Lecture 5: Urban Militarism
- Cities have become problematic in the way power is exerted. This lecture looks at urbacide and processes within that kill the city.
Processes leading to the spread of the military include the likes of symbols, practices, privilege or power structures such as race and the break down of distinctions between the battlefield/home-front. Geographical distance is no more as peace being in the UK is blurring.
Berman, 1996 views cities as strategic cites. States that they have invested as much energy killing the city as making it.
Graham, 2013 further elaborates stating that cities are more than just a backdrop for war and terror. Their buildings, infrastructures, industries etc. have been an explicit target for a range of deliberate, orchestrated attacks.
- Inspired from medieval law, cities like London have become states of governmental power, London's Whitehall holds bureaucracy. Therefore, as Mumford, 1960 states, because they are symbols of power and sovereignty, they will become mediums for social protest, making them more susceptible to politics.
Scott, 1998 states that cities can make problems if its just seeing, but controlling the city can be hard due to its complexity and unpredictability.
Attempts of social protest have been prevalent throughout history. For examples, barricades were used in Parisian protests of 1873 to stop military movement. It was a strong form of resistance as it stopped movement. However, shortly afterwards, urban architecture mitigated to that and Haussman re-designed Paris creating boulevards to avoid it becoming a civil war zone. Thus urban architecture and planning has always been bulldozed through the urban fabric in reaction .
Cities are hot points for war or terror. If you could target a city and its population, it would make a knockout blow. Cities cannot escape politics. This view resonated in the U.S during the Cold War where fear of a nuclear bomb hitting their city would kill the majority. Decentralization followed and many spread out into the suburbs etc.
- So it is clear that the bulldozing of architecture and constant new additions of architecture to address issues is indeed militant but what else embeds the urban and military?
The Radiant City by Le Corbusier also resonated this 1930's European paranoia over warfare post the World War. With many fearing ariel warfare, the likes of Corbusier created a plan for dense social housing to be small and concentrated to be the smallest targets. They also had anti-aircraft and bombproof roofs designed to also lift residents above expected gas attacks (Markou, 2002). However the military part of it is that it became an obsession for many cities to be demolishes and replaced with this modern utopia obsession. Gideon, 1941 argued that "the threat of attack from the air demands urban changes"
The military is also embedded into the urban through the likes of military remembrance on the likes of November in Tower of London or the Queen's birthday. Any excuse to commemorate monuments or sculptures or bodies that symbolise the military.
- Demonising the City/ Military being problematic
Davis, 2006 is arguing that there is a 'coming age of the urban gorilla', looks at how the likes of the US not only demonize different cities across the world due to their manifest destiny beliefs (e.g. Axis of Evil, 'civilized world', 'dark forces' etc), but also their own homelands. Some see cities as breeding grounds of insurgency for violence and terror.
Post Hurricane Katrina, Chennelly, 2005 said that "the place is going to look like little Somalia'. Demonizing an area with a large African-American population. The black population was unfairly blamed for looting and protest after the disaster and this legitimized reasoning for military intervention. Known as the iraqification of urban emergencies
"From Baghdad to Baton Rouge" this is another example of institutionalized racist propaganda depicting black culture with thievery or aggression leading many to justify extreme military involvement.
In addition, the types of weaponry the US military will use is often disproportionate and depending on the context, e.g. Black lives matter peaceful campaign seen as aggressive.
- War on Graffiti
Iveson, 2010 notices how things like the war on graffiti is simply giving excuse for the creeping of military intervention to occur in the city. Graffiti, through government eyes, are seen as a signal for something worse going on, known as broken-window syndrome. Iveson, 2010 further states that the war on graffiti has contributed to the blurring of war and policing, allowing military urbanism to intensify.
- Urbacide and Israel
The White City in Tel Aviv was created to gain UNESCO status, but it was created at the expense of Jaffar, the Black City which was destroyed as it did not correspond with the UNESCO criteria.
Jaffar became the definition of urbacide, linking to Berman's 1996 argument.
Rotbard, 2015 states that construction and destruction are the primary expression of the division of power in Israel
This is supported when you look at Palestine being viewed as a tumour to Israel and thus extreme military practices have been used. Acts such as bulldozing through walls of homes. Weizman, 2007 - Walking Through Walls
- Conclusion: Cities are sites of military commemoration, memorialisation and spectacle. But also platforms to express military power and this is seen through the building, demonization and destruction of cities.