Space
is defined as “a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or
unoccupied” according to Google definitions.
Spaces that we occupy, such as malls, plazas, parks, etc, tend to be
public hence the term public space. But
just because a space is public does it really keep truth to its meaning, in
other words since it is a public space are we allowed to do whatever we want?
And do certain spaces affect the way we behave? No and Yes. We do not possess absolute freedom in all
public spaces; for example protesting can be disruptive; therefore our behavior
should match the intentions of the space.
As
mentioned, we should behave appropriately according to the intentions of the
space. Public spaces affect the way we
behave for the simple fact that there is an appropriate type of behavior depending
on the location. John Dixon, Mark Levine and Rob McAuley talk about
how moral rules are portrayed in public spaces and they mention, “We have found
it more useful to think of public space having an essentially two-sided
character, a character that has assumed widely varying historical forms and
that continues to shape urban life.”
Basically stating that public space does in fact affect society and the
way we are shaped. They also mention
“Teenagers who “hang about” in shopping malls and arcades may be rejected
because they violate the consumerist norms that regulate public life in such
spaces.” Basically stating how actions
that do not correspond to the space’s intention may make people look bad.
Some
people may argue that space does not influence their personality because it is
not possible to change who you are that easily, but they are wrong. Think about the following scenario: you are
out and about with your friends for lunch, the most appropriate thing to do is
chat and share a couple laughs. How do
we know this is the appropriate thing to do?
Well if we observe the environment at a restaurant we are able to see
people around us chatting and laughing, they are also eating, and having a good
time. This is like a sign telling us
that it is appropriate for us to have conversations and do similar actions like
the rest of the people there. The point
of doing all that is to have a good time.
But now if you change the setting, let’s say a library, now not only has
the setting been changed but the people have to change the way they
behave. In contrast, if you are in a
library it would inappropriate to have a conversation or laugh because you have
to respect what others are doing. If we
observe the space of a library we know that it is a quiet place, people around
us are reading or doing any other work with the least amount of noise as
possible. This immediately sends us a
sign that lets us know that if we cannot talk because it would be inappropriate
and disrespectful to others. Therefore
this observation greatly supports my statement that space does in fact affect
the way you behave. Like they say, there
is a time and place for everything, in this case we are able to see that there
is a time and place for the way we behave.
When it comes to our freedom in
public spaces, it is in fact limited. We
are not free to do whatever it is that we please because at the end of the day
there is someone that is in charge of the place. We can take into consideration a trip to the
mall. Although the mall may be considered a public
space, it is not a place where you can do whatever it is that you want. Let’s say you are in the mood to walk in with
just shoes and boxers, do you think you will be able to get away with it? It is
a public space therefore you should be able to be free and do what you want
right? Wrong! The owners of these places, or the dominant groups, are in fact
in control of the mall. What I mean by
dominant groups is that they are the ones that make the rules such as owners
and managers, they are able to provide a safe environment for all of us and
make sure that no one’s behavior gets out of hand. Although these rules may not be so obvious,
because they are not posted all around the mall, it is still something that
people know about. People know because
if others get in trouble then they know that they should not do that, in other
words they learn from the mistakes of others.
If you do something wrong or inappropriate then you will get in trouble
and know that what you did is not acceptable and others can learn from your
mistake as well. For example, I had a
couple friends who went to the mall one day and decided to play tag around the
mall, I mean why would you not want to do that it’s everyone’s dream to play
tag in a place way bigger than your backyard.
After playing for a few minutes security noticed them and they got in
trouble and are now banned from the mall for a year. This is a clear example that in fact the mall
is not a fully public space because you are not able to do whatever your heart
desires. But we may think, what if we do
not witness the mistakes of others then how do we know what is right and what
is wrong? The answer to this is by
observing, as mentioned previously. When
we enter a new place the first thing we do is observe our surroundings so if we
enter a mall and see stores we know that it is a place to shop and that our
behavior should be calm. Observing can
help us find out the intentions for that certain space.
It is important for public spaces to
not be so public because if that was the case, our security could be at risk. The
government should be able to decide what to do with these spaces because it is
necessary for someone to put order. As
Berg briefly states in “The Occupy Movement and the New Public Space”, “But the public spaces we’re
looking at should be more appropriately defined as publicly accessible
places subject to the rules of its owner, the government…” It is extremely crucial for rules to be set
in these places or else people will take advantage of their freedom and do
whatever they want, literally. If
everyone does whatever their heart desires these places can turn chaotic.
People will be people, which means they may do things that others do not view
as appropriate. Berg also states,
“Public means us, but it also means the government…” The government only wants the best for their
people which includes keeping them safe and content. Clearly, these rules would not be anything
too crazy and out of hand but just something that can work to keep order. If order is kept than everyone will be happy
because they do not have to feel threatened any where they go.
We can use the
example of protests to further analyze this statement. There have been too many times where protests
have gone wrong, such as Occupy Oakland where over 400 people were arrested and
much damage was done to the city, leading to the idea that spaces should be
used for their initial intention and other activities should have a place where
these activities can take place. There
are many times where these types of events take place in places like
parks. The initial use for that space if
for families to have a good time, a place where they can enjoy a day away from
everything and enjoy beautiful days that nature has to offer. No one would like to have their days ruined
because people feel the need to protest and they have no places to go to. All of a sudden the place you thought of as
peaceful and enjoyable turns into chaotic and extremely noisy. Not only that, but there could be chance that
you may be running a risk of being hurt.
Protests should not be allowed in public spaces because they can turn
violent and jeopardize the security of others.
Walljasper gave us an example in “From Middle East to Madison, Justice
Depends on Public Spaces” where he mentions, “…people express their aspirations
and face bloody reprisals…” This is a
clear example of how dangerous a protest can turn. The people can be so pumped up and determined
to get there mission across that when officials arrive to observe them, they
often see it as a threat and as if they will be stopped. This is when they start attacking the armed
forces and a fight breaks out, turning a calm protest into a battlefield. This is when things get dangerous. Walljasper also mentions, “…the public spaces
where citizens rally to voice their discontent, show their power…” Once people are in these places they do
whatever it is that they are able to in order to be heard and if you come to
think about it you never know what people around may be carrying so someone
with a gun can pull it out and start shooting causing a riot that can have
deadly and unfortunate results. Another
great example would be of a protest in Moscow, Russia where people protested
against a television station and reporters Barry and Schwirtz mention, “The
only unusual thing about ''Anatomy of a Protest'' was the furious reaction it
provoked.” People were so into getting
their message across that they forgot about any inconveniences they could be
causing. They also tell us, “As
opposition leaders recover from the demise of mass antigovernment protests,
some are looking to television as the next political battleground.” Being so
passionate about fighting for their rights can turn negative for those around
them as well. This affects people that
are walking by minding their own business can be suddenly pulled into this
battlefield and all of a sudden be part of it, just because the person looked
like a normal citizen that could be part of a protest. That is not fair because you are put in a
dangerous predicament without anyone telling you and all you were doing was
trying to get from point A to point B.
In
the end, we have to keep in mind that when we are in a public space it is
important to be civil. Wherever it is
that we may be there is an appropriate way to behave because there is a place
and time for things. In regards to our
safety, the only way to have our security guaranteed is to have someone put
order in places, such as public spaces. Our safety comes first and it is crucial for
us to not feel threatened or scared wherever we may go.
Work
Cited
Barry, Ellen,
and Michael Schwirtz. "Russian TV Broadcast Besmirching Protesters Draws a
Furious Reaction." The New York Times, (2012): A12
Berg, Nate. “The
Occupy Movement and the New Public Space”. The
Atlantic Cities. November 22, 2011. Web
Dixon, John,
Mark Levine, and Rob McAuley. "Locating Impropriety: Street Drinking,
Moral Order, and the Ideological Dilemma of Public Space." Political
Psychology, 27.2 (2006): 187-206.
Walljasper, Jay.
“From Middle East to Madison, Justice Depends on Public Spaces”. Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical
Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston: Pearson,
2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment