Privatization and Protest

Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Toronto, and the Occupation of Public Space in a Democracy

Bibliographic Data

ID6325261
AuthorsM Kohn (0000-0002-2309-4412, University of Toronto, corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume11
Issue1
Pages99-110
Publication date2013-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePerspectives on Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1537-5927 • E-ISSN: 1541-0986
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1537592712003623
OpenAlexW2123584274
LanguageEN
Citations received29
References cited32

This article examines the legal and normative debates about the Occupy Toronto movement in order to illuminate the issues raised by Occupy Wall Street. It challenges the view that the occupation of parks and plazas was an illegitimate privatization of public space. In both New York City and Toronto, the courts relied on a theory that Habermas called “German Hobbesianism.” This sovereigntist theory of the public was used to justify removing the protesters and disbanding the encampments. The alternative is what I call the populist model of the public, a term which describes the political mobilization of the people outside the institutional structures of the state. While my focus is on public space, I suggest the appropriation of space was the most visible aspect of a broader call for collective control of the common wealth of society. In other words, we should understand the occupations synecdochally as struggles over the meaning and power of public and private

Appropriation · Autonomy · Democracy · Law and economics · Meaning (existential · Normative · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Public space · Public sphere · Sociology · State (computer science · Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy · Law · Political Theology and Sovereignty · Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Politics · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub