O
ne of the central goals for
many within the planning profession is to create and promote an environment in which individuals can discuss issues and make decisions about the future of their neighborhoods and cities. It is within this public sphere that individuals discuss societal injustices, and society moves towards a consensus that can then influence democratic politics. Following the work of Nancy Fraser, this paper argues that the ideal concept of the public sphere is one based on inter-counter public discourse, consisting of different styles and agendas. I then argue that public places are essential to the interaction of these counter publics. Public places, especially in cities, are the physical sites that allow for the expression of different social and cultural views and styles. They provide a physical local for the public space, in which people can present and advocate for their viewpoints. Many authors, including Michael Davis and Alan Sorkin, have argued that the “colonization” of public places throughout cities—and the creation of a set of “non-places” in which public interaction cannot thrive—poses a threat to the maintenance of a vibrant public sphere. Taking a different view, James Holston, Don Mitchell and others have suggested that through the “minor politics” of everyday interactions, it is possible to create a public place that allows for diversity of social interactions within the confines of highly controlled environments. In this paper, I examine the validity of these two viewpoints, and examine the extent to which the design of a space can dictate the scope of interactions that occur within it. By performing a direct qualitative study of two dissimilar Philadelphia spaces, the Reading Terminal Market and the Greyhound Bus Station, I conclude that design does influence the interactions of individuals, but not nearly to the extent suggested by the above authors. In fact, there are liberating elements to the place of the bus station and an opportunity for dialogue that does not exist even within more “open” places.
The Public Sphere: The Space of Public Dialogue Defining the Public Sphere It is first essential to define the concept and delineate the characteristics of a public sphere that would promote desirable discourse. Jurgen Habermas defines of the public sphere as “‘a domain of our social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed, [where] citizens... deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion...[to] express and publicize their views'" (Habermas, 1997, as quoted in Mckee, 2004). Habermas argues that the within the ideal public sphere, discussion occurs through non-selfish rational-critical dialogue amongst equal members who respect each others’ opinions; this expression is called “communicative action.” Individuals are expected to leave their biases and viewpoints "at the door" and agree to the logic of the best argument (Thomassen, 2008, 17). Feminist authors, such as Nancy Fraser, offer an alternative model of the public sphere, which is more inclusive and accommodates the styles and interests of marginal groups: the subaltern counter public. Subaltern counter publics are “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated groups invent and circulate discourse, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser, 1992, 67). Subaltern counter publics are figurative spaces where individuals come together to seek refuge from dominant groups and to formulate strategies to assert their agenda in public. However, if counter publics are to form significant relationships with other counter publics, members must be able to relate to those in other groups; a larger public (and, in theory, one public that is “the” public) is still needed to incorporate the actions of members of counter publics (Fraser 1992, 69). The creation of subaltern counter publics would allow for the great diversity of viewpoints/identities to develop ideas and alternatives to cultural, economic and political forms; however, it does not preclude a
larger opinion-forming public. Postmodern theorists have added several concepts to the ideas of Fraser and Habermas. Villa, Lyotard, and Thomassen argue that the Habermasian concept of the public space may be coercive, and may suppress diversity, because all arguments must be “rational” and by communicative action, the “better argument” takes precedence (Villa, 1992, 719). In short, the public realm is still implicitly a space of coercion, though it is merely internalized coercion (Villa 1992, Lyotard, Thomassen 2008). Another thinker, Iris Marion Young, notes that post-modernists such as Lyotard, “turn the merely different into the absolutely other. It inevitably generates dichotomy instead of unity” (Young 1990, 99). For Young, difference “emerges not as a description of the attributes of a group, but as a function of the relations between groups” (Young, 1990, 171). She points out differences as non-essentializing, allowing for people to have a variety of traits, rather than being defined as the “other.” Through recognizing that a myriad of relationships define an individual, Young argues that there can be a more nuanced understanding of difference. Relating to individuals through their active relationships to institutions, rather than through characteristics, allows for the coexistence of substantive differences and similarities within a single person or group.
Public Places: The “Actually Existing” Public Sphere The normative ideal of a public sphere, as we have outlined it above, is a space that maximizes the ability of a diversity of individuals to come together and discuss issues of public concern. However, for this ideal to become a reality, individuals must interact in some concrete forum. The requirements of the space itself are not often discussed by public sphere theorists. There are two broad categories in which such spaces can exist: the non-physical and the physical. Nonphysical spaces (such as the internet, literature, or audio-visual mediums) play an important role in the formation and continuation of public spheres,
39