ABSTRACT
Studies in this volume reveal that even the spatial structures, processes, and spaces created by the most powerful actors are not complete. They are unable to create fully complying subjects. Even those who volunteered to be subjects have adapted these spaces, functions, and their envisaged meanings within their frameworks. People were heavily affected by the war in northern Sri Lanka, the tsunami and the posttsunami reconstruction process in the south, the establishment of a World Heritage site in Galle, and a stagnant housing stock in Tashkent. People have been resilient. After an initial setback, beginning with spaces of basic survival, most subjects built their lives and spaces necessary for their new life trajectories, instead of recovering the life they previously had. They refused to be victims; they are survivors. We see in the example of colonial Colombo how ordinary people may first resist a change, then find ways to survive in the midst of their new reality, adapting to new spaces as necessary (Chapter 1). In the early sixteenth century, the Portuguese established Colombo as a White male Christian city. Beginning with creating third spaces nestled in private ones, women in Colombo not only bifurcated and contested the formal public sphere, but over centuries, laid claims to it (Chapter 2). The colonial authorities subjected Colombo to a massive change in the late nineteenth century. The process of Ceylonese becoming subjects within colonial society and space caused an even greater transformation in the city (Chapter 1). In the process, by bringing a power institution to the indigenous side, the Ceylonese subverted-at least weakened-the structure of the colonial city. The examples in this volume show how ordinary people shape and develop their own subjectivities and spaces to a degree that has not been acknowledged in scholarly and professional work. Contemporary social space is largely defined by the conflict between (abstract) spaces created by powerful actors, especially for their subjects and (lived) spaces that ordinary people opt to create for their livelihoods, and how the differences between
these are reconciled. The negotiations range from the subjects trying to cope with spaces such as colonial and World Heritage sites imposed on them by the state and capital, to the latter attempting to find accommodation in spaces created by people such as self-built settlements and in handiyas (Figure 11.1). Formal spaces are provided and/or imposed by the authorities and powerful actors. The subjects’ responses vary from voluntary subjugation to subversion, yet the differences are blurry. In nineteenth-century Colombo and the 60-Houses project in Galle, the subjects went along with the imposed structures. Yet the
occupation itself disrupted their mapping, demonstrating the incompleteness of abstract spaces and the differences in spatial perceptions and practices of the creators/ providers and subjects of these spaces. Some people may initially practice apathy, but most subjects are not passive recipients, not even those who accept subjectivity. When resistance fails, as in Colombo and Galle, people cope with impositions. Yet in most cases, beginning with finding accommodation for their activities, the subjects familiarize the strange as in Jaffna and Galle, negotiate space as in Kalametiya, and subvert as in nineteenth-century Colombo. People produce their lived spaces by carving out room for their daily activities and cultural practices (within constraints) and decentering the meaning of imposed and/or provided spaces. People employ the provided and/or imposed spaces as both the point of departure and the raw material for creating their livelihoods and lived spaces. The inhabitants of Daanchi redefined outside influences (globalization and Westernization) from their standpoints, and the inhabitants of Kalametiya used aid to build the lives they desired. Almost all of Gangtok is built by people, but through the very formal system to which they are subject. Despite the rules and sanctioning procedures, most planning and building in Gangtok occurs along unwritten (informal) processes developed by people. Between and outside the successive spatial ordering of society by the state and the market, ordinary people and small organizations produce a greater quantity and variety of spaces. Most places, especially in the “global south,” are developed by people. Historically, lived spaces predate contemporary abstract ones, even in the West. In regard to Dharavi and Moratumulla Handiya, people initiated the production and transformation of space on their own terms. Gangtok predates regulations. In these places, the conflict between abstract and lived spaces is reversed: The state and capital are compelled to negotiate their needs through formalizing public areas and/or infrastructure, by resizing, reshaping, or restructuring elements such as roads, public areas and infrastructure.
