What do you think?
The autonomous life?: Paradoxes of hierarchy and authority in the squatters movement in Amsterdam
The Autonomous Life? is an ethnography of the squatters' movement in Amsterdam written by an anthropologist who lived and worked in a squatters' community for over three years. During that time she resided as a squatter in four different houses, worked on two successful anti-gentrification campaigns, was evicted from two houses and jailed once. With this unique perspective, Kadir systematically examines the contradiction between what people say and what they practice in a highly ideological radicalleftcommunity. The squatters' movement defines itself primarily as anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian, and yet is perpetually plagued by the contradiction between this public disavowal and the maintenance of hierarchy and authority within the movement. This study analyses how this contradiction is then reproduced in different micro-social interactions, examining the methods by which people negotiate minute details of their daily lives as squatter activists in the face of a fun house mirror of ideological expectations reflecting values from within the squatter community, that, in turn, often refract mainstream, middle-class norms.
Using a unique critical perspective informed by gender and subaltern studies, this study contributes to social movements literature through a meticulous analysis of the production of power and hierarchy in a social movement subculture.
Using a unique critical perspective informed by gender and subaltern studies, this study contributes to social movements literature through a meticulous analysis of the production of power and hierarchy in a social movement subculture.
- GenresAnthropology
232 pages, Paperback
First published December 29, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 3, 2024
Where much of the literature positions the scholar-activist as a radical actor responsible for keeping the movement alive, this ethnography reveals the backstage of the Dutch squatting scene. Here, rather than staging yet another glorified portrayal of struggle, Kadir details the incongruities of lived ideology.
Kadir’s analysis of how “squatter capital” was developed and used to uphold internal hierarchies is especially fascinating. Strikingly, radical identification could even displace original demands for affordable housing. Kadir remembers how, when the opportunity of getting legalised arose, she was one of only a few excited by the idea of stable and affordable housing.
Capital acquisition also remained gendered and racialised. The example Kadir gives is that, though women often wanted to become breakers, distrustful men would interfere with their attempts. Also, unwilling to reflect on their relative privilege, squatters would keep more vulnerable people at arm’s length. As, for instance, with Karima, an undocumented East African woman, whose presence breached established “feeling rules”. Throwing herself into domestic chores, the collective felt that Karima was maintaining a slave-like mentality. So, her attempts to “show commitment” were not read as dedicated but as pitiable and, therefore, disruptive to the “feeling rule of equality”.
For Kadir, the “autonomous life” is a fiction which requires “a constant disavowal and double-speak.” Instead, though absent from the movement’s value system, it was its “unsentimental solidarity” which made it a desirable lifestyle. Unlike on-stage confrontation, this system “operates at its best when no one else is watching.” Grand narratives not only conceal this informal structure in an attempt to further the autonomous ideal, but actively undermine its liberatory potential. This landmark book does much to restore the damage done.
Kadir’s analysis of how “squatter capital” was developed and used to uphold internal hierarchies is especially fascinating. Strikingly, radical identification could even displace original demands for affordable housing. Kadir remembers how, when the opportunity of getting legalised arose, she was one of only a few excited by the idea of stable and affordable housing.
Capital acquisition also remained gendered and racialised. The example Kadir gives is that, though women often wanted to become breakers, distrustful men would interfere with their attempts. Also, unwilling to reflect on their relative privilege, squatters would keep more vulnerable people at arm’s length. As, for instance, with Karima, an undocumented East African woman, whose presence breached established “feeling rules”. Throwing herself into domestic chores, the collective felt that Karima was maintaining a slave-like mentality. So, her attempts to “show commitment” were not read as dedicated but as pitiable and, therefore, disruptive to the “feeling rule of equality”.
For Kadir, the “autonomous life” is a fiction which requires “a constant disavowal and double-speak.” Instead, though absent from the movement’s value system, it was its “unsentimental solidarity” which made it a desirable lifestyle. Unlike on-stage confrontation, this system “operates at its best when no one else is watching.” Grand narratives not only conceal this informal structure in an attempt to further the autonomous ideal, but actively undermine its liberatory potential. This landmark book does much to restore the damage done.
April 24, 2022
The Autonomous Life is a welcome exception to the kind works that tend to populate it's field
The genre of social movement ethnographies is overcrowded by two specific types of works: the uncritical hagiographies written by people who wish they were part of the movements they write about and the apologetic propaganda written by (former) members of such movements who have joined the academy after retiring from the barricades.
The authors of the former often lack real insights about their subject mainly because they could muster the bravery required to actually be in open opposition to the powers that be and therefore never experience the movements actions first hand. They are doomed to rely on the tell tale of actual activists and their self representation in movement media.
The authors of the latter do have all the first hand experience , including the trauma of repression which tends to ensue when challenging the powers to be. While debating anything 'internally' with great fervour, cannot muster enough critical distance to be sharp enough observers as required for good science or historiography. Needless to say, that they tend consider open debate about 'internal affairs' a sort of political betrayal.
Both do not do the movements they describe any favours. Internally, they do not contribute their scientific skills to the movements creation of ideology, which would require a critical approach to the movements dogmas. Externally they create an image of distant and infallible heroes 'normal' people have trouble to relate to.
The Autonomous Life is luckily none of the above. It portrays the lives, aspirations and fears of the movement's members from the intimate perspective of a participant, focusing on the personal experiences of leading protagonists just us well as reluctant tag-alongs, the influence that their social backgrounds tend to have on what they become in the movement and their internal social dynamics.
The scientific theory brought forward in the book therefore does not relate to the movements lines of thinking and the themes it tends to promote, but is primarily as tool for comprehension of the way people in the movement behave, in accordance with but also despite of their ideals.
The Autonomous Life uses the squatters movement, it's self representation and representation by society as a background, rather to tell the story of the squatters themselves: their resourcefulness and agility, just as well as their stubborn dogmatisms and vicious gossip, their immense and real sense of solidarity and loyalty, just as well the occasional cop outs and lame excuses made for them, their fierce battles and wild parties, just as well their humiliating defeats and pounding hangovers, the excitement of conquering space just as well as the constant anxiety of being threatened by eviction arrest and violence.
The Autonomous Life achieves with what very few social history books do: it makes its protagonists come alive under the readers eyes.
The genre of social movement ethnographies is overcrowded by two specific types of works: the uncritical hagiographies written by people who wish they were part of the movements they write about and the apologetic propaganda written by (former) members of such movements who have joined the academy after retiring from the barricades.
The authors of the former often lack real insights about their subject mainly because they could muster the bravery required to actually be in open opposition to the powers that be and therefore never experience the movements actions first hand. They are doomed to rely on the tell tale of actual activists and their self representation in movement media.
The authors of the latter do have all the first hand experience , including the trauma of repression which tends to ensue when challenging the powers to be. While debating anything 'internally' with great fervour, cannot muster enough critical distance to be sharp enough observers as required for good science or historiography. Needless to say, that they tend consider open debate about 'internal affairs' a sort of political betrayal.
Both do not do the movements they describe any favours. Internally, they do not contribute their scientific skills to the movements creation of ideology, which would require a critical approach to the movements dogmas. Externally they create an image of distant and infallible heroes 'normal' people have trouble to relate to.
The Autonomous Life is luckily none of the above. It portrays the lives, aspirations and fears of the movement's members from the intimate perspective of a participant, focusing on the personal experiences of leading protagonists just us well as reluctant tag-alongs, the influence that their social backgrounds tend to have on what they become in the movement and their internal social dynamics.
The scientific theory brought forward in the book therefore does not relate to the movements lines of thinking and the themes it tends to promote, but is primarily as tool for comprehension of the way people in the movement behave, in accordance with but also despite of their ideals.
The Autonomous Life uses the squatters movement, it's self representation and representation by society as a background, rather to tell the story of the squatters themselves: their resourcefulness and agility, just as well as their stubborn dogmatisms and vicious gossip, their immense and real sense of solidarity and loyalty, just as well the occasional cop outs and lame excuses made for them, their fierce battles and wild parties, just as well their humiliating defeats and pounding hangovers, the excitement of conquering space just as well as the constant anxiety of being threatened by eviction arrest and violence.
The Autonomous Life achieves with what very few social history books do: it makes its protagonists come alive under the readers eyes.
December 1, 2021
That's maybe a generous two stars...
There a number of elements of this book that I continue to find somewhat puzzling, mostly in terms of the practices and conclusions drawn by the writer. Kadir frames the book in terms of assessing the aspects of the 'autonomous life' and social dynamics present within Amsterdam squatter communities. There is an implicit orientation towards radical/anarchist politics but this aspect remains undeveloped. There is much discussion and at times unnecessary revealing of personal conflict throughout the book but the more explicit values and ethics of the movement and its politics get a scant amount of intentional treatment. There are whole chapters dedicated to the different roles required in squatting, personal conflicts and gossip, and the constructions of inclusion and hierarchy. But there is little framing of the overall political scope of the movement or discussions of the movements theory in relation to broader radical /anarchist political theory and movements. It is difficult for those external to such struggles to glean more complex understandings of the movements politics. There are passing references to anti-capitalism, anarchism, non-hierarchical organization etc but without a detailed discussion of the reference points, influences, histories and tensions within those specific movement ethics and values. This includes the use of violent tactics for resisting evictions that are not situated in broader movement or direct action repertoiresand are presented more so as things uncritically fetishized by some participants rather than being more broadly situated. There is reference to a range of social movement theory but only at the level of theoretical abstraction. There is little to no sustained reference to movement focused literatures and discussions that would do much to both situate and dialogue with the movement and actors presented here. We are left rather with a vague overview of the politics, as well as the political potentials, of the movement.
In a similar vein there is perhaps and over emphasis on interpersonal and social dynamics between individuals. This does aid in the discussion of the ways that informal expressions of authority circulate and the dynamics of inclusion/exclusion, and social forms of enforcing/maintaining internal norms, which is interesting in terms of getting to some sense of the everyday life aspects of the movement. But there is an odd, if not perverse, emphasis on gossip. This reveals, for sure, the ways that authority is contested and how social norms are enforced but the author seems keen to over emphasize this as a key part of the movement. This is especially the case in terms of the sexual rumour mill. It actually feels like the author is participating in the gossip herself and it reads at times as petty and also unaccountable to those who are spoken about. This also often occurs when speaking about certain personalities as examples where they are not permitted to speak for themselves, relying instead on rumour, gossip and impression from others, but also from the author herself. There are several moments of unqualified dismissal of participants actions/narratives/presentations, often listed in footnotes, that exist without qualification (a couple moments in particular stand out - the description of one participants "obesity" pointed out as a movement and societal exception; and the doubting of a immigrant women's representations of herself). In both cases the questioning doesn't seem to add to the text /discussion and seems to target these participants without a clear rationale.
In this sense there is a certain animosity that seems present in the author against the movement and its participants. She frames her work as ethnography, having been present and actively participating in the movement, but seems to lack a degree of accountability to her research subjects and the ways they are portrayed. Certainly her accounts may be 'true' in the sense that that is how she perceived them as a researcher, but I question their broader relevance beyond this sort of explication of inner group gossip (which can feel itself as dismissive of the seriousness or radicalness or productiveness of the movement writ large).
Researchers have an obligation to consider whether the inclusion of particular forms of personal aspects present potential harm or negative consequences to participants and their larger movements. This kind of ethics is significantly missing here, especially given that the author did spend time in this movement in an intimate capacity but then had a quite clean break from it. There are also the questions related to the over description of the personal dynamics /histories /struggles /social dynamics from the standpoint of state repression. Changed names and attempts at anonymity don't guarantee that the state and police won't find utility in the internal dirty laundry and conflicts of those they are keen to repress. Hence I think there's a higher standard required of the researcher here.
What does this book contribute to this movement and our understandings? There is glimpse of discussing the reciprocal and embedded forms of solidarity and mutual aid in the very brief conclusion but this reads as an exception to the broader tone of the book that conveys a certain animosity, dismissal and - as the author acknowledges herself - cynicism. There isn't a focus or dedicated section to thinking through the lessons or critiques of the movement in ways that might be useful to the actual participants. The focus is more on an anthropological description than a dialogue or engagement with the movement and its politics. Kadir frames herself within the movement, and details moments and engagements with participants but the way it is written up feels much more like an external observer - looking in, sometimes from within, but significantly apart from those who area discussed. In this sense it doesn't formulate an accountable and movement focused form of ethnography and arguably continues histories of writing about 'others' from an external position. This means that there is little that feels relevant to the movement itself and that to me is a significant failure of a work that claims some degree of radical /anarchist values and ethics but significantly doesn't live up to them.
There a number of elements of this book that I continue to find somewhat puzzling, mostly in terms of the practices and conclusions drawn by the writer. Kadir frames the book in terms of assessing the aspects of the 'autonomous life' and social dynamics present within Amsterdam squatter communities. There is an implicit orientation towards radical/anarchist politics but this aspect remains undeveloped. There is much discussion and at times unnecessary revealing of personal conflict throughout the book but the more explicit values and ethics of the movement and its politics get a scant amount of intentional treatment. There are whole chapters dedicated to the different roles required in squatting, personal conflicts and gossip, and the constructions of inclusion and hierarchy. But there is little framing of the overall political scope of the movement or discussions of the movements theory in relation to broader radical /anarchist political theory and movements. It is difficult for those external to such struggles to glean more complex understandings of the movements politics. There are passing references to anti-capitalism, anarchism, non-hierarchical organization etc but without a detailed discussion of the reference points, influences, histories and tensions within those specific movement ethics and values. This includes the use of violent tactics for resisting evictions that are not situated in broader movement or direct action repertoiresand are presented more so as things uncritically fetishized by some participants rather than being more broadly situated. There is reference to a range of social movement theory but only at the level of theoretical abstraction. There is little to no sustained reference to movement focused literatures and discussions that would do much to both situate and dialogue with the movement and actors presented here. We are left rather with a vague overview of the politics, as well as the political potentials, of the movement.
In a similar vein there is perhaps and over emphasis on interpersonal and social dynamics between individuals. This does aid in the discussion of the ways that informal expressions of authority circulate and the dynamics of inclusion/exclusion, and social forms of enforcing/maintaining internal norms, which is interesting in terms of getting to some sense of the everyday life aspects of the movement. But there is an odd, if not perverse, emphasis on gossip. This reveals, for sure, the ways that authority is contested and how social norms are enforced but the author seems keen to over emphasize this as a key part of the movement. This is especially the case in terms of the sexual rumour mill. It actually feels like the author is participating in the gossip herself and it reads at times as petty and also unaccountable to those who are spoken about. This also often occurs when speaking about certain personalities as examples where they are not permitted to speak for themselves, relying instead on rumour, gossip and impression from others, but also from the author herself. There are several moments of unqualified dismissal of participants actions/narratives/presentations, often listed in footnotes, that exist without qualification (a couple moments in particular stand out - the description of one participants "obesity" pointed out as a movement and societal exception; and the doubting of a immigrant women's representations of herself). In both cases the questioning doesn't seem to add to the text /discussion and seems to target these participants without a clear rationale.
In this sense there is a certain animosity that seems present in the author against the movement and its participants. She frames her work as ethnography, having been present and actively participating in the movement, but seems to lack a degree of accountability to her research subjects and the ways they are portrayed. Certainly her accounts may be 'true' in the sense that that is how she perceived them as a researcher, but I question their broader relevance beyond this sort of explication of inner group gossip (which can feel itself as dismissive of the seriousness or radicalness or productiveness of the movement writ large).
Researchers have an obligation to consider whether the inclusion of particular forms of personal aspects present potential harm or negative consequences to participants and their larger movements. This kind of ethics is significantly missing here, especially given that the author did spend time in this movement in an intimate capacity but then had a quite clean break from it. There are also the questions related to the over description of the personal dynamics /histories /struggles /social dynamics from the standpoint of state repression. Changed names and attempts at anonymity don't guarantee that the state and police won't find utility in the internal dirty laundry and conflicts of those they are keen to repress. Hence I think there's a higher standard required of the researcher here.
What does this book contribute to this movement and our understandings? There is glimpse of discussing the reciprocal and embedded forms of solidarity and mutual aid in the very brief conclusion but this reads as an exception to the broader tone of the book that conveys a certain animosity, dismissal and - as the author acknowledges herself - cynicism. There isn't a focus or dedicated section to thinking through the lessons or critiques of the movement in ways that might be useful to the actual participants. The focus is more on an anthropological description than a dialogue or engagement with the movement and its politics. Kadir frames herself within the movement, and details moments and engagements with participants but the way it is written up feels much more like an external observer - looking in, sometimes from within, but significantly apart from those who area discussed. In this sense it doesn't formulate an accountable and movement focused form of ethnography and arguably continues histories of writing about 'others' from an external position. This means that there is little that feels relevant to the movement itself and that to me is a significant failure of a work that claims some degree of radical /anarchist values and ethics but significantly doesn't live up to them.
May 12, 2019
As a scholar trying to write as well as she is on the same topic, this book is very helpful! Written well and eloquently, it is truly a treat for anyone who is interested in what's happening behind the curtain in the squatting scene.
November 30, 2020
As an anthropologist I was surprised and disappointed by the way Kadir abuses the trust of her subjects, I am honestly wondering how this got past the ethics committee when it was her PhD project. To see this published on an anarchist publishing house is frankly disappointing.
March 18, 2018
the problematic privilege of left-wing radicals who ‘choose to be the object of willful precarity and unpredictable violence’. the story of Karima, pp193-6
November 24, 2020
Interesting, quite a page turner for a sociology text
June 18, 2025
The analysis of how squatters smooth social tensions according to gender, race and class was interesting, especially the chapter on the East African women who could not understand the unspoken rules of squatting.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews