• No results found

I began this research as an attempt to uncover the potential of a psychogeography-based toolbox for the uncovering of spatial heritage. I considered that there are some types of spatial heritage, especially the ones that Harrison calls unofficial heritage, that are more based on emotion, personal memory and experience than any material evidence. In these cases, psychogeography can be a very relevant methodology. I applied two specific participatory methods of walking and mapping to the specific case study in order to extract some first insights for the use of the psychogeography-based toolbox.

Concluding, this methodology enables the researcher to view the object of research, here the squatters’ movement, as inseparable from the rich context of the urban fabric, as well as the life stories of its participants. The overview of layers that it unveils is a valuable perspective, as it balances other perspectives that view the research object individually. This quality of the methodology means at the same time that it is not very helpful in delineating a clearly defined and bordered heritage of the research object. On the contrary, the object is presented as blurred and unfinished, as an episode in a more complex story, a set of building blocks for a more complex material urban fabric.

Similar conclusions can be drawn for the relationship of “the heritage” of the research object with the individual life stories. From the walks, maps and discussions, it was difficult to determine a corpus of things (stories, places, buildings, attitudes, etc.) that can be presented as “the spatial heritage of the squatters’ movement”. In sharp contrast, the subjectivity of such a heritage is underlined by the research procedure. The different participants carry different views on the essence of the movement. Despite repeating the same grand historical narrative (the municipality’s redevelopment plan, the fight against it, the saving of historic urban fabric), which is centred around the same key moments (e.g., the Nieuwmarkt riots) and the same key localities (Huis de Pinto is the greatest example), the focus of their stories was significantly different. Their current situatedness influences how they see the movement: participants that have stopped being active in the movement will face it more as a specific battle of the past around specific issues, while still active participants will focus on the continuity.

91

After all, heritage is a discursive tool: heritage is something one names as such. Thus, the limits between heritage and lived reality depend on the positionality of the individual. From my experience with the participants, a heritage discourse was not very often used. While other social movements weaponize heritage (De Cesari & Herzfeld, 2015), the Amsterdam movement does not seem to do it to a significant extent. When the participants did find themselves in heritage discourses, it was in the context of an authorized heritage. All of them talked about Huis de Pinto, and Hessel underlined in another part of the walk that a lot of the nowadays UNESCO World Heritage Site of the inner city of Amsterdam was saved by the squatters.

Thus, a “heritage” extracted with participatory techniques like dérive and self-made maps is a complex and inconsistent collection of personal stories, older and newer layers of city history, ideological remarks and individual conclusions, as well as interpersonal relationships (the “village in the city”) and contemporary lived realities (the various existing workshops). This kind of heritage can be understood best as a contextual density on the urban fabric.

Nevertheless, my research unveiled how a social movement, despite not leaving behind a material footprint that is easily detectable, can leave an important spatial heritage. From all the complexity of this heritage, I would like to highlight two aspects. The first aspect is the material consequences of the movement, which are not usually attributed to it, but may be very important. Under this case fall all the buildings which the movement saved from demolition and facilitated their reuse.

Even more interesting however is the aspect of the intangible spatial heritage of the movement.

The kraakbeweging left a rich heritage in terms of social relationships, community feeling and cultural attitude that are still quite present in the city. My research facilitates an understanding of this heritage as a spatial one. Revisiting the concept of space to include its interpersonal character enabled me to conceptualise the feeling of the “village in the city” as a spatial heritage. The practices of walking and mapping were the ones that brought such feelings to the fore. As I walked with the participants, I could understand how space is constituted by webs of relationships.

Thus, the tools of participatory walking and mapping can enrich our understanding of what constitutes spatial heritage. Further research can explore more these practices, implementing alternative methods. For example, a group approach can be used to see how such

92

emotions and memories are emerging within a group dynamic. One can compare different approaches to walking and mapping, playing with variables like the number of people, the descriptiveness of the task or the method of analysis, so as to evaluate the approaches and determine which is more suitable for each case. Comparative research with multiple case studies can give more useful insights. In general, future research should try to be more diverse and inclusive in the choice of the participants, in order to avoid repeating the dominant discourses that usually overflow historical narratives. Finally, one can dig more into psychogeographic tradition to uncover both practices and theories that can be useful for critical heritage studies.

Using psychogeography keeps being, as happened also in this research, a “consciously uncontrolled” research route. I hope that my study showed that this “letting go” can actually provide a lot of material that the researcher can analyse, and open paths to new understandings of space and heritage.

93