Self Organisation & Self Governance

author:

Theoretical background

‘Bottom-up development’, ‘tactical urbanism’ (Rauws, 2016), ’new urbanism’ (González et al., 2012) and even ‘guerrilla urbanism’ (Finn, 2014) are some of the evocative terms used by academics to describe forms of citizen-led planning, or urban experiments, in cities. With roots in the concept of ‘the right to the city’, and the right to “change ourselves by changing our world” (Harvey, 2003, p. 1) they are harnessed to refer to a range of actions where citizens or groups make decisions about or intervene in the urban environment to meet their individual or group needs, in distinction from traditional ‘top-down’ planning processes. Interventions can be low-cost and experimental (Lydon, 2015), participatory and delivered in close partnership (González et al., 2012) or innovative or creative, and are often designed to make an artistic or social statement (Finn, 2014) .

In ‘Civic initiatives in urban development’, Rauws (2016) explains how adopting a nuanced approach to understanding how these experiments arise can be beneficial for analysis and policymaking in order to maximise their positive effects, and minimise their negative ones. He argues that such civic initiatives can be labelled as ‘self-organising’ or ‘selfgoverning’ depending on how they emerge and how they operate. ‘Self governing’ initiatives, he argues, are deliberately organised and work towards achieving a collective ambition. ‘Self organising’ initiatives, on the other hand, emerge spontaneously and consist of individual actions. In this case, there is an emphasis on the autonomy of each individual citizen and the presence of “individual ambitions” within the collective, but with recognition that the impact is “greater than the sum of its parts” (2016, p. 340). Rauws also discusses the ways and means which planning authorities can facilitate self organising and self governing initiatives to maximise positive effects and minimise negative ones. Proactive actions by planners can include sharing best practice for urban experiments, encouraging positive externalities (through financial support, incentives or regulations, for example) and continuously adapting their approach through monitoring, evaluation and learning (2016, p. 356). However, inaction by planning authorities can lead to the negative effects of such initiatives becoming prevalent. This is particularly important for self-organised urban experiments, which can evolve in a more unpredictable manner (2016, p. 345) and therefore may require more careful facilitation. Kelly, in particular, explains how inaction towards vacant buildings in urban areas can lead to a downward spiral of disinvestment and community ‘blight’, by providing a haven for illegal activity, creating fire risks, and harming the image of neighbourhoods (2004, p. 210). Martinez López highlights other negative side effects, such as ’self-ghettoisation’ and the persistence of societal inequalities (2013, p. 2). Proactive initiatives that enable or empower citizens groups to seek alternative productive uses for these buildings, such as for artists’ space as has been demonstrated by municipalities in other European countries, such as in Italy (Dimitrova, 2020).

Within the domain of self organisation and self governance, the relationship between an urban experiment and the planning authority can be defined in terms of models of participation. The concept of Arnstein’s ladder of participation, originally developed in the 1960’s is a foundational text that explores the practical meaning of participation for all participants involved, particularly around power relations (Arnstein, 1969). Through Kostus and Sowada the model has been developed and extended over time to account for the impact of increased civil liberties, radicalisation and potential for ‘rebel action’, where “social entities start to force their opinions on democratic authorities” (2017, p.81). Kotus and Sowada argue that the coincidence of attitudes between local authorities, citizens and urban movements leads to emergent forms of participation (2017). Where such authorities transition towards a more deliberative or deliberative-directive approach - where space for participation is created and mutual trust is fostered - this arguably leads to a productive state of “partnership” (Arnstein, 1969) or “citizen power” (Kotus and Sowada, 2017). Jean Hillier (2007) provides an example in Tromsø, where immense dissatisfaction from citizens with the proposed masterplan for the city centre forced the city to adopt a participatory (or more ‘deliberative’) approach, known as the ‘Tromsø experiment’.

Discussion

Self governing or self organising?

From the outset, Fargemarka Boligprosjekt appears to exhibit clear characteristics of a self governing urban initiative, as defined by Rauws (2016). It is ‘deliberately organised’ in the form of regular weekly meetings, a mailing list, working groups and a partly codified organisational structure. It also has a Vision (arguably a ’collective ambition’) which includes the objective to have an impact on sustainability beyond the local area. However, when examined more closely, it also exhibits clear characteristics of a more ‘spontaneous’ self organising structure, where independent actions give rise to wider impact that is greater than the sum of each action in itself. This is reflected by the high level of independence of group members (it is accepted that any member can carry out an action if consistent with the group Vision) and the autonomy of individual initiatives (such as lobbying politicians, individual art projects and squatting). Furthermore, there are clear and highly distinct ‘individual ambitions’ or intentions within the group. For some members, these include finding a secure location for a mobile home on site, testing new methods of ‘co-using’ spaces, and normalising an existing squatting initiative. This hypothesis is compounded by the lack of a clear cause-effect relationship between the actions of Fargemarka and desired wider system change, and the relatively spontaneous nature of group actions.

“my soul is to park my house where I could go outside and be in this wonderful green area, currently we live on a parking lot and it’s not like the idyllic tiny house life”

“When I entered the housing market, I paid 300,000 NOK for my first apartment. It’s ridiculous that today you have to invest 3 million, it’s impossible! This was my first motivation for joining the project. It was about cheap housing”

- Members reflects on their individual intentions for Fargemarka.

Co-production with the Municipality

Within Fargemarka, there is a broad (but as of yet uncodified) understanding of a ‘short’ and ‘long-term’ approach to the development of the abandoned properties at Østmarka. The short-term approach envisages a form of ‘insurgent space making’ in direct challenge to the status quo, through the creation of an ‘invented’ space, which enables members to realise their individual and collective ambitions for the area (Zérah, Chakravarty and Negi, 2016, p. 91-110). Members understand that such actions could be illegal, or outside the normal planning framework.

“The group appeared to be somewhat polarised and some members gave the impression that civil disobedience should be the main instrument, without this being written. This created uncertainty.”

“Eventually, instruments I could not use (burglary, planning of house occupation) were used and I therefore chose to withdraw... parts of the group rushed forward and in my eyes “ruined” the opportunity for further cooperation”

- Members reflects on different attitudes to illegal action in Fargemarka

On the other hand, many members recognise this as unsustainable in the long term, and envision a ‘partnership’ model with the Municipality. In this scenario, a deal would be struck with the Municipality to give a level of security of control over the space and infrastructure of Østmarka. This approach resonates with other ‘co-production’ models across Europe, where residents produce their own services in partnership with authorities. The authorities themselves could transition to becoming a ‘facilitator’ of the initiative, where Fargemarka is both the producer and consumer of its own services (Czischke, 2018).

A way forward for participation

These organisational concepts can help to explain and rationalise interactions between the Municipality and Fargemarka thus far, and potentially offer a roadmap for future collaboration. The attitude of the Municipality has, to an extent, been ‘directive’. It has outlined a possible approach it wishes to follow for redevelopment of the area, but is almost entirely lacking in detail and has failed to create a space for meaningful citizen participation. This has led to a sense of mistrust and the suspicion of a ‘hidden agenda’ that could favour, for example, private developers at the expense of communities. In the absence of such participatory spaces, the attitude of some members of Fargemarka can be considered as rebellious, or “taking actions that motivate the authority to change their standpoint” (Kotus and Sowada, 2017, p. 80). Within Fargemarka, examples of such actions include illegal squatting and hosting a musical event within the buildings. The present position of the Municipality is unlikely to be tenable, and could lead to increased ‘radicalisation’ amongst some citizens within Fargemarka or even further incidences of civil disobedience. This carries with it the risk that some of the ‘negative’ effects of self-organisation or self-governance go unchecked, particularly when considering the unpredictability of self-organised systems. The ‘Tromsø experiment’ has demonstrated how extreme dissatisfaction with the centralised planning process can force more facilitated open participation. Some members of the Association also believe that the Municipality doesn’t have sufficient resources or skills to perform effective participation activities. Therefore, co-delivering or co-producing activities with the Association could help to overcome these barriers.

Conclusion

Fargemarka Boligprosjekt exhibits some key characteristics of both a ‘self governing’ and ‘self organising’ system, with some semblance of organisational structure heavily supplemented with individual and often spontaneous actions reflecting the very specific needs and objectives of individuals within the group. The laissez-faire attitude of the municipality towards both Fargemarka and the unused buildings of Østmarka risks creating community blight, and does not create the environment for healthy citizen participation. However, application of planning theory points to a productive way forward - where Fargemarka and citizens are collaborative, and the Municipality creates spaces for engagement and trust-building through a more deliberative approach.