Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Public/Private Divide - CCLR 13
Transcript of Public/Private Divide - CCLR 13
(Hardt & Negri, 2009; Mitchell, 1997;2003) Neoliberalism, Environmentality,
and Public Space Jeff Rose & Karen Paisley
University of Utah
May 19, 2011
Saint Catharines, Ontario "This is my space. That's his space there. But this is my space. I own it."
~ Dave, Hillside Resident, 9/17/2010 Individuals facing homelessness are more diverse than ever, potentially eschewing traditional stereotypes.
Highlights need to undermine a singular and simplistic homeless subject. (Del Casino & Jocoy, 2008)
Increased regulation and policing of public space creates subjects without the right to exist. (Mitchell, 1997; 2003) The Commons Hardt &Negri, 2004; 2009; Ostrom, 2002; Shiva, 2005 "The production of the common... tends to displace the tradtional divisions between individual and society, between sujective and objective, and between private and public" (Hardt & Negri, 2004, p. 202). It has to be formed democratically, and cannot exist under contemporary neoliberalism.
The commons is anti-capitalistic, and would respect the notion of ecological limits.
The commons would not recongize public and private space.
The commons would provide a space for post-humanist constructions, eliminating problematic human-nature dichotomies. "Republic of Property" "Hyper-capitalism"
Role of the government is to provide for profitable business climate, and little else (Harvey, 2005)
"free-market" a guide for all behavior
Divestment in traditonal public and social services (Smith, 1996)
Intensifying under globalization Public Private Public/Private Space "public" and "private" are dialectical Historically, “the public sphere of civil society stood or fell with the principle of universal access. A public sphere from which specific groups could be excluded was less than merely incomplete; it was not a public sphere at all” (Habermas, 1989, p. 85). Belongs to no one
Inclusivity? rests on the logic of property (a social construction)
characterized by an "ownership society"
owned by individuals, groups, businesses, corporations, cities, states, nations, etc.
with ownership comes sovereignty, with or without democratic engagement Parks Parks in North America have traditionally been spaces for recreation, exercise, social gatherings, and protest (Mitchell, 1997).
Growing post-9/11 concerns over the perceived safety of public spaces have caused municipal parks to be increasingly surveilled and policed, further intensifying the displacement of people who reside in public parks (Mitchell, 2003; Wakin, 2008). Contested Constructions of Space: Troubling the Public/Private Divide in Parks and Open Space Defying Social Stereotypes most of the Hillside residents find at least full-time employment
eschewing most available social services "Public Park" Stereotypes "hiding" and invisibility
site selection, color noise, discrete comings and goings
boulder in springs Resistance existing - biopolitical resistance (Foucault, 1979)
changing space to place (Tuan, 1974)
privatizing space through logic of ownership Conclusions Habermasian notion of public sphere remains elusive
"public" space is conditional
The Commons needs further theorization... Residents? Where can I sleep, if I do not own private space nor have access to public space?
Where can I use the bathroom?
Where can I socialize?
Most basically, where can I exist? Leisure Studies??? Parks may be complementary lifestyle enhancers that provide opportunities for physical and psychological health benefits (Boone et al., 2009; Smale, 2010).
For some marginalized populations, however, public parks serve as vital spaces for basic functions of living. Urban Ecology Reification