This article draws on ethnography with active supporters of the comunas (communes) in Quito to critically engage with the theory and politics of the right to the city. Communal activists—mostly affiliated with the Indigenous movement—forcefully claim rights to the democratic production and appropriation of space advocated by right to the city theorists, as they promote communal self-management and the authority of communal assemblies over urbanization processes. At the same time, they have had little use for their constitutionally guaranteed right to the city. In carefully laying out the points of convergence between Lefebvrian right to the city theory and communal struggles, I also identify its limits and contradictions, especially: (1) the tension between “the collective power to reshape the process of urbanization” and the fixed forms and meanings of “the city,” and (2) the tension between achieving the “right to centrality” through promoting participation in a concentrated urban center or through the multiplication of centers. A critical theory of urbanization should account for these tensions and for the diversity of political responses to them.

中文翻译：

---

自治、中心性和就地持久性：基多的原住民运动和城市权

这篇文章借鉴了社区的积极支持者的民族志（公社）在基多批判性地参与城市权的理论和政治。社区活动家——主要隶属于原住民运动——强烈要求城市理论家所倡导的民主生产和占用空间的权利，因为他们促进社区自我管理和社区集会对城市化进程的权威。与此同时，他们对宪法保障的城市权利几乎没有用处。在仔细阐述列斐伏尔的城市权理论与社区斗争之间的衔接点时，我也确定了它的局限性和矛盾，特别是：（1）“重塑城市化进程的集体力量”与固定形式之间的张力。以及“城市，“和（2）通过促进参与集中的城市中心或通过中心的增加来实现“中心权”之间的紧张关系。城市化的批判理论应该解释这些紧张局势以及对它们的政治反应的多样性。