Street life - youth, culture and competing uses of public space - Karen Malone.pdf - Culture - lady_kitty

PUBLIC SPACE

Street life: youth,

culture and

competing uses of

public space

Karen Malone

Dr Karen Malone is a senior

lecturer in Education at

Monash University, and

Asia-Pacific Director of the

UNESCO–MOST Growing

Up in Cities project. This

project recently won the

prestigious EDRA Research

Project of the Year Award

for 2002. Her recent publica-

tions include Researching

Youth, Case Studies in Envi-

ronmental Education and a

chapter in the book Growing

Up in an Urbanizing World .

In 2001, she was invited to

edit the special edition on

“Children, youth and

sustainable cities” for the

international journal Local

Environment . Her research

interests are in children’s

environment, youth and

public space, ecologically

sustainable cities, narrative

inquiry and participatory

research with and by chil-

dren and youth. At Monash

Peninsula, she lectures in

science and technology

education, marine science,

ecology and conservation to

pre-service teachers, and

masters and doctoral

students.

SUMMARY: This paper examines city streets and public space as a domain in

which social values are asserted and contested. The definitions of spatial boundaries

and of acceptable and non-acceptable uses and users are, at the same time, expres-

sions of intolerance and difference within society. The paper focuses in particular

on the ways in which suspicion, intolerance and moral censure limit the spatial

world of young people in Australia, where various regulatory practices such as

curfews are common. The author reflects on the failures of the two main strategies

that have been used in Australia to control the presence of young people, and

concludes with some thoughts about the construction of streets and public spaces

as diverse and democratic places.

I. INTRODUCTION

“ Think of a city and what comes to mind? Its streets .” (1)

STREETS, AS JANE JACOBS reminds us, have always held a particular

fascination for those interested in the contested domain of cities. Streets

are the terrain of social encounters and political protest, sites of domina-

tion and resistance, places of pleasure and anxiety. (2) Many community

members are uncomfortable with difference, uncertainty, the “uncon-

forming other” in the streets of the cities. Politicians and the media play

a key role in exploiting our sensitivities in this regard, often demonizing

events and people and encouraging containment and regulation of those

at risk of hurting themselves or others. The “fear of crime” in the streets

has made the city dweller nervous of those exhibiting behaviours seen as

different from the mainstream. Because of the visibility of youth in the

streets, they are constantly under barrage of these regulatory practices. (3)

Excluded, positioned as intruders, young people’s use of streets as a space

for expressing their own culture is misunderstood by many adults. To

protect them from harm, curfews, detention and move-on laws are now

becoming commonplace in high-income cities around the globe. (4)

In this paper, I argue that along with other marginal groups, including

gay and lesbians, and indigenous people and refugees, youth have differ-

ent cultural values, understandings and needs – differences that should be

supported and valued as significant contributions to the social capital of

cities and towns. The focus of attention here will be on the visible use of

public space, particularly the street, as the site for constructing youth

Address: Dr Karen Malone,

Faculty of Education,

Monash University,

Peninsula Campus,

Frankston, Victoria,

Australia 3199;

tel: (61) 3 99044324;

fax: (61) 3 99044027;

e-mail: karen.malone@

education.monash.edu.au

1. Jacobs, Jane (1961), The

Life and Death of Great

American Cities: The Failure

of Town Planning , Penguin,

Harmondsworth.

Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 October 2002 157

PUBLIC SPACE

culture. I start by exploring the contested nature of city streets, in the

present and the past. I will then present the problem of youth in the street

and reflect critically on two major strategies that have been used by city

councils and space managers in Australia to contain youth street behav-

iours. I conclude the article with some new ways of thinking about youth

and their role in the street life of cities.

My experience of research with youth is predominantly in Australia,

and this essay has an Australian perspective. However, I believe many of

the issues raised pertain to other high-income countries and, in some cases,

to low-income countries where young people are already experiencing

levels of marginalization and stigmatization in their city environments.

2. Fyfe, N (1998), Images of

the Street: Planning, Identify

and Control in Public Space ,

Routledge, London.

3. White, R (1994), “Street

life: police practices and

youth behaviour” in White,

R and Calder (editors), The

Police and Young People in

Australia , Cambridge

University Press,

Cambridge.

4. Valentine, G (1996),

“Children should be seen

and not heard: the

production and

transgression of adults’

public space”, Urban

Geography Vol 17, No 3,

pages 205–220.

II. BOUNDARY RIDING

ALL BOUNDARIES, WHETHER national, global or simply street names

on a road map are socially constructed. They are as much the products of

society as are other social relations that mark the landscape. For this

reason, boundaries matter. They construct our sense of identity in the

places we inhabit and they organize our social space through geographies

of power.

Geographies of power are less easy to determine than physical marks.

Whilst a street map can tell us where we are in relation to other physical

markers, it cannot tell us how the people who operate in it classify street

space. Sibley, a geographer who writes extensively on exclusionary prac-

tices in public space, provides a helpful framework for thinking about

boundaries, using the terms open and closed spaces as shown in Table 1. (5)

A strongly classified space, says Sibley, has strongly defined boundaries,

its internal homogeneity and order are valued and there is a concern with

boundary maintenance to keep out objects or people who don’t fit into

the shared classification (or culture) constructed by the dominant group

(the insiders). The regularity of design and the high visibility of internal

boundaries, which interrupt traditional patterns of social organization,

make what is culturally different appear disruptive and deviant. Exam-

ples of strongly classified spaces include shopping malls, churches,

schools, spaces where only those who belong and behave are welcome.

Difference is not encouraged or tolerated. In contrast, weakly classified

5. Sibley, D (1995),

Geographies of Exclusion ,

Routledge, London.

Table 1: Characteristics of open and closed spaces

Characteristic

Open spaces

Closed spaces

Definition of boundary

Weakly defined boundaries

Strongly defined boundaries

Value system

Multiple values supported

Dominant values normalized

Response to difference and diversity Difference and diversity celebrated

Difference and diversity not tolerated

Role of policing

Policing of boundaries not necessary

Preoccupation with boundary mainte-

nance, high levels of policing

Position of public

Public occupy the margin

Public occupy the centre

View of culture

Multicultural

Monocultural

SOURCE: adapted from Sibley, D (1995), Geographies of Exclusion , Routledge, London.

158 Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 October 2002

PUBLIC SPACE

spaces have weakly defined or open boundaries, and are characterized by

social mixing and diversity. They include such places as sporting venues,

carnivals and festivals. Difference and diversity in culture, identity and

activity in these open spaces is tolerated, understood and sometimes even

celebrated. Policing of these open boundaries is not as necessary, as there

is less concern with power or exclusion.

An understanding of how and why boundaries exist is a useful frame-

work for studying the politics of street space. In the next section, I will

position these discussions of space in terms of tolerance and difference.

III. TOLERANCE AND DIFFERENCE IN PUBLIC

SPACE

6. Adams, P (editor) (1997),

The Retreat from Tolerance: A

Snapshot of Australian

Society , ABC Books, NSW,

page 25.

“ EVEN THE WORD we choose to describe a superior state of mind – tolerance –

speaks to our arrogance if not our prejudice. Tolerance. Toleration. I will tolerate

you. In a country made up of a population of some hundreds of ethnic groups and

religions, tolerance actually may not be good enough. We must aim at acceptance,

and hope for celebration. It’s a utopian proposition – at a time when even tolerance,

with all its implications of condescension and noblesse oblige, seems beyond us .” (6)

Phillip Adams reminds us that tolerance in the multicultural commu-

nities that most of us live in around the world is an important starting

point for developing a civil society. Yet intolerance, exclusionary practices

and moral censure have been the basis for much of our territory and

boundary making in the development of cities. The walled communities

and villages of the past served to keep citizens safe and intruders out. In

the postmodern world, the wall has been replaced by new eyes – the

CCTV (closed circuit television) surveillance cameras – and these commu-

nities are policed through strict by-laws and security guards.

History illustrates that the exclusion and intolerance of difference are

not new phenomena in the spatial and social organization of cities. While

lamenting the privatization of public space in the postmodern city, many

observers have tended to romanticize its history, celebrating the past

openness and accessibility of streets, and grieving its loss. (7) We may well

ask if there was ever a time when street spaces were free and democratic,

equal and available to all.

Historical accounts from Europe and the United States indicate that, at

least since the nineteenth century, if not before, public space has been

regarded as a lively and contested domain, the site of popular protest and

political struggle. (8) Marshall Berman identifies the politicization of the

streets as a key component of the “experience of modernity”, as the public

domain became subject to increasing regulation and control. Berman

traces this process through Haussman’s uncompromising “moderniza-

tion” of the streets of Paris, Le Corbusier’s vision of the streets as a

“machine of traffic” and Robert Moses’ formidable plans for metropoli-

tan redevelopment in New York. (9) Various social groups – the elderly, the

young, the poor, women and members of sexual or ethic minorities – in

different times and places, have been excluded from public space and

subjected to political and moral censure.

In nineteenth century New York, for instance, women, along with their

delinquent children, were subjected to arrest and institutionalization

under the vagrancy and truancy laws when they ventured unchaperoned

into public space. (10) In this volume of the journal, Hart documents the

trend in New York in the same period to “contain” children in play-

7. Sercombe, H (2000),

Opting for Inclusion ,

Keynote Presentation at

Local Government

Association of Queensland.

Annual Conference,

MacKay, Queensland, July

13; also Watson, S and K

Gibson (1995), Postmodern

Cities and Spaces , Basil

Blackwell, USA.

8. Harrington, C and G

Crysler (editors) (1995),

Street Wars: Space, Power and

the City , Manchester

University Press,

Manchester; also Nead, L

(1997), “Mapping the self:

gender, space and

modernity in mid-Victorian

London”, Environment and

Planning A , 29, pages

659–672.

9. Berman, M (1988), All that

is Solid Melts into Air: The

Experience of Modernity ,

Penguin, Harmondsworth.

10. Stansell, C (1986), City of

Women: Sex and Class in New

York, 1789–1860 , Alfred

Knopf, New York.

Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 October 2002 159

PUBLIC SPACE

grounds, to protect them from bad influences on the streets. In late Victo-

rian London, the streets were experienced simultaneously as a place of

sexual danger and erotic delight, depending on one’s social class. (11) The

Vagrancy and Malicious Trespass Act of 1839 in metropolitan London

declared illegal a range of activities in the streets, including football, flying

a kite or any game considered to be an annoyance to inhabitants or

passers-by. (12) Moral panics of the 1850s gave rise to the imprisonment of

juveniles as a result of these offences. Wilson provides a lively account of

the threat of the public woman in nineteenth-century Paris and the asso-

ciated attempts to restrict women’s movements:

“ The very presence of unattended – unowned – women constituted a threat

both to male power and male frailty. Yet, although the male ruling class did all it

could to restrict the movement of women in cities, it proved impossible to banish

them from public spaces. Women continued to crowd into the city centres and the

factory districts .” (13)

In Australia, a similar phenomenon was evident at the turn of the twen-

tieth century, when various legislation, colloquially known as the Larrikin

Acts, supported the incarceration of many working-class youth, and then

again in the 1950s in response to youth out of control. (14)

So too now, in contemporary society, there is a new surge of “moral

panic”, structured by gender, class, age and racial fear, (15) with public space

continuing to be contested domain, a place marked by paradox and

tension. Nostalgia notwithstanding, history illustrates that public space

is, and has been, the site where conflicts of morality and social values have

often been launched.

It is no coincidence, then, that we see the gay and lesbian Mardi Gras,

the “take back the night” events held by the women’s movement, and

9/11 protests being staged in the streets. These street carnivals are strate-

gic political moments, when minority groups are attempting through the

spectacle to destabilize the hierarchy of spatial dominance. The carnival,

as defined by Antoni Jach, is:

“… that which can’t be held, can’t be repressed, can’t be organized into neat-

ness. The fear of politicians everywhere: the crowd in the street; the uncontrolled,

uncontrollable display; the random, unpredictable event that punctuates the

facade of normality, the facade of power .” (16)

The carnival allows inversion to occur – minority groups take up the

central position in space and dominant society is relegated to spatial

margins. These inversions, often fleeting, represent a challenge to estab-

lished power and can often lead to highly visible regulatory practices.

Examples such as the recent New Age, Gothic and Rave music festivals

located in rural locations (particularly in the United Kingdom and

Australia), and the street parades for causes such as the treatment of

refugees and gay and lesbians have come under constant scrutiny and

control by government bodies. Many attempts throughout history have

been made to limit or ban festivals and parades that celebrate alternative

cultures in both rural and urban landscapes. (17)

But streets as the means for expressing alternative cultures and contest-

ing values aren’t always seen in a negative light. Tim Edensor, research-

ing the culture of Indian streets, identified the diversity of street users as

contributing to energy and vibrancy.

“… vans publicize the current movie attractions with samples of the sound-

track, and when there are elections or local political disputes, loudspeaker vans

broadcast political slogans. Demonstrations by political parties, and religious

processions, theatrically transform the street into a channel of embodied trans-

11. Walkowitz, J (1992), City

of Dreadful Delight:

Narratives of Sexual Danger

in Late-Victorian London ,

Virago, London.

12. See reference 7,

Sercombe (2000).

13. Wilson, E (1995), “The

invisible flaneur ” in Watson,

S and K Gibson (editors),

Postmodern Cities and Spaces ,

Basil Blackwell, USA, page

61.

14. See reference 7,

Sercombe (2000).

15. Davis, M (1990), City of

Quartz: Excavating the

Future in Los Angeles ,

Vintage, London.

16. Jach, A (1999), The Layers

of the City , Hodder

Headline, NSW, page 91.

17. See reference 5.

160 Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 October 2002

PUBLIC SPACE

18. Edensor, T (1998), “The

culture of the Indian street”

in Fyfe, see reference 2,

page 207.

mission… As a site for entertainment, children make their own amusement,

playing cricket and other games, whilst adults play cards, chess and karam. More-

over, travelling entertainers such as musicians, magicians and puppeteers set up

stalls and attract crowds. But there are also more mundane social activities such

as loitering with friends, sitting and observing, and meeting people that also form

distinct points of congregation .” (18)

In contrast to the current regulation of public space we are experiencing in

many nations, spurred on and legitimated by the horror of terrorists attacks

around the world and based on fear, suspicion, tension and conflict between

social groups, the Indian street, according to Edensor, is regulated not by

sophisticated policing mechanisms but through contingent, contextual and

local processes exercised by the street users. It is a place where communities

come together to express and perform a variety of cultural activities – a space

with open boundaries. Edensor also notes the gaze of tourists who observe

and experience a disorder and cultural diversity so different from the streets

they have become accustomed to in their own cities. Unlike the carnivalesque

spaces of Indian streets, the highly regulated streets of many contemporary

cities direct the street pedestrian so as to create an uninterrupted view of the

shop windows and traffic. The loiterers, those “hanging out” on the street,

are seen by shopkeepers to hinder and disrupt the flow of the shopper. One

trader announced to me during street surveys in a suburban shopping

precinct: “... they [the young people] make the place look untidy .”

Throughout high-income nations, there is an attempt to segregate space

in terms of legitimate and illegitimate user groups, with the regulation of

movement and flow of people and information having national security

status in many communities. The forces to create clear boundaries and

separate spaces have been initiated in order to diffuse conflict in public

spaces, and have focused on regulating and maintaining shared value

systems. They are based on a vision of appropriate use and appropriate

users of public space. Sibley identifies these forces as the “purification of

space”, the need for clear, closed boundaries, internal homogeneity and

order and the means for boundary maintenance, “... in order to keep out

objects or people who do not fit the classification .” (19) For Sennett, the spatial

purification of disorder and difference in urban renewal programmes has

important psychological and behavioural consequences. He writes:

“ Disorderly, painful events in the city are worth encountering, because they

force us to engage with ‘otherness’, to go beyond one’s own defined boundaries of

self, and are thus central to civilized and civilizing social life .” (20)

Without disorder and difference, he believes people cannot learn how

to deal with conflict as a part of their everyday life. Maybe such incidents

as “road rage” point to a community that has lost the capacity to deal with

disorder.

The maintenance of boundaries in the purified spaces of Australian

cities relies on a liberal assumption that there is one shared set of “public”

values to which all members of the civil society subscribe, and which

determines what is deviant and who is welcome. In the process, the “legit-

imate” users of space also lose their freedoms – they are also watched by

the close circuit surveillance cameras, subjected to bag checks and move-

on laws. For many this is the price of living in a risk society. (21)

19. See reference 5.

20. Sennett, R (1994), Flesh

and Stone , Faber, London.

21. Beck, U (2000), Risk

Society and Beyond: Critical

Issues for Social Theory , Sage,

London.

IV. DOMINANT VALUE SYSTEMS

HOW ARE DOMINANT value systems constructed and maintained?

Environment&Urbanization Vol 14 No 2 October 2002 161

Street life - youth, culture and competing uses of public space - Karen Malone.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: