moving to the suburbs – is in full swing. In the former GDR (German Democratic Republic), we can observe fascinating shrinking cities. In Poland too, more and more people want to live in the suburbs, and if possible move to a house with a garden. However, the biggest weakness in modern cities concerns the political arena. Devotees of European Cities gladly refer to the Greek polis, and the Polis was primarily a political concept (it is from the word polites – which denotes fully fledged citizens of a Polis – that the word politics comes, after all). Yet despite economic growth, despite the fact that national or international political institutions locate their headquarters in the cities, modern cities have almost no political significance in themselves. Thus, despite city planning and population growth, the Cities are dying. They die as a political idea and as a way of life for their citizens based on self-managing communities. So while at first glance it may seem that the City is experiencing staggering growth today, in fact, there is exactly the opposite process going on. Of course, the external, physical dimension of the city is growing, but what grows, what is still called the City, is not its core – it is a mutated tumor, a caricature of the City. It is an ‘urbanised area’ rather than the City. Cities are dying and I do not think that we can stop this process. The death of the City does not yet mean the end of the idea that the City was, that contributed to the history of Europe and the world. Cities are dying as a concept of community life but this death does not mean that the story ends. There is a life after death. The term ‘urbanised area’ is a description of a certain socio-spatial phenomenon, while the City was a project of political, social and economic development. Above all, political. After the death of Cities we can expect there to be something new, something that will be a new idea of themselves for people who live in large groups within small areas. The death of the City may be the resurrection of the Polis. Polis, understood as a way of managing the community which lives in the ‘urban area’ formerly known as the City.
The City’s life after death is, above all, a political concept of how people organise their lives as a community in space. And that is what this book is about. It is not just about city urbanism, architecture, economics and hundreds of other matters which relate to cities. It is about the death of the City, its causes and signals of what it might become. This is a political book: its purpose is political.
This book would not exist but for the help and kindness of many people. I must thank my publisher, Janek Sowa, for daring to publish it in Poland; Michał Herer, for his comments and suggestions concerning the philosophical aspects of this book; Krzysztof Kafka, for our private and public discussions about urban planning, space and politics (published online at www.miejsca.org); Magdalena Piekara, for her critical comments; and Anna ‘Maug’ Grzybowska, for supporting me throughout the whole process of writing and thinking. Thank you also to my wife Katarzyna, without whose faith in this book, and in me, it would have not succeeded. Finally, I thank my late father, Henryk Nawratek, who first taught me to look at and think about the City.
For the new English language edition of this book, I am deeply grateful to the Polish Cultural Institute in London, the Book Institute in KrakÓw and the Faculty of Arts at Plymouth University. I would also like to thank my translator Agata Pyzik and my editor Gavin Thomas, without whose passion and patience you would not be able to share my vision today.
Thank you also to all those not mentioned here who have supported me. What is good and valuable in this book, I am happy to share with those mentioned above. For all the errors, only I am responsible.
II. Invisible
Citizenship
What is citizenship? What is the meaning and sense of citizenship? A Citizen is a kind of a socio-political construct, whose function is to include the individual in the political system.
Citizenship is assumed, therefore, to be a neutral tool that enables man to enjoy certain rights and privileges, but also imposes certain duties on man. We must remember that the liberal idea of a Citizen (for now let us forget Greek origins) was conceived to enable man to break away from the political authority of the Church. The Citizen is abstracted from a variety of more or less natural communities (family, clan, etc.) – or, as we could see it today, from a network of dependencies – and placed in a theoretically neutral sphere of politics. In this way, the claims of all these groups are weakened because they are filtered through the abstract construct of the Citizen. This concept is one of the cornerstones of liberal thought and democracy, but we should not be subject to the illusion that this idea can be the foundation of a modern liberal-democratic society. Even if nationality itself is a neutral state – after all, the essence of citizenship is the alignment of the political rights of unequal people – the process of gaining or granting citizenship is not neutral. Citizenship can be regarded as a kind of privilege and privileges create inequalities – which is why nationality has its positive side, of inclusion in a community, but also means an exclusion from the political community of non-Citizens.1 This exclusive power of citizenship has consequences not only in politics but also – and this is the problem that is primarily addressed in this book – in physical and social urban space.
What is citizenship? We experience it the most when we do not have it. When one is excluded from a community then one can see its strength and attractiveness. Since the entry of Poland into the European Union, Poles in many countries – those that fully opened their labour markets – no longer experience the humiliation of being illegal immigrants. They have stopped experiencing it and so they have stopped understanding it. This experience has not applied a change or extension to their citizenship – Poles are still citizens of Poland rather than Ireland, Sweden or the UK. The only change that has occurred since May 2004 is that governments, in some member countries, have created for the citizens of this new EU country career and resident opportunities almost on the same conditions as the citizens of those countries. And in this case, the word ‘almost’ really is of little importance. The right to work, the right to health and social care, along with suffrage rights in local elections comprise, practically speaking, almost the full dimension of citizenship, of which the citizens of new EU members dream.
So what is this contemporary almost citizenship? It is right to take roots in a community, yet the law has traditionally associated with the biological side of human existence. This so-called ‘biological citizenship’ is now increasingly seen as a further step of change in the understanding of citizenship – from the citizenship of the political, the social, to the new biological citizenship.2 As such, it is more a mechanism of deterritorialisation and the subsequent uprooting of the community than it is of rooting. The mere passage of citizenship from the political dimension to the social has moved it from the sphere of loyalty – loyalty to the state and to the community (in the nineteenth century there was also the biological dimension: ethnic citizenship) – to the sphere of individual privileges. This shift in the conception of citizenship from its political significance to its social importance was, primarily, associated with Europe’s burgeoning welfare state model in the years following the Second World War. However, having a green card fulfilled this dream for many immigrants in the USA. Full citizenship gave an additional freedom of movement and of smooth entry into the territories of countries that have signed agreements with the USA Visa Waiver. Citizenship – holding the passport of a country, but especially a rich country – has a tangible financial meaning, as proven by Valpy FitzGerald and J.A. Cuesta-Leiva.3 Having a passport in some countries, however, demands certain responsibilities from the ‘full’ citizens – most commonly associated with knowing a language and the obligation of military service. More attractive to many immigrants seems the status of an almost citizen, which gives key rights and privileges without imposing the duties of ‘full’ citizenship.
The focus of modern citizenship, though, is on the individual rights and privileges of the citizen rather than on their duties – this shift is significant and crucial. Despite recent and quite aggressive criticism (primarily alleging ‘anglocentrism’ and ignoring the tensions and conflicts in multiethnic societies), a liberal understanding of citizenship conceived by Thomas Humphrey Marshall is still valid – at least from the point of view of a single person trying to be a citizen.4 For Marshall, citizenship is in fact full participation, full connectivity with the community. This communication takes place in three areas – civil rights, political rights and social rights. The concept of citizenship formulated by Marshall is of a sociological rather