ABSTRACT
The governance of COVID-19 has involved the proliferation of territorial practices, through border controls designed to regulate movements not only across national and state borders, but also within cities and city regions. We argue that these urban territorial practices have been significant to the biopolitics of COVID-19 and warrant close scrutiny. Focusing on the Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne, this paper offers critical analysis of the urban territorial practices of COVID-19 suppression, which we categorise as practices of closure, confinement and capacity control. We observe these practices in measures including 'stay at home' orders, residential building and housing estate lockdowns, closure of and capacity limits on non-residential premises, postcode- and municipality-level restrictions on movement, and hotel quarantine. These measures, we argue, have reinforced and at times exacerbated pre-existing social and spatial inequalities. However, we also recognise COVID-19's real and highly uneven threats to life and health, and therefore ask what a more egalitarian form of pandemic governance might look like. We draw on scholarly writing on 'positive' or 'democratic' biopolitics and 'territory from below', in order to outline some more egalitarian and democratic interventions that have been pursued to suppress viral transmission and to reduce vulnerability to COVID-19 and other viruses. This, we argue, is an imperative of critical scholarship as much as the critique of state interventions. Such alternatives do not necessarily reject state territorial interventions per se, but instead point towards a way of addressing the pandemic by recognising the capacity and legitimacy of biopolitics and territory from below. They point towards ways in which we might see a pandemic 'like a city' in a way that prioritises egalitarian care through a politics premised on democratic negotiations among diverse urban authorities and sovereignties.