[1] Friedrich A. von Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973–1979).
[2] On the neoliberal idea of Governance without (State)Government, see James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
[3] Aristotelis, Politica [Politics], trans. V. Moskovis (Athens: Law Library, 1989), 1252b5–1253b20.
[4] The ancient Greek word for private is “idíos-a-on” (adj.): personal, one’s own, “idiotikōs” (adj.): personal property, “idiōtēs” (n.): a “private person” of no political rights (non-subject). See Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Gilbert Highet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945), III. The Latin counterpart derives from “privo”: to cause to be parted from, deprive or rob of, “privatus-a-um” (adj.): personal property, “privatus” (n.): a “private person” of no civil office / military position. See Isidore, Origines, 9. 4.30, in Richard Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, ARCA 25 (Oxford: Francis Cairns Publications, 1991), 496. This lexicon documents every Latin and Greek etymology attested in antiquity from the time of Varro to Isidore of Seville.
[5] Aristotelis, Politica, 1263a10 and Hannah Arendt, “The Public and the Private Realm,” in The Human Condition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 22–78.
[6] Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, trans. Alick West (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1972 [1884]).
[7] The Middle Ages is generally regarded as the period in European history from the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century to the period of the Renaissance, variously beginning in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, depending on the region of Europe. Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Middle Ages,” https://www.britannica.com.
[8] According to McKeon, this idea of family in the medieval household was not institutionalized, but rather still bore an analogy to the state (referring to the power of feudal lords and the clergy, as there was still no idea of national citizenship). The ritualization of hierarchies was nowhere more evident than in the ceremony of eating and banquettes. The “public” feasts were inseparable from the magnificence of the lord and co-extensive with the servants that produced them. See “From State as Family to Family as State”, in Michael McKeon, The Secret History of Domesticity: Public, Private and the Division of Knowledge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 110–161.
[9] Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989), 28–31.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Witold Rybczynski, Home: A Short History of an Idea (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 24–5.
[12] According to McKeon, the division of knowledge and the constitutive differentiation of conceptual categories in the seventeenth century is what separates “modernity” from “antiquity.” This definition of a “starting point” is a formal consequence of a method to situate the transition from relations of distinction to those of separation between the public and the private. While acknowledging the development of bourgeois dwelling structures from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries, this method dwells on the socio-economic and spatial rediscovery of the private realm between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. McKeon, “The Age of Separations,” in The Secret History of Domesticity, 3–312.
[13] The adjective “private” (from Old French privé “friendly, intimate,” and Latin privatus “private, personal”) with this meaning emerged in the late fourteenth century. However, it only grew popular in the seventeenth century against the category of the public, bearing connotations about the exclusive use of space. Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Private,” https://www.britannica.com.
[14] Privacy (from Old French “privauté”), on the other hand, as “secret deed, solitude, seclusion”, emerged in the late sixteenth century and acquired the meaning “state of freedom from intrusion” no earlier than 1814. Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Privacy.”
[15] Arendt, The Human Condition and Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
[16] Charles Rice, The Emergence of the Interior: Architecture, Modernity, Domesticity (London: Routledge, 2007).
[17] McKeon, “Subdividing Inside Spaces,” in The Secret History of Domesticity, 212–268.
[18] Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, eds., Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification, trans. Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters (New York: Palgrave Books, 2015). This version is the latest translation of Weber’s original work entitled “Politics as Vocation” written in 1909.
[19] Massimo De Angelis defines “middle-classness” as “constituted through an idea of betterment and order achieved within the boundaries of capitalist system.” Massimo De Angelis, Omnia Sunt Communia: On the Commons and the Transformation to Postcapitalism (London: Zed Books, 2017), 280.
[20] Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1944). Friedrich Hayek is among the key theorists of neoliberalism and its principles of planning.
[21] Massimo de Carolis, Il rovescio della libertà: Tramonto del neoliberalismo e disagio della civiltà [The Flipside of Freedom: The decline of neoliberalism and the crisis of civilization] (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2017).
[22] For an excerpt of de Carolis’s neoliberal critique in English, see Massimo de Carolis, “The neoliberal (counter) revolution: its parabola and decline,” Phainomena 26, no. 102/103 (2017): 141–52.
[23] The seminal text by Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (London: Croom Helm, 1976). Hints are taken here from a revised edition, see Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg and Meaghan Morris, New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society (London: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 280–2.
[24] The structure of this argument takes inspiration in Bruno Latour’s observation that, despite the careful distinction between nature and culture, the construction of modern systems still mix politics, science, technology, and nature, which leads him to his suggestion that we should rethink the definition and constitution of modernity itself. Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

References

Axel-Lute, M. 2019. “Talking About Revitalization When All Anyone Wants to Talk About Is Gentrification”, Shelterforce, 24 October.

Beauregard, R. 2010. “The Chaos and Complexity of Gentrification”, in L. Lees, T. Slater and E. Wyly (eds.), The Gentrification Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 11–24.

Clark, E. 2010. “The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification—A Political Challenge”, in L. Lees, T. Slater and E. Wyly (eds.), The Gentrification Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 24–29.

Frank, S. 2018. “Gentrification Debates Without Gentrification Processes: Learning from Phoenix–Dortmund, Germany”, Workshop on Housing, Planning and Urban Renewal: Enduring Challenges in German Politics, Berlin, 11–12 January.

Glass, Ruth. 1964. London: Aspects of Change, London: MacGibbon & Kee.

Gordon, C. 2008. Mapping Decline: St. Louis and the Fate of the American City, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hepburn, P., Louis, R. and Desmond, M. 2023. “Beyond Gentrification: Housing Loss, Poverty, and the Geography of Displacement,” Social Forces, vol. 102, no. 3, March, pp. 880–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad123.

Hoyt, H. 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration.

Hyra, D. 2017. Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jacobus, R. 2013. “It’s Not Either/Or: Neighborhood Improvement Can Prevent Gentrification, Shelterforce, 18 July.

Mallach, A. 2019. “The Evolution of Gentrification; or, How a Spatial Descriptor Took on Protean Social/Cultural/Political Significance”, paper presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the Urban Affairs Association, 24–27 April, Los Angeles.

Park, R. E. and Burgess, E. W. 1925. The City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, N. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to The City Movement by Capital, Not People”, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 538–548.

Swanstrom, T., Guenther, K. and Theus, N. 2018. What People Talk About When They Talk About Gentrification, Creating
Whole Communities, University of Missouri–St. Louis. Available online at the following URL: https://www.umsl.edu/recd/ecd/community-development/files/pdfs/Focus-Group-Report.FINAL.1.17.19.pdf.

Volmert, A., O’Neil, M., Kendall-Taylor, N. and Sweetland, J. 2016. Mixing It Up: Reframing Neighborhood Socioeconomic Diversity, A Frameworks Message Memo, 29 October. Available online at the following URL: https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Knight_MessageMemo_Final_2016.pdf.