Urban Dissensus: Spatial Self-Organisation at Wards Corner

  • Sam VardyEmail author


Pairing the Rancierian concept of dissensus with the Lefebvrian notion of autogestion, this chapter proposes the term spatial dissensus as a form of spatial self-organisation that can be seen in urban politics today as a response to the depoliticised ‘post-political’ condition brought about through neoliberalisation. Empirically, the chapter mobilises the Wards Corner Coalition (WCC) in London as an example of spatial dissensus. This broad alliance of local actors has led a self-organised campaign to resist neoliberal gentrification through spatial dissensus, with the effect of introducing ‘impropriety’ into the configuration to create a rupture in the spatial, sensory and experiential reality of the city. This illustrates how spatial self-organisation offers new roles, possibilities and subjectivities for action that enable alternative urban futures.


Dissensus Self-organisation Urban politics Spatiality London Post-political 


  1. Corcoran, S. (2009). Editor’s Introduction. In Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics (pp. 1–25). London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Dikeç, M. (2005). Space, Politics, and the Political. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(2), 171–188. Scholar
  3. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996). The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Guilbaul, P., Lefebvre, H., & Renaudie, S. (2009). International Competition for the New Belgrade Urban Structure Improvement. In Autogestion: Or Henri Lefebvre in New Belgrade (pp. 1–32). New York: Sternberg Press.Google Scholar
  5. Laclau, E. (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (1st ed.). London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Lahiji, N. (2011). Is Building the Practice of Dissensus? Architecture between Aesthetics and Politics. Presented at the Architecture and the Political//Fourth International Symposium on Architectural Theory, The School of Architecture and Design at the Lebanese American University.Google Scholar
  7. Lefebvre, H. (1995). The Right to the City. In Writings on Cities (pp. 147–159). Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Rancière, J. (2004). Disagreement: Politics And Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rancière, J. (2007). Art of the Possible: Fulvia Carnevale and John Kelsey in Conversation with Jaques Rancière. Art Forum, 45(7), 256–368.Google Scholar
  12. Rancière, J. (2009). Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Ross, K. (2008). The Emergence of Social Space: Rimbaud and the Paris Commune. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Ross, K. (2016). Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  15. Swyngedouw, E. (2007). The Post-Political City. In Urban Politics Now, Re-Imagining Democracy in the Neoliberal City (1st ed.). Rotterdam and New York, NY: NAI Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Designing the Post-Political City and the Insurgent Polis. London: Bedford Press.Google Scholar
  17. WCC. (2009). Wards Corner Community Coalition Presentation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations