Search

At the end of the 1960s, neighborhood movements burst onto the municipal agenda in many metropolitan environments worldwide through numerous demands related to basic needs. In Madrid, these demands took different neighborhood spaces and some former municipalities that were integrated as districts in the city's urban core as a geographic scale of reference. This placed these locations at the center of the political debate, which gradually faded away as a result of the various municipal reforms developed during the first two decades of parliamentary democracy in Spain. In the last fifteen years, neighborhood demands have taken a different turn, as a political phenomenon has appeared linked to new forms of neighborhood protest called neighborhoodnalism. This process was not diminished during the hardest moments of the global covid-19 pandemic; rather, it has been strengthened as a dynamic of political socialization, solidarity, and daily resistance in many of Madrid's neighborhoods. As a result, the referents and elements of identification around the neighborhood, as well as the political practice of neighborhoodnalism itself, have been expanded. From a spatial perspective of neighborhood movements that considers political identity as a dynamic and resignified process through protest and collective organization, and through ethnography and the analysis of in-depth interviews held over five years in the Madrid district of Hortaleza around the Three Kings Parade, this paper studies how these socio-political practices are being articulated in urban space and how the learning of this form of spatial socialization is influencing Madrid's municipal agenda as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents some results of a qualitative research that explores and analyzes the narratives of a group of adults who were adopted in Chile, and who have searched for their origins and made contact with their birth mothers. In their narratives, the people interviewed adhere to, strain, and/or challenge the principles and discourses that make up hegemonic adoption policies and practices, resignifying their experience of adoption in various ways, as they (re)build their identities and reorganize their kinship relationships. It discusses the tensions and ambivalences that play out in the search for origins and the challenges associated with it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]