the art of rent

7/28/2019 The Art of Rent

1/20

THEARTOFRENT:GLOBALIZATION,MONOPOLYANDTHE

COMMODIFICATIONOFCULTURE

DavidHarvey

Thatculturehasbecomeacommodityofsomesortisundeniable.Yetthereisalsoawidespreadbeliefthatthereissomethingsospecialaboutcertaincultural

productsandevents(betheyinthearts,theatre,music,cinema,architectureor

morebroadlyinlocalizedwaysoflife,heritage,collectivememoriesandaffectivecommunities)astosetthemapartfromordinarycommoditieslikeshirtsand

shoes.Whiletheboundarybetweenthetwosortsofcommoditiesishighlyporous(perhapsincreasinglyso)therearestillgroundsformaintainingan

analyticseparation.Itmaybe,ofcourse,thatwedistinguishculturalartefacts

andeventsbecausewecannotbeartothinkofthemasanythingotherthanauthenticallydifferent,existingonsomehigherplaneofhumancreativityand

meaningthanthatlocatedinthefactoriesofmassproductionandconsumption.

Butevenwhenwestripawayallresiduesofwishfulthinking(oftenbackedbypowerfulideologies)wearestillleftwithsomethingveryspecialaboutthose

productsdesignatedascultural.How,then,canthecommoditystatusofsomanyofthesephenomenabereconciledwiththeirspecialcharacter?

Furthermore,theconditionsoflabourandtheclasspositionalityofthe

increasingnumberofworkersengagedinculturalactivitiesandproduction(morethan150,000artistswereregisteredintheNewYorkmetropolitan

regionintheearly1980sandthatnumbermaywellhaverisentomorethan250,000bynow)isworthyofconsideration.Theyformthecreativecoreofwhat

DanielBellcallstheculturalmass(definedasnotthecreatorsbutthe

transmittersofcultureinthemediaandelsewhere).1Thepoliticalstanceofthiscreativecoreaswellasoftheculturalmassisnotinconsequential.Inthe1960s,

recall,theartcollegeswerehotbedsofradicaldiscussion.Theirsubsequent

pacificationandprofessionalizationhasseriouslydiminishedagitationalpolitics.Revitalizingsuchinstitutionsascentresofpoliticalengagementandmobilizing

thepoliticalandagitationalpowersofculturalproducersissurelyaworthwhileobjectivefortheleftevenifittakessomespecialadjustmentsinsocialist

strategyandthinkingtodoso.Acriticalexaminationoftherelationsbetween

culture,capitalandsocialistalternativescanherebehelpfulasapreludetomobilizingwhathasalwaysbeenapowerfulvoiceinrevolutionarypolitics.

IMONOPOLYRENTANDCOMPETITION

Ibeginwithsomereflectionsonthesignificanceofmonopolyrentstounderstandinghowcontemporaryprocessesofeconomicglobalizationrelateto


2/20

localitiesandculturalforms.Thecategoryofmonopolyrentisanabstraction

drawnfromthelanguageofpoliticaleconomy.2Totheculturalproducersthemselves,usuallymoreinterestedinaffairsofaesthetics(sometimeseven

dedicatedtoidealsofartforartssake),ofaffectivevalues,ofsociallifeandoftheheart,suchatermmightappearfartootechnicalandaridtobearmuch

weightbeyondthepossiblecalculiofthefinancier,thedeveloper,therealestatespeculatorandthelandlord.ButIhopetoshowthatithasamuchgranderpurchase:thatproperlyconstructeditcangeneraterichinterpretationsofthe

manypracticalandpersonaldilemmasarisinginthenexusbetweencapitalist

globalization,localpoliticaleconomicdevelopmentsandtheevolutionofculturalmeaningsandaestheticvalues.

Allrentisbasedonthemonopolypowerofprivateownersofcertainportionsoftheglobe.Monopolyrentarisesbecausesocialactorscanrealizeanenhanced

incomestreamoveranextendedtimebyvirtueoftheirexclusivecontroloversomedirectlyorindirectlytradableitemwhichisinsomecrucialrespectsuniqueandnonreplicable.Therearetwosituationsinwhichthecategoryof

monopolyrentcomestothefore.Thefirstarisesbecausesocialactorscontrolsomespecialqualityresource,commodityorlocationwhich,inrelationtoa

certainkindofactivity,enablesthemtoextractmonopolyrentsfromthose

desiringtouseit.Intherealmofproduction,Marxargues,themostobviousexampleisthevineyardproducingwineofextraordinaryqualitythatcanbesold

atamonopolyprice.Inthiscircumstancethemonopolypricecreatestherent.3

Thelocationalversionwouldbecentrality(forthecommercialcapitalist)relativeto,say,thetransportandcommunicationsnetworkorproximity(forthe

hotelchain)tosomehighlyconcentratedactivity(suchasafinancialcentre).Thecommercialcapitalistandthehotelierarewillingtopayapremiumfortheland

becauseofaccessibility.Thesearetheindirectcasesofmonopolyrent.Itisnot

theland,resourceorlocationofuniquequalitieswhichistradedbutthecommodityorserviceproducedthroughtheiruse.Inthesecondcase,thelandor

resourceisdirectlytradedupon(aswhenvineyardsorprimerealestatesitesaresoldtomultinationalcapitalistsandfinanciersforspeculativepurposes).

Scarcitycanbecreatedbywithholdingthelandorresourcefromcurrentuses

andspeculatingonfuturevalues.Monopolyrentofthissortcanbeextendedtoownershipofworksofart(suchasaRodinoraPicasso)whichcanbe(and

increasinglyare)boughtandsoldasinvestments.ItistheuniquenessofthePicassoorthesitewhichhereformsthebasisforthemonopolyprice.

Thetwoformsofmonopolyrentoftenintersect.Avineyard(withitsunique

Chateauandbeautifulphysicalsetting)renownedforitswinescanbetradedatamonopolypricedirectlyascantheuniquelyflavouredwinesproducedonthat

land.APicassocanbepurchasedforcapitalgainandthenleasedtosomeoneelse

whoputsitonviewforamonopolyprice.Theproximitytoafinancialcentrecanbetradeddirectlyaswellasindirectlyto,say,thehotelchainthatusesitforits

ownpurposes.Butthedifferencebetweenthetworentalformsisimportant.Itisunlikely(thoughnotimpossible),forexample,thatWestminsterAbbeyand


3/20

BuckinghamPalacewillbetradeddirectly(eventhemostardentprivatizers

mightbalkatthat).Buttheycanbeandplainlyaretradeduponthroughthemarketingpracticesofthetouristindustry(orinthecaseofBuckinghamPalace,

bytheQueen).

Twocontradictionsattachtothecategoryofmonopolyrent.Bothofthemare

importanttotheargumentthatfollows.

First,whileuniquenessandparticularityarecrucialtothedefinitionofspecialqualities,therequirementoftradabilitymeansthatnoitemcanbesouniqueor

sospecialastobeentirelyoutsidethemonetarycalculus.ThePicassohastohaveamoneyvalueasdoestheMonet,theManet,theaboriginalart,the

archaeologicalartefacts,thehistoricbuildings,theancientmonuments,the

Buddhisttemples,andtheexperienceofraftingdowntheColorado,beinginIstanbulorontopofEverest.Thereis,asisevidentfromsuchalist,acertain

difficultyofmarketformationhere.Forwhilemarketshaveformedaround

worksofartand,tosomedegreearoundarchaeologicalartefacts(therearesomewelldocumentedcases,aswithAustralianAboriginalart,ofwhathappens

whensomeartformgetsdrawnintothemarketsphere)thereareplainlyseveralitemsonthislistthatarehardtoincorporatedirectlyintoamarket(thisisthe

problemwithWestminsterAbbey).Manyitemsmaynotevenbeeasytotrade

uponindirectly.Thecontradictionhereisthatthemoreeasilymarketablesuchitemsbecomethelessuniqueandspecialtheyappear.Insomeinstancesthe

marketingitselftendstodestroytheuniquequalities(particularlyifthesedependonqualitiessuchaswilderness,remoteness,thepurityofsomeaestheticexperience,andthelike).Moregenerally,tothedegreethatsuchitemsorevents

areeasilymarketable(andsubjecttoreplicationbyforgeries,fakes,imitationsorsimulacra)thelesstheyprovideabasisformonopolyrent.Iamputinmindhere

ofthestudentwhocomplainedabouthowinferiorherexperienceofEuropewas

comparedtoDisneyWorld:

AtDisneyWorldallthecountriesaremuchclosertogether,andtheyshowyou

thebestofeachcountry.Europeisboring.Peopletalkstrangelanguagesandthingsaredirty.SometimesyoudontseeanythinginterestinginEuropefor

days,butatDisneyWorldsomethingdifferenthappensallthetimeandpeople

arehappy.Itsmuchmorefun.Itswelldesigned.4

Whilethissoundsalaughablejudgementitissoberingtoreflectonhowmuch

EuropeisattemptingtoredesignitselftoDisneystandards(andnotonlyforthebenefitofAmericantourists).But,andhereistheheartofthecontradiction,the

moreEuropebecomesDisneyfied,thelessuniqueandspecialitbecomes.The

blandhomogeneitythatgoeswithpurecommodificationerasesmonopolyadvantages.Culturalproductsbecomenodifferentfromcommoditiesingeneral.


4/20

Theadvancedtransformationofconsumergoodsintocorporateproductsor

trademarkarticlesthatholdamonopolyonaestheticvalue,writesWolfgangHaug,hasbyandlargereplacedtheelementaryorgenericproducts,sothat

commodityaestheticsextendsitsborderfurtherandfurtherintotherealmofculturalindustries.5Conversely,everycapitalistseekstopersuadeconsumersof

theuniqueandnonreplicablequalitiesoftheircommodities(hencenamebrands,advertising,andthelike).Pressuresfrombothsidesthreatentosqueezeouttheuniquequalitiesthatunderliemonopolyrents.Ifthelatteraretobe

sustainedandrealized,therefore,somewayhastobefoundtokeepsome

commoditiesorplacesuniqueandparticularenough(andIwilllaterreflectonwhatthismightmean)tomaintainamonopolisticedgeinanotherwise

commodifiedandoftenfiercelycompetitiveeconomy.

Butwhy,inaneoliberalworldwherecompetitivemarketsaresupposedly

dominant,wouldmonopolyofanysortbetoleratedletalonebeseenasdesirable?Wehereencounterthesecondcontradictionwhich,atroot,turnsouttobeamirrorimageofthefirst.Competition,asMarxlongagoobserved,always

tendstowardsmonopoly(oroligopoly)simplybecausethesurvivalofthefittestinthewarofallagainstalleliminatestheweakerfirms.6Thefiercerthe

competitionthefasterthetrendtowardsoligopolyifnotmonopoly.Itis

thereforenoaccidentthattheliberalizationofmarketsandthecelebrationofmarketcompetitioninrecentyearshasproducedincrediblecentralizationof

capital(Microsoft,RupertMurdoch,Bertelsmann,financialservices,andawave

oftakeovers,mergersandconsolidationsinairlines,retailingandeveninolderindustrieslikeautomobiles,petroleum,andthelike).Thistendencyhaslong

beenrecognizedasatroublesomefeatureofcapitalistdynamics,hencetheantitrustlegislationintheUnitedStatesandtheworkofthemonopoliesand

mergerscommissionsinEurope.Buttheseareweakdefencesagainstan

overwhelmingforce.

Thisstructuraldynamicwouldnothavetheimportanceitdoeswereitnotfor

thefactthatcapitalistsactivelycultivatemonopolypowers.Theytherebyrealizefarreachingcontroloverproductionandmarketingandhencestabilizetheir

businessenvironmenttoallowofrationalcalculationandlongtermplanning,

thereductionofriskanduncertainty,andmoregenerallyguaranteethemselvesarelativelypeacefulanduntroubledexistence.Thevisiblehandofthe

corporation,asAlfredChandlertermsit,hasconsequentlybeenoffargreater

importancetocapitalisthistoricalgeographythantheinvisiblehandofthemarketmadesomuchofbyAdamSmithandparadedadnauseambeforeusin

recentyearsastheguidingpowerintheneoliberalideologyofcontemporaryglobalization.7

Butitisherethatthemirrorimageofthefirstcontradictioncomesmostclearly

intoview:marketprocessescruciallydependupontheindividualmonopolyofcapitalists(ofallsorts)overownershipofthemeansofproductionincluding


5/20

financeandland.Allrent,recall,isareturntothemonopolypowerofprivate

ownershipofanyportionoftheglobe.Themonopolypowerofprivatepropertyis,therefore,boththebeginningpointandtheendpointofallcapitalistactivity.

Anontradablejuridicalrightexistsattheveryfoundationofallcapitalisttrade,makingtheoptionofnontrading(hoarding,withholding,miserlybehaviour)an

importantproblemincapitalistmarkets.Puremarketcompetition,freecommodityexchangeandperfectmarketrationalityare,therefore,ratherrareandchronicallyunstabledevicesforcoordinatingproductionandconsumption

decisions.Theproblemistokeepeconomicrelationscompetitiveenoughwhile

sustainingtheindividualandclassmonopolyprivilegesofprivatepropertythatarethefoundationofcapitalismasapoliticaleconomicsystem.

Thislastpointdemandsonefurtherelaborationtobringusclosertothetopicathand.Itiswidelybuterroneouslyassumedthatmonopolypowerofthegrand

andculminatingsortismostclearlysignalledbythecentralizationandconcentrationofcapitalinmegacorporations.Conversely,smallfirmsizeiswidelyassumed,againerroneously,tobeasignofacompetitivemarket

situation.Bythismeasure,aoncecompetitivecapitalismhasbecomeincreasinglymonopolizedovertime.Theerrorarisesinpartbecauseofarather

toofacileapplicationofMarxsargumentsconcerningthelawofthetendency

forthecentralizationofcapital,ignoringhiscounterargumentthatcentralizationwouldsoonbringaboutthecollapseofcapitalistproductionifit

werenotforcounteractingtendencies,whichhaveacontinuousdecentralizing

effect.8Butitisalsosupportedbyaneconomictheoryofthefirmthatgenerallyignoresitsspatialandlocationalcontext,eventhoughitdoesaccept(onthose

rareoccasionswhereitdeignstoconsiderthematter)thatlocationaladvantageinvolvesmonopolisticcompetition.Inthenineteenthcentury,forexample,the

brewer,thebakerandthecandlestickmakerwereallprotectedtoconsiderable

degreefromcompetitioninlocalmarketsbythehighcostoftransportation.Localmonopolypowerswereomnipresent(eventhoughfirmsweresmallin

size),andveryhardtobreak,ineverythingfromenergytofoodsupply.Bythismeasurenineteenthcenturycapitalismwasfarlesscompetitivethannow.

Itisatthispointthatthechangingconditionsoftransportandcommunications

enterinascrucialdeterminingvariables.Asspatialbarriersdiminishedthroughthecapitalistpenchantfortheannihilationofspacethroughtime,manylocal

industriesandserviceslosttheirlocalprotectionsandmonopolyprivileges.9

Theywereforcedintocompetitionwithproducersinotherlocations,atfirstrelativelycloseby,butthenwithproducersmuchfurtheraway.Thehistorical

geographyofthebrewingtradeisveryinstructiveinthisregard.Inthenineteenthcenturymostpeopledranklocalbrewbecausetheyhadnochoice.By

theendofthenineteenthcenturybeerproductionandconsumptioninBritain

hadbeenregionalizedtoaconsiderabledegreeandremainedsountilthe1960s(foreignimports,withtheexceptionofGuinness,wereunheardof).Butthenthe

marketbecamenational(NewcastleBrownandScottishYoungersappearedinLondonandthesouth)beforebecominginternational(importssuddenlybecame


6/20

alltherage).Ifonedrinkslocalbrewnowitisbychoice,usuallyoutofsomemix

ofprincipledattachmenttolocalityorbecauseofsomespecialqualityofthebeer(basedonthetechnique,thewater,orwhatever)thatdifferentiatesitfrom

others.Plainly,theeconomicspaceofcompetitionhaschangedinbothformandscaleovertime.

Therecentboutofglobalizationhassignificantlydiminishedthemonopoly

protectionsgivenhistoricallybyhightransportandcommunicationscostswhiletheremovalofinstitutionalbarrierstotrade(protectionism)haslikewise

diminishedthemonopolyrentstobeprocuredbythatmeans.Butcapitalism

cannotdowithoutmonopolypowersandcravesmeanstoassemblethem.Sothequestionupontheagendaishowtoassemblemonopolypowersinasituation

wheretheprotectionsaffordedbythesocallednaturalmonopoliesofspaceandlocation,andthepoliticalprotectionsofnationalboundariesandtariffs,have

beenseriouslydiminishedifnoteliminated.

Theobviousansweristocentralizecapitalinmegacorporationsortosetuplooseralliances(asinairlinesandautomobiles)thatdominatemarkets.Andwe

haveseenplentyofthat.Thesecondpathistosecureevermorefirmlythemonopolyrightsofprivatepropertythroughinternationalcommerciallawsthat

regulateallglobaltrade.Patentsandsocalledintellectualpropertyrightshave

consequentlybecomeamajorfieldofstrugglethroughwhichmonopolypowersmoregenerallygetasserted.Thepharmaceuticalindustry,totakeaparadigmatic

example,hasacquiredextraordinarymonopolypowersinpartthroughmassivecentralizationsofcapitalandinpartthroughtheprotectionofpatentsandlicensingagreements.Anditishungrilypursuingevenmoremonopolypowers

asitseekstoestablishpropertyrightsovergeneticmaterialsofallsorts(includingthoseofrareplantsintropicalrainforeststraditionallycollectedby

indigenousinhabitants).Asmonopolyprivilegesfromonesourcediminishsowe

witnessavarietyofattemptstopreserveandassemblethembyothermeans.

Icannotpossiblyreviewallofthesetendencieshere.Idowant,however,tolook

morecloselyatthoseaspectsofthisprocessthatimpingemostdirectlyupontheproblemsoflocaldevelopmentandculturalactivities.Iwishtoshowfirst,that

therearecontinuingstrugglesoverthedefinitionofthemonopolypowersthat

mightbeaccordedtolocationandlocalitiesandthattheideaofcultureismoreandmoreentangledwithattemptstoreassertsuchmonopolypowersprecisely

becauseclaimstouniquenessandauthenticitycanbestbearticulatedasdistinctiveandnonreplicableculturalclaims.Ibeginwiththemostobvious

exampleofmonopolyrentgivenbythevineyardproducingwineof

extraordinaryqualitythatcanbesoldatamonopolyprice.

IIADVENTURESINTHEWINETRADE


7/20

Thewinetrade,likebrewing,hasbecomemoreandmoreinternationaloverthe

lastthirtyyearsandthestressesofinternationalcompetitionhaveproduced

somecuriouseffects.UnderpressurefromtheEuropeanCommunity,for

example,internationalwineproducershaveagreed(afterlonglegalbattlesandintensenegotiations)tophaseouttheuseoftraditionalexpressionsonwinelabels,whichcouldeventuallyincludetermslikeChateauanddomaineaswell

asgenerictermslikechampagne,burgundy,chablisorsauterne.Inthisway

theEuropeanwineindustry,ledbytheFrench,seekstopreservemonopolyrentsbyinsistingupontheuniquevirtuesofland,climateandtradition(lumped

togetherundertheFrenchtermterroir)andthedistinctivenessofitsproductcertifiedbyaname.Reinforcedbyinstitutionalcontrolslikeappellation

controletheFrenchwinetradeinsistsupontheauthenticityandoriginalityof

itsproductwhichgroundstheuniquenessuponwhichmonopolyrentcanbebased.

Australiaisoneofthecountriesthatagreedtothismove.ChateauTahbilkin

VictoriaobligedbydroppingtheChateaufromitslabel,airilypronouncingthatweareproudlyAustralianwithnoneedtousetermsinheritedfromother

countriesandculturesofbygonedays.Tocompensate,theyidentifiedtwofactorswhich,whencombined,giveusauniquepositionintheworldofwine.

Theirsisoneofonlysixworldwidewineregionswherethemesoclimateis

dramaticallyinfluencedbyinlandwatermass(thenumerouslakesandlocallagoonsmoderateandcooltheclimate).Theirsoilisofauniquetype(foundin

onlyoneotherlocationinVictoria)describedasred/sandyloamcolouredbyaveryhighFerricoxidecontent,whichhasapositiveeffectongrapequalityand

addsacertaindistinctiveregionalcharactertoourwines.Thesetwofactorsare

broughttogethertodefineNagambieLakesasauniqueViticulturalRegion(tobeauthenticated,presumably,bytheAustralianWineandBrandyCorporations

GeographicalIndicationsCommittee,setuptoidentifyViticulturalregions

throughoutAustralia).Tahbilktherebyestablishesacounterclaimtomonopolyrentsonthegroundsoftheuniquemixofenvironmentalconditionsintheregion

whereitissituated.ItdoessoinawaythatparallelsandcompeteswiththeuniquenessclaimsofterroiranddomainepressedbyFrenchwine

producers.10

Butwethenencounterthefirstcontradiction.Allwineistradableandthereforeinsomesensecomparablenomatterwhereitisfrom.EnterRobertParkerand

theWineAdvocatewhichhepublishesregularly.Parkerevaluateswinesfortheirtasteandpaysnoparticularmindtoterroiroranyothercultural

historicalclaims.Heisnotoriouslyindependent(mostotherguidesare

supportedbyinfluentialsectorsofthewineindustry).Herankswinesonascaleaccordingtohisowndistinctivetaste.Hehasanextensivefollowinginthe

UnitedStates,amajormarket.IfheratesaChateauwinefromBordeaux65pts

andanAustralianwine95ptsthenpricesareaffected.TheBordeauxwineproducersareterrifiedofhim.Theyhavesuedhim,denigratedhim,abusedhim


8/20

andevenphysicallyassaultedhim.Hechallengesthebasesoftheirmonopoly

rents.11

Monopolyclaims,wecanconclude,areasmuchaneffectofdiscourseandan

outcomeofstruggleastheyareareflectionofthequalitiesoftheproduct.Butifthelanguageofterroirandtraditionistobeabandonedthenwhatkindof

discoursecanbeputinitsplace?Parkerandmanyothersinthewinetradehave

inrecentyearsinventedalanguageinwhichwinesaredescribedintermssuchasflavorofpeachandplum,withahintofthymeandgooseberry.Thelanguage

soundsbizarrebutthisdiscursiveshift,whichcorrespondstorising

internationalcompetitionandglobalizationinthewinetrade,takesonadistinctiverole,reflectingthecommodificationofwineconsumptionalong

standardizedlines.

Butwineconsumptionhasmanydimensionsthatopenpathstoprofitable

exploitation.Formanyitisanaestheticexperience.Beyondthesheerpleasure

(forsome)ofafinewinewiththerightfood,therelieallsortsofotherreferentswithintheWesterntraditionthattrackbacktomythology(Dionysusand

Bacchus),religion(thebloodofJesusandcommunionrituals)andtraditionscelebratedinfestivals,poetry,songandliterature.Knowledgeofwinesand

properappreciationisoftenasignofclassandisanalyzableasaformof

culturalcapital(asBourdieuwouldputit).Gettingthewinerightmayhavehelpedtosealmorethanafewmajorbusinessdeals(wouldyoutrustsomeone

whodidnotknowhowtoselectawine?).Styleofwineisrelatedtoregionalcuisinesandtherebyembeddedinthosepracticesthatturnregionalityintoawayoflifemarkedbydistinctivestructuresoffeeling(itishardtoimagineZorba

theGreekdrinkingMondaviCalifornianjugwine,eventhoughthelatterissoldinAthensairport).

Thewinetradeisaboutmoneyandprofitbutitisalsoaboutcultureinallofits

senses(fromthecultureoftheproducttotheculturalpracticesthatsurrounditsconsumptionandtheculturalcapitalthatcanevolvealongsideamongboth

producersandconsumers).Theperpetualsearchformonopolyrentsentailsseekingoutcriteriaofspeciality,uniqueness,originalityandauthenticityineach

oftheserealms.Ifuniquenesscannotbeestablishedbyappealtoterroirand

tradition,orbystraightdescriptionofflavour,thenothermodesofdistinctionmustbeinvokedtoestablishmonopolyclaimsanddiscoursesdevisedto

guaranteethetruthofthoseclaims(thewinethatguaranteesseductionorthewinethatgoeswithnostalgiaandthelogfire,arecurrentadvertisingtropesin

theUS).Inpracticewhatwefindwithinthewinetradeisahostofcompeting

discourses,allwithdifferenttruthclaimsabouttheuniquenessoftheproduct.But,andhereIgobacktomystartingpoint,allofthesediscursiveshiftsand

swayings,aswellasmanyoftheshiftsandturnsthathaveoccurredinthe

strategiesforcommandingtheinternationalmarketinwine,haveattheirrootnotonlythesearchforprofitbutalsothesearchformonopolyrents.Inthisthe


9/20

languageofauthenticity,originality,uniqueness,andspecialunreplicable

qualitiesloomslarge.Thegeneralityofaglobalizedmarketproduces,inamannerconsistentwiththesecondcontradictionIearlieridentified,apowerful

forceseekingtoguaranteenotonlythecontinuingmonopolyprivilegesofprivatepropertybutthemonopolyrentsthatderivefromdepictingcommodities

asincomparable.

IIIURBANENTREPRENEURIALISM,MONOPOLYRENTANDGLOBALFORMS

Recentstruggleswithinthewinetradeprovideausefulmodelforunderstanding

awiderangeofphenomenawithinthecontemporaryphaseofglobalization.Theyhaveparticularrelevancetounderstandinghowlocalcultural

developmentsandtraditionsgetabsorbedwithinthecalculiofpoliticaleconomy

throughattemptstogarnermonopolyrents.Italsoposesthequestionofhowmuchthecurrentinterestinlocalculturalinnovationandtheresurrectionand

inventionoflocaltraditionsattachestothedesiretoextractandappropriate

suchrents.Sincecapitalistsofallsorts(includingthemostexuberantofinternationalfinanciers)areeasilyseducedbythelucrativeprospectsof

monopolypowers,weimmediatelydiscernathirdcontradiction:thatthemostavidglobalizerswillsupportlocaldevelopmentsthathavethepotentialtoyield

monopolyrentseveniftheeffectofsuchsupportistoproducealocalpolitical

climateantagonistictoglobalization!EmphasizingtheuniquenessandpurityoflocalBalineseculturemaybevitaltothehotel,airlineandtouristindustry,but

whathappenswhenthisencouragesaBalinesemovementthatviolentlyresiststheimpurityofcommercialization?TheBasquecountrymayappearapotentiallyvaluableculturalconfigurationpreciselybecauseofitsuniqueness,

butETAwithitsdemandforautonomyandpreparednesstotakeviolentactionisnotamenabletocommercialization.Letusprobealittlemoredeeplyintothis

contradictionasitimpingesuponurbandevelopmentpolitics.Todosorequires,

however,brieflysituatingthatpoliticsinrelationtoglobalization.

Urbanentrepreneurialismhasbecomeimportantbothnationallyand

internationallyinrecentdecades.BythisImeanthatpatternofbehaviourwithinurbangovernancethatmixestogetherstatepowers(local,metropolitan,

regional,nationalorsupranational)andawidearrayoforganizationalformsin

civilsociety(chambersofcommerce,unions,churches,educationalandresearchinstitutions,communitygroups,NGOs,etc.)andprivateinterests(corporateand

individual)toformcoalitionstopromoteormanageurban/regionaldevelopmentofsomesortorother.Thereisnowanextensiveliteratureonthis

topicwhichshowsthattheforms,activitiesandgoalsofthesegovernance

systems(variouslyknownasurbanregimes,growthmachinesorregionalgrowthcoalitions)varywidelydependinguponlocalconditionsandthemixof

forcesatworkwithinthem.12


10/20

Theroleofthisurbanentrepreneurialisminrelationtotheneoliberalformof

globalizationhasalsobeenscrutinizedatlength,mostusuallyundertherubricoflocalglobalrelationsandthesocalledspaceplacedialectic.Most

geographerswhohavelookedintotheproblemhaverightlyconcludedthatitisacategoricalerrortoviewglobalizationasacausalforceinrelationtolocal

development.Whatisatstakehere,theyrightlyargue,isarathermorecomplicatedrelationshipacrossscalesinwhichlocalinitiativescanpercolateupwardstoaglobalscaleandviceversaatthesametimeasprocesseswithina

particulardefinitionofscaleinterurbanandinterregionalcompetitionbeing

themostobviousexamplescanreworkthelocal/regionalconfigurationsofwhatglobalizationisabout.Globalizationshouldnotbeseen,therefore,asan

undifferentiatedunitybutasageographicallyarticulatedpatterningofglobalcapitalistactivitiesandrelations.13

Butwhat,exactly,doesitmeantospeakofageographicallyarticulatedpatterning?Thereis,ofcourse,plentyofevidenceofunevengeographicaldevelopment(atavarietyofscales)andatleastsomecogenttheorizingto

understanditscapitalisticlogic.Someofitcanbeunderstoodinconventionaltermsasasearchonthepartofmobilecapitals(withfinancial,commercialand

productioncapitalhavingdifferentcapacitiesinthisregard)togainadvantages

intheproductionandappropriationofsurplusvaluesbymovingaround.Trendscanindeedbeidentifiedwhichfitwithsimplemodelsofaracetothebottomin

whichthecheapestandmosteasilyexploitedlabourpowerbecomestheguiding

beaconforcapitalmobilityandinvestmentdecisions.Butthereisplentyofcountervailingevidencetosuggestthatthisisagrossoversimplificationwhen

projectedasamonocausalexplanationofthedynamicsofunevengeographicaldevelopment.Capitalingeneraljustaseasilyflowsintohighwageregionsas

intolowandoftenseemstobegeographicallyguidedbyquitedifferentcriteria

tothoseconventionallysetoutinbothbourgeoisandMarxistpoliticaleconomy.

Theprobleminpart(butnotwholly)derivesfromthehabitofignoringthe

categoryoflandedcapitalandtheconsiderableimportanceoflongterminvestmentsinthebuiltenvironmentwhicharebydefinitiongeographically

immobile(exceptintherelativeaccessibilitysense).Suchinvestments,

particularlywhentheyareofaspeculativesort,invariablycallforevenfurtherwavesofinvestmentsifthefirstwaveistoproveprofitable(tofillthe

conventioncentreweneedthehotelswhichrequirebettertransportand

communications,whichcallsforanexpansionoftheconventioncentre...).Sothereisanelementofcircularandcumulativecausationatworkinthedynamics

ofmetropolitanareainvestments(look,forexample,atthewholeDocklandsredevelopmentinLondonandthefinancialviabilityofCanaryWharfwhich

pivotsonfurtherinvestmentsbothpublicandprivate).Thisiswhaturban

growthmachinesareoftenallabout:theorchestrationofinvestmentprocessdynamicsandtheprovisionofkeypublicinvestmentsattherightplaceandtime

topromotesuccessininterurbanandinterregionalcompetition.


11/20

Butthiswouldnotbeasattractiveasitiswereitnotforthewaysinwhich

monopolyrentsmightalsobecaptured.Awellknownstrategyofdevelopers,forexample,istoreservethechoicestandmostrentablepieceoflandinsome

developmentinordertoextractmonopolyrentfromitaftertherestoftheprojectisrealized.Savvygovernmentswiththerequisitepowerscanengagein

thesamepractices.ThegovernmentofHongKong,asIunderstandit,islargelyfinancedbycontrolledsalesofpublicdomainlandfordevelopmentatveryhighmonopolyprices.Thisconverts,inturn,intomonopolyrentsonproperties

whichmakesHongKongveryattractivetointernationalfinancialinvestment

capitalworkingthroughpropertymarkets.Ofcourse,HongKonghasotheruniquenessclaims,givenitslocation,uponwhichitcanalsotradevery

vigorouslyinofferingmonopolyadvantages.Singapore,incidentally,setouttocapturemonopolyrentsandwashighlysuccessfulinsodoinginsomewhat

similarfashion,thoughbyverydifferentpoliticaleconomicmeans.

Urbangovernanceofthissortismostlyorientedtoconstructingpatternsoflocalinvestmentsnotonlyinphysicalinfrastructuressuchastransportand

communications,portfacilities,sewageandwater,butalsointhesocialinfrastructuresofeducation,technologyandscience,socialcontrol,cultureand

livingquality.Theaimistocreatesufficientsynergywithintheurbanization

processformonopolyrentstobecreatedandrealizedbybothprivateinterestsandstatepowers.Notallsucheffortsaresuccessful,ofcourse,buteventhe

unsuccessfulexamplescanpartlyorlargelybeunderstoodintermsoftheir

failuretorealizemonopolyrents.Butthesearchformonopolyrentsisnotconfinedtothepracticesofrealestatedevelopment,economicinitiativesand

governmentfinance.Ithasafarwiderapplication.

IVCOLLECTIVESYMBOLICCAPITAL,MARKSOFDISTINCTIONANDMONOPOLY

RENTS

Ifclaimstouniqueness,authenticity,particularityandspecialityunderlietheabilitytocapturemonopolyrents,thenonwhatbetterterrainisitpossibleto

makesuchclaimsthaninthefieldofhistoricallyconstitutedculturalartefactsandpracticesandspecialenvironmentalcharacteristics(including,ofcourse,the

built,socialandculturalenvironments)?Allsuchclaimsare,asinthewinetrade,

asmuchanoutcomeofdiscursiveconstructionsandstrugglesastheyaregroundedinmaterialfact.Manyrestuponhistoricalnarratives,interpretations

andmeaningsofcollectivememories,significationsofculturalpractices,andthelike:thereisalwaysastrongsocialanddiscursiveelementatworkinthe

constructionofsuchclaims.Onceestablished,however,suchclaimscanbe

pressedhomehardinthecauseofextractingmonopolyrentssincetherewillbe,inmanypeoplesmindsatleast,nootherplacethanLondon,Cairo,Barcelona,

Milan,Istanbul,SanFranciscoorwherever,inwhichtogainaccesstowhateverit

isthatissupposedlyuniquetosuchplaces.


12/20

Themostobviousexampleiscontemporarytourism,butIthinkitwouldbea

mistaketoletthematterrestthere.Forwhatisatstakehereisthepowerof

collectivesymboliccapital,ofspecialmarksofdistinctionthatattachtosome

place,whichhaveasignificantdrawingpowerupontheflowsofcapitalmoregenerally.Bourdieu,towhomweowethegeneralusageoftheseterms,unfortunatelyrestrictsthemtoindividuals(ratherlikeatomsfloatinginaseaof

structuredaestheticjudgements)whenitseemstomethatthecollectiveforms

(andtherelationofindividualstothosecollectiveforms)mightbeofevengreaterinterest.14Thecollectivesymboliccapitalwhichattachestonamesand

placeslikeParis,Athens,NewYork,RiodeJaneiro,BerlinandRomeisofgreatimportandgivessuchplacesgreateconomicadvantagesrelativeto,say,

Baltimore,Liverpool,Essen,LilleandGlasgow.Theproblemfortheselatter

placesistoraisetheirquotientofsymboliccapitalandtoincreasetheirmarksofdistinctionsoastobettergroundtheirclaimstotheuniquenessthatyields

monopolyrent.Giventhegenerallossofothermonopolypowersthrougheasiertransportandcommunicationsandthereductionofotherbarrierstotrade,thestruggleforcollectivesymboliccapitalbecomesevenmoreimportantasabasis

formonopolyrents.HowelsecanweexplainthesplashmadebytheGuggenheimMuseuminBilbaowithitssignatureGehryarchitecture?Andhow

elsecanweexplainthewillingnessofmajorfinancialinstitutions,with

considerableinternationalinterests,tofinancesuchasignatureproject?

TheriseofBarcelonatoprominencewithintheEuropeansystemofcities,totake

anotherexample,hasinpartbeenbasedonitssteadyamassingofsymboliccapitalanditsaccumulatingmarksofdistinction.Inthistheexcavationofa

distinctivelyCatalanhistoryandtradition,themarketingofitsstrongartistic

accomplishmentsandarchitecturalheritage(Gaudiofcourse)anditsdistinctivemarksoflifestyleandliterarytraditions,haveloomedlarge,backedbyadeluge

ofbooks,exhibitions,andculturaleventsthatcelebratedistinctiveness.Thishas

allbeenshowcasedwithnewsignaturearchitecturalembellishments(NormanFostersradiocommunicationstowerandMeiersgleamingwhiteMuseumof

ModernArtinthemidstofthesomewhatdegradedfabricoftheoldcity)andawholehostofinvestmentstoopenuptheharbourandthebeach,reclaimderelict

landsfortheOlympicVillage(withcutereferencetotheutopianismofthe

Icarians)andturnwhatwasoncearathermurkyandevendangerousnightlifeintoanopenpanoramaofurbanspectacle.Allofthiswashelpedonbythe

OlympicGameswhichopeneduphugeopportunitiestogarnermonopolyrents(Samaranch,PresidentoftheInternationalOlympicCommittee,justhappenedto

havelargerealestateinterestsinBarcelona).15

ButBarcelonasinitialsuccessappearsheadeddeepintothefirstcontradiction.Asopportunitiestopocketmonopolyrentsgalorepresentthemselvesonthe

basisofthecollectivesymboliccapitalofBarcelonaasacity(propertyprices

haveskyrocketedastheRoyalInstituteofBritishArchitectsawardsthewholecityitsmedalforarchitecturalaccomplishments),sotheirirresistibleluredraws


13/20

moreandmorehomogenizingmultinationalcommodificationinitswake.The

laterphasesofwaterfrontdevelopmentlookexactlylikeeveryotherinthewesternworld,thestupefyingcongestionofthetrafficleadstopressurestoput

boulevardsthroughpartsoftheoldcity,multinationalstoresreplacelocalshops,gentrificationremoveslongtermresidentialpopulationsanddestroysolder

urbanfabric,andBarcelonalosessomeofitsmarksofdistinction.ThereareevenunsubtlesignsofDisneyfication.Thiscontradictionismarkedbyquestionsandresistance.Whosecollectivememoryistobecelebratedhere(theanarchistslike

theIcarianswhoplayedsuchanimportantroleinBarcelonashistory,the

republicanswhofoughtsofiercelyagainstFranco,theCatalannationalists,immigrantsfromAndalusia,oralongtimeFrancoallylikeSamaranch)?Whose

aestheticsreallycount(thefamouslypowerfularchitectsofBarcelonalikeBohigas)?WhyacceptDisneyficationofanysort?

DebatesofthissortcannoteasilybestilledpreciselybecauseitiscleartoallthatthecollectivesymboliccapitalthatBarcelonahasaccumulateddependsuponvaluesofauthenticity,uniquenessandparticularnonreplicablequalities.Such

marksoflocaldistinctionarehardtoaccumulatewithoutraisingtheissueoflocalempowerment,evenofpopularandoppositionalmovements.Atthatpoint,

ofcourse,theguardiansofcollectivesymbolicandculturalcapital(themuseums,

theuniversities,theclassofbenefactors,andthestateapparatus)typicallyclosetheirdoorsandinsistuponkeepingtheriffraffout(thoughinBarcelonathe

MuseumofModernArt,unlikemostinstitutionsofitskind,hasremained

amazinglyandconstructivelyopentopopularsensibilities).Andifthatfails,thenthestatecanstepinwithanythingfromsomethinglikethedecencycommittee

setupbyMayorGiulianitomonitorculturaltasteinNewYorkCitytooutrightpolicerepression.Nevertheless,thestakeshereareofsignificance.Itisamatter

ofdeterminingwhichsegmentsofthepopulationaretobenefitmostfromthe

collectivesymboliccapitaltowhicheveryonehas,intheirowndistinctiveways,contributedbothnowandinthepast.Whyletthemonopolyrentattachedto

thatsymboliccapitalbecapturedonlybythemultinationalsorbyasmallpowerfulsegmentofthelocalbourgeoisie?EvenSingapore,whichcreatedand

appropriatedmonopolyrentssoruthlesslyandsosuccessfully(mainlyoutofits

locationalandpoliticaladvantage)overtheyears,sawtoitthatthebenefitswerewidelydistributedthroughhousing,healthcareandeducation.

ForthesortsofreasonsthattherecenthistoryofBarcelonaexemplifies,the

knowledgeandheritageindustries,thevitalityandfermentofculturalproduction,signaturearchitectureandthecultivationofdistinctiveaesthetic

judgementshavebecomepowerfulconstitutiveelementsinthepoliticsofurbanentrepreneurialisminmanyplaces(particularlyinEurope).Thestruggleto

accumulatemarksofdistinctionandcollectivesymboliccapitalinahighly

competitiveworldison.Butthisentrainsinitswakeallofthelocalizedquestionsaboutwhosecollectivememory,whoseaesthetics,andwhobenefits.

NeighbourhoodmovementsinBarcelonamakeclaimsforrecognitionandempowermentonthebasisofsymboliccapitalandcanassertapolitical


14/20

presenceinthecityasaresult.Theinitialerasureofallmentionoftheslave

tradeinthereconstructionofAlbertDockinLiverpoolgeneratedprotestsonthepartoftheexcludedpopulationofCaribbeanbackgroundandproducednew

politicalsolidaritiesamongamarginalizedpopulation.TheholocaustmemorialinBerlinhassparkedlongdrawnoutcontroversies.Evenancientmonuments

suchastheAcropolis,whosemeaningonewouldhavethoughtbynowwouldbewellsettled,aresubjecttocontestation.16Suchcontestationscanhavewidespread,evenifindirect,politicalimplications.Theamassingofcollective

symboliccapital,themobilizationofcollectivememoriesandmythologiesand

appealstospecificculturaltraditionsareimportantfacetstoallformsofpoliticalaction(bothleftandright).

Consider,forexample,theargumentsthathaveswirledaroundthereconstructionofBerlinafterGermanreunification.Allmannerofdivergent

forcesarecollidingthereasthestruggletodefineBerlinssymboliccapitalunfolds.Berlin,ratherobviously,canstakeaclaimtouniquenessonthebasisofitspotentialtomediatebetweeneastandwest.Itsstrategicpositioninrelation

totheunevengeographicaldevelopmentofcontemporarycapitalism(withtheopeningupoftheexSovietUnion)confersobviousadvantages.Butthereisalso

anotherkindofbattleforidentitybeingwagedwhichinvokescollective

memories,mythologies,history,culture,aestheticsandtradition.Itakeupjustoneparticularlytroublingdimensionofthisstruggle,onethatisnotnecessarily

dominantandwhosecapacitytogroundclaimstomonopolyrentunderglobal

competitionisnotatallclearorcertain.

Afactionoflocalarchitectsandplanners(withthesupportofcertainpartsofthe

localstateapparatus)seekstorevalidatethearchitecturalformsofeighteenthandnineteenthcenturyBerlinandinparticulartohighlightthearchitectural

traditionofSchinkel,totheexclusionofmuchelse.Thismightbeseenasa

simplematterofelitistaestheticpreference,butitisfreightedwithawholerangeofmeaningsthathavetodowithcollectivememories,monumentality,the

powerofhistoryandpoliticalidentityinthecity.Itisalsoassociatedwiththatclimateofopinion(articulatedinavarietyofdiscourses)whichdefineswhoisor

isnotaBerlinerandwhohasarighttothecityinnarrowlydefinedtermsof

pedigreeoradhesiontoparticularvaluesandbeliefs.Itexcavatesalocalhistoryandanarchitecturalheritagethatischargedwithnationalistandromanticist

connotations.Inacontextwheretheilltreatmentofandviolenceagainst

immigrantsiswidespread,itmayevenoffertacitlegitimationtosuchactions.TheTurkishpopulation(manyofwhomarenowBerlinborn)havesuffered

manyindignitiesandhavelargelybeenforcedoutfromthecitycentre.TheircontributiontoBerlinasacityisignored.Furthermore,thisromanticist/

nationalistarchitecturalstylefitswithatraditionalapproachtomonumentality

thatbroadlyreplicatesincontemporaryplans(thoughwithoutspecificreferenceandmaybeevenwithoutknowingit)AlbertSpeersplans(drawnupforHitlerin

the1930s)foramonumentalforegroundtotheReichstag.


15/20

Thisisnot,fortunately,allthatisgoingoninthesearchforcollectivesymbolic

capitalinBerlin.NormanFostersreconstructionoftheReichstag,forexample,orthecollectionofinternationalmodernistarchitectsbroughtinbythe

multinationals(largelyinoppositiontolocalarchitects)todominatethePotsdamerPlatz,arehardlyconsistentwithit.Andthelocalromanticist

responsetothethreatofmultinationaldominationcould,ofcourse,merelyendupbeinganinnocentelementofinterestinacomplexachievementofdiversemarksofdistinctionforthecity(Schinkel,afterall,hasconsiderable

architecturalmeritandarebuilteighteenthcenturycastlecouldeasilylenditself

toDisneyfication).Butthepotentialdownsideofthestoryisofinterestbecauseithighlightshowthecontradictionsofmonopolyrentcanalltooeasilyplayout.

Werethesenarrowerplansandexclusionaryaestheticsanddiscursivepracticestobecomedominant,thenthecollectivesymboliccapitalcreatedwouldbehard

totradefreelyuponbecauseitsveryspecialqualitieswouldpositionitlargely

outsideglobalizationandinsideanexclusionarypoliticalculturethatrejectsmuchofwhatglobalizationisabout.Thecollectivemonopolypowersthaturban

governancecancommandcanbedirectedtowardsoppositiontothebanal

cosmopolitanismofmultinationalglobalizationbutinsodoinggroundlocalizednationalism.

Thedilemmaveeringsocloseintopurecommercializationastolosethemarksofdistinctionthatunderliemonopolyrentsorconstructingmarksofdistinction

thataresospecialastobeveryhardtotradeuponisperpetuallypresent.But,

asinthewinetrade,therearealwaysstrongdiscursivegambitsinvolvedindefiningwhatisorisnotsospecialaboutaproduct,aplace,aculturalform,a

tradition,anarchitecturalheritage.Discursivebattlesbecomepartofthegameandadvocates(inthemediaandacademia,forexample)gaintheiraudienceas

wellastheirfinancialsupportinrelationtotheseprocesses.Thereismuchto

achieve,forexample,byappealstofashion(interestingly,beingacentreoffashionisonewayforcitiestoaccumulateconsiderablecollectivesymbolic

capital).Capitalistsarewellawareofthisandmustthereforewadeintotheculturewars,aswellasintothethicketsofmulticulturalism,fashionand

aesthetics,becauseitispreciselythroughsuchmeansthatmonopolyrentsstand

tobegained,ifonlyforawhile.Andif,asIclaim,monopolyrentisalwaysanobjectofcapitalistdesire,thenthemeansofgainingitthroughinterventionsin

thefieldofculture,history,heritage,aestheticsandmeaningsmustnecessarilybeofgreatimportforcapitalistsofanysort.Thequestionthenarisesastohowtheseculturalinterventionscanthemselvesbecomeapotentweaponofclass

struggle.

VMONOPOLYRENTANDSPACESOFHOPE

Bynowcriticswillcomplainattheseemingeconomicreductionismofthe

argument.Imakeitseem,theywillsay,asifcapitalismproduceslocalcultures,shapesaestheticmeaningsandsodominateslocalinitiativesastoprecludethe


16/20

developmentofanykindofdifferencethatisnotdirectlysubsumedwithinthe

circulationofcapital.Icannotpreventsuchareading,butthiswouldbeaperversionofmymessage.ForwhatIhopetohaveshown,byinvokingthe

conceptofmonopolyrentwithinthelogicofcapitalaccumulation,isthatcapitalhaswaystoappropriateandextractsurplusesfromlocaldifferences,local

culturalvariationsandaestheticmeaningsofnomatterwhatorigin.EuropeantouristscannowgetcommercializedtoursofNewYorksHarlem(withagospelchoirthrownin).ThemusicindustryintheUnitedStatessucceedsbrilliantlyin

appropriatingtheincrediblegrassrootsandlocalizedcreativityofmusiciansof

allstripes(almostinvariablytothebenefitoftheindustryratherthanthemusicians).Evenpoliticallyexplicitmusicwhichspeakstothelonghistoryof

oppression(aswithsomeformsofrapandJamaicanreggaeandKingstonDanceHallmusic)getscommodifiedandcirculatedwidelythroughouttheworld.The

shamelesscommodificationandcommercializationofeverythingis,afterall,one

ofthehallmarksofourtimes.

Butmonopolyrentisacontradictoryform.Thesearchforitleadsglobalcapital

tovaluedistinctivelocalinitiatives(andincertainrespectsthemoredistinctiveand,inthesetimes,themoretransgressivetheinitiativethebetter).Italsoleads

tothevaluationofuniqueness,authenticity,particularity,originalityandall

mannerofotherdimensionstosociallifethatareinconsistentwiththehomogeneitypresupposedbycommodityproduction.Andifcapitalisnotto

totallydestroytheuniquenessthatisthebasisfortheappropriationof

monopolyrents(andtherearemanycircumstanceswhereithasdonejustthatandbeenroundlycondemnedforsodoing)thenitmustsupportaformof

differentiationandallowofdivergentandtosomedegreeuncontrollablelocalculturaldevelopmentsthatcanbeantagonistictoitsownsmoothfunctioning.It

canevensupport(thoughcautiouslyandoftennervously)allmannerof

transgressiveculturalpracticespreciselybecausethisisonewayinwhichtobeoriginal,creativeandauthenticaswellasunique.

Itiswithinsuchspacesthatallmannerofoppositionalmovementscanformevenpresupposing,asisoftenthecase,thatoppositionalmovementsarenot

alreadyfirmlyentrenchedthere.Theproblemforcapitalistofindwaystoco

opt,subsume,commodifyandmonetizesuchculturaldifferencesjustenoughtobeabletoappropriatemonopolyrentstherefrom.Insodoing,capitaloften

produceswidespreadalienationandresentmentamongtheculturalproducers

whoexperiencefirsthandtheappropriationandexploitationoftheircreativityfortheeconomicbenefitofothers,inmuchthesamewaythatwholepopulations

canresenthavingtheirhistoriesandculturesexploitedthroughcommodification.Theproblemforoppositionalmovementsistospeaktothis

widespreadalienationandexploitationandtousethevalidationofparticularity,

uniqueness,authenticity,cultureandaestheticmeaningsinwaysthatopenupnewpossibilitiesandalternatives.Attheveryminimumthismeansresistanceto

theideathatauthenticity,creativityandoriginalityareanexclusiveproductofbourgeoisratherthanworkingclass,peasantorothernoncapitalistichistorical


17/20

geographies,andthattheyaretheremerelytocreateamorefertileterrainfrom

whichmonopolyrentscanbeextractedbythosewhohaveboththepowerandthecompulsiveinclinationtodoso.Italsoentailstryingtopersuade

contemporaryculturalproducerstoredirecttheirangertowardscommodification,marketdominationandthecapitalisticsystemmoregenerally.

Itis,forexample,onethingtobetransgressiveaboutsexuality,religion,socialmoresandartisticconventions,butquiteanothertobetransgressiveinrelationtotheinstitutionsandpracticesofcapitalistdomination.Thewidespreadthough

usuallyfragmentedstrugglesthatexistbetweencapitalisticappropriationand

pastandpresentculturalcreativitycanleadasegmentofthecommunityconcernedwithculturalmatterstosidewithapoliticsopposedtomultinational

capitalismandinfavourofsomemorecompellingalternativebasedondifferentkindsofsocialandecologicalrelations.

Itisbynomeanscertain,however,thatattachmenttopurevaluesofauthenticity,originalityandanaestheticofparticularityofcultureisanadequatefoundationforaprogressiveoppositionalpolitics.Itcanalltooeasilyveerinto

local,regionalornationalistidentitypoliticsoftheneofascistsortofwhichtherearealreadyfartoomanytroublingsignsthroughoutmuchofEuropeaswellas

elsewhere.Thisisacentralcontradictionwithwhichtheleftmustinturn

wrestle.Thespacesfortransformationalpoliticsaretherebecausecapitalcanneveraffordtoclosethemdown.Theyprovideopportunitiesforsocialist

opposition.Theycanbethelocusofexplorationofalternativelifestylesoreven

ofsocialphilosophies(muchasCuritibainBrazilhaspioneeredideasofurbanecologicalsustainabilitytothepointofreapingconsiderablefamefromits

initiatives).Theycan,asintheParisCommuneof1871orinthenumerousurbanbasedpoliticalmovementsaroundtheworldin1968,beacentralelement

inthatrevolutionaryfermentthatLeninlongagocalledthefestivalofthe

people.ThefragmentedoppositionalmovementstoneoliberalglobalizationasmanifestinSeattle,Prague,Melbourne,BangkokandNiceandthenmore

constructively,asthe2001WorldSocialForuminPortoAlegre(inoppositiontotheannualmeetingsofthebusinesselitesandgovernmentleadersinDavos),

indicatesuchanalternativepolitics.Itisnotwhollyantagonistictoglobalization

butwantsitonverydifferentterms.Thestrivingforacertainkindofculturalautonomyandsupportforculturalcreativityanddifferentiationisapowerful

constitutiveelementinthesepoliticalmovements.

Itisnoaccident,ofcourse,thatitisPortoAlegreratherthanBarcelona,Berlin,SanFranciscoorMilanthathasopeneditselftosuchoppositionalinitiatives.17

Forinthatcity,theforcesofcultureandofhistoryarebeingmobilizedbyapoliticalmovement(ledbytheBrazilianWorkersParty)inaquitedifferentway,

seekingadifferentkindofcollectivesymboliccapitaltothatflauntedinthe

GuggenheimMuseuminBilbaoortheextensiontotheTateGalleryinLondon.ThemarksofdistinctionbeingaccumulatedinPortoAlegrederivefromits

struggletofashionanalternativetoglobalizationthatdoesnottradeonmonopolyrentsinparticularorcaveintomultinationalcapitalismingeneral.In


18/20

focusingonpopularmobilizationitisactivelyconstructingnewculturalforms

andnewdefinitionsofauthenticity,originalityandtradition.Thatisahardpathtofollow,aspreviousexamplessuchastheremarkableexperimentsinRed

Bolognainthe1960sand1970sshow.Socialisminonecityisnotaviableconcept.Butthenitisquiteclearthatnoalternativetothecontemporaryformof

globalizationwillbedeliveredtousfromonhigheither.Itwillhavetocomefromwithinmultiplelocalspacesconjoiningintoabroadermovement.

Itisherethatthecontradictionsfacedbycapitalistsastheysearchformonopoly

rentassumeacertainstructuralsignificance.Byseekingtotradeonvaluesof

authenticity,locality,history,culture,collectivememoriesandtraditiontheyopenaspaceforpoliticalthoughtandactionwithinwhichsocialistalternatives

canbebothdevisedandpursued.Thatspacedeservesintenseexplorationandcultivationbyoppositionalmovementsthatembraceculturalproducersand

culturalproductionasakeyelementintheirpoliticalstrategy.Thereareabundanthistoricalprecedentsformobilizingtheforcesofcultureinthisway(theroleofconstructivisminthecreativeyearsoftheRussianRevolutionfrom

191826isjustoneofmanyhistoricalexamplestobelearnedfrom).Hereliesoneofthekeyspacesofhopefortheconstructionofanalternativekindof

globalization.Oneinwhichtheprogressiveforcesofculturecanseekto

appropriateandunderminethoseofcapitalratherthantheotherwayround.

NOTES

1DanielBell,Theculturalcontradictionsofcapitalism,NewYork:BasicBooks1978,p.20;DavidHarvey,Theconditionofpostmodernity,Oxford:Basil

Blackwell,1989,pp.2901;3479;BrandonTaylor,Modernism,post

modernism,realism:acriticalperspectiveforart,Winchester:WinchesterSchoolofArtPress,1987,p.77.

2ThegeneraltheoryofrenttowhichIamappealingispresentedinDavid

Harvey,Thelimitstocapital,Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1982,chapter11.

3KarlMarx,Capital,vol.3,NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1967,pp.7745.

4CitedinDouglasKelbaugh,CommonPlace,Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,1997,p.51.


19/20

5WolfgangHaug,Commodityaesthetics,WorkingPapersSeries,Departmentof

ComparativeAmericanCultures,WashingtonStateUniversity,2000,p.13.

6IhavesummarizedMarxsviewsonmonopolyinHarvey,Thelimitstocapital,

chapter5.

7AlfredChandler,Thevisiblehand:themanagerialrevolutioninAmerican

business,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1977.

8Marx,Capitalvol.3,p.246.SeealsoHarvey,Limitstocapital,chapter5.

9KarlMarx,Grundrisse,Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin,1973,pp.52439.

ForageneralexpansionofthisargumentseeHarvey,Thelimitstocapital,chapter12;Theconditionofpostmodernity,part3andforaspecificapplication

oftheconceptseeWilliamCronon,Naturesmetropolis,NewYork,Norton,1991.

10TahbilkWineClub,WineClubCircular,Issue15,June2000,TahbilkWineryandVineyard,Tabilk,Victoria,Australia

11WilliamLangewiesche,Themilliondollarnose,AtlanticMonthly,vol.286,No.6,December2000,pp.1122.

12BobJessop,Anentrepreneurialcityinaction:HongKongsemerging

strategiesinpreparationfor(inter)urbancompetition,UrbanStudies,37(12),2000,pp.22872313andDavidHarvey,Frommanagerialismto

entrepreneurialism:thetransformationofurbangovernanceinlatecapitalism,GeografiskaAnnaler,71B,1989,pp.317.

13SeeKevinCox,ed.,Spacesofglobalization:reassertingthepowerofthelocal,

NewYork:GuilfordPress,1997.

14PierreBourdieu,Distinction:asocialcritiqueofthejudgementoftaste,

London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1984.


20/20

15DonaldMcNeill,TalesfromthenewBarcelona:urbanchangeandthe

Europeanleft,NewYork:Routledge,1999.

16ArgyroLoukaki,Whosegeniusloci:contrastinginterpretationsoftheSacred

RockoftheAthenianAcropolis,AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers,87(2),1997,pp.30629.

17RebeccaAbers,Practicingradicaldemocracy:lessonsfromBrazil,

Plurimondi,1(2)1999,6782;andIgnacioRamonet,PortoAlegre,LeMondeDiplomatique,No.562,1,January2001.

the art of rent

Documents