview)

Also, when compared to the Windrose, there is a weak organizational structure and aninformal decision-making process. ‘There is no joint discussion, which I like: every indi-vidual can do what he wants’ (Axel, Siebensprung encampment, personal interview).The loosely tied structure of the group is reflected in the absence of a fixed plenumand the lack of explicit rules regarding behavior. Since the prevailing ‘dogma’ is to beundogmatic, the Platz is home to people who identify with an unregulated, uncon-trolled, and individualistic lifestyle. Plenums are only held when threatened by eviction.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

The undogmatic philosophy resonates in how the actual group is constructed. UnliketheWindrose, there are no strict criteria for joining or probationary periods for new resi-dents. Everybody who wants to join is free to do so, as long as there is space and a traileravailable. If the newcomer bothers any member of the group and no solution is found,the newcomer is asked to leave the community. This flexibility in community makingand control reflects the lack of interest in and the dispensability of complicated disciplin-ary techniques. The only consistent ways in which they discipline themselves is throughthe weekly communal dinners and film demonstrations. Residents have to serve drinks,prepare a meal, and ensure supplies for their guests. This is also the principal event heldthat allows them to make the claim that they are important creative contributors to thedistrict and the city.

CONCLUSION

The creative and cultural turn in urban policy provides activist groups with culturalcapital small openings to make their rights claims. However, the extent of these openingsand the leverage activists enjoy partly depends on the political-discursive contexts theyfind themselves in. This can result in different strategies by similar kinds of activistgroups. Our study identifies two of such strategies pursued by trailer encampments inBerlin. The encampment in the conservative district pursued a strategy of politicaland discursive identification. It represented itself in ways that largely conformed tothe dominant discourse of neoliberal, creative Berlin as a result of the local, inhospitablepolitical context. The camp also sought to create connections to urban groups with highlevels of cultural capital through specially targeted events and other outreach efforts.Lastly, it remade the group to conform to this strategic line, selecting residents on thebasis of cultural attributes and disciplining them (consciously or not) to play accordingto the rules of the game. The strategy of identification has resulted in a certain embourgeo-isement of the encampment, with its acts, words, and members contributing directly tomaking the city an attractive place for hip middle class residents and tourists. By contrast,the encampment in the left district has been less threatened by elected officials andenjoyed greater support by left-wing constituents in the district. Such a context hasallowed them to employ an in-between strategy. They stress their important contributionto the cultural makeup of the Berlin scene but they have also made a concerted effort tomaintain their mobilization capacities by reinforcing their solidarity and authenticity inthe radical activist networks of the city. They must strike a balance between creativityand radical solidarity/authenticity. In this context, they are able to maintain their in-between positioning rather than transform themselves into good and deserving subjectsof neoliberal, creative Berlin.

The use of culture and creativity as a basis for making rights claims raises an importantdilemma for all Berlin activists (encampments and squatters). The political-discursivecontext of cities like Berlin favors strategies that stress the good cultural capital andconduct of claimants. As VIVANT notes, ‘the creativity discourse appears effective forsquatters to gain legitimacy to sustain the occupation, while the political anti-speculativediscourse is too radical’ (VIVANT, 2010, p. 129). When activists use the language of crea-tivity and stress their unique cultural attributes, their status as deserving members of theurban community stems from their abilities to make a contribution to the neoliberalcity. While this discourse enables them to fight for their group’s right to stay in thecity, using it reproduces the idea that rights are earned on the basis of one’s culturalcapital and contributions to producing a vibrant and hip urban culture (VAN HOUDT

et al., 2011). Those who have ‘good’ taste and can produce ‘good’ culture therefore

190 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

have a greater right to the city than those who do not. As this strategy becomes moresuccessful among urban activists, other activists are likely to adopt it for their ownstruggles. This elevates culture to a central theme for making claims to urban citizenship,crowding out other discursive strategies to justify rights claims such as social justice,equality, and basic human rights. As cultural capital becomes the legitimate basis formaking rights claims to the neoliberal city, people lacking the right kind of culture(e.g. working class, poor immigrants, elderly, etc.) may find it more difficult to sustaintheir own rights claims. Unless these groups can reframe themselves as culturallyastute contributors to a city’s hip cultural scene, they may have difficulty in assertingtheir right to stay and thrive in the creative and neoliberal city.

Acknowledgements – This article would not exist without the cooperation of the inhabitantsof theWagenburgen (trailer encampments) in Berlin. Their openness and helpfulness enabled us toget an idea of their history, motives, and situations. Furthermore, we would like to thank the twoanonymous reviewers and the editors of this journal for the insightful comments and constructivecriticism on earlier versions of this paper.

NOTES

1. UITERMARK (2013) called this process ‘civic gentrification’. We employ the Marxian conceptof embourgeoisement in order to avoid conceptual confusion with the well-established urbanconcept of ‘gentrification’.

2. Fictitious names have been given to the two Wagenburgen.

REFERENCES

ABGEORDNETENHAUS BERLIN (2009) Drucksache 16 426 Kleine Anfrage, 02 June 2009. (availableat: http://www.parlament-berlin.de:8080/starweb/adis/citat/VT/16/KlAnfr/ka16-13426.pdf) (accessed on 03 December 2013).

ARENDT H. (1973) On the Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York.BE BERLIN CAMPAIGN (2011) City of opportunities. (available at: http://www.sei.berlin.de/node/

15053) (accessed on 8 January 2012).BENHABIB S. (2004) The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.BLAKELEY G. (2010) Governing ourselves: citizen participation and governance in Barcelona and

Manchester, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(1), 130–145.BODE E. (2011, November 25) Berlin City Government: SPD and CDU agree on a coalition.

(available at: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/berl-n25.html) (accessed on 12January 2012).

BRENNER N. (2004) Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in WesternEurope. 1960–2000, Review of International Political Economy 11(3), 447–488.

CASTELLS M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.COLOMB C. (2012) Pushing the urban frontier: temporary uses of space, city-marketing, and the

creative city discourse in 2000s Berlin, Journal of Urban Affairs 34(2), 131–152.CROSSLAND D. (2006, September 19) Is Germany ready for a gay chancellor?Der Spiegel. (available

at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/letter-from-berlin-is-germany-ready-for-a-gay-chancellor-a-437943.html) (accessed on 26 February 2012).

CRUIKSHANK B. (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Cornell Uni-versity Press, Ithaca.

DIKEÇ M. (2004) Voices into noises: ideological determination of unarticulated justice move-ments, Space and Polity 8(2), 191–208.

DIKEÇ M. (2006) Two decades of French urban policy: from social development of neighbor-hoods to the Republican Penal State, Antipode 38(1), 59–81.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

EBERT R. and KUNZMANN K. R. (2007) Kulturwirtschaft, kreative Räume und Stadtentwicklungin Berlin, disP 171(4), 64–79.

FLORIDA R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class (And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Com-munity and Everyday Life). Basis Books, New York.

FLORIDA R. (2004) Cities and the Creative Class. Routledge (electronic resource), London.FRASER N. (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually exist-

ing democracy, Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.GRÜNER NEWSLETTER FRIEKE #12 (2009) (available at: http://gruene-xhain.de/news/kategorie/

vielfalt-und-migration/artikel/gruener-newsletter-frieke-12.html#21) (accessed on 03 Decem-ber 2013).

HARVEY D. (2001) The art of rent: globalization and the commodification of culture, in HARVEY

D. (Ed) Spaces of Capital, pp. 394–411. Routledge, London.HARVEY D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.HARVEY D. (2012) Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso, London.HINDESS B. (2002) Neo-liberal citizenship, Citizenship Studies 6(2), 127–143.HOLM A. and KUHN A. (2011) Squatting and urban renewal: the interaction of squatter move-

ments and strategies of urban restructuring in Berlin, International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 35(1), 644–658.

VAN HOUDT F., SUVARIEROL S. and SCHINKEL W. (2011) Neoliberal communitarian citizenship:current trends towards ‘earned citizenship’ in the United Kingdom, France and the Nether-lands, International Sociology 26(3), 408–432.

ISIN E. (2002) Being Political. Genealogies of Citizenship. University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis.

KOOPMANS R. and STATHAM P. (1999) Political claims analysis: integrating protest event and pol-itical discourse approaches, Mobilization 4(1), 203–2211.

KRUEGER R. and BUCKINGHAM S. (2012) Towards a ‘Consensual’ urban politics? Creative plan-ning, urban sustainability and regional development, International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 36(3), 486–503.

LANGE B., KALANDIDES A., STÖBER B. and MIEG H. (2008) Berlin’s creative industries: governingcreativity? Industry and Innovation 15(5), 531–548.

MARTÍNEZ LOPÉZ M. (2013) The squatters’ movement in Europe: a durable struggle for socialautonomy in urban politics, Antipode 45, 866–887.

MAYER M. (1998) The changing scope of action in urban politics: new opportunities for localinitiatives and movements, in WOLFF R. (Ed) Possible Urban Worlds: Urban Strategies at theEnd of the 20th Century, pp. 148–157. INURA, Basel.

MAYER M. (1999) Urban movements and urban theory in the late-20th-century city, in BEAURE-

GARD R. A. and BODY-GENDROT S. (Eds) The Urban Moment. Cosmopolitan Essays on the Late-20th-Century City, pp. 209–238. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

MAYER M. (2000) Social movements in European cities: transitions from the 1970s to the 1990s,in BASAGNO A. and LE GALÈS P. (Eds) Cities in Contemporary Europe, pp. 131–152. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

NICHOLLS W. (2013) From political opportunities to Niche-openings: the dilemmas of mobilizingfor immigrant rights in inhospitable environments, Theory and Society, Online first: DOI:10.1007/s11186-013-9208-x

NOVY J. and COLOMB C. (2013) Struggling for the right to the (creative) city in Berlin andHamburg: new urban social movements, new ‘spaces of hope’?, International Journal of Urbanand Regional Research 37, 1816–1838. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01115.x

ONG A. (1996) Cultural citizenship as subject making: immigrants negotiate racial and culturalboundaries in the United States, Current Anthropology 37(5), 737–751.

ONG A. (2006)Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Duke UniversityPress, Raleigh.

PECK J. (2012) Recreative city: Amsterdam, vehicular ideas and the adaptive spaces of creativitypolicy, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36, 462–485.

192 Inge L. M. van Schipstal and Walter J. Nicholls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014

PECK J. and TICKELL A. (2002) Neoliberalizing Space, Antipode, 34, 380–404. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8330.00247

PICKERILL J. and CHATTERTON P. (2006) Notes towards autonomous geographies: creation, resist-ance and self-management, Progress in Human Geography 30(6), 1–17.

PROJEKT ZUKUNFT (1997) (available at: www.berlin.de/projektzukunft) (accessed on 04 January2013).

PRUIJT H. (2004) Squatters in the creative city: rejoinder to Justus Uitermark, International Journalof Urban and Regional Research 28(3), 699–705.

RACO M. (2007) Building Sustainable Communities: Spatial Policy and Labour Mobility in Post-WarBritain. Policy Press, Bristol.

RACO M. and IMRIE R. (2000) Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban policy,Environment and Planning A 32, 2187–2204.

SCHINKEL W. (2008) The Moralisation of Citizenship in Dutch Integration Discourse, AmsterdamLaw Forum. (available at: http://ojs.ubvu.vu.nl/alf/article/view/56/77) (accessed on 23March2013).

SCHINKEL W. and VAN HOUDT F. (2010) The double helix of cultural assimilationism and neo-liberalism: citizenship in contemporary governmentality, The British Journal of Sociology 61(4), 696–715.

SOMERS M. (2008) Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

SQUATTING EUROPE KOLLECTIVE (2012) Squatting in Europe: Radical Spaces, Urban Struggles. Auton-omedia, Brooklyn.

STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (2013) (available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/OeffentlicheFinanzenSteuern/OeffentlicheFinanzen/Schulden/Tabellen/Schulden310313.html) (accessed on 03 December 2013).

SWYNGEDOUW E. (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politicsof environmental production, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3),601–620.

TARROW S. (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.

TONKENS E. (2011) The embrace of responsibility: citizenship and governance of social care in theNetherlands, in NEWMAN J. and TONKENS E. (Eds) Participation, Responsibility and Choice: Sum-moning the Active Citizen in Western European Welfare States, pp. 45–66. University of Amster-dam Press, Amsterdam.

UITERMARK J. (2004) The Co-optation of squatters in Amsterdam and the emergence of a move-ment meritocracy: a critical reply to Pruijt, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(3), 687–698.

UITERMARK J. (2013)Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics: From Accommodation to Confron-tation. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

VIVANT E. (2010) The (Re-) making of Paris as a Bohemian place? Progress in Planning 74,107–152.

WACQUANT L. (2004) Punir les pauvres: Le nouveau gouvernement de l’insecurité sociale. Agone, Paris.

Rights to the Neoliberal City 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UV

A U

nive

rsite

itsbi

blio

thee

k SZ

] at

02:

06 1

8 Se

ptem

ber

2014