urban studies the emergence of portable urban …...cations of portable private-personal territories...

Article

Urban Studies1–17� Urban Studies Journal Limited 2014Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042098014524608usj.sagepub.com

The emergence of portableprivate-personal territory:Smartphones, social conductand public spaces

Tali HatukaTel Aviv University, Israel

Eran TochTel Aviv University, Israel

AbstractThis paper underscores the centrality of individual technological devices, particularly mobilephones, in structuring contemporary social interaction in public spaces. It illustrates the need tore-think the relationship between information and communications technologies and practices ofsociability in public spaces. Based on surveys of users of mobile phones (basic mobile phones andsmartphones), we explore the practices and actions of subjects in public spaces. Empirical analysisshows that the use of mobile phones and, particularly, smartphones, is gradually modifying thenormative constraints associated with place and social codes, simultaneously enhancing both asense of freedom and estrangement. Based on our findings, the paper suggests the concept ofportable private-personal territory to better understand the personal space individuals developwith the support of technology. Finally, the paper concludes with a reflection on the future impli-cations of portable private-personal territories for public spaces and cities.

Keywordsmobile computing, mobile phones, privacy, public spaces, social interaction

Received July 2012; accepted November 2013

Introduction

Smartphones expand our spheres of commu-nication. When walking in a park, one isengaged in juxtaposed spheres: ongoingemails, news sources, work affairs, privateconversations, and social networks. By tem-porarily disregarding one’s physical environ-ment and ignoring the people around, it isexpected that the device will take attention

and focus. This condition raises questions:how does this state of mind influence socialinteractions in a place? How does thisdynamic shape behaviour in public spaces?These queries are related to an ongoingdebate about the relationship among social

Corresponding author:

Tali Hatuka, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 39040, Israel.

Email: [email protected]

at Tel Aviv University on January 28, 2016usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://usj.sagepub.com/

interactions, information technology, andthe built environment. Of the vast body ofknowledge on this theme, we focus on twoongoing, related discussions in urban studiesas the basis for addressing these queries: 1)the role of public spaces in contemporarycities; and 2) the relation between informa-tion and communication technologies(ICTs) and people’s daily routines in cities.

Beginning with the discussion on publicand publicness, one can identify four key tra-jectories of thinking: 1) a liberal–economicversion, in which the public is defined by thestate and administrative functions; 2) arepublican virtue model, in which the publicsphere is conceptualised as pertaining tocommunity, the polity, and citizens; 3) amodel rooted in practices of sociability, inwhich the public refers to symbolic displaysand self-representation; and 4) a Marxist–feminist model, in which ‘public’ refers tothe state and economy (Weintraub, 1995).Although scholars conceptualise public dif-ferently (Staeheli and Mitchell, 2007), theytend to agree that the current concept ofpublic should be understood through theascendancy of a market-based paradigm andthe provision of public goods (Madanipour,2010: 3). Studies have shown that as a resultof a reduction in the size and scope of thestate, urban development has been trans-ferred to the private sector (Boyer, 1992;Miller, 2007; Mitchell, 1995; Zukin, 1995).However, beyond these processes of the pri-vatisation of publicness, it is acknowledgedthat the social nature of public space ischanging, in part due to feminist and gay lib-eration movements and to wider access tomedia, television, and immigration move-ments (Watson, 2006). In particular, it hasbeen argued that with the massive growth ofcities, public spaces become more impersonaland transient, playing a functional and sym-bolic role at best (Madanipour, 2010: 5;Sennet, 1976). Technology adds to thesechanges another layer that modifies the

dynamic of encounters and their variedforms. On the one hand, these changes turnpublic spaces into venues surveyed and con-trolled by authorities; on the other, theyenhance the flexible use of personal devicesby individuals. In fact, the reliance of citieson technology has made them inseparable inthe sense that the development and evolutionof both is co-dependent.

A situation in which cities would beaffected and radically transformed by ICTswas predicted in the early 1990s by scholarssuch as Manuel Castells (1989, 1996) insocial sciences, and William Mitchell (1999)in architecture. These authors particularlyemphasised the way telecommunicationswould modify and change the hierarchyamong cities worldwide, defining new rela-tionships between states and cities globally(Sassen, 1998). Their predictions came true,and in many societies today, technologicalsystems are becoming the ‘ordinary’ socio-technical world. Responding to this state ofaffairs, researchers have studied the impactof these systems on our daily lives, payingspecial attention to mobility, service systems,and physical spaces (Berry, 2010; De Souzae Silva and Frith, 2012; Hampton, 2010;Jensen, 2009; Shariful, 2010). Yet, parallel tothe ongoing fascination with ‘the way tech-nology liberates society’, other voices haveilluminated the dark side of technologicaldevices, seeing ‘technology as a means ofcontrol’ (Graham, 2002, 2005). This view oftechnology as a disciplinary tool that re-structures space, time, and relations amongactivities has been promoted by scholarswho have shown that technology is also ameans of saturating and sustaining contem-porary capitalist societies and deepeninginequalities (Graham, 2002, 2005; Lyon,2003; Thrift, 2004b).

Using these discussions as the back-ground for this study, we aim to advancecritical thinking on technology and spacewith particular attention to the daily

2 Urban Studies



practices of the individual subject (Massey,2005; Thrift, 2004a). In particular, weaddress the way mobile phones influence our‘interactions in public’ (Goffman, 1967) andthe way they assist in constructing a multidi-mensional set of social and spatial situations.As Erving Goffman noted, social situationsvary, and individuals’ reactions depend onhow much the individual is obliged to be inconnection with what is around him and thesocial context in which he is embedded(Goffman, 1963: 199). This argument is evenmore relevant today with the ICT revolu-tion, which blurs the lines between physicaland virtual space. It is important to remem-ber that it is through both means simultane-ously, not one or the other (De Souza e Silvaand Frith, 2012: 46), that the individual hasthe power to construct his personal spacewith varied tools. In this sense, mobile phoneusers imagine themselves able to communi-cate beyond the crowd as well as with it, asargued by Vicente Rafael:

Unlike computer users, cell phone owners aremobile, immersed in the crowd, yet able tocommunicate beyond it. Texting providesthem with a way out of their surroundings.Thanks to the cell phone, they need not bepresent to others around them. Even whenthey are part of a socially defined group – say,commuters or mourners – cell phone users arealways somewhere else, receiving and trans-mitting messages from beyond their physicallocation. (Rafael, 2003: 405)

Following these ideas, particularly thenotion of personal space as procedural(Iveson, 2007: 9), the premise of this paper isthat technological devices influence our dia-logical practices and joint actions betweensubjects as well as the spatial use of publicspace. Focusing on encounters in publicspaces, we elaborate on the way mobilephone users (basic mobile phones andsmartphones) act in public spaces. Our argu-ment is twofold: first, mobile phones

contribute to the development of what wecall portable private-personal territory(PPPT), a personal space that individualsdevelop and that is characterised by a multi-dimensional set of social and spatial relation-ships. Second, this dynamic personal spacemodifies interaction rituals in public. Asmobile technologies become an intrinsic partof people’s experience of space, they bothenable empowerment and flexibility and cre-ate social estrangement. We understand thePPPT as a socio-spatial condition thatreleases the individual from normative con-straints associated with place, and we arguethat it modifies the role of public space.

To explore this argument, the paper beginswith a theoretical discussion of public spacesand ICTs. It proceeds with an analysis of theempirical evidence collected by surveyingusers of smartphones and basic mobilephones, focusing on social conduct and beha-viour in different typological places. Based onthe findings, the paper develops the idea ofportable private-personal territory. Finally,the paper concludes by reflecting on thefuture implications of this idea for publicspaces and cities.

Beyond binaries and divides:Public spaces and ICTs

The public/private divide, perceived as twoexclusive categories that together appear toaccount for all elements of life and experi-ence (Collins, 2009), is one of the greatdichotomies of western thought. Understoodas opposites, public and private are alsounderstood as inseparable, where the exten-sion of one sphere necessarily implies areduction in the scope of the other. Yet, thevalidity of this binary is not clear, especiallywith the ongoing ‘privatisation’ of materialspaces as well as the growing appearance ofvirtual space in our lives. Clearly, mobiletechnology use in public spaces complicatestraditional understandings of what it means

Hatuka and Toch 3



to be in public, allowing people to bring pre-viously private activities (chatting, reading,listening to music) into public spaces (DeSouza e Silva and Frith, 2012: 51).Nevertheless, one of the reasons for maintain-ing these categories (even in their currentblurred configuration) is because they con-tribute to and maintain the order of sociallife, promote collective concerns, and reduceconflicts. Thus, as evidenced by many studies,the public/private divide is a dimension thatis constantly transforming and is influencedby the social, economic, and spatial lensesthrough which we observe and understand it.

Contemporary scholars have tended tosee the public and the private as a range or atrajectory of spaces (Madanipour, 2003;Massey, 2005; Palen and Dourish, 2003).However, even when adopting a flexibleapproach to this divide, distinctions can bemade. Thus, for example, Ali Madanipourargues that the most fundamental distinctionbetween private and public is the distinctionbetween the human subject’s inner space ofconsciousness and the outer space of theworld (Madanipour, 2003: 227). Seeing bodyand mind as the most private spheres of theindividual, Madanipour argues that they cre-ate the core of a personal space. Althoughthe personal space finds expression in socialencounters, it is also considered a protectivebubble (Madanipour, 2003: 230).

In contrast to the personal and privatesphere, public space is often perceived as arealm of contact and exchange among stran-gers – it is a realm of encounter. More pre-cisely, sociologists have developed thenotion of the public realm as an arena ofinteraction and visibility among actors bystudying details of interactions and commu-nication in public (Brighenti, 2010). To putit differently, the public is seen as a socio-spatial territory that facilitates and regulatesinterpersonal relationships (‘access’)(Sennett, 1976) and where individuals pres-ent their idealised selves following (or

challenging) patterns of belief and behaviour(Goffman, 1959). Furthermore, the selfexposed in public is a construct (which is, ofcourse, culturally influenced) that humanbeings wear in social encounters to protectthe self. Thus, being observed in public is asocial ritual that entails assuming postures,ways of behaving, and expectations, if notascribed roles (Brighenti, 2010; Joseph,1998). Most importantly, encounters andperformance occur in an institutional andmaterial common world supported by man-ners and social order that provides balanceand stability to exchanges among strangers.

The approach that supports social rulesand boundaries in public spaces has been chal-lenged by critics who note the way these normsand orders reduce agency and meaningfulexpression in public space, enhance unequaltreatment of groups in space, and, as a whole,are dictated by political ideology (Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht, 2009; Low andSmith, 2005; Zukin, 1995). Although establish-ing public codes can be a means of providingbalance and stability, these codes can alsoenhance surveillance and control practices, towhich technology adds another layer.

Seeing contemporary technology as ameans of control challenges the scientificfascination with ICTs as well as studies thatanalyse technology’s ‘impact’ on society andcities (Gershuny, 2003; Mei-Po, 2007; Pfaff,2010; Ratti, 2006; Reades, 2009). In particu-lar, this approach offers a perspective inaddition to the one that celebrates technol-ogy as a means by which citizens have crea-tive input in matters affecting their interestsand concerns. This input may reduceunequal power structures and social groups(Mallan, 2010; Sarjakoski, 1998). Yet, thereality is more complex. As AndreaBrighenti has argued:

what the user actually gets is only one actua-lised possibility (a syntagm) within a largermatrix of possibilities envisaged and foreknownby engineers and programmers (a paradigm).

4 Urban Studies



Thus, what the users see is, in fact, only an epi-phenomenon of the matrix. (Brighenti, 2012:411, Manovich, 2001; Picon, 2008)

This statement implies a rather gloomy viewof freedom, suggesting that nothing unex-pected can be produced within new media.Brighenti is not alone; her critical perspectivehas been adopted by others who have arguedthat ICTs actually enhance social divisionsand polarisation (Sheller, 2004; Wacquant,2007; Young, 1999; Zureik, 2004).

With the aim of avoiding this binary pic-ture of mobile technologies as either liberat-ing or controlling, we suggest that therelationship between society and technologyis not an either/or relationship but rather isfar more complex and subtle: technologyreshapes contexts and socio-spatial defini-tions over time. Thus, rather than looking atthe tension between public and private as adivide or a dichotomy, we suggest trackingthe shifting fluid and permeable boundariesbetween the two. To better understand thesemodifications, we suggest exploring daily lifein places (Graham, 2005; Haythornthwaiteand Wellman, 2002), shifting from the over-estimation of ICTs’ abilities to mediatehuman relationships to a focus on themodified ritualistic dimension of humancommunications in place (Graham, 2005;Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 2002).

Research methods and context

In exploring this question, our analysis isbased on an empirical study conducted inMarch–May 2011 at Tel Aviv University inIsrael. The use of both Internet and mobilephones in Israel make this context an appro-priate platform for the empirical study. Forexample, by the end of 2011, it was esti-mated that there were 10.055 million mobilesubscribers in Israel, representing a growthof 1.5% over the year and a mobile penetra-tion rate of 133%. Business Monitor

International (BMI) forecasts that growth inthe mobile market will continue, averaging1.8% over the next five years until 2016 tobring the total to just over 11 million sub-scribers and a penetration rate of 134.5%(Israel Telecommunications Report, 2012).According to the same report, Israel has thehighest rate of hours spent on social net-working sites (an average of 11.1 monthlyhours). In terms of the ratio of smartphonepenetration, Israel is located in seventh placeamong all world nations (Meeker, 2011).Furthermore, in 2011, approximately 58%of phone sales were devices with Internetconnections using 3G wireless networks.Thus, the majority of sales synchronise withour definition of a smartphone or a phonewith high-speed Internet connectivity, inde-pendent application installation, graphicaluser interface, and messaging capabilities.We define basic phones as phones that pro-vide only voice calls and text messaging.

Our analysis aims to identify correlationsbetween the use of technological devices andthe public experience. The study is based onparticipant observation in different locationson campus (i.e. public areas and study places)as well as a survey of students. The surveyincluded 138 students divided into two equalgroups: users of smartphones and users ofbasic mobile phones. The rationale for includ-ing these two types of users was the assump-tion that users of smartphones might differfrom users of mobile phones due to moreoptions for interacting in the virtual sphere.Thus, we assumed that more possibilities mayalter social rituals and attentiveness to one’simmediate surroundings. The goal of thisstudy was to map the public experience ofboth groups in space and then to track beha-vioural patterns, perceptions, and partici-pants’ public experience. The study designreflects this objective and does not aspire toanalyse the causes for the correlation, whichmay be related to the self-selection of the par-ticipants or personal tendencies.

Hatuka and Toch 5



As a whole, the profile of the participantsin both groups was rather homogeneous interms of age, education, gender, and the useof online social networks. The average ageof all participants was 24 years (SD = 3.9),and the majority of the participants, 120 of138, were undergraduate students. The focuson young people may create some biasbecause their lifestyle and in particular sociallife might differ significantly from adults.However, we assume that the normativechanges in this group are crucial for thefuture development and understanding ofthe public realm and spaces. Generally, withthe exception of owning a smartphone, thetwo groups share similar properties withregard to mobile technology use. The vastmajority of users (all but five) were membersof at least one online social network, withFacebook as the most popular by far. Mostrespondents were active users of online socialnetworks, with an average of 363 relations intheir social network for the basic phone usersand 380 for the smartphone users (the differ-ence was found to be insignificant [t-test, t =0.35, p = 0.71]). However, financial differ-ences were evident between the groups; 48%of regular phone users had used public trans-port, whereas only 34% of smartphone parti-cipants had used public (Chi-squared test, X2

= 13.086, df = 1, p = 0.0003) transport.Furthermore, 78% of basic phone users saidthat they did not need a smartphone, and20% cited financial reasons for not obtaininga smartphone. A single participant statedthat a smartphone was too difficult to use.

All participants were actively approachedby a research assistant on the universitycampus, initially briefed about the study,and assigned an appropriate survey accord-ing to the type of phone they used (either abasic mobile phone or a smartphone). Thesurvey was divided into four parts. Eachpart focused on a key typological space:public space, private space, study space, andtransition (in-between) space. The focus on

these four varied spaces aimed to challengethe private–public binary by examining dif-ferent types of places with diverse features.For example, the study space could be seenas a private–public space (a space whereonly permitted students are allowed).Among the four types of spaces, the transi-tion space was the most amorphous and wasseen as the space experienced between twotarget points, which could be either public(e.g. a passage between buildings) or private(e.g. driving a car). To ensure that partici-pants spent time in these different typologi-cal spaces, they were asked at the beginningof the study to recall their visitation patternsin the last 24 hours. The results were similaracross the two groups of users: approxi-mately 30% of participants had visited acoffee shop, 20% had visited a cafeteria,20% had spent time on the university lawn,20% of the participants had visited a univer-sity building’s lobby, and only 3% hadreported visiting a public square or cityurban space. Approximately half of the par-ticipants had spent at least two hours athome during the last 24 hours, approxi-mately half at their own homes and half attheir parents’ home.

The analysis in this study was based onrelational investigation and focused on iden-tifying the relations between the independentfactors (the phone type and topologicalspace) and a set of dependent factors reflect-ing the use of the space. As noted, thehypothesis was that basic mobile phone andsmartphone users might be correlated withdifferent patterns of behaviour in differenttypological spaces. In each part of the sur-vey, a similar set of questions was askedabout each key typological space to identify:1) activities, with a focus on what people doin public spaces; 2) interactions, with anemphasis on the way people contact others;and 3) a sense of privacy, with an emphasison normative constraints and conduct inpublic. The collected data were analysed and

6 Urban Studies



coded using: 1) binomial and summed chi-square statistical tests for assessing responsesto Boolean questions (yes/no answer) anddetecting differences and similarities betweenthe conditions; and 2) Mann-Whitney U testand student t-test for Likert scale questions,with distributions specified by average, med-ian, and standard deviation.

Mobile phone use and socialconduct in public spaces

Activities: What do we do?

One of the distinctions between private andpublic is based on the conceptualisation ofthe public as a social–political platform dis-tinct from both the private realm and admin-istrative matters of government. This ideaassociates the public realm with discussion,deliberation, and decision making aboutissues of collective concerns. It also sees pub-lic space as a tool that contributes to activecitizenship engaged with the production andcirculation of rational debate. This distinc-tion is based on the assumption that individ-uals perceive and thus act differently inpublic, where they expect to be more atten-tive to their surroundings as a prior condi-tion for public participation. Yet, even

before the survey, participant observationsrevealed a distinct picture of individuals phy-sically located in public but highly engagedwith their phones or laptops, with mostobserved individuals talking while walking(Hanany, 2010). This dynamic of intenseengagement with the phone and laptop isreflected in the survey and is particularly evi-dent among the users of smartphones.

Activities were divided into three categories:resting/reading, using phone/laptop, and talk-ing with friends. The two groups differedsignificantly (chi-square two variable test,X-squared = 12.1776, df = 2, p = 0.002268).Smartphone users reported that they usedtheir phones and laptops twice as much asbasic phone users. In accordance with this evi-dence, basic phone users participated in restingand reading activities twice as much as smart-phone users.

Figure 1 depicts the difference in theactivities conducted in public spaces by usersof the two phone types. Although talkingwith friends was performed in fairly similarproportions, smartphone users were twice aslikely to use their phone or laptop as basicphone users and half as likely to rest or read.This result indicates that activities that tradi-tionally took place in the private sphere arenow taking place in public, replacing other

0

10

20

30

40

Resting / Reading Talking with friends Using phone / laptop

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

Phone typeBasic

Smart

Figure 1. Number of participants in three categories of activities in public spaces.

Hatuka and Toch 7



activities associated with public, such as rest-ing, gazing, and social, face-to-face interac-tions. This result suggests that the publicrealm as a ‘social territory’ (Lofland, 1998)is gradually being modified by individual useof technological devices (in all its forms). Itis evident that the public realm, as a com-plex web of relationships, is being expandedto the virtual sphere and thus diminishes, toa certain extent, the person-to-place andperson-to-person connections.

Interactions: Is there anyone around?

One of the potential implications of thisintense engagement with technologicaldevices is a reduction in attention to theenvironment. Thus, when asked in the sur-vey about occurrences that took place ineach of the typological spaces discussed, themajority of participants in both groups haddifficulty providing details. In both groupsof participants, transition spaces were poorlydescribed, with approximately two-thirds ofparticipants not answering the question(61.4% of smartphone users and 71.4% ofmobile phone users). As expected in bothgroups, participants were able to provide themost information about their private space(54.2% of smartphone users and 65.7% ofbasic mobile phone users). Again, in bothgroups, most participants tended to describepeople, actions, or particular personalobjects, with very few describing the physi-cality of a place or its amenities. We findthat emotional attachment to the physicallocale (Lofland, 1998) is weak, and focus isgiven to the concrete and virtual social terri-tory defined by users.

This lack of attention to the environmentis more evident when we examine socialinteractions among the different groups. Asnoted earlier in the text, one of the key ele-ments associated with smartphones is theway they expand the spheres of interaction,modifying other interactions or activities by

the user. By asking participants about differ-ent aspects of social interaction in differentspaces, we found smartphone users to bemore detached from their physical surround-ings. This detachment included less socialinteraction (talking, observing) and less sensi-tivity to the social environment as a whole.The analysis shows that basic phone userswere significantly more conscious of their sur-roundings than smartphone users in both pub-lic and study spaces. As depicted in Figure 2,when asked about their personal phone use inpublic and study places, basic phone userswere more bothered than smartphone users byan average of 20%. These results are signifi-cant, with p-values of p = 0.006 for the publicspace and p = 0.009 according to an unpairedWilcoxon Rank Sum.

One explanation may be that the abilityof smartphones to provide personal visualand audio spaces (i.e. listening to music,writing messages) allows users to escape andignore the actions of people around them.The increased isolation of smartphone usersis also expressed in their perceived attitudestowards their own actions. Smartphoneusers are more likely to state that they wouldfeel comfortable speaking on their phone inpublic and in study spaces than basic phoneusers. The result is significant according to achi-square categorical test, with p = 0.038and 0.006 for public and study spaces,respectively. Smartphone users’ enhancedactivity on their phones is related to reducedattention to their surroundings as well aspotential interactions with strangers, thussignificantly modifying the activities of usersin public. However, this reduced attentiondoes not indicate disattention but rathernew ways of addressing the sensory stimula-tion of the city and personal technologicaldevices. It is a process of reconstituting apsychic state, reformatting attention by, in asense, fragmenting space. This process facili-tates the creation of a sort of filter betweenthe sensory stimulation of the city (and

8 Urban Studies



personal contemporary devices) and themind of the metropolitan individual(Lofland, 1998: 27).

Privacy: Are we alone?

Traditionally, public space differs from pri-vate space in terms of types of activities. If

home is associated with intimate relation-ships, public is about social interactions withstrangers and casual acquaintances – thehidden versus the open and revealed. Thishidden/revealed relationship is a social con-struct and thus is dynamic and highly influ-enced by how we feel about our privacy andwhether we feel comfortable exposing our

0

1

2

3

Basic SmartStudy space

Bot

here

d by

oth

er p

eopl

e 1

(low

) - 5

(hig

h)

Phone typeBasic

Smart

0

1

2

3

Basic SmartPublic space

Bot

here

d by

oth

er p

eopl

e 1

(low

) - 5

(hig

h)

Phone typeBasic

Smart

Figure 2. The extent to which participants are bothered by other people talking on their mobile phones.

Hatuka and Toch 9



intimate affairs in public. One of the mostevident means by which an individual showshimself to be situationally present is throughthe disciplined management of personalappearance or a ‘personal front’, the com-plex of clothing, make-up, hairdo, and othersurface decorations the individual carries onhis or her person (Goffman, 1963: 25).Thus, if asked, an individual might say thathe limits the noise that he makes out of con-sideration for the others present. By demon-strating this consideration, the individual isshowing cognisance of persons by virtue oftheir presence in the situation, and in show-ing this, he demonstrates that he is open toand respectful of the gathering (Goffman,1963). It is the demonstration of this com-mitted ‘presence’ in the situation that othersmay want from the individual even morethan the substantive value of the consider-ation itself (Goffman, 1963: 214).

This social code and its associated bound-aries are becoming blurred with changes tothe appearance and meaning of privacy inpublic. When examining individual privacyin association with physical space, the twogroups of phone users differed significantly

in their sense of privacy, comfort, and rela-tionship with the outside environment.When reporting on the extent to which theybelieve their phone provides them with pri-vacy (on a Likert scale), smartphone usersanswered in more positive terms than basicphone users. Figure 3 presents the averageand distribution of the two groups across allspaces. The scale of the responses refers tothe sense of privacy participants reported,ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).In each of the different spaces about whichthe participants were asked, smartphoneusers believed that their phones providedthem with better privacy than basic phoneusers. These notions were consistent and sig-nificant, ranging from a difference of 33%in the average value (in the transition space)to 12.5% (in the home space).

This growing sense of privacy alsoincreases the dependency of users on theirmobile phones (see Figures 4 and 5). Whenparticipants were asked to consider the pos-sibility of spending a day without theirphones because they forgot them at home,their answers highlight the importance ofsmartphones, particularly, to users’ daily

0

1

2

3

home public study transportSpace type

Sen

se o

f priv

acy

1 (lo

w) -

5 (h

igh)

Phone TypeBasic

Smart

Figure 3. Sense of privacy in different space types and according to the type of phone. All differences arestatistically significant: p \ 0.05 for the home space, and p \ 0.001 for the public, study and transportspace (unpaired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test).

10 Urban Studies



lives. Smartphone users were twice as likelyto feel out of date, 30% more likely to feelunder pressure, and 30% more likely to feellost than basic users. In addition, smart-phone users were twice as likely to reportnegative feelings about being without theirphones than basic phone users (p = 0.03,Binomial test with expected probabilityof 0.5).

In sum, as shown by mapping bothgroups’ patterns of behaviour in publicspaces, the use of mobile technologies isshifting the way individuals exchange infor-mation and interact in public, multiplyingthe different spheres in which an individualcan participate simultaneously. Mobilephones provide their users with unprece-dented intensity of the user experience,

Challenged

Focused

Free

Insecure

Lost

Open

Out of date

Quiet

Unchanged

Under pressure

0 10 20 30 40Number of participants

Cat

egor

y Phone typeBasic

Smart

Figure 5. Participants indicate their feelings in response to forgetting their phone at home for a day.

Space type Home Public Study TransportMean smart phone 3.30 2.94 2.67 3.11Mean basic phone 2.89 2.14 1.74 2.08Difference *12% **27% **35 **33

Figure 4. Mean value for the sense of privacy for each space type.Note: * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.001, unpaired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.

Hatuka and Toch 11



providing pervasive, powerful communica-tion and computing functionality. Users arewithin arm’s reach of their smartphone 50%of the time and are in the same room as theirphone 90% of the time (Dey et al., 2011).Specifically, we see that both groups usemobile phones as a means to construct adynamic personal space. Yet, it is clear thatthe group that uses smartphones has moretools for playing with this space, blurringthe boundaries between the physical and vir-tual. In that sense, we see that public spacedefinitions and norms, similar to the dictatesof law and authorities, are being modifiedfrom below by private users, both con-sciously and unconsciously.

Conclusions: The emergenceof portable private-personalterritory (PPPT)

Based on these results, we suggest that bothpublic and personal space can be seen as asocial territory composed of locations andplaces. Indeed, the notion of location hasoften been subordinated to the idea of placeand conceptualised as an aspect of a place,referring to an abstract point in an abstractplace (Cresswell, 2004). The use of location-based applications and location-awaretechnologies contribute to individualisingpeople’s perceptions of public spaces, and itis impossible to see place and location inhierarchical positions; rather, they are juxta-posed (De Souza e Silva and Frith, 2012: 8).Specifically, we observe that contemporarymobile technologies support the ability ofthe individual to participate simultaneouslyin multiple spheres of action and communi-cation. This state of affairs creates what wehave called a portable private-personal terri-tory (PPPT): the space in which an individ-ual, through the use of a technologicaldevice, can extend his personal space, creat-ing a complex matrix (within programmaticlimitations) of social spheres and interactions

that is characterised by a multidimensionalset of relationships defined by events andinteractions. The PPPT is a social personalterritory, the locus of a complex web ofrelationships that includes both person-to-person connections and person-to-space con-nections (Lofland, 1998: 51). Conceptually,the use of the word ‘territory’ to describepersonal space expands the association ofthe personal space of the body to include vir-tual spheres as well as the concept of a terri-tory as a complex set of spatial trajectories(either public or private). These varied per-sonal territories are not just a way of describ-ing the plurality of the social world we nowinhabit; they are ‘integral to the (post)mo-dern self, which is never complete and alwaysfragmentary. Thus engagements in publicarenas are also always temporary, contin-gent, partial, invented and reinvented, andopen ended’ (Watson, 2006: 171). In thissense, we argue that the PPPT is a socio-spatial condition that contributes to the blur-ring definition of private–public, in whichpersonal space is expanded to offer the indi-vidual the ability to navigate between thematerial and the immaterial. ParaphrasingLyn Lofland’s definition of the public realm(Lofland, 1998: 12), the PPPT is a social, nota physical, territory; it is a social conditionthat comes into being by the individual in aspace, in physical territories.

We conclude that as a social condition, thePPPT advances the following (see Figure 6):

1. Varied forms of exchange with social interactionsnot limited to people in a concrete place. Thephysicality of space does not dictate socialinteractions; rather, it is one sphere amongmany. As argued by De Souza e Silva andFrith, mobile technologies reconfigurepublic space in two major ways: 1) theymove practices previously confined totraditionally private space into the streets ofthe city; and 2) they give people a feeling ofcontrol and familiarity with public spaces

12 Urban Studies



typically associated with private spaces (DeSouza e Silva and Frith, 2012: 186). Thischaracteristic was supported by theempirical evidence, which indicated thatwith the support of smartphones andlaptops, activities that traditionally tookplace in the private sphere are now takingplace in public, enhancing multiple forms ofexchange simultaneously (i.e. sitting with afriend while talking on the phone andchecking email). This state of affairs, whichexpands social interaction and changes ourperception of time, is blurring the distinctionbetween the real and virtual and between theconcrete and abstract.

2. Social behaviour that responds to a set of normsand social codes that do not necessarily relate tothe concrete space in which the individual islocated. This situation is a result of engagingwith multiple spheres simultaneously, withthe individual sometimes needing to respondto conflicting sets of norms and social codes.Here, as well, empirical evidence shows thatmobile technology allows users to escapeand sometimes even to ignore the actions ofpeople around them. The increased isolationof individuals is also expressed in their per-ceived attitudes towards their own actions,particularly following accepted norms asso-ciated with a place. Yet, as Goffman hasmade clear, civil inattention is not disatten-tion. The principle of civil inattention may

require that one not be obviously interestedin the affairs of the other, but it does notrequire that one not be interested at all. Assuch, it is fully compatible with the idea thatinhabitants of the public realm act primarilyas an audience to the activities that surroundthem (Lofland, 1998: 31). Thus, people donot use technologies to ‘withdraw’ frompublic space (De Souza e Silva and Frith,2012: 36). Rather, they use mobile technolo-gies to accomplish a goal similar to the blaseattitude: to interface their relationships withthe other people and the space around them(De Souza e Silva and Frith, 2012: 27).

3. Individual privacy, disassociated from physicalspace, either public or private. Individuals canbe connected to their private personalspheres everywhere. Thus, privacy becomesa portable state, disassociated from the phy-sicality of space and associated with thenotion of location. The popularisation oflocation-aware technologies contributes tothe changing meaning of locations and theirmeaning in constructing the social personalterritory. It is evident that people use differ-ent types of applications to access varioustypes of information, which makes their per-ception of public space more filtered andpersonalised. The public space throughwhich people move is perceived differentlyfor those who do not possess location-basedtechnologies or those who have technology

Defini�onThe space in which an individual, through the use of a technological device, creates a complex matrix of social spheres and interac�ons.

Features*Individual privacy, disassociated from physical space, either public or private.*Varied forms of exchange with social interac�on not limited to people in a concrete place.*Social behaviour that responds to a set of norms and social codes that do not necessarily relate to the concrete space where the individual is located .

Impact*Blurring the defini�on of private-public. *Naviga�ng between the material and the immaterial. *Place and loca�on seen as juxtaposed rather than hierarchical.

Figure 6. Portable private-personal territory: conceptual framework.

Hatuka and Toch 13



but choose not to engage with it (De Souzae Silva and Frith, 2012: 11).

Based on the evidence, technologicaldevices seem to support users’ belief thatsmartphones provide them with privacy.The question is not whether this is a false ortrue belief but rather what it means: thatindividuals disassociate privacy from thephysicality of place and see their devices as ameans of supporting privacy everywhere.

These conditions make mobile phonespowerful devices in creating and maintainingindividual personal space. Above all, theyallow the individual to create elastic bound-aries between the public and private andbetween the personal and the collective,modifying the ritual dimension of humancommunications in place. No doubt, formalknowledge, which tends to be easily accessi-ble through ICT networks, is growing.However, as Stephan Graham suggests, ‘tac-tic knowledge’, which is often developed intrusting, face-to-face interactions, is gradu-ally shrinking (2005: 574). As Amin andThrift have suggested, technology is ‘becom-ing one of the chief ways of animating thecity. They must not be allowed to take usunaware’ (2002: 128). What we see here ishow the public realms of cities and theessential publicness is rapidly being ‘masscustomised’, unbundled, commodified, indi-vidualised, and coordinated through net-worked technologies linking scales from theglobe to the body (Graham, 2005). Thisstate of affairs raises questions such as howthese techniques influence identities, experi-ences, and perceptions of publicness. Howdo they shape the way we conceive theother? How are the social and normativejudgements and inclusions that form theheart of public space altered in different sitesand contexts? To state it differently, ICTextends human actions, identities, and com-munities; at the same time, it diffuses someof the rituals taking place in public. Whatare the implications of this condition? Given

the limited space available here, we concludeby briefly highlighting two trajectories ofquestions raised by this discussion.

First, it is clear from this discussion thatPPPT must be at the centre of any attemptto conceptualise the formation, maintenance,and experience of public spaces. A pressingimperative for planners and geographers, inparticular, is to fully address and excavatethe way technological devices redefine therelationships between material, virtual, andsocial dynamics in public spaces – moreimportantly, the way mobile technologiesalter the definitions and correlations betweenthe concepts of territory, place, and location.Instead of thinking about people detachedfrom spaces or privatising them, mobile tech-nologies can be viewed as interfaces to publicspace that enhance new interaction rituals(in Goffman’s sense) linked to personalsocio-spatial territoriality. In this sense, wecan argue that technological set-ups are notabout isolation but rather are about multiplesimultaneous territorialisation.

Second, it is evident that PPPT producesvarious spaces and times. It is a spherethrough which the individual’s spatial andperceptional divisions are extended. Yet, weknow very little about the complex compo-site of these extensions and the way theyinfluence our engagement with public space.How can social programmes and policyaddress this dynamic? To what extent arepolicy makers, planners, and technologydesigners truly and critically aware of theeffects of PPPT on material space? Whatpolicy instruments might best address thesefast-moving devices that bring new stan-dards, norms, and transparency to publicspaces?

In sum, this paper has sought to under-score the centrality of individual technologi-cal devices, particularly the way mobilephones (basic mobile phones and smart-phones) restructure social interaction in pub-lic spaces. It has also illustrated the need to

14 Urban Studies



re-think the relationships between ICTs andthe role of public space in contemporary cit-ies. Clearly, as suggested in this discussion,public/private cannot and should not beseen as a linear continuum but rather as jux-taposed spheres with different degrees of pri-vacy and publicness. The question is notwhether the private is becoming more domi-nant than the public but rather what thesocial consequences of this new technologyare. In other words, what are the implica-tions of the elasticity of boundaries, andwhat type of territories do people composetogether? This is highly relevant if we thinkabout the role of public space as a place ofencountering the stranger, where moderntechnology allows users to reduce this inter-action to a minimum. In the past, a strangermight stop for directions in a plaza, butthese chance acquaintances rarely happentoday. Nevertheless, we suggest that technol-ogy should not be seen as either liberating orcontrolling; rather, we should ask about thepower and influence of technology for modi-fying social rituals. In reflecting upon thissituation, societies face two different scenar-ios: 1) they can adopt technology withoutcritically addressing its social consequences,particularly the interaction patterns, or 2)they can develop technology as an instru-ment as well as a socio-spatial tool, a juxta-posed site of the virtual and the material,that supports publicness. In addressing thistask, tech entrepreneurs and programmersmust change their priorities to consider thepublic good before capital gain. Moreover,municipalities must address transparencybefore control to see technology as a meansof enhancing the qualities of publicnessrather as a means of surveillance.

Acknowledgements

The authors are deeply indebted to the editorialstaff at Urban Studies, in crafting the revised ver-sion of this paper, and to several anonymousreviewers for their input. In addition, we would

like to thank our research assistant CarmelHanany for collecting and organising the data ofthis study.

Funding

This research was supported by funds providedby the Vice President for Research, Tel AvivUniversity, Israel.

References

Amin A and Thrift N (2002) Cities: Reimagining

the Urban. Cambridge: Polity.Berry M and Hamilton M (2010) Changing urban

spaces: Mobile phones on trains. Mobilities

5(1): 111–131.Boyer MC (1992) Cities for sale: Merchandising

history at South Street Seaport. In: Sorkin M

(ed) Variations on a Theme Park: The New

American City and the End of Public Space.

New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 181–204.Brighenti AM (2010) The publicness of public

space: On the public domain. Quaderni del

Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale

49: 1828–1955.Brighenti AM (2012) New media and urban moti-

lities: A territoriologic point of view. Urban

Studies 49(2): 399–414.Castells M (1989) The Informational City: Infor-

mation Technology, Economic Restructuring,

and the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford:

Wiley-Blackwell.Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Soci-

ety. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Collins D (2009) Private/public divide. In: Kitchin

R and Thrift N (eds) International Encyclope-

dia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.

437–441.Cresswell T (2004) Place: A Short Introduction.

Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.de Souza e Silva A and Frith J (2010) Locative

mobile social networks: Mapping communica-

tion and location in urban spaces. Mobilities

5(4): 485–505.de Souza e Silva A and Frith J (2012) Mobile

Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Pri-

vacy, Control, and Urban Sociability. New

York: Routledge.Dey KA, Wac K, Ferreira D, et al. (2011) Getting

closer: An empirical investigation of the

Hatuka and Toch 15



proximity of user to their smartphones. In:

13th ACM international conference on ubiqui-

tous computing, Beijing, China, 17–23 Septem-

ber 2011, pp. 163–172. New York: ACM.Gershuny J (2003) Web use and net nerds: A neo

functionalist analysis of the impact of infor-

mation technology in the home. Social Forces

82(1): 139–166.Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in

Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Goffman E (1963) Behavior in Public Spaces. New

York: The Free Press.Goffman E (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on

Face-to-Face Interaction. New York:

Pantheon.Graham S (2002) Bridging urban digital divides?

Urban polarisation and information and com-

munications technologies (ICTs). Urban Stud-

ies 39(1): 33–56.Graham S (2005) Software-sorted geographies.

Progress in Human Geography 29(5): 562–580.Hampton NK (2010) The social life of wireless

urban spaces: Internet use, social networks,

and the public realm. Journal of Communica-

tion 60(4): 701–722.Hanany C (2010) Observation in different typolo-

gical spaces in the campus. Participant observa-

tion report, 27 December.Haythornthwaite C and Wellman B (2002) Mov-

ing the internet out of cyberspace. In: Wellman

B and Haythornthwaite C (eds) The Internet

and Everyday Life. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,

pp. 3–44.Israel Telecommunications Report (2012) Israel

telecommunications report 2012. Report, Busi-

ness Monitor International, Israel, January.

Available at: http://www.researchandmarkets.

com/reports/2017829/israel_telecommunications_

report_2012.Iveson K (2007) Publics and the City. Oxford:

Wiley-Blackwell.Jensen OB (2009) Flows of meaning, cultures of

movements: Urban mobility as meaningful

everyday life practice.Mobilities 4(1): 139–158.Lofland LH (1998) The Public Realm: Exploring

the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. New

York: Aldine De Gruyter.Loukaitou-Sideris A and Ehrenfeucht R (2009)

Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation Over Pub-

lic Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Low S and Smith N (eds) (2005) The Politics of

Public Space. New York: Routledge.Lyon D (2003) Surveillance as Social Sorting:

Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination.

New York: Routledge.Madanipour A (2003) Public and Private Spaces of

the City. London and New York: Routledge.Madanipour A (ed) (2010) Whose Public Space?

International Case Studies in Urban Design and

Development. London and New York:

Routledge.Mallan K (2010) Navigating iScapes: Australian

youth constructing identities and social rela-

tions in a network society. Anthropology &

Education Quarterly 41(3): 264–279.Manovich L (2001) The Language of New Media.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Massey D (2005) For Space. London: Sage.Meeker M (2011) KPCB internet trends 2011.

Report, Web 2.0 summit, San Francisco, CA,

18 October.Mei-Po K (2007) Mobile communications, social

networks, and urban travel: Hypertext as a

new metaphor for conceptualizing spatial

interaction. The Professional Geographer 59(4):

434–446.Miller K (2007) Designs on the Public: The Private

Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. Minneapo-

lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Mitchell D (1995) The end of public space?

People’s park, definitions of the public, and

democracy. Annals of the Association of Amer-

ican Geographers 85: 108–133.Mitchell JW (1999) E-topia: Urban Life, Jim – But

Not As We Know It. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.Palen L and Dourish P (2003) Unpacking ‘pri-

vacy’ for a networked world. In: Proceedings

of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in

computing systems, Lauderdale, FL, 5–10 April

2003, pp. 129–136. New York: ACM.Pfaff J (2010) Mobile phone geographies. Geogra-

phy Compass 4(10): 1433–1447.Picon A (2008) Toward a city of events: Digital

media and urbanity. New Geographies 8: 32–43.Rafael LV (2003) The cell phone and the crowd:

Messianic politics in the contemporary Philip-

pines. Public Culture 15(3): 399–425.Ratti C (2006) Mobile landscapes: Using location

data from cell phones for urban analysis.

16 Urban Studies



Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 33(5): 727–748.Reades J (2009) Eigenplaces: Analyzing cities

using the space–time structure of the mobilephone network. Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design 36(5): 824–836.Sarjakoski T (1998) Networked GIS for public

participation – emphasis on utilizing imagedata computers. Environment and Urban Sys-

tems 22(4): 381–392.Sassen S (1998) The topoi of e-space: Global cities

and global value chains. Built Environment 24:

134–141.Sennet R (1976) The Fall of the Public Man. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Shariful M (2010) Measuring people’s space–time

accessibility to urban opportunities: Anactivity-based spatial search algorithm in aGIS. International Journal of Urban Sustain-

able Development 2(1–2): 107–120.Sheller M (2004) Mobile publics: Beyond the net-

work perspective. Environment and Planning

D: Society and Space 22: 39–52.Staeheli AL and Mitchell D (2007) Locating the

public in research and practice. Progress in

Human Geography 31: 792–811.

Thrift N (2004a) Driving in the city. Theory, Cul-

ture and Society 21: 41–59.Thrift N (2004b) Remembering the technological

unconscious by foregrounding knowledges of

position. Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space 22(1): 175–190.Wacquant L (2007) Territorial stigmatization in

the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven

91: 66–77.Watson S (2006) City Publics: The (Dis)enchant-

ments of Urban Encounters. London:

Routledge.Weintraub J (1995) The theory and politics of the

public/private distinction. In: Weinbtraub J

and Kumar J (ed) Public and Private in

Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand

Dichotomy. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-

cago Press, pp. 1–42.Young J (1999) The Exclusive Society. London:

Sage.Zukin S (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Zureik E (2004) Governance, security and tech-

nology: The case of biometrics. Studies in

Political Economy 73: 113–137.

Hatuka and Toch 17



urban studies the emergence of portable urban …...cations of portable private-personal territories...

Documents