Locating Urban Conflicts

Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Everyday

W. Pullan, B. Baillie, W. Pullan, B. Baillie, W. Pullan, B. Baillie

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137316882
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Cities have emerged as the epicentres for many of today's ethno-national and religious conflicts. This book brings together key themes that dominate our current attention including emerging areas of contestation in rapidly changing and modernising cities and the effects of extreme and/or enduring conflicts upon ordinary civilian life.

1

Introduction

Wendy Pullan and Britt Baillie

Urban conflict/urban plurality

Cities have emerged as the epicentres for many of today’s ethno-national and religious conflicts. Some are household names, like Jerusalem and Berlin, featuring regularly on television and computer screens all over the world; others are more obscure, such as Vukovar and Ceuta, known primarily to regional pop-ulations; and certain locations linger in our urban historical memory, including Odessa and Jaffa. Likewise, we find cities that have been avidly researched and others hardly at all. What unites them, at least for the purposes of this book, is that all are or have been subject to intense levels of conflict. Most of these cities experience or have experienced some form of unusually prominent division or segregation in their populations, activities, spatial topographies and aspirations. Each one may be or has been regarded as contested, and most have developed some form of urban frontier within them; these may be physical barriers in the topography, noticeable variations in societal markers and practices, or what are often less visible rifts in cultural perception and understanding.

In all, plurality is a question. This materialises in two different ways: most obviously, within the cities themselves plurality is usually weak or largely rejected, particularly in terms of how conflicts are perceived and enacted. At another level, it has to do with a plurality of cities, a collection. In gathering together in this volume a number of cities with diverse causes and manifestations of conflict, one might consider what, if anything, unifies these places. If the first question is rooted in the problems of the cities themselves, the second may be regarded more as a concern of research and better understanding. Locating Urban Conflicts has been prepared with the attitude that contextuali-sation and where possible, comparison, as well as good respect for difference, can offer insights into both specific situations and urban conflict in general. It offers a variety of ways to locate urban conflicts both inside and between cities. The matter of location, being relational rather than isolating in either or all of its physical, social and metaphorical guises, is itself taken as key to understanding.

Figure 1.1 Graffiti calling for plurality on a road block in Issawiya, East Jerusalem
Source: Conflict in Cities 2005 ©.

Not everyone would agree with this idea. In the academic study of contested cities it is notoriously difficult to find meaningful relationships beyond checklist comparisons. The problem is worsened by the fact that complex and emotional situations often dominate the cities, producing intense and long conflicts. Residents of conflicted cities are often quick to declare that they are not interested in other places with similar problems. They claim that no city could be as difficult as the one they live in, no conflict as intense or unjust as the one in which they find themselves entangled. Regarding themselves as victims, they perceive their fates to be distinct and exclusive. Thus, the question of whether, and to what extent, each urban conflict is unique is one that must be taken seriously and sympathetically. There is no question that historical contexts and the convergence of political, social and economic conditions, as well as the effects upon residents and otherwise involved individuals and groups, are particular to each city.

Nonetheless, many cities are now subject to ethno-national and religious disputes, and whilst some conflicts may be longer, or more violent, or less intractable, the studies presented here show that common themes do emerge and similar narratives may be recognised from city to city. And as much as residents claim that their situations are unique, there is evidence, often at a grassroots level in inter-urban support groups, political links, urban arts movements, and perhaps most blatantly in graffiti (Figure 1.1), that some people do wish to learn from each other. At an academic level, whether as outsiders or direct stakeholders, the researchers that study such cities are also subject to the biased nature of the conflicts and, for most, the terrain of study is metaphorically, if not occasionally in actuality, an urban minefield. For both residents and researchers, the value of context is unmistakable. The recognition that similar situations exist in other cities certainly may begin to loosen if not break down claims of unique victimisation.

Even more important is the opportunity to explore where and how the understanding of conflict can be prodded and shifted from singularity to plurality, and by doing so, be pushed beyond the tendency to see only in partisan ways to something that is more collective in its constitution and accountability. In cities where identities are overwhelmingly rendered and internalised in terms of ‘us and them’, or ‘me, my people’ and ‘those people, the Other’, the introversion of monolithic factions results in entrenched and polarised opposition. In fundamental terms, the problem requires a consideration of the usefulness of the notion of ‘we’. Hannah Arendt explains it as the primary reality of all political life, corresponding to the human condition of plurality in inhabiting the earth.¹ With respect to conflicts of identity – ethnic, national and religious – ‘we’ stands apart, certainly, from the individual or the world as a collection of individuals, but also from the oppositional, my camp against yours. Overly simple black-and-white definitions rarely suffice; plurality is a play upon difference and similarity, based upon potentially infinite distinctions – both within groups and between groups – that are key to our humanity where, in Arendt’s words, ‘we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives or will live’.²

The benefits or not of plurality may be debated, but as a primary quality of modern cities it is sine qua non; for a city to be a city, it must be seen in such terms. Yet when conflict becomes extreme, plurality, and especially diversity, is one of the primary qualities to be rejected. In the short term, it may be sacri-ficed in order to separate warring groups and stop violence. But more sustained situations show that plurality becomes expendable in favour of divisions, fragmentation and isolation, producing the short-sightedness that characterises urban conflicts. In bringing together the essays for this volume, we suggest that exposure to a spectrum of urban examples, considered from different points of view, begins to challenge the myopia. Many of the chapters examine the oppositional factions that have developed as a result of lack of foresight and intolerant attitudes and practices, including the place-appropriation strategies that accompany them. Others investigate the make-up of population groups and factions that are often described in relatively simple and monolithic terms but are usually more complex and fragmented than would appear.

Plurality, even when its presence is feeble, remains the over-riding theme to urban everyday life. The ontological understanding of plurality can be, and has been, interpreted in a variety of ways. In this book, which dwells upon the many roles of the everyday in urban conflicts, practical situations are used to describe and assess conditions that may or may not be similar, and from them glean insights that are more broad and interpretative. Ethno-national and religious conflict in cities exists all over the world. Here we concentrate upon Europe and the Middle East, as areas that have enjoyed cooperation but, more frequently, experience misunderstandings and conflicts, many of which have emerged from the colonial legacy. The cities of these two regions have developed differently in many ways, but share certain roots and traditions. A combination of historical and contemporary contributions questions to what extent shifts in larger bodies of state, empire or global sovereignty impact upon centres of population in cities that themselves are also undergoing rapid change: how is it that the conflicts which stem from larger fields of ethnicity, nation and religion become reinterpreted at the urban level? The essays have been compiled with the belief that such a question is best approached through involving many disciplines that interrogate the city: urbanism, architecture, politics, archaeology, geography, anthropology and sociology. Reflecting this scope, the phenomena observed and investigated range from the verbal and textual to the spatial, material and environmental. We are resigned to limited unity in methods of research in favour of the critical distance that juxtaposition rather than integration poses.

This acceptance and even willingness for friction in both approach and findings reiterates the nature of the cities themselves as well as the wider research field. We emphasise that this territory is not consensual and our aim is not, even if we were able, to make it more so. Such an attitude does not lend itself to tidy research, but instead gives credence to the complexities of the struggles and attempts to dismantle the idea that any city can be comprehended from only one perspective or domain. It is a point made by Carl H. Nightingale in his extensive history of urban segregation: ‘if we emphasise the messier aspects of segregation, we actually get a clearer picture of the long-distance connections between different cities’ experiences with racial dividing lines, and we can also offer richer contexts for comparisons between cities’.³

It should be stressed that we do not assume plurality to ensure equality. In many of the chapters in this book there is a deep sense of pervading inequality in urban conflicts between peoples and their opportunities. The situations described can be highly asymmetrical, especially in the case of conflicts that have emerged from war or occupation. Although most peace negotiations and many academic studies at least pay lip-service to a notional equality between proponents or factions, in reality it is unusual to find a truly balanced situation. At most stages of enquiry we deal with what is related but unlike. William E. Connolly points out that pluralism does not necessarily mean equality or relativism; rather, he suggests the need for a ‘tolerance of ambiguity’⁴ that ultimately allows some form of identity which may be found over time. This results from the possibility of change, made effective in the sharing of time.⁵

In a broad sense, everyday life in urban situations is based in praxis, that is, simply what people in cities do.⁶ It is a form of participation affirming Arendt’s contention that ‘plurality is the condition of human action’,⁷ so that plurality, action and the everyday become a framework in which to locate urban events. Many of the essays in this book examine how extreme levels of con-flict can distort or even fracture relationships, thrusting ordinary people into an unexpected public arena of disputed rights and violent territories. Michel de Certeau’s ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ are useful to distinguish between what may be seen as formal proposals and human responses to such scenarios. He argues that tactics use, manipulate or divert a given situation as a means of adapting but not succumbing to conditions on the ground.⁸ Although he judges tactics to be primarily ‘the art of the weak’, in contrast to strategies that are ‘places of power . . . elaborate theoretical places’,⁹ he points out that with tactics an inhabitant can establish ‘a degree of plurality and creativity’.¹⁰ The essays in this book show that quotidianal practices in contested cities require adaptation on a regular basis, so that life becomes a form of survival or resilience, or in some cases, resistance.

Over time, the variety of formal attempts to deal with urban conflicts have become embedded in common forms of institutionalisation, making conflict resemble an industry in some cities. Treaties, agreements, memorials, iconic buildings and sometimes the city itself may be construed as scenes of fracture or resolution. With the latter, an image of post-conflict may be propagated even when it is not clear to some parties that the conflict has ended. Such practices raise expectations to unrealistic levels, assuming that widely disparate cultures, their beliefs and practices can be united in the city and rendered as fact.¹¹ Town plans, minority policies and even peace negotiations can carry similar risks of being too encompassing, too quick or too complete, glossing over nuances and leaving out subtle details of the problem. A significant value of urban praxis is its capacity for ambiguity that systematic policies, planning and monuments are intended to rule out. To be sure, many of the problems of urban conflicts are rooted in the inability of populations in contested cities to appreciate the ambiguities of their own claims and causes. But first of all we must question whether this is based upon insurmountable differences between urban groups or the obduracy of parties and institutions – whether national, municipal, military or paramilitary – who seek an incontrovertible right to control. What creates or contributes to flashpoints, why urban populations do or do not cope, which urban practices survive and prevail, and ultimately what hope exists for transformation, remain key areas in understanding urban conflicts.

A further question centres around the singularity of the urban experience: is the city central to the argument or simply a lens through which a wider conflict is viewed? One direction of scholarship claims that the built environment of cities, as repositories of cultural identity, have become targets for attack rather than collateral to be claimed or negotiated; from this, the idea of urbicide has developed.¹² However, not all of the conflicts in this volume can be attributed to the intentional targeting of cities; perhaps less dramatically, some are the result of differences that have arisen between groups from within cities, reflecting larger ethno-national and religious disputes.¹³ A city may be contested because of its standing as a capital or major religious centre, in which case it usually takes on an overall symbolic significance, as in the case of Berlin or Jerusalem. In other cases, conflict may form new urban topographies where certain quarters or landmarks, are repeatedly threatened whilst other parts of the city may be rarely affected and relatively calm.

People associate themselves with their own communities, where they feel most secure, and it is residential segregation that usually forms the basis for how we envision divided cities. Maps of urban conflicts often show this as a way of determining boundaries. However, the essays in this volume focus mostly upon the urban public sphere, and more specifically upon public places. The public domain – the places where people do or do not meet, where people congregate to socialise, eat and drink, shop, pray, demonstrate, even riot – are key indicators both to the reasonable functioning of the city and to its conflict. These are the spaces of encounter, and therefore of risk. Whilst neighbourhoods that are predominantly integrated or segregated say much about the city, the active and performative qualities of conflicts are located mostly in the public sphere. They may be more difficult to revive and maintain, yet at the same time are often more fluid and open to change than well-entrenched residential areas. The scenarios may vary, but the public sphere and associated spaces is where we are best able to judge if cities are working; they are essential for viable cities.

Structure of the book

The chapters in Locating Urban Conflicts reflect on three themes: ‘Spatial Horizons’, ‘Reassessing Divisions’ and ‘Being Modern’. Various understandings of space inform our thinking about contested cities. In the ‘Spatial Horizons’ section, the authors consider how urban space is defined, shaped and/or transformed by conflict. In all cities, walls and borders exist. They help people to orientate, navigate, frame and define themselves, their city and their community. Yet, boundaries are manifested in various forms. They can be both zones of interaction (with high permeability) and spaces of division (with low permeability). Whilst borders and boundaries seem to define many contested cities, the notion of the horizon offers a different insight into how urban spaces may or may not be determined. Gadamer explains horizons as ‘not a rigid boundary, but something that moves with one and invites one to advance further’.¹⁴ In cities, they reflect the fluid and open nature of the urban domain which, in favourable circumstances, allows seemingly limitless poss...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: Spatial Horizons
• Part II: Reassessing Divisions
• Part III: Being Modern
• Selected Bibliography
• Index