Introduction

‘Community planning’ (as an instrumental action, pursuing a positive public good) may initially appear inappropriate to the French situation with regards to urban planning. Although associations founded on a platform of voluntary action – like the Fondation de l’Abbé Pierre or militant groups like the DAL (Droit au Logement – the right to housing) and the action of collective movements meeting irregularly on a regional or city-wide basis – are accepted and sanctioned by the state, these associations are often regarded, both by those who initiated them and by those who have been confronted by them, less as vehicles for self-help and more as expressions of opposition to authorities which are seen as abusing their powers or failing to address the concerns and needs of minority or dominated groups. They are viewed as militant, often mobilising in the face of perceived threats from urban development or the practice of urban planning. It is from this viewpoint of general consideration that we shall examine the relationship between basic urbanist actions and the authorities in power, in France and in the region of Marseille, and several specific cases. Our concern in this chapter is with the challenging context for ‘community’ action, and the struggle to secure basic rights and representation, in some of Europe's poorest and most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Let us assimilate those entering the country (to the tune of ‘Allons Enfants de la Patrie…’, La Marseillaise, Rouget de L’Isle, 1792)

The republican conception of French society

In the French understanding of society, the notion of ‘community’ generally refers to a group distinguished by ethnic or religious origin, and which may possibly be part of a well-defined region. Alternatively, the idea of community may simply be associated with the ‘commune’ (the lowest level of territorial governance), in which case there is no allusion to religious, ideological or ethnic basis. The community merely comprises the residents, French citizens, of a particular place. So conceptions of community divide into two types: the first looks for particular traits that bind people together; the second is ‘socio-spatial’ but does not assume any particular bonds between individuals: they are merely co-located.