Commoning the City

Commoning the City This collection seeks to expand the limits of current debates about urban commoning practices that imply a radical will to establish collaborative and solidarity networks based on anti-capitalist principles of economics, ecology and ethics. The chapters in this volume draw on case studies in a diversity of urban contexts, ranging from Detroit, USA to Kyrenia, Cyprus – on urban gardening and land stewardship, collaborative housing experiments, alternative food networks, claims to urban leisure space, migrants’ appropriation of urban space and workers’ cooperatives/collectives. The analysis pursued by the eleven chapters opens new fields of research in front of us: the entanglements of racial capitalism with enclosures and of black geographies with the commons, the critical history of settler colonialism and indigenous commons, law as a force of enclosure and as a strategy of commoning, housing commons from the urbanscale perspective, solidarity economies as labour commons, territoriality in the urban commons, the non-territoriality of mobile commons, the new materialist and post-humanist critique of the commons debate and feminist ethics of care. Derya Özkan Department of Cinema and Digital Media, Izmir University of Economics. Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (2019–2020), Koç University and Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University. Space, Materiality and the Normative Series Editors: Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos and Christian Borch Space, Materiality and the Normative presents new ways of thinking about the connections between space and materiality from a normative perspective. At the interface of law, social theory, politics, architecture, geography and urban studies, the series is concerned with addressing the use, regulation and experience of space and materiality, broadly understood, and in particular with exploring their links and the challenges they raise for law, politics and normativity. www.routledge.com/Space-Materiality-and-the-Normative/book-series/SMNORM Commoning the City Empirical Perspectives on Urban Ecology, Economics and Ethics Edited by Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 a GlassHouse book Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-07656-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-02188-6 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK To the commoners of the earth Contents List of figures Acknowledgements List of contributors Introduction: towards an ethos for commoning the city ix x xii 1 DERYA ÖZKAN AND GÜLDEM BAYKAL BÜYÜKSARAÇ PART 1 Commoning urban nature 1 Racial capitalism and a tentative commons: urban farming and claims to space in post-bankruptcy Detroit 23 25 RACHAEL BAKER 2 The politics of food: commoning practices in alternative food networks in Istanbul 37 AYÇA İNCE AND ZEYNEP KADİRBEYOĞLU 3 Insurgent ecologies: rhetorics of resistance and aspiration in Yedikule, Istanbul’s ancient market garden (2014–2018) 51 CHARLES ZERNER 4 “A revolution under our feet”: food sovereignty and the commons in the case of Campi Aperti MASSIMO DE ANGELIS AND DAGMAR DIESNER 69 viii Contents PART 2 Claims to urban land: beyond public and private property 87 5 Urban commoning and the right not to be excluded 89 NICHOLAS BLOMLEY 6 From graveyards to the “people’s gardens”: the making of public leisure space in Istanbul 104 BERİN GÖLÖNÜ 7 “Time to protect Kyrenia”: defending the right to landscape in northern Cyprus 123 EZGİCAN ÖZDEMİR 8 A migrant’s tale of two cities: mobile commons and the alteration of urban space in Athens and Hamburg 138 MARTIN BAK JØRGENSEN AND VASILIKI MAKRYGIANNI PART 3 Responses to precarity 9 Contradictions of housing commons: between middle-class and anarchist models in Berlin 157 159 KENTON CARD 10 Precarious commons: an urban garden for uncertain times 177 ELKE KRASNY 11 Cooperative economies as commons: labour and production in solidarity 193 BENGİ AKBULUT Index 207 Figures 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 6.1 6.2 8.1 8.2 10.1 10.2 BÜKOOP shop referred to as “the shack” (baraka) Salad event that DÜRTÜK organized in 2016 to meet its new participants Who participates in the general assembly? New farmer recruit to Campi Aperti: the first phase of the participatory guarantee system Antoine Ignace Melling, Vue du Champ Des Morts près Péra (1819) Photographer unknown, La Grand Alleé du Jardin Public du Taxim (1902) Map of Athens and spaces of resistance Map of Hamburg and spaces of resistance Becoming Garden at Zen 2, Palermo, summer 2018 Public space in ruination at Zen 2, Palermo, summer 2018 40 42 77 80 109 112 142 144 187 189 Acknowledgements We began imagining this book in 2016 as we were organizing Spaces in Common (SiC), a series of events as part of the research project ‘Changing Imaginations of Istanbul: From Oriental to the Cool City,’ directed by Derya Özkan between 2011 and 2016, and funded by the Emmy Noether Program of the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation). We would like to thank the members of the DFG Emmy Noether research group, Aslı Duru, postdoctoral researcher, and Vildan Seçkiner, doctoral researcher, for the collaborative research work that paved the way for this volume. We also thank the Institute of European Ethnology and Cultural Analysis (EKWEE), Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, for hosting the Emmy Noether research project. Special thanks go to Johannes Moser, the Director of EKWEE, whose support from the beginning to the last stages of the project was invaluable. The SiC series included public talks on the commons and panels that hosted a group of Istanbul-based activists to discuss the post-Gezi commoning experiences in Istanbul. We thank our speakers Nicholas Blomley, Emma Dowling, Pascal Gielen, Elke Krasny and Peter Linebaugh for providing insights into our discussion about urban commoning practices. We are grateful to all who contributed to our SiC panels as panelists and panel facilitators: the speakers on the panel ‘Labor and Production in Solidarity,’ facilitated by Bengi Akbulut, included Ufuk Ahıska and Evcan Buberen from Komşu Kafe Collective, Aynur Coşkun and Serkan Gönüş from Free Kazova Textile Cooperative. ‘Horticulture, Food and Solidarity’ was facilitated by Ayça İnce and participated by Zeynep Kadirbeyoğlu from BÜKOOP (Boğaziçi University Consumers’ Cooperative), Sevgi Ortaç from DÜRTÜK (Resisting Producer and Consumer Collective), Özge Güneş from Kadıköy Coop, Ali Taptık and Aslıhan Demirtaş from Tarihî Yedikule Bostanlarını Koruma Girişimi (Initiative for the Preservation of the Historic Yedikule Bostans). ‘Domestic and Affective Labor,’ facilitated by Hilal Kaplan, hosted Zeyno Pekünlü from the freelancers’ network Dünyada Mekan, Ayten Kargın from the Domestic Workers’ Union İMECE, and Kemal Ördek from the Sexual Health and Human Rights Association Kırmızı Şemsiye. ‘Urban Acknowledgements xi Common Property,’ facilitated by Özkan and Büyüksaraç, hosted Tamer Doğan from the Yeldeğirmeni Solidarity and Özgür Günay from the Caferağa Solidarity. At the 2017 Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, we organized the double session Urban Ethnographies of Commoning I & II, which included case studies from a wide range of geographical contexts. For their contributions to the conversation, we are grateful to our panelists Cynthia J. Browne, Kenton Card, Andrej Grubacic, Martin Bak Jørgensen, Nirali Joshi, Samar Kanafani, Elke Krasny, Vasiliki Makrygianni, Ida Mangor, Amanda Robinson, Alexander Blair Stewart and Tim Weldon. We thank our series editors at Routledge, Andreas PhilippopoulosMihalopoulos and Christian Borch, our managing editor Nicola Sharpe, and our copy-editor Elizabeth Riley. We are thankful to the authors of this volume for their diligent work on their chapters and engaged collaboration. We are also thankful to Özlem Beyarslan and Ali Nesin, who generously offered a writing retreat at Nesin Mathematics Village while we finalized the introduction, and Ayşenur Onaran, our research assistant, who offered a helping hand at the production stage of the manuscript. Special thanks go to Bora Büyüksaraç for his support and patience all the way. Contributors Bengi Akbulut, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University. Rachael Baker, Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois Chicago. Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç, Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (2019–2020), Koç University & Department of Anthropology, Istanbul University. Nicholas Blomley, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University. Kenton Card, Department of Urban Planning, University of California Los Angeles. Massimo De Angelis, Department of Social Sciences and Social Work, University of East London. Dagmar Diesner, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University. Berin Gölönü, Department of Art, State University of New York at Buffalo. Ayça İnce, Department of Film, Media and Cultural Studies, Birkbeck, University of London. Martin Bak Jørgensen, Department of Culture and Learning, Aalborg University. ̮ Zeynep Kadirbeyog lu, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Boğaziçi University. Elke Krasny, Institute for Education in the Arts – Department for Art and Education, Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. Vasiliki Makrygianni, Technologies in Practice Research Group, University of Copenhagen. Contributors xiii Ezgican Özdemir, Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Central European University. Derya Özkan, Department of Cinema and Digital Media, Izmir University of Economics. Charles Zerner, Department of Environmental Studies, Sarah Lawrence College. Introduction Towards an ethos for commoning the city Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç This edited volume has its roots in Spaces in Common (SiC), a series of events organized in 2016 as part of the research project “Changing Imaginations of Istanbul. From Oriental to the Cool City” (2011–2016).1 The project had taken a new turn in the aftermath of the Gezi uprising in 2013, shifting its focus from the enclosure of urban culture via city branding towards debates on the commons and commoning in Istanbul. The uprising was the harbinger of a new modality of politics in Turkey (Badiou 2012, cited in Erensü and Karaman 2017, 31), marked by solidarity networks, cutting across class (and other) identities and intersecting on a common ground that offered a prospect of political organization and collective action. The SiC series came out of that moment as an excursion into the modes of radical thought and action that underlay what was popularly expressed as “the Gezi spirit.” The series included public talks on the commons2 and panels that hosted a group of Istanbulbased activists to discuss the post-Gezi commoning experiences in Istanbul.3 1 The research project was directed by Derya Özkan, with a grant from the Emmy Noether Program of the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft/German Research Foundation). It was hosted by the Institute of European Ethnology and Cultural Analysis, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. For more information about the research project, see: www. ekwee.uni-muenchen.de/forschung/forsch_projekte/abgeschlossene/derya/index.html. The audio-visual records of the SiC events are available at www.facebook.com/coolistanbul/. 2 SiC events included talks by Nicholas Blomley, Emma Dowling, Pascal Gielen, Elke Krasny, and Peter Linebaugh. 3 Four panels were realized as part of the SiC series. The panel “Labor and Production in Solidarity” hosted Komşu Kafe Collective and Free Kazova Textile Cooperative; “Horticulture, Food and Solidarity” included BÜKOOP (Boğaziçi University Consumers’ Cooperative), DÜRTÜK (Resisting Producer and Consumer Collective), Kadıköy Coop, Tarihî Yedikule Bostanlarını Koruma Girişimi (Initiative for the Preservation of the Historic Yedikule Bostans). The third panel was on “Domestic and Affective Labor” and hosted the freelancers’ network Dünyada Mekan, the Domestic Workers’ Union İMECE, and the Sexual Health and Human Rights Association Kırmızı Şemsiye. “Urban Common Property,” our fourth panel, hosted Yeldeğirmeni Solidarity and Caferağa Solidarity. 2 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç The Gezi uprising was a transformative experience (Karakayalı and Yaka 2014). It enabled an unprecedented political imaginary, fuelling practices of commoning in Istanbul and beyond; and it also changed the way we think about Istanbul, and about the city in general. It made concrete the possibility of a new political subjectivity and another social life, making room for lifespaces based on a solidarity ethos. It inspired us to understand the production of contemporary urban space “beyond the conceptual and physical boundaries of the city” (Erensü and Karaman 2017, 33), twisting together the urban and the rural, integrating nature into our urban imaginations. Organizing the SiC panels, we were preoccupied with the politico-practical implications of the Gezi spirit, instantiated in its survivals, as well as in its precursors. It was crucial to comprehend the very moment we were going through, a moment pregnant with possibilities. We wanted to uncover the “life beyond life,” as Kristin Ross (2015) would put it. Not the memory of the event or its legacy, although some form of these are surely already in the making, but its prolongation, every bit as vital to the event’s logic as the initial acts of insurrection in the streets of the city. It is the continuation of the combat by other means. In the dialectic of the lived and the conceived – the phrase is Henri Lefebvre’s – the thought of a moment is generated only with and after it: unleashed by the creative energies and excess of the moment itself. Actions produce dreams and ideas, and not the reverse.” (Ross 2015, 24, emphasis added in the last sentence) SiC events gave us the opportunity to converse with others – the commoners and commoners-to-be of Istanbul – about the political space that flourished in the cracks of the capitalist system, once opened up by Gezi. We came together with local initiatives to reflect on the urban practices of commoning as grassroots strategies for creating life forms alternative to capitalist ways of living. At a later stage, as planning this volume, we widened the circle, with interlocutors from outside Istanbul who happen to be scholars and/or activists. The growing conversation steered us to an expanded scope, including empirical work in a diversity of urban contexts.4 The chapters here, thus, draw on case studies carried out in Istanbul as well as in other cities across the world, ranging from Detroit, USA to Kyrenia, Cyprus – studies on urban gardening and land 4 At the 2017 Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, we organized the double session Urban Ethnographies of Commoning I & II, which included contributions by Cynthia J. Browne, Kenton Card, Andrej Grubacic, Martin Bak Jørgensen, Nirali Joshi, Samar Kanafani, Elke Krasny, Vasiliki Makrygianni, Ida Mangor, Amanda Robinson, Alexander Blair Stewart, and Tim Weldon. For presentation titles, see the conference program at www.event scribe.net/2017/AAA/assets/pdf/AAA2017_Program_BOOK_v2.pdf. Towards an ethos for commoning the city 3 stewardship, collaborative housing experiments, alternative food networks, claims to urban leisure space, migrants’ appropriation of urban space, and workers’ cooperatives/collectives. Including other cities in the discussion enabled us to reflect on how commoning practices in different sociogeographical contexts speak to each other, as we elaborate below. Commoning practices imply a radical will to establish collaborative and solidarity networks based on anti-capitalist principles of economics, ecology, and ethics. The collection seeks to expand the limits of current debates about the commons and commoning, by bringing together the three axes of economics, ecology, and ethics, and by putting them in dialogue with seemingly remote theories and conceptualizations in social sciences and humanities. The cases we have brought together in this volume open new fields of research in front of us: the entanglements of racial capitalism with enclosures and of black geographies with the commons (Baker), the critical history of settler colonialism and indigenous commons (Blomley), law as a force of enclosure (Blomley), and law as a strategy of commoning (Özdemir), housing commons from the urban-scale perspective (Card), solidarity economies as labour commons (Akbulut), territoriality in the urban commons (Blomley), the non-territoriality of mobile commons (Jørgensen and Makrygianni), new materialist and posthumanist critique of the commons debate (Zerner), and feminist ethics of care (Krasny). With these case studies, we contribute mainly to two literatures: urban studies and the commons literature. The major contribution to urban studies is the shift of focus from enclosures to commoning, from dystopian visions of neoliberal urbanism to a view that is keen on understanding affirmative practices of commoning together with their limitations. Critical urban studies literature has long been dominated by discussions on neoliberal policies and their disastrous impact on the urban social space and relations. Developed as a response to capitalism’s crisis in the late 1960s/early 1970s, neoliberalism spread across the globe, causing permanent damage to the ethics of caring for the common good. The rule of the capitalist regime has expanded globally to sustain market-oriented economic growth, at the expense of an unprecedented elimination of people’s hard-earned social rights. Cutbacks in public expenditure for social services (such as education and health care), combined with the privatization of public assets and deregulation of markets, have significantly weakened the safety net for the poor. Cities have acquired a new strategic centrality in neoliberal times. Gentrification has become one of the driving forces for capital accumulation through a valorization of urban land, enabling the transfer of property from the urban poor to the affluent populations of the city. Indeed it has become a global urban strategy of urban governance, deployed to implement and justify largescale urban redevelopment plans, by forming state–market alliances in translocally interconnected ways (Smith 2002; Peck, Theodore, and Brenner 2009). Programs about city branding and marketing are another hallmark of neoliberal 4 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç urbanism, planned by local governments and carried out by private–public partnerships, in order to enliven urban economies, especially in de-industrializing and declining cities (Özkan 2015). As Sharon Zukin formulated in her book Cultures of Cities (1996), culture in neoliberal times has become “an economic base,” taking on an infrastructural quality, constituting a major building block of the urban economy. As a result, there emerged exclusive cultural enclaves within the city, giving way to new consumption patterns among the emergent urban classes, such as bobos or hipsters, serving what David Harvey coined as “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey 2004). Under such conditions, the putatively dichotomous relation between the state and the market, or the public and the private, dissolves and transforms into a congruous partnership, requiring us to find new concepts to understand this relatively recent mechanism of urban capital accumulation. Neoliberal urbanism has recently mutated into what is called austerity urbanism, as a last resort in response to capitalism’s regular crisis tendencies. Austerity policies have assumed systemic intensity since the Wall Street crash of 2008, marking a new phase in the neoliberal regime of capital accumulation (Peck 2012).5 The funds saved by increasing cuts in social services, wages and budgets, and elimination of affordable housing are used to subsidize private investors to help them redevelop the city centre (Peck 2015). Austerity measures caused a profound uncertainty and misery (Thébaud-Mony 2016), leading to what has been discussed within the last ten years as precarization (Lorey 2010, 2015). As a neoliberal instrument of governance (Lorey 2010), precarization worsens the conditions of work and life, creating extreme levels of social insecurity. And yet, as Isabell Lorey (2015) articulates, the regime of governmentality based on precarization is also constitutive of emancipatory politics. It is the same precarized subjects that rise up against measures of austerity and come together on the basis of their existential vulnerability, and that create common spaces under the conditions imposed by neoliberalism. The cases studied in this volume are responses to precarization largely caused by austerity urbanism. They are practices of commoning space and resources which have been taken away from the people as a result of ongoing enclosures. The commoners are developing new ways to meet their basic needs and fulfil their singular and collective desires, which neoliberal urbanism has undermined. To achieve a self-determined life, the commoners are not only discovering the commons but also inventing new ones. We take theories and practices of commoning as a guide to understand the complexities of the current urban condition, as well as the possibilities it produces for counteraction.6 Following Peter Linebaugh (2009), we prefer to use 5 The journal City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action can be referred to for more on austerity urbanism. See especially the issues since 2012. 6 We owe this perspective to the (post-)Marxist autonomist theories on the commons (De Angelis 2004, 2007; Hardt 1999; Hardt and Negri 2001, 2004, 2017; Jeffrey, McFarlane, Towards an ethos for commoning the city 5 “commoning” rather than “the commons” as shared physical spaces or resources.7 The concept of commoning articulates the dynamic and transformative quality of the commons, as well as the relationality and performativity inherent to them. The dynamic and transformative aspect implies that a commons is not a static resource, but a constitution of social networks that seek to co-create and sustain a life-world based on a continuously debated ethos.8 This is akin to what we have learned from Lefebvre, who views social space as a set of social relations rather than a static object or a physical container in which things are located or practices take place (Lefebvre 1991). For Lefebvre, space is a process; it is fluid and alive. Space is not a dead or inert thing; space is always becoming (Özkan 2008). From a Lefebvrian perspective, the space is produced by not only urban planners and authorities but also people who live in, pass through, speak about, and even those who just breathe in the city. All contribute to the production of the city as a common space, including its everyday life, culture, and social relations. This space is also potentially conducive to practices of commoning that are “enacting ‘another world’ within the neoliberal landscape, and in doing so are altering subjectivities, relations and spaces” (Kirwan et al. 2015, 4, see also Kanngieser 2013; Brigstocke 2014). and Vasudevan 2012, Midnight Notes Collective 1990), as well as to the feminist readings of precarization and commoning (Butler 2006, 2011; Federici 2004, 2012; Lorey 2015). 7 The latter approach has a longer history, usually traced back to the classical piece by Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), and to the common pool resource (CPR) theory developed by Elinor Ostrom (1990). See also Hess and Ostrom 2007. Hardin, apparently informed by the Malthusian theories on overpopulation, was first to raise the issue of resource depletion/scramble competition related with the commons concept, a subject matter that was widely debated throughout the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. Barrett 1990; Dasgupta 1982; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1970; Godwin and Shepard 1979; Larson and Bromley 1990; McCabe 1990; cited in Dawney et al. 2015, 1). For recent critical evaluations of the Hardin-Ostrom debate, see Akbulut 2017, Borch and Kornberger 2015. 8 In their introduction to another collection published in the Routledge series, Space, Materiality and the Normative, Borch and Kornberger (2015) likewise conceptualize the urban commons in terms of social relationality rather than (subtractive) resources. As framing their argument, they put into conversation classical theories of urban value, density and relationality (Howard 1898), of the city as a collectivity (Wirth 1938), with the more recently developed conceptions of atmospheres (Böhme 2006, 2014; Sloterdijk 1998, 1999, 2004). The natural resource perspective, as Borch and Kornberger (2015) argue, does not hold up well in explaining the urban commons (or perhaps any commons), because the use of urban space may lead to value creation that invalidates clear-cut distinctions between spatial production and consumption (8–9). Following Ebenezer Howard, they suggest that density and relationality are foundational to the urban commons that constitute the city, as the latter resembles a “polyatmospheric” composite (10), or a “condensed ‘macro foam’ of singular bubbles, i.e. basic forms of sociality” (9). The city life is the output of what is happening in all these bubbles, or “minor commons,” which are not only shared and co-experienced by the people (commoners) but also “strategically produced in order, for example, to achieve particular commercial or political effects” (10). 6 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç In putting Lefebvre in conversation with Hardt and Negri, we reconsider the social production of urban space, reformulating its definition as the biopolitical production of a common social life through the practices of the multitude (Özkan 2008).9 In Negri’s words, “the metropolis is to the multitude what the factory used to be to the working class” (Negri 2017, 41). Hardt and Negri conceive of the multitude as a disorganized and heterogeneous collectivity, replacing the homogeneous and unitary categories of the working class, the people or the masses (Hardt and Negri 2004, 97–227). The multitude encompasses a multiplicity of singularities subordinated by capitalist relations of social production in heterogeneous ways, including economical, geographical, cultural, racial, sexual subordinations. As the creation of value stretches out beyond factory walls to embrace the whole society, the domain of exploitation as well as emancipation becomes social life (Negri 2017). Production today can be understood as the biopolitical production of social life as a whole by the multitude. The commons is produced through social production, now taking place inside and outside the factory, in the office block, at home, on the internet, on the street, and through practices in all domains of social life (Özkan 2008). The cases of commoning in this volume do not instantiate flawless or ideal life-worlds. They are imperfect, contradictory, and full of ongoing conflict. Negotiation over conflicts, in fact, is their lifeblood. We focus on both accomplishments as well as failures of practices of commoning the city. Our approach is affirmative and critical at the same time, regarding the drawbacks of commoning practices while keeping an open eye for their achievements. We take caution not to fall into the trap of romanticization, a tendency not hard to come by within the commons literature. Another tendency in the existing commons literature is the prevalence of theoretical ruminations with insufficient empirical evidence. Our edited volume was planned to bring together case studies that substantiate theory with concrete findings. The eleven chapters in this book offer empirical reflections, while putting the commons literature in dialogue with various conceptualizations in social sciences and humanities, which we have outlined above. The contributions to this volume come from various social science disciplines, from sociology to economics, all committed to interdisciplinary perspectives in various ways. Overall, these case studies represent fragments of an emergent culture of commoning based on an ethos of care – to which we will return at the end of this introduction. 9 For other recent attempts to locate the commons debate in the urban context, see, for example, Blomley 2008; Susser and Tonnelat 2013; Borch and Kornberger 2015; Parr 2015. A major purpose of our discussion here is to contribute to this strand of literature by establishing a direct link between Lefebvre’s conception of space and the acts of commoning as an index of the biopolitical production of the city. Towards an ethos for commoning the city 7 Commoning urban nature In Part 1, we see three interrelated themes cutting across the political economy of food in the four case studies: the question of food sovereignty, alternative food networks, and (preservation of/sustaining) ecological heritage. Rachael Baker’s chapter on the politics of urban farming in post-bankruptcy Detroit (USA) provides a historical perspective on food sovereignty in an urban landscape marked by racial segregation, dispossession, and poverty. Detroit, a predominantly Black Midwest city with more than 2,000 urban gardens, has a long history of redistributing vacant property to its residents for tentative voluntary stewardship through the municipally led Farm-a-Lot program. Black farmers would till the land to supply their community with local foods and sustain their lives. This program was instituted as a strategy to develop the urban lands damaged largely due to police brutality against the Black rebels of the late 1960s. The local government’s bankruptcy measures to redevelop the cityheld properties have recently disrupted the Farm-a-Lot program, a process leading to a large-scale transfer of cultivable lands and residential areas from Black tenants to farming businesses and white residents. The Detroit case is quite telling about the US context of racial capitalism, where we cannot talk about Black politics regardless of its intertwinement with class-based grievances. White people’s privileged access to property is evidenced in this case by the exclusion of Black farmers from negotiations over land ownership, a situation that has at the same time created its own conditions of counter action. The city’s agricultural community is worthy of consideration with its potential to create and animate post-capitalist frameworks of land values, as well as with the decolonial imagination of the commons. Black farmers in Detroit contend for a dignified livelihood within hierarchical power relations in the city, practicing their right to “healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods,” and “to define their own food and agriculture systems” (La Via Campesina 2007), eventually raising an insurgent claim to food sovereignty in urban nature to work out an autonomous political and economic system alternative to that of capital. In Chapter 2, Ayça İnce and Zeynep Kadirbeyoğlu discuss food sovereignty as it is claimed through the practices of alternative food networks (AFNs) in three cases in Istanbul: BÜKOOP (Boğaziçi University Consumers’ Cooperative), the neighbourhood cooperative Kadıköy Coop, and the food collective DÜRTÜK (Resisting Producer and Consumer Collective). AFNs are selfgoverning organizations that identify the pitfalls of the exchange-value-dominated food provision system and that take action to redefine and transform it. Having emerged as responses to the monopolization of corporatized agriculture in Turkey, AFNs are experimenting with alternative management of shared resources to reorganize the processes of production, consumption, and distribution by reconnecting urban consumers with small-scale (urban and rural) producers. İnce and Kadirbeyoğlu insist that creating alternative modes of exchange in food 8 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç provision is possible, and they present AFNs as spaces of possibility towards this end. In order to do that, they argue, one needs to first shatter the dualisms established by the conventional food system, between nature and culture, rural and urban, producer and consumer, environment and society. İnce and Kadirbeyoğlu are sceptical about organic certification mechanisms, which create a niche within the capitalist food market dominated by large-scale agro-businesses, and works to keep urban dwellers disengaged with food production. They favour AFNs for they operate in an autonomous manner, by depending on a trust relationship between farmers and urban consumers rather than relying on the methods of certification instituted collaboratively by the state and the market. The question of ethics thus plays a predominant role in creating alternative food networks, leading us to consider questions of fair trade and ecological sustainability. It is only through putting into practice a shared ethics of care that the acts of AFNs can be considered practices of commoning. This is the only way that might lead to the recovery of food from being a profit-oriented resource, and to the reclamation of its status as something “inflected with personal and communal meanings” (İnce and Kadirbeyoğlu, 38). In Chapter 3, Charles Zerner focuses on the centuries-long history of Yedikule urban gardens (bostans from fifth century CE onwards10), their historical and economic value and significance for both urban dwellers and those who farm them. Zerner discusses the insurgency that followed the partial destruction of Yedikule bostans in the aftermath of the Gezi uprising in Istanbul in the summer of 2013. He sees Yedikule bostans as neither private property nor a community-based common property resource management system. The gardeners at Yedikule bostans are land managers (or lease holders) that make decisions about cultivation practices and regulate access to plots under the jurisdiction of the local government.11 They are neither peasants nor green activists – they are labourers who try to make a living through farming urban land that happens to be a site of ecological heritage, a common property of humankind, with larger cultural and archaeological meanings.12 Zerner discusses the multiple publics that participated in the defence of the bostans in 2013 and the ways in which they imagined Yedikule bostans. He emphasizes the power of imaginaries to shape landscapes and asserts that 10 There are historical documents and maps attesting to the fact that the bostans existed together with the Byzantine Theodosian city walls from the very beginning. For a detailed analysis of the history of Yedikule bostans, see White, Shopov, and Ostovich 2015. 11 Yedikule gardens have been placed under the municipality’s jurisdiction in the 1980s. Beforehand, they used to be either state-owned property (hazine arazisi) or foundation land (vakıf arazisi). 12 Zerner writes about a group of experts that wrote a report and presented it to UNESCO to call for the recognition of Yedikule gardens as a site of world heritage. Towards an ethos for commoning the city 9 “How one ‘images’ the world literally conditions how reality is both conceptualized and shaped” (Corner 1999, 153). The urban elite – landscape architects, urban planners, journalists, academic researchers, advocates for/activists of urban agriculture – formed the Yedikule Initiative, albeit differing from each other in terms of their aspirations and visions for the future of Yedikule bostans. Zerner notes how the urban elite romanticize the bostans as commons, project upon them their own visions of urban design, with little regard to what the gardeners do, how they do it, and what they actually need and want. One of the gardeners, a migrant woman interviewed by Zerner, makes it clear that, for her, gardening is not necessarily a preferable job, and that she would not like her children to do it. Yedikule bostans are the gardeners’ means of subsistence (ekmek teknesi); they are proletarian workplaces conditioned by precarious tenure. Despite the fact that Yedikule bostans have never been a commons selfgoverned by clear rules, Zerner recognizes that there are signs of collaboration and collective action, that the gardens constitute an informal, improvised form of commoning. The gardeners’ actions cannot squarely be placed in the realm of the political (Rancière 2004), and yet, they have a relative autonomy based on their informal cooperation. Zerner suggests a vision for the future of Yedikule gardens as an agro-biodiversity sanctuary that houses data on historical agricultural practices, and that celebrates an insurgent ecology of weeds, roots, seeds, sprouts, rhizomes, soils, underground water resources, walls and rubble. The closing chapter of Part 1, by Massimo de Angelis and Dagmar Diesner, presents a case of commoning that is organized around a small farmers’ and consumers’ association, and that can be located into the realm of the political more squarely than Zerner’s case of Yedikule bostans. De Angelis and Diesner discuss the case of Campi Aperti, a self-governing association that was formed in 2002, mobilized around 120 farms cultivating 800 hectares of land and providing fresh produce to eight local markets in Bologna. They define Campi Aperti as an autonomous political and economic food system that is centred on values different from those of the capitalist food market. Campi Aperti aims to operate outside the industrial food market dominated by food corporations that see nature as a resource and exploit it for their private economic advantages. Campi Aperti promotes an alternative model, including strategies, patterns, and methods for food production, distribution, and consumption. Campi Aperti’s autonomous model of value production is supposed to remain outside the European Union regulations and agricultural policies that are shaped by a merely economic and predominantly profit-oriented logic. The association reprehends impersonal market transactions and favours a face-to-face participatory food provision process that strives to balance the varying needs of farmers, consumers, and nature. While trying to regard small-scale farmers’ incomes and to support them so the producers can maintain their livelihoods, Campi Aperti also works to make it possible for consumers to access high-quality food at affordable prices. The association cares 10 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç for not only human but also non-human nature and aims to establish new agro-ecological relations that form a social metabolism of humans in alliance with non-human nature, which is “healing, sustainable and resilient” (De Angelis and Diesner, 76). Similar to the members of AFNs discussed by İnce and Kadirbeyoğlu in Chapter 2, the members of Campi Aperti struggle to create a horizontally governed ethical space, a commons that moves away from the industrial food regime towards an agro-ecological one, replacing state organic licences with commons licences, public-private protocols with an autonomous commons protocol, and promoting trust and social justice among themselves and with others. The ultimate goal for Campi Aperti is food sovereignty, and the only way to achieve that end is commoning the food provision system. Claims to urban land: beyond public and private property Part 2 focuses on claims to urban land which require definitions beyond the given distinction between public and private property. In the opening chapter of Part 2, Blomley’s conceptual reflections on property bring us back to Baker’s discussion in Part 1 on how local farmers’ access to urban land in Detroit is defined by race-based power relations. The White privilege that Baker has problematized functions as “the force of exclusion,” as Blomley would put it, by no means justifiable, for it denies a basic principle of democracy in market societies, the right to private property that C. B. Macpherson describes as a requirement for human freedom (Macpherson 1978). This is an issue not only of unequal or unfair allocation of resources, or coordination of land use, but also of dictating our ways of life, determining our relations with the materiality in which our human existence is embedded. The paradigm of private property, premised on the right to exclude, reinforces structural violence by reproducing hierarchical power relations within the city. When we put together the arguments offered by Blomley and Baker in this volume, it becomes clearer how power and property relations mutually define each other, rather than one of them constituting the other. Human freedom necessitates common property, Macpherson argues, “a property in the means of labour – that is, in the resources, the land and capital – this does not need to be an exclusive property” (ibid., 79). Blomley pursues this notion of common property, as the right not to be excluded (RN2BE) from a valued resource, in order to think about commoning practices in urban contexts, with a focus on the territorial dimensions of squatting, homelessness, sitdown strikes, and anti-racist resistance in the Global North. In these cases, the right to exclude is translated into a collective autonomous claim to a space enclosed by private or public stakeholders. Blomley expands on Macpherson’s theory, by accentuating the territoriality that “helps materialize, organize and stabilize” all the social relations surrounding a property, that “serves to classify, communicate, enforce, inscribe, and Towards an ethos for commoning the city 11 legitimize a set of entitlements” (Blomley, 93). A crucial contribution Blomley makes to the commons literature is the emphasis on the territorial claims inherent to urban struggles marked by the RN2BE as “a relational form of commoning” (100). We can only grasp the full import of these claims by taking into consideration the race- and class-based hierarchies of the society, and the particular positioning of the claimants-as-commoners within those hierarchies. In Chapter 6, Berin Gölönü presents a historical case study of the recreational sites of Taksim, focusing on the patterns in which diverse urban communities negotiate with municipal authorities over the use and historic significance of these sites. The history she narrates goes back to the late nineteenth century, a period that witnessed the formation of the first municipal gardens in Istanbul, such as the Taksim garden in Pera (Beyoğlu) that would be included in a larger city park plan during the early Republican period. These gardens were planned as sites for outdoor recreation activities, instead of the graveyards, which had been vital to social life as leisure grounds for the locals until they were expropriated as a “measure to control cholera outbreaks” recurring in the mid-nineteenth century. The Taksim garden, as the main focus of the chapter, was itself designed on a plot that had formerly been occupied by the Catholic and Protestant cemeteries, while the latter were transferred to a nearby neighbourhood, Feriköy. Gölönü reads this process within the context of the late Ottoman reforms that paved the way for an increased municipal authority to redefine the property relations and to control the use of common areas in the city under the pretext of providing public service more efficiently. Pera residents’ struggles over the fate of the common spaces around Taksim, non-Muslims’ cemeteries in particular, reveal how “public benefit” is a highly contentious concept that can be easily hijacked by contingent political factors, including the motives for maintaining order and securitization, as well as for rent-seeking urban development. While the cemeteries were free of charge, only those who could afford the entry fee enjoyed the Taksim garden. Expropriation, or stately enclosure, is assumed to serve a contingent public that includes only privileged sections of the society, like the Muslim majority in Turkey that capitalized on the forced eviction and dispossession of the Greek and Armenian communities during the early Republican period.13 Taksim garden was historically never an autonomous case of commoning, and yet it acquired a totally different character when occupied by activists during the Gezi uprisings of 2013. The liberated Gezi Park worked as a commons during the sixteen-days long takeover, demonstrating a case in which public space is transformed through commoning into an autonomous space. 13 On the dispossession of non-Muslim communities in Istanbul, see Mills 2010, Özkan 2011, Parla and Özgül 2016. 12 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç Public space claimed as commons also appears in Ezgican Özdemir’s study of coastal areas of Kyrenia in Northern Cyprus. Since 1974, Cyprus has been a divided island, as a result of the ongoing occupation of the north by Turkish military forces, and the still internationally unrecognized rule of the de-facto state of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti (TRNC), which is complicit in the redevelopment plans for the Kyrenian coast. In order to create the necessary conditions for capital accumulation, TRNC governments have implemented a set of territorializing practices, manipulating legal frameworks and (re)interpreting laws, changing place names, enclosing urban land for military uses, and abusing practices of land registry (Navaro-Yashin 2009). Özdemir’s analysis demonstrates Blomley’s point in Chapter 5, that “territory is a means through which the relations of property are organized” (Blomley, 94). The state enforces its legal and political processes of planning and development in collaboration with market forces to turn formerly public spaces of leisure into privatized beaches, exclusive hotels, holiday resorts, and casinos. Özdemir discusses the two local activist organizations’ resistance to the privatization of the coastal landscape of Kyrenia for tourism-oriented urban development. In Özdemir’s cases of enclosure, “law-making becomes power making” (Benjamin 1978, 295). The local activists reclaim the sea coast as a public space “free for all,” and thus defend their right to landscape. For them, the legal field is not only a source of hegemonic violence exerted upon the landscapes they fight for, but it is also a vital means of their struggle; in other words, law is a battleground (Comaroff and Comaroff 2009). Özdemir insists that one needs to pay due attention to law as strategy in order to fully understand the urban struggles that count as commoning practices. The activists in Kyrenia strategically try to maintain the status of these urban landscapes as public spaces, although their relationship to these places exceed the limited liberties suggested by the term “public space.” Coastal areas in North Cyprus have been spaces of sociality imbued with cultural and political meanings, representing lived realities and histories of the island including not only sweet memories but also (ongoing) conflict and violence. Local activists develop a capability to manoeuvre out of the confines of the legal system through instrumentalizing the tools of the state and the market, to contest capital accumulation and to commit acts of commoning. Özdemir points out how the activists’ commoning practices are entangled with the realms of power dynamics and authority, and how commoners need to struggle through state power that violently permeates people’s livelihoods, and how they deflect law to serve emancipatory purposes. Chapter 8 deploys the concept of mobile commons to elaborate on migrants’ practices of commoning urban space as emancipatory acts in two crisis-ridden European cities, Athens in the south and Hamburg in the north. Referring to Massimo De Angelis (2012, 185), Martin Bak Jørgensen and Vasiliki Makrygianni define the commons as systems that “create a social basis for alternative Towards an ethos for commoning the city 13 ways of articulating social production, independent from capital and its prerogatives.” Jørgensen and Makrygianni argue that framing migrants’ urban practices on-the-move as commoning puts into perspective the interconnections between European cities that seemingly have dissimilar experiences regarding the refugee and economic crises. Mobile commons also affects encounters between native and migrant urban dwellers, creating a common ground for practices of mutual solidarity and social justice both within the city and across borders. Jørgensen and Makrygianni suggest that mobile commons shatters structures of otherness, creating a diverse “we” made up of natives and migrants, breaking the boundaries between local residents and newcomers. Jørgensen and Makrygianni’s cases of mobile commons are marked by lack of any claim whatsoever to territoriality. Mobile commons are unstable, ephemeral and porous, hence inimical to alienation and commodification. Thanks to their unsteady character, they escape the social relations commanded by capital, spread through migrants’ routes in Europe, and constitute autonomous spaces. The practices of commoning in Hamburg include cases such as Park Fiction, a communal space used for recreational activities and other collective purposes, hosting protests and demonstrations; Arrivati Park, a city park located in the St Pauli neighbourhood, turned into a collective space by Hamburg Recht auf Stadt (Right to the City) Network, and defined as “a socio-political chill-out zone” where migrants and other urban dwellers can mingle; and Rote Flora, a former theatre that has been squatted and then turned into an autonomous cultural centre. The cases in Athens Jørgensen and Makrygianni discuss are: Melissa, a network of migrant women which aims to strengthen their bonds with each other and with the host society; and the Pedion tou Areos Park, the largest green area in the city centre, which has long been a shelter for the city’s “vagabonds,” and which has since 2015 become a place for incoming migrants to set up their tents. These cases are examples of mobile commons that collectively deal with migrants’ everyday life issues, and that transgress boundaries set by resident or non-resident legal statuses. At Arrivati Park, for instance, the Urban Citizenship Card issued by the activist “Free and Solidarity City Hamburg” alliance was an attempt to position the carriers of this card symbolically as legitimate political subjects, despite the fact that it had no institutional power. This gesture is reminiscent of the concept of post-identity politics that is recurrent also in various other cases of commoning covered in this volume. Responses to precarity In Part 3, we have three chapters that focus on cases that can be seen as responses to increasing precarity and insecurity in three cities, Berlin, Palermo, and Istanbul. In Chapter 9, Kenton Card explores alternative housing models developed and materialized in Berlin over the past two decades to cope with the rampant housing shortage as a consequence of neoliberal urban restructuring. The chapter presents ethnographic findings on two models, Baugruppe 14 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç (Building Groups) and Mietshäuser Syndikat, that differ with respect to the understanding of property ownership they are premised on. Building Groups (BG) is a type of middle-class cohousing, where members pool their financial assets to establish a temporary development company, collectively design projects, participate in the construction process, and found an owners’ association for managing common spaces and maintenance. It is interesting to see how class habitus defines the ways in which people address their housing insecurity in contemporary Berlin, and obviously the private property regime rules supreme in the BG experience. The residents, as Card notes, usually care mostly about private ownership of their apartments, no matter how efficiently the common spaces inside the buildings are managed or maintained. Regarding the collectively owned and used spaces, BG materializes a particular understanding of the urban commons, a rather loosely defined version of it, partly premised on the right to exclude. These include “green spaces, common rooms, roof balconies, art galleries, vegetable gardens, playgrounds” owned by the BG association, “but not treated as typically exclusive private property,” especially if it is a park accessible to non-residents (Card, 164). Apparently, the inclusion of common spaces in the BG projects is a highly debatable subject that at times leads to conflicts among the members concerning whom to allow to use these spaces and the organization of maintenance labour. Mietshäuser Syndikat (MS), a tenants’ association emerged out of a squatting experience in Freiburg, Germany, addresses the housing problem in a quite different way than BG. The syndicate, organized through decentralized and democratic governance, has institutionalized a dual ownership that collectivizes control and thereby ensures that both residential units and common spaces remain permanently affordable for members. Unlike BG, no one in the syndicate is allowed to profit by selling their units. Although it situates itself against the market and the state, we are cautioned that the MS “remains enmeshed in both” (Card 163, 170) through bank loans and mortgages, utility bills, the wage labour hired for the projects, legal responsibilities emerging from dual ownership, as well as through the obligation to conform with city zoning. Card is sceptical about the capacities of BG and MS models for developing longterm and non-exclusionary solutions to housing insecurity in Germany or elsewhere. Based on the processes of co-production and co-maintenance, he acknowledges that both cases instantiate experiences of urban commoning through collective actions to develop affordable housing and sustain common resources. However, BG is incompatible with the commons ideal, he argues, for what it offers is no more than “a form of self-help neoliberal housing” (Card, 168). It functions as a “‘privileged enclave’ of a ‘bounded security,’ accessible only for premium users that ignore wider distributional questions about uneven access to resource politics” (Hodson and Marvin 2010, 313). The MS, a model that defies the private property regime and is animated by anti-capitalist sentiments, has its own shortcomings, such as being unable to partake in a broader project of social justice. Card applies the urban scale Towards an ethos for commoning the city 15 perspective to the commons context and suggests that long-term solutions for more equitable housing would be possible if the state funded syndicated housing and ensured ongoing affordability, accessibility, and a fair distribution of capital that can be controlled by communities. Another case that emerged as a response to precarity is Becoming Garden in Palermo, analysed by Elke Krasny in Chapter 10. Krasny elaborates on the concept of precarious commons that are uncertain, fragile, vulnerable, and yet that are material manifestations of a persistent will to respond to economic, ecological, and social crises. Krasny promotes an engaged scholarship that is obliged both to critique the damages caused by neoliberal governance regimes and to recognize the emergent forms of commoning that are responsive to the pervasive precarity driven by capital. With reference to a feminist political ethics, she emphasizes that this recognition sets in motion a set of care obligations, motivations, skills, and care temporalities, which come together in the form of an ethics of collaboration for the common good. This feminist ethics with an emphasis on care connects us to the historical question of reproductive labour that sustains our lives, and to an understanding of mutuality in human– non-human interdependence. Taking care of the commons includes not only preserving non-reproducible resources but also finding ways to sustain the reproducibles and keep the commons alive. Krasny joins the other contributors to this volume in opting for the concept of commoning rather than the commons, in other words, seeing the commons not as a static resource but as a dynamic activity. Krasny goes further to introduce a care perspective to expand the notion of commons-as-activities: the commons depend on human–non-human relations as well as on the rules and social processes that constitute them, therefore, they need to be recognized in their social and environmental relationality. Krasny mobilizes the concept of precarious commons to look at Becoming Garden taking root in an abandoned housing complex on the outskirts of Palermo, a remnant of welfare state planning and hallmark of urban social inequality. In this poor and declining area stigmatized for its criminality, ZEN Insieme Association has been active since 1988, working to alleviate poverty and fight criminality largely stemming from a mafia-dominated neighbourhood economy. Krasny sees a potential for commoning in this long uncared-for public ground. Becoming Garden connects children, teenagers, women, and others through their existential precariousness (Lorey 2015) and becomes the ground on which a commons based on collaborative care is about to be created on the ruins of a long-dysfunctioning welfare state. The last chapter explores two cases from Istanbul which both involve production in solidarity. Bengi Akbulut contributes to the growing dialogue between the commons debate and the solidarity/alternative economies literature, focusing on two workers’ cooperatives/collectives, Free Kazova Textile Cooperative and Komşu Kafe Collective: a knitwear factory in Şişli run by the workers since the former employer’s bankruptcy in 2013 and 16 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç a café in Kadıköy founded around the same time by a group of people connected through Migrant Solidarity Kitchen in Tarlabaşı. Akbulut is particularly interested in how the commons and commoning framework can contribute to our understanding of solidarity economies, as forms of organizing processes of (re)production, exchange, and consumption in egalitarian, collective, and democratic ways. She examines how cooperative economies animate commoning practices related to labour and the products of labour, through collective management, democratic decision-making, and nonhierarchical social relations. There are two registers of the commons, as discussed through Akbulut’s cases. One is collective governance of the shared resources used in production, that is the collective appropriation and management of capital and labour power. The second is treating the surplus value, i.e. what is produced with collective labour, as a “common wealth” (de Peuter and DyerWitheford 2010). Such experiments with collective appropriation and democratic management of the resources might be reminiscent of the cases referred to in common-pool resource (CPR) theories, however, there are significant differences: for CPR theorists, commoning is possible only within small-scale, exclusive, closed communities. CPR theorists are primarily concerned with the problem of overuse and depletion due to self-interested individualism, while Akbulut’s cases demonstrate the individual is not necessarily inherently self-interested (e.g. Hardin 1968, Ostrom 1990). The idea of labour as a shared resource indicates that the workers are not merely conditioned by personal interests, and work does not necessarily imply physical and emotional burden. As experienced in Free Kazova and Komşu Kafe, labour turns into a pleasurable collective act inspired by social values stemming from a self-determined ethos that defy egocentrism. This brings us to another dimension of the labour commons: the arrangement of social relations within and around the production process according to democratic principles. The work is organized in both Free Kazova and Komşu Kafe based on decisions reached at the end of widely attended meetings that include thorough deliberation and negotiation. Tasks alternate between the members rather than each assuming a specific role in the division of labour, a work system that reinforces the collective quality, or commonness, of the labour involved in the production. The way the service labour is organized at Komşu Kafe has also radically changed the producers’ relations with consumers, blurring the distinctions between the two, as customers find themselves participating in the work necessary to run the cafe, ranging from price-setting to serving the food. Free Kazova and Komşu Kafe, as collectively governed enterprises, are not merely commons in fixed and physical forms; they are “relational, dynamic, continuously (re)produced,” gesturing to a sense of participatory space and loosely bounded community (Akbulut, 194). The idea of collective governance of the commons entails that a circle of supporters – artists, Towards an ethos for commoning the city 17 academics, neighbourhood residents, and so on – also contribute to the commons by participating in the assemblies and switching smoothly between the roles of outsider and customer, friend and commoner. These initiatives, thus, offer a quite different understanding of the commons than the CPR commons, which are managed and sustained by small-scale, welldefined groups made up of self-interested individuals supposed to be motivated “to free ride on others’ labour and shirk from work” (Akbulut, 196; Ostrom 1990). This is a significant difference, implying a shift from the prevailing motto “you’re on your own” to an ethos of “we are in this together.” Akbulut points to labour commons’ possible contributions to labour politics, by discussing their potential in establishing “a notion of labour beyond being a commodity” and developing everyday strategies to counter precarity (201). She also makes a parallel argument to Card’s, by accentuating the significance of contact and cooperation between commoning initiatives, as well as of alternative credit systems and purchasing policies, so as to institute politically meaningful solidarity networks and to build up economic autonomy. Ethos of care: an emergent culture of commoning The case studies in this collection suggest that there is a globally emergent culture of commoning based on an ethos of care. The commoners reclaim the idea of the common good, without renouncing their singularities and dissolving in the unity of a community. This culture suggests a common existence, “an open network of singularities that links together on the basis of the common they share and the common they produce” (Hardt and Negri 2004, 129). In her discussion on precarity in the age of neoliberal governmentality, Lorey (2015) redefines our common precarious existence as an existential vulnerability that connects us. We can cope with our precariousness, Lorey adds, not by pursuing fantasies of mastering our individual well-being and protecting ourselves from precarization on our own, but by creating and sustaining a care-based ethics based on our shared existential vulnerability. The unrealizable fantasy of the self-interested individual separates us from the others and gets in the way of commoning resources and practices, and creating autonomous spaces of resistance. In the cases of urban commoning presented in this volume, precariousness, as defined by Lorey, is shared by all, and existential vulnerability (re)connects the commoners to each other. They resist enclosures, bring to life a post-class, postidentity notion of collective political subjectivity, and deploy a solidarity ethos to care for the other without giving up on their own singular wellbeing. They engage in “collective work as a joyful and even a healing process” with a motivation incompatible with self-interest (Akbulut, 197), and enact their desire for another world. 18 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç References Akbulut, Bengi. 2017. “Commons.” In Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics, edited by Clive L. Splash. Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge. 395–403. Badiou, Alain. 2012. The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings. London and New York: Verso. Barrett, Scott. 1990. “The Problem of Global Environmental Protection.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6 (1), 68–79. Benjamin, Walter. 1978. “Critique of Violence.” In Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter Demetz, translated by Edmund Jephcott. New York: Schocken Books. 277–300. Blomley, Nicholas. 2008. “Enclosure, Common Right and the Property of the Poor.” Social and Legal Studies 17 (3), 311–331. Böhme, Gernot. 2006. Architektur und Atmosphäre. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Böhme, Gernot. 2014. “Urban Atmospheres: Charting New Directions for Architecture and Urban Planning.” In Architectural Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture, edited by C. Borch. Basel: Birkhäuser. 42–59. Borch, Christian and Martin Kornberger. 2015. Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. doi:10.4324/9781315780597. Brigstocke, Julian. 2014. The Life of the City: Space, Humour, and the Experience of Truth in Fin-de-Siècle Montmartre. Farnham: Ashgate. Butler, Judith. 2006. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London and New York: Verso. Butler, Judith. 2011. “Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street.” Available at http://eipcp.net/transversal/1011/butler/en/print (accessed 27 December 2019). Comaroff, John and Jean Comaroff. 2009. “Reflections on the Anthropology of law, Governance and Sovereignty.” In Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law, edited by Franz von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann and Julia M. Eckert. Farnham: Ashgate Pub. 31–61. Corner, James. 1999. “Eidetic Operations and New Landscapes.” In Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, edited by James Corner. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 153–169. Dasgupta, Partha. 1982. The Control of Resources. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dawney, Leila, Samuel Kirwan, and Julian Brigstocke. 2015. “Introduction: The promise of the commons.” In Space, Power and the Commons: The struggle for alternative futures, edited by Samuel Kirwan, Leila Dawney, and Julian Brigstoske. London: Routledge. 1–28. De Angelis, Massimo. 2004. “Separating the Doing and the Deed: Capital and the Continuous Character of Enclosures.” Historical Materialism 12 (2), 57–87. De Angelis, Massimo. 2007. The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London; Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. De Angelis, Massimo. 2012. “Crises, Capital and Co-Optation: Does Capital Need a Commons Fix?” (http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/crises-capital-and-co-opta tion-does-capital-need-commons-fix) de Peuter, Greig and Nick. Dyer-Witheford. 2010. “Commons and Cooperatives.” Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action 4 (1), 30–56. Ehrlich, Paul Ralph R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1970. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company. Towards an ethos for commoning the city 19 Erensü, Sinan and Ozan Karaman. 2017. “The Work of a Few Trees: Gezi, Politics and Space.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41 (1), 19–36. Federici, Silvia. 2004. Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia. Federici, Silvia. 2012. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Godwin, R. Kenneth and W. Bruce Shepard. 1979. “Forcing Squares, Triangles and Ellipses into a Circular Paradigm: The Use of the Commons Dilemma in Examining the Allocation of Common Resources.” The Western Political Quarterly 32 (3), 265–277. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859), 1243–1248. Hardt, Michael. 1999. “Affective Labor.” Boundary 2 26 (2), 89–100. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2017. Assembly. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, David. 2004. “The New Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession.” In The New Imperial Challenge: Socialist Register, edited by Leo Panitch, Colin Leys. London: Merlin Press. 63–88. Hess, Charlotte and Elinor Ostrom. 2007. “Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons”. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Hodson, Mike and Simon Marvin. 2010. “Urbanism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Urbanism or Premium Ecological Enclaves?” City 14 (3), 298–313. Howard, Ebenezer. 1898. Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: Sonnenschein. Jeffrey, Alex, Colin McFarlane, and Alex Vasudevan. 2012. “Rethinking Enclosure: Space, Subjectivity and the Commons.” Antipode 44 (4), 1247–1267. Kanngieser, Anja. 2013. Experimental Politics and the Making of Worlds. London and New York: Routledge. Karakayalı, Serhat and Özge Yaka. 2014. “The Spirit of Gezi: The Recomposition of Political Subjectivities in Turkey.” New Formations 83, 117–138. Kirwan, Samuel, Leila Dawney, and Julian Brigstocke. 2015. Space, Power and the Commons: The Struggle for Alternative Futures, London: Routledge. La Via Campesina. 2007. “Food Sovereignty” Declaration of Nyéléni, 27 February 2007, Nyéléni Village, Selingue, Mali. https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-of-nyi/ (accessed 28 August 2019). Larson, Bruce A. and Daniel W. Bromley. 1990. “Property Rights, Externalities, and Resource Degradation. Locating the Tragedy.” Journal of Development Economics 33 (2), 235–262. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Linebaugh, Peter. 2009. The Magna Carta Manifesto. Berkeley, CA: California University Press. Lorey, Isabell. 2010. “Becoming Common: Precarisation as Political Constituting.” E-flux Journal 17, 1–10. Lorey, Isabell. 2015. State of Insecurity. Government of the Precarious. London and New York: Verso. 20 Derya Özkan and Güldem Baykal Büyüksaraç Macpherson, C. B. 1978. “The Meaning of Property.” In Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions, edited by C.B. Macpherson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1–12. McCabe, J. Terrence. 1990. “Turkana Pastoralism: A Case against the Tragedy of the Commons.” Human Ecology 18 (1), 81–103. Midnight Notes Collective. 1990. “The New Enclosures.” Midnight Notes 10, 1–9. Mills, Amy. 2010. Streets of Memory: Landscape, Tolerance, and National Identity in Istanbul. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Navaro-Yashin, Yael. 2009. “Affective spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruination and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15 (1), 1–18. Negri, Antonio. 2017. “From the factory to the metropolis” In From the Factory to the Metropolis: Essays Volume 2, edited by A. Negri. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 41–55. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Özkan, Derya. 2008. The Misuse Value of Space: Spatial Practices and the Production of Space in Istanbul. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester. (http://hdl.handle.net/ 1802/6201 accessed August 28, 2019). Özkan, Derya. 2011. “Book Review. Amy Mills. 2010. Streets of Memory: Landscape, Tolerance, and National Identity in Istanbul.” New Perspectives on Turkey 44, 210–217. Özkan, Derya. 2015. “Let Them Gentrify Themselves. space, Migration and Culture in Munich’s Bahnhofsviertel.” In Europäische Ethnologie in München. Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Reader, edited by Irene Götz, Johannes Moser, Moritz Ege, and Burkhart Lauterbach, Münster: Waxmann Verlag. 193–218. Parla, Ayşe and Ceren Özgül. 2016. “Property, Dispossession and Citizenship in Turkey; or, the History of the Gezi Uprising Starts in the Surp Hagop Armenian Cemetery.” Public Culture 28 (3), 617–653. Parr, Adrian. 2015. “Urban debt, Neoliberalism and the Politics of the Commons.” Theory, Culture & Society 32 (3), 69–91. Peck, Jamie. 2012. “Austerity Urbanism: American Cities under Extreme Economy.” City 16 (6), 626–655. Peck, Jamie. 2015. Austerity Urbanism: The Neoliberal Crisis of American Cities. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Peck, Jamie, Nik Theodore, and Neil Brenner. 2009. “Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations.” SAIS Review of International Affairs 29 (1), 49–66. Rancière, Jacques. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum. Ross, Kristin. 2015. Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune. London and New York: Verso. Sloterdijk, Peter. 1998. Sphären I. Blasen: Mikrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Sloterdijk, Peter. 1999. Sphären II. Globen: Makrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Sloterdijk, Peter. 2004. Sphären III. Schäume: Plurale Sphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Smith, Neil. 2002. “New globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy.” Antipode 34 (3), 427–450. Towards an ethos for commoning the city 21 Susser, Ida and Stéphane Tonnelat. 2013. “Transformative Cities: The Three Urban Commons.” Focaal 66, 105–121. Thébaud-Mony, Annie. 2016. Çalışmak Sağlığa Zararlıdır. Trans. by Ayşe Güren. Istanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. White, Chantal E., Aleksandar Shopov, and Marta E. Ostovich. 2015. “An Archaeology of Sustenance: The Endangered Market Gardens of Istanbul.” In Archaeology for the People: Joukowsky Institute Perspectives, edited by John Cherry, Felipe Rojas. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 29–38. Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 44 (1), 1–24. Zukin, Sharon. 1996. The Cultures of Cities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. References Akbulut, Bengi. 2017. “Commons.” In Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics, edited by Clive L. Splash. Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge. 395–403. Badiou, Alain. 2012. The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings. London and New York: Verso. Barrett, Scott. 1990. “The Problem of Global Environmental Protection.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6 (1), 68–79. Benjamin, Walter. 1978. “Critique of Violence.” In Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter Demetz, translated by Edmund Jephcott. New York: Schocken Books. 277–300. Blomley, Nicholas. 2008. “Enclosure, Common Right and the Property of the Poor.” Social and Legal Studies 17 (3), 311–331. Böhme, Gernot. 2006. Architektur und Atmosphäre. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Böhme, Gernot. 2014. “Urban Atmospheres: Charting New Directions for Architecture and Urban Planning.” In Architectural Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture, edited by C. Borch. Basel: Birkhäuser. 42–59. Borch, Christian and Martin Kornberger. 2015. Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. doi:10.4324/9781315780597. Brigstocke, Julian. 2014. The Life of the City: Space, Humour, and the Experience of Truth in Fin-de-Siècle Montmartre. Farnham: Ashgate. Butler, Judith. 2006. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London and New York: Verso. Butler, Judith. 2011. “Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street.” Available at http://eipcp.net/transversal/1011/butler/en/print (accessed 27 December 2019). Comaroff, John and Jean Comaroff. 2009. “Reflections on the Anthropology of law, Governance and Sovereignty.” In Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law, edited by Franz von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann and Julia M. Eckert. Farnham: Ashgate Pub. 31–61. Corner, James. 1999. “Eidetic Operations and New Landscapes.” In Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, edited by James Corner. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 153–169. Dasgupta, Partha. 1982. The Control of Resources. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dawney, Leila, Samuel Kirwan, and Julian Brigstocke. 2015. “Introduction: The promise of the commons.” In Space, Power and the Commons: The struggle for alternative futures, edited by Samuel Kirwan, Leila Dawney, and Julian Brigstoske. London: Routledge. 1–28. De Angelis, Massimo. 2004. “Separating the Doing and the Deed: Capital and the Continuous Character of Enclosures.” Historical Materialism 12 (2), 57–87. De Angelis, Massimo. 2007. The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London; Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. De Angelis, Massimo. 2012. “Crises, Capital and Co-Optation: Does Capital Need a Commons Fix?” (http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/crises-capital-and-cooptation-does-capital-need-commons-fix) de Peuter, Greig and Nick. Dyer-Witheford. 2010. “Commons and Cooperatives.” Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action 4 (1), 30–56. Ehrlich, Paul Ralph R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1970. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company. Erensü, Sinan and Ozan Karaman. 2017. “The Work of a Few Trees: Gezi, Politics and Space.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41 (1), 19–36. Federici, Silvia. 2004. Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia. Federici, Silvia. 2012. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Godwin, R. Kenneth and W. Bruce Shepard. 1979. “Forcing Squares, Triangles and Ellipses into a Circular Paradigm: The Use of the Commons Dilemma in Examining the Allocation of Common Resources.” The Western Political Quarterly 32 (3), 265–277. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (3859), 1243–1248. Hardt, Michael. 1999. “Affective Labor.” Boundary 2 26 (2), 89–100. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2017. Assembly. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, David. 2004. “The New Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession.” In The New Imperial Challenge: Socialist Register, edited by Leo Panitch, Colin Leys. London: Merlin Press. 63–88. Hess, Charlotte and Elinor Ostrom. 2007. “Introduction: An Overview of the Knowledge Commons”. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, edited by Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. Hodson, Mike and Simon Marvin. 2010. “Urbanism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Urbanism or Premium Ecological Enclaves?” City 14 (3), 298–313. Howard, Ebenezer. 1898. Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: Sonnenschein. Jeffrey, Alex, Colin McFarlane, and Alex Vasudevan. 2012. “Rethinking Enclosure: Space, Subjectivity and the Commons.” Antipode 44 (4), 1247–1267. Kanngieser, Anja. 2013. Experimental Politics and the Making of Worlds. London and New York: Routledge. Karakayalı, Serhat and Özge Yaka. 2014. “The Spirit of Gezi: The Recomposition of Political Subjectivities in Turkey.” New Formations 83, 117–138. Kirwan, Samuel, Leila Dawney, and Julian Brigstocke. 2015. Space, Power and the Commons: The Struggle for Alternative Futures, London: Routledge. La Via Campesina. 2007. “Food Sovereignty” Declaration of Nyéléni, 27 February 2007, Nyéléni Village, Selingue, Mali. https://viacampesina.org/en/declarationof-nyi/ (accessed 28 August 2019). Larson, Bruce A. and Daniel W. Bromley. 1990. “Property Rights, Externalities, and Resource Degradation. Locating the Tragedy.” Journal of Development Economics 33 (2), 235–262. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Linebaugh, Peter. 2009. The Magna Carta Manifesto. Berkeley, CA: California University Press. Lorey, Isabell. 2010. “Becoming Common: Precarisation as Political Constituting.” E-flux Journal 17, 1–10. Lorey, Isabell. 2015. State of Insecurity. Government of the Precarious. London and New York: Verso. Macpherson, C. B. 1978. “The Meaning of Property.” In Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions, edited by C.B. Macpherson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1–12. McCabe, J. Terrence. 1990. “Turkana Pastoralism: A Case against the Tragedy of the Commons.” Human Ecology 18 (1), 81–103. Midnight Notes Collective. 1990. “The New Enclosures.” Midnight Notes 10, 1–9. Mills, Amy. 2010. Streets of Memory: Landscape, Tolerance, and National Identity in Istanbul. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Navaro-Yashin, Yael. 2009. “Affective spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruination and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15 (1), 1–18. Negri, Antonio. 2017. “From the factory to the metropolis” In From the Factory to the Metropolis: Essays Volume 2, edited by A. Negri. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 41–55. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Özkan, Derya. 2008. The Misuse Value of Space: Spatial Practices and the Production of Space in Istanbul. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester. (http://hdl. handle.net/1802/6201 accessed August 28, 2019). Özkan, Derya. 2011. “Book Review. Amy Mills. 2010. Streets of Memory: Landscape, Tolerance, and National Identity in Istanbul.” New Perspectives on Turkey 44, 210–217. Özkan, Derya. 2015. “Let Them Gentrify Themselves. space, Migration and Culture in Munich’s Bahnhofsviertel.” In Europäische Ethnologie in München. Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Reader, edited by Irene Götz, Johannes Moser, Moritz Ege, and Burkhart Lauterbach, Münster: Waxmann Verlag. 193–218. Parla, Ayşe and Ceren Özgül. 2016. “Property, Dispossession and Citizenship in Turkey; or, the History of the Gezi Uprising Starts in the Surp Hagop Armenian Cemetery.” Public Culture 28 (3), 617–653. Parr, Adrian. 2015. “Urban debt, Neoliberalism and the Politics of the Commons.” Theory, Culture & Society 32 (3), 69–91. Peck, Jamie. 2012. “Austerity Urbanism: American Cities under Extreme Economy.” City 16 (6), 626–655. Peck, Jamie. 2015. Austerity Urbanism: The Neoliberal Crisis of American Cities. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Peck, Jamie, Nik Theodore, and Neil Brenner. 2009. “Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations.” SAIS Review of International Affairs 29 (1), 49–66. Rancière, Jacques. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum. Ross, Kristin. 2015. Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune. London and New York: Verso. Sloterdijk, Peter. 1998. Sphären I. Blasen: Mikrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Sloterdijk, Peter. 1999. Sphären II. Globen: Makrosphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Sloterdijk, Peter. 2004. Sphären III. Schäume: Plurale Sphärologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Smith, Neil. 2002. “New globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy.” Antipode 34 (3), 427–450. Susser, Ida and Stéphane Tonnelat. 2013. “Transformative Cities: The Three Urban Commons.” Focaal 66, 105–121. Thébaud-Mony, Annie. 2016. Çalışmak Sağlığa Zararlıdır. Trans. by Ayşe Güren. Istanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. White, Chantal E., Aleksandar Shopov, and Marta E. Ostovich. 2015. “An Archaeology of Sustenance: The Endangered Market Gardens of Istanbul.” In Archaeology for the People: Joukowsky Institute Perspectives, edited by John Cherry, Felipe Rojas. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 29–38. Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 44 (1), 1–24. Zukin, Sharon. 1996. The Cultures of Cities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Blomley, N. 2007. “Making Private Property: Enclosure, Common Right and the Work of Hedges” Rural History, 18(1), 1–21. Faithful, Richard. 2017. “The Future is Here: First Nations & Black Sovereignties in a New Era of Land Justice.” In Eds. Justine M. Williams and Eric Holt-Giminez, Land Justice, Reimagining Land, Food, and the Commons in the United States, pp. 243–257. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Federici, S. 2004. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. Fields, K. E., and Fields, B. J. 2012. Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American life. New York: Verso. Hall, S. 2019. Essential Essays Vol. 1. Foundations of Cultural Studies. Ed. David Morley. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Harris, C. 1993. “Whiteness as Property” Harvard Law Review. 106 (8), 1707–1791. Harvey, D. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso. Holt-Giminez, E., and Williams, J. M. (Eds.). 2017. Land Justice: Re-imagining Land, Food, and the Commons in the United States. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Leong, N. 2013. “Racial Capitalism” Harvard Law Review, 126(8), 2153–2226. doi:10.3366/ajicl.2011.0005. Linebaugh, P. 2010. “Enclosures from the Bottom Up” Radical History Review, 2010(108), 11–27. Marx, K. 1976. Capital: Volume 1. London: Penguin Classics. McKittrick, K. 2011. “On Plantations, Prisons, and a Black Sense of Place” Social and Cultural Geography, 12(8), 947–963. McKittrick, K. 2013. “Plantation Futures” Small Axe 17 (3 (42)): 1–15. Mohanram, R. 1999. Black Body: Women, Colonialism, and Space. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, E. P. 1975. Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act. New York: Pantheon Books. Woods, C. 2017. Development Arrested. The Blues and Plantation Power in the Mississippi Delta. New York. Caffentzis, G. and S. Federici. 2014. “Commons against and beyond capitalism.” Community Development Journal 49 (S1): i92–i105. Campbell, H. 2015. “Spurlock’s Vomit and Visible Food Utopias: Enacting a Positive Politics of Food.” In Food Utopias: Reimagining Citizenship, Ethics and Community, edited by P. V. Stock, M. Carolan, and C. Rosin, 195–215. New York: Routledge. Carruth, A. 2016. “Open source foodways: agricultural commons and participatory art.” ASAP/J 1 (1): 95–122. Gabrielson, T. and K., Parady. 2010. “Corporeal citizenship: rethinking green citizenship through the body.” Environmental Politics 19 (3): 374–391. Goodman, D., E. M. DuPuis, and M. K. Goodman. 2011. Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge, Practice, and Politics. London: Routledge. Gürel, B., B. Küçük and S. Taş. 2019. “The rural roots of the rise of the justice and development party in Turkey.” The Journal of Peasant Studies. 46:3, 457–479. Jagers, S. C. 2009. “In search of the ecological citizen.” Environmental Politics 18 (1): 18–36. Jarosz, L. 2009. “Energy, climate change, meat, and markets: mapping the coordinates of the current world food crisis.” Geography Compass 3 (6): 2065–2083. Jelin, E. 2000. “Towards a global environmental citizenship?” Citizenship Studies 4 (1): 47–63. Kadirbeyoğlu, Z. and N. Konya. 2017. “Alternative Food Initiatives in Turkey.” In Neoliberal Modernization and Economic Growth in Turkey: Environment, Development and Conflict, edited by Fikret Adaman, Bengi Akbulut, and Murat Arsel, 207–230. London: I. B. Tauris. Kirwan, J. and D. Maye. 2013. “Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems.” Journal of Rural Studies 29: 91–100. Linebaugh, P. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto. Liberties and Commons for All. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Moragues-Faus A. and T. Marsden. 2017. “The political ecology of food: carving ‘spaces of possibility’ in a new research agenda.” Journal of Rural Studies 55: 275–288. Murdoch, J., T., Marsden, and J., Banks. 2000. “Quality, nature and embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector.” Economic Geography 76 (2): 107–125. Rundgren, G. 2016. “Food: from commodity to commons.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmetal Ethics 29: 103–121. Seyfang, G. 2005. “Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship?” Environmental Politics 14 (2): 290–306. Seyfang, G. 2007. “Growing sustainable consumption communities: the case of local organic food networks.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27 (3/ 4): 120–134. Turner, B. 2011. “Embodied connections: sustainability, food systems and community gardens.” Local Environment 16 (6): 509–522. Weber, A. 2018. “Patterns of commoning: reality as commons, a poetics of participation for the anthropocene” (https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/patterns-of-com moning-reality-as-commons-a-poetics-of-participation-for-the-anthropocene/ 2018/06/22) White, C. E., A., Shopov, and M. E. Ostovich. 2015. “An Archaeology of Sustenance: The Endangered Market Gardens of Istanbul.” In Archaeology for the People: Joukowsky Institute Perspectives, edited by J. Cherry and F. Rojas, 29–38. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Acheson, James. 1975. “The Lobster Fiefs: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in the Maine Lobster Industry.” Human Ecology, 3(3): 183–207. Aksoy, Asu. 2012. “Riding the Storm: New Istanbul.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 16(1–2): 93–111. Aksoy, Asu and Kevin Robins. 2010. “Heritage, Memory, Debris: Sulukule, Don’t Forget.” In Cultures and Globalization Series 4: Heritage, Memory, and Identity, edited by Helmut Anheimer and Raj Isar, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 222–230. Arango, Tim and Ceylan Yeğinsu. 2013 “Peaceful Protest over Istanbul Park Turns Violent as Police Crack Down” May 31, 2013, The New York Times www.nytimes. com/2013/06/01/world/europe/police-attack-protesters-in-istanbuls-taksimsquare.html, accessed 12/ 27/2018. 2013. “Archaeologists Issue Warning on Destruction of Istanbul’s Yedikule Gardens” Hürriyet Daily News, July 19, 2013, www.hurriyetdailynews.com/archeologistsissue-warning-on-destruction-of-istanbuls-yedikule-gardens-51024, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Arsu, Şebnem, “Istanbul Park Becomes Scene of Violence after Reopening” The New York Times, July 8, 2013. www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/world/europe/istan bul-park-becomes-scene-of-violence-after-reopening.html, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Batuman, Elif. 2013. “Lost in Taksim Square.” The New Yorker, www.newyorker. com/news/news-desk/lost-in-taksim-square, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Blackstone, William. 1979. “Commentaries on the Laws of England 2.” Facsimile ed. Bollier, David. 2002. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge. Bollier, David. 2016. “Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm” www.oper ationkindness.net/wp-content/uploads/David-Bollier.pdf, accessed 12/ 27/ 2018. Bromley, Daniel W. and David Feeny, editors. 1992. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, Policy. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. Brosius, J. P., Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, and Charles Zerner, editors. 2005. Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Çizakça, Murat. 2000. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. Çorakbaş, Figen Kıvılcım, Asu Aksoy, and Alessandra Ricci. 2014. A Report of Concern on the Conservation Issues of the Istanbul Land Walls World Heritage Site: With a Special Focus on the Historic Yedikule Vegetable Gardens (Yedikule Bostanları); a Report Presented to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, Appendix II, 37. https:// oxfordbyzantinesociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/report_land_walls_whs. pdf, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Corner, James. 1999. “Eidetic Operations and New Landscapes.” In J. Corner, Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 153–169. Cowles, Sara. 2018. “Ruderal Aesthetics: On the Ecological, Metaphoric and Cultural Work of Ruderal Species” www.ruderal.com/pdf/ruderalaesthetics.pdf, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Feeney, David, Bonnie J. Fikret Berkes, and James M. Acheson. 1990. “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two Years Later.” Human Ecology, 18(1): 1–19. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, 162: 1243–1248. Harmanşah, Ömür. 2014. “Urban Utopias and How They Fell Apart: The Political Ecology of Gezi Parkı.” In The Making of Turkey’s Protest Movement: #occupygezi, edited by Umut Özkırımlı, New York: Palgrave Macmillan/Palgrave Pilot, 121–133. Harvey, David. 2013. “The Creation of the Urban Commons.” In D. Harvey, Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 67–88. Hattam, Jennifer, “In Istanbul’s Ancient Gardens, A Battle for Future Harvests,” Yale Environment 360, https://e360.yale.edu/features/in_istanbuls_ancient_gar dens_a_battle_for_future_harvests_yedikule, accessed 12/27/2018. Gölönü, Berin. 2013. “Istanbul’s Urban Farmers in Peril.” modernfarmer.com /2013/08/Istanbuls-disappearing-urban-farms/, accessed 12/24/19. Kaljian, Paul. 2004. “Istanbul’s Bostans: A Millennium of Market Gardens.” Geographic Review, 4(3): 284–304. Kohn, Margaret. 2004. Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. New York: Routledge. Kuymulu, Mehmet Barış. 2013. “Reclaiming the Right to the City, Reflections on the Urban Uprisings in Turkey.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 17(3): 272–275. Linebaugh, Peter. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mandabach, Marissa. 2015. “The Neoliberal Green Space,” www.jacobinmag.com/ 2015/07/istanbul-bostans-urban-gardening-erdogan-gezi/, accessed 12/ 27/ 2018. Marres, Noortje. 2005. “Issues Spark a Public into Being.” In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 216–217. Newman, Andrew. 2011. “Contested Ecologies: Environmental Activism and Urban Space in Immigrant Paris.” City & Society, 2: 192–209. Newman, Andrew. 2015. A Landscape of Discontent: Urban Sustainability in Immigrant Paris. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Owen, Paul. 2013. “Turkey: Erdoğan Clears Taksim Square – As It Happened.” The Guardian, June 12, 2013. www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/ jun/12/turkey-erdo-an-clears-taksim-square-live-reaction, accessed 12/27/2018. Pelish, Alyssa. 2013. “A Turkish Cherry Orchard” https://alyssapelish.files.word press.com/2015/05/bulldozers-in-the-bostan.png, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Rancière, Jacques 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London: Continuum, 12–13. Rose, Carol. 1999. “Canons of Property talk, or, Blackstone’s Anxiety.” Yale Law Journal, 108: 601–632. Sassen, Saskia. 2011. ““The Global Street: Making the Political.” Globalizations, 8: 573–579. Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. “Shadow of Progress Falls on Istanbul’s Historic Vegetable Gardens” www.hurriyet dailynews.com/shadow-of-progress-falls-on-istanbuls-historic-vegetable-gardens. aspx?pageID=238&nID=110881&NewsCatID=375, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Starr, Stephen. 2017. “Shadow of Progress Falls on Istanbul’s Historic Vegetable Gardens.” www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-istanbul-landrights-feature/ shadow-of-progress-falls-on-istanbuls-historic-vegetable-gardensidUSKBN16M20N, accessed 12/ 27/2018. Stoezter, Bettina. 2018. “Ruderal Ecologies: Rethinking Nature, Migration, and the Urban Landscape in Berlin.” Cultural Anthropology, 33(2): 295–323. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Heather Anne Swanson, Elaine Gan, and Nils Bubandt, editors. 2017. Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropocene. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Turan, Elçin. 2015. Gardens of Resistance: Agriculture in the Yedikule Market Gardens. MA Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Social Sciences, Cultural Studies Programme, Istanbul Bilgi University. Velicu, Irina and Gustavo Garcia-Lopez. 2018. “Thinking the Commons through Ostrom and Butler: Boundedness and Vulnerability.” Theory, Culture and Society, 35(6): 1–19. White, Chantel, Aleksandar Shopov, and Marta Ostrovich. 2015. “An Archeology of Subsistence: The Endangered Gardens of Istanbul.” In Archeology for the People: Joukowsky Institute Perspectives, edited by J. Cherry and F. Rojas. Joukowsky Institute Publication, Oxford: UK Oxbow Books, 29–38. African Centre for Biosafety. (2014) “Running to Stand Still: Small-Scale Farmers and the Green Revolution in Malawi. Summary Report,” accessed January 10, 2018. www.acbio.org.za Agarwal, B. (2014) “Food Sovereignty, Food Security and Democratic Choice: Critical Contradictions, Difficult Conciliations”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1247–1268. Akram-Lodhi, H.A. (2015) “Accelerating Towards Food Sovereignty”, Third World Quaterly, vol. 3, pp. 563–583. Campi Aperti. (2013) CampiAperti: Riflessioni su 10 Anni della nostra storia e’ possibile un’altra economia? Accessed September 20, 2016. www.campiaperti.org/ 2013/09/17/i-dieci-anni-della-nostra-storia/ Campi Aperti. (2014) Carta dei Principi, accessed September 20, 2016. www.campia perti.org/chi-siamo/carta-dei-principi/ Dalla Costa, M. (2007) “Food Sovereignty, Peasants and Women”, The Commoner, accessed May 20, 2017. www.commoner.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/ 06/dallacosta_food-sovereignty-farmers.pdf Della Porta, D., M. Andretto, L. Mosca, and H. Reiter. (2006) Globalisation from Below. Transnational Activists and Protest Networks, Minnesota: University Press. De Angelis, M. (2007) The Beginning of History. Value Struggles and Global Capital, London: Pluto. De Angelis, M. (2017) Omnia Sunt Communia. On the Commons and Transformation to Postcapitalism, London: Zed Books. De Molina, G. and V.M. Toledo. (2014) The Social Metabolism – A Socio-ecological Theory of Historical Change, New York: Springer. Desmarais, A.A. (2007) La Via Campesina. Globalisation and the Power of Peasants, Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Edelman, M. (2014) “Food Sovereignty: Forgotten Genealogies and Regulatory Challenges”, Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 959–978. European Commission. (2015) Factsheet on 2014–2020 Rural Development Programme for Emilia-Romagna, accessed May 20, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/agri culture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-development-2014-2020/country-files/it/ factsheet-emilia-romagna_en.pdf European Coordination Via Campesina. (2018) The CAP: Communication, financial framework, markets directive and European Commission draft Legislative Proposal, accessed June 2, 2018. www.eurovia.org/event/conference-a-cap-for-small-farmerscitizens/ European Parliament. (Forthcoming March 2019) Policy Debate on Agroecology. Opportunities and challenges for European development policy. Coventry: Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience. Featherstone, D. (2008) “Political Geographies of the Counter-Globalisation Movement,” in Featherstone, D., Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-Global Networks, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 121–148. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2013) A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production, 3rd ed., Rome: FAO. Gliessman, S. (2016) “Transforming Food Systems with Agroecology”, Agroecology Food Systems, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 187–189. International Organisation for Organic Agriculture (IFOAM). (2015) Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), accessed October 12, 2017. www.ifoam.bio/en/valuechain/participatory-guarantee-systems-pgs Istat-6°General Agricultural Census. (2017) Regione Emilia-Romagna (2017). The agrifood system of Emilia-Romagna [Online], accessed March 15, 2018. http:// agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/entra-in-regione/pubblicazioni/the-agri food-system-of-emilia-romagna-region/view La Via Campesina (2017) Struggles of La Via Campesina For Agrarian Reform and the Defense of Life, Land and Territories, accessed December 2017, viacampesina .org/en/struggles-la-via-campesina-agrarian-reform-defense-life-land-territories/ Linebaugh, P. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mansfield, B. (2008) Privatization: Property and the Re-making of Nature-Society Relations, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Moore, J. (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital, London: Verso. Nyéléni Forum. (2007) Declaration of Nyéléni, accessed May 12, 2017. https://nye leni.org/spip.php?article290 Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press. Patel, R. (2009) “What Does Food Sovereignty Look Like?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 663–709. Pimbert, M. (2006) “Transforming Knowledge and Ways of Knowing for Food Sovereignty and Bio-Cultural Diversity”, Conference Paper, Geneva, Conference on endogenous Development and Bio-Cultural diversity, the interplay of worldviews, globalisation and locality, accessed June 10, 2018. www.researchgate.net/profile/ Michel_Pimbert/publication/228651291_Transforming_knowledge_and_ways_of_ knowing_for_food_sovereignty_and_bio-cultural_diversity Potter, C. and M. Tilzey. (2007) “Agricultural Multifunctionality, Environmental Sustainability and the WTO: Resistance or Accommodation to the Neoliberal Project of Agriculture?”, Geoforum, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1290–1303. Pretty, J., A. Ball, T. Lang, and J.I.L. Morison. (2005) “Farm Costs and Food Miles: An Assessment of the Full Cost of the UK Weekly food Basket”, Food Policy, vol. 30, pp. 1–19. Regione Emilia-Romagna. (2017) The Agrifood System of Emilia-Romagna, accessed March 15, 2018. http://agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/entra-in-regione/ pubblicazioni/the-agrifood-system-of-emilia-romagna-region/view. Rosset, P., R. Patel, and M. Courville. (2006) Promised Land. Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform, Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Signori, S. and F. Forno. (2016) “Closing the Attitude – Behaviour Gap: Case of Solidarity Purchase Groups”, Agriculture and Agriculture Science Procedia, vol. 8, pp. 475–481. Tilzey, M. and C. Potter. (2008) “Productivism versus Post-productivism? Modes of Agri-Environmental Governance in Post-Fordist Agricultural Transitions,” in Robinson, G. (ed.). Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities, Hampshire: Ashgate. 41–63. Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2008) The New Peasantries. Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalisation, London: Earthscan. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. (2009) “Agroecolegy as A science, A Movement and A Practice. A Review”, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 503–515. Amin, Ash and Philip Howell, eds. 2016. Releasing the commons: rethinking the future of the commons. New York: Routledge. Benjamin, S. 2008. “Occupancy urbanism: radicalizing politics and economy beyond practice.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32 (3), 719–729. Bhandar, Brenna. 2014. “Critical legal studies and the politics of property.” Property Law Review, 3, 186–194. Blackmar, Elizabeth. 2006. “Appropriating ‘the commons’: the tragedy of property rights discourse.” In The politics of public space, edited by Setha Low and Neil Smith, 49–80. New York: Routledge. Blomley, Nicholas. 2016a. “The right to not be excluded: common property and the struggle to stay put.” In Releasing the commons: rethinking the future of the commons, edited by Ash Amin and Philip Howell, 89–106. New York: Routledge. Blomley, Nicholas. 2016b. “The territory of property.” Progress in Human Geography, 40 (5), 593–609. Blomley, Nicholas. 2016c. “The boundaries of property: complexity, relationality, and spatiality.” Law and Society Review, 50 (1), 224–255. Blomley, Nicholas. 2017. Property, precarity, and power. Unpublished paper. Blomley, Nicholas and Natalia Perez (2018) ‘Eviction: Precarious property, access and territory’ in Access to land and social issues : precarity, territoriality, identity Yaëll Emerich, Laurence Saint-Pierre (eds) Éditions Thémis, Faculté de droi, Université de Montréal, 1–20. Borch, Christian and Martin Kornberger, eds. 2015. Urban commons: rethinking the city. New York: Routledge. Bromley, Daniel. 1992. “The commons, property, and common-property regimes.” In Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy, edited by Daniel Bromley, 1–15. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. CBC News Online. 2014. “Oppenheimer homeless camp: first nations members issue eviction notice to Vancouver.” CBC News Online. Last updated: July 21. www. cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/oppenheimer-homeless-camp-firstnations-members-issue-eviction-notice-to-vancouver-1.2712736 Chatterton, Paul. 2010. “Autonomy: the struggle for survival, self-management and the common.” Antipode, 42 (4), 897–908. Dickinson, Gerald S. 2015. “Towards a new eviction jurisprudence.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 23 (1), 1–59. DRAN. no date. New directions in displacement research, Displacement research and action network. http://mitdisplacement.org/symposiumhomepage Federici, Silvia. 2011. “Feminism and the politics of the commons.” The Commoner www.commoner.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/federici-feminism-andthe-politics-of-commons.pdf Giordano, Mark. 2003. “The geography of the commons: the role of scale and space.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93 (2), 365–375. Harvey, David. 2012. Rebel Cities. London: Verso. Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reaoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23, 1, 16–59. Homes not Jails. 2013. It’s vacant. Take it! (copy with author). Jeffrey, Alex, Colin McFarlane, and Alex Vasudevan. 2012. “Rethinking enclosure: space, subjectivity, and the commons.” Antipode, 44 (4), 1247–1267. Katz, Larissa. 2008. Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 58, 275–315. Kelly, Daniel B. 2014. “The right to include.” Emory Law Journal, 63, 857–924. Kennedy D. 1991. “The stakes of law, or Hale and Foucault!” Legal Studies Forum 15(4): 327–366. Kirwan, Samuel, Leila Dawney, and Julian Brigstocke, eds. 2016 Space, power and the commons. New York: Routledge. Klein, Naomi. 2001. “Reclaiming the commons.” New Left Review, 9, 81–89. Linebaugh, Peter. 2007. The Magna Carta manifesto: liberties and commons for all. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Macpherson, C. B. 1973. Democratic theory: essays in retrieval. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macpherson, C. B. 1978. “The meaning of property.” In Property: mainstream and critical positions, edited by C.B. Macpherson, 1–12. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Macpherson, C.B. 1985. The rise and fall of economic justice and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, James. 2005. “Commons as counterhegemonic projects.” Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16 (1), 9–24. McCarthy, Shannon Dunn. 2014. “Squatting: lifting the heavy burden to evict unwanted company.” University of Massachusetts Law Review, 9 (2), 156–192. Merrill, Thomas W. 1998. “Property and the right to exclude.” Nebraska Law Review, 77, 730–754. Murray, Kali. 2015. “Dispossession at the center in property law.” Savannah Law Review, 2 (1), 201–210. Neuwirth, Robert. 2005. Shadow cities: A billion cities, a new urban world. New York: Routledge. Nichols, Robert. 2017. “Theft is property! The recursive logic of dispossession.” Political Theory, 46 (1), 1–26. Noterman, Elsa. 2016. “Beyond tragedy: differential commoning in a manufactured home cooperative.” Antipode, 48 (2), 433–452. Peñalver, Eduardo and Sonia Katyal. 2007. “Property outlaws.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 1095–1186. People’s World Online. 2014. “Walmart workers begin first in-store sitdown strike in company history.” People’s World Online. November 13. www.peoplesworld.org/ article/walmart-workers-begin-first-in-store-sitdown-strike-in-company-history/ Last accessed December 18, 2019. Pierson, C. 2013. Just property: A history in the Latin west (Vol 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pope, Jim. 2006. Lawmaking, sit-down strikes, and the shaping of American industrial relations, 1935–1958. Law and History Review. 24, 1, 45–113. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 2011 [1840]. “What is property?” In Property is theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon anthology, edited by Iain McKay, 88–135. Oakland, CA and Edinburgh: AK Press. Roy, Ananya. 2016. “Dis/possessive collectivism: property and personhood at city’s end.” Geoforum, 80, A1–A11. Singer, Joseph William. 2000. Entitlement: the paradoxes of property. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Singer, Joseph William. 2014. Property as the law of democracy. Duke Law Journal. 68 1288–1355. Smith, Henry E. 2003. “The language of property: form, context, and audience.” Stanford Law Review, 55, 1105–1191. Super, David A. 2013. “A new new property.” Columbia Law Review, 113 (7), 1773–1896. Turner, Mathew. 2017. “Political ecology III: the commons and commoning.” Progress in Human Geography, 41 (6), 795–802. Underkuffler, Laura. 2010. “The politics of property and need.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 20, 363–376. Van der Walt, Andre. 2010. “Property and marginality” In Property and community ed. Gregory Alexander and Eduardo Penalver. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–105. Van der Walt, Andre. 2014. “The modest systemic status of property rights.” Journal of Law, Property, and Society, 1 (2), 15–106. Vasudevan, Alexander. 2015. “The make-shift city: towards a global geography of squatting.” Progress in Human Geography, 39 (3), 338–359. Waldron, Jeremy. 1990. The right to private property. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waldron, Jeremy. 1991. “Homelessness and the issue of freedom.” UCLA Law Review, 39, 295–324. Webb, Dan. 2017. Critical urban theory, common property, and ‘the political’. New York: Routledge. Akın, Nur. 1998. 19. Yüzyılın Ikinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera. Istanbul: Literatur Yayınları. Alus, Sermet Muhtar. 1961. “Belediye Bağçeleri.” In Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, edited by Reşad Ekrem Koçu. Istanbul: Neşriyat Kollektif Şirketi: 2454–2458. Bilsel, F. Cânâ. 2007. “L’espace public existait-il dans la ville Ottomane? Des espaces libres au domaine public à Istanbul (XXIIe-XIXe siècles).” Études Balkaniques 14. Accessed September 30, 2018. http://journals.openedition.org/etudesbalkani ques/233. Bilsel, F. Cânâ. 2010. “Serbest Sahalar: Parklar, Geziler, Meydanlar ….” In Imparatorluk Başkentinden Cumhuriyet’in Modern Kentine: Henri Prost’un Istanbul Planlaması (1936–1951), edited by F. Cânâ Bilsel and Pierre Pinon. Istanbul: Istanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü. 349–374. BOA (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi) HR.TH.40-49. BOA İ.DH.783.63659. BOA İ.DH 588-40886. BOA İ.MVL 479-21687. Boyar, Ebru, and Kate Fleet. 2010. A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Çelik, Zeynep. 1986. Remaking Istanbul: The Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cerasi, Maurice. 1985. “Open space, water, and Trees in Ottoman Urban Culture in the XVIIIth- XIXth Centuries.” Environmental Design 2: 36–49. Çınar, Alev. 2005. Modernity, Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Bodies, Places and Time. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. De Amicis, Edmondo. [1878] 1986. Istanbul. Translated by Beynun Akyavaş Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları. Demirakın, N. Işık. 2012. “Expropriation as a Modernizing Tool in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire: The Case of Cemeteries in Beyoğlu.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 18 (January): 1–16. Dinçer, Iclal. 2011. “The Impact of Neoliberal Policies on Historic Urban Space: Areas of Urban Renewal in Istanbul.” International Planning Studies 16 (1): 43–60. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2011.552474. Ekrem, Recaizade Mahmut. [1896] 1963. Araba Sevdası. Istanbul: Kanaat Yayınları. Evyapan, Gönül Aslanoğlu. 1972. Eski Türk Bahçeleri ve Özellikle Eski Istanbul Bahçeleri. Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Universitesi. Fehim, Ahmet. 1977. Ahmet Fehim Bey’in Hatıraları. Istanbul. Garanti Matbaası. Gülersoy, Çelik. 1993. Tepebaşı: Bir Meydan Savaşı. Istanbul: IBB Başkanlığı Kültür Işleri Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları. Hamadeh, Shirine. 2007. The City’s pleasures, Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century. Seattle and London: The University of Washington Press. Jordan, David P. 1995. Transforming Paris: The Life and Labors of Baron Haussmann. New York: The Free Press. Kentel, Mehmet. 2018. “Assembling ‘cosmopolitan’ Pera: An Infrastructural History of Late Ottoman Istanbul.” PhD diss., University of Washington. Kezer, Zeynep. 2015. Building Modern Turkey: State, Space and Ideology in the Early Republic. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Lacratelle, Charles. 1819. “Vue du Champ des Morts Pres Péra.” In Voyage Pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore / D’apres les dessins de M. Melling, Architecte De L'Empereur Selim III Et Dessinateur De La Sultane Hadidge Sa Soeur. Antoine Ignace Melling Paris: Treuttel and Würtz: 25. Lovering, John, and Türkmen. Hade. 2011. “Bulldozer Neoliberalism in Istanbul: The State-led Construction of Property markets, and the Displacement of the Urban Poor.” International Planning Studies 16 (1): 73–96. DOI: 10.1080/ 13563475.2011.552477. Marmara, Rinaldo. 2002. Pangaltı (Pancaldi): 19. Yüzyılın Levanten Semti; Quartier Levantin Du 19e Siècle. Istanbul: Şişli Belediyesi. Melling, Antoine Ignace. 1819. Voyage Pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore / D’apres les dessins de M. Melling, Architecte De L'Empereur Selim III et Dessinateur de La Sultane Hadidge Sa Soeur. Paris: Treuttel and Würtz. Memlük, Yalçın. 2017. “Osmanlı modernleşmesi ile ortaya çıkan bir kentsel mekan olarak ‘Millet Bahçeleri.’” Kentli Dergisi (April-June): 52–55. Onaran, Nevzat. 2010. Emvâli-i Metrûke Olayı, Osmanlı’da ve Cumhuriyette Ermeni ve Rum Mallarının Türkleştirilmesi. Istanbul: Belge Yayınları. Parla, Ayşe, and Özgül. Ceren. 2016. “Property, Dispossession and Citizenship in Turkey; or, the History of the Gezi Uprising Starts in the Surp Hagop Armenian Cemetery.” Public Culture 28:3: 617–653. doi: 10.1215/08992363-3511574. Sigalas, Nikos. 2008. “Gerçeklik Potansiyeli Taşıyan Bir Ütopya Leonis Ya Da Genç Yorgos Theotoakas’ın Istanbulu.” In Leonis, Yorgos Theotokas. 27–28. Istanbul: Istos Yayın. Tamar Nalcı and Emre Can Dağlıoğlu, “İstanbul Radyosu Arazisi Ermeni Mezarlığıydı,” Agos, October 13, 2012, http://bianet.org/biamag/azinliklar/141423istanbul-radyosu-arazisi-ermeni-mezarligiydi Theotokas, Yorgos. [1939] 2015. Leonis: Bir Dünyanın Merkezindeki Şehir. Translated by Demirözü. Damla. Istanbul: Istos Yayın. Ueno, Masayuki. 2015. “Urban Politics in Nineteenth Century Istanbul: The Case of the Armenian Cemetery in Beyoğlu.” In Human Mobility and Multiethnic Coexistence in Middle Eastern Urban Societies, ed. Hidemitsu Kuroki. 85–102. Tokyo: ILCAA. Von Bieberstein, Alice and Nora Tataryan, “The What of Occupation: ‘You Took Our Cemetery, You Won’t Have Our Park!’,” Hot Spots, Cultural Anthropology, October 31, 2013, https://culanth.org/fieldsights/394-the-what-of-occupationyou-took-our-cemetery-you-won-t-have-our-park Akçalı, Emel. 2007. “The ‘Other’ Cypriots and Their Cyprus Questions.” The Cyprus Review 19 (2): 57–82. Ankara Değil Lefkoşa. 2018a. “Cratos’a Açılan ‘Beleşe Deniz’ Davası Kazanıldı,” March 23, 2018. www.ankaradegillefkosa.org/cratosa-acilan-belese-deniz-davasikazanildi/ ———. 2018b. “Escape Mahkeme Kararını Tanımıyor,” June 8, 2018. www.ankara degillefkosa.org/escape-mahkeme-kararini-tanimiyor/ An Architektur. 2010. “On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides.” E-Flux Journal 17 (August): 1–17. Bakanlar Kurulu Kararları. 2013. “Karar No: K(II)1379-2013 Kaya Turistik Tesisleri Titreyengöl Otelcilik Aş.’ne Karakum’da Parsel Kiralanması,” Bakanlar Kurulu Karar Arama. http://95.0.174.26/bkkarar/17395/detay Benda-Beckmann, Franz von, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, and Julia M. Eckert, eds. 2009. Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law. Law, Justice, and Power. Farnham: Ashgate Pub. Benjamin, Walter. 1978. “Critique of Violence.” In Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, edited by Peter Demetz, translated by Edmund Jephcott, 277–300. New York: Schocken Books. Brighenti, Andrea Mubi. 2016. “The Public and the Common: Some Approximations of Their Contemporary Articulation.” Critical Inquiry 42 (2): 306–328. doi:10.1086/684355 Bryant, Rebecca. 2009. “Of Lemons and Laws: Property and the (Trans)national Order in Cyprus.” In Waging War, Making Peace, edited by Barbara Rose Johnston and Susan Slyomovics, California: Left Coast Press.207–224. ———. 2011. The past in Pieces: Belonging in the New Cyprus. Philadelphia and Oxford: University of Pennsylvania Press. Casas-Cortés, Maribel, Sebastian Cobarrubias, and John Pickles. 2014. “The Commons.” In A Companion to Urban Anthropology, Donald M. Nonini Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 447–469. Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff. 2009. “Reflections on the Antropology of Law, Governance and Sovereignty.” In Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law, edited by Franz von Benda-beckmann, Keebet von Benda-beckmann, and Julia M. Eckert, 31–61. Farnham: Ashgate. Gunnis, Rupert. 1936. Historic Cyprus: A Guide to Its Towns and Villages, Monasteries and Castles. 4th Reprint. Nicosia: K. Rustem & Bro. Gürel, Ayla, and Kudret Özersay. 2006. “The Politics of Property in Cyprus: Conflicting Appeals to ‘Bizonality’ and ‘Human Rights’ by the Two Cypriot Communities.” 3. Oslo: PRIO: Peace Research Institute. Harvey, David. 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso. Hatay, Mete. 2017. “Population and Politics in North Cyprus: An Overview of the Ethno-Demography of North Cyprus in the Light of the 2011 Census.” Nicosia: PRIO Cyprus Centre and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. www.prio.org/Publications/ Publication/?x=10961 Hoşkara, Şebnem, and Hoşkara. Ercan 2007. “Annan Planı Sonrasında Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta İnşaat Sektörüne, Mimarlık ve Planlamaya Eleştirel Bir Bakış,” No: 334. Mimarlık Dergisi. www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm? sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=52&RecID=1296 Hughes-Wilson, John. 2011. “The Forgotten War.” The RUSI Journal 156 (5): 84–93. doi:10.1080/03071847.2011.626281 Ilıcan, Mural Erdal. 2011. “The Making of Sovereignty through Changing Property/Land Rights and the Contestation of Authority in Cyprus.” Unpublished thesis, University of Oxford. Kalb, Don. 2017. “Afterword: After the Commons—Commoning!” Focaal 2017 (79): 67–73. doi:10.3167/fcl.2017.790106 Kara, Mehmet. 2016. “Girne’nin Çin Seddi’ne ihtiyacı yok,” Kıbrıs Gazetesi, August 30, 2016. www.kibrisgazetesi.com/haber/girnenin-cin-seddine-ihtiyaci-yok/125 Karagözlü, Ahmet. 2018. “Bina değil, ağaç istiyoruz,” Kıbrıs Gazetesi. June 27, 2018. www.kibrisgazetesi.com/kibris/bina-degil-agac-istiyoruz/44877 Kıbrıs Postası. 2016. “Girne rant kapısı değildir!,” August 10, 2016. www.kibrispos tasi.com/c86-GIRNE/n197643-Girne-rant-kapisi-degildir KKTC Turizm Planlama Dairesi. 2018. “Ocak-Ekim 2018 İstatistikleri.” KKTC Turizm Planlama Dairesi. www.turizmplanlama.gov.ct.tr/Turizm%C4%B0statistik leri/2018%C4%B0statistikler.aspx Kong, Lily, and Lisa Law. 2002. “Introduction: Contested Landscapes, Asian Cities.” Urban Studies 39 (9): 1503–1512. doi:10.1080/00420980220151628 Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1996. Writings on Cities. Edited by Eleonore Kofman. Translated by Elizabeth Lebas. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Low, Setha M., and Neil Smith, eds. 2006. The Politics of Public Space. New York: Routledge. Marcuse, Peter. 2009. “From Critical Urban Theory to the Right to the City.” City 13 (2–3): 185–197. doi:10.1080/13604810902982177 Marella, Maria Rosaria. 2017. “The Commons as a Legal Concept.” Law and Critique 28 (1): 61–86. doi:10.1007/s10978-016-9193-0 Menatti, Laura. 2017. “Landscape: From Common Good to Human Right.” International Journal of the Commons 11 (2): 641–683. doi:10.18352/ijc.738 Navaro-Yashin, Yael. 2007. “Make-Believe papers, Legal Forms and the Counterfeit: Affective Interactions between Documents and People in Britain and Cyprus.” Anthropological Theory 7 (1): 79–98. doi:10.1177/1463499607074294 Navaro-Yashin, Yael. 2009. “Affective spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruination and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge*.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2008.01527.x Navaro-Yashin, Yael. 2012. The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Postwar Polity. Durham and London Duke University Press. Oktay, Derya, and Havva Alkan Bala. 2015. “A Holistic Research Approach to Measuring Urban Identity: Findings from Kyrenia Area Study.” International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR 9 (2): 201–215. doi:10.26687/archnetijar.v9i2.687 Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1st ed. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Preston-Whyte, Robert. 2004. “The Beach as a Liminal Space.” In A Companion to Tourism, edited by Alan A. Lew, Michael C. Hall, and Allan M. Williams, 349–359. Malden, MA, Oxford and; Victoria Wiley-Blackwell. Ruivenkamp, Guido, and Andy Hilton, eds. 2017. Perspectives on Commoning: Autonomist Principles and Practices. London: ZED. Sevilla-Buitrago, Alvaro. 2015. “Capitalist Formations of Enclosure: Space and the Extinction of the Commons.” Antipode 47 (4): 999–1020. doi:10.1111/ anti.12143 Sonan, Sertac. 2014. “In the Grip of Political Clientelism: The Post-1974 Turkish Cypriot Politics and the Politico-Economic Foundations of Pro-Taksim Consensus.” Wissenschaftliche Abschlussarbeiten » Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Fakultät für Gesellschaftswissenschaften » Institut für Politikwissenschaft. https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet? id=34163 Stavrides, Stavros. 2016. Common Space: The City as Commons. London Zed Books. Tsavdaroglou, Charalampos. 2016. “Urban Commons and the Right to Ambiance: Gentrification Policies and Urban Social Movements in Barcelona, Athens and Istanbul.” In Proceedings of 3rd International Congress on Ambiances, edited by Nicolas Remy and Nicolas Tixier, Vol. 2, 707–712. Volos HAL: archives-ouvertes.fr. Varnava, Andrekos, and Hubert Faustmann. 2009. Reunifying Cyprus: The Annan Plan and Beyond. London and New York: I.B.Tauris. Volkan, İsmail. 2017. “Yıkım Kararı Askıya Alındı,” Kıbrıs Gazetesi. November 4, 2017. www.kibrisgazetesi.com/kibris/yikim-karari-askiya-alindi/16343 Yenidüzen. 2018. “Girne İnisiyatifi: Bir Arazi Peşkeşi Daha,” May 29, 2018. www. yeniduzen.com/girne-inisiyatifi-bir-arazi-peskesi-daha-102922h.htm Agustín, Óscar García and Martin Bak Jørgensen. 2016. “Solidarity without Borders: Gramscian Perspectives on Migration and Civil Society Alliances.” In Solidarity without Borders: Gramscian Perspectives on Migration and Civil Society Alliances, edited by Óscar García Agustín and Martin Bak Jørgensen, 3–19. London: Pluto Press. Arapoglou, V. P., & Sayas, J. (2009). “New facets of urban segregation in southern Europe: Gender, migration and social class change in Athens.” European Urban and Regional Studies, 16(4), 345–362. Arapoglou, V. P.. 2018. “Transnational Solidarity and Cosmopolitanism from Below: Migrant Protests, Universalism and the Political Community.”In Migration, Protest Movements and the Politics of Resistance: A Radical Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, edited by T. Caraus and E. Paris, 133–151. Abingdon, and New York: Routledge. “BALTIC RAW ORG ecoFAVELA Lampedusa-Nord.” 2014–2015. www.balticraw. org/ecofavela-lampedusa-nord/ Birke, Peter. 2016. “Right to the City—and Beyond: The Topographies of Urban Social Movements in Hamburg.” In Urban Uprisings: Challenging Neoliberal Urbanism in Europe, edited by Margit Mayer, Catharina Thörn, and Håkan Thörn. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Boeing, Niels. 2015. Von Wegen: Überlegungen zur freien Stadt der Zukunft. Vol. 1. Originalveröffentlichung. Hamburg: Edition Nautilus GmbH. Bollier, David. 2014. Think like A Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons. Gabriola. British Columbia: New Society Publishers. Borgstede, Simone Beate. 2016. “We Are Here to Stay” Reflections on the Struggle of the Refugee Group ‘Lampedusa in Hamburg’ and the Solidarity Campaign, 2013–2015.” In Migration, Squatting and Radical Autonomy, edited by Pierpaolo Mudu and Sutapa Chattopadhyay. London; New York: Routledge, 162–79. Brekke, Jaya. 2013. “Mapping Racist Violence in Athens.” OpenDemocracy. www. opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/jaya-klara-brekke/mapping-racist-violence-inathens Brekke, Jaya, ed. 2014. Crisis-Scapes: Athens and Beyond. Athens: Synthesi. Caffentzis, George. 2010. “A Tale of Two Conferences. Globalization, the Crisis of Neoliberalism and Question of the Commons.” The Commoner (blog). www.glo baljusticecenter.org/papers/tale-two-conferences-globalization-crisis-neoliberal ism-and-question-commons Cavounidis, Jennifer. “Migration in Southern Europe and the Case of Greece.” International Migration 40, no. 1 (March 1, 2002): 45–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1468-2435.00185 Chatterton, Paul. 2016. “Building Transitions to Post-capitalist Urban Commons.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41 (4): 403–415. City Plaza Squat. 2017. “Statement of #City Plaza Squat Against the Threat of Eviction”, Enough is Enough! It’s Time to Revolt! https://enoughisenough14.org/ 2017/06/10/%E2%80%8Bstatement-of-cityplaza-squat-against-the-threat-ofeviction/ Cullen, Simon and Sussana Cullinane. 2017. “Germany: Thousands of Migrants Targeted in Attacks Last Year.” CNN (blog), February 27. http://edition.cnn.com/ 2017/02/27/europe/germany-attacks-on-migrants/index.html. De Angelis, Massimo. 2010. “The Production of Commons and the ‘Explosion’ of the Middle Class.” Antipode 42 (4): 954–977. De Angelis, Massimo. 2012. “Crises, Capital and Co-Optation: Does Capital Need a Commons Fix?” http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/crises-capital-and-cooptation-does-capital-need-commons-fix. ΕΛΣΤΑΤ. 2011. “Μetanasteusi 2011.” www.statistics.gr/el/statistics/-/publica tion/SAM07/-. Encounter Athens. 2012. “The Centre of Athens ‘In Crisis’: In Search of Critical Approaches and Alternative Practices.” Encounter Athens (Blog), January 13. https://encounterathens.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-centre-of-athens-incrisis-in-search-of-critical-approaches-and-alternative-practices/. Featherstone, David. 2013. “Gramsci in Action.” In Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics, edited by Michael Ekers, 65–82. Antipode Book Series. Chichester; Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Federici Silvia. 2011. “Feminism And the Politics of the Commons” available at http://www.commoner.org.uk/?p=113 Federici Silvia. (2012). “Feminism and the Politics of the Common in an Era of Primitive Accumulation.” In Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, 138–148. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Füllner, J. and D. Templin 2011. “Stadtplanung von Unten. Die „Recht Auf Stadt”Bewegung in Hamburg.” In Initiativen Für Ein Recht Auf Stadt: Theorie Und Praxis Städtischer Aneignungen, edited by Andrej Holm and Dirk Gebhardt, 79–104. Hamburg: VSA. Gezi Park Fiction St. Pauli. 2013. “Lampedusa Hamburg – Hände Weg Von Unseren Nachbarn!” http://park-fiction.net/lampedusa-hamburg-hande-weg-vonunseren-nachbarn/ Gramsci, Antonio. n.d. Selections from Political Writings, 1921–1926, edited by Q. Hoare. New York: International Publishers. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2011. Commonwealth. First Harvard University Press paperback edition. Cambridge: Mass London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Hodkinson, Stuart. 2012. “The New Urban Enclosures.” City 16 (5): 500–518. Jessop, Bob. 2007. State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Koutrolikou, Penny Panagiota. 2016. “Governmentalities of Urban Crises in Inner-City athens, Greece.” Antipode 48 (1): 172–192. Lefebvre, Henry. 2007. Δικαίωμα Στην Πόλη Χώρος Και Πολιτική. Translated by Παναγιώτηςουρνικιώτης. Κουκίδα. Panagiótis Tournikiótis: Koukkída. Makrygianni, V., & Tsavdaroglou, H. (2011). Urban planning and revolt: a spatial analysis of the December 2008 uprising in Athens. In Vradis, A., & Dalakoglou, D. (eds.) Revolt and crisis in Greece: between a present yet to pass and a future still to come, pp. 29–58 Oakland, CA: AK Press. Makrygianni, Vasiliki. 2014. “Μετακινούμενοι Πληθυσμοί Και Χειραφετικές Πρακτικές Στην Αθήνα Της Κρίσης.” Γεωγραφίες 24 (2): 79–90. Makrygianni, Vaso and Charalampos Tsavdaroglou. 2015. “‘The Right to the City’ in Athens during A Crisis Era. Between Inversion, Assimilation and Going Beyond.” In City of Crisis: The Multiple Contestation of Southern European Cities, edited by Frank Eckardt and Javier Ruiz Sánchez. Bielefeld: Transcript. 179–198 Maloutas, T., Kandilis, G., Petrou, M., & Souliotis, N. (2013). The centre of Athens as a political stake. National Research for Social Science and Harokopio University. Maloutas, Thomas. 2014. “Social and Spatial Impact of the Crisis in Athens - from Clientelist Regulation to Sovereign Debt Crisis.” Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement. - Laboratoire d’Économie Appliquée au Développement (LEAD), ISSN 1267–5059. Vol. 39, 149–166. Mayer, Margit. 2013. “Urbane Soziale Bewegungen in Der Neoliberalisierenden Stadt. Sub\urban.” Zeitschrift Für Kritische Stadtforschung 1 (1): 155–168. Meret, Susi and Martin Bak Jørgensen. 2014. “From Lampedusa to Hamburg: Time to Open the Gates!” ROAR Magazine, July 10. https://roarmag.org/essays/lam pedusa-hamburg-europe-refugees/. “Never Mind the Papers.” n.d. https://nevermindthepapers.noblogs.org/. Accessed on January 23 2019. Nordling, V., Sager, M., & Söderman, E. (2017). “From citizenship to mobile commons: reflections on the local struggles of undocumented migrants in the city of Malmö, Sweden.” Citizenship Studies 21(6), 710–726. Schäfer, Daniel. n.d. “Flüchtlinge Fordern: Das Ist Unser Haus!” St. Pauli Blog (blog). http://st.pauli-news.de/fluechtlinge-fordern-das-ist-unser-haus/. Accessed on January 23 2019. Stavrides, Stavros. 2016. Common Space: The City as Commons. London: Zed Books. Sutter, Ove. 2016. “Contesting the Danger Zone: Creative Protests Against Police Surveillance in the Post-Fordist City.” Ethnologia Europaea 46 (1): 114–131. Trimikliniotis, N., D. Parsanoglou, and V. Tsianos 2014. Mobile commons, Migrant Digitalities and the Right to the City. New York: Springer. Tsianos, V., & Papadopoulos, D. (2014). DIWY! Precarity in embodied capitalism. Angela Dimitrakaki. In Kirsten Lloyd (Eds.) Economy: Art, production and the subject in the 21st Century, 123–139. “ÜBER UNS/ABOUT US/O NAMA | Recht Auf Stadt – Never Mind the Papers.” 2014. https://nevermindthepapers.noblogs.org/about/. Accessed on January 23 2019. Vradis, A., & Dalakoglou, D. (2011). Revolt and crisis in Greece: Between a present yet to pass and a future still to come. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Vaiou, Dina. 2016. “Tracing Aspects of the Greek Crisis in Athens: Putting Women in the Picture.” European Urban and Regional Studies 23 (3): 220–230. Vasudevan, Alex. 2017. The Autonomous City: A History of Urban Squatting. London; New York: Verso. Aalbers, Manuel B. 2016. The Financialization of Home and the Mortgage Market Crisis. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge. Albert Scharenberg & Ingo Bader (2009) “Berlin’s waterfront site struggle” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 13(2): 325–335. Balmer, Ivo, and Tobias Bernet. 2015. “Housing as a Common Resource? Decommodification and Self-Organization in Housing – Examples from Germany and Switzerland.” In Urban Commons: Moving beyond State and Market, edited by Mary Dellenbaugh, Markus Kip, Majken Bieniok, Agnes Katharina Müller and Martin Schwegmann, 178–195. Basel: Birkhäuser. Bernt, Matthias, Britta Grell, and Andrej Holm. 2014. The Berlin Reader: A Compendium on Urban Change and Activism. Bielefeld: Verlag. Bernt, Matthias, and Andrej Holm. 2009. “Is It, or Is Not? The Conceptualisation of Gentrification and Displacement and Its Political Implications in the Case of Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg.” City 13 (2–3): 312–324. doi:10.1080/ 13604810902982268. Blomley, Nicholas. 2007. “Making Private Property: Enclosure, Common Right and the Work of Hedges.” Rural History 18 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1017/ S0956793306001993. Bollier, David, and Silke Helfrich. 2015. Patterns of Commoning. Amherst, MA: Commons Strategy Group and Off the Common Press. Brenner, Neil, and Nik Theodore. 2002. “Cities and the Geographies of ‘Actually Existing Neoliberalism’.” Antipode 34 (3): 349–379. doi:10.1111/14678330.00246. Bruun, Maja Hojer. 2015. “Communities and the Commons: Open Access and Community Ownership of the Urban Commons.” In Urban Commons: Rethinking the City, edited by Christian Borch and Martin Kornberger, 153–170. London and New York: Routledge. Buchholz, Tino. 2016. Struggling for Recognition and Affordable Housing in Amsterdam and Hamburg: Resignation, Resistance, Relocation. Groningen: University of Groningen. Busch-Geertsema, Volker. 2004. “The Changing Role of the State in German Housing and Social Policy.” European Journal of Housing Policy 4 (3): 303–321. Caffentzis, George, and Silvia Federici. 2014. “Commons against and beyond Capitalism.” Community Development Journal 49 (suppl_1): i92–i105. Card, Kenton. 2011. “Democratic Social Architecture or Experimentation on the Poor?: Ethnographic Snapshots.” Design Philosophy Papers 9 (3): 217–234. ———. 2018. “Thinking Across Tactics of Tenant Movements: Los Angeles and Berlin.” Progressive City, February. www.progressivecity.net/single-post/2018/ 02/05/THINKING-ACROSS-TACTICS-OF-TENANT-MOVEMENTS-LOSANGELES-AND-BERLIN. ———. 2019. “Urban Commons.” In Urban Studies Inside-out: Theory, Method, Practice, edited by Helga Leitner, Jamie Peck and Eric Sheppard. Sage. pp.308–310. Chatterton, Paul. 2010. “Seeking the Urban Common: Furthering the Debate on Spatial Justice.” City 14 (6): 625–628. doi:10.1080/13604813.2010.525304. De Angelis, Massimo. 2007. The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto Press. De Angelis, Massimo, and Stavros Stavrides. 2010. “On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides.” An Architektur 23. Droste, Christiane. 2015. “German Co-Housing: An Opportunity for Municipalities to Foster Socially Inclusive Urban Development?.” Urban Research & Practice 8 (1): 79–92. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011428. Engels, Frederick. 1872. The Housing Question. New York: International Publishers. Esteva, Gustavo. 2014. “Commoning in the New Society.” Community Development Journal 49 (suppl_1): i144–59. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsu016. Fields, Desiree, and Sabina Uffer. 2016. “The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin, The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin.” Urban Studies 53 (7): 1486–1502. doi:10.1177/0042098014543704. Florida, Richard. 2004. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Hain, Simone. 2001. “Struggle for the Inner City—A Plan Becomes a Declaration of War.” In Urban Planning and Cultural Inclusion, edited by William J. V. Neill and Hanns-Uve Schwedler, 69–84. Houndmills, NY: Palgrave. Hamiduddin, Iqbal, and Nick Gallent. 2016. “Self-Build Communities: The Rationale and Experiences of Group-Build (Baugruppen) Housing Development in Germany.” Housing Studies 31 (4): 365–383. doi:10.1080/ 02673037.2015.1091920. Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Athens, GA and London: University of Georgia Press. ———. 2005. The New Imperialism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. Hayek, Friedrich von. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Hodson, Mike, and Simon Marvin. 2010. “Urbanism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Urbanism or Premium Ecological Enclaves?” City 14 (3): 298–313. doi:10.1080/13604813.2010.482277. Horlitz, Sabine. 2012. “Housing beyond Profit: A Comparison of US and German Alternative Ownership Models.” American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. www.aicgs.org/publication/housing-beyond-profit-a-comparison-ofu-s-and-german-alternative-ownership-models/ (Accessed Jan 6th, 2020). Huron, Amanda. 2018. Carving Out the Commons: Tenant Organizing and Housing Cooperatives in Washington D.C. Diverse Economies and Livable Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Jones, Paul, and Kenton Card. 2011. “Constructing ‘Social Architecture’: The Politics of Representing Practice.” Architectural Theory Review 16 (3): 228–244. Klein, Naomi. 2001. “Reclaiming the Commons.” New Left Review 9 (June) 81–89. LaFond, Michael, Thomas Honeck, and Christine Suckow. 2012. “Self-Organized, Community-Oriented, Sustainable.” In CoHousing Cultures: Handbook for SelfOrganized, Community-Oriented and Sustainable Housing, edited by Institute for Creative Sustainability: experimentcity id22, 17–25, Berlin: Jovis. LaFond, Michael, and Tsvetkova, Larisa, eds. 2017. CoHousing Inclusive: SelfOrganized, Community-Led Housing for All. Berlin: Jovis. Lebuhn, Henrik. 2015. “Neoliberalization in Post-Wall Berlin. Understanding the City Through Crises.” Critical Planning 22. https://criticalplanning.squarespace. com/volume-22?rq=lebuhn (Accessed Jan 6th, 2020). Linebaugh, Peter. 2014. Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Marcuse, Peter, and David Madden. 2016. In Defense of Housing: The Politics of Crisis. London: Verso Books. Midnight Notes Collective. 1990. “The New Enclosures.” Midnight Notes 10: 1–9. Novy, Johannes, and Claire Colomb. 2013. “Struggling for the Right to the (Creative) City in Berlin and Hamburg: New Urban Social Movements, New ‘Spaces of Hope’?” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (5): 1816–1838. Peck, Jamie. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–770. doi:10.1111/j.14682427.2005.00620.x. ———. 2010. Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. London and New York: Oxford University Press. Peck, Jamie, and Adam Tickell. 2002. “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode 34 (3): 380–404. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00247. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Rosol, Marit (2012) “Community Volunteering as Neoliberal Strategy? Green Space Production in Berlin” Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography. 44(1): 239–257. Simmel, Georg. 1972. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. edited by Donald N. Levine. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Stavros Stavrides (2016) Common Space: The City as Commons. London: Zed Books. Strom, Elizabeth, and Margit Mayer. 1998. “The New Berlin.” German Politics and Society 16 (4): 122–139. Swyngedouw, Erik, F. Moulaert, and A. Rodriguez. 2002. “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large–Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy.” Antipode 34 (3): 542–577. Tummers, Lidewij. 2016. “The Re-Emergence of Self-Managed Co-Housing in Europe: A Critical Review of Co-Housing Research.” Urban Studies 53 (10): 2023–2040. doi:10.1177/0042098015586696. Vey, Judith. 2016. “Crisis Protests in Germany, Occupy Wall Street, and Mietshäuser Syndikat: Antinomies of Current Marxist- and Anarchist-Inspired Movements and Their Convergence.” Capital & Class 40 (1): 59–74. doi:10.1177/ 0309816815627389. Angelis, Massimo de and Stavros Stavrides. “Beyond Markets or States: Commoning as Collective Practice.” An Architektur 23 (2009): 4–27. http://anarchitektur. org/aa23_commons/aa23_commons_heft.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2018. Bollier, David and Silke Helfrich, (eds.) The Wealth of the Commons: A World beyond Market and State. Amherst: Levellers Press, 2012. Boltanski, Luc, Ève Chiapello, (eds.) The New Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Gregory Elliott. London: Verso, 1999. Butler, Judith. “Rethinking Vulnerability and Resistence.” In Vulnerability in Resistance, edited by Judith Butler, Zeynep Gambetti, and Leticia Sabsay, 12–27. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016. Butler, Judith, Zeynep Gambetti, and Leticia Sabsay, (eds.) Vulnerability in Resistance. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016. Clement, Gilles. “The Planetary Garden,” (no date): no page. www.gillesclement. com/art-461-tit-THE-PLANETARY-GARDEN. Accessed August 2, 2018. Coloco. “Manifeste.” (no date): no page. Accessed August 3, 2018, www.coloco. org/manifeste/ Crutzen, Paul J. and Eugene F. Stoermer. “The Anthropocene.” Global Change Newsletter 41 (May 2000): 17–18. European Commission. Development Education and Awareness Raising. https://ec. europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/development-educa tion-and-awareness-raising_en. Accessed August 2, 2018. Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia, 2004. Federici, Silvia. “Feminism and the Politics of the Common in an Era of Primitive Accumulation.” In Revolution at Point Zero. housework, reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, 138–148. Oakland: PM Press, 2012a. Federici, Silvia. “The Means of Reproduction.” Interviewed by Lisa Rudmann and Marcy Rein, Reimagine! Race Poverty & the Environment 19, no. 2 (2012b). www.reimaginerpe.org/19-2/rudman-rein-federici. Accessed August 3, 2018. Fisher, Berenice and Joan Tronto, “Toward a Feminist Theory of Caring.” In Circles of Care. Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, edited by Emily K. Abel and Margaret K. Nelson, 35–62. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Ghirardo, Diane. Italy: Modern Architectures in History. London: Reaktion Books, 2013. Gibson-Graham, J.K. “Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for ‘other Worlds’”. Progress in Human Geography 32, no. 5 (October 2008): 613–632. Gibson-Graham, J.K. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. Graeber, David. The Utopia of Rules: On technology, stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. Brooklyn and London: Melville House, 2015. Gregotti, Vittorio. ‘Abbattiamo il quartiere Zen2 e ricostruiamolo come era stato progettato’, Corriere della Sera Magazine (26 March 2009), p. 13. Haraway, Donna. “Tentacular Thinking: Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthuluecene.” In Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene, 30–57. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016. Insieme, Laboratorio Zen. www.salto-youth.net/tools/otlas-partner-finding/organ isation/laboratorio-zen-insieme.15388/. Accessed November 12, 2018. Insieme, Laboratorio ZEN. “La Storia di ZEN Insieme.” www.zeninsieme.it/lanostra-storia/ Accessed January 7, 2020. Krasny, Elke and Architekturzentrum Wien, (eds.) Hands-On Urbanism. The Right to Green. Hong Kong: mccm, 2012. Latour, Bruno. Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, England and Medford, MA: polity, 2017. Linebaugh, Peter. Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. Lorey, Isabell. State of Insecurity: Government of the Precarious. London: Verso, 2015. Lorey, Isabell. “The Precarious. Some Definitions and Concatenations” (no date): no page. http://worksatwork.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-PrecariousLorey.pdf?fa4924. Accessed August 3, 2018. Mumford, Eric. Designing the Modern City. Urbanism since 1850. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Nixon, Rob. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. NoPlanetB. “Video Contest.” https://it.noplanetb.net/campagna-di-lancio/?con test=video-detail&video_id=370. Accessed August 2, 2017. OMA and Ippolito Pestellini Laparelli. Palermo Atlas. Commissioned to OMA by Foundation Manifesta 12 Palermo. Milan: Humboldt Books, 2018. Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Ostrom, Elinor, ed. The Drama of the Commons. Washington: National Academic Press, 2002. Petrescu, Doina. “Gardeners of the Commons.” In Trans-Local –Act. edited by Doina Petrescu, Constatin Petcou, and Nishan Awat, 317–322. London: aaa peprav, 2011. Petrescu, Doina. “Being-In-Relation and Reinventing the Commons.” In Feminist Futures of Spatial Practice. materialisms, activisms, dialogues, pedagogies, Projections. edited by Meike Schalk et al., 101–110. Baunach: AADR, 2017. Standing, Guy. The Precariat. The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury, 2011. Tsing, Anna. Lowenhaupt. The Mushroom at the End of the World. On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. Tsing, Anna. “Earth Stalked by Man,” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 34, no. 1 (Spring 2016): 2–16. Vishmidt. Marina. “Permanent Reproductive Crisis: An Interview with Silvia Federici,” Mute (7 March 2013). www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/perman ent-reproductive-crisis-interview-silvia-federici. Accessed November 12, 2018. Watts, Michael J. Struggles over Geography: Violence, freedom, and Development at the Millenium, Hettner Lectures no. 3 University of Heidelberg, Department of Geography, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000. Albert, Michael. 2004. Parecon: Life After Capitalism. London: Verso. Azzellini, Dario. 2016. “Labour as a Commons: The Example of Worker-Recuperated Companies.” Critical Sociology (2016): 763–776. Caffentzis, George. 2010. “The Future of the Commons: Neoliberalism’s ‘Plan B’ or the Original Disaccumulation of Capital?” New Formations 69(1): 23–41. Cameron, Jenny. 2015. “Enterprise Innovation and Economic Diversity in Community Supported Agriculture: Sustaining the Agricultural Commons.” In Making Other Worlds Possible: Performing Diverse Economies, edited by Gerda Roelvink and Kevin St. Martin, 53–71. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Collective, Midnight Notes and Friends. 2009. Promissory Notes: From Crisis to Commons, www.midnightnotes.org/Promissory%20Notes.pdf Conill, Joana, Manuel Castells, Amalia Cardenas, and Lisa Servon. 2012. “Beyond the Crisis: The Emergence of Alternative Economic Practices.” In Aftermath: The Cultures of the Economic Crisis, edited by Manuel Castells, João Caraça, and Gustavo Cardoso, 210–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Angelis, Massimo. 2010. “The Production of the Commons and the ‘explosion’ of the Middle Class.” Antipode 42(4): 954–977. De Angelis, Massimo. 2017. “Grounding Social Revolution: Elements for a Systems Theory of Commoning.” In Perspectives on Commoning: Autonomist Principles and Practices, edited by Guido Ruivenkamp and Andy Hilton, 213–256. London: Zed Books. De Angelis, Massimo and David Harvie, 2014. “The Commons.” In The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization, edited by Martin Parker, George Cheney, Valérie Fournier, and Chris Land, 280–294. London: Routledge. de Peuter, Greig and Nick. Dyer-Witheford 2010. “Commons and Cooperatives.” Affinities: A Journal of Radical theory, culture, and Action 4(1): 30–56. Federici, Silvia. 2012. “Feminism and the Politics of the Commons in an Era of Primitive Accumulation.” In Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle, edited by Silvia Federici, 138–148. Oakland: PM Press. Federici, Silvia and George. Caffentzis. 2013. “Commons against and beyond Capitalism.” Upping the Anti: A Journal of Theory and Action (15): 83–97. Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162(3859): 1243–1248. Healy, Stephen. 2009. “Alternative Economies.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, 338–344. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kallis, Giorgos, Federico Demaria, and Giacomo D’Alisa 2014. “Introduction: Degrowth.” In Degrowth: A Vocabulary for A New Era, edited by Federico Demaria and Giorgos Kallis, 1–17. New York: Routledge. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Linebaugh, Peter. 2008. The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ness, Immanuel and Dario. Azzellini. 2011. Ours to Master and to Own: Workers’ Control from Commune to the Present. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rakopoulos, Theodoros. 2014. “The Crisis Seen from below, within, and Against: From Solidarity Economy to Food Distribution Cooperatives in Greece.” Dialectical Anthropology 38(2): 189–207. Wainwright, Hilary. 2012. “Unleashing the Creativity of Labour.” Transnational Institute, www.tni.org/en/article/unleashing-the-creativity-of-labour Wainwright, Hilary. 2014. “notes for a Political Economy of Creativity and solidarity.” In The Solidarity Economy Alternative: Emerging Theory and Practice, edited by Vishwas Satgar, 74–79. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Walker, Tom. 2013. “Labour as a Common-Pool Resource.” Social Network Unionism, https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/labour-as-a-commonpool-resource-by-tom-walker/