Urban community gardens,commons, and social reproduction: revisiting Silvia Federici’s Revolution at Point Zero

Abstract

Revolution at Point Zero gathers together some of the major works written by Silvia Federici from the 1970s through the 2000s. It offers a series of incisive analyses and is replete with insights on identifying lines of effective intervention to overcome capitalist relations, including housework, care work, and the commons. As Federici identifies urban community gardening as an important development in the struggle for the commons, and thereby a postcapitalist future, I briefly discuss two general concerns that suggest caution in making more of urban community gardens than they can deliver politically. One concern is over an uncertain relationship between community, social reproduction, and commons that infuses urban community gardens. The community in the urban community gardens can be reactionary and capitalism-friendly, so that commons may not necessarily come out of such projects. Urban gardening, since it is still largely women’s work, may also impede the collectivisation of social reproduction by adding yet another set of responsibilities expected to be taken up by women. Another regards pollution problems and their under-appreciated political reverberations. Urban gardeners may be exposed to greater concentrations of toxic substances, possibly like farmworkers or miners. These imply highly uneven social consequences, as women, people of colour, and the elderly are the main urban gardeners. The health effects of prolonged exposure could also lead to greater needs for care work, which is also still mostly carried out by women. Finally, gaining, not just enrolling technical expertise on environmental processes will help build more autonomous urban commons.     

Images of meditation,uncertainty and repentance in ancient art

Tracing back the history of a single gesture from a painting by Caravaggio to the portrait statue of Demosthenes by Polyeuktos, the problem of its meaning is first posed in terms of iconographical tradition. On the other side, the mutual relation between this gesture and its meaning is not a fixed one: one and the same gesture can cover some different (and even opposite) meanings, and conversely one and the same meaning can be conveyed by some different gestures. Some ways of describing and focusing this changing connection (seen as one of signifier and signified) are suggested.