The Ethics of Space

Chapter Six: The enemy within ‘The return of the savage noble 111 118

133 141

153 164 viii THE ETHICS OF SPACE

Chapter Seven: Fragments 177 Death and sanctions 187 Chapter Eight: Circle the wagons 204 Extinction 213 Epilogue 231 Index 239 Reference List 245 Ethnographic Vignettes: Trolley Problem 45 Refugee 66 Spell 89 Through the Looking Glass 131 Clash 175

Dispatch 202

Acknowledgements

This book has been a long time in the making, and it would be impossible to list here all who have contributed to making it possible. Special thanks goes to: Nicholas De Genova, Brian Alleyne, Victoria Goddard, Frances Pine, Sophie Day, Pauline von Hellermann, Stephen Nugent, Magda Buchczyk, Katie Aston, Aimee Joyce, Zahira Araguete-Toribio, Alexandra Urdea, William Tantam, Krzysztof Bierski, Elizabeth Saleh, Maka Suarez, Cy Elliott Smith, Alena Hale, Claude Jousselin, Souad Usayran, and all staff and students at Goldsmiths who have shaped my thinking; Pieter Francois, Harvey Whitehouse, the Seshat and Aligned teams, Carlos Moreno-Leguizamon, David Smith, Roy Bhaskar, Tim Rutzou, Michiel van Ingen, Phil Gorski, Laura Brace, Fiona Cuthill, Charlotte Clarke, the Right to Home network, Hylton White, Vita Peacock, Enrique Martino, Faun Rice, Giovanni da Col, Michelle Beckett; my family, especially my parents Fritz and Brigitte, Lukas and Amelie, Nonna, who would have loved to see this book in print, Nunu Kaller, Dieter Ratz, John West; the two anonymous reviewers who have invested great time and care into helping me improve the manuscript; and of course all squatters and allies without whom this book would have never been written.

Preface to The Ethics of Space: Homelessness and Squatting in Urban England by Steph Grohmann

NicHo.as DE GENOVA

The ethics of space: Homelessness and squatting in urban England is a rare and extraordinary work that deftly integrates fine-grained and sensitive ethnography with a bold philosophical imagination. With this remarkable book, Steph Grohmann not only exhibits her remarkable capabilities as an ethnographic researcher with a tenacious critical intellect—attuned to the complexities of contemporary hierarchies of wealth, power, and prestige—but also delights the reader with her exceptional talents as a writer. Based on fieldwork with squatters and other homeless people, primarily in Bristol, during which Grohmann was herself living as a squatter, the book examines how people who are not securely housed, and are therefore “home”-less, are also socially and politically produced as being always “out of place.”

In this book, Grohmann transports the reader into a vivid and deeply moving exploration of her firsthand experience of homelessness and squatting in urban England. Her purpose is not to reduce those experiences and struggles into a voyeuristic pornography of misery and marginalization, nor to orientalize or romanticize homeless people as the contemporary urban equivalent of wild “savages” with their own exotic culture. Rather, Grohmann aims to elaborate a xii THE ETHICS OF SPACE critical lens through which to ask fundamental questions about the larger configuration of social inequality and class hierarchy in neoliberal, neo-Victorian Britain. Grohmann’s incisive social critique does not remain confined to the sociological or anthropological “peculiarities of the English” (in the felicitous phrase of Perry Anderson), but instead mobilizes the ethnographic insights of her research as a platform for exploring the social dynamics of empathy, recognition, and ethics.

In this context of social marginalization and precarious housing, Grohmann discerns how squatters’ practices of appropriating space produce their own senses of “home” and “safe space,” and thereby collaborate in constructing moral subjectivities. The book demonstrates that squatting is not reducible to material deprivation or political disobedience but must also be understood as an ethical practice intended to counteract the traumatic loss of full moral status, or “social death,” which is so pronouncedly evident in the condition of homelessness. For homeless people, Grohmann shows, experiences of spatial and social displacement enact specific territorial forms of unequal power and prestige. Consequently, conflicts over legitimate access to, and control of, the physical environment become decisive sites in which to understand and transform the cognitive construction and social production of embodied moral subjectivities in space.

By purposefully and defiantly asserting their right to occupy vacant houses and other buildings, the squatters whom we meet in this book not only challenge the sanctity of private property or neoliberal housing policy but also remake themselves and one another as “spatial selves,” as embodied ethical subjects. In other words, what is at stake in their struggles to create practical solutions to the permanent “crisis” of affordable housing and the consequent scourge of homelessness is a more elemental question of ethics, as they also seek to redress the moral dilemma of how we live and relate to one another within the dominant regime of private property and social life under capitalism. Through their struggles for housing, squatters initiate a more fundamental struggle to inhabit and take hold of social space, and thus to make modest but no less daring efforts to remake the world through very localized but determined measures to change their immediate, everyday lived realities. In doing so, they challenge the larger social and political order of neoliberal capitalism, and in working to transform life, they also transform themselves and their relations with the wider society, and engage in new and creative experiments with how we might begin to reorganize all of our collective social life.

Introduction

One cold day in the winter of 1921, Harry Cowley, a chimney sweep from Brighton, decided that enough was enough. A drummer boy in the Royal Navy in his youth, Cowley had been injured at the age of seventeen, and after his recovery, had been redeployed to bury the dead soldiers of World War I. On his return to Brighton, he had found the survivors and their families living in abject poverty in overcrowded slum accommodation or in tents on the local racecourse. Cowley’s patience with this state of affairs ran out the day he found the family of an ex-serviceman camped out in the tent city overlooking town: “I thought; this won't be allowed to go on, I asked the man ‘are you prepared to go in a house if me and my men find you one’ he said ‘yes’ So we got together our boys and at 3 in the morning under cover of dark we forced our way into an empty house in Cheltenham Place and moved the family in.”

Cowley proceeded to form a group of local men who began to routinely break into empty properties and move in homeless locals. The group not only lent practical support to the squatter families but also acted as vigilantes to protect the new residents from eviction and violence by landlords or the police. ‘Their actions continued until after World War I, when a new wave of impoverished and traumatized ex-soldiers returned from the front, to find what in today’s terms could be referred to as a housing bubble. In Cowley’s words:

1. https://Awww.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/17/a4212217.shtml.

Well when this last War ended Brighton was loaded with empty houses, yer see. There was a lot of people buying empty houses cheap and selling them or renting at exorbitant prices, people couldn't afford them., One day I went to do some work in an old ladies home, she saved £400 in her life, her and her husband was old people. I valued the house at £600 and they was being asked £1,600. I thought this don't come right, your £400 gone up in the air and you'll never live long enough to buy the place and be secure.’

Cowley’s keen sense of justice made him not only a squatting activist but also a staunch antifascist: “When I read about the brutality to the Jews, anything like that, I could cry and have cried. And I felt it was my duty to fight against it.” Fueled by this sense of moral commitment, Cowley and his group fought the rising Far Right in the shape of Oswald Mosley’s “British Union of Fascists”—often physically. Cowley recounts being assaulted and hospitalized, having his property attacked, and having himself incited violence to shut down local fascist rallies. Asked to justify their actions after one such bloody battle, he replied on behalf of his men: “No mine wasn’t rough boys; they were conscientious.”*

Some ninety years later, Mike Weatherley, Conservative MP for Hove—a place so close to Brighton that nowadays they are considered the same town, Brighton and Hove—launched an entirely different campaign. Weatherley had become irate with the activities of local squatters, whom he saw as infringing on the fundamental property rights of Hove’s citizens:

It is true that some of those who are homeless have squatted but this does not make them squatters. A typical squatter is middle-class, web-savvy, legallyminded, university-educated and, most importantly, society-hating. They are very often extremely intimidating and violent. They are political extremists whose vision for society is a dysfunctional medieval wasteland without property rights, where an Englishman's home is no longer his castle.* https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/17/a4212217.shtml. 3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/17/a4212217.shtml.

Mike Weatherley’s official home page: http:/Avww.mikeweatherleymp.com/ 2013/03/04/squatting-statement/.

Weatherley went on to spearhead a political campaign that saw “squatting in a residential building” redefined as a criminal offence under Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Previously, squatting in England and Wales had been regarded as a dispute over private property between a squatter and a landlord, to be resolved in the Magistrate’s courts. Section 144 turned the practice from a civil affair into a crime against the state (O’Mahony, O'Mahony, and Hickey 2014), punishable by a £5,000 fine or a six-month prison sentence. The implementation of Section 144 in September 2012 was preceded by a two-year-long publicity campaign on the part of the government and the tabloid media, designed to shift the public perception of “the squatter” from that of the heroic protector of the vulnerable represented in Harry Cowley, to that of the terrifying, violent invader of Weatherley’s imagination.

“Weatherley’s law,” as Section 144 came to be known, coincided with an intensification of England’s perpetual housing crisis in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, and the following austerity cuts, job losses, and welfare reform. The term “housing crisis” should be taken with a grain of salt—after all, “the idea of crisis implies that inadequate or unaffordable housing is abnormal, a temporary departure from a well-functioning standard. But for working-class and poor communities, housing crisis is the norm” (Marcuse and Madden 2016: 21). This certainly seems plausible when considering that the following words—which apart from the precise numbers could be taken straight from one of the numerous news articles about the current “housing crisis’>—were actually written in 1979:

Most large British cities suffer a housing shortage but London is measurably worse. Thirty-five percent of the city’s households live at a density of more than 1.5 persons per room, compared with 16.1 percent elsewhere in Britain. Only four percent of the country’s households have to share their home; the figure in the capital is twenty percent. Many of the more than 100.000 empty government-owned houses in London remain unoccupied for five to ten years, yet there are 190,000 homeless families on housing council waiting lists. Another 51,000 privately held properties are unoccupied, one-fifth of which have been vacant for at least two years. The homeless reside in “temporary” government shelters or with relatives or friends under stressful, often intolerable, conditions. (Kearns

1979: 590)

Post-2008, the situation was aggravated, however, by a soaring number of repossessions, as well as house-price inflation that pushed property ownership out of reach for large parts of the population and increased the proportion of privately rented homes by over two-thirds.’ At the same time, rents in the private sector increased far ahead of inflation, especially in London, while incomes stagnated and housing-related benefits were cut. Private renting in Britain is insecure at the best of times—unlike in Continental Europe, British law contains few protections for tenants, and evictions often happen for no other reason than that a tenancy has not been renewed because a landlord has an eye on charging higher rent to somebody else. Along with a general fall in income, these factors led to a 36 percent increase in people accepted as homeless by government agencies between 2009 and 2015.° It is important to note that this figure only concerns those who were recognized by the government as eligible for support—if the number of unsuccessful applications is included, the figure would be about twice as high. Additionally, a large number of homeless people do not present to government agencies at all—according to the charity Crisis, between 50 and 75 percent of all single homeless people have never used temporary shelter (Reeve and Batty 2011). Crisis estimates that the majority of homelessness is “hidden’—people with no fixed address who sleep on floors and sofas at the houses of friends or family, or sometimes even at their workplace. For women, this frequently translates into vulnerability to violence and sexual exploitation, as they are often specifically targeted by men offering shelter in exchange for sexual and domestic services. As for rough sleepers, there are no comprehensive statistics on their numbers; government figures show, however, that the number of counted rough sleepers has increased by 55 percent since 2010’—not including those who, for whatever reason, do not become visible enough to be counted.

Against this backdrop, the campaign to criminalize squatting saw itself confronted with a challenge: in order to make it plausible to parliament and the public that squatting was a pervasive “problem” that had to be stamped out, any connection between this practice and the chronic lack of affordable housing

5. http://www. publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/emcomloc/50/ 501105 .htm.

6. http://www.crisis.org.uk/pressreleases.php/678/5-rise-in-homelessness-revealsdesperate-state-of-private-rented-sector.

7. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/407030/Rough_Sleeping_Statistics_England_-_Autumn_2014.pdf.

had to be categorically denied. Weatherley, and subsequently other government agencies such as the Ministry of Justice, achieved this by enlisting the tabloid press in launching what has been described as a “moral panic” (Dadusc and Dee 2014) during 2011-12. This campaign involved a great number of news stories that portrayed squatters as violent invaders, “parasites,” enemies to the values of society, and importantly, as foreigners (especially “Gypsies”) who had come to Britain to exploit its alleged “soft touch” approach to crime. In particular, it drew on the concept of “home” in a purposefully misleading way, as squatters were portrayed as thieves who invaded occupied properties when the inhabitants had just briefly left, and proceeded to “desecrate” (David Ward MP, cited in Middleton 2014: 97) this most personal and sacred of spaces. The government’s official position was that it did not accept the claim that is sometimes made that squatting is a reasonable recourse of the homeless resulting from social deprivation. There are options open to those who are genuinely destitute and who need shelter which do not involve occupying somebody else’s property without authority. No matter how compelling or difficult the squatter’s own circumstances are claimed to be, it is wrong that legitimate occupants should be deprived of the use of their property.®

This rhetoric of squatters “depriving legitimate occupants from the use of their property” was criticized even by the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society as “headline-grabbing” and “unnecessary” (O’Mahony, O’Mahony, and Hickey 2014: 5), since squatting an occupied property already was a criminal offence under Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. In the overwhelming majority of cases, squatters were well aware of this fact, and therefore targeted vacant residential properties (O'Mahony, O’Mahony, and Hickey 2014: 5), a fact that the criminalization campaign purposefully ignored.

Despite these misrepresentations, however, what little data there existed about the prevalence of squatting among homeless people still made it difficult for the government to completely deny that some squatters, in fact, were in urgent housing need (see also Reeve 2014). The subsequent emerging consensus, supported also by the opposition, was that while some squatters were indeed desperate and destitute, this vulnerable group had to be distinguished

8. http://www. publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110713/ wmstext/110713m0001.htm.

from those squatters who were merely freeloaders. As Andrew Slaughter, then

Shadow Justice Secretary, summarized the emerging view:

It is also right to say that there are, for want of a better term, “lifestyle squatters”—people who are part of the something-for-nothing society. We disagree with that, and we support the criminalisation of their activities. However, many squatters are homeless, and often have severe mental health and addiction problems.’

As an anthropologist researching squatting, I am frequently astonished at the prevalence of the view that there is a categorical distinction between the “vulnerable homeless” and so-called “lifestyle squatters” (see also Middleton 2014), a.k.a. “political squatters.” In practically any talk or presentation on the subject I have given over the years, at least one member of the audience steps up to clarify, without any malice, that “surely not all of them are really homeless?” To a degree, this view may stem from a popular imaginary that associates homelessness predominantly with rough sleeping and the associated publicly visible problems of substance abuse and mental illness, and that casts “the homeless” as a group as passive and helpless (and for this reason morally “pure”) victims. On the other hand, however, it also demonstrates that the government’s targeted campaign to categorically divide squatters into the deserving victim and the undeserving scrounger has been successful even with those who would not normally be expected to take their social analysis from the likes of the Daily Mail. The problem is exacerbated, on the one hand, by the relative dearth of academic research on squatting in Britain, resulting in the fact that little is known about actual numbers of squatters and their circumstances, motivations, and practices (O’Mahony, O'Mahony, and Hickey 2014: 5). On the other hand, despite the fact that the government acknowledged that “at present there is very little information held centrally about the number of people who squat, their reasons for doing so or the types of buildings that tend to attract squatters” (cited in Dixon 2011: 3), its official communications—and their coverage by the tabloid press—not only categorically rejected the idea that there is a large overlap between squatters and those conventionally defined as “homeless,” they actively promoted the distinction.

One purpose of this book is therefore to extend this sparse existing research base by ethnographically documenting the circumstances, motivations, and

9. Hansard, HC debates, 1.11.2011, col 870.

practices of squatters in a specific local context, also and especially regarding the relationship between squatting and homelessness. Based on eighteen months of fieldwork conducted between 2010 and 2011 in Bristol, England, I aim to demonstrate that while “homelessness” is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon, there is an undeniable connection between squatters and the “vulnerable homeless,” insofar as squatters saw themselves as homeless people who had chosen to do something about their vulnerability. This means, on the one hand, instead of relying on dwindling public resources for homelessness services, they actively challenged the social and material conditions that made them symbolic and literal “outsiders.” On the other hand, however, this collective practice, be it as a deliberate political strategy or simply as a means of survival, addresses “vulnerability” in a very specific way: by making it the center of an ethics of solidarity that frames the collective occupation of forbidden spaces as not only a political but also and especially a moral response to the pervasive human vulnerability to a lack of shelter. This is not to say that I want to portray squatting as a moral, as opposed to a political or economic issue; rather, the politics of negotiating access to space that underlie squatting contain an element of moral reasoning, which points beyond its immediate context to the connection between space and the ethical more generally.

The campaign to criminalize squatting showed these connections in a number of ways: the discursive shift from the figure of the squatter as protector of the vulnerable to that of the violent and alien invader, for example, drew on a number of categories that express spatial as well as moral properties. The Western concept of the “home,” which I discuss at length in chapter three, for example combines a particular conception of space (most often an enclosed, protected and “sacred” space) with particular moral assignments.’? “Home” (the idea, if not the really existing home) describes a space of safe containment, a haven and sanctuary, within which the self “takes to cover, hides away, lies snug, concealed” (Bachelard 1994: 91). The violation of somebody’s “home” is thus perceived as morally reprehensible because it constitutes an illegitimate intrusion of the outside into the “sacred” inside, and the negative moral evaluation of the invader is due not only to his flaunting of social or legal rules but also to the fact that he

10. As discussed in chapter three, this conception of “home” has been widely challenged as an idealized notion concealing the fact that many really existing homes are not “safe havens” at all but rather contain relations of violence and oppression. As the government rhetoric demonstrates, however, this does not mean that the ideal construction of “home” as a sanctuary is not a potent cultural image.

has illegitimately gained access to a space within which he does not belong. Like “dirt” for Mary Douglas is offensive because it is “matter out of place” (1966), so the figure of the invader invokes outrage because he is a “person out of place,” and in this very spatial nonbelonging consists his moral repugnancy. Enlisting this construction to vilify squatters was successful precisely because there is a moral consensus in our culture that a “home” should be free from intrusion, and to “steal” it constitutes not only an economic but also a moral violation. As I will discuss in the following chapters, the invocation of this construction by a state that had few qualms about invading “homes” whenever deemed necessary to uphold public order, demonstrates quite a stunning degree of hypocrisy—it was, however, in no way accidental. As I will argue, it turned on a fundamental principle of how humans represent the world to themselves and others: we construct moral categories in spatial terms, and conversely, we construct social and material spaces according to moral classifications. The second purpose of this book is therefore to draw on the example of squatting and the politics that surround it to make a larger argument: that space is not only socially but also and especially morally constructed. I will briefly introduce the ethnographic context of this book before explaining what I mean by this.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF “SQUATTER’S RIGHTS”

The ethnographic fieldwork for this book was conducted in Bristol between October 2010 and March 2011, during which I lived exclusively in squats and thus was, at least in legal terms, “genuinely” homeless. While this book is therefore in many ways autoethnographic, I have tried my best to avoid excessive navel-gazing and use my own experience not so much as evidence but rather as a methodological tool—I will leave it to my reader to decide how successful I was. As I recount in chapter one, my choice of field site was somewhat coincidental: I had come to Bristol through connections within the larger squatting movement, of which the city was then an important and well-known hub. Bristol has been a center for squatting and radical politics since the 1970s days

»11 of the “Bristol Squatters Association,”™ and right until the criminalization, was

11. Oral history evidence by Mac McConnell for the Bristol Radical History Group, http://www. brh. org.uk/site/events/housing-activism-and-squatting-in-1970sbristol/.

renowned for its activist and squatting “scenes.” Before coming to Britain, I had visited and stayed in squats in Germany, Austria, Greece, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Hungary, and part of the reason it was very easy for me to gain access to the “scene” was that despite different legal situations, squats in all of these places functioned according to very similar rules. For the culturally initiated, it was therefore quite easy to travel Europe for free, drawing on a network of squatted spaces—the assumption nearly everywhere was that as “one of us,” a transient squatter should be given at least temporary accommodation. Squatters generally thought of themselves as part of a global movement, characterized by particular ideas of politics, economics, and ethics, as well as a “subcultural” aesthetic and practice. Developments in other places—such as the 2010 criminalization of squatting in the Netherlands—were seen by British squatters as directly affecting their own communities, and Section 144 was contextualized as part of a wider strategy to regulate squatting across the European Union. Moreover, there were strong social and material links between squatting in Bristol and in the rest of the country as well as Europe—squatters freely moved between cities and countries, and more high-profile evictions usually drew support from well beyond the border. Therefore, while my ethnography describes a local microcosm, Bristol squatting can in many ways be seen as representative of squatting in England and Wales more generally, and in its basic impetus, squatting as it is found throughout Europe (see Kadir 2016; Squatting Europe Kollective [SQUEK] 2013; Cattaneo and Martinez 2014).

At the same time, squatting in England and Wales was especially prolific because until Section 144 came into force, it was, for practical purposes, “legal” (that is to say, not punishable). The folk notion of “squatter’s rights” pointed to the fact that the construction of squatting as a civil matter gave squatters a relatively greater scope for agency in dealing with property owners and the police as compared to other places, and the protection this situation awarded allowed for vibrant and diverse cultural forms to flourish in and around squats. The (legally not entirely correct) notion of “squatter’s rights” referred, on the one hand, to the fact that squatters were protected from eviction until a Magistrate’s court had established whose claim to a property was to be privileged: theirs or the owners. ‘This meant that until such a verdict had been reached, neither the legal owner of

12. As I discuss in chapter one, “scene” was the term most often used by squatters themselves, albeit not without a degree of sarcasm.

a property nor the police had a right to evict. As I discuss in chapter three, the emblematic Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which spelled out that the rights of present occupiers were not to be infringed upon except by court order, formed a material part of squatting practice, in that a copy of it was usually affixed to the door of a squat as a warning to the landlord and police. On the other hand, the idea of “squatters rights” also in part referred to the Common Law principle of adverse possession—the traditional view that by virtue of occupying a space for a prolonged period of time, the occupant acquired an entitlement to it, whether or not they were the legal owner on paper. As Emma Waring notes, the doctrine of adverse possession is based on the idea that a landowner who neglected their duty of stewardship of their land gravely enough for squatters to occupy it, had, by virtue if this very negligence, forsaken some or all of their entitlement to it (2014: 178). It was therefore for a long time possible to acquire property in land and dwellings by means of occupation, and the squatting scene abounded with anecdotes of squatters who had successfully obtained property rights in a squat by simply living in it for long enough.

In another sense, the notion of “squatter’s rights” was also grounded in the long history of squatting in England and Wales. Squatters often trace their heritage to the Diggers or “True Levellers,” a religiously motivated land-squatter movement led by Gerrard Winstanley, which in 1649 began to occupy and cultivate common land in England. These occupations, along with widespread resistance to the restriction of squatter’s cottages on common land in the seventeenth century, can be seen as the first of several English squatter’s movements (Reeve 2014: 134). More recently, as the story of Harry Cowley shows, squatting was an integral part of recovery after both World Wars, and involved widespread occupations by both ex-servicemen and families displaced by bombings. After 1945, Britain experienced the first of many subsequent “housing crises,” with widespread destruction of infrastructure accompanied by soaring rents and property prices (D. Watson 2016). Families responded by moving not only into vacant residential properties but also abandoned army bases and former prisoner-of-war camps: “By June 1946, 20 local authorities reported squatting in their areas and by October, it was estimated that 1,038 camps were occupied in England and Wales, housing 40,000 families” (Reeve 2014: 135). After a twenty-year hiatus, squatting again emerged in the context of 1960s counterculture (Bailey 1973), with the London Squatters Campaign soon followed by the London Street Commune and other local movements, and links being formed with squatting communities in other places:

Squatting is now well advanced in Great Britain, Italy, Spain, France, Denmark, and The Netherlands and it is increasing in Sweden and West Germany. Close communication links have been established over the past five years among various European squatter communities, particularly British, Dutch, and Italian. Squatting has spread from London to other large cities in Britain and the total population is estimated at more than 50,000. (Kearns 1979: 589)

As with earlier squatting movements, there was no doubt at the time that these squatters—countercultural though they were—were also genuinely in need of shelter (Ward 1976: 171). Occupations continued throughout the 1970s, benefitting from the localized concentration of empty properties at the time (Reeve 2014: 137).

During the 1980s, however, public attitudes to squatting changed, and squatters found themselves targeted by the ideological nature of Thatcherite housing policy, which promoted the notion of a “property owning democracy” and actively sought to eradicate not only publicly owned social housing but also other forms of nonmarketized dwelling. In some ways, this period marked the beginning of the redefinition of squatting from a reasonable recourse of those who had no other means of obtaining shelter to a privileging of private property and the rights of landowners (see also Dee 2014). This was achieved also and especially by introducing the distinction between “squatters” and “homeless people,” which eventually culminated in the campaign for Section 144. Despite the fact that the government’s campaign relied heavily on this dichotomy, it is not solely a product of the British Conservative imagination: what little academic research there is on squatting has, at times, reproduced the very same categories. Hans Prujit, for example, distinguishes between “deprivation-based” and “political” squatting (2013: 21), implying that people either squat because they are homeless or to actively critique capital and the state, but not both at the same time. Similarly, Claudio Cattaneo and Miguel Martinez distance “political” squatting from the kind that has “no other motivation than to remedy a desperate situation, secretly and in silence” (2014: 3), as if remedying a desperate lack of shelter, even silently, were not a “political” issue. The problematic construction of “the political” in these accounts would warrant a longer discussion on its own, and is ultimately not the purpose of this book. What becomes obvious here, however, is that the impetus to distinguish between the “vulnerable homeless” and “lifestyle squatters” is by no means limited to the enemies of squatting.