staeheli and mitchell locating the public in research and practice

7/29/2019 STAEHELI and MITCHELL Locating the Public in Research and Practice

1/21

http://phg.sagepub.com

Progress in Human Geography

DOI: 10.1177/03091325070835092007; 31; 792Prog Hum Geogr

Lynn A. Staeheli and Don MitchellLocating the public in research and practice

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/6/792The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/792Citations

by Pedro Gomes on October 27, 2008http://phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/792http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/792http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/21

Progress in Human Geography 31(6) (2007) pp. 792811

2007 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0309132507083509

Locating the public in research and practice

Lynn A. Staeheli1* and Don Mitchell2

1Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street,

Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK2Department of Geography, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University,

NY 13244, USA

Discussions of public space and the public have become complicated in recent years. This article

seeks to bring some clarity to these discussions by examining where participants in public spacedebates locate the public those spheres or realms where participants believe a public is constituted

and where public interest is found. To identify the ways in which public space is conceptualized

and located, we analyze the literature on public space, interviews with scholars actively involved

in public space research, and interviews with participants in a series of public space controversies in

the USA. We find that differing definitions of the public that underlie these conceptualizations are

rooted in strongly held political orientations and normative visions of democracy. But we also find

that there is considerable overlap in how participants frame their understandings of publicity, and

thus there is a basis for more thorough debate and even transformation of policy and practice.

Key words: community, democracy, public, public space, publicity

*Author for correspondence. Email: [email protected]

The meaning of public space has become

increasingly complex in recent years, as

research grounded in diverse theoretical

perspectives and personal experiences has

burgeoned. Whereas it once may been un-

problematic to equate public space with

open or accessible space, this is no longer

the case, as a range of questions about what

makes a space public have been introduced.

Similarly, theoretical debates and political

action have pried open the meanings of thepublic, publicity, and public-ness, consid-

erably complicating discourses in normative

political theory, critical geography, and other

fields. Thirty or 40 years ago it might have

been possible to write about an abstract, dis-

embodied public to which a public interest

could be attributed or for which a public good

could be produced, but successive identity-

based movements in politics and the acad-

emy have called to the fore assumptions

about how the public is constituted and who

populates it. As Sallie Marston (1990) to

pick just one of many contributors to this

movement asks: Who are the people?

The prying open and complicating of dis-course about the public also complicates

what is meant by public space. If one ques-

tion animating political theory is who are

the people?, then other questions, raised

http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/


3/21

Lynn A. Staeheli and Don Mitchell: Locating the public in research and practice 793

especially in human geography, are what

makes a space public? and therefore how does

space shape who counts as the people?.

The reconsideration of public space, the

public, and publicity are not disconnected.

Yet is it not simply a matter ofwho the

public is that makes talking about publicspace difficult and so important. Scholars

also take differing perspectives on what

constitutes the public realm or public sphere.

Scholars disagree as to whether the public is

equivalent to the government. Or whether

the public realm is defined by the issues

discussed in public. Or whether the public

realm is any venue or forum in which discus-

sions of communal concerns are held. It is

even more confusing when activists and

scholars transgress the boundaries of publicand private whatever they may be to make

a political point. In arguing that the personal

is political, for instance, does it mean that

the private realm is public? And is that really

what people advocating reproductive and

sexual freedom want, knowing that the

personal being political may also make private

decisions susceptible to public debate and

perhaps state surveillance over freedoms

that would otherwise be exercised in pri-

vate? The multiplicity of meanings of publicin this paragraph alone is enough to make a

theorists or an activists head spin.

Furthermore, it is not just scholars and

activists who have challenged the meaning

of public. As one might expect, given scholarly

and social movement agitation, the meaning

of the term has become the subject of formal

political and policy debates, including debates

about faith-based initiatives for social ser-

vices, about funding for non-state schools,

and about extending rules regarding non-discrimination to organizations that do not

take governmental money. From the per-

spective of academic researchers, one of the

most important debates about the meaning

of public comes in the context of disciplinary

calls for increased relevancy and debates

over how research should serve the public

interest since, as already noted, such a

singular interest is almost impossible to find

(see Blomley, 1994; Tickell, 1998; Castree,

2000; Martin, 2001; Massey, 2004; Beaumont

et al., 2005; Murphyet al., 2005; Staeheli and

Mitchell, 2005; Ward, 2005).

Perhaps some clarity can be brought to

the swirling and somewhat confused dis-cussion of the public and publicity and their

relationship to public space by attempting

to understand where various participants

in the debate locate the public. By locate,

we mean the spheres, realms and even

physical spaces where participants believe

a public is constituted and where a public

interest is to be found. We want to understand

the different uses of public in everyday

and academic discourse, and to relate these

different families of usage to the normativegoals that participants bring to debates about

the public and public space.

We attempt to address these issues

through an extensive review of the academic

literature on public space in geography,

interviews with academic researchers, and

interviews with participants in controversies

over public space. In so doing, we rely on a

previously developed taxonomy of the public

and compare the ways in which academics

and participants in public space controversiesconceptualize the relationship between

publicity and public space. In the following

section of the article, we explain our concep-

tual and methodological approach to this

analysis more fully. We then describe the

taxonomy we use to evaluate the meanings

of public deployed in research and practice.

The final sections of the article explore the

location of the public in both realms.

I Approaching the publicWe rely on a previously developed tax-

onomy of the public developed by Jeffrey

Weintraub (1995) explained more fully

below as a starting point for our analysis of

a close reading of the public space literature

in geography, interviews with researchers

on public space, and interviews with partici-

pants in public space controversies in five



4/21

794 Progress in Human Geography 31(6)

US cities. Weintraubs taxonomy is useful in

that it culls the various definitions of public

from a considerable range of literatures in

political theory and discusses the implicit

normative meanings assigned to public in

each. As a political theorist, Weintraubs

approach differs from that more commonlyutilized in geography, where discourses

on the public are analyzed albeit often

implicitly in terms of spatiality, focusing on

whether theories and definitions are spatial

or aspatial and whether their relational forms

are understood to be spatial relations or not.

Weintraubs categories productively crosscut

the spatial-aspatial continuum and, by doing

so, serve as a useful heuristic for clarifying

what is at stake politically, socially, and in

the development of geographic theory inthe complex meanings of the public that

have evolved over the past generation. Our

point is not to provide a singular definition

of the public, nor is it to bemoan the com-

plexity of the debate, as we see this complex-

ity as a positive value. Rather, we seek to

find ways to make sense of the complexity

so that it can continue to be productive, both

politically and theoretically.

We derived the definitions of the public,

publicity, and public space that form thecore of this analysis through a review of

the geographical literature on public space,

interviews with a subset of academics who

have contributed to that literature, and

interviews with participants in public space

controversies in US cities that were typical

of the sorts of controversies about public

space and publicity that geographers study.1

The literature review involved a systematic

analysis of the Anglophone, geographic

literature published between 1945 and 1998.We identified 218 articles, book chapters,

and books as focused on public space, and as

having either been written by a geographer

or as having been published in a geographic

journal or book. These items were evaluated

in terms of their definitions of public space,

theoretical orientations, empirical foci, data

and methods, and constructions of relevance.

In the second step, we identified all the authors

of those articles who have a PhD and who

were working in the USA during the interview

period.2 We then conducted interviews with

all these authors still living, willing, and able

to participate. In total, we conducted 25

interviews with academic geographers.In order to understand both the nature of

public space controversies and specific

actors roles in them, we also conducted

interviews in spring 2001 in five US cities

with government officials, activists, business

owners or managers, social service providers,

planners, and others.

In San Diego, we asked about downtown

redevelopment and homelessness.

In New York City, our focus was on com-munity gardens.

In Syracuse, New York, we explored de-

bates over public financing for the recon-

struction of a shopping mall.

In Washington, DC we examined a

classic issue in public space: protests and

parades.

Finally, we examined changes to the Plaza

in the heart of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

In these interviews, we sought to elicit howpeople framed or defined public space and

whether and why they thought it was im-

portant; through these questions, we sought

to understand how they conceived of the

public.

As will become apparent, our analytical

strategy has been to parse the definitions of

public and public space at work in the litera-

ture and in the interviews to provide insight

into the muddled terrains of academic theory

and research, the social and political prac-tices that shape public space, and the traffic

between them. Weintraubs categorization

provides a means to systematically evaluate

this discourse, and it provides a means for

understanding the nature of the similarities

and differences within it. At the same time,

the data we compile from the literature on pub-

lic space and the interviews with academics



5/21


and participants allow us to critically evaluate

and elaborate upon Weintraubs categories

themselves. Through our analysis, we show

that not only is consensus about what con-

stitutes the public or public space impossible,

it is not even desirable. Nonetheless, we also

show that understanding the source andnature of the differences in meanings is vital

to the development of new understandings

and new normative political projects.

II What and where is the public:

Weintraubs taxonomy

Through an analysis of the literature in

political theory, Jeffrey Weintraub (1995)

has argued that public and private the

relations of what we are calling publicity

(public-ness)3 are typically conceptualizedin four (not necessarily mutually exclusive)

ways:

A liberal-economistic version of publicity

rooted in mainstream economics and lib-

eral political theory in which the public is

defined as the state and its administrative

functions, while the private is the realm of

the economy. Basic rights and freedoms

for individuals are located in the public in

this conceptualization. Discussions in geo-graphy about public policy (eg, Martin,

2001) and on increasing geographys rele-

vance in the wider world (eg, Abler, 1983;

Harman, 2003) tend, at least implicitly, to

work from this model of publicity.

A republican-virtue model in which the

public sphere is conceptualized as per-

taining to community, the polity, and

citizens, and the private sphere is related

to the household (and private property).

Weitraub traces this model to the writ-ings of Aristotle, and it can be easily iden-

tified in the work of historians such as

Edmund Morgan (1988) and, through

him, in the work of geographers such as

Marston (1990) and Mitchell (1995).

A model rooted in practices ofsociability,

wherein the public refers to symbolic dis-

play and self-representation; the private

in this conceptualization is any aspect of

self that individuals choose not to make

public through display. Its most well-

known expression is in the work of Jane

Jaco bs (eg, Jaco bs, 1961) and Erv ing

Goffman (1959), but Weintraub identifies

Philippe Airs (1962), who tracks the de-velopment of public life in cities, as the

best example of this. Authors such as Iris

Marion Young (1990) and Richard Sennett

(1970; 1992) provide more contemporary

examples, as does the work in geography

of authors such as Mona Domosh (1998)

and Susan Ruddick (1996).

A Marxist-feminist model in which public

refers to the state and economy, and pri-

vate refers to the domestic and familial.

Early socialist-feminist work in geography(eg, McDowell, 1983) seems to work

through this model, as does much of the

research on the relations between public

and private (eg, Rose, 1990; Staeheli,

1996).

The range of different approaches to pub-

licity is obviously wide, especially since this

is not an exhaustive taxonomy, but rather

one that describes the main trends in pol-

itical theory. As such, it is not surprising thatsimilar language talk of public and private

boundaries, of publicity and privacy, of pub-

lic and private goods, of public and private

spaces and spheres often invokes different

meanings and points to divergent political

projects. For some, the public refers to the

economy, for others the state (and decidedly

not the economy), for yet others it will mean

the polity, the community, the crowd on the

street, or the street itself.4 The public, in other

words, is differently located in each of thesediscourses.

Weintraubs (1995) taxonomy sought

to categorize the political discourse. But it

is conceivable that the kinds of spaces that

foster publicity might be different for each

category. That is, it is conceivable that the

public is not only differentially located dis-

cursively, but also geographically, and that



6/21


different kinds of publics occupy different

kinds of spaces. For example, a public space

that would foster a liberal-economistic version

of publicity might be one that facilitates state

functioning and makes it easier for the state

to safeguard and regulate individual rights

and to promote economic development andgrowth. Put another way, such a model of

publicity might require (or produce) a space

that allows for free political expression, but

requires such expression to be in a form that

is decorous and that can be regulated to fit

within the logics and rationalities of the gov-

ernmental system (Habermas, 1970; Healy,

1992).

A public space fostering republican-

virtue, on the other hand, might facilitate

public interaction, but not necessarily inter-action with the formal apparatus of govern-

ment. Rather, these spaces might be where

communities or civil associations set rules

of inclusion according to the moral values

and social expectations of the community

in order to enhance (in part, by making

more comfortable) interactions between

community members. Exclusion might be

acceptable if people refuse to conform to

agreed upon behaviors or if an individual is

seen as disrespectful or disruptive (Cohenand Arato, 1992; Etzioni, 1993).5 Similarly

but with a different political inflection

the republican virtue model might indicate

the need for public spaces where subaltern

counterpublics (Fraser, 1990) or other outsider

groups can form, engage in debate, and make a

bid for either inclusion in or the transformation

of the wider public sphere.

By contrast to the first two kinds of public

spaces, a space of sociability might be more

chaotic or unpredictable, as it would notnecessarily be based on governmentally-

or socially-defined rules of conduct and

conformance; spaces of sociability might

be produced precisely through the act of

being sociable (Berman, 1983; Wilson, 1992;

Amster, 2004). And yet, many argue that

to promote sociability to make people wel-

come relatively highly regulated spaces must

be produced (hence the perceived success

of malls and festival marketplaces as social

spaces (Goss, 1993; 1999; see also Lees, 1998).

The point here is what is being struggled

over: a public space of sociability is meant

to be a space of display and publicity in

this sense a literal coming-into-the-public ofprivate individuals rather than a space of

overtly political struggle or a space defined

by the state. It may or may not be relatively

open or chaotic; it may or may not be heavily

regulated by the state, or by specific private

interests such as mall owners.

Finally, the model of publicity outlined

in Marxist-feminist theory might look (if crit-

ically) for those public spaces that facilitate

economic activities, that reinforce hege-

monic norms of gender or class, and in whichthe power of the state and powerful private

interests are clearly present. One would ex-

pect to see spaces that are tightly regulated,

but in ways that encourage accumulation, ease

commerce, and strengthen the power to govern,

rather than encourage self-development,

community building, or political transformation

(McDowell, 1983; Davis, 1990; Sorkin, 1992;

Fincher, 2004). Partisans in this discourse might

seek to promote spaces that do encourage the

latter goals, and thus will often turn to oneof the other models of understanding pub-

licity the republican or sociability models,

for example as a means for developing argu-

ments and practices.

Thus, while the theoretical perspectives

on publicity canvassed by Weintraub (1995)

may not have been developed as a typology

of public space, per se, we would be surprised

if this taxonomy did not go far in logically

categorizing the ways that researchers and

people involved in creating (and recreating)public spaces talk about publicity. At the

same time, geographers strong focus on

space is likely to inflect the discourse on pub-

licity in different ways than political theory.

Thus, we expect that the geographical litera-

ture will remake the meaning of Weintraubs

categories in significant ways, ways that shed

light on the value or lack thereof of locating



7/21


the public geographically. Finally, it is likely

that there will be systematic similarities and

differences between how geographers define

and theorize publicity and public space and

how lay people directly involved in public

space controversies will define and theorize

these. These similarities and differences, tothe extent they exist, are politically important,

and they are important to the broader public

sphere discourse. Our analysis in the rest of

the article, therefore, explores how discussions

of the public, its significance, and its location

unfold in academic research and political

practice.

III Locating the public in public space

research

1 Analysis of the Literature

Even a cursory glance at the geographic

literature on public space indicates that

geographers vary widely in how they define

the public, public space, and publicity. To

undertake our analysis, we coded each of

the 218 public space books, chapters, and

articles first in terms of keywords that de-

fined public space for the author (eg, street,

park, danger, place of sociability, meeting

place, open space, etc.). Many pieces con-

tained more than one definitional element

(eg, public space was the street, and it

was a place of display; public space wasopen space and it contained an element of

danger). Second, we also determined through

keyword or more accurately key phrase

analysis, the reasons authors understood

public space to be important (eg, it is a place

of politics, it provides open space in a crowded

city, it is essential to democracy). Determin-

ing definitions and recording importance

was an inductive exercise. The categories we

created arose from the literature itself. This

strategy allowed us to assess both the rangeof definitional elements and their relative

frequency.

The most common definitions of public

space are unsurprising (Table 1). Definitions

that stressed the physical aspects of public

space were apparent in 37% of the literature,

while some 27% of the literature defined public

Table 1

Definition of public space* Number of articles % ArticlesPhysical definition (eg, streets, parks, etc.) 80 37%

Meeting place or place for interaction 58 27%

Sites of negotiation, contest or protest 51 23%

Public sphere, no physical form 34 16%

Opposite of private space 32 15%

Sites of display 28 13%

Public ownership, public property 25 12%

Places of contact with strangers 23 11%

Sites of danger, threat, violence 21 10%

Places of exchange relations (eg, shopping) 19 9%Space of community 18 8%

Space of surveillance 17 8%

Places of open access no or few limits 16 7%

Places lacking control by individuals 15 7%

Places governed by open forum doctrine 12 6%

Idealized space no physical form 5 2%

* Multiple definitions in an article are possible. Definitions are not mutually exclusive.

http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/


8/21


space as a meeting place stressing its social

and/or political function. Perhaps reflecting a

critical edge in geographic research on public

space, the third most common definition

seemed to link public space to negotiation

and contestation an agonistic view of pub-

lic space (23%). It is notable that some 16%of the literature in geography linked public

space to the public sphere and specified no

identifiable material form. Another 2% de-

fined public space as idealized and with no

material form, but did not make reference

to the public sphere.

The variety of definitions of public space

in the literature was matched by the variety

of stated reasons as to why public space

was important (Table 2). Here, public space

was indicated as important for functionalor sociable activities such as meeting and

walking (33%), but also because of its role in

democracy and political movements (30%).

A like number (30%) figured public space as

important for socialization into community

norms, while 15% noted it as important for

building community, and 16% for forming

and affirming identity. In short, all these

stated reasons of importance indicate that

geographers see public space as crucial for

creating or sustaininga public. Meanwhile, and

not necessarily at odds with the above, some

23% of the articles stressed the importance

of public space as a site where conflicts are

expressed and sometimes worked through.

Based on this counting method, it seemed

that there were two primary ways in which

public space and publicity were discussed inthe geographical literature. One set of dis-

cussions emphasized the democratic and

political nature of public space (both affir-

matively and critically), and the second

emphasized its social function (also both

affirmatively and critically). This impression

was confirmed through a cluster analysis

of the definitions of public space and the

importance of public space. Using K-means

cluster analysis,6 two clusters emerged.

The first cluster included those articles thatdescribed public space as a meeting place,

but one characterized by danger, contact

with strangers, and lack of individual control.

The importance of public space, in this first

cluster, was as a place for socialization and

for identity formation and affirmation made

possible by the functions that occurred in

public space, such as walking, recreation,

and casual interactions; 141 articles were

included in this cluster. The second cluster

(74 articles) included those articles that also

Table 2

Importance of public space Number of articles % Articles

Important due to function (eg, walking, gathering) 72 33%

Socialization, behavior modification, discipline 66 30%

Democracy, politics, social movemements 65 30%

Sites of contest 51 23%

Sites of identify formation 35 16%

Places for fun, vitality, urbanity, spirit of city 33 15%Building community or social cohesion 32 15%

Sites of identity affirmation 30 14%

Living space (eg, for homeless people) 26 12%

Justice** 0 0%

Number of articles 218

* Multiple senses of importance are possible. Answers are not mutually exclusive.

** Identified by researchers in interviews, but not in articles.



9/21


described public space as a meeting place,

but this time characterized by negotiation

and conflict, surveillance, displays of ideas,

public ownership and accompanying legal

doctrines, and high degrees of accessibility.

The importance of public space in this second

cluster was as a location for democracy,politics, and social movements.

In Weintraubs terms, the literature on

public space primarily conceives of it in

terms of the sociability and republican virtue

models. While Marxist, feminist, and liberal-

economic theories might significantly influ-

ence approaches taken and the construction

of research project,normatively geographers

seem to be primarily interested in public space

in relation to politics, community, and identity.

If the state or business interests have a role toplay in these, it is in terms of enabling or under-

mining the possibilities for sociability and

politics, not as publics in and of themselves.

2 Analysis of interviews with researchers

Inferring definitions of public space and its

importance from the literature is difficult,

however, as many articles define terms and

signal importance only indirectly. Further-

more, authors often tailor their operation-

alization of terms and concepts to the goalsof a journal or edited book, to address re-

viewer commentaries, or to intervene into

specific debates in the literature. To look

more deeply into the ways researchers them-

selves understand the relationship between

publicity and public space, therefore, we

conducted 25 interviews with a subset of the

authors of this literature. In these interviews

we asked respondents directly to define pub-

lic space and to discuss its importance; in so

doing we sought to understand how theydefined the public.7

These interviews showed, in fact, that

there are identifiable differences or perhaps

nuances between how geographers write

about public space and how they articulate

their interest in and knowledge of it. The

most common definitions of public space in-

ferred from the interviews was as a meeting

place (occurring in 44% of the interviews8)

and as a place lacking control by specific

individuals (44%) (Table 3). What was strik-

ing in the interviews, however, was the re-

duced importance of definitions that stressed

material, physical spaces (8%) as compared to

the idealized spaces of the public sphere thatwas woven into the fabric of the city in ways

that could not easily be separated from private

spaces. Similarly, definitions of public space

as a site of contestation were relatively rare

in the interviews (8%) in comparison with the

literature.9 Perhaps reflecting a more abstract

way of discussing publicity and public space,

many of the researchers we interviewed

noted that the meaning of public space and

its importance were contingent historically,

spatially, and with regard to the issue beingstudied a position not absent, but also not as

readily apparent, in the literature itself.

As in the articles, the importance of public

space was discussed in terms of engaging

in democratic action (32% of interviews)

(Table 4). More strongly represented in the

interviews than in the articles, however, were

arguments that stressed the importance of

public space in terms of identity formation

(24%), identity affirmation (24%), and com-

munity building/social cohesion (32%). Con-versely, interviewees downplayed the im-

portance of public space as a site for specific

functions such as walking or gathering (8%

of interviews) or socialization/behavioral

modifications (4%). In essence, most of the

respondents held a conceptualization of the

public (and thus the importance of public

space) that is rooted in forms of sociability.

However, central to many of the interviews

was an argument that sociability was vital for

building a more inclusive public realm. At work,therefore, was a conceptualization of public

space and the public that was normatively

political, to some degree bridging Weintraubs

categories of sociability and republican

virtue, in a way that was less apparent in the

published literature, where more clear-cut

categorizations were apparent.



10/21


Table 3

Definition of public space*

Number of

articles

%

Articles

Number of

researchers

%

Researchers

Physical definition (eg, streets, parks, etc.) 80 37% 2 8%

Meeting place or place for interaction 58 27% 11 44%

Sites of negotiation, contest or protest 51 23% 2 8%

Public sphere, no physical form 34 16% 5 20%

Opposite of private space 32 15% 5 20%

Sites of display 28 13% 1 4%

Public ownership, public property 25 12% 3 12%

Places of contact with strangers 23 11% 0 0%

Sites of danger, threat, violence 21 10% 0 0%

Places of exchange relations (eg, shopping) 19 9% 1 4%

Space of community 18 8% 2 8%

Space of surveillance 17 8% 1 4%

Places of open access no or few limits 16 7% 0 0%Places lacking control by individuals 15 7% 11 44%

Places governed by open forum doctrine 12 6% 1 4%

Idealized space no physical form 5 2% 3 12%

* Multiple definitions in an article or interview are possible. Definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Table 4

Importance of public space*

Number of

articles

%

Articles

Number of

researchers

%

Researchers

Important due to function (eg, walking,

gathering)

72 33% 2 8%

Socialization, behavior modification,

discipline

66 30% 1 4%

Democracy, politics, social movemements 65 30% 8 32%

Sites of contest 51 23% 4 16%

Sites of identify formation 35 16% 6 24%

Places for fun, vitality, urbanity, spirit

of city

33 15% 3 12%

Building community or social cohesion 32 15% 8 32%

Sites of identity affirmation 30 14% 6 24%

Living space (eg, for homeless people) 26 12% 3 12%

Justice** 0 0% 3 12%

Number of articles/researchers 218 25

* Multiple senses of importance are possible. Answers are not mutually exclusive.

** Identified by researchers in interviews, but not in articles.



11/21


3 Summary and conclusions: academic

perspectives

In sum, it appears from the literature and

interviews that academic geographers

primarily work with models of publicity

that associate the public with community,

polity, and citizenship, and that emphasizesociability. They associate (both positively

and negatively) such models of publicity with

spaces that are open, struggled over and in,

and that are sites, or foundations, for identity

formation, community building, and social

cohesion. In so doing geographic discourse

tends to outline a narrower conceptual uni-

verse focusing on only two of Weintraubs

four categories than does political theory

more broadly. Yet even within this narrower

universe there are identifiable differences inhow geographers write about publicity and

public space as compared to the ways they

talk about it (Table 5).

Yet, it is important to note that not all

of the respondents linked sociability with

politics, in part because of the ways they

conceptualize publicspace. Indeed some re-

spondents actively rejected the relationship

between sociability, politics, and public space

giving voice to a significant undercurrent in

the literature and indicating how varied thefield really is. As one person argued:

I think that the term public space, when used

in academia perhaps, has been maybe over

politicized or prematurely politicized. In other

words, if someone says public space, planners

and architects kind of look at each other like

oh-oh, here we go again. I have a basic

disagreement with a lot of critical geographers in

that Ive found that almost everyone is allowed

in [public space]. Im more optimistic, Im

happier with the situation than I believe most

critical geographers are. I dont see very many

people being excluded. And the ones who are,very often, are the ones that I would exclude if

I had the option.

Throughout the interview, this person

allies himself with the general, non-academic

public, and he suggests that people outside

the academy may hold another set of ideas

about what makes a space public, about the

significance of public space, and about the

appropriateness of different uses of space.

Following his lead, we explored this possibility

through interviews with people actively

involved in public space controversies in five

US cities.

IV The public according to the public

1 Similarities and differences with the

academic discourse

The participants in public space controver-

sies whom we interviewed were identified

through newspaper searches and snowball

strategies, and thus it is unlikely that theyare representative of how the public as a

whole conceptualizes publicity and public

space. Nonetheless, because our interviews

concerned five quite different public space

struggles, and included a range of people

from planners to activists, from business

leaders to architects, and from police to inter-

ested lay people, they do give an idea of

the range of conceptualizations. From their

responses to our questions, it seems that

participants in public space controversies maythink about these issues differently than do

academic researchers. The results reported

in Tables 6 and 7 undoubtedly reflect the

very different kinds of issues we addressed

in the case studies and the contingency in

the ways people understand publicity a

contingency that many of the academic re-

searchers highlighted in interviews. Given

Table 5

Classification of

public

Academic

research

Academic

interviews

Liberal-economistic:

Public is state

Not

mentioned

Not

mentioned

Republican-virtue

Public is polity

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Sociability: Public is

representation

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Marxist-feminist:

Public is market

and state

Not

mentioned

Secondary

empasis



12/21


Table6

Definitionofpublicspace*

Number

articles

%Articles

N

umber

acad.

int.

%of

acad.

int.

Total

siteints.

%Siteint.

NewYork

San

Diego

SantaFe

Syracuse

Washington

Physicaldefinition(eg,streets,

parks,etc.)

80

37

2

8

11

17

3

3

4

1

Meetingplace,placeofinteraction

58

27

11

44

11

17

2

8

1

Siteofnegotiation,contestor

protest

51

23

2

8

1

2

1

Publicsphere,nophysical

form

34

16

5

20

0

0

Oppositeofprivatespace

32

15

5

20

3

5

1

2

Siteofdisplay

28

13

1

4

0

0

Publicownership,publicp

roperty

25

12

3

12

15

24

4

4

2

2

3

Placeofcontactwithstrangers

23

11

0

0

1

2

1

Sitesofdanger,threat,vio

lence

21

10

0

0

0

0

Placesofexchangerelations(eg,

shopping)

19

9

1

4

3

5

2

1

Spaceofcommunity

18

8

2

8

9

14

7

1

1

Spaceofsurveillnace

17

8

1

4

0

0

Placeofopenaccessnoorfew

limitations

16

7

0

0

12

19

5

1

3

1

2

Placeslackingcontrolbyindividuals

15

7

11

44

0

0

Placesgovernedbyopenforum

doctrine

12

6

1

4

3

5

1

2

Idealizedspacenophysicalform

5

2

3

12

1

2

1

Places

forpeop

le/pu

blic

byuse**

5

8

3

2

Placesma

de

bythepu

blic/p

ublic

sweatequity**

8

13

8

Numberofarticles/interviews

218

25

63

17

17

14

6

9

*Multipledefinitionsarepossible.Itisalsopossiblepeopleofferednodefinition.

**Definitionsfrominterviewswithparticipants,butnotidentifiedintheliteratue.



13/21


Table7

Impotanceofpublicspace

*

Number

articles

%ArticlesN

umber

acad.

int.

%of

acad.

int.

Total

siteints.

%Siteint.

NewYork

San

Diego

SantaFe

Syracuse

Washington

Functionalimportancew

alking,

meetingplace

72

33

2

8

9

14

0

0

6

3

0

Socialization,behaviormodification,

discipline

66

30

1

4

1

2

0

1

0

0

0

Democracy,politics,socia

l

movements,etc.

65

30

8

32

13

21

3

2

1

1

6

Sitesofcontest

51

23

4

16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sitesofidentityformation

35

16

6

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Placeforfun,vitality,urbanity,

spiritofcity

33

15

3

12

7

11

3

2

1

1

0

Buildingcommunity/socia

lcohesion

32

15

8

32

17

27

9

0

6

2

0

Sitesofidentityaffirmatio

n

30

14

6

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Livingspace(eg,forhomeless

people)

26

12

3

12

4

6

1

3

0

0

0

Justice**

0

0

3

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pu

blicgoo

d***

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

0

0

0

0

Greenspace***

0

0

0

0

4

6

3

0

1

0

0

Psychic,spiritua

lgoo

d***

0

0

0

0

4

6

2

0

2

0

0

Economicdeve

lopment***

0

0

0

0

6

10

0

6

0

0

0

Numberofarticles/interviews

218

63

17

17

14

6

9

*Multiplecommentsarepossible.Somerespondentsmaynothavesaidwhyitwasimportant.

**Offeredbyacademicin

terviewees,butnotinliteratureor

bysiterespondents.

***Offeredbysiterespondentsbutnotidentifiedintheliteratureoracademicinterviews.



14/21


the uneven numbers of people interviewed

and who spoke about publicity in each case

study, direct comparisons are rather difficult,

although they do provide a rough indication

of the importance of particular definitions

and meanings in each of the controversies.

We are more interested, then, in the relativeimportance of the different definitions of-

fered by the participants, than we are in the

absolute numbers.

As with the research literature and re-

search interviews, defining public space in

terms of physical attributes (17%), relative

openness (19%), and as a meeting place (17%)

is common (see Table 6). But the single most

common definition among our public space

interviewees was defining public space in

terms of ownership (24%). The academicliterature, by contrast, turned up instances

of public space being defined by ownership

in only 11% of the articles, and was raised in

only 12% of the academic interviews. Simi-

larly, our site interviews yielded definitions

related to community (14%) far more frequ-

ently than did the literature (8%) or academic

interviews (8%). Finally, it was relatively com-

mon in our site interviews for public space to

be defined in terms of a space made through

the sweat equity of the public (13%), a defin-ition that did not appear at all in the other two

sources.10

Despite these definitional differences,

there are also clear similarities. While site

interviewees tended to conceptualize the

importance of public space more strongly in

terms of community than either the academic

literature or the academic interviews, and

while academics tended to focus more on

issues of democracy than community, both

sets of respondents (and the literature) foundaspects of the sociability of public space

to be important. And yet the differences

are telling. None of the participants in the

controversies defined public space in terms

of display, danger, lacking control, or as a

space of surveillance, all keywords in the

critical geography literature and among geo-

graphers who would likely adopt that label.

No participants in the site interviews dis-

cussed the importance of public space in terms

of identity formation or affirmation, both

of which were important to the researchers

we interviewed. In addition, the participants

had little use for the more conceptual or

theoretical definitions of public space; theydid not talk about space in the abstract or

public space as a foundation for the public

sphere, as was the case in the literature and

our interviews with researchers.

It would be incorrect, however, to infer

that participants in the controversies were

less capable of or less likely to talk about

public space conceptually. For instance,

many people discussed public space as a site

of community or democracy. Others talked

about public spaces as spaces of spiritualityand about public space as a site where the

public good could be achieved. Still others

talked about public space almost in the

same sense as Lefebvre (1996) as spaces

constructed and imbued with meaning be-

cause the publicmade the space what it was.

There was a lot of critical theory expressed

in our interviews with participants in public

space controversies, albeit in a language

that was rather different from that used by

academics.

2 Differences among cases

There are interesting and important differ-

ences among cases, however, that are also

important. Our focus in New York City, for

instance, was on community gardens, which

were built by residents in (predominantly)

low-income neighborhoods on property

that was essentially squatted by gardeners;

they claimed the space for the gardens even

though the property was owned by the citygovernment (see Staeheli et al., 2002). We

were drawn to the gardens because of the

controversy that erupted when then-Mayor

Rudolph Giuliani tried to auction the garden

lands to developers, thereby threatening

the gardens and displacing the gardeners.

While we tried to interview city officials, many

were reluctant to speak with us (although



15/21


we did interview representatives of the

Department of Housing Preservation, the

Parks Department, and the citys Green

Thumb community garden support pro-

gram). As a result, most of our interviews

were with gardeners and their supporters.

Their definition of public space very muchfocused on spaces that were owned by the

city, but that were actively made public by

people coming together, creating gardens

out of wasteland, and thereby building spaces

in which communities were forged. Many

respondents noted that the gardens were

the site of nascent political mobilization,

although most people who talked about this

did not ascribe these mobilizations to public

space, per se. Rather, the gardens which

happened to be on publicly-owned property provided a venue for gathering and it was

in the gathering that political mobilizations

began to take hold. Public space, then, was a

tool or a resource that was utilized in the for-

mation of a sense of public-ness of publicity

among the activists, but it was not a source

orwell-spring of publicity in and of itself. The

activists emphasized, as well, that they were

the ones who made the space public and

indeed who made the spaces meaningful for

the public; the spaces did not pre-exist aspublic spaces.

Our respondents in Santa Fe also empha-

sized public space as a place where people

gathered, but they talked about public space

as very much related to physical places that

were made by government, rather than about

places made by the people; in this way, the

Plaza in Santa Fe was quite different from

the community gardens. Even with that dif-

ference, however, people in Santa Fe also

talked about the importance of public spacein terms of its role in providing a space for

community and sociability (see Mitchell and

Staeheli, 2005b). Our respondents in New

York and Santa Fe were the only people in all

of our interviews and our reading who ascribed

a spiritual importance to public space. Indeed,

one of our respondents organized a gathering

with a shaman to purge the Santa Fe Plaza of

evil and racist spirits that spoiled the sacred

nature of the public spaces and of the people

who occupied it.

These first two examples suggested the

importance of public space for community,

and at least in New York, as a space of politics.

The respondents in San Diego and Syracuse,however, were rather different. In San Diego,

we were interested in the ways that home-

less people who often use public space as

their living space were treated in the eco-

nomic redevelopment of the historic areas

of the city (see Mitchell and Staeheli, 2006).

In a sense we were interested in whether

homeless people were perceived to be, or able

to act as, part of the public. Because of that

interest, we did not ask people directly about

their definitions of public space, althoughsome people did define it without our asking.

For the most part, we asked whether certain

members of the public were excluded from

the redeveloped spaces; from there, it was

possible to make some inferences about our

interviewees definition of public space. In this

context, public space tended to be defined in

terms of ownership and accessibility, and in

terms of physical features, such as streets,

parks, and sidewalks. The importance of

public space was rather diffusely discussed,but the most common issues included the

ways in which public space served as living

or gathering space for homeless people and

how this contradicted its importance to

economic development and for creating vital,

urbane spaces. There are differences here

compared to the ways people discussed pub-

lic space in New York City differences that

may reflect our success in talking with both

advocates for homeless people and with

representatives of organizations workingfor economic development and further

gentrification of the historic district of San

Diego. In our San Diego interviews, com-

munity was not mentioned at all, except

by one respondent who believed that com-

munity was threatened by the presence of

homeless people, reflecting perhaps an idea

that the development of community and



16/21


a polity were not as relevant as promoting

urban development. How homeless people

fit into the public of San Diego was a question

that was not resolved, either through policies

regulating their presence in public space or

through public debate.

In Syracuse, a similar emphasis on eco-nomic development permeated our interviews

as we discussed the redevelopment of a mall

that was reliant on public subsidies. In this

case, public space was defined by participants

uniformly in terms of public ownership and

it was seen as being important because of

the functions that could be enacted there

functions such as walking, meeting, casual

interactions, and a certain latitude for both

deviant behaviors and political activity.

Public space was contrasted directly withprivately-owned, but publicly-accessible

spaces that might provide some of those

functions (walking, casual interactions) but

not others (deviant behavior, political actions).

What does not emerge in this accounting is as

interesting as what does. In this case, private

spaces were seen as being more conducive to

community formation and socialization to

the formation of a public precisely because

the mall owners could exclude people who

would potentially disrupt the sociability ofcommunity.11 At the same time, many of the

interviewees recognized that the nature of

the public formed in the mall was shaped by

both the rights of the property owner and the

main function of the space shopping (Staeheli

and Mitchell, 2006).

In Washington, we explored a classic

public space issue: protest. In this case, most

of our interviews were with people who used

public space as a site for protest or who were

involved in the regulation and managementof protest, or litigation over it (see Mitchell

and Staeheli, 2005a). As might be expected,

a very different picture emerged in terms of

what constitutes public space and its sig-

nificance than what we found in other cases.

In Washington, public space has a very specific

meaning to our respondents: government-

owned spaces that should be accessible with

few restrictions, and where public forum

doctrine guaranteeing rights to speech and

assembly was in force. Above all, according

to these respondents, public space was where

democratic freedoms were exercised and

sometimes tested. In a few cases, people

discussed this in terms of fostering a politicalcommunity, but most people talked about

the importance of individual rights. They also

talked about the various balancing acts in

which government owners had to engage,

both to protect individual rights in public

space and to maintain order. Sociability and

the political economy were not discussed

at all.

What should we make of these five case

studies exploring different kinds of public

space controversies? Without implying thatour interviewees were representative or that

all government officials, economic develop-

ment promoters, or citizen-activists would

take like positions on public space and its im-

portance, we are nonetheless struck by the

different ways that ideas of public and pub-

licity were invoked in the interviews. To some

degree, how people define public space and

emphasize its importance seems situational.

That is, within the context of a controversy

about economic development, respondentsseemed to draw on framings that saw the

public as a co-joined state-business entity,

whether they were promoters of economic

development or highly critical of it; when

discussing public subsidies of private mall

development, liberal-economist arguments

came to the fore, including among those

who sought to open up the mall for greater

political action; and in discussion of protest,

republican-virtue languages predominated,

particularly among the police we interviewedwho were charged with managing protest,

and who were often quite critical of protesters

tactics. As Table 8 summarizes, across the

cases the full range of Weintraubs categories

were drawn upon; within cases, however,

the discourse was much more focused and

depended on the issues at hand.



17/21


That is to say, as with our interviews

with public space researchers, definitions ofpublic space, the public, and publicity, and

discussions of their importance seem to be

contingent, not fixed. Weintraubs categories

are thus best seen as heuristics that allow us

to begin to question the degree of flexibility in

the discourse over public space and publicity

the degree to which discursive constructs are

a fluid resource ready to be deployed in debate

and struggle or the degree to which they

channel or shape understandings and perhaps

make meanings relatively incommensurable.Our respondents could fluently, and clearly,

shift the meaning of public in response to our

questions and in order to make a point about

the control and regulation of space. In common

usage, as in academic discourse, this flexibility

this multivalance of the term public can

be both a discursive resource and a source

of confusion or dissonance. Complexity of

terminology reflects the complexity of the

issues and the contentiousness of the politics

that often surround them.

V Implications for research and practice

As heuristics, Weintraubs categories allow

questions to be raised about the relationship

between academic research and the ways

it is or is not equivalent to the discourse at

large in the public. Table 9 brings together

the results from all our data sources. What

is significant is the degree that particular

framings of public are part of everyday en-gagement with the world in this case as

revealed through public space controversies

but not part of the conceptual lexicon of

public space researchers. At the same time,

it is apparent that scholars rarely work from a

singular framing of the public such as purely

liberal-economistic or purely Marxist-feminist

framings even when they seek to develop

normative political theories about what public

space and publicityshouldbe.

The point is not necessarily to changeacademic language, or to seek to reform pub-

lic discourses (as if that was so simple), but

rather to understand the different framings

at work when the public, publicity, and public

space are invoked. The point is to understand

how and why these differences matter. If the

range of definitions at work across our cases is

at all indicative, then the fact that the public

or lay language of publicity and public space

draws on a larger set of discursive framings

than does academic geographys discourseabout publicity and public space is an important

finding. It is important empirically because it

suggests new avenues of research, such as

how popular understandings of the public as

the government are translated into specific

spatial outcomes, or conversely how different

characteristics of space reinforce such liberal-

economistic framings in everyday life. It is also

Table 8

Classification of public

New York:

Community

Gardens

San Diego:

Redevelopment

Santa Fe:

Plaza

Syracuse:

Shopping

Mall

Washington,

DC: Protest

Liberal-economistic:

Public is state

Not

mentioned

Not mentioned Not

mentioned

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasisRepublican virtue:

Public is polity

Primary

emphasis

Not mentioned Primary

emphasis

Not

mentioned

Primary

emphasis

Sociability: Public is

representation

Not

mentioned

Not mentioned Secondary

emphasis

Not

mentioned

Not

mentioned

Marxist-feminist:

Public is market

and state

Not

mentioned

Primary

emphasis

Not

mentioned

Not

mentioned

Not

mentioned



18/21


important because it suggests that there are

othernormative framings of public space thanthose on which geographers have heretofore

concentrated.

Understanding the range of framings at

large in the public, and their relation to

academic framings, likewise points to the

perhaps obvious point that the same words

and concepts can be interpreted in very dif-

ferent ways depending on a host of contin-

gent factors, including the nature of the spe-

cific issues at hand (eg, redevelopment vs.

community gardening, or protest vs. publicsubsidy of publicly accessible private pro-

perty). Though perhaps obvious, such a focus

on contingency within overall discursive and

material structures is crucial for understand-

in g why both academics and lay people

understand publicity and public space in the

ways that they do. In the never-ending desire

to increase geographys public relevance,

such attention to contingency is vital. Yet at

the same time, our interviews with particip-

ants in public space controversies showed usthat they were often eager to hear how we

conceptualized public space and the public.

They saw us, not infrequently, as a resource

perhaps not one they would seek out in the

midst of a political struggle, but at least within

the opportunities created by the interview

for deepening their own understandings or

seeing public space and its importance anew.

The crucial issue here is that definitional

differences matter. They matter becausethey form the basis from which social agents

academic, activist, policy-making, or political

attempt to intervene in the spaces of the city

in order to achieve particular normative goals.

They are often, thus, precisely the basis for

conflict, since they indicate the ineluctably

political nature of the meaning of the public,

publicity and public space. How people

understand the meaning and importance

of public, publicity and public space sets the

terms for the kinds of democracy and citizen-ship at stake in public controversies and

how that might be achieved within actually-

existing democracy (Fraser, 1990).

It is therefore important to understand

that, while def initions of public space and

publicity vary with different positions and

assumptions,usagevaries too. People struggling

through specific public space controversies,

and academics seeking to make sense of

those, are often flexible in their usage of

public, public space, publicity, and the like,even as that flexibility is necessarily shaped

by well-worn discursive channels. Weintraubs

categories are both an empirical description

of political theory and, we suggest, an accur-

ate representation of the taken-for-granteds

in public discourse. Drawing on seemingly

commonsense notions of the public as the

state, or as the people, or on publicity as

Table 9

Classification of

public

Academic

Research

Academic

Interviews

New

York

San

Diego

Santa Fe Syracuse Washington

Liberal-

economistic:

Public is state

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Republican virtue:

Public is polity

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Sociability: Public

is representation

Primary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis

Secondary

emphasis

Marxist-feminist:

Public is market

and state

Secondary

emphasis

Primary

emphasis



19/21


sociability, allows for the making of points

and staking out of positions (even as it tends

to reproduce exactly these commonsense

notions). This is not necessarily a handicap,

but rather reflects both the complexity of the

issues and ideas, and the exigencies of the

moment. Understanding how and why spe-cific usages are employed at particular mo-

ments is an essential clue to the different

assumptions and positions people hold.

As such, a crucial implication of the analy-

sis presented here is that any analysis of how

and why specific usages are employed must

be wedded to an analysis of the relative

ability to act on the normative visions and

politics that different definitions of the public

invoke. For example, that police officers and

agencies charged with regulating protestunderstand publicity through something like

a republican-virtue model is important, for

this is a drastic change from even a generation

ago (eg, Marx, 1998). Understanding how they

interpret that model is even more important.

Most important, yet, is an analysis of how

and how they arenot able to implement their

version of publicity-through-protest. It is an

important analysis, as protest policing has

been regularized through what is called a

negotiated public order management system(McPhailet al., 1998), such that the police

have the power to guide organizers along a

path acceptable to the political authorities

(Fillieule and Jobard, 1998: 78); through this

power, they exert control over public space and

implement a normative vision that enforces a

particular conceptualization of the public and

publicity.

The people involved in debates over pub-

licity and actions in public space just what

locates the public are positioned differentlyin relation to social power. For those people or

social groups who are marginalized, finding a

space to be seen or heard, or simply tobe is vital

to their ability to develop a political subjectivity

and a sense of worthiness as a citizen; this is

important for themselves as political subjects

and to their struggles to gain recognition from

the state and the political community. How

they conceptualize publicity and the public,

thus, is vital to how andwhere they struggle

for recognition. Political communities have

different sources of social power that may

draw from their prior recognition, the con-

ferral of legitimacy, and their ability to organize

in ways that allow them to advance their ownpolitical and social goals. The state and eco-

nomic institutions have their own sources of

power, and as we have seen, may have their

own ways of conceptualizing publicity. Under-

standing these differences is important if we

as academics and as people who may hope to

contribute to particular visions of the public

are to contribute to debates that are public, in

all senses of that term.

AcknowledgementThis research was funded by National

Science Foundation grant BCS-9819828;

that support is greatly appreciated. Thanks

also to three anonymous referees and to

Pilar Palacia and her staff at the Villa Serbelloni

who made it possible to complete an earlier

draft of this article.

Notes1. The literature on the public, publicity, and public

space, of course, is far larger than that produced by

geographers. But it is also the case that geographic

research over the past generation has drawn on

an exceptionally wide range of political theory,

epistemological foundations, and ontological

starting points, and thus serves as a useful con-

densation of contemporary theorizing about the

public.

2. We selected researchers who have a PhD because

we assumed that their writing was more likely

to reflect their own thinking about publicity and

public space without the direct or guiding hand

of the advisor. We limited our focus to academics

working in the United States for reasons related

to the overall project rationale, which includedresearch on how academic work becomes rele-

vant within a particular national setting: see

Staeheli and Mitchell (2005).

3. The analogy is with privacy: privacy refers to the

conditions for and of being private; publicity refers

to the conditions for and of being public.

4. Weintraubs categories, it must be remembered,

are descriptive of the discourse, and thus some

who ascribe to particular discursive positionings



20/21


might not ascribe to the label Weintraub gives them.

Plenty of institutions many Christian churches, for

example figure the public as the state and econ-

omy and the private as the domestic and familial,

but cannot themselves be described as Marxist-

feminist. Weintraubs label reflects the fact that it

was primarily Marxist and feminist political theory

that named and brought to the fore this kind ofanalysis. The point is that the multiple meanings

or understanding of public in the theoretical and

the lay discourse is reflected in practice and that

the multiplicity of meanings confounds debates

over the public in public space research and in public

space controversies.

5. Much of the legal literature on civility in public

space works through this model. See, for example,

Eillickson (1996); Tier (1993); for a critique, see

Amster (2004).

6. Cluster analysis can be used to analyze cases in

this instance, articles that have been coded in a

series of yes/no variables. It then groups, or clusters,

cases together by the degree to which they share

definitions.

7. The coding process for the interview transcripts was

the same as it was for the literature.

8. With 25 interviews, we realize that the use of per-

centages may distort the impression of difference

in responses. We use the percentages here, so that

comparisons across the definitions from articles and

interviews can be made more easily.

9. Note that a total of 4 interviewees listed the

importance of public space as a site of contest (see

Table 4): that is to say, two researchers did not

include contestation as part of their operational

definition of public space, but did understand it aspart of its normative importance.

10. Some of our interviewees found our questions about

how to define public space silly. As one woman in

Santa Fe exclaimed, Its a plaza! Duh! Of course it

is public!, suggesting that on the ground the public-

ness of a space often seems self-evident.

11. Similar concerns were expressed by some of the

respondents in Santa Fe and San Diego, where they

noted that the easy accessibility to public spaces of

the Plaza or downtown by undesirable people

people who make them feel uncomfortable had

the effect of making a different segment of the

public feel unwilling to participate in public life.

ReferencesAbler, R. 1983: Desiderata for geography: an insti-

tutional view from the United States. In Johnston,

R.J., editor, The challenge for geography: a changing

world, a changin g discipl ine? Oxford: Blackwell,

21538.

Airs, P. 1962: Centuries of childhood: a social history of

family life. New York: Vintage Press.

Amster, R. 2004: Street people and the contested realms

of public space. New York: LFB Books.

Beaumont, J. Loopmans, M. and Uitermark, J.

2005: Politicization of research and the relevance of

geography: some experiences and reflections for an

ongoing debate.Area 37, 11826.

Berman, M. 1983:All that is solid melts into air. New

York: Simon and Schuster.Blomley, N. 1994: Activism and the academy.Environ-

ment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12, 38385.

Castree, N. 2000: Professionalism, activism, and the

university: whither critical geography?Environment

and Planning A, 32, 95570.

Cohen, J. and Arato, A. 1992: Civil society and political

theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Davis, M. 1990: City of quartz. London: Verso.

Domosh, M. 1998: Those gorgeous incongruities:

polite politics and public space on the streets of 19th

century New York City.Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 82, 20926.

Ellickson, R. 1996: Controlling chronic misconduct in city

spaces: of panhandlers, skid rows, and public-space

zoning. Yale Law Journal, 105, 1165249.

Etzioni, A. 1993: The Spirit of Community. New York:

Touchstone.

Fillieule, O. andJobard, F. 1998: The policing of protest

in France: toward a model of protest policing. In Della

Porta, D. and Reiter, H., editors,Policing protest: the

control of mass demonstrations in western democracies.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 7090.

Fincher, R. 2004: From dualisms to multiplicities: gen-

dered political practices. In Staeheli, L., Kofman,

E. and Peake, L., editors, Mapping women, making

politics: feminist perspectives on political geography.

New York: Routledge, 4969.Fraser, N. 1990: Rethinking the public sphere: a

contribution to the critique of actually existing dem-

ocracy. Social Text, 25/26, 5680.

Goffman, E. 1959: The presentation of self in everyday

life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goss, J. 1993: The magic of the mall: an analysis of form,

function and meaning in the retail built environment.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers,

83, 1847.

Goss, J. 1999: Once-upon-a-time in the commodity

world: an unofficial guide to the Mall of America.


89, 4575.

Habermas, J. 1970: Toward a rational society: student

protest, science, and polit ics. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.

Harman, J. 2003: Whither geography? The Professional

Geographer, 55, 41521.

Healy, P. 1992: A planners day: knowledge and action

in communicative practice. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 58, 920.

Jacobs, J. 1961: The death and life of great American cities.

New York: Vintage Press.



21/21


Lees, L. 1998: Urban renaissance and the street: spaces

of control and contestation. In Fyfe, N., editor,Images

of the street: planning, identity and control in public

space. London: Routledge, 23653.

Lefebvre, H. 1996: The right to the city. In Koffman,

E. and Lebas, E., editors and translators, Writings on

cities. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marston, S. 1990: Who are the people?: gender,citizenship, and the making of the American nation,

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 8,

44958.

Martin, R. 2001: Geography and public policy: the case

of the missing agenda.Progress in Human Geography,

25, 189201.

Marx, G. 1998: Undercover: police surveillance in America.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Massey, D. 2004: Geographies of responsibility.

Geografiska AnnalerB, 86, 518.

McDowell, L. 1983: Towards an understanding of the

gender division of urban space. Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 5972.

McPhail, C., Schweingruber, D. and McCarthy, J.

1998: Policing protest in the United States: 19601995.

In Della Porta, D. and Reiter, H., editors, Policing

protest: the control of mass demonstrations in western

democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

press, 4969.

Mitchell, D. 1995: The end of public space? Peoples

Park, definitions of the public, and democracy.


85, 15878.

Mitchell, D. and Staeheli, L. 2005a: Permitting protest:

parsing the fine geography of dissent in America.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,

29, 796813.2005b: Turning social relations into space: property,

law and the Plaza of Santa Fe, New Mexico.Landscape

Research, 30, 36178.

2006: Clean and safe? property redevelopment, public

space and homelessness in downtown San Diego. In

Low, S. and Smith, N., editors, The politics of public

space. New York: Routledge, 14375.

Morgan, E. 1988:Inventing the people: the rise of popular

sovereign ty in Eng land and America . New York:

Norton.

Murphy, A., de Blij, H.J., Turner, B.L., Gilmore,

R.W. and Gregory, D. 2005: Forum: the role

of geography in public debate. Progress in Human

Geography, 29, 16593.

Rose, G. 1990: The struggle for political democracy:

emancipation, gender, and geography. Environment

and Planning D: Society and Space, 8, 395408.

Ruddick, S. 1996: Young and homeless in Hollywood.

New York: Routledge.

Sennett, R. 1970: Uses of disorder: personal identity andcity life. New York: Knopf.

1992: The conscience of the eye: the design and social life

of cities. New York: W.W. Norton.

Sorkin, M., editor 1992: Variations on a theme park.

New York: Hill and Wang.

Staeheli, L. 1996: Publicity, privacy, and womens

political action.Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space, 14, 60119.

Staeheli, L. and Mitchell, D. 2005: The complex

politics of relevance in geography. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 95, 35772.

2006: USAs Destiny? Regulating space and creat-

ing community in American shopping malls, Urban

Studies, 43, 97792.

Staeheli, L., Mitchell, D. and Gibson, K. 2002: Con-

flicting rights to the city in New Yorks community

gardens. GeoJournal 58(2/3), 197205.

Tickell, A. 1998: Commentary: on critical geography

and civil society.Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space, 13, 23537.

Tier, R. 1993: Maintaining safety and civility in public

spaces: a constitutional approach to aggressive

begging.Louisiana Law Review, 54, 285338.

Ward, K. 2005: Geography and public policy: a recent

history of policy relevance. Progr ess in Hum an

Geography, 29, 31019.

Weintraub, J. 1995: The theory and politics of thepublic/private distinction. In Weinbtraub, J. and

Kumar, J. editors, Public and private in thought and

practice: perspectives on a grand dichotomy, Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press, 142.

Wilson, E. 1992: The sphinx in the city: Urban life, the

control of disorder, and women. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Young, I.M. 1990:Justice and the Politics of Difference,

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

staeheli and mitchell locating the public in research and practice

Documents