In order to get some background in Antwerp's development, and specifically the development of the Schipperskwartier district, we read an article by the geographer Maarten Loopmans (2008). In his article, he describes the development of the cities urban policies in light of Gramsci. Gramsci says that there are 2 criteria that facilitate the establishment of a new hegemony in a city: legitimacy and co-ordination. Loopmans adapts this via, and says that since the end of the old hegemony that ruled Antwerp, around 1960-1970, the city tried to search for new ways to establish a hegemony (or an anti-hegemonic movement with the same result). However, due to either a failure of legitimacy, or due to the absence of co-ordination between private parties, the inhabitants and the government, many of these projects failed.
In the beginning of the 2000's, luckily, a new initiative under the flag of VESPA did succeed in achieving both this legitimacy and this co-ordination.
If you want to read further on this topic, you can read:
Loopmans, M. (2008) Relevance, Gentrification and the Development of a New Hegemony on Urban Policies in Antwerp, Belgium. Urban Studies
Hey, I'm not an expert on hegemony, but isn't hegemony about the manner in which a whole society is influenced by a set of ideas so that even those who would logically not approve of these ideas, actually do not oppose it(because it is accepted as the norm and therefore not questioned)so, in other words, when a hegemony is recognised as such and is opposed to (or in this case being actively changed by people), then it wouldn't be a hegemony anymore. I wonder in how far a hegemony can be consciously established rather than merely maintained. Is Loopmans not talking simply about style?
BeantwoordenVerwijderen