Anda di halaman 1dari 20

THEARTOFRENT:GLOBALIZATION,MONOPOLYANDTHE COMMODIFICATIONOFCULTURE DavidHarvey Thatculturehasbecomeacommodityofsomesortisundeniable.Yetthereis alsoawidespreadbeliefthatthereissomethingsospecialaboutcertaincultural productsandevents(betheyinthearts,theatre,music,cinema,architectureor morebroadlyinlocalizedwaysoflife,heritage,collectivememoriesandaffective communities)astosetthemapartfromordinarycommoditieslikeshirtsand shoes.Whiletheboundarybetweenthetwosortsofcommoditiesishighly porous(perhapsincreasinglyso)therearestillgroundsformaintainingan analyticseparation.Itmaybe,ofcourse,thatwedistinguishculturalartefacts andeventsbecausewecannotbeartothinkofthemasanythingotherthan authenticallydifferent,existingonsomehigherplaneofhumancreativityand meaningthanthatlocatedinthefactoriesofmassproductionandconsumption.

n. Butevenwhenwestripawayallresiduesofwishfulthinking(oftenbackedby powerfulideologies)wearestillleftwithsomethingveryspecialaboutthose productsdesignatedascultural.How,then,canthecommoditystatusofso manyofthesephenomenabereconciledwiththeirspecialcharacter? Furthermore,theconditionsoflabourandtheclasspositionalityofthe increasingnumberofworkersengagedinculturalactivitiesandproduction (morethan150,000artistswereregisteredintheNewYorkmetropolitan regionintheearly1980sandthatnumbermaywellhaverisentomorethan 250,000bynow)isworthyofconsideration.Theyformthecreativecoreofwhat DanielBellcallstheculturalmass(definedasnotthecreatorsbutthe transmittersofcultureinthemediaandelsewhere).1Thepoliticalstanceofthis creativecoreaswellasoftheculturalmassisnotinconsequential.Inthe1960s, recall,theartcollegeswerehotbedsofradicaldiscussion.Theirsubsequent pacificationandprofessionalizationhasseriouslydiminishedagitationalpolitics. Revitalizingsuchinstitutionsascentresofpoliticalengagementandmobilizing thepoliticalandagitationalpowersofculturalproducersissurelyaworthwhile objectivefortheleftevenifittakessomespecialadjustmentsinsocialist strategyandthinkingtodoso.Acriticalexaminationoftherelationsbetween culture,capitalandsocialistalternativescanherebehelpfulasapreludeto mobilizingwhathasalwaysbeenapowerfulvoiceinrevolutionarypolitics. IMONOPOLYRENTANDCOMPETITION Ibeginwithsomereflectionsonthesignificanceofmonopolyrentsto understandinghowcontemporaryprocessesofeconomicglobalizationrelateto

localitiesandculturalforms.Thecategoryofmonopolyrentisanabstraction drawnfromthelanguageofpoliticaleconomy.2Totheculturalproducers themselves,usuallymoreinterestedinaffairsofaesthetics(sometimeseven dedicatedtoidealsofartforartssake),ofaffectivevalues,ofsociallifeandof theheart,suchatermmightappearfartootechnicalandaridtobearmuch weightbeyondthepossiblecalculiofthefinancier,thedeveloper,therealestate speculatorandthelandlord.ButIhopetoshowthatithasamuchgrander purchase:thatproperlyconstructeditcangeneraterichinterpretationsofthe manypracticalandpersonaldilemmasarisinginthenexusbetweencapitalist globalization,localpoliticaleconomicdevelopmentsandtheevolutionof culturalmeaningsandaestheticvalues. Allrentisbasedonthemonopolypowerofprivateownersofcertainportionsof theglobe.Monopolyrentarisesbecausesocialactorscanrealizeanenhanced incomestreamoveranextendedtimebyvirtueoftheirexclusivecontrolover somedirectlyorindirectlytradableitemwhichisinsomecrucialrespects uniqueandnonreplicable.Therearetwosituationsinwhichthecategoryof monopolyrentcomestothefore.Thefirstarisesbecausesocialactorscontrol somespecialqualityresource,commodityorlocationwhich,inrelationtoa certainkindofactivity,enablesthemtoextractmonopolyrentsfromthose desiringtouseit.Intherealmofproduction,Marxargues,themostobvious exampleisthevineyardproducingwineofextraordinaryqualitythatcanbesold atamonopolyprice.Inthiscircumstancethemonopolypricecreatestherent.3 Thelocationalversionwouldbecentrality(forthecommercialcapitalist) relativeto,say,thetransportandcommunicationsnetworkorproximity(forthe hotelchain)tosomehighlyconcentratedactivity(suchasafinancialcentre).The commercialcapitalistandthehotelierarewillingtopayapremiumfortheland becauseofaccessibility.Thesearetheindirectcasesofmonopolyrent.Itisnot theland,resourceorlocationofuniquequalitieswhichistradedbutthe commodityorserviceproducedthroughtheiruse.Inthesecondcase,thelandor resourceisdirectlytradedupon(aswhenvineyardsorprimerealestatesites aresoldtomultinationalcapitalistsandfinanciersforspeculativepurposes). Scarcitycanbecreatedbywithholdingthelandorresourcefromcurrentuses andspeculatingonfuturevalues.Monopolyrentofthissortcanbeextendedto ownershipofworksofart(suchasaRodinoraPicasso)whichcanbe(and increasinglyare)boughtandsoldasinvestments.Itistheuniquenessofthe Picassoorthesitewhichhereformsthebasisforthemonopolyprice. Thetwoformsofmonopolyrentoftenintersect.Avineyard(withitsunique Chateauandbeautifulphysicalsetting)renownedforitswinescanbetradedata monopolypricedirectlyascantheuniquelyflavouredwinesproducedonthat land.APicassocanbepurchasedforcapitalgainandthenleasedtosomeoneelse whoputsitonviewforamonopolyprice.Theproximitytoafinancialcentrecan betradeddirectlyaswellasindirectlyto,say,thehotelchainthatusesitforits ownpurposes.Butthedifferencebetweenthetworentalformsisimportant.Itis unlikely(thoughnotimpossible),forexample,thatWestminsterAbbeyand

BuckinghamPalacewillbetradeddirectly(eventhemostardentprivatizers mightbalkatthat).Buttheycanbeandplainlyaretradeduponthroughthe marketingpracticesofthetouristindustry(orinthecaseofBuckinghamPalace, bytheQueen). Twocontradictionsattachtothecategoryofmonopolyrent.Bothofthemare importanttotheargumentthatfollows. First,whileuniquenessandparticularityarecrucialtothedefinitionofspecial qualities,therequirementoftradabilitymeansthatnoitemcanbesouniqueor sospecialastobeentirelyoutsidethemonetarycalculus.ThePicassohasto haveamoneyvalueasdoestheMonet,theManet,theaboriginalart,the archaeologicalartefacts,thehistoricbuildings,theancientmonuments,the Buddhisttemples,andtheexperienceofraftingdowntheColorado,beingin IstanbulorontopofEverest.Thereis,asisevidentfromsuchalist,acertain difficultyofmarketformationhere.Forwhilemarketshaveformedaround worksofartand,tosomedegreearoundarchaeologicalartefacts(thereare somewelldocumentedcases,aswithAustralianAboriginalart,ofwhathappens whensomeartformgetsdrawnintothemarketsphere)thereareplainlyseveral itemsonthislistthatarehardtoincorporatedirectlyintoamarket(thisisthe problemwithWestminsterAbbey).Manyitemsmaynotevenbeeasytotrade uponindirectly.Thecontradictionhereisthatthemoreeasilymarketablesuch itemsbecomethelessuniqueandspecialtheyappear.Insomeinstancesthe marketingitselftendstodestroytheuniquequalities(particularlyifthese dependonqualitiessuchaswilderness,remoteness,thepurityofsomeaesthetic experience,andthelike).Moregenerally,tothedegreethatsuchitemsorevents areeasilymarketable(andsubjecttoreplicationbyforgeries,fakes,imitationsor simulacra)thelesstheyprovideabasisformonopolyrent.Iamputinmindhere ofthestudentwhocomplainedabouthowinferiorherexperienceofEuropewas comparedtoDisneyWorld: AtDisneyWorldallthecountriesaremuchclosertogether,andtheyshowyou thebestofeachcountry.Europeisboring.Peopletalkstrangelanguagesand thingsaredirty.SometimesyoudontseeanythinginterestinginEuropefor days,butatDisneyWorldsomethingdifferenthappensallthetimeandpeople arehappy.Itsmuchmorefun.Itswelldesigned.4 Whilethissoundsalaughablejudgementitissoberingtoreflectonhowmuch EuropeisattemptingtoredesignitselftoDisneystandards(andnotonlyforthe benefitofAmericantourists).But,andhereistheheartofthecontradiction,the moreEuropebecomesDisneyfied,thelessuniqueandspecialitbecomes.The blandhomogeneitythatgoeswithpurecommodificationerasesmonopoly advantages.Culturalproductsbecomenodifferentfromcommoditiesingeneral.

Theadvancedtransformationofconsumergoodsintocorporateproductsor trademarkarticlesthatholdamonopolyonaestheticvalue,writesWolfgang Haug,hasbyandlargereplacedtheelementaryorgenericproducts,sothat commodityaestheticsextendsitsborderfurtherandfurtherintotherealmof culturalindustries.5Conversely,everycapitalistseekstopersuadeconsumersof theuniqueandnonreplicablequalitiesoftheircommodities(hencename brands,advertising,andthelike).Pressuresfrombothsidesthreatentosqueeze outtheuniquequalitiesthatunderliemonopolyrents.Ifthelatteraretobe sustainedandrealized,therefore,somewayhastobefoundtokeepsome commoditiesorplacesuniqueandparticularenough(andIwilllaterreflecton whatthismightmean)tomaintainamonopolisticedgeinanotherwise commodifiedandoftenfiercelycompetitiveeconomy. Butwhy,inaneoliberalworldwherecompetitivemarketsaresupposedly dominant,wouldmonopolyofanysortbetoleratedletalonebeseenas desirable?Wehereencounterthesecondcontradictionwhich,atroot,turnsout tobeamirrorimageofthefirst.Competition,asMarxlongagoobserved,always tendstowardsmonopoly(oroligopoly)simplybecausethesurvivalofthefittest inthewarofallagainstalleliminatestheweakerfirms.6Thefiercerthe competitionthefasterthetrendtowardsoligopolyifnotmonopoly.Itis thereforenoaccidentthattheliberalizationofmarketsandthecelebrationof marketcompetitioninrecentyearshasproducedincrediblecentralizationof capital(Microsoft,RupertMurdoch,Bertelsmann,financialservices,andawave oftakeovers,mergersandconsolidationsinairlines,retailingandeveninolder industrieslikeautomobiles,petroleum,andthelike).Thistendencyhaslong beenrecognizedasatroublesomefeatureofcapitalistdynamics,hencetheanti trustlegislationintheUnitedStatesandtheworkofthemonopoliesand mergerscommissionsinEurope.Buttheseareweakdefencesagainstan overwhelmingforce. Thisstructuraldynamicwouldnothavetheimportanceitdoeswereitnotfor thefactthatcapitalistsactivelycultivatemonopolypowers.Theytherebyrealize farreachingcontroloverproductionandmarketingandhencestabilizetheir businessenvironmenttoallowofrationalcalculationandlongtermplanning, thereductionofriskanduncertainty,andmoregenerallyguaranteethemselves arelativelypeacefulanduntroubledexistence.Thevisiblehandofthe corporation,asAlfredChandlertermsit,hasconsequentlybeenoffargreater importancetocapitalisthistoricalgeographythantheinvisiblehandofthe marketmadesomuchofbyAdamSmithandparadedadnauseambeforeusin recentyearsastheguidingpowerintheneoliberalideologyofcontemporary globalization.7 Butitisherethatthemirrorimageofthefirstcontradictioncomesmostclearly intoview:marketprocessescruciallydependupontheindividualmonopolyof capitalists(ofallsorts)overownershipofthemeansofproductionincluding

financeandland.Allrent,recall,isareturntothemonopolypowerofprivate ownershipofanyportionoftheglobe.Themonopolypowerofprivateproperty is,therefore,boththebeginningpointandtheendpointofallcapitalistactivity. Anontradablejuridicalrightexistsattheveryfoundationofallcapitalisttrade, makingtheoptionofnontrading(hoarding,withholding,miserlybehaviour)an importantproblemincapitalistmarkets.Puremarketcompetition,free commodityexchangeandperfectmarketrationalityare,therefore,ratherrare andchronicallyunstabledevicesforcoordinatingproductionandconsumption decisions.Theproblemistokeepeconomicrelationscompetitiveenoughwhile sustainingtheindividualandclassmonopolyprivilegesofprivatepropertythat arethefoundationofcapitalismasapoliticaleconomicsystem. Thislastpointdemandsonefurtherelaborationtobringusclosertothetopicat hand.Itiswidelybuterroneouslyassumedthatmonopolypowerofthegrand andculminatingsortismostclearlysignalledbythecentralizationand concentrationofcapitalinmegacorporations.Conversely,smallfirmsizeis widelyassumed,againerroneously,tobeasignofacompetitivemarket situation.Bythismeasure,aoncecompetitivecapitalismhasbecome increasinglymonopolizedovertime.Theerrorarisesinpartbecauseofarather toofacileapplicationofMarxsargumentsconcerningthelawofthetendency forthecentralizationofcapital,ignoringhiscounterargumentthat centralizationwouldsoonbringaboutthecollapseofcapitalistproductionifit werenotforcounteractingtendencies,whichhaveacontinuousdecentralizing effect.8Butitisalsosupportedbyaneconomictheoryofthefirmthatgenerally ignoresitsspatialandlocationalcontext,eventhoughitdoesaccept(onthose rareoccasionswhereitdeignstoconsiderthematter)thatlocationaladvantage involvesmonopolisticcompetition.Inthenineteenthcentury,forexample,the brewer,thebakerandthecandlestickmakerwereallprotectedtoconsiderable degreefromcompetitioninlocalmarketsbythehighcostoftransportation. Localmonopolypowerswereomnipresent(eventhoughfirmsweresmallin size),andveryhardtobreak,ineverythingfromenergytofoodsupply.Bythis measurenineteenthcenturycapitalismwasfarlesscompetitivethannow. Itisatthispointthatthechangingconditionsoftransportandcommunications enterinascrucialdeterminingvariables.Asspatialbarriersdiminishedthrough thecapitalistpenchantfortheannihilationofspacethroughtime,manylocal industriesandserviceslosttheirlocalprotectionsandmonopolyprivileges.9 Theywereforcedintocompetitionwithproducersinotherlocations,atfirst relativelycloseby,butthenwithproducersmuchfurtheraway.Thehistorical geographyofthebrewingtradeisveryinstructiveinthisregard.Inthe nineteenthcenturymostpeopledranklocalbrewbecausetheyhadnochoice.By theendofthenineteenthcenturybeerproductionandconsumptioninBritain hadbeenregionalizedtoaconsiderabledegreeandremainedsountilthe1960s (foreignimports,withtheexceptionofGuinness,wereunheardof).Butthenthe marketbecamenational(NewcastleBrownandScottishYoungersappearedin Londonandthesouth)beforebecominginternational(importssuddenlybecame

alltherage).Ifonedrinkslocalbrewnowitisbychoice,usuallyoutofsomemix ofprincipledattachmenttolocalityorbecauseofsomespecialqualityofthebeer (basedonthetechnique,thewater,orwhatever)thatdifferentiatesitfrom others.Plainly,theeconomicspaceofcompetitionhaschangedinbothformand scaleovertime. Therecentboutofglobalizationhassignificantlydiminishedthemonopoly protectionsgivenhistoricallybyhightransportandcommunicationscostswhile theremovalofinstitutionalbarrierstotrade(protectionism)haslikewise diminishedthemonopolyrentstobeprocuredbythatmeans.Butcapitalism cannotdowithoutmonopolypowersandcravesmeanstoassemblethem.Sothe questionupontheagendaishowtoassemblemonopolypowersinasituation wheretheprotectionsaffordedbythesocallednaturalmonopoliesofspace andlocation,andthepoliticalprotectionsofnationalboundariesandtariffs,have beenseriouslydiminishedifnoteliminated. Theobviousansweristocentralizecapitalinmegacorporationsortosetup looseralliances(asinairlinesandautomobiles)thatdominatemarkets.Andwe haveseenplentyofthat.Thesecondpathistosecureevermorefirmlythe monopolyrightsofprivatepropertythroughinternationalcommerciallawsthat regulateallglobaltrade.Patentsandsocalledintellectualpropertyrightshave consequentlybecomeamajorfieldofstrugglethroughwhichmonopolypowers moregenerallygetasserted.Thepharmaceuticalindustry,totakeaparadigmatic example,hasacquiredextraordinarymonopolypowersinpartthroughmassive centralizationsofcapitalandinpartthroughtheprotectionofpatentsand licensingagreements.Anditishungrilypursuingevenmoremonopolypowers asitseekstoestablishpropertyrightsovergeneticmaterialsofallsorts (includingthoseofrareplantsintropicalrainforeststraditionallycollectedby indigenousinhabitants).Asmonopolyprivilegesfromonesourcediminishsowe witnessavarietyofattemptstopreserveandassemblethembyothermeans. Icannotpossiblyreviewallofthesetendencieshere.Idowant,however,tolook morecloselyatthoseaspectsofthisprocessthatimpingemostdirectlyuponthe problemsoflocaldevelopmentandculturalactivities.Iwishtoshowfirst,that therearecontinuingstrugglesoverthedefinitionofthemonopolypowersthat mightbeaccordedtolocationandlocalitiesandthattheideaofcultureismore andmoreentangledwithattemptstoreassertsuchmonopolypowersprecisely becauseclaimstouniquenessandauthenticitycanbestbearticulatedas distinctiveandnonreplicableculturalclaims.Ibeginwiththemostobvious exampleofmonopolyrentgivenbythevineyardproducingwineof extraordinaryqualitythatcanbesoldatamonopolyprice. IIADVENTURESINTHEWINETRADE

Thewinetrade,likebrewing,hasbecomemoreandmoreinternationaloverthe lastthirtyyearsandthestressesofinternationalcompetitionhaveproduced somecuriouseffects.UnderpressurefromtheEuropeanCommunity,for example,internationalwineproducershaveagreed(afterlonglegalbattlesand intensenegotiations)tophaseouttheuseoftraditionalexpressionsonwine labels,whichcouldeventuallyincludetermslikeChateauanddomaineaswell asgenerictermslikechampagne,burgundy,chablisorsauterne.Inthisway theEuropeanwineindustry,ledbytheFrench,seekstopreservemonopoly rentsbyinsistingupontheuniquevirtuesofland,climateandtradition(lumped togetherundertheFrenchtermterroir)andthedistinctivenessofitsproduct certifiedbyaname.Reinforcedbyinstitutionalcontrolslikeappellation controletheFrenchwinetradeinsistsupontheauthenticityandoriginalityof itsproductwhichgroundstheuniquenessuponwhichmonopolyrentcanbe based. Australiaisoneofthecountriesthatagreedtothismove.ChateauTahbilkin VictoriaobligedbydroppingtheChateaufromitslabel,airilypronouncingthat weareproudlyAustralianwithnoneedtousetermsinheritedfromother countriesandculturesofbygonedays.Tocompensate,theyidentifiedtwo factorswhich,whencombined,giveusauniquepositionintheworldofwine. Theirsisoneofonlysixworldwidewineregionswherethemesoclimateis dramaticallyinfluencedbyinlandwatermass(thenumerouslakesandlocal lagoonsmoderateandcooltheclimate).Theirsoilisofauniquetype(foundin onlyoneotherlocationinVictoria)describedasred/sandyloamcolouredbya veryhighFerricoxidecontent,whichhasapositiveeffectongrapequalityand addsacertaindistinctiveregionalcharactertoourwines.Thesetwofactorsare broughttogethertodefineNagambieLakesasauniqueViticulturalRegion(to beauthenticated,presumably,bytheAustralianWineandBrandyCorporations GeographicalIndicationsCommittee,setuptoidentifyViticulturalregions throughoutAustralia).Tahbilktherebyestablishesacounterclaimtomonopoly rentsonthegroundsoftheuniquemixofenvironmentalconditionsintheregion whereitissituated.Itdoessoinawaythatparallelsandcompeteswiththe uniquenessclaimsofterroiranddomainepressedbyFrenchwine producers.10 Butwethenencounterthefirstcontradiction.Allwineistradableandtherefore insomesensecomparablenomatterwhereitisfrom.EnterRobertParkerand theWineAdvocatewhichhepublishesregularly.Parkerevaluateswinesfor theirtasteandpaysnoparticularmindtoterroiroranyothercultural historicalclaims.Heisnotoriouslyindependent(mostotherguidesare supportedbyinfluentialsectorsofthewineindustry).Herankswinesonascale accordingtohisowndistinctivetaste.Hehasanextensivefollowinginthe UnitedStates,amajormarket.IfheratesaChateauwinefromBordeaux65pts andanAustralianwine95ptsthenpricesareaffected.TheBordeauxwine producersareterrifiedofhim.Theyhavesuedhim,denigratedhim,abusedhim

andevenphysicallyassaultedhim.Hechallengesthebasesoftheirmonopoly rents.11 Monopolyclaims,wecanconclude,areasmuchaneffectofdiscourseandan outcomeofstruggleastheyareareflectionofthequalitiesoftheproduct.Butif thelanguageofterroirandtraditionistobeabandonedthenwhatkindof discoursecanbeputinitsplace?Parkerandmanyothersinthewinetradehave inrecentyearsinventedalanguageinwhichwinesaredescribedintermssuch asflavorofpeachandplum,withahintofthymeandgooseberry.Thelanguage soundsbizarrebutthisdiscursiveshift,whichcorrespondstorising internationalcompetitionandglobalizationinthewinetrade,takesona distinctiverole,reflectingthecommodificationofwineconsumptionalong standardizedlines. Butwineconsumptionhasmanydimensionsthatopenpathstoprofitable exploitation.Formanyitisanaestheticexperience.Beyondthesheerpleasure (forsome)ofafinewinewiththerightfood,therelieallsortsofotherreferents withintheWesterntraditionthattrackbacktomythology(Dionysusand Bacchus),religion(thebloodofJesusandcommunionrituals)andtraditions celebratedinfestivals,poetry,songandliterature.Knowledgeofwinesand properappreciationisoftenasignofclassandisanalyzableasaformof culturalcapital(asBourdieuwouldputit).Gettingthewinerightmayhave helpedtosealmorethanafewmajorbusinessdeals(wouldyoutrustsomeone whodidnotknowhowtoselectawine?).Styleofwineisrelatedtoregional cuisinesandtherebyembeddedinthosepracticesthatturnregionalityintoa wayoflifemarkedbydistinctivestructuresoffeeling(itishardtoimagineZorba theGreekdrinkingMondaviCalifornianjugwine,eventhoughthelatterissold inAthensairport). Thewinetradeisaboutmoneyandprofitbutitisalsoaboutcultureinallofits senses(fromthecultureoftheproducttotheculturalpracticesthatsurroundits consumptionandtheculturalcapitalthatcanevolvealongsideamongboth producersandconsumers).Theperpetualsearchformonopolyrentsentails seekingoutcriteriaofspeciality,uniqueness,originalityandauthenticityineach oftheserealms.Ifuniquenesscannotbeestablishedbyappealtoterroirand tradition,orbystraightdescriptionofflavour,thenothermodesofdistinction mustbeinvokedtoestablishmonopolyclaimsanddiscoursesdevisedto guaranteethetruthofthoseclaims(thewinethatguaranteesseductionorthe winethatgoeswithnostalgiaandthelogfire,arecurrentadvertisingtropesin theUS).Inpracticewhatwefindwithinthewinetradeisahostofcompeting discourses,allwithdifferenttruthclaimsabouttheuniquenessoftheproduct. But,andhereIgobacktomystartingpoint,allofthesediscursiveshiftsand swayings,aswellasmanyoftheshiftsandturnsthathaveoccurredinthe strategiesforcommandingtheinternationalmarketinwine,haveattheirroot notonlythesearchforprofitbutalsothesearchformonopolyrents.Inthisthe

languageofauthenticity,originality,uniqueness,andspecialunreplicable qualitiesloomslarge.Thegeneralityofaglobalizedmarketproduces,ina mannerconsistentwiththesecondcontradictionIearlieridentified,apowerful forceseekingtoguaranteenotonlythecontinuingmonopolyprivilegesof privatepropertybutthemonopolyrentsthatderivefromdepictingcommodities asincomparable. IIIURBANENTREPRENEURIALISM,MONOPOLYRENTANDGLOBALFORMS Recentstruggleswithinthewinetradeprovideausefulmodelforunderstanding awiderangeofphenomenawithinthecontemporaryphaseofglobalization. Theyhaveparticularrelevancetounderstandinghowlocalcultural developmentsandtraditionsgetabsorbedwithinthecalculiofpoliticaleconomy throughattemptstogarnermonopolyrents.Italsoposesthequestionofhow muchthecurrentinterestinlocalculturalinnovationandtheresurrectionand inventionoflocaltraditionsattachestothedesiretoextractandappropriate suchrents.Sincecapitalistsofallsorts(includingthemostexuberantof internationalfinanciers)areeasilyseducedbythelucrativeprospectsof monopolypowers,weimmediatelydiscernathirdcontradiction:thatthemost avidglobalizerswillsupportlocaldevelopmentsthathavethepotentialtoyield monopolyrentseveniftheeffectofsuchsupportistoproducealocalpolitical climateantagonistictoglobalization!Emphasizingtheuniquenessandpurityof localBalineseculturemaybevitaltothehotel,airlineandtouristindustry,but whathappenswhenthisencouragesaBalinesemovementthatviolentlyresists theimpurityofcommercialization?TheBasquecountrymayappeara potentiallyvaluableculturalconfigurationpreciselybecauseofitsuniqueness, butETAwithitsdemandforautonomyandpreparednesstotakeviolentaction isnotamenabletocommercialization.Letusprobealittlemoredeeplyintothis contradictionasitimpingesuponurbandevelopmentpolitics.Todosorequires, however,brieflysituatingthatpoliticsinrelationtoglobalization. Urbanentrepreneurialismhasbecomeimportantbothnationallyand internationallyinrecentdecades.BythisImeanthatpatternofbehaviourwithin urbangovernancethatmixestogetherstatepowers(local,metropolitan, regional,nationalorsupranational)andawidearrayoforganizationalformsin civilsociety(chambersofcommerce,unions,churches,educationalandresearch institutions,communitygroups,NGOs,etc.)andprivateinterests(corporateand individual)toformcoalitionstopromoteormanageurban/regional developmentofsomesortorother.Thereisnowanextensiveliteratureonthis topicwhichshowsthattheforms,activitiesandgoalsofthesegovernance systems(variouslyknownasurbanregimes,growthmachinesorregional growthcoalitions)varywidelydependinguponlocalconditionsandthemixof forcesatworkwithinthem.12

Theroleofthisurbanentrepreneurialisminrelationtotheneoliberalformof globalizationhasalsobeenscrutinizedatlength,mostusuallyundertherubric oflocalglobalrelationsandthesocalledspaceplacedialectic.Most geographerswhohavelookedintotheproblemhaverightlyconcludedthatitisa categoricalerrortoviewglobalizationasacausalforceinrelationtolocal development.Whatisatstakehere,theyrightlyargue,isarathermore complicatedrelationshipacrossscalesinwhichlocalinitiativescanpercolate upwardstoaglobalscaleandviceversaatthesametimeasprocesseswithina particulardefinitionofscaleinterurbanandinterregionalcompetitionbeing themostobviousexamplescanreworkthelocal/regionalconfigurationsof whatglobalizationisabout.Globalizationshouldnotbeseen,therefore,asan undifferentiatedunitybutasageographicallyarticulatedpatterningofglobal capitalistactivitiesandrelations.13 Butwhat,exactly,doesitmeantospeakofageographicallyarticulated patterning?Thereis,ofcourse,plentyofevidenceofunevengeographical development(atavarietyofscales)andatleastsomecogenttheorizingto understanditscapitalisticlogic.Someofitcanbeunderstoodinconventional termsasasearchonthepartofmobilecapitals(withfinancial,commercialand productioncapitalhavingdifferentcapacitiesinthisregard)togainadvantages intheproductionandappropriationofsurplusvaluesbymovingaround.Trends canindeedbeidentifiedwhichfitwithsimplemodelsofaracetothebottomin whichthecheapestandmosteasilyexploitedlabourpowerbecomestheguiding beaconforcapitalmobilityandinvestmentdecisions.Butthereisplentyof countervailingevidencetosuggestthatthisisagrossoversimplificationwhen projectedasamonocausalexplanationofthedynamicsofunevengeographical development.Capitalingeneraljustaseasilyflowsintohighwageregionsas intolowandoftenseemstobegeographicallyguidedbyquitedifferentcriteria tothoseconventionallysetoutinbothbourgeoisandMarxistpoliticaleconomy. Theprobleminpart(butnotwholly)derivesfromthehabitofignoringthe categoryoflandedcapitalandtheconsiderableimportanceoflongterm investmentsinthebuiltenvironmentwhicharebydefinitiongeographically immobile(exceptintherelativeaccessibilitysense).Suchinvestments, particularlywhentheyareofaspeculativesort,invariablycallforevenfurther wavesofinvestmentsifthefirstwaveistoproveprofitable(tofillthe conventioncentreweneedthehotelswhichrequirebettertransportand communications,whichcallsforanexpansionoftheconventioncentre...).So thereisanelementofcircularandcumulativecausationatworkinthedynamics ofmetropolitanareainvestments(look,forexample,atthewholeDocklands redevelopmentinLondonandthefinancialviabilityofCanaryWharfwhich pivotsonfurtherinvestmentsbothpublicandprivate).Thisiswhaturban growthmachinesareoftenallabout:theorchestrationofinvestmentprocess dynamicsandtheprovisionofkeypublicinvestmentsattherightplaceandtime topromotesuccessininterurbanandinterregionalcompetition.

Butthiswouldnotbeasattractiveasitiswereitnotforthewaysinwhich monopolyrentsmightalsobecaptured.Awellknownstrategyofdevelopers,for example,istoreservethechoicestandmostrentablepieceoflandinsome developmentinordertoextractmonopolyrentfromitaftertherestofthe projectisrealized.Savvygovernmentswiththerequisitepowerscanengagein thesamepractices.ThegovernmentofHongKong,asIunderstandit,islargely financedbycontrolledsalesofpublicdomainlandfordevelopmentatveryhigh monopolyprices.Thisconverts,inturn,intomonopolyrentsonproperties whichmakesHongKongveryattractivetointernationalfinancialinvestment capitalworkingthroughpropertymarkets.Ofcourse,HongKonghasother uniquenessclaims,givenitslocation,uponwhichitcanalsotradevery vigorouslyinofferingmonopolyadvantages.Singapore,incidentally,setoutto capturemonopolyrentsandwashighlysuccessfulinsodoinginsomewhat similarfashion,thoughbyverydifferentpoliticaleconomicmeans. Urbangovernanceofthissortismostlyorientedtoconstructingpatternsoflocal investmentsnotonlyinphysicalinfrastructuressuchastransportand communications,portfacilities,sewageandwater,butalsointhesocial infrastructuresofeducation,technologyandscience,socialcontrol,cultureand livingquality.Theaimistocreatesufficientsynergywithintheurbanization processformonopolyrentstobecreatedandrealizedbybothprivateinterests andstatepowers.Notallsucheffortsaresuccessful,ofcourse,buteventhe unsuccessfulexamplescanpartlyorlargelybeunderstoodintermsoftheir failuretorealizemonopolyrents.Butthesearchformonopolyrentsisnot confinedtothepracticesofrealestatedevelopment,economicinitiativesand governmentfinance.Ithasafarwiderapplication. IVCOLLECTIVESYMBOLICCAPITAL,MARKSOFDISTINCTIONANDMONOPOLY RENTS Ifclaimstouniqueness,authenticity,particularityandspecialityunderliethe abilitytocapturemonopolyrents,thenonwhatbetterterrainisitpossibleto makesuchclaimsthaninthefieldofhistoricallyconstitutedculturalartefacts andpracticesandspecialenvironmentalcharacteristics(including,ofcourse,the built,socialandculturalenvironments)?Allsuchclaimsare,asinthewinetrade, asmuchanoutcomeofdiscursiveconstructionsandstrugglesastheyare groundedinmaterialfact.Manyrestuponhistoricalnarratives,interpretations andmeaningsofcollectivememories,significationsofculturalpractices,andthe like:thereisalwaysastrongsocialanddiscursiveelementatworkinthe constructionofsuchclaims.Onceestablished,however,suchclaimscanbe pressedhomehardinthecauseofextractingmonopolyrentssincetherewillbe, inmanypeoplesmindsatleast,nootherplacethanLondon,Cairo,Barcelona, Milan,Istanbul,SanFranciscoorwherever,inwhichtogainaccesstowhateverit isthatissupposedlyuniquetosuchplaces.

Themostobviousexampleiscontemporarytourism,butIthinkitwouldbea mistaketoletthematterrestthere.Forwhatisatstakehereisthepowerof collectivesymboliccapital,ofspecialmarksofdistinctionthatattachtosome place,whichhaveasignificantdrawingpowerupontheflowsofcapitalmore generally.Bourdieu,towhomweowethegeneralusageoftheseterms, unfortunatelyrestrictsthemtoindividuals(ratherlikeatomsfloatinginaseaof structuredaestheticjudgements)whenitseemstomethatthecollectiveforms (andtherelationofindividualstothosecollectiveforms)mightbeofeven greaterinterest.14Thecollectivesymboliccapitalwhichattachestonamesand placeslikeParis,Athens,NewYork,RiodeJaneiro,BerlinandRomeisofgreat importandgivessuchplacesgreateconomicadvantagesrelativeto,say, Baltimore,Liverpool,Essen,LilleandGlasgow.Theproblemfortheselatter placesistoraisetheirquotientofsymboliccapitalandtoincreasetheirmarksof distinctionsoastobettergroundtheirclaimstotheuniquenessthatyields monopolyrent.Giventhegenerallossofothermonopolypowersthrougheasier transportandcommunicationsandthereductionofotherbarrierstotrade,the struggleforcollectivesymboliccapitalbecomesevenmoreimportantasabasis formonopolyrents.Howelsecanweexplainthesplashmadebythe GuggenheimMuseuminBilbaowithitssignatureGehryarchitecture?Andhow elsecanweexplainthewillingnessofmajorfinancialinstitutions,with considerableinternationalinterests,tofinancesuchasignatureproject? TheriseofBarcelonatoprominencewithintheEuropeansystemofcities,totake anotherexample,hasinpartbeenbasedonitssteadyamassingofsymbolic capitalanditsaccumulatingmarksofdistinction.Inthistheexcavationofa distinctivelyCatalanhistoryandtradition,themarketingofitsstrongartistic accomplishmentsandarchitecturalheritage(Gaudiofcourse)anditsdistinctive marksoflifestyleandliterarytraditions,haveloomedlarge,backedbyadeluge ofbooks,exhibitions,andculturaleventsthatcelebratedistinctiveness.Thishas allbeenshowcasedwithnewsignaturearchitecturalembellishments(Norman FostersradiocommunicationstowerandMeiersgleamingwhiteMuseumof ModernArtinthemidstofthesomewhatdegradedfabricoftheoldcity)anda wholehostofinvestmentstoopenuptheharbourandthebeach,reclaimderelict landsfortheOlympicVillage(withcutereferencetotheutopianismofthe Icarians)andturnwhatwasoncearathermurkyandevendangerousnightlife intoanopenpanoramaofurbanspectacle.Allofthiswashelpedonbythe OlympicGameswhichopeneduphugeopportunitiestogarnermonopolyrents (Samaranch,PresidentoftheInternationalOlympicCommittee,justhappenedto havelargerealestateinterestsinBarcelona).15 ButBarcelonasinitialsuccessappearsheadeddeepintothefirstcontradiction. Asopportunitiestopocketmonopolyrentsgalorepresentthemselvesonthe basisofthecollectivesymboliccapitalofBarcelonaasacity(propertyprices haveskyrocketedastheRoyalInstituteofBritishArchitectsawardsthewhole cityitsmedalforarchitecturalaccomplishments),sotheirirresistibleluredraws

moreandmorehomogenizingmultinationalcommodificationinitswake.The laterphasesofwaterfrontdevelopmentlookexactlylikeeveryotherinthe westernworld,thestupefyingcongestionofthetrafficleadstopressurestoput boulevardsthroughpartsoftheoldcity,multinationalstoresreplacelocalshops, gentrificationremoveslongtermresidentialpopulationsanddestroysolder urbanfabric,andBarcelonalosessomeofitsmarksofdistinction.Thereareeven unsubtlesignsofDisneyfication.Thiscontradictionismarkedbyquestionsand resistance.Whosecollectivememoryistobecelebratedhere(theanarchistslike theIcarianswhoplayedsuchanimportantroleinBarcelonashistory,the republicanswhofoughtsofiercelyagainstFranco,theCatalannationalists, immigrantsfromAndalusia,oralongtimeFrancoallylikeSamaranch)?Whose aestheticsreallycount(thefamouslypowerfularchitectsofBarcelonalike Bohigas)?WhyacceptDisneyficationofanysort? Debatesofthissortcannoteasilybestilledpreciselybecauseitiscleartoallthat thecollectivesymboliccapitalthatBarcelonahasaccumulateddependsupon valuesofauthenticity,uniquenessandparticularnonreplicablequalities.Such marksoflocaldistinctionarehardtoaccumulatewithoutraisingtheissueof localempowerment,evenofpopularandoppositionalmovements.Atthatpoint, ofcourse,theguardiansofcollectivesymbolicandculturalcapital(themuseums, theuniversities,theclassofbenefactors,andthestateapparatus)typicallyclose theirdoorsandinsistuponkeepingtheriffraffout(thoughinBarcelonathe MuseumofModernArt,unlikemostinstitutionsofitskind,hasremained amazinglyandconstructivelyopentopopularsensibilities).Andifthatfails,then thestatecanstepinwithanythingfromsomethinglikethedecencycommittee setupbyMayorGiulianitomonitorculturaltasteinNewYorkCitytooutright policerepression.Nevertheless,thestakeshereareofsignificance.Itisamatter ofdeterminingwhichsegmentsofthepopulationaretobenefitmostfromthe collectivesymboliccapitaltowhicheveryonehas,intheirowndistinctiveways, contributedbothnowandinthepast.Whyletthemonopolyrentattachedto thatsymboliccapitalbecapturedonlybythemultinationalsorbyasmall powerfulsegmentofthelocalbourgeoisie?EvenSingapore,whichcreatedand appropriatedmonopolyrentssoruthlesslyandsosuccessfully(mainlyoutofits locationalandpoliticaladvantage)overtheyears,sawtoitthatthebenefits werewidelydistributedthroughhousing,healthcareandeducation. ForthesortsofreasonsthattherecenthistoryofBarcelonaexemplifies,the knowledgeandheritageindustries,thevitalityandfermentofcultural production,signaturearchitectureandthecultivationofdistinctiveaesthetic judgementshavebecomepowerfulconstitutiveelementsinthepoliticsofurban entrepreneurialisminmanyplaces(particularlyinEurope).Thestruggleto accumulatemarksofdistinctionandcollectivesymboliccapitalinahighly competitiveworldison.Butthisentrainsinitswakeallofthelocalized questionsaboutwhosecollectivememory,whoseaesthetics,andwhobenefits. NeighbourhoodmovementsinBarcelonamakeclaimsforrecognitionand empowermentonthebasisofsymboliccapitalandcanassertapolitical

presenceinthecityasaresult.Theinitialerasureofallmentionoftheslave tradeinthereconstructionofAlbertDockinLiverpoolgeneratedprotestsonthe partoftheexcludedpopulationofCaribbeanbackgroundandproducednew politicalsolidaritiesamongamarginalizedpopulation.Theholocaustmemorial inBerlinhassparkedlongdrawnoutcontroversies.Evenancientmonuments suchastheAcropolis,whosemeaningonewouldhavethoughtbynowwouldbe wellsettled,aresubjecttocontestation.16Suchcontestationscanhave widespread,evenifindirect,politicalimplications.Theamassingofcollective symboliccapital,themobilizationofcollectivememoriesandmythologiesand appealstospecificculturaltraditionsareimportantfacetstoallformsofpolitical action(bothleftandright). Consider,forexample,theargumentsthathaveswirledaroundthe reconstructionofBerlinafterGermanreunification.Allmannerofdivergent forcesarecollidingthereasthestruggletodefineBerlinssymboliccapital unfolds.Berlin,ratherobviously,canstakeaclaimtouniquenessonthebasisof itspotentialtomediatebetweeneastandwest.Itsstrategicpositioninrelation totheunevengeographicaldevelopmentofcontemporarycapitalism(withthe openingupoftheexSovietUnion)confersobviousadvantages.Butthereisalso anotherkindofbattleforidentitybeingwagedwhichinvokescollective memories,mythologies,history,culture,aestheticsandtradition.Itakeupjust oneparticularlytroublingdimensionofthisstruggle,onethatisnotnecessarily dominantandwhosecapacitytogroundclaimstomonopolyrentunderglobal competitionisnotatallclearorcertain. Afactionoflocalarchitectsandplanners(withthesupportofcertainpartsofthe localstateapparatus)seekstorevalidatethearchitecturalformsofeighteenth andnineteenthcenturyBerlinandinparticulartohighlightthearchitectural traditionofSchinkel,totheexclusionofmuchelse.Thismightbeseenasa simplematterofelitistaestheticpreference,butitisfreightedwithawhole rangeofmeaningsthathavetodowithcollectivememories,monumentality,the powerofhistoryandpoliticalidentityinthecity.Itisalsoassociatedwiththat climateofopinion(articulatedinavarietyofdiscourses)whichdefineswhoisor isnotaBerlinerandwhohasarighttothecityinnarrowlydefinedtermsof pedigreeoradhesiontoparticularvaluesandbeliefs.Itexcavatesalocalhistory andanarchitecturalheritagethatischargedwithnationalistandromanticist connotations.Inacontextwheretheilltreatmentofandviolenceagainst immigrantsiswidespread,itmayevenoffertacitlegitimationtosuchactions. TheTurkishpopulation(manyofwhomarenowBerlinborn)havesuffered manyindignitiesandhavelargelybeenforcedoutfromthecitycentre.Their contributiontoBerlinasacityisignored.Furthermore,thisromanticist/ nationalistarchitecturalstylefitswithatraditionalapproachtomonumentality thatbroadlyreplicatesincontemporaryplans(thoughwithoutspecificreference andmaybeevenwithoutknowingit)AlbertSpeersplans(drawnupforHitlerin the1930s)foramonumentalforegroundtotheReichstag.

Thisisnot,fortunately,allthatisgoingoninthesearchforcollectivesymbolic capitalinBerlin.NormanFostersreconstructionoftheReichstag,forexample, orthecollectionofinternationalmodernistarchitectsbroughtinbythe multinationals(largelyinoppositiontolocalarchitects)todominatethe PotsdamerPlatz,arehardlyconsistentwithit.Andthelocalromanticist responsetothethreatofmultinationaldominationcould,ofcourse,merelyend upbeinganinnocentelementofinterestinacomplexachievementofdiverse marksofdistinctionforthecity(Schinkel,afterall,hasconsiderable architecturalmeritandarebuilteighteenthcenturycastlecouldeasilylenditself toDisneyfication).Butthepotentialdownsideofthestoryisofinterestbecause ithighlightshowthecontradictionsofmonopolyrentcanalltooeasilyplayout. Werethesenarrowerplansandexclusionaryaestheticsanddiscursivepractices tobecomedominant,thenthecollectivesymboliccapitalcreatedwouldbehard totradefreelyuponbecauseitsveryspecialqualitieswouldpositionitlargely outsideglobalizationandinsideanexclusionarypoliticalculturethatrejects muchofwhatglobalizationisabout.Thecollectivemonopolypowersthaturban governancecancommandcanbedirectedtowardsoppositiontothebanal cosmopolitanismofmultinationalglobalizationbutinsodoinggroundlocalized nationalism. Thedilemmaveeringsocloseintopurecommercializationastolosethemarks ofdistinctionthatunderliemonopolyrentsorconstructingmarksofdistinction thataresospecialastobeveryhardtotradeuponisperpetuallypresent.But, asinthewinetrade,therearealwaysstrongdiscursivegambitsinvolvedin definingwhatisorisnotsospecialaboutaproduct,aplace,aculturalform,a tradition,anarchitecturalheritage.Discursivebattlesbecomepartofthegame andadvocates(inthemediaandacademia,forexample)gaintheiraudienceas wellastheirfinancialsupportinrelationtotheseprocesses.Thereismuchto achieve,forexample,byappealstofashion(interestingly,beingacentreof fashionisonewayforcitiestoaccumulateconsiderablecollectivesymbolic capital).Capitalistsarewellawareofthisandmustthereforewadeintothe culturewars,aswellasintothethicketsofmulticulturalism,fashionand aesthetics,becauseitispreciselythroughsuchmeansthatmonopolyrentsstand tobegained,ifonlyforawhile.Andif,asIclaim,monopolyrentisalwaysan objectofcapitalistdesire,thenthemeansofgainingitthroughinterventionsin thefieldofculture,history,heritage,aestheticsandmeaningsmustnecessarily beofgreatimportforcapitalistsofanysort.Thequestionthenarisesastohow theseculturalinterventionscanthemselvesbecomeapotentweaponofclass struggle. VMONOPOLYRENTANDSPACESOFHOPE Bynowcriticswillcomplainattheseemingeconomicreductionismofthe argument.Imakeitseem,theywillsay,asifcapitalismproduceslocalcultures, shapesaestheticmeaningsandsodominateslocalinitiativesastoprecludethe

developmentofanykindofdifferencethatisnotdirectlysubsumedwithinthe circulationofcapital.Icannotpreventsuchareading,butthiswouldbea perversionofmymessage.ForwhatIhopetohaveshown,byinvokingthe conceptofmonopolyrentwithinthelogicofcapitalaccumulation,isthatcapital haswaystoappropriateandextractsurplusesfromlocaldifferences,local culturalvariationsandaestheticmeaningsofnomatterwhatorigin.European touristscannowgetcommercializedtoursofNewYorksHarlem(withagospel choirthrownin).ThemusicindustryintheUnitedStatessucceedsbrilliantlyin appropriatingtheincrediblegrassrootsandlocalizedcreativityofmusiciansof allstripes(almostinvariablytothebenefitoftheindustryratherthanthe musicians).Evenpoliticallyexplicitmusicwhichspeakstothelonghistoryof oppression(aswithsomeformsofrapandJamaicanreggaeandKingstonDance Hallmusic)getscommodifiedandcirculatedwidelythroughouttheworld.The shamelesscommodificationandcommercializationofeverythingis,afterall,one ofthehallmarksofourtimes. Butmonopolyrentisacontradictoryform.Thesearchforitleadsglobalcapital tovaluedistinctivelocalinitiatives(andincertainrespectsthemoredistinctive and,inthesetimes,themoretransgressivetheinitiativethebetter).Italsoleads tothevaluationofuniqueness,authenticity,particularity,originalityandall mannerofotherdimensionstosociallifethatareinconsistentwiththe homogeneitypresupposedbycommodityproduction.Andifcapitalisnotto totallydestroytheuniquenessthatisthebasisfortheappropriationof monopolyrents(andtherearemanycircumstanceswhereithasdonejustthat andbeenroundlycondemnedforsodoing)thenitmustsupportaformof differentiationandallowofdivergentandtosomedegreeuncontrollablelocal culturaldevelopmentsthatcanbeantagonistictoitsownsmoothfunctioning.It canevensupport(thoughcautiouslyandoftennervously)allmannerof transgressiveculturalpracticespreciselybecausethisisonewayinwhichtobe original,creativeandauthenticaswellasunique. Itiswithinsuchspacesthatallmannerofoppositionalmovementscanform evenpresupposing,asisoftenthecase,thatoppositionalmovementsarenot alreadyfirmlyentrenchedthere.Theproblemforcapitalistofindwaystoco opt,subsume,commodifyandmonetizesuchculturaldifferencesjustenoughto beabletoappropriatemonopolyrentstherefrom.Insodoing,capitaloften produceswidespreadalienationandresentmentamongtheculturalproducers whoexperiencefirsthandtheappropriationandexploitationoftheircreativity fortheeconomicbenefitofothers,inmuchthesamewaythatwholepopulations canresenthavingtheirhistoriesandculturesexploitedthrough commodification.Theproblemforoppositionalmovementsistospeaktothis widespreadalienationandexploitationandtousethevalidationofparticularity, uniqueness,authenticity,cultureandaestheticmeaningsinwaysthatopenup newpossibilitiesandalternatives.Attheveryminimumthismeansresistanceto theideathatauthenticity,creativityandoriginalityareanexclusiveproductof bourgeoisratherthanworkingclass,peasantorothernoncapitalistichistorical

geographies,andthattheyaretheremerelytocreateamorefertileterrainfrom whichmonopolyrentscanbeextractedbythosewhohaveboththepowerand thecompulsiveinclinationtodoso.Italsoentailstryingtopersuade contemporaryculturalproducerstoredirecttheirangertowards commodification,marketdominationandthecapitalisticsystemmoregenerally. Itis,forexample,onethingtobetransgressiveaboutsexuality,religion,social moresandartisticconventions,butquiteanothertobetransgressiveinrelation totheinstitutionsandpracticesofcapitalistdomination.Thewidespreadthough usuallyfragmentedstrugglesthatexistbetweencapitalisticappropriationand pastandpresentculturalcreativitycanleadasegmentofthecommunity concernedwithculturalmatterstosidewithapoliticsopposedtomultinational capitalismandinfavourofsomemorecompellingalternativebasedondifferent kindsofsocialandecologicalrelations. Itisbynomeanscertain,however,thatattachmenttopurevaluesof authenticity,originalityandanaestheticofparticularityofcultureisanadequate foundationforaprogressiveoppositionalpolitics.Itcanalltooeasilyveerinto local,regionalornationalistidentitypoliticsoftheneofascistsortofwhichthere arealreadyfartoomanytroublingsignsthroughoutmuchofEuropeaswellas elsewhere.Thisisacentralcontradictionwithwhichtheleftmustinturn wrestle.Thespacesfortransformationalpoliticsaretherebecausecapitalcan neveraffordtoclosethemdown.Theyprovideopportunitiesforsocialist opposition.Theycanbethelocusofexplorationofalternativelifestylesoreven ofsocialphilosophies(muchasCuritibainBrazilhaspioneeredideasofurban ecologicalsustainabilitytothepointofreapingconsiderablefamefromits initiatives).Theycan,asintheParisCommuneof1871orinthenumerous urbanbasedpoliticalmovementsaroundtheworldin1968,beacentralelement inthatrevolutionaryfermentthatLeninlongagocalledthefestivalofthe people.Thefragmentedoppositionalmovementstoneoliberalglobalizationas manifestinSeattle,Prague,Melbourne,BangkokandNiceandthenmore constructively,asthe2001WorldSocialForuminPortoAlegre(inoppositionto theannualmeetingsofthebusinesselitesandgovernmentleadersinDavos), indicatesuchanalternativepolitics.Itisnotwhollyantagonistictoglobalization butwantsitonverydifferentterms.Thestrivingforacertainkindofcultural autonomyandsupportforculturalcreativityanddifferentiationisapowerful constitutiveelementinthesepoliticalmovements. Itisnoaccident,ofcourse,thatitisPortoAlegreratherthanBarcelona,Berlin, SanFranciscoorMilanthathasopeneditselftosuchoppositionalinitiatives.17 Forinthatcity,theforcesofcultureandofhistoryarebeingmobilizedbya politicalmovement(ledbytheBrazilianWorkersParty)inaquitedifferentway, seekingadifferentkindofcollectivesymboliccapitaltothatflauntedinthe GuggenheimMuseuminBilbaoortheextensiontotheTateGalleryinLondon. ThemarksofdistinctionbeingaccumulatedinPortoAlegrederivefromits struggletofashionanalternativetoglobalizationthatdoesnottradeon monopolyrentsinparticularorcaveintomultinationalcapitalismingeneral.In

focusingonpopularmobilizationitisactivelyconstructingnewculturalforms andnewdefinitionsofauthenticity,originalityandtradition.Thatisahardpath tofollow,aspreviousexamplessuchastheremarkableexperimentsinRed Bolognainthe1960sand1970sshow.Socialisminonecityisnotaviable concept.Butthenitisquiteclearthatnoalternativetothecontemporaryformof globalizationwillbedeliveredtousfromonhigheither.Itwillhavetocome fromwithinmultiplelocalspacesconjoiningintoabroadermovement. Itisherethatthecontradictionsfacedbycapitalistsastheysearchformonopoly rentassumeacertainstructuralsignificance.Byseekingtotradeonvaluesof authenticity,locality,history,culture,collectivememoriesandtraditionthey openaspaceforpoliticalthoughtandactionwithinwhichsocialistalternatives canbebothdevisedandpursued.Thatspacedeservesintenseexplorationand cultivationbyoppositionalmovementsthatembraceculturalproducersand culturalproductionasakeyelementintheirpoliticalstrategy.Thereare abundanthistoricalprecedentsformobilizingtheforcesofcultureinthisway (theroleofconstructivisminthecreativeyearsoftheRussianRevolutionfrom 191826isjustoneofmanyhistoricalexamplestobelearnedfrom).Herelies oneofthekeyspacesofhopefortheconstructionofanalternativekindof globalization.Oneinwhichtheprogressiveforcesofculturecanseekto appropriateandunderminethoseofcapitalratherthantheotherwayround. NOTES 1DanielBell,Theculturalcontradictionsofcapitalism,NewYork:BasicBooks 1978,p.20;DavidHarvey,Theconditionofpostmodernity,Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1989,pp.2901;3479;BrandonTaylor,Modernism,post modernism,realism:acriticalperspectiveforart,Winchester:WinchesterSchool ofArtPress,1987,p.77. 2ThegeneraltheoryofrenttowhichIamappealingispresentedinDavid Harvey,Thelimitstocapital,Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1982,chapter11. 3KarlMarx,Capital,vol.3,NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1967,pp.7745. 4CitedinDouglasKelbaugh,CommonPlace,Seattle:UniversityofWashington Press,1997,p.51.

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,TahbilkWinery andVineyard,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.

15DonaldMcNeill,TalesfromthenewBarcelona:urbanchangeandthe Europeanleft,NewYork:Routledge,1999. 16ArgyroLoukaki,Whosegeniusloci:contrastinginterpretationsoftheSacred RockoftheAthenianAcropolis,AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmerican Geographers,87(2),1997,pp.30629. 17RebeccaAbers,Practicingradicaldemocracy:lessonsfromBrazil, Plurimondi,1(2)1999,6782;andIgnacioRamonet,PortoAlegre,LeMonde Diplomatique,No.562,1,January2001.