In Articles

“Make History:”

The Culture Production Campaign of the Labor/Community Strategy Center

 

Lian Hurst Mann

Published originally in Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, v. 25, 2003

Republished by the Labor / Community Strategy Center, 2023.

 

I. Los Angeles: one site of struggle

In the present period, a place’s identity and the lived experience of its inhabitants are determined largely by their role in a global system of exchange that is seemingly beyond comprehension.  People everywhere are disoriented; they explain their relationship to this transnational economic integration as one of powerlessness–exploitation, oppression, alienation. Yet the often-untenable conditions of daily life under late capitalism and the widespread incapacity of states to stabilize markets and governments leads to ever so many local hot spots of contestation the world over, hot spots that are similar by virtue of their struggles of resistance while distinguished by their specificity.  The metropolitan region that constitutes the megacity of Los Angeles is one such hot spot in a transnational process of integration, disintegration, reintegration.

Los Angeles County—the largest in the country at 9.5 million people, among the most racially and ethnically diverse yet segregated—is home to the twelve-year-old Labor/Community Strategy Center, an incubator for insurgent counter-hegemonic mass campaigns.  As a multiracial social justice “think-tank/act-tank” with an anti-imperialist, antiracist political strategy, the Center seeks to generate a creative and aggressive response to the growing power of the corporate-led political Right in the United States, a response that is led by social movements of the oppressed nationality working class.[1]

The regional transportation system is a site of contestation in which the spatial practices of differentiation and integration, of consent and dissent produce the particular compartition that is Los Angeles (Mann, 1991, 33). Beginning with the “manhattanization” of downtown Los Angeles, the corporate elite—backed by investment from the east and west—has worked to build a “world class city,” transforming the scale of the regional infrastructure so that it can function successfully as a hub in a transnational network of exchange. A cargo-transport corridor from LA’s port to the inland rail lines, which will give the rest of the country access to Pacific Rim trade, cuts into the earth as it bisects East and West Los Angeles from north to south. A new subway/metro rail system, the economic boondoggle of the 1990s, serves “choice” riders (those who have choice of transportation) traveling to and from the suburbs and peripheral cities—Long Beach, Riverside, the San Fernando Valley.

Erased in the world class city plan is the bus system that is the workhorse, the lifesaver, for 400,000 “transit dependent” people (those who have no choice)—black, Latino, white, Asian, Native American, female, elderly, inner city high school students, the disabled, immigrant populations, many profoundly poor—who must travel to places that rail will never go.  Many bus riders spend from 2 to 4 hours a day on the bus.  Bus riding shapes every part of daily life, and thus identity, and the quality of bus service determines the quality of life. Yet, for decades the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) allowed the bus system to deteriorate. The buses were old, filthy, unreliable and late, overcrowded, and powered by carcinogenic diesel fuels. The “spatial economy” of the region was registered in the relationship between a “first world” rail system and a “third world” bus system.

In 1994 the Strategy Center formed the Bus Riders Union/Sindicato de Pasajeros (BRU/SDP) and initiated a mass organizing campaign to “fight transit racism” (Mann, 1997).  As part of this campaign, the Strategy Center filed a class action civil rights lawsuit that charged the MTA with violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, based on findings of intentional discrimination as well as disparate adverse impact on minorities.  In 1996 the Strategy Center and the BRU/SDP secured a federal Consent Decree with the MTA that not only saved the monthly bus pass but cuts fares, secured and expanded the bus transportation infrastructure of the county region, created many union jobs and placed the Bus Riders Union in a joint Working Group with the MTA.  The plan replaces the dysfunctional diesel buses with a clean fuel bus fleet that expands into new service areas previously unreachable by public transportation.

In this context, the Bus Riders Union campaign is winning demands that redistribute economic resources while simultaneously impacting the physical fabric of the city in ways we cannot yet imagine.  This major shift in resources to the transit dependent and expanding rather than eliminating bus service breaks down the historically-constituted segregation of the city (the racial demarcation/compartition of social space): The struggle is now cast as a nation-wide campaign for civil rights through redistribution of public resources in the aftermath of the reactionary Sandoval Supreme Court decision.[2]

The transportation equity campaign continues; not surprisingly, the MTA acts like the Consent Decree is a treaty to be broken. As of September 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed lower court orders to force MTA into compliance—a major victory for the Bus Riders Union and the entire civil rights movement. Still the MTA is appealing again. As successful as this plaintiff-driven lawsuit has been, the daily activity of riders is on the buses and in the streets—in a spatial practice of resistance.

II. Make History: Create Counterspace

Numerous political principles guide the development of campaign tactics at the Strategy Center. Among them is the understanding that mass campaigns developed to challenge the exploitative practices of US capital, the Right-wing deregulatory assault of the state, and the hegemony of bourgeois culture require the development of counter-hegemonic demands and organizing plans that are internationalist in strategy while tactically situated in specific times, places, and conditions. (Program Demand Group, 2001).

Creating counterspace is an extension of our approach to demand development.  In the terms of Henri Lefebvre, this is a spatial practice that occurs as a “counter project” in a “trial by space” of “contradictions in space.”  “As for class struggle, its role in the production of space is a cardinal one in that this production is performed solely by classes, fractions of classes and groups representative of classes.” (Lefebvre, 1991, 55)  Building on everyday practices of resistance, we have introduced an approach which attempts to “assemble,” “concentrate,” “accumulate” “living beings, things, objects, works, signs and symbols” and thereby “produce” social counterspace. (Lefebvre, 101)

The intent to produce counterhegemonic space is predicated on an assumption that hegemony is inscribed in social space. Fredric Jameson’s conception of “cognitive mapping” is useful to understand the mechanisms that determine consent to ideological hegemony. He uses Luis Althusser’s formulation of ideology as “the Imaginary representation of the subject’s relationship to his or her Real conditions of existence” to analyze the “gap between phenomenological perception and a reality that transcends all individual thinking or experience.” (Jameson, 1988, 353)  “It is not the real conditions of existence, their real world, that ‘men’ ‘represent to themselves’ in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there” (Althusser, 1972, 173).  Thus an individual’s “imaginary representation” becomes their “cognitive map.” In a formulation that has shaped my work for many years, Jameson goes on to say, “the incapacity to map socially is as crippling to political experience as the analogous incapacity to map spatially is to urban experience” (Jameson, 1988, 353). Based on this analytical critique of the place and space in which ideological hegemony operates, we face the challenge of devising strategies for ideological transformation, that is rebuilding representations of the global Real as well as the still imaginary Possible.

If ideology is the explanation we construct to imagine our place in the world, then a mass campaign that creates collective political exposures can spark a new consciousness of that relationship and, possibly, ideological reorientation. It is the potential of this penetration of individual experience that I think Jameson imagined when he wrote of “an aesthetic of cognitive mapping–a pedagogical culture which seeks to endow the individual subject with some new heightened sense of its place in the global system…” (Jameson, 1991, 54).  This is the aesthetic of our practice.  For me, this is the architecture of Lenin’s “comprehensive political exposures” (Lenin, 1947, 70).

Lenin’s framework is powerful for moving from analysis to strategy.  While the “gap” between individual perceptual experience and the reality of that individual’s existence can never be closed, it is precisely the purpose of political organizing to narrow that gap by heightening the experience of the individual and the group in a “situation” of political exposure.  Although the act of creation is a complex process and social space is comprised of contradictory interrelationships, our presumption is that through political exposures, social relations can be revealed and contradictions can be exposed that are normally hidden by the explanations of bourgeois culture. Similarly, there are many more dimensions to social space than can be comprehended by conscious acts.  Accepting such, we still develop plans based on the expectation that when a counterspace is simultaneously a site and a moment of class struggle in which a terrain normally dominated by the bourgeoisie is appropriated by a social movement in a politically charged sequence of events, a collective political exposure can occur and a collective ideological reorientation can take place.  Such specific experiences are the concrete building blocks of reorientation in a time and place of great disorientation.  “Moreover—and more importantly—groups, classes or fractions of classes cannot constitute themselves, or recognize one another, as ‘subjects’ unless they generate (or produce) a space” (Lebfevre, 1991, 416).  The presumably postmodern revelation that the resolution of contradictions cannot ultimately be controlled does not in any way displace a time-honored approach to political struggle—accelerate the contradictions.

While the MTA pursues its world class city plan for those designated as “choice,” immigration from the Latin and Asian Pacific Rim expands the transit dependent population. The class struggle over what it means to be an international city is put on display, a spectacle for all to see. Yet, as Lefebvre says, “‘human beings’ do not stand before, or amidst, social space….They do not merely enjoy a vision, a contemplation, a spectacle—for they act and situate themselves in space as active participants. They are accordingly situated in a series of enveloping levels each of which implies the others, and the sequence of which accounts for social practice” (Lebfevre, 294).

As bus riders move around the city, the MTA planners’ two-dimensional plan for the LA megacity becomes the multiple dimensions of lived experience for hundreds of thousands of real people who rely on the bus—the motion of contradiction comes to life.  Where disparate people are forced together like in a factory, but on wheels, the buses are spatial units of social strife moving around the region penetrating zones that are otherwise out of any one culture’s borders.  In such a space, we can see how ideology operates as “we all necessarily …cognitively map our individual social relationship to local, national, and international class realities” (Jameson, 1991, 52).

In this context, our objective, again, is an ideological reorientation through a spatial practice.  For us this means, “Make History: Create Counterspace (Mann 1990, 9-80).  This slogan links the space constructed in memory of a settler nation built on genocide, slavery, theft of lands and resources to that of the contemporary global struggle against “structural adjustment,” national oppression, racism and xenophobia that defines the class struggle in many urban terrains. “Make History” provokes a popular questioning of what history actually is and how it is made.  It challenges the social movement to situate its own location in the present in making the history of the future. This tactic of representation serves to undermine the dominant ideology of “the powerless oppressed.” People who create themselves in counterspaces are not powerless.  History is a representation of acts in the past, yet the actual acts upon which it is based are always in the present; if we can understand that, we can create representations of actions simultaneous to the actions themselves, indeed make the representations part of the actions and re-present the movement to itself in an infinite iteration of political exposures.

The intention is to disturb the taken-for-granted notions of time, place and identity—shift the ideological valence and resituate actors in new relationships to history–and introduce the critical role of human action in accelerating the contradictions that reside in the objective conditions of US imperialism. This potential is not lost to the L.A.-based culture industry that experiences our open opposition to its universal values and homogeneous representations. Thus, many elements of our agit-prop tactics are calculated not only to help those in struggle see themselves in the present but to provide a consciously-crafted tactical representation that can resist being absorbed into a bourgeois culture of fragmentation and homogenization, cooptation or erasure, then rewritten as history in the future.

III. Practical Experiments

As the political right moves to restrict the social space of struggle, we seek to expand it. The culture production work of the Labor Community Strategy Center seeks to systematically appropriate openings in the city as our stage for the creation of counterspace through material cultural engagements of a tactical, temporal, and gestural kind.  We facilitate the construction of agitational and propaganda “props” for the staging, enabling, and enhancing of organizational and political engagement; these props are performance devices, sometimes actual objects designed to frame counterspaces and make spontaneous events out of everyday practices of engaging people in the workplace, on the sidewalks, in the parks, riding the buses.  Combinations of tactical approaches are deployed—from legal briefs to illegal actions, leaflets to books, posters to puppets, carnival to Augusto Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed.  Two projects illustrate this action.

“No Somos Sardinas: We Won’t Stand for It”

One very successful political exposure was the fare strike to dramatize the MTA’s complacency in the face of excessive overcrowding of the buses and to build the morale of the riders. As an architect, I am repeatedly stunned by the population density allowed in the space of a moving bus that would be totally illegal for any enclosed space that is not moving.  In 1998, when the MTA failed to meet the first of three Consent Decree-mandated deadlines to reduce overcrowding, the politics of culture became primary. The unfolding of the fare strike involved a series of components. The first was to grasp the MTA’s ideological message—“there is no room for you here,” “stand and take it,” “you have no power in this situation.” A counterhegemonic slogan was devised—“We won’t stand for it!” and the plan was: “no seat, no fare.” A bilingual poster “No Somos Sardinas/We Won’t Stand for It” was produced out of collaboration between the Bus Riders Union Planning Committee and the artist Robbie Conal. This poster spread through the city in one night of guerilla postering, inviting participation in the civil disobedience that was about to begin.[3]

To announce the strike, the BRU staged a press conference on MTA grounds in front of their new headquarters.  Like all of our press conferences, this one was composed to create both the lived experience and the representational effect of a counterspace.  A carefully selected cross section of people stood together to speak with microphones in front of them and the “No Somos Sardinas” posters recycled as placards behind them.  They occupied the MTA plaza to the displeasure of the MTA Board, and the occupation became a subversive appropriation as it was framed and circulated by every news camera’s gaze. An LA Times photographer chose to shoot the street scene from inside the MTA headquarters.  From that point of view, the arched windows of the MTA’s inside territory were borrowed to frame the scene of BRU members surrounded by reporters.  This image, which appeared in the Times the next day, re-presented the BRU’s relationship to the MTA and spread a message of bus rider power despite MTA’s refusal to comply with the overcrowding agreements.

As the fare strike went into motion, BRU organizers claimed the space of the buses easily when they spoke: “if you don’t get a seat, don’t pay; don’t pay for racism.” This phase of the campaign employed several small but powerful props.  Of course, there are always leaflets.  In addition, a BRU bus pass was printed saying, “No Seat, No Fare”/“No asiento, no pago.” Organizers handed them out at bus stops and on buses and urged people to show their pass to the driver who controls bus boarding and say, “I am part of the BRU!” Most drivers cooperated, accepting these passes as evidence of the riders’ participation in the strike.  As cards circulated along the bus lines, possession of the pass—which marked “affiliation” with the social movement—produced an instant sense of orientation for large numbers of riders.

As this action was occurring at disparate spots throughout the city, one site on Broadway in crowded downtown LA was selected for a concentrated mass action of civil disobedience.  Fare strikers arrived at the intersection filled with people carrying “No Somos Sardinas” poster/placards. As each overcrowded, dilapidated bus pulled to a stop, groups of riders encircled it with yellow homicide tape yelling “Dead on Arrival!” and–-as the LAPD watched—secured the tape with stickers made by enlarging and recycling the “No Seat, No Fare”/“No asiento, no pago” pass image.  Cinematographer Haskell Wexler documented the entire strike launch for his film Bus Riders Union.  In each case he framed the action.  And the more bus riders saw themselves filmed the greater grew their capacity to act, knowing that they were creating counterspace and making history that would be seen all over the world.[4]  With this essay, the exposure spreads to an entirely different audience.

Through the approach of devising political exposures in which we share struggle (in this case civil disobedience in direct confrontation with the state), our experience together shapes us mutually and collective transformation develops over time. Through actions such as these, BRU organizers and activists create new knowledge, word of the union’s work on behalf of the bus-riding community spreads, many new members join, and many more people learn the lessons of this civil rights campaign.

“As the Bus Rolls/La Mentira del MTA”

Having organized on the buses since 1994, we know that the bus itself is truly an amazing social space, posing many obstacles to its occupation but affording ever-new opportunities for lively political exposures.  In Los Angeles, public space and public life are diminishing.  Yet, the bus, largely because of the work of the Bus Riders Union, is an expanding space. In this context, while cross-cultural contradictions easily flare up, daily life in the common space of the bus creates a basis for unity with regard to issues confronted in the larger political space of the city.  We have come to understand that the bus is a stage for community interaction in a moving theater of daily life.

The evolution of actions into theater has been organic as well as strategic.  In 1999, the Strategy Center formed an explicit partnership—the Labor/Community Strategy Center, the Bus Riders Union/Sindicato de Pasajeros, and Cornerstone Theater Company—to bring together community organizers, activists, culture producers, and bus riders to create theater on the bus.  The Strategy Center was able to offer intensive workshops in improvisation, the essence of which is learning the collective art of occupying space, transforming it, and extending the space created by others.

The central objective of the project has been to broaden participation in the campaign for transportation equity by creating experiences that can increase understanding of race, ethnicity, nationality, language, and gender, all of which are intertwined within the distinct identities of this fragmented transit-dependent population.  Commonly, riders imagine that they themselves or other riders cause their hardships, particularly the poor condition of the bus system.  Especially because of the great diversity of nations of origin for immigrants (Latinos from Mexico and the many nations of Central America and Asians from every country along the Pacific Rim as well as India) and the variety of languages as well as class antagonisms within ethnic groups, there are many lines of demarcation for the dominating culture to exploit. Riders often accept government cut backs as given and blame each other for making things worse.  In this ethically diverse but highly segregated region, the teatro has developed on-the-bus pieces that use humor, multiple languages, and the communicative power of performance to make the shared public space of the buses into a more explicitly occupied counterspace. Through performance, we work to create a common experience of shared learning about each others differences and our relationship to each other by turning the bus itself into a space where riders control the dialogue, not the MTA.

Our particular focus has been to develop live performance techniques and approaches to bus theater that can be directly implemented throughout the organizing work; this is not a group of actors but a group of bus rider-organizers whose performances invite “spectators to become spect-actors,” as Augusto Boal would describe the transformation, an “aesthetic of cognitive mapping,” in Jameson’s terms.[5]   Through experimentation in the improv workshop (where no language or culture was common to all participating rider/actors), a method has been devised for the group development of material that combines improvisation, video taping, writing, and repeating of the improvisation process until script outlines evolve that can be adapted by performers in the ever-changing circumstances on the bus. The improv workshop culminated with the development of the bilingual piece modeled after the device of a telanovela—As the Bus Rolls/La Mentira del MTA, which has been performed on the buses and at bus stops by three different casts of performers, each lending a different character to the “script” when improvised in different settings with different groups of bus riders, speaking different languages.  In costume, the performers occupy places on the bus that require them to speak to each other across the space.  Feet planted firmly and one hand attached to some sturdy element of the bus structure the other hand free for a prop or a gesture, they improvise their performances based on nodes of a plot structure, weaving the roles of passenger-spect-actors (including the driver) into their performances as they go along.  They are accompanied by organizers ready to engage individuals with literature and invitations to BRU membership and, on a good day, by photographers and musicians. In a crowded bus with 42 people sitting and 30 people standing, the contested nature of the terrain comes into play immediately, and the political exposure begins.

The first episode of As the Bus Rolls, “Dolores’s Dilemma,” explored the daily life connections that people make on the bus (Dolores, a garment worker, is to wed fellow bus rider Alejandro, an immigrant cook) and the clever ways that the MTA fosters conflict on the buses when MTA board members ask riders from “their ethnic communities” to support MTA policies of discrimination (Dolores is seduced by Joaquin, the rich rail contractor).  The Invisible Passenger takes place at the bus stop; it focuses humorously on the continual breakdown of bus wheelchair lifts while it challenges rider complicity with the MTA’s disregard for disabled passengers.  El Plan Secreto teaches riders about their right to an unlimited use pass, despite MTA proposals to divide the ridership by raising fares for some categories of riders. ¡No Somos Sardinas! is staged on an overcrowded bus and uses the fighting that ensues between riders to explain the complicated provisions of the Consent Decree that will reduce overcrowding. A game show called Who Won What? gets riders to compete with each other as a way of learning the legal rights and benefits to which they are now all entitled.  The characters “Super Pasajera” and “Don Emiliano Embustero” (which enable individual teatro members to perform single character pieces) address in more detail specific conflicts between African American and Asian and Latino immigrant riders as well as between men and women and between riders and drivers.

Performance on the buses is difficult, and the ability of the teatro to occupy and transform the space depends largely on the consent of the bus riders and the drivers—this is the essence of a counter-hegemonic practice.  On-the-bus performances are indeed able to hold the attention of a racially diverse and multi-lingual audience.  Yet this is not an audience of well-behaved theater-goers; often riders are at first taken aback by the performance—“why is a woman with a wedding dress speaking in Spanish about some fiancé who is late for the wedding, and what the hell does this have to do with bus service or the BRU?”  With every performance, riders and drivers define the play. Of course, the riders do not all respond to the theater, if they respond it isn’t necessarily positive, and they may not agree with the BRU. For some vocal riders, participation in the dramatic exchanges on the bus is a cultural challenge, for others it has become an amenity to their ride. Taken as a group, bus riders understand that, at the least, the performance is another effort to give life on the buses more dignity in the face of humiliation by the discriminatory actions of the MTA.  They understand themselves in relation to the world differently. For the time of this performance, the bus is a community of bus riders, however much they may disagree, and the roles of the MTA, the city, state, US government, the World Bank and their indignities are exposed.  Much of the teatro’s objective is accomplished by that understanding.

The on-the-bus theater work is still in its early stages. The bus remains far too overcrowded; with a captive audience of bus riders, response ranges from engaged to estranged to oblivious. Still, these talented and brave performers intent on creating counterspace have stretched the boundaries of this public venue, and the potential for collective political exposure and ideological reorientation is tremendous.  All of this work brings people into a real fight to win an actual redistribution of wealth in the region. Thus, as the Bus Riders Union succeeds in winning its demands, the bus space expands, the number of spectators and spect-actors keeps growing, and there is a positive dialectic between the impact of the organizing, the impact of the theater, the policy victories, and the growing size of the social movement.

There can be no doubt that the contradictions inherent in the operations of gender, race, class, nation are revealed in this spatial practice.  The gap between “the local positioning of the individual subject and the totality of class structures in which he or she is situated, a gap between phenomenological perception and a reality that transcends all individual thinking or experience,” indeed, “the totality of class relations on a global…scale” is becoming a space of learning, not only for individuals but for a sizable group of people (Jameson, 1988, 353).

Lian Hurst-Mann is a graduate of the Berkeley Oakland Women’s Union, UC Berkeley Dept. of Architecture, where she received her Ph.D, the League of Revolutionary Struggle and the United Auto Workers. She was central to elevating cultural production and popular propaganda as an integral part of The Strategy Center’s and Bus Riders Union organizing work. She was the editor and initiator of Ahora/Now, The Strategy Center’s political education journal.

 

 

Notes

[1] The Center also trains new organizers through its National School for Strategic Organizing and publishes materials useful to the study of strategy and tactics for new social movements through Strategy Center Publications. To learn more about the history of the Labor/Community Strategy Center, visit www.thestrategycenter.org and review the materials offered by Strategy Center Publications. A targeting report has been written as a basis for organizing each of these campaigns and numerous books and articles reflect on campaign developments.  Taking On General Motors: A Case Study by Eric Mann details the Campaign to Keep GM Van Nuys Open; LA’s Lethal Air by Eric Mann, et al. is the book used as a basis for organizing the environmental justice campaign in Wilmington, California; Reconstructing Los Angeles from the Bottom Up and Weed and Seed are policy/strategy documents written to intervene in crises in Los Angeles; New Vision for Urban Transportation provides the analytical basis for the Bus Riders Union transportation equity campaign.  Discussion of other Strategy Center cultural productions can be found in Mann, 1996.  All materials are available from Strategy Center Publications.

[2] Alexander v. Sandoval, Supreme Court Decision, April 24, 2001, which undermines civil rights law.

[3] Key planners of this political exposure include: Kikanza Ramsey and Rita Burgos.

[4] The Haskell Wexler film Bus Riders Union has traveled from South Africa to Korea. It is now available with Spanish subtitles and with Korean subtitles.

[5] Key members of the teatro on the bus project include: Martin Hernandez, Kate Kinkade, Barbara Lott Holland, Jackie Campos, Sheppard Petit, Rosalio Mendiola.

 

References

Althusser, Louis. 1972. “Ideological State Apparatuses” by Louis Althusser, in Lenin and Philosophy (New York, Monthly Review Press).

Boal, Augusto. 1985. Theater of the Oppressed (New York: Theater Communications Group).

Cresswell, Tim. 1996.  In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, Transgression (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Delpit, Lisa.  1997.  Statement in The Nation (February 17).

Dirlik, Arif. 2000. “Globalization As the End and the Beginning of History: The Contradictory Implications of a New Paradigm,” in  Rethinking Marxism (v. 12, # 4: 4-22).

Dutton, Thomas A. 2001.  “Violence By Any Other Name,” The Nation (June 18).

Dutton, Thomas A. 1999.  “Corporate Liberalism in Cincinnati,” Z Magazine (July/August).

Dutton, Thomas A., ed. 1991.  Voices in Architectural Education (New York:  Bergin and Garvey).

Dutton, Thomas A. and Lian Hurst Mann.  2000.  “Problems in Theorizing ‘the Political’ in Architectural Discourse.” in Rethinking Marxism (v. 12, # 4: 117-129).

Dutton, Thomas A. and Lian Hurst Mann.  1996.  “Introduction:  Modernism, Postmodernism, and Architecture’s Social Project.” In Thomas A. Dutton and Lian Hurst Mann, ed., Reconstructing Architecture:  Critical Discourses and Social Practices (Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press).

Freire, Paulo. 1972.  Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Middlesex: Penguin Education Books).

Gramsci, Antonio. 1997.  Selections From the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers).

Jameson, Fredric. 1998a. “The Brick and the Balloon: Architecture, Idealism and Land Speculation,” in Jameson, The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern 1983-1998. (London & New York: Verso:162-189).

Jameson, Fredric. 1998b. “Notes on globalization as a Philosophical Issue,” in Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi, eds. The Cultures of Globalization (Durham: Duke University Press).

Jameson, Fredric. 1988. “Cognitive Mapping,” in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press).

Jameson, Fredric. 1985. “Architecture and the Critique of Ideology,” in Joan Ockman, ed. Architecture, Criticism, Ideology (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press).

Jameson, Fredric. 1983.  “The Ideological Analysis of Space.”  Critical Exchange (vol. 14: 1-15).

Lefevre, Henri. 1991.  The Production of Space (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, LTD).

Lenin, V.I. 1947.  What Is To Be Done?  (Moscow:  Progress Publishers).

Liggett, Helen and David Perry. 1995. Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in Social/Spatial Theory (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).

Lowe, Lisa and David Lloyd. 1997. The Politics of Culture in the Shadow of Capital (Durham: Duke University Press).

Mann, Eric. 2001. “A Race Struggle, a Class Struggle, A Women’s Struggle All at Once: Organizing on the Buses of L.A.” in Socialist Register 2001: Working Classes Global Realities, eds. Panitch et al., (New York: Monthly Review Press).

Mann, Eric. 1997.  New Visions of Urban Transportation (Los Angeles: Labor Community Strategy Center).

Mann, Lian Hurst. 1998. “‘The National Question’ Is Central to ‘The Urban Issue’,” Paris Rencontre (May).

Mann, Lian Hurst. 1996.  “Subverting the Avant-garde: Critical Theory’s Real Strategy,” in Dutton/Mann, Reconstructing Architecture.

Mann, Lian Hurst. 1991. “Crossover Dream” in Dutton, Thomas A., ed.  Voices in Architectural Education (New York:  Bergin and Garvey).

Mann, Lian Hurst. 1990.  Architecture as Social Strategy: Structures for Knowledge for Change, unpublished dissertation (Berkeley: University of California).

Program Demand Group of the Labor/Community Strategy Center.  “Towards a Program of Resistance: We Make These Demands Against the Institutions of U.S. Imperialism,” AhoraNow Working Paper (Strategy Center Publications: Los Angeles. 2001).

 

 

[Copyright, Lian Hurst Man and Thomas A. Dutton, 2003. THE CONTENTS OF THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION ARE PROTECTED UNDER COPYRIGHT. Without prejudice, All rights Reserved]

0