From the unsustainable creative class to the sustainable creative city: an emerging shift in cultural policies? S. J. Kagan Institute of Cultural Theory, Research, and the Arts, Leuphana University Lueneburg (Germany)
[email protected] Abstract: Under the light of theoretical insights on unsustainability at the late stage of Modernity, i.e. the technological system, disjunctive knowledge, autopoïesis and phenomenological numbness, and given the relevance of some of these symptoms in the art worlds, Richard Florida's 'Creative Class' appears as a highly problematic discourse for urban cultural policies. Against the scenario of Florida's “spiky world”, alternative models for more sustainable creative cities are emerging, alongside explorations of 'cultures of sustainability' pointing at the interface between artistic rationality, inter-conventionality and autoecopoïesis. Therefore, the discussions around the “creative city” constitute a relevant area for the exploration of the significance of culture for sustainability, of sustainability/unsustainability for culture, and especially for cultural policy today. An up-to-date case is shortly discussed: a policy recommendations workshop as part of the preparatory process for the 8th ASEM Summit (held in Oct. 2010). Keywords: Sustainability, creative cities, creative class, cultural policy, complexity THE UNSUSTAINABLE CREATIVE CLASS The urban economist Richard Florida has, with his discussion of the “Creative Class”, gained a wide influence on urban planners and city officials in the past decade. His views have framed much of the recent “creative city” policies, stressing the importance of culture and the arts in an urban context marked by the global competition of cities, whereby culture, entertainment, consumption, and urban amenities play an important role in enhancing locations. (see also Clark 2004). As the argument goes, in the context of a contemporary creative economy and knowledge society where creative industries are engines of growth, the higher concentration and activity of “creatives” (e.g. artists, designers, musicians, scientists) in a city fosters economic development. Urban districts or entire cities that are more attractive to the members of the “creative class,” effectively affecting their location choices, will thus better their economic prospects. To be attractive to the creatives, the city must achieve a creative climate, characterized by a lively street life and a flexible, multicultural atmosphere, because the creatives prefer places which are rich in diversity and tolerant to relatively unorthodox lifestyles (Florida 2005 for example famously developed a “gay index”). A virtuous cycle can then be engaged whereby arts and culture enhance what Florida describes as “quality of place” (Florida 2002, p. 232), contributing to the development of “a world class people climate” (Ibid., p. 293). As pointed out by the cultural economist and creative cities researcher Masayuki Sasaki: “The impact of Florida's unconventional theory has led to the common misperception that cities prosper as people of the creative class, such as artists and gays, gather” (Sasaki 2010a, p. 4). The creative city depicted by Florida is however also characterized by the gentrification of neighborhoods, and by the segregation, exclusion, and displacement of entire sections of the urban population. Sasaki also describes Florida's “creative class” as an “elitist notion [that] tends to raise social tensions” (Sasaki 2010a, p. 5, after Peck 2005). The creative class is associated to the social and cultural capital related to the distinctiveness of the high arts (as analyzed at length by the sociology of art, from Pierre Bourdieu to Hans Abbing). In urban districts, the creative class builds up “club goods” (in the sense of Buchanan's “economic theory of clubs”) which by definition are meant to be exclusionary. The segregation and spatial
allocation of social groups also results from privatization of public spaces (cf. Kirchberg 1998a, p. 49). High culture erects symbolic barriers, granting access to only a partial public made up of mostly consumers, as these benefit the economy of symbols (Kirchberg 1998b, p. 86). Florida's model describes a highly competitive and inequitable world. He notes a clustering force of talent, which results in the success of a few “superstar cities” (Florida 2008, p. 129). His model fatalistically describes-prescribes a “spiky world” (Ibid., p. 17) in which “those trapped in the valleys are looking directly up at the peaks, the growing disparities in wealth, opportunity, and lifestyle starring them right in the face.” (Ibid., p. 38). Furthermore, the dynamic is locally self-destructive: In the process of economic valorization of neighborhoods that follows, gentrified spaces become more and more general, loosing the specific characteristics that enabled their cultural distinctiveness in the first place, breaking the virtuous cycle of quality of place mentioned above, and thus repelling creatives (see also Bernt & Holm 2005). As noted by Sharon Zukin, the “forces of redevelopment have smoothed the uneven layers of grit and glamour, swept away tracks of contentious history, cast doubt on the idea that poor people have a right to live and work here too – all that made the city authentic” (Zukin 2009, p. xi). Interestingly, Zukin's analysis is rooted in the earlier writings of Jane Jacobs, who coined the expression “creative city” before Charles Landry further developed it (Cf. Jacobs 1969, 1984, Landry 2000). “Luckily” (if one is cynically content with the gentrification-displacement dynamic) the city may then still have a chance to retain its creatives, attracting them to other districts where the displaced, multiculturally diverse lower classes have moved in... However, in recent years, urban policies directly inspired by Richard Florida have met growing resistance, not only from low-income residents, but also from artists and other cultural practitioners who are concerned with the sustainability of their local communities. Kagan and Hahn (2010) describe two such cases, Toronto (the city where Florida lives and works) and Hamburg. In India, P. Radhika (2010a) points at the exclusion of certain political-cultural practices from the pavements of cities such as Bangalore by new urban policies that, while aiming to enhance the quality of life for residents, are inimical to “non-citizens‟ - i.e. the large migrant population from villages & small towns” (Radhika 2010b). Radhika's sociological analysis not only denounces “the shrinking of public spaces for cultural-political performances and the threat that [...] marginal performers face within new ideas of urban development” but is also combined with an engagement in action-research together with critical cultural actors in Bangalore, such as the media collective “Maraa”. More generally, Sasaki replaces the discussion of creative cities within a critique of “a competitive society based on market principles [...] exacerbating the social crisis” and permitting the ecological insanity of “mass consumption” (despite the move to a service economy and knowledge society) as well as the irrational instability of “financial capitalism” (Sasaki 2010b, p. 1). This wider critique links the unsustainability of Florida's “spiky world” to a wider culture of unsustainability. A similar parallel between unsustainable creative cities and unsustainability in general, was also made by M. Nadarajah and Ann Tomoko Yamamoto following insights from the 'Ecotopian' Ernest Callenbach who pointed at dimensions of unsustainability such as “waste – goods are cheap and disposable [...] costs – trust the market, everything has its monetary price [...] population – go forth and multiply [...] energy – always do the cheapest thing, no matter what the consequences [...] happiness – focus on accumulating material possessions [...] relationships with other species – only humans matter” (Nadarajah and Yamamoto 2007, p. 6, after Callenbach 1999). A CULTURE OF UNSUSTAINABILITY The rootedness of a creative city concept based on the creative class in an overall culture of unsustainability, is however not sufficiently elucidated by pointing at consumer culture, at markets and at anthropocentrism. If these dimensions are surely relevant, they are also combined with a problematic mode of knowing inherited from modernity, fostering (among other ills) the crystallization of a socially inequitable and ecologically irresponsible creative
class. This mode of knowing is characterized by disjunction, exaggeratedly autopoïetic tendencies, phenomenological numbness and trust in the technological system.1 Historically, the modern western mind is characterized to some extent by Cartesian method, Baconian faith in progress and by a progressive estrangement from nature, which may have its roots as far as the invention of phonetic alphabets according to David Abram (1996). Ervin Laszlo (1996) described this worldview as atomistic, materialistic, individualistic and Eurocentric, and as based in the “classical scientific method”, as opposed to a “systems view” emerging in the twentieth century.2 Basarab Nicolescu (2002) further criticized the principles of classical modern physics, i.e. continuity, local causality, determinism and binary logic, as a basis of modern science and culture. Both authors deplored the resulting fragmentation of understanding, and this classical mode of knowing was further deconstructed by Edgar Morin (1977) as disjunctive simplification, which affects not only science but modern modes of knowing in general, with three modes of simplifying thought: “to idealize... to rationalize... to normalize” i.e. reducing reality to concepts, narrowly logical ordering and the elimination of mystery and complexity. These critiques also echo Husserl's (1970) critique of the overrunning of, and estrangement from, life-world experience, and Gregory Bateson's (1973) warning against the empire gained by the narrow views of “purposive consciousness”, which are both especially pregnant in modern societies. The development of this culture of unsustainability led to the transformation of science and techniques into a techno-scientific system, or “Technological System” in the analysis of Jacques Ellul (1977), following a shift from enlightenment to positivism (as discussed by Horkheimer and Adorno 2002), and to the increasingly autopoïetic operation of social systems in modern societies through functional differentiation, as analyzed by Niklas Luhmann (1984).3 The Technological System further fragments the experience of reality in late modernity (under formal rationality as described by Max Weber) and fosters an endless trust in technological development and innovations weakening the critiques of unsustainable lifestyles, instead supporting an unreflexive discourse of “ecological modernization” that has become the dominant discourse on “sustainable development”. The increasing relative importance of social differentiation as autopoïesis, institutionalizes the fragmentation of experience, of knowledge and of social action, into separate disciplines or social subsystems, among which the arts and other creative worlds lumped together by Florida as a so-called “creative class” (which reality as a social class -outside of Florida's books and of the minds of his followers- has been repeatedly questioned in recent years: cf. Peck 2005, Markusen 2006). The autopoïetic development analyzed by Luhmann is found back in art as a social system in modern societies (cf. Luhmann 2000), where the “high arts” institutionalize social segregations. Overall in the past century, a “romantic order” in art mainly functioned as a safety valve relieving some of the 'pressure' caused by our overall culture of unsustainability, but without achieving significant transformations beyond the sandbox of the art system in its successive avant-gardes. Luhmannianly, modern art as a social system, is incapable of communicating directly with other social systems (and vice versa), that is, as long as its operations are dominated by autopoïesis. This situation was denounced from within the art world by art historian Suzi Gablik (1984, 1991), whose critique of modernism in art targets especially the aesthetics of detachment and the individualistic and antagonistic autonomy developed in the high arts, but also denounces the nihilistic self-consciousness of postmodernists. In the most recent decades, the fragmentation of the experience of reality reached a new level
1 I can here only give a very short overview of this unsustainable mode of knowing. A more in-depth analysis of “cultures of unsustainability” is carried out in the first chapter of my PhD thesis on “art and (un-)sustainability”, which I expect to publish in 2011. 2 I am however highly critical of Laszlo's holistic simplification of systems thinking, which in chapters 2 and 3 of my PhD thesis (upcoming), I oppose to the complexity theory of Edgar Morin. 3 To prevent any misunderstanding among readers: Luhmann did not talk of a “technological system”, only Ellul did – from a different theoretical background. Luhmann also denied the existence of ecosystems (ecological systems) in his theoretical framework.
with so-called postmodernity. The high mobility and flexibility of creatives illustrates a related aspect of the recent declination of cultures of unsustainability in late modernity (or “liquid modernity” as coined by Zigmunt Bauman): Kirchberg (2008) pointed at this dimension, referring to Richard Sennett‟s critique of the flexibility required by global capitalism and its result in the corrosion of character: “[O]ur life prospects are …admittedly shaky – as are our jobs and the companies that offer them, our partners and networks of friends […] and the selfesteem and self-confidence that come with it” (Bauman quoted in Kirchberg 2008, p. 98). As a result, neighborhoods lose their qualities as places for building and maintaining identity, i.e. as cradles for sustainable communities. As argued by Kagan and Hahn (2010), creative city policies are unsustainable if “they do not focus on local situations and therefore can cause a „corrosion of neighbourhoods‟ or the loss of the residents‟ identification with the city itself. If the creative class is the role model for the urban citizen and cities are shaped accordingly, then their (unsustainable) characteristics can have effects on the urban environment.” How creative city policy could instead reorient itself towards cultures of sustainability, is the burning question emerging from this analysis. THE CULTURE(S) AND ART(S) OF SUSTAINABILITY It comes as no surprise, given such developments, that many mobile professional members of the so-called creative class do tend to demonstrate a disconnection from social and ecological realities and from the social and ecological communities in which they are living. However, that tendency, if widespread, is not uniformly dominating all the neighborhoods of contemporary creative cities. Numerous artists, from the intervention art of Wochenklausur and Jeanne van Heeswijk, to the ecological art of Patricia Johanson and of Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison (to name only a few), as well as many local “community art” initiatives, are pointing at a shift towards a culture where the creatives take responsibilities and work together with the social and ecological communities in which they are embedded, and in which an aesthetic “sensibility to patterns that connect” (Kagan 2010) and an “artistic rationality” (Dieleman 2010) become qualities shared with communities and not the exclusive domain of a “creative” social class, sector or system...4 If social systems were to be as autopoïetic as claimed by Luhmann, their fate would be a high probability of ecological collapse, as Luhmann (1986) described/prescribed. Smith and Jenks (2006) also argue that Luhmann's autopoïesis failed to provide an adequate theory of complexity and instead theoretically grounded an unviable, non-evolutionary autism, unlike Morin's ecoauto-organization, which can serve as the theoretical groundwork allowing us to walk away from a fundamentally unsustainable culture. But my argument in the current paper is about the creative city, rather than about the more general theoretical foundation for cultures of sustainability, which I discuss elsewhere.5 I thus point now only very shortly at some features of a general understanding of (a) culture(s) of sustainability: Culture(s) of sustainability is/are “uniplural”, keeping a complementary tension between the imperative of cultural diversity, and a shared basis of understandings allowing the exploration of resilient forms of human organization maintaining mutually beneficial relations between social systems and ecosystems. Cultures(s) of sustainability is/are trans-local, i.e. always based on contextual, ecologized knowing (vs. universalism) and involving transversal, “questions-based learning” (cf. David Haley in our papers session at ESA Culture 2010) across different local contexts and between local, regional and planetary contexts (and accordingly, between contexts of biotopes/landscapes, ecosystems and the biosphere). 4 I am surveying more specifically the practices of ecological art in the past four decades, in the chapter 5 of my PhD thesis, to be published in 2011... See also Gablik (1991). 5 Once again, I can here only make a disappointedly tangential mention of the theoretical grounds for “cultures of sustainability”, which is explored at length in my PhD thesis. See also Kagan 2010
Cultures(s) of sustainability foster(s) an ecological literacy (cf. Capra 1996, 2002) which is sensible to the dynamic balance at work in nature and society (meaning that ecosystems and societies be perceived as flexible, ever-fluctuating networks) and its relative vulnerabilities Cultures(s) of sustainability foster(s) a literacy of complexity (cf. Morin 2008) i.e. combining and contrasting unitary, complementary, competitive, and antagonist relationships. In Edgar Morin's words: “The systems sensibility will be like that of the musical ear which perceives the competitions, symbioses, interferences, overlaps of themes in one same symphonic stream, where the brutal mind will only recognize one single theme surrounded by noise” (Morin 1977, pp. 140-141). Complex relations institute, no longer a linear logic, but a complex dia-logic: “dia-logic signifies the symbiotic unity of two logics, which, all at the same time, feed each other, compete with each other, parasite each other, oppose each other and fight each other to death” (Morin 1977, p. 80). Rather than autopoïesis (as understood by Luhmann after Maturana and Varela), culture(s) of sustainability require “autoecopoïesis” (Kagan 2010) i.e. flexible openness of individuals and of social systems to the disturbances and noise from other systemic levels of emergence, as an evolutionary capability.6
Artistic reflexivity can contribute to the (re)constitution of these sensibilities, and the arts offer a social arena where, under certain circumstances, multiple forms of reflexivity can be developed, facilitating detachment from routines and conventions, subversive imagination, and community empowerment (Dieleman 2008). An “artistic rationality” (Dieleman 2010), unlike the formal rationality of urban planners, develops intuitive processes of learning, exploring, being open to surprises, and being “iterative” (i.e. not deciding/thinking and then implementing in a linear sequence, but learning-while doing and thinking-while-doing in circular reflexive sequences and in parallel, overlapping, telescoping processes). In other words: artistic rationality fosters an ability to evolve, rather than enclose ourselves in pre-defined ideological frames. However, for artists to work as “entrepreneurs in conventions” (Kagan 2008) and play key roles as change agents, fostering intercultural cross-pollination between different social networks and different urban contexts, they must not be integrated in an economic growth and gentrificationspeculation-oriented creative class, but be encouraged to enter into meaningful critical and constructive dialogues with social and ecological communities. This also implies in parallel, a more collaborative, connective, social-ecological self-definition in the art worlds, as advocated by Suzi Gablik (1991), and that artists and other 'creatives' be understood as the facilitators, openers and catalysts of creative processes, rather than their owners, authors or sole originators. An expanded understanding of creativity is suggested (cf. Kagan and Hahn 2010), as a property of all evolutionary networks of life, linked to the notion of emergence, and not only as a human attribute. SUSTAINABLE CREATIVE CITIES While Richard Florida-inspired creative city policies are increasingly questioned, the integration of “creative city” ideas with the search for sustainability in cities is being explored by a few policy researchers (Cf. Duxbury 2004, Duxbury, Gillette and Pepper 2007, eds. Nadarajah and Yamamoto 2007). It is also at the heart of policy developments proposed by the United Cities and Local Governments' Committee on Culture which coordinates since 2005 the “Agenda21 for Culture” approved by the 4th Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion of Porto Alegre, held in Barcelona in May 2004.7 These developments occur in parallel to a nascent interest in the theme of sustainability among cultural policy-makers (with e.g. the conference “Culture|Futures” in 2009, discussed in the paper presented at our research session at the ESA Culture 2010 conference by Olaf Gerlach-Hansen – who was the main organizer of “Culture|Futures”). “Sustainable creative cities will require that the local contexts and neighbourhoods, and all local 6 This notion is further elaborated in chapter 3 of my PhD thesis. 7 See http://agenda21culture.net
communities (i.e. both humans and other living species), be respected as equal partners of artists and other 'creatives', and vice versa. On the one hand, the search for sustainability imposes certain limits to the autonomy of artists and „creatives‟, who can no longer be considered as fully irresponsible and individualistic agents (just as the economy can no longer be allowed indefinite and inconsiderate growth). On the other hand, the search for sustainability also requires an evolutionary openness to the emergence of ways of life, which are both locally sustainable and informed by the global dimension of sustainability. In this respect, creativity is also an imperative for sustainability, and the artists and other 'creatives' should be given the necessary opportunities and degree of autonomy so as to foster creative local developments. Therefore, the kind of autonomy that is required is less the modernist autonomy of art for art's sake, and more the 'dialogical' autonomy of trans-local interdisciplinary teams engaged for the self-management of local communities” (Kagan and Hahn 2010). ACTION-RESEARCH CASE: THE “SUSTAINABLE CREATIVE CITIES” WORKSHOP FOR THE 8TH ASEM SUMMIT In an effort at reflexive practice as a form of action-research, I am currently engaged in coordinating the formulation of policy recommendations on “sustainable creative cities” in preparation for the 8th ASEM Summit (Asia Europe Meeting, i.e. 45 countries including the EU and ASEAN countries), hosting a workshop in cooperation with Masayuki Sasaki of the Urban Research Plaza, Osaka University, as part of the “connecting civil societies” conference organized by the Asia Europe Foundation (ASEF). As the process is still in a preparatory stage as of the writing of the current paper for the ESA Culture 2010 conference (i.e. early September 2010), I can at this stage only hint at a few elements of the process. However, as the ASEF conference is being held a few days before the ESA Culture 2010 conference (i.e. October 2-3), I will be able to share some more feedback by then. The workshop‟s concept paper states as its goal, to “address the roles of artists and creative workers in the evolution of globalized cities across Asia and Europe, assessing how an “artistic mode of knowing” can contribute to a transition from creative cities to sustainable creative cities: The aim is to facilitate the emergence of local urban processes of social change in partnerships between artists, cultural practitioners and communities, as opposed to top-down urban planning” (Kagan and Sasaki 2010).8 The workshop observes that “networks of artists engaged with communities and with ecology are also growing in both regions” but then comments that “parallel developments presently stand in need of transversal integration and interdisciplinary approaches, beyond the limited rationality of so-called “sectoral” policies which would limit their scope to predefined sectors of society” (Ibid.). The concept paper points at the unsustainability of contemporary urban developments in both Asia and Europe and claims: “In the context of complex 'archipelagos' of urban-&-suburban spaces, the evolutionary qualities of [an artistic rationality's] expanded mode of knowing are especially relevant, not only for a specific category of people labeled as 'artists', but for everyone. And specifically among artists, the transformation at hand is moving them towards inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations, leaving behind them the outdated modernist roles assigned to the artist in the 'white cube' art institutions” (Ibid.). The workshop aims to “review issues related to creative collaborativity, including the development of interdisciplinary networks between artists and communities ; the artistic mode of knowing and its transversal integration in an expanded rationality ; arts education and arts-in-education ; public spaces and the place of the arts therein ; and key civil society values, including human rights, cultural diversity, non-segregation and ecology” (Ibid.). In the short preparatory phase before the workshop (August-September), the invited participants (i.e. a selection of Asian and European artists, leaders of urban cultural organizations, and 8 The concept paper for the workshop is officially authored by Kagan and Sasaki. In practice, it was prepared by Kagan, reviewed and commented by several executives at the ASEF, with a final revision by Kagan.
culture/sustainability policy researchers) are taking part in an online discussion of the concept paper and pre-formulation of policy recommendations. As of September 13th, i.e. at the current stage in the discussions, seems to emerge a tripartite clustering of recommendations as follows:9 Supporting smaller and more transversal (transdisciplinary) cultural spaces – more responsive to community needs and to the diversity of cities, and focused on issues of urban sustainability, rather than the traditional discipline-based art-spaces; Supporting the integration of arts-in-education, creative education and experiential learning transversally at all levels of general educational programs (and not only as specialized art education), with the aim to foster question-based learning, critical thinking and non-linear, iterative problem solving skills; Integrating an artistic rationality within the urban planning and policy processes, with not only the inclusion of artists in planning bodies and the participation of policy-makers in the above-mentioned smaller transversal cultural spaces, but more generally with the aim to deplanify and de-re-organize urban planning schemes so as to allow iterativity, opening the process to intuitions and to bottom-up participation (i.e. moving away from a long tradition of modernist linear planning processes). These three clusters of potential recommendations constitute an ambitious, quasi-utopian discourse with probably little chance to be widely adopted by policy-makers. However, given the readiness for change of several actors at the level of local governance (as the Agenda21 for Culture illustrates), the workshop‟s upcoming policy recommendations may contribute to a wider shift. It hopes, at least, to warn against creative class policies and to point at alternative directions for creative city policies. One issue which is becoming clear through the preparatory process for the workshop, in the exchanges between different participants, workshop organizers and ASEF officials, is the language-barrier between the traditional modernization/development and high-art discourses on the one hand, mastered and preferred by established policy-makers, and the emerging systems/complexity discourses prefer ed by sustainability researchers and e.g. ecological-art practitioners. The transition to the latter is a necessary conceptual preparation for a genuine policy shift. Given this challenge, my next task in the ongoing preparatory process is to assemble a short glossary at the end of the policy recommendations draft (with short definitions of terms such as 'complexity', 'emergence', 'iterative', 'leverage points', 'non-linear', 'transversal/transdisciplinary', etc.), so as to try and reduce the possible misunderstandings and reluctance to consider the proposed alternative policy orientations, without denying the challenge posed by a paradigm shift towards complexity thinking (as also noted by e.g. Smith and Jenks 2006). However, such an initiative, being initiated within a policy framework rigidly partitioned in sectors and labeled, within this framework, as the specific 'arts & culture' workshop (within the overall civil society conference), soon meets its limits. It cannot achieve on its own the necessary shift to a transversal, i.e. trans-sectoral process that would be required for sustainable creative cities policies. But it can advocate for a necessary transition.
REFERENCES David Abram. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Random House, 1996. Gregory Bateson. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. New York: Paladin, 1973.
9 However, the partition of the recommendations in three was pre-set by ASEF, as we were requested to come up with “three short policy recommendations” to be integrated within a general statement to be submitted to the ASEM Summit by the ASEF. If that limitation were not given, a greater number of recommendations, and a more exhaustive coverage of the issues, would have been possible.
Matthias Bernt and Andrej Holm. “Kunst. Produkt. Gentrification.” In S. Dillemuth, J. Strau and A. J. Wieder (Eds.), Jetzt und 10 Jahre davor. Zu den Verhältnissen von Kulturproduktion und Stadtentwicklung. Berlin: Revolververlag, 2005. Ernest Callenbach. “Ecological 'rules' of a sustainable society.” In T. Inogushi, E. Newman and G. Paoletto (Eds.), Cities and the Environment: New Approaches for Eco-Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 19-22. Terry Nichols Clark. “Urban amenities: Lakes, opera, and juice bars: Do they drive development?” In T. N. Clark (Ed.), The city as an entertainment machine. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004, pp. 103-140. Fritjof Capra. The Web of Life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London: HarperCollins, 1996. Fritjof Capra. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. New York: Random House, 2002. Hans Dieleman. “Sustainability, Art and Reflexivity: why artists and designers may become key change agents in sustainability.” In S. Kagan and V. Kirchberg (Eds.), Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and cultures. Waldkirchen: VAS – Verlag für akademische Schriften, 2008, pp. 108-146. Hans Dieleman. “Duurzaamheid als kunst. Over de potenties van kunst in duurzame ontwikkeling.” Kunstlicht, 31, 2, 2010. Nancy Duxbury. “Creative Cities: Principles and Practices.” Discussion paper for Creative Cities Structured Policy Dialogue (Ottawa), Canadian Policy Research Networks/Department of Canadian Heritage, 2004. Nancy Duxbury, E. Gillette and K. Pepper. “Exploring the Cultural Dimensions of Sustainability.” Newsletter, Special Edition 4. Vancouver: Creative City Network of Canada, 2007. Available at: http://www.creativecity.ca/se-newsletters/special-edition-4/index.html [last retrieved: 25-01-2010]. Jacques Ellul. Le système technicien. Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1977. Richard Florida. The rise of the creative class. And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Richard Florida. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2005. Richard Florida. Who’s your city? How the creative economy is making where you live the most important decision of your life. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Suzi Gablik. Has Modernism Failed? London: Thames and Hudson, 1984. Suzi Gablik. The Reenchantment of Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2002. Edmund Husserl. The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970.
Jane Jacobs. The Economy of Cities. Random House, 1969. Jane Jacobs. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Random House, 1984. Sacha Kagan. “Art effectuating social change: Double entrepreneurship in conventions”. In S. Kagan and V. Kirchberg (Eds.), Sustainability: A new frontier for the arts and cultures. Frankfurt am Main: VAS (Verlag für Akademische Schriften), 2008, pp. 147-193. Sacha Kagan. “Cultures of sustainability and the aesthetics of the pattern that connects.” Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 42, 10, Dec. 2010. Sacha Kagan and Julia Hahn. “Creative Cities and (Un)Sustainability: From Creative Class to Sustainable Creative Cities.” Culture and Local Governance, 2010 (upcoming). Sacha Kagan and Masayuki Sasaki. “Sustainable Creative Cities: The role of the arts in globalized urban context.” Workshop concept paper for the “4th Connecting Civil Societies of Asia and Europe Conference: Changing Challenges, New Ideas. An official side event of the ASEM8 Summit”, Asia Europe Foundation, 2-3 Oct. 2010, Brussels. Volker Kirchberg. “Stadtkultur in der Urban Political Economy.” In A. Göschel, and V. Kirchberg (Eds.), Kultur in der Stadt. Stadtsoziologische Analysen zur Kultur. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1998a, pp. 41-54. Volker Kirchberg. “Money, Art and Public Places.” In A. Göschel and V. Kirchber (Eds.), Kultur in der Stadt. Stadtsoziologische Analysen zur Kultur. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1998b, pp. 8199. Volker Kirchberg. “Angst and unsustainability in postmodern times.” In S. Kagan and V. Kirchberg (Eds.), Sustainability: A new frontier for the arts and cultures. Frankfurt am Main: VAS (Verlag für Akademische Schriften), 2008, pp. 95-105. Charles Landry. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Comedia, 2000. Ervin Laszlo. The systems view of the world : a holistic vision for our time. Cresskill : Hampton Press, 1996. Niklas Luhmann. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984. Niklas Luhmann. Ökologische Kommunikation:Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen?. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986. Niklas Luhmann. Art as a Social System. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2000. Ann Markusen. “Urban development and the politics of a creative class: evidence from a study of artists.” Environment and Planning A, 38, 10, 2006, pp. 1921-1940. Edgar Morin. La méthode, volume 1: La nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil, 1977. Edgar Morin. La méthode. [Joint edition of the 6 volumes.] Paris: Seuil, 2008. Manickam Nadarajah and Ann Tomoko Yamamoto (Eds.). Urban Crisis: Culture and the Sustainability of Cities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007. Basarab Nicolescu. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Albany : State University of New York
Press, 2002. Jamie Peck. “Struggling with the creative class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4), 2005, pp. 740-770. PrakashNarayan Radhika. “Disappearing Pavements: A Provocation.” Cultura21 Webmagazine. Available at: http://magazin.cultura21.de/piazza/english/diminishing-spaces-for-culturalperformances.html [last retrieved: 05-08-2010]. 2010a. PrakashNarayan Radhika. “Workshop Session: "Pondering on Pavements." Website of the International Summer School of Arts and Sciences for Sustainability in Social Transformation. Available at: http://assist2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/workshop-session-pondering-on [last retrieved: 05-08-2010]. 2010b. Masayuki Sasaki. “Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study.” Cities 27, 2010a, pp. 3-9. Masayuki Sasaki. “Editorial: On the occasion of this special edition.” Cities 27, 2010a, pp. 1-2. John Smith and Chris Jenks. Qualitative Complexity: Ecology, cognitive processes and the reemergence of structures in post-humanist social theory. London: Routledge, 2006. Sharon Zukin. Naked city. The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
