(Some comments on Vrej Haroutiunian’s “The Gentrified City” article)

By Husik Ghulyan 

First of all, as a researcher in urban studies, I would like to emphasize that Vrej’s previous article and the last one are very important from several points.

One of them is Vrej’s efforts to connect theoretical discussions of urban theory with the past and present developments in Armenia and especially in Yerevan. The second one is that Vrej tries to see the current urban (and not only urban) problems, changes and trends (not “developments” since it is a concept very different from“change” and “trend” concepts, although Vrej use the word “development” very often) in Armenia in the context of capitalism generally and neoliberalism particularly.

The last point is very important, since current discussions in Armenia relating not only to urban issues but also to other societal issues are discussed without the context of capitalism, the social relationships unique to capitalism and general laws of capitalist mode of production. This situation we can see not only in media and politics (can we show one active politician, political party or media which tries to create discourse on the current issues of Armenia in the context of capitalism by critique of capitalism? Apparently and unfortunately we can’t) but unfortunately in academic circles too. So, when the main problems of Armenia are not discussed in the context of capitalist production and property relations etc. then we are face to face with a mindsetaccording to which capitalism is universal phenomena and it is “the end of history”. And it is not by chance that most of our political scientists are very inclined to cite Fukuyama, Huntington, Brzezinski and this kind of stuff, not Harvey, Smith, Massey, and Castells etc. Just because of this fact, Vrej’s writings are important since they introduce a different conceptual apparatus to the current discoursein Armenia and we can only hope that others especially in academia would be able to take it further. But reading Vrej’s articles, especially the last one, a lot of ‘but’s appeared in my mind, and I would like to discussed it here and if Vrej would like we can further our discussion.

First of all Vrej uses a lot of references and tries to link the theoretical debate to the processes happened or happening in Yerevan. But some problems arise, which are empirical and epistemological ones. Namely, using studies which are curried all over the world in different contexts and in different countries whit different relations of capitalist production and projecting or interpolating them to Yerevan’s situation and trying to link it to Yerevan is not acceptable from epistemological point of view unless we don’t have sufficient empirical data.

In Vrej’s last article some cases are discussed: Northern Avenue and Afrikyan Building. As Vrej rightly notes “Understanding gentrification in the context of globalization and neoliberal economic policies is fundamental to understanding the changes in the urban landscape of Yerevan, as the effects of these processes create social justice issues in the form of internal migration and resulting public health problems.”

But for me one important question arises, empirically and epistemologically: is North Avenue an example of gentrification? Although not having much empirical data about local social changes after Northern Avenue project (here I mean personally I don’t have much empirical data about the profile of people who now reside in Northern Avenue), we can say that this case both physically and socially is not a gentrification since in the case of Northern Avenue we don’t have a working class neighborhood which by rehabilitation and restoration was transformed into a middle class neighborhood. It is apparent to everyone that in Northern Avenue average statistical middle class Armenian family never can buy property neither rent it. Northern Avenue project was not a case of gentrification from the point of built environmenteither, since gentrification as a concept of urban studies implies not a complete change of neighborhood’s built environment but this concept implies restoration and revitalizationof an old neighborhood. So, we can pose a question here: do we see any restored old building or built environment in Northern Avenue? My answer is certainly not. The case of Northern Avenue for me, althoughmy view can be contested, is an “accumulation by dispossession” and “creative destruction” to use Harvey’s concepts.  In the case of Afrikyan Buildingtoo, I prefer to use the concept of creative destruction which although has been used by Marx, later on successfully redefined and used by some prominent urbanists, namely David Harvey, Manuel Castells and Marshall Berman.

So why ‘accumulation by dispossession’, ‘creative destruction’ and not gentrification?

The concept of creative destruction was most successfully elaborated by David Harvey in his “The Enigma of Capital”, “The Conditions of Postmodernity”, “The New Imperialism” and “Rebel Cities” books. So let’s look at Harvey’s some of these works and try to understand the meaning of this concept and to see to what degree this concept is applicable to Armenian reality.

According to Harvey “capitalism perpetually seeks to create a geographical landscape to facilitate its activities at one point in time only to have to destroy it and build a wholly different landscape at a latter point in time to accommodate its perpetual thirst for endless capital accumulation” (Harvey, 2003, p. 135), so because of this basic law of capitalist “development” we ‘have cities in motion’. And as Harvey notes “you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs” old saying and then continues “the birth of capitalism entailed fierce and often violent episodes of creative destruction” (Harvey, 2003, p. 162). In one of his recent booksHarvey notes: “Surplusabsorption through urban transformation has, however, an even darker side. It has entailed repeated bouts of urban restructuring through “creative destruction”. This nearly always has a class dimension, since it is usually the poor, the unprivileged, and those marginalized from political power that suffer first and foremost from this process” (Harvey, 2012, p. 16 – emphasis added). And as we can see from this lines, creative destructionentails class warfare, and most importantly brutal aspect of this class warfare; violence. So, if we look back at the first stages of the implementation of Northern Avenue project, the violence becomes apparent and everyone knew and knows by whom and againstwho that violence was directed:the poor, unprivileged people of Yerevan’s one of the oldest neighborhood were face to face with Robert Kocharyan’s brutal police forces and Narek Sargsyan’s brutal plan of Northern Avenue (at that time some labeled Sargsyan as a ‘new Tamanyan’ of Yerevan). 

Concerning the concept of accumulation by dispossession its use can differ according to circumstances but if we summarize it from one of Harvey’s work it would look like this: “accumulation by dispossession’ continues to play a role in assembling the initial money power. Both legal as well as illegal means – such as violence, criminality, fraud and predatory practices of the sort that have been uncovered in recent times in the subprime mortgage market, or even more significantly in the drug trade – are deployed. The legal means include privatization of what were once considered common property resources (like water and education), the use of the power of eminent domain to seize assets, widespread practices of takeovers...” (Harvey, 2010, pp.48-49 - emphasis added). As a result, we are faced with the “category of the dispossessed, which is much more complicated in its composition and in its class character. It is largely formed by what I call ‘accumulation by dispossession’. As usual, it takes a seemingly infinite variety of forms in different places and times. The list of the deprived and dispossessed is as imposing as it is long. It includes all those peasant and indigenous populations expelled from the land, deprived of access to their natural resources and ways of life by illegal and legal (that is, state-sanctioned), colonial, neo-colonial or imperialist means, and forcibly integrated into market exchange (as opposed to barter and other forms of customary exchange) by forced monetization and taxation. The conversion of common rights of usage into private property rights in land completes the process. Land itself becomes a commodity. These forms of dispossession, still extant but most strongly represented in the early stages of capitalist development, have many modern equivalents. Capitalists open up spaces for urban redevelopment, for example, by dispossessing low-income populations from high-value spaces at the lowest cost possible. In places without secure private property rights...violent expulsions of low-income populations by state authorities often lead the way with or without modest compensation arrangements. In countries with firmly established private property rights, seizure by eminent domain can be orchestrated by the state on behalf of private capital. By legal and illegal means financial pressures (that is, rising property taxes and rents) are brought to bear on vulnerable populations. It seems sometimes as if there is a systematic plan to expel low-income and unwanted populations from the face of the earth.” (Harvey, 2010, pp. 244-245; Cf. Harvey, 2003, pp. 137-182; and elsewhere – emphasis added). 

So, looking at the Northern Avenue, from the first sight it could be labeled as gentrification, especially if we depart from Sharon Zukin’s important work. According to him “Gentrification thus appears as a multidimensional cultural practice that is rooted on both sides of the methodological schisms...as a reference to specific building types in the center of the city, gentrification connotes both a mode of high-status cultural consumption and the colonization of an expanding terrain by economic institutions associated with the service sector.” (Zukin, 1987, pp. 143-144 – emphasis added) So, we can easily say that Northern Avenue is a kind of gentrification which “connotes both a mode of high-status cultural consumption and the colonization of an expanding terrain by economic institutions associated with the service sector”. But it would be just description of a process or of a situation, more important is relationships and processes beneath the surface. So, I find that Northern Avenue is a case of accumulation of dispossession in which “the state, with its monopoly of violence and definitions of legality, play[ed] a crucial role in both backing and promoting these processes” (Harvey, 2003, pp. 145).

The case of Afrikyan Building which is also mentioned by Vrej as an example of gentrification is contestable too, since here we have a project which aims completely to demolish an old building and creating a completely new building with different use and exchange value. But as we know from the classical and later explanations of the concept gentrification, it impliesrestoration, rehabilitation, which changes the social character of old buildings or neighborhood but not theaesthetical, architectural properties of them. So, in this case too, we have a creative destruction of space and of built environment which is happening by abuse of the citizens “right to the city”.

In another line Vrej notes “In Yerevan, social justice issues arise as a byproduct of rapid gentrification. It is a process that responds to neoliberalism and gentrification, another force present in the process of shaping the urban landscape. Social justice is a concept based on equality and human rights, with social equality and solidarity being its two main principles.” The language of this line is structuredin such a way, as if social justice issues are ‘by-product’ of “neoliberalism and gentrification, another force present in the process of shaping the urban landscape”. In other words, as if gentrification and neoliberalism are separable phenomena. Besides, “by-product” means some secondary and mostly negative effects of some process or thing (a drug for example). But social justice issues are not by-products, in other words secondary effects; they are the only products of neoliberalism, neoliberal gentrification, creative destruction and accumulation by dispossession.

In the end of the article, in the context of gentrification, Vrej speaks about social justice. And as Vrej notes: “Social justice is imperative in a democratic society. It is an ideology that reinstates the importance of solidarity in communities and the overall well-being of people. The principles of solidarity and social equality restore justice among people and reinstate trust in government to represent the will of the people. In order for democracy to flourish in countries like Armenia, social justice must be restored and considered an important measure of the democratic process.”

I accept this, but here I would like to pose one more question (not rhetorical) which is not related to academic field of urban studies and its concepts; be it gentrification, creative destruction etc. - If we want social justice and democracy then we should think this is possible in a capitalist system and via neoliberal policies? In other words, are capitalism and its free market compatible with social justice and democracy? The answer to this question can be found elsewhere (Cf. Chomsky, 1996; Chomsky, 1997;  Chomsky, 1999; Chomsky, 1999b). 

P.S. Thanking Vrej for his work and adding some critical notes on his comments, I would like also to note that statistically the average English language reader in Armenia is able to read about gentrification in English and create some contextual links with processes in Armenia. But as I understand from my evaluation of Armenian language academic literature and media, the creation of Armenian language discourse on these issues for people who are not able to read either Smith, Harvey or any other prominent theoretician is a more important issue. In the article Vrej shows a photo of an appropriation of public space, implicitly noting its importance. In this case agreeing with him I can only add that today for Armenian people and especially the people of Yerevan who most suffer from creative destruction and appropriation by dispossession, the creation of a discourse on “the Right to the city” is more important since this right not only implies an appropriation of public space: “The right to the city is far more than a right of individual or group access to the resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change and reinvent the city more after our hearts’ desire...The freedom to make and remake ourselves and our cities is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.” (Harvey, 2012, p. 4).

References

Chomsky, N. (1999b).Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order,Seven Stories Press

Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism, Oxford University Press

Harvey, D. (2010). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism, Oxford University Press

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, Verso

Zukin, S. (1987), “Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 129-147,DOI: 10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001021