Village Buildings bibliography: Difference between revisions

*Agamben, Giorgio. (1998). ''Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life''. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. br /> &nbsp; See especially Ch.7, "The Camp as the 'Nomos' of the Modern". <blockquote><br /> ''&nbsp;"In his main work "Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life" (1998), Giorgio Agamben analyzes an obscure figure of Roman law that poses fundamental questions about the nature of law and power in general. Under the laws of the Roman Empire, a man who committed a certain kind of crime was banned from society and all of his rights as a citizen were revoked. He thus became a "homo sacer" (sacred man). In consequence, he could be killed by anybody, while his life on the other hand was deemed "sacred", so he could not be sacrificed in a ritual ceremony." [...]'' ''<br /> &nbsp;"Agamben opines that laws have always assumed the authority to define "bare life" — zoe, as opposed to bios, that is 'qualified life' — by making this exclusive operation, while at the same time gaining power over it by making it the subject of political control. The power of law to actively separate "political" beings (citizens) from "bare life" (bodies) has carried on from Antiquity to Modernity — from, literally, Aristotle to Auschwitz. Aristotle, as Agamben notes, constitutes political life via a simultaneous inclusion and exclusion of "bare life": as Aristotle says, man is an animal born to life (Gk. ζῆν, zen), but existing with regard to the good life (εὖ ζῆν, eu zen) which can be achieved through politics. Bare life, in this ancient conception of politics, is that which must be transformed, via the State, into the "good life"; that is, bare life is that which is supposedly excluded from the higher aims of the state, yet is included precisely so that it may be transformed into this "good life". Sovereignty, then, is conceived from ancient times as the power which determines what or who is to be incorporated into the political body (in accord with its bios) by means of the more originary exclusion (or exception) of what is to remain outside the political body—which is at the same time the source of that body's composition (zoe). According to Agamben, biopower, which takes the bare lives of the citizens into its political calculations, may be more marked in the modern state, but has essentially existed since the beginnings of sovereignty in the West, since this structure of ex-ception is essential to the core concept of sovereignty. <br />'' ''&nbsp;"Agamben would continue to expand the theory of the state of exception first introduced in "Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life", ultimately leading to the "State of Exception" in 2005. Instead of leaving a space between law and life, the space where human action is possible, the space that used to constitute politics, he argues that politics has "contaminated itself with law" in the state of exception. Because "only human action is able to cut the relationship between violence and law", it becomes increasingly difficult within the state of exception for humanity to act against the State."'' </blockquote>

*Allport, Gordon W. (1954). ''The Nature of Prejudice.'' Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954. Full text available at: <nowiki>https://archive.org/details/TheNatureOfPrejudice</nowiki>. <blockquote>''"The checkerboard of prejudice in the United States is perhaps the most intricate of all."'' <br />''"Everywhere on earth we find a condition of separateness among groups. People mate with their own kind. They eat, play, reside in homogeneous clusters...Much of this automatic cohesion is due to nothing more than convenience...most of the business of life can go on with less effort it we stick together with our own kind." (p.17-18).'' <br />''"Open-mindedness is considered to be a virtue. But, strictly speaking, it cannot occur. A new experience must be redacted into old categories. We cannot handle each even freshly in its own right." p.20'' <br />''"Contrary evidence is not admitted and allowed to modify the generalization; rather it is perfunctorily acknowledged but excluded. Let us call this the 're-fencing' device. When a fact cannot fit into a mental field, the exception is acknowledged, but the field is hastily fenced in again and not allowed to remain dangerously open." p.23.'' <br />''"the very act of affirming our way of live often leads us to the brink of prejudice." p.24''</blockquote>

*Frisch, Michael, and Lisa J. Servon (2006). "CDCs and the Changing Context for Urban Community Development: A Review of the Field and the Environment." Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 37, No. 4, Winter 2006. [http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/servon.pdf. http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/servon.pdf.&nbsp;]<blockquote><br /> ''&nbsp; &nbsp; "This review takes Rebuilding Communities [Vidal 1992] as a starting point to survey the community development literature, the community development field, and external environmental factors, in order to examine what has happened over the past fifteen years to shape the context in which urban community development corporations (CDCs) now operate. This paper is both a bounded literature review and an environmental scan. We identify categories of changes and influences on the community development field. We find that in the last fifteen years, the community development field has grown increasingly professionalized. Policy initiatives have also shaped the field. New evaluations of community development have been conducted and published. We now know much more about the potential and limits of CDCs than we did when the Rebuilding Communities (RC) study was launched in the late 1980s. At the same time, significant gaps in our knowledge of the community development field remain. In particular, there has been insufficient study of how the changes in this context have affected the work that CDCs do."''</blockquote>

*Marcuse, P. (2016). "After Exposing the Roots of Homelessness – What?" ''Urban Geography, 38(3), 357–359.'' doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1247601. <blockquote>"I am deeply impressed by the contributions to this symposium and the debates that have led up to it, and happy that my little essay of more than 25 years ago [Marcuse, Peter. "Neutralizing Homelessness." ''Socialist Review'', 1988. issue 1] fed into them. But at the same time I am saddened by its continued timeliness. <br />"It is now clear that we know enough about homelessness and its causes and effects to understand how abhorrent it is within an affluent society, and further that we know enough to be aware of what is needed to end it, what can and should be done. I write “‘we’ know enough”: at least no one seriously argues today that homelessness is inevitable as a natural and healthy phenomenon, needed to keep society going, providing an incentive for those too lazy or too stupid to get to work and take care of themselves. "So why do we still have homelessness in countries like the United States today?" [...] <br />"But consider the further implications of acting on what we know about homelessness, pursing its implications critically in public policy formation. The money and resources that are needed to provide adequate housing for all must either come from the private profit-motivated sector—we live in a capitalist society—, or from government. In the private sector that means raising wages and incomes substantially at the bottom and the middle; and in the government sector, raising taxes at the top. Clearly controversial. Power to bring about either event does not lie with those pushing to solve homelessness." "What needs to be done urgently today—yet will be done gradually and, ultimately, tomorrow—is really pretty clear." </blockquote>

*Parsell, Cameron. "Homelessness, Identity, and our Poverty of Ambition."&nbsp;Keynote address at 14th European Research Conference on Homelessness. 20 September 2019, Helsingborg, Sweden.&nbsp;<br /> Presentation slides: https://www.feantsaresearch.org/public/user/Observatory/2019/2019_conference/ppts/Plenary_-_Cameron_Parsell_-_Keynote_Europe_September_2019.pdf<br /> Video: &nbsp;https://www.facebook.com/FEANTSA/videos/515174705720867/ (2:40 - 33:20).&nbsp;<blockquote>''&nbsp; &nbsp; "We overserve people who are experiencing homelessness, and this overservicing represents one of the key barriers to actually ending it." (near start).'' ''<br /> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;"Homelessness exists in Australia and increases because actually we pity them, we pity them&nbsp;<br /> as someone deficient, as the downtrodden, as a group of people that we want to exercise our compassion towards. Whereas a few years ago we were talking about justice, we were talking about evidence, we were talkingabout ending homelessness, this is what we're doing in Australia now: &nbsp;we're actually giving brand new vans and washing machines, and driving around washing their clothes."''</blockquote>

*Silverman, R. M. (2005). Caught in the Middle: Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and the Conflict between Grassroots and Instrumental Forms of Citizen Participation. Journal of the Community Development Society, 36 (2): 35-51. [http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/silverman05.pdf. http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/silverman05.pdf.&nbsp;]<blockquote><br /> ''&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;"This article examines the role of citizen participation in community development corporations (CDC). It is argued that CDCs are caught between two distinct forms of participation: instrumental participation that focuses on activities that support project and program activities of CDCs, and grassroots participation that focuses on expanding the role of citizens in local decision-making processes. A continuum based on these two forms of citizen participation is introduced. It is suggested that CDCs are often in the middle of the continuum where they must balance pressures to expand the scope of grassroots participation against the need to use citizen participation techniques to facilitate project and program implementation. The article is based on a series of in-depth interviews with the executive directors of CDCs in Detroit, Michigan. Recommendations growing out of the research focus on how the tendency toward conflicts between the instrumental goals of CDCs and the longstanding value of grassroots activism can be managed better."''<br /> &nbsp;</blockquote>