Disobedient City Manifesto

Before giving me your opinion, convince me that I do care about it

Written by Antonio Martinez Marquez
Translation Silvia Cristobal

Creative Commons License

"There are two ways out of suffering hell. The first is easy for some people: to accept hell thus becoming a part of it, to the extent that we stop seeing hell, at all. The second is dangerous and needs of constant learning and awareness: to search and to recognise who and what, in the middle of hell, is not hell, and make it last, and give a space to it". Italo Calvino ‘Invisible Cities’

Millions of negligible seditions run across the planet, Billions of psychological incommodities de-organise the reigning communicative relations. Quintillions of molecules mutate without the consent of any organ, indifferent to the global. Quadrillions of viruses defy hygiene, in a duel lasting less than a nanosecond: in so little time that almost takes no place…ahh, any struggle lasting longer than Ronaldiño’s goal is a triumph.

Thousands and a few more friendly conspiracies against the empire, it is the world’s war against communication. Against a technological integration, incorporating its pseudo social contract. The Disobedient City blooms among dissenting self-expression, posing an obstacle to semiotisation. Against the subjection and bureaucratic death of the body, the Disobedient City places a bet, defies and exposes itself, searching for a vaccine against death, among the dumping ground’s newly born species.

Nodding, Consenting and Impotence

The state owns nothing to those forced to pay its expenses

‘Weak’ governments and a state acting as if it had nothing to do with us. A single institution, holding as irrefutable the conclusion that the eastern countries’ economical planning together with the western fordist concert, has to necessarily give a way to the formula: ‘ as much market as possible and as little state as necessary’. However, we witness the production of an undifferentiating between the public and the private spheres, this, as main effect of those two economical systems. It is the Business Welfare State. The state feels no more responsible for any guarantying of civil rights and confines its task to the ‘giving of opportunities’: it tells us: ‘ I only administer the game’, it is: a legislative distribution of a range of possible accumulations.

Consenting now means approving, consensus now means impotence. The nodding, this fusion without mediation, Business Welfare State that has not stopped producing tensions at the base of its agreement’s system: reflecting socially antagonistic gestures, demands and violence constitutionally limited and regulated. Trade unions are left to the sport of agreement’s small prints.

Allowance. We should stop talking about individualism, there is no such thing as general interest: interest stands only for exploitation, for control’s globalisation. NGO’s demands aren’t any better, self-electing themselves as the voice of nature, or those that –presenting themselves as the last pocket of ethical resources- fight for the 0.7%: what they promote is, with a smiley face, a restoring and expansion of the administrative-management of wealth. What they are doing is to joyfully fan on the embers of the myth of ‘good government’.

From assenting and consenting we can only promote –the allowance scene of professional representatives and amateur representatives – rituals of participation which constitute legallity, leaving untouched law’s dictatorship.

Impotence. Consoling ourselves with the story of a discontinuous social being, conforming to the exhibition of our sensibility, diffuse and precarious, fulfilling oneself with the relativity of all rules, entertaining ourselves with the aesthetics of dispersion, of weakness and unconscious dissemination. All this means to fall in a self-apocalyptic and nihilist satisfaction, it means to live by the logic of a yonqui.

Urban indigenous, orphans, the crippled, deteriorated workers, homeless craftsmen, naked curves, fire victims and victims of good will, sellers of futile products, street musicians and the ones that can make it to play at their friend’s, vaulted crews, the lazy, the dangerous, pateros, fugitive investors, the miserable, the beggars, disaffected servants, the ones refusing, the machines of action-assembly …all but volunteers. Whoever that does not find comfort on criticism nor in the emotions of hope, that have experienced the bitter taste of the lost or left people and things, those who let go from theirs hands our partner inertias make up the Disobedient City. We do not suffer from ‘disenchantment decomposition’ or from ‘sparks of absurdity’, either from ‘tragedy cough’ or from ‘lack of representation vitamins’, we are part of a constellation surfing against all flags, making an adventure of their juncture. We inhabit this difference that only adventure opens up.

Law’s Dictatorship

Democracy, even formal democracy, disturbs

The constant emergence of identities is now frequent, demands and desires that do not ask to be represented, that do not fit in the action planning of any political party, stating a conflict with real time, independently from fortnightly routines. This has being contested with a reduction of politics understood as what politicians do; making illegal any action that does not imply identifying with the state and its society. It has being contested with a kind of gouvernability, which just manages discontent and frustration, to which, eventually, some doses of apolitical illusion (Olympics, Vaccinations…) is added. It has being contested with a government’s action that multiplies till make permanent states of alarm, where fundamental rights are interrupted.

To live absolved. How much secret do you bear?

How much secrecy do you bear? There is no friendship without secret. Or at least, friend’s hierarchy is not established without adding the effects of that made confessions, secrets kept as forfeits, unfolding communication with almost all of what we hold back. With a secret we present ourselves anew, what we are worth and how we want to be judged. The matter of a secret is some transgression, an egoistic action interrupting the cooperation of being among others, what makes us exchangeable citizens: our werewolf undoes some of the bonds of which only our consciousness is guardian. And, when revealing it as a secret, we inaugurate another bond, made of personal preferences, biographical experiments, desires generally difficult to agree with, and yearnings that ask for no legalisation: it is friendship.

The bond that mistakes us all as one, and the communion of all singular wills, of consensus, is the Welfare State: peace based on law’s transferability, democratic because the decision process is shown, although, of course, there is no state without secrecy.

And like a friend that can only carry its own weights, that was not worth of our confession, pretends to put order on our secret, trying to make us repent and to become alike, the Welfare State projects a constant delimiting of possible conflicts onto society: the administrative and jurisdictional mapping that makes us subjects of a possibly effective dissent.

Particularly the Welfare State, contrary to a friend, offers itself as a contemporalisation armed with enough ethical resources to carry the weight of all transgressions, that which would be a hell of a labyrinth for any walking conscience. To bear being the undertaker of a sacrifice, of necessary human bloodshed, seems to be what makes a difference from a ‘true Statesman’ to any porter-voter. Only the State can make the bad into good.

In spite of the constant regularisation aiming for the coextension of Constitution and Society, occasionally, drama is put into play: situation of need, curfew, emergency measures…Drama presented as unquestionable, even as preferable, the goal of a kind of efficiency independent from the perimeter of what is permitted, independently of what is legal. What this manifests is the discontinuity of the executive power and of the legal system, the autonomy of legitimacy from what is or is not legal.

To govern does not mean to follow a guideline or to deduce the truth, political action is only possible without rules: it is time’s haste, a conditioning and a pre-formation of all governed wills. And while drifting, searching for stability, the truth of politics is mutation: a secrets factory.

Determined and erected by the same action of government takes place the lineal process of power influences, in its way shapes the implicit power (mechanism segregator of secrets). This is not a fact nor is it a right, it does not follow any rule, or registers a situation. It is an undeclared state of alarm, point of un-differentiation, where violence equals law. Fuhrer moment: taken decision.

A moment, in which what actually goes on, stays on the conscience of whoever forms the state, and issues are in no case subject to parliament. You could summit parliament on the shape of a reduced commission, whose players are already on the know of whatever was there to be known, and act under the condition of not making it public. If you want to be counted on, you must be able to keep the secret. Mutuality, that is, what is common to all, is returned back to us with the logic of a street gang: arrogant but marginal, because among other things, no one anymore has cold turkey from parlamentarism.

Current discussions on State’s secrecy cannot be solved by saying that we must open all draws of Judicial Power, neither with a statement such as: ‘when confronting illegality there are no secrets’. Although, we are witnessing an expansion of jurisprudences towards political life, it is all about an hiper-tribunalisation of administrative action. In the case of the Spanish State, it testifies the weakness of the Judicial Power confronted to the Implicit Power, when this means state of emergency. They are trusted citizens and theirs is a secret that cannot be put in order.

We witness the proliferation of special laws interrupting fundamental rights as well as to a giving out of immunities. There is a multiplication of exceptional jurisprudences, even under the impression of being equal opportunities, the welfare state’s tale: according to your secrets will you be judged.

What is a ballot paper made of? A government’s formation is an authentic rupture in causality: the effect takes on a galactic dimension from its cause. A more formal voting would be more plausible, je,je even more un-transcendental than our routine-democracy, would be nice if it wouldn’t be an acceptation ritual of future conditionings and if it would not mean the hand out of elected candidate’s legitimacy to shape our lives, rather, it would be nice if it would be our friend and would actually tell us its secrets!

No one should be mistaken here, politics is not based on faith neither is it a walking by the roads of reason, it neither happens in the normality of a jurisdictional order. Things are put into place away from law, order doesn’t concrete as an example of a universally formal law. Order becomes material while at the same time, opens and troughs itself against negation, acknowledging the duel and closing it with a partial, already taken, decision. Order fixes this decision as the true obstacle in everyone’s life.

Police is the Essence of the State

Nor services nor currency are dependent or inherent to the Nation State. The step taken by guaranty, now to be who administers ‘opportunities’, the obvious of this vocation of putting order on the social being. Here, at the passage taking us from the Welfare State to the Police State. The Welfare State segregates consent and institutions which were the substitutes of force, thus, there were spaces for mediation and participation that transformed conflict into compatibility at the same time that promoted stability.

The Police State is an ordering, a Welfare Moral that does without counting on the social ties implicated in legitimacy, placing security as fundamental law. The Police State launches constitutional norms and prohibitions, as well as rules, of a new reach –biopolitical- they come to regulate private life. A Welfare Moral rooting itself, at most times imperatively, constantly creating communicative situations: courses for pregnant women –better in couples-, enjoyable workshops and reports on sexuality, ‘well informed’ documentaries on diets and healthy living…all are ways to nail fear on us, and to rise the alarm, to make you unaware of the urbanisation of all body events and to cement them over with tasteless emotions and sustainable feelings.

Living Victim’s Paralysis

Take an example you know. Here the origin of AIDS is of no interest, if it comes from uncontrolled experiments, from Africa, or from wherever; neither if its house is a virus, a flu badly recovered, an evil eye o just bad luck; it is not relevant if it is transmitted through gay love, in the intimacy of a syringe, because of bad influences or because of talking to estrangers; neither important are the economical interests of the pharmaceutical industry or sophisticated technologies.

It would be whatever happens, we don’t know, although we do know of the social being (solitude, to become something rightly experimented with…) we also know of AIDS political management.

The advert saying: ‘Be aware, not even in your intimacy, are you secure’, closes uncountable civil rights, cuts up tolerance and illegalises millions of personal preferences. Of course the illness exists! Tough it is very particular. It has its visible symptoms, (magic Johnson), and it is because of those ‘who have it but you couldn’t tell’ that an international regulation on intimacy can be founded. When we listen to the diagnostic, more than a medical exercise resembles disembowelment at a confessional booth.

If the pest had been a good excuse to circulate a method of social control grounded on territory and on the division of time in the city, today, in cyber space where real time knows nothing of timetables or distances, AIDS stands for the positive evidence of regulating personal preferences, collective desires, body legitimacies, putting a light on intimacy and working it on with strong categories, thus, formalising everyday life, closing all bodily encounters.

Doctors become the guardians of behaviour disorders, with duty of reporting any ‘perversion’, they have to scientifically explain ‘natural’ punishment and authorise relationship’s confinements. Doctors become managers of the Behaviour Bank, rocked with the stone of Queen ‘Science’ and the hologram of sustainable feelings and companies.

The political management of AIDS places us at an axis where the universal duty to work is not enough, your taxes’s application and to know how much you have at the bank, can be known even at three in the night, but they also need to know what you are doing at that time.

There will be drugs for HIV, doctors can say whatever, but this vaccine will be different. In its instructions, as well as the composition and the medical prescriptions, it will also include directions on a recommended sexuality, advised environments, preferable companies, the saliva that can be swallowed and the tears with which, at no risk, we can share our Kleenex. It could be an injection, a pill, a suppository or a long treatment; that it will come with its own cathequism.

Who has ever met someone who died from AIDS, knows they died alone. AIDS identity, its recommendations, are those of: do not end like this. It tells us, as if we would never die: ‘at least not dying like this’. The identity of not being alone at any price; not only to live according to this or that project, but to enjoy the privilege of having others, under the condition of living childishly in monotony.

Welfare Moral’s propaganda, inoculates control, it is a dissuasion anticipating itself, giving objectivity and positivism, making the omen of repression perceptible– to live in the paralysis of a victim-. The deterrence that leaves the door open, is a pure availability for domination. For who stays in its place, dissuasion and control, for the nomad, persuasion, follow up, between body and body, eviction from positions, starting of genocide. Work or I will kill you, domination or genocide. Today, work blackmail keeps you alive under the figure of tolerance.

An order requires of a force to discourage, and in some cases, to persuade. It will also fix the evidences of a global poaching, susceptible to surveillance: from the natives hunting at an African reserve, to the habits of television audiences; a global responsibility over personal actions, so to justify that your data travels more and is in more places than those you would ever step on to. For that, a bird-eye view is not enough. Continuity must be installed between the police station and the top military decision makers.

Because of this global character it requires an army above all national state’s forces –and the rushed up professionalising of the European national armies favours this requirement- rather than a global police body that will not respond to any law and would be absent to any judgeship. It wants to be a moment of undifferentiating between violence and law, whose military actions would have the status of being directly justice actions.

Capital recognised and assumed social cooperation

It is the instauration of cognitive capitalism. What has been said in the previous chapter are some of the requirements for this new capitalism to operate. As it is more virtual than real, for its expansion to happen, multiplies its insistence in being a part of the infrastructural and technological community needs (satellites, wire-rings…).

Techno-scientific development taken as main force of production, as well as the assumption that creative imagination is source to the creation of value, have situated capital at the role of a pure manager, organiser, and supervisor, which imposes a productive norm onto the collective intellect. With the rise of immaterial work, capital becomes pure domination, based on the norm: legislations, patents, context information, intellectual property… only of the components watchtower of parasite action. However: whose is the multiplication table?

The thinking hand and the acting brain

For instance: Internet. We do not entertain here uncovering whom under a paled theology of communication, pretends to compare telephone sex with a body encounter. Really, the surfing they go on about is a vicious circle, characteristic of a funfair. And this happens while we can actualise our virtual and physiological circles. We should neither take into account those who feel as millionaires watching the increase of their information accounts: you can also expect nothing from lots of information.

One of the places with more immediate, alive autonomous work, making new social utilities, is Internet. The net-dungeon that undergoes through millions of formative drops –discursive and significant practices-, converts them in stream for the production of events and for the liberation of the boxed identity.

A net constituting a multilateral society before the subjugation of salary relations, and that, in live time, confirms productivity, its creativity, its intelligence and imagination, without the dilemma inside or outside of work.

The productive function of these new utilities, occurring on the name of an identity-less community, is an authentic Production of Production: cooperation without salary, and a business with no businessmen. We have seen, as well, how the un-protocolary, inexistent and quantifiable communication of desires, sensibilities, directions, sexual swapping, recipes, emplacements…have fed a new cortex for the general intellect. Devoured all norms, deleted the perimeter defying law in every state, and thus manifesting the cretin-corporative aspiration of all nationalism.

The paradigm of Toyotism implies acknowledging social cooperation’s productivity, and its autonomy from the mediation of salary. Capitalism has extended this productive cooperation to all moments of social life (millions of spectators, with their penny of attention, produce units of value), subsuming it as the maximum of capital gain (thousands of walkers multiply the property value of a street). Doing this in a way that deletes the social ties involved in production, and in the legitimacy of the Fordist Welfare State. A real political accumulation, a sterilised spring only pregnant of laboratory politics.

To live in a constant optimisation of our personality, reshaping ourselves, is basic condition in order to circulate as a working product, cut and paste: a very worked on gesture, the cheeky, the sympathy, the physic and the clothing, the ability to lie and to be pseudo-sincere, the skilful adaptation, the authentic rudeness, the management of the neckline, the exquisiteness for the useless smoke that must be sold…are the architectonics of the subjectivity giving value to services merchandise.

Yes to social cooperation, but adding political repeal to it, substituting civilian rights for civism, moralising wills with responsibilities: a responsibility consists on nothing more than following the causes of an administrative rationality, in obedience to possibilitism. ‘To do what we can’, ‘to be a responsible person’, it is the euphemism of duty.

And from work you go home. Great solitude and restless work, in a disneyland social cooperation; to live post it, inside the capsule of domestic sit-in, as an astronaut at the space station: voluntarily, having struggled to achieve it, with our wills at the control centre.

There is Time Enough But the Space doesn’t happen

The crisis is not a catastrophe, nor an ending; it means plenty of time.

From economic fundamentalism, there is a view unfolding a lineal logic, where the exigencies to sacrifice and the irreversibility of having to live desperately, arise. All these are more than enough reasons for the present economical kidnapping of life to happen. The tuned Stockholm syndrome is to assume the objectivity of the crisis, as if it was a weather report.

There is other view, where the crisis is tangible, in the East as in the West, acknowledged the parasite character of the state, there understood as a capitalist business. We witnessed a wave of appropriation episodes and examples where public management was taken from the administration with the will of remaking it, in unlimited use and pleasure seeking. Against this the answer is privatisation.

In our cities, in synchronicity with public and private spheres, we have seen –we are not speaking here of speculation: sounds as aseptic as ‘kilowatt’ or as natural as the growth of hair and nails- the unfolding of the cartography of greed, obstacle to any social contract. This cartography of greed, legitimates occupation-appropriation, urging for the reinvention of the use we make of our environment. We, also, presence the injection of an Urban Manual prescribing obedient common sense as unique guideline.

Obedience is conceived as necessary so to obtain some guaranties, compensations, possessions, prosperity, equal opportunities or security. The idea that freedom must be given with doses of obedience is common sense: just enough so that the current order is maintained. And this happens in a way in which individual autonomy consists of elections and realisations of preferences, needs, desires and socialised passions.

To this childish moral and civics, should we oppose intelligence, imagination and the sensations of the Disobedient City. There where it seems that space and time are formally pre-ordered, the Disobedience City places a border, a creative sedition producing times of impermissible trajectory, expansions of freedom.

The Disobedient City is a friendly conspiracy. Putting a crack on the mirror at work, a messing up of the political reference picture, not debating on the image, representation or public perception, but rather, putting forward the body and liberating spaces: it is an spacemaking.

When time seemed only possible as perpetual exchange, as planetary simultaneity, as reversibility of a cosmos born monetarily, the Disobedient City launches un-consented imaginations, defying from self-expression: my tattoo against your visa.

Proving and putting to trial its autonomy and asymmetry, exposes itself from the intensity of affections, allows to not known now about the future; risks its body in uncountable sexualities, does not renounce to its diverging motivations, does not repress its threatening needs, does not substitute its expectations and does not stop trying because of the minority of its yearnings.

The Disobedient City is not fighting for acknowledgement, nor for a new social contract, commitment or founders agreement, we do not fight so to make public some subjective rights. We do not want to be agents of new rights. The Disobedient City insists on a non-regulated differentiation, a difference that custodies its freedom, threaten by a pluralism guarded constitutionally. The Disobedient City is an enterprising body experimenting with elastic communities, cooperation without authority, pushing itself towards unlimited innovation. It is a machine of possible politics; an utopia-less body dismissing un-consented realities.

And, with its colourful or black and white guerrillas, fights-resists-fights, liberates spaces and makes them antagonistic, without any purpose but to expose ourselves.

Although so much video-clip makes routines of differences, we live an exodus that is not a routnary ritual, but an unfolding of that democracy of the unleashed differences, away from crude communication and the process of monotony, we can make effective the expressive and experimenting potential in everyone.

From Disobedience to Challenging-Spacemaking

It seems we cannot bear being anyone. It is uncomfortable that our I, dissolves in every we, we cannot explain who we are without being what we most intimately identify with. What would remain of whatever we could say? No one wants to be anyone and even less ‘to be no one’.

Ulises wanted to be ‘no one’ so to escape from Cyclopes, and after being anyone, was himself even more. He also got rid of Circe, the first employment agency: feeds you as long as you accept living like a pig; he washed his hands of comfort. Hernan Cortes, contrarily, stopped been himself when, already retired, resulted victorious and wined because of being who he was. In the confusion in which we live, there is more cunning than in that Cyclopes, some benefits seduce more than Circe and we are much less distinguished than in times of Cortes. Over all, we have nowhere to go, we are not in an island and we have not land ahead. The monetarialisation of our being is an undifferentiating, that is why you can only travel in spaceships made of coins and notes.

Some dream will tell us who we are, o simply, that the treasure of identity travels with us. We can also identify with our inherited words and images; this has the advantage of being able to say that we know ourselves, explaining who we are as many times as necessary: whoever wanting to make a grimace can go and live at the museum, if they are a group they can form an altarpiece, or they can put more meat into it, and start some nationalist bodge.

The treasure is never found, and if we find the chest and this can be opened, it is not there. New clues announce its proximity in another direction, towards there we run like crazy, we gather maps, telescopes, optimizing and reshaping our personality: we will achieve the reward for our perseverance, we will get the price for all sacrifices; there will be reward but never treasure.

The life of a gold prospector, of a gold digger, it is the life of a heavy wagon seeking its train, the one with a speed to be un-derailed.

To focus towards our place of origin, there where we will never feel estrange, where we can mix ourselves with the landscape?

To find our aboriginal identity neither satisfies the primary exigency: we wanted to be ourselves. The difference between the foreigner and the native is that the foreigner, estrange and just arrived, is the one who founds places.

The foreigner, nomad that never stays in one same place is who actually founds, from its travelling a chronicle is born, placing chronology, its travels found an artificial space and time: it is the action of travelling that makes the whole world into its home, the estranger inherits identity and not its hostess; the aborigine is who first arrived and is hostess of its own local identity. But the stranger also stops being anyone, in order to be someone deletes all traces, negotiates, fixes his atmosphere with memories and identifies with the recently constituted home.

We are not giants anymore, nor dwarfs on a giant’s shoulder, nor the dandruff of those dwarfs. Travellers in spaceships made of coins and notes; our virtue is to be anyone, a trip with no treasure, with the frustration of devaluating and the deception of been more valuable than the place we arrive to.

We no more have any values to make a difference between us, we are undifferentiated valuables. Money was always time, but now all time is money.

It is not possible to point out a lifetime outside the submission of capital. Only in space, unaware of dates, can the geological battle for liberation be placed, only in the staying and moving as raged lava, can the labyrinth of stupid relationships be challenged.

Before the plundering of our sacrifice becomes the treasure of identity: to be anyone, from an non-judging perspective and from a body without identity: spacemaking, founding spaces with no memories and no project undertaken, needs and fundaments will be later added by the judges.

Spacemeking does not mean using what is abandoned and reordering it, it does not mean to make the most of a mold-space to rock everyday life with it. Spacemaking is not oriented towards localising emptiness and filling it, it is not a pointing out of a building, making it welcome you.

In the same way that only after writing can we speak of a blank sheet of paper: where nothing has been written; thus, as the vacuum of the sign allows the paper to be other, to be for others and among others, also spacemaking allows an appointment and an emplacement of reciprocal looks, it is an inhabiting from the vacuum, becoming rendezvous.

Spacemaking is a mutation, a moment that becomes place, plane and extension; a pure topos with no chronology. Spacemaking is a mutation, which mineralises the Disobedient City. Spacemaking is not urbanising, it is not a making of the topography subject to be filled with client-citizens, but rather, it is what can be done by an assembly of bodies in common rendezvous. This meeting is not about a contract that places you in a country-space, nor in a work-space, nor is it the mousetrap of participation, and of course, neither the formal integration that makes you into a fraction, the fraction of one divided by all ‘co-habitants’.

What’s left of one divided by all? There you only have space in the air, common to everyone, how much you worry about the floods, tornados, earthquakes, fires…what remains of one divided by everyone?: to live in the hope that one opportunity would choose you or to disobey-defy. And, when we can only live in a desperate anaemia: ‘death in patera’, or living hold on to a sickly sweet postponing: ‘to die at the Titanic’. What is there for consensus?

The Disobedient City thinks and its brain acts. Consents not to know now about tomorrow and does not let it be walked about common sense offices. The thinking hand, when it closes, becomes power, a fist on the table of these cities with instruction manuals.

The psy, the ologos, the ists and the ologists, with their going around because they heard something, think that they have formulas, quantities, proportions, percentages, sequences, filiations and tendencies. We are talking about writing something from the mortgage owner face, to be consumed by those who still have patience, the patience of living course making, so that one fine day, you would resemble your instructor.

The psy, the ologos, the ists and the ologists, wanting to get closer, will circulate tales that would dissect the hands of the Disobedient City. Stories that will be about moments of the day, symptoms, colours and odours, the resemblings, the excesses, the bad trips, the ‘not yet’, all enemies, coexistences, the neighbours, the pities, the strategies, the patronages, heritages, contagions and plagiarisms, illusions, ambitions, affections, the colour of toilet paper…they would think that they would then have a map of the gestures that make speak, live, the hands of the Disobedient City. But the mutated thinking of these hands does not allow itself to be exchanged by metaphors, nor dispose of a saying that could give a transparent new.

The Disobedient City is not a formal problem of normality or diversity, rather, as it is dissenting self-expression, is a putting oneself as a problem.

Spacemaking means doing without concept or intention, versions of our own bodies. And doing this while un-authorising and contesting what goes from one to the others. What goes on from ones to the others, all in children’s cartoon civics manners. To have hands necessarily means to have no solidarity. It cannot be other way when solidarity is as the shadow of Lucky Luck: the copy of an armed order arriving late; solidarity is the value of an absent body, a darkening of a body dead burocratically: to these addressee, the more than sixty thousand pages of the official state gazette.

Spacemaking means an oppening of possibilities, spacemaking means to be able to choose before any negotiation takes place, it means to be able to affirm oneself, before all communication and consensus. Spacemaking means experimentation with communication in general, a founding of new games, inaugurating new spheres, expressions and values.

Where are we? We had overcome the fight, we were betting, now we are defying: experimenting versions of our bodies. Versions that do not answer questions, just the pleasure of crossbreeding.

Before than ashes, the Disobedient City is the chalice overflowing with all other possible cities.