Both the occupation of squares and the squatting of buildings are seen as strategies for re-claiming public space. Recently, some occupations (Sydney, Oakland, London) have turned to squatting in order to utilise empty space as community centres or housing options, in particular after facing eviction from parks or squares. This week we ask: Is squatting the same as occupying? What are the pros and cons of taking empty buildings? And should squatting be an integral part of the Occupy strategy?
YES/ MICHAEL SABBAGH (MIKE D.)
The relationship between squatting and Occupy is far more complex than the contrast between the camp and indoor spaces. The Bank of Ideas in London is (or was) a fine example of why squatting, especially of large spaces, is and should remain an integral part of Occupy.
Traditionally squats are living and communal spaces. The sheer amount of community-oriented events that went on at Bank of Ideas over its short two and half month stint is mind-boggling. From the early days with Mark Thomas to a long evening of films, conversations and heart breaking stories with activists from No Borders South Wales, to some guy named “Thom”, not to mention the weekly clowning and yoga workshops – Bank of Ideas was truly a community space. The ground floor provided computers with web access open to the public, whilst the first floor consisted of a large communal space anchored by the kitchen – as an ideal communal space should be.
Besides all these events, Bank of Ideas housed the heart of Occupy LSX’s tech operation. There were many practical reasons for this, the least of which being reliable access to power and Internet. Anyone who spent time in the tech tents at St. Paul’s or Finsbury Square knows reliable power and Internet are hot commodities in outdoor spaces. It is easy to see how a larger, indoor and more permanent space is more conducive to tech operations. In our case, the ground floor had a general tech room and housed the live-stream team on the other side near the theater. This gave us our own separate space while remaining in proximity to events and happenings. A good chunk of the third floor housed and protected servers vital to Occupy LSX’s tech research and development efforts – which is now sadly scattered and disjointed. Another advantage was being the same building as all the other community events: ?This meant that anyone could walk in, hang out and contribute to any project going on. So in a way, our idea of “squatting” at the Bank of Ideas was very different than the norm.
Along with the technology, Bank of Ideas gave us plenty of room to make massive banners for demonstrations while being shielded from the elements. Banner making was always open to anyone that wanted to pop in and help, but being in an enclosed area aided keeping things somewhat discreet, not to mention the difficult logistics of trying to make a 40 foot banner on a pavement.
On the flipside, we’re all painfully familiar with the rift between the ‘squatters at Bank of Ideas’ and occupiers in tents on the harsh pavement of St. Paul’s. This was, on the one hand, completely understandable and on the other hand very difficult to reconcile. How can you convince someone sleeping outdoors that her or his relationship to Occupy is in the same league as someone sleeping in a room without the constant chiming of church bells and the unpredictable London weather? ?I’m not sure that you can or should even try. Instead, everyone should embrace the fact that indoor spaces affords the movement unique opportunities that outdoor spaces simply can’t offer. We shouldn’t think of places like Bank of Ideas solely as squats any more than St. Paul’s as a wall-less squat. The motto all along has been that Bank of Ideas, and any subsequent buildings, are truly ?a public repossession and as such integral to what we’re doing. The full calendar of events was just one aspect to Bank of Ideas; we should not forget that many important aspects of Occupy LSX are simply more difficult, if not impossible to conduct outdoors.
NO/ WAIL QASIM
What is the difference between occupying and squatting? Presumably in this debate we are referring to ‘occupying’ as the conscious political act rather than any given state of habitation or being – of course the act is politicised regardless of a conscious decision, but it is necessary to be more pragmatic with our definitions for our intention. This is to say that occupying is an antagonistic act of protest defined by one’s very presence in a particular place: public squares, foreign lands and buildings are some of these examples. Here we find an overlap with the term ‘squatting’ – the habitation of unoccupied property, an act often political in a very different sense – a politics defined through necessity. This is why I would argue that squatting is not the same as occupying.
The necessity to squat is born out of a very real social issue: the lack of affordable housing. It is the need to assure one’s material conditions in such a society that drives one to squat; housing – in this case regardless of its precarity – is not an optional condition for the adequate sustenance and reproduction of life over any extended period of time. Unfortunately, though empty properties are readily available, often those truly on the fringes of society in fact do not have access to the skills and support networks needed for squatting. With a housing crisis and increased homelessness looming, this is a skill we should be proliferating. In this way it is a politicised act in reaction to prevailing social relations that perpetuate conditions where people suffer the effects of a lack of affordable housing.
An occupation may well be aesthetically similar in its use of spaces, but implies a very different form of politicisation. It is a consciously political use of a space that bares significance to the wider political point being made. Students occupied their universities over tuition fee rises, UK Uncut protesters occupied the stores of tax avoiders, Greek protesters occupied their ministries to protest against their government’s austerity program and Occupy protestors have taken to global financial districts in protest over the material and political consequences of the financialisation of the economy. In each of these examples the space taken is significant to the protest. Here we find a very simple distinction drawn along the lines of political consciousness and the significance of space.
The Occupy movement throws up confusion for this distinction however. To occupy becomes to Occupy – this transition from the verb to the concrete noun subsumes all acts and verbs under the new noun of Occupy. This means that if something is carried out in the name of the movement, it becomes labelled as Occupy – by the media or by protestors themselves. Thus, when discussing squatting it is all too easy for the act to become synonymous with the noun. We see this in the reclaiming of foreclosed housing in the United States which has largely come out of the Occupy movement. This is squatting under what has become a brand name: Occupy – one which has perhaps even engaged in reengineering the past to fit the brand. The tented encampment which is the aesthetic now synonymous with this movement has a historical lineage including Tahrir square. We now find that both protestors and the media see Tahrir, simply for its aesthetics, as an Occupy before Occupy.
‘Occupying’ is one of the political acts under the Occupy brand name. It can be tempting to historically subsume squatting acts under this brand as they occur, especially if they involve individuals or the types of individuals who are also involved in the Occupy movement. But the squatting tradition as a a political act, and as the simple tradition of obtaining the means by which to live, has a long history before Occupy, and continues to occur in London and throughout the world apart from it. Both are, arguably, responses to the same thing, or at least the symptoms of the same thing: acts of resistance against the excesses of capital; and though their aesthetics and physicalities may be blurred, it would be wise for those concerned with either to appreciate and differentiate the differences and advantages of the two.
