Kitabı oku: «Urban Protest», sayfa 5

3.1.4 Non-spatial Factors

At the start of this chapter, two questions were outlined: 1) Which academic literature recognises and/or relates to the links between space and protests? 2) Which approaches and concepts can be integrated into a theoretical model examining the causal relationship between space and protest?

Regarding the former question, there is a tendency in several academic disciplines around protest to overlook spatial factors. For example, in the literature on nonviolent contention, tactical innovation is often isualized as important; but few if any references are made to the possibilities space provides for such innovation. A spatial perspective is also missing from the literature on colour revolutions, despite the fact that most of these mass actions have utilised a similar form of static spatial occupation.

One exception to this tendency, of course, is Manoilo (2015), who asserts that urban spaces are used to brainwash the people gathered in them. Another (perhaps more realistic) exception is the research on the repertoires of policing, which includes and accounts for space. Even so, compared to the countless examples in history of urban spaces that have played a role in contentious actions, there clearly must be a gap in the literature on protest. In the following section, the search for literature to fill this gap will continue as the focus moves from academic literature on protest to academic literature on space.

Regarding the latter question, several concepts and theories can be integrated into a theoretical model on space and protest. POS theory is particularly relevant, as it isualized the importance of the political environment, which can be used to account for and examine variables with an effect on protests. However, as noted above, it is difficult to map all factors. This problem becomes particularly apparent when a comparison is made to the wide range of arguments identified in the literature on colour revolutions.

In order to gain a better understanding of factors that may or may not be of significance in the political environment, these are isualized in the two figures provided below. The first (fig. 7) is a proposed list of micro, meso, and macro factors in the political environment. The second is a diagram in which the three levels are placed next to each other, alongside external influences (such as support for leaders or NGOs) and events (e.g. election fraud), which are added as possible outside effects (fig. 8).

Figure 7: Micro, meso, and macro factors

Micro	Meso	Macro
Goals	Culture	Political system
Identity, feelings, beliefs, values	Organisations, networks	Economy
Innovation, originality	Communities	Formal organisations
Strategies, tactics, methods	Groups	Etc.
Identity, feelings, beliefs, values	Police structures
	Political parties
	Etc.

Figure 8: The political environment

3.2 Space

Having identified some of the main perspectives in the literature on protest, it is necessary to give an overview of the research literature on space and its function in society. This literature, of course, consists of many publications; yet only a small proportion of them is directly related to the two questions stated at the beginning of this chapter. Additionally, I have concentrated on a selection of the literature that can be used to formulate an understanding of what constitutes the nature of space.

This section starts with metaphysical and philosophical space (3.2.1). Here, discussions and understandings of space found in Arendtian and Habermasian texts are defined in reverse chronological order of development (from the least physical [Habermas] to the most physical [Arendt]), followed by various Marxian perspectives, including the terms “public space” and “the right to the city”. The next subsection (3.2.2) concerns more physical and concrete approaches found in architecture, urban planning, and human geography. This account is followed by an overview of the prospect-refuge theory, as found in landscape architecture. The final subsection (3.2.3) specifically deals with studies of protest locations. It should be noted that these three categories are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but serve as guidelines within a larger body of literature.

3.2.1 Public Space

In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962/1989), the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas introduces the term “public sphere”. According to Habermas, a weakening of totalitarian institutions, such as feudalism and the state church, in Western Europe in the eighteenth century enabled more representative forms of government to appear. At this time, a growing middle class had the time and energy to participate in discussions about how the public should be managed, and the public sphere became the transition point between public and private life. Habermas describes the public sphere as an ideal and abstract neutral place for which societies must strive. In this ideal place, people conduct their deliberations, and all opinions are equally valuable; there is also an absence of hierarchy. Habermas refers to coffee houses and salons as early examples of this sphere, and sees mass media as an important tool in the creation of public discourses. The threat, argues Habermas, comes from the powerful organisations that aim to control the discourse which occurs in the public sphere.

The German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt also stresses the importance of the public sphere in democratic societies, but in her works—and especially in The Human Condition (1958/1998)—the physicality of such spaces is strongly rbanizati. The political scientists Maurizio Passerin d’Entrèves and Ursula Vogel (2005) elaborate on this physicality:

[One] feature stressed by Arendt has to do with the spatial quality of public life, with the fact that political activities are located in a public space where citizens are able to meet one another, exchange their opinions and debate their differences, and search for some collective solution to their problems. Politics, for Arendt, is a matter of people sharing a common world and a common space of appearance so that public concerns can emerge and be articulated from different perspectives. In her view, it is not enough to have a collection of private individuals voting separately and anonymously according to their private opinions. Rather, these individuals must be able to see and talk to one another in public, so that their differences as well as their commonalities can emerge and become the subject of democratic debate. (d’Entrèves and Vogel 2005, 9)

In other words, opinions are formed, and meaningful exchanges of opinions and debates occur, in physical space; thus, the presence of a location where people can meet, talk, act, and deliberate is vital for the existence and proper functioning of public life and politics. (For more on Arendt’s focus on geography, see Howell 1993, 313–316.)

In the book Democracy and Public Space (2012), the Dutch political scientist John R. Parkinson takes this argument further. Like Habermas and Arendt, he perceives a well-functioning public space as a premise for working democracy. He identifies four ways in which physical space can be considered public: It 1) “is openly accessible”; and/or 2) “uses common resources”; and/or 3) “has common effects; and/or 4) “is used for the performance of public roles.” (2012, 61). Parkinson’s definition of public space is thus broad enough to include political institutions, and he argues that the layout and structure of such public spaces affect the ways we interact (Parkinson looks specifically at the layout of parliaments and other political institutions, but also town squares). This type of perspective is concurrent with the prevailing view within the field of political geography (see for example Jones, Jones, and Woods 2004; Van Deusen 2004; and Agnew and Muscarà 2012), but I have found no political geographers who have developed a way to examine the causal relationship between urban space and contentious politics.

“Public Space” and “the Right to the City”

Political philosophy is used to explain not only why space is necessary for discussions and debate to occur, but also why urban space is contested. Such discussions about the nature of spatial contestation often take a Marxian perspective. In Marxian economic philosophy, social class struggle is sometimes seen spatially, which can generate questions such as “Who owns the city?” and “Who has the right to use it?”

The French philosopher and sociologist Henri Lefebvre raises these questions in two of his influential books on the subject, Writings on Cities (Lefebvre 1996) and The Urban Revolution (Lefebvre 1970/2003). In the former, Lefebvre discusses the capitalist accumulation of money in urban centres and how this has led to the exclusion of certain groups (ethnic or national minorities, people of certain ages, the disabled, etc.). Lefebvre establishes that all urban inhabitants have the right to use the city they live in and to participate in its creation, and he urges people to reclaim their rights over the city. In the latter book, Lefebvre describes the development and nature of the city, from the Neolithic revolution to his own day. He examines how capitalism has shaped urban space, globally, nationally, and locally. According to Lefebvre, world society is gradually (i.e., at the time of publication in 1970) going through complete rbanization. By this he means that no part of the world exists in total independence of the urban centres (Lefebvre 1970/2003; see also Lefebvre 1974/1991).

The term “right to the city” has been further developed by at least two other Marxian scholars: the British economic geographer David Harvey and the US geographer Don Mitchell. Harvey explores the relations between capital, politics, and the people (see for example Harvey 1989; 2008; 2012), and develops Lefebvre’s arguments about the increasing social and economic injustice in urban centres.

Mitchell also considers inequality in urban space. He is concerned with how contestations occur in space and about space (see for example Mitchell 1998); how wealth is produced and distributed in a city (Staeheli and Mitchell 2008); and the exclusiveness of urban public space, e.g. gated communities and how some groups, particularly the homeless, are left with fewer rights to the public space than others (Mitchell 2011; 2016). Mitchell’s recurrent argument is that space is contested by different layers of the population, who constantly negotiate and argue about how it should be used and by whom. This contestation contributes significantly to the Lefebvrian concept of production of space (i.e. how space is given meaning by the acts occurring in it). (See 3.2.3, for more on the production of space).

Public space is thus not only contested in itself, but is a contested term with a wide range of viewpoints and definitions. Interpretations of public space range from the metaphysical to the physical and include informal meeting places, such as cafés and chat rooms, formal institutions, such as parliament buildings, and urban space, such as town squares and parks. In an attempt to create a unified understanding of the concept, the US professor of public administration Charles Goodsell (2003) identifies six defining characteristics of public space, from a variety of academic disciplines:

[1] Generic definition of public space: A space-time continuum for connected and interactive political discourse. [2] Place-bound public space: The above consisting of face-to-face interaction in a single physical location. [3] Electronic public space: The above achieved at dispersed geographic locations through information technology. [4] Extended public space: The above when broadcast by television, radio, Internet, or other means. [5] Pure definition of democratic public space: The above when open to all, unrestricted as to conduct, and unconditional as to participation. [6] Practical definition of democratic public space: The above when public access is encouraged, the status of state authority is muted, barriers between governors and governed are minimized, staging is arranged by the people as well as officials, and conditions conducive to deliberation are fostered. (Goodsell 2003, 370)

The public space discussed in this book is naturally positioned within Goodsell’s second, place-bound definition. The specific definition of public space will be developed in the next chapter (4.2).

3.2.2 Physical Space

Now that we have discerned the importance of public space as the location of discussion and deliberation, as well as the place where contestations occur and meaning is created, it is time to move on to the physical aspects of space. Architecture, urban planning, urbanism, and human geography are four academic disciplines naturally concerned with physical (urban) space, and key studies from each of these can be related to collective action.

Urban Planning, Architecture, and Urban Geography

Goodsell (2003) provides some assessment of the relevant literature in architecture and urban planning. He writes, for instance, that the relationship between political power and people is often expressed in architecture, and “a common theme is how the design and symbols of physical space reinforce political power” (2003, 365). Referring to his own and others’ studies of buildings and official institutions, he explains how such places seek to evoke certain feelings, such as that of authority, monumentality, or—in the case of court rooms—legitimacy and equality (2003, 365–366). (For a similar view, see Bismarck 2014.)

In urban planning, public spaces are often seen as places for social interaction and, as in architecture, there is much focus on the perception of space. Additionally, urban planners tend to focus on the utility of spaces, and how the right planning can increase their usage. Some urbanists also frame such usage in a historical context (see US geographer and urbanist Edward Soja 2010).

The US urban theorist Kevin Lynch has influenced writing on urban planning for more than half a century. For his book The Image of the City (1960), Lynch conducted interviews with citizens about their daily travels in, and interactions with, public space. He asked the respondents to describe and draw the spaces they went through, what they remember from them, and what feelings they evoked. Lynch used the information he collected to identify five elements of urban space that dominate people’s mental perception of it: nodes (places of destination or transition points); paths (the connections to and between nodes, e.g. roads and walkways); landmarks (reference points, such as monuments and buildings); districts (areas of the city with distinct characteristics); and edges (boundaries and obstacles that hinder movement, e.g. walls and shorelines). (See chapter 6: 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.)

Groups of scholars, architects, and urban planners are also concerned with identifying what makes spaces inclusive and practical to use. The Feeling of Place project (Nielsen 2017), for example, is an examination of public spaces in Southwark, London, to establish why people respond well to certain places and not to others. The researchers asked respondents in London what they felt about the spaces they were in, using 13 feelings as a framework to evaluate the positive vs. negative value of the spaces.13 As a result, nine key themes were identified that affect how people relate to space in everyday life: 1) people’s awareness of what is in the space; 2) its history and social life; 3) the presence of nature; 4) its level of accessibility for some or for all people; 5) whether or not people are visiting or living in the place; 6) how welcome people feel there; 7) the scale of buildings and activities in the space (as stated by the authors: “Locations with tall towers […] made people feel less happy and were seen as less pleasant than places with lower scale houses. Planting and activities on street level helped people feel that the […] place [was] more pleasant.”, 13); 8) complexity and confusion; and 9) changes occurring in the space (Nielsen 2017).

Similarly, the Project for Public Spaces—a cross-disciplinary platform for the promotion of sustainable urban spaces—has identified 10 principles for a successful (i.e. much-used) square: 1) it has a strong image and identity; 2) there are attractions and destinations on or around the square; 3) there is a presence of amenities, such as benches; 4) it has a flexible design, including 5) different designs for different seasons; 6) it is easy to access, preferably on foot; 7) there is a good balance between the outer (i.e. surrounding buildings, roads, amenities) and inner (centre) square; 8) its paths (roads, streets, walkways) reach out “like an octopus”; 9) it is well managed by people who are familiar with the square; and 10) it has diverse sources of funding (Project for Public Spaces 2005.)

The principles identified in the two projects outlined above provide valuable clues as to what variables create pleasant, accessible, and visible space, which are three important aspects of urban protests (see chapter 6). Yet even though the vast majority of architects perceive and utilise the feelings that space and buildings evoke, and urban planners look at the various usages of public space, neither discipline is explicitly concerned with how these qualities affect collective action. A few notable exceptions should be mentioned. One is the US landscape architect Jeffrey Hou, who has edited two books on the subject: Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities (Hou 2010) and City Unsilenced: Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrinking Democracy (Hou and Knierbein 2017).

In the former book, the authors (including anthropologists, geographers, architects, urban planners, and artists) aim to understand the role of public space in the constant changes cities undergo, as well as various attempts to create and control public space: “[P]ublic space has been an important facet of cities and urban culture […] [Urban spaces] provide opportunities for gathering, riticized, recreation, festivals, as well as protests and demonstrations” (Hou 2010, 2). In the authors’ view, the city is constantly changing, both physically and in the ways it is perceived and used: city space can be contested, change meaning, be appropriated, made available or unavailable to some or all groups, new meanings can be attributed to it, and so on.

In the latter book, co-edited with the Austrian landscape architect Sabine Knierbein, the authors put contestations in urban space into the context of neoliberal economic riticizedn. As with other scholars, such as Don Mitchell (3.2.1), David Harvey (3.2.1), and the US architect and urbanist Paul Knox (2011), they see urban development as driven by global investors who gentrify urban centres and increase local and global inequalities (Hou and Knierbein 2017, 6). The authors call this tendency “shrinking democracy”. This means that, when public space is increasingly controlled by private and commercial actors, its alternative use as an outlet for public discontent against authorities (see chapter 2) is reduced (hence, the utility of space as a safety valve in societies is shrinking).

There is also an emerging interest within human geography and architecture in the physicality, riticizedn, and structure of protest camps; see for example the British human geographer Adam Ramadan on the occupation of Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring in Egypt. He argues that the protest camp is a public space which functions as a vehicle for political change (Ramadan 2013). Another prominent example is the anthology Protest Camps in International Context (Brown, Feigenbaum, Frenzel, and McCurdy 2017), which sees camps as a form of riticizedn. The authors examine the symbolic value, logistics, and possibilities provided by protest camps across the world, while analysing what the editors call four ‘infrastructures’: media infrastructures, action infrastructures, riticizedn infrastructures, and re-creation infrastructures. These studies thus emphasise that static protests are important, and that they are reliant on accessibility and transport networks in order to function properly (see spatial qualities as a variable in chapter 6, 6.2.1).