came into the Station carrying a camera. They were waiting to get on a bus to New York, which was not going to leave for another forty-five minutes. Instead of going next door to the Gallery, or wandering around Center City, they decided to come and wait for the bus and film a short promotional clip. The arrival of these three caused a considerable commotion in the station. Everyone looked up from their respective conversations or reading and watched them walk to the back of the blue benches, closest to the bathroom. The first person to strike up a conversation was an older white woman who, between takes, asked what they were doing. The older man explained that they were making a promotional video, and she began to ask about the music. Within fifteen minutes there were about ten people surrounding Theo, listening to him explain his music. By the time the rapper had left to board his bus, he had spoken to about fifteen people, and several others had listened to his views on music and its ability to influence positive outcomes in people. The most interesting interaction within this setting was a brief moment when an older Asian man demanded to know if the rapper thought his music would reach beyond the black/Hispanic
community into the Asian one. Thinking for a minute, the rapper ultimately replied with a version of “I hope so.” He appeared to be mulling over what the older man had said; he had been challenged to think about his own message and mission. Fostering Discourse in the “Non-Place” Despite the “non-place” design of the Greyhound Station, individuals of different background and viewpoints were able to interact across boundaries. To some degree, the social barriers that discourage people from getting involved in others’ affairs broke down in this space. One busy morning, I asked a man sitting next to me why he thought people would launch into these more personal conversations. He replied “Well, why not? We’re all sitting here.” This is the key to understanding interactions in the “non-place”— everyone is just sitting there. They could gain all of their information from the surrounding signs—there is no need to talk to anyone else. Yet, by the virtue of being in the same place, doing the same thing, people feel that it is acceptable to ask personal questions or divulge their opinions. With nothing else to do, people begin to speak.
Augé writes that the non-place can be liberating. He comments that “no doubt the relative anonymity that goes with this temporary identity (of a “ticketed passenger”) can even be felt as liberation, by people who, for a time, have only to keep in line, go where they are told, check their appearance” (Augé, 101). Augé somewhat dismisses this as unimportant, because the person must give up their autonomy to reside in this liberating space, and therefore no substantive conversation can occur. However, perhaps there is an alternative way to think about this: within the non-place, people do not lose all sense of identity. Rather, their mutual position as ticketed passengers allows them to approach people on equal ground, and with something in common. The comment “Why not? We’re all just sitting here” demonstrates the other psychological affect such non-places have on the individual: They are equalizing. People perceive themselves to be in a similar situation, one in which there is little distinction between individuals. There is a heightened feeling of being merely a “bus passenger” who is sitting around with other passengers. And, since everyone is “just sitting here,” there is little reason to not engage with the person you happen to find interesting, or the person sitting next to you. With time on their hands and a sense of shared experience, people begin to talk. The controlled and distracting configuration of the bus station has little effect on them. In this talking, they are able to find common ground and a space for discussing the issues important to them, where they are not bound by a particular discursive style or method of argumentation; they are, in short, able to create spaces conducive to a public sphere.
Conclusion My fieldwork in these two sites revealed that physical constraints of a place cannot eliminate the essential component of a counter public sphere: The ability of a diversity of people to discuss matters of social and political importance. The “place” of the Reading Terminal Market allowed for a greater number of counter public interactions, and more conversation between
44 PANORAMA2010