Public Spaces in Diverse American Society.
Widely shared experience leaves little doubt that American cities exhibit a vastly diverse range of religious, philosophical, and moral perspectives and doctrines. Moreover, these include incompatible yet reasonable ones, none of which is universally affirmed by everyone throughout the entire population, and none of which will be so for the foreseeable future.
This diversity has many implications, an important one of which is that public life is vital, as are the public spaces in which it occurs. Public life is vital because it empowers citizens, strengthens democratic institutions, and promotes the common good.
Public spaces are neutral territory where people come together, engage in dialogue, and find ways to work through their differences without the constraints of specific social or cultural contexts. They are where the differences between people can find common ground, and where compromises can be struck so as to enable cooperation and avoid unnecessary, violent conflict.
Public spaces provide opportunities not only for navigating differences but also for promoting peaceful cooperation, progress, and social cohesion in our highly diverse society. Without them, many of even the worthiest perspectives and doctrines would have no place to get expressed, and would receive neither an audience nor discussion, consideration, dissent, nor rebuke.
Yet public spaces in America today far-too-often seem to have become ideological battlegrounds where social inequalities are visibly played out, exposing the systemic failures of governance, economic disparities, and cultural divides, ultimately challenging the notion of 'public' in a society increasingly fragmented by privilege and exclusion. Various sociological, economic, and urban studies, as well as observations of contemporary urban dynamics are replete with evidence of this failure and fragmentation.
Some enclaves of wealth and privilege escape the dysfunctional aspects that so-often characterize public spaces by completely purging such spaces from their jurisdictions. All land within these local jurisdictions is privately owned and gated, or allocated to road networks where parking is not allowed, and there are no sidewalks. Only those people whom the land owners deem worthy of visiting are permitted to spend any time in the jurisdiction beyond passing through on roads. All others are excluded, and the police patrol constantly in search of anyone who might potentially encroach upon the privatopia.
The people who live in such completely private enclaves can largely exclude themselves from many of the difficulties thrust upon more economically common people. And in at least one respect, the choices to live in them may be understandable. That is, even under the strictest social controls, public spaces can get frenzied and unruly at times. They possibly contain many different kinds of persons, each with their own particular background, circumstances, emotions, feelings, values, and ideas, so are ripe with potential conflict.
For purposes of keeping public spaces orderly, therefore, behavioral norms within them include high standards relative to those that pertain in completely private spaces, such as civility, respectful discourse, propriety, credibility, and decorum. Unfortunately, sometimes such behavioral norms fail, so public spaces must also be regulated and enforced by the police power of the state.
While some regulatory restrictions on allowable activities in public spaces are reasonable and at times necessary, others go well outside the boundaries of reasonableness or appropriate public purpose. These include for example, some ordinances on panhandling, visible homelessness, public art and graffiti, as well as a range of other unwanted street activities. They also include prohibitions on peaceful public protests, demonstrations, and activism.
For example, prohibitions on the use of public spaces for peaceful assemblies over the war in the Middle East are inappropriate whenever they infringe upon individuals' rights without legitimate justification and undermine the principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights. Such prohibitions highlight the contested nature of publicness and the need to redefine and reclaim public spaces as inclusive and democratic forums.
In democratic societies, peaceful protests in public spaces are essential components of the political process, providing avenues for citizens to voice their dissent, raise awareness, and advocate for change. Such protests can foster debate, encourage accountability, and ultimately lead to more informed and just decision-making regarding matters of war and peace.
This said, well designed and implemented regulation of public spaces can, among other things, allow people to exercise their constitutional rights free from governmental repression of the expression of unpopular views. The appropriate purpose for such regulation is to allow people to have as much freedom as possible subject to the constraint that people within public spaces should be physically safe and secure, as should their property.
It is for instance entirely reasonable and appropriate, and at times even necessary, to impose limits on the noise level of speech in public spaces, impose limits on the volume of music, cap the number of protesters who may occupy a given forum, require food vendors to meet sanitation and public health criteria, and restrict the size or placement of signs on government property.
While some economic elites choose to wall themselves off from the creation and maintenance of public spaces, not all public spaces are battlegrounds for incompatible perspectives and doctrines. Indeed, more than a few local governments have implemented policies and initiatives aimed at affirmatively using public spaces specifically to promote inclusivity, and to address social inequalities.
Some local governments for example have established community gardens and urban farming programs to provide residents in low-income neighborhoods with access to fresh and affordable produce. These initiatives not only promote healthier lifestyles but also create public spaces for community engagement and skill-building.
Some cities have launched public art projects aimed at beautifying neighborhoods, fostering cultural exchange, and promoting inclusivity. These projects often involve collaboration with local artists and community members to create public murals, sculptures, and installations that reflect the diversity and vibrancy of the community.
Still other local governments have invested in community centers and safe spaces for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and refugees. These can provide vital resources, support networks, and opportunities for social interaction. These spaces often offer educational workshops, counseling services, and recreational activities tailored to the needs of the community.
Through education, experience, and the use of social norms and regulations, public spaces need not necessarily devolve into places indistinguishable from ideological or other battlefields. Indeed, it is arguably vital for the long-term self-interest of Americans to find, propose, and implement ways to create, maintain, and use them to promote greater inclusivity, equity, and social cohesion, and to facilitate the peaceful conduct of a diverse society with democratic norms.
America will for the foreseeable future remain characterized by a vastly diverse and at times mutually incompatible range of religious, philosophical, and moral perspectives and doctrines, some of which stand the tests of reason, and many of which do not. If the nation is well governed, administered, and regulated, and if public policy keeps social and economic inequality in check, this diversity is a source of great strength, resilience, and hope for future generations.
The creation and maintenance of accessible, safe, secure, inclusive, public spaces can go a long way toward helping to realize this hope.
Bill Bowen
A good piece. Real community engagement is vital in the creation of successful places.