Our Society is Bigger than Yours: Squatting and the Wider Political Rumblings

by | 27 Jun 2011

Despite the attempts of Tory backbenchers to delegitimize squatting, and divide it from the issue of homelessness, the two remain inextricably linked: un-met housing needs, a supply of empty property, and squatting, go hand in hand in hand. But that’s about as far as the generalizations go; squatting is both a means and an end, and the ways that different individuals and groups put squatting into practice varies enormously.

The goofy arrival of Cameron’s Big Society, which provides us with a nice neighbourly back pat to see us through the cuts, and which gives us a sense of ‘involvement’, might lead one to think squatting could have even been embraced by the Con-Dem dogma. Would it not have fitted snugly in with “the spirit of activism, dynamism, people taking the initiative, working together to get things done”? [David Cameron, 2010 conference speech] For better or worse squatting was not invited in for tea and cake and I expect this is because, like the student movement, like those protecting the right to protest, like those preparing to take industrial action on the 30th, like all of these groups, squatting is political in a way that the Big Society is not.

A bluntly repressive approach seems to be underway in dealing with any group who challenges the government and its model of economic governance. First, protestors are hit on the head until they go away.

Then in April we saw a wave of pre-emptive police raids on squats and numerous internet networking pages closed because the queen or whoever got ants in their pants about the royal wedding. And now, they would like very much to criminalize everybody. Squatting potentially faces criminalization, but this will be alongside a raft of other things that will affect our rights and ability to protest and take action. Like John McDonnell made clear here, it is incredibly important that we all recognize that this is the same struggle.

In a campaign to save squatting, the issue of unmet housing needs will invariably be brought to the foreground: it is the key area of common ground for squatters, and it is an issue that the government cannot shy away from. But squatting is more than just a critique of inadequate housing; indeed, if the aims of the movement were simply in better housing provision it would be much more susceptible to state tactics of integration and co-optation. The problem for the government is that squatting is more radical than this: inherent in its actual practice is the contestation of private property rights, a priority that Cameron is unlikely to get out of bed with.

Because it is so incongruent to our government and a capitalist strategy, yet persists within it, squatting provides us all – not just squatters – with a resource by which to negate the system that is causing us so many problems, and simultaneously demonstrate alternatives. Whether it’s the student occupations of our public institutions that are being privatised, and the new forms of organising that have gone with them; whether it’s land projects like grow heathrow, who succeed in disrupting the encroachment of BAA onto local communities, whilst opening up new potential for food autonomy; whether it’s convergence spaces that allow different groups to meet, discuss, and take action without the limitations they might face if they were to organize through more conventional channels; whether it’s projects like the Really Free School, who created the platform for both debate and action in and around the anti-cuts movement; or whether it is simply (but crucially) a mechanism to afford individuals and groups more autonomy in deciding how to spend their time and resources: these spaces are vital for all of us in the battle for real social change.

It would be advantageous, if we are to keep the plethora of different campaigns and groups of resistance as united as possible, if squatting, alongside all the other modes of protest, does not become criminalized. Our power lies in our dynamism, but this same asset also allows our enemies their most obvious means of repression: to divide us and then delegitimize the bits they don’t like. Undoubtedly these bits will be the ones that provide a critique beyond social reform and challenge the actual premise from which the cuts emerge. Some people are averse to breaking the law, and a new raft of legislation attempting to put a whole new swathe of activities outside of the law would both deter people from getting involved, and potentially fracture and delegitimize what we have now.


1 Comment

  1. Hi. I read you article with interest. I think that homelessness is the only issue that this legislation can be fought on. People banging on about the system’ are using arguments that have little resonance outside the anti-capitalist ghetto. This can only be detrimental to the aim of getting any kind of sympathy from wider society.
    I also disagree that squatting is a necessarily a contestation of private property rights. It is about social justice and proper use of resources to meet peoples needs. We should try and win this battle by using the tools we have. All the talk about ‘divide & rule’, with the implicit assumption that anyone who doesn’t ‘go beyond’ the ‘social reform’ agenda is a ‘lightweight’, isn’t going to count for much, if the law gets passed.
    Some of things you quote as being paradigms of the future society, like the really free school (who haven’t really done the squatting movement any favours) or ‘Grow Heathrow’, which is basically an allotment, well come on, be realistic. Most squats are full of the bitching, infighting and shirking of responsibilty, that you find in any walk of life … not some kind of organic utopia.
    I also disagree that it is a form of protest, it certainly wasn’t when I did it. I did it totally out of necessity and the fact that I was a bit mental and unable to get my shit together, not out of some higher ideal. My current involvement with squatting, (we are a ‘community arts organisation’) is totally for practical reasons.
    That’s the way some people see it. The insistence on a political dimension is going to alienate people within the squatting movement, because people have a right not to conform to that agenda, and you are going to need those peoples help.
    All the best.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Join 4,512 other subscribers

We respect your privacy.


Fair access = access according to ability to pay
on a sliding scale down to zero.



Publish your article with us and get read by the largest community of critical legal scholars, with over 4000 subscribers.