Public Space and The Problem With Cyberspace

The word public is a term so often used today, that it is hard to come up with a normative response from a person when asked "What is public?". The connotations go beyond that of many other terms, and can lead to many unrealistic expectations by anything qualified by the term. Indeed, public is an abstraction; a word that transcends any real definition that can be found in a dictionary. The word holds seven definitions as an adjective alone , and the general opinion and thoughts on the word reach far beyond these seven oversimplified definitions. Public space is an abstraction as great as that of public thought. It is the purpose of this essay to examine weather or not public space does indeed exist in a form that is readily available to the public.

Ownership is to Privatize…

In order to examine public space, it should be made clear what would make that space not readily available to the public: Ownership disinherits any rights of a space to be qualified as public. Because something is owned, there is always a possibility of rejection of access to the space. If there is a possibility of rejection, can that space truly be public? The answer must be "no", for if one can be marginalized from a space considered public the space becomes one in which many are accepted - but not all. It must be derived then that the space is indeed private, though accepting many.

If there were a space that was not owned, it might be a true public space. This statement however brings up questions of territorial instincts. While the space might not be owned by any normal definition of the word, it may be defended by those who consider the space "their own". A good example of this is modern "gang territories". Gangs will "claim" an area as their own, no matter the private or public aspects of the area. They will defend this territory from any rivals, be it a street or a warehouse. The gang will often establish itself as a self governing force in its territory, which can include things associated with normal governments such as taxation: "Tax collection is another area of criminal activity where 18th Street is well established. Typically, in an area that is claimed as territory by 18th Street, gang members will collect a tax from any business: legitimate or criminal" (Valdez). This is only one contemporary example of territorial "ownership" that transcends any other ownership or laws governing an area - public or private.

When looking at something that is defended as a territory, the problem of rejection again comes about. The area is immediately (and perhaps exponentially) privatized to the extent in that something has laid claim to the area and subjugates everyone to its rules (including rules of acceptance to those wanting access to the space). Kilian tells us that one of the liberal approaches to public space is as follows, "The goal becomes to fill the streets with 'normal' users and thereby eliminate 'undesirables'" (Kilian 119). This negates that space as public; fore it has become a place only for those that are generally accepted, and those who are found to be desirable. It follows in this argument that even in an anarchical setting, territorial behavior will win out:

The instinct of territorialism is, by definition, a very real and driving force in a living organism's control of the environment. Naturally, if one has more room, then it follows that one has more access to the resources available. This instinct has evolved through natural selection to allow organisms to survive over less adapted organisms, giving them the greater share of the riches. Nature seems to be very imperialistic. In short, them thats got....gets more. The economic structures of humanity seem to be patterned after this behavior, and our societies as a whole, have practiced this behavior throughout recorded history. […] Earthworms and snails do not have brains beyond simple autonomic functions, and, not coincidentally, do not exhibit any instincts more than reproductive and self preservation. This fact suggests that territorialism, as well as hierarchy and ritualism, are functions of the brain. (Bronston)

Under The Microscope

The most common examples of concrete public spaces are public libraries and public parks, both of which are exemplars at attempting to be a true public space. We shall stay the argument of "rejection" for the moment and look into a different aspect.

Central Park (NYC) is 843 acres large. It is one of the largest public parks in the contiguous United States. Being as large as it is, the park is easily accessible for inhabitants of the city. Luke Wallin makes and interesting argument on public spaces such as this though, "One sees two or three people on a blanket, enclosing an encounter in a temporarily privatized bit of public space" (Wallin 107). His argument is intriguing when thought out in anecdotal forms. If I were walking through a public park, and I happened upon such a situation as Wallin describes I would know that the area of those people is indeed a private sector. If I were to intrude on the territory that they made a claim to, I would more than likely be asked to leave. Yes, the park is indeed public; however it is full of privatized areas in which people have determined that not everyone should have access to.

Similarly, a public library is also riddled with these "micro-private" areas; areas in which only certain people have access to. It is interesting then to examine weather or not these areas are truly public. For all intensive purposes, the entire space is deemed as public, however with the privatization of certain sectors it yields to reason that the space is in actuality no more public that a local restaurant. In a restaurant we are all allowed to inhabit certain floor spaces, but we are not to join others in dining at random.

The above examples of public spaces are not exempt from liberal ideals of public space that Kilian detailed either. There are dress codes and acceptable use clauses for both of these spaces. If one were to start drinking alcohol in either place, one would be subject to ejection from the premise. The consequences are the same for these places as they are for any number of private spaces; you are subject to the rules and regulations of the space, and if you choose not to abide they you will be asked (or forced in some cases) to leave. It can be said that these places are indeed public in nature, and there are areas that are truly public. However the entire area is supposed to be public so it would seem that if you need a type of "mental map" to navigate the public area, it would seem that this space can no longer be a true public space.

The Problem of Cyberspace

Finally, the geographical disembedding of places has led to changes in our very conception of what a place is. In our contemporary conception of place, places are no longer just understood as inhabitable physical locations, but as any relatively stable environment that holds certain immediately available goods. Next to physical places, such places included places that emerge out of blending of different physical places by electric media, and nowadays even software constructions in cyberspace. (Brey 260)

By far, out of any examples we have seen so far, cyberspace would seem the most public. The fact alone that it is a nonphysical place would seem to make it more accessible, and indeed it is more accessible than most things. As we know, accessibility does not necessarily make something public however. It is true that anyone can be online, yet that statement is overly simplistic and is qualified by the word can. It would be more acceptable to include the truism we all think when saying that statement, "Anyone [with the means] can be on line". The "means" is indeed the problem, not everyone can afford the internet and not everyone can find free access at places such as their local libraries.

To obtain internet access freely, one has to know of a place where it is provided. Most public libraries now provide internet access (while limited). The person looking to take advantage of these services would then have to have the means to get to the library, obtain membership, and know how to operate the basic computer interface in order to make use of this resource. For internet access at the home, one must first have a computer. Upon obtaining a computer, then one must obtain an internet service provider. Any relevant installation (of software or hardware depending on which type of internet is obtained, high or low band) of software and/or hardware inevitably follows. In both cases, it as already been presupposed that internet access is indeed available.

Given these necessities to actually get on the internet, it starts to beg the question "Can the internet be considered the public space?". The argument comes back to the question of rejection. For a space to be truly public there should be no rejection of access or use. People are rejected access to the internet because of lack of means (monetary or other problems addressed). Therefore the internet cannot be truly public, yet.

While cost is inherently associated with the internet, no one physically owns "the internet". In fact, the term is actually an abstraction such as the word public. However, ownership does exist within the construct of the internet. Everything you access on the internet is private in so much as it is owned. In areas of public opinion and "voice" one is subject to a Terms of Use/Service (TOS) agreement, and if one is found in violation of the TOS one is subject to the consequences - the consequences normally entail leaving the area and probable banning (making the space inaccessible to you). As Margaret Kohn says, by the very fact that these places are private institutions of cyberspace and their "commercial orientation" they are in fact no replacement for any of the real life public alternatives (Kohn 213).

With the amount of privatization on the internet, it fits very well into the template of the public park and library examples. It is full of holes like Swiss cheese; full of voids of public space where one may be asked to leave.

Final Thoughts

During the course of this essay, analysis of public space (and its existence) has been pursued. It seems as though public space is often a misnomer, for its existence is hard to determine, and questionable at best for most spaces described as such. Public space is a great idea, but like that of Marxist Communism, it seems to most often be poorly executed.

As technology increases in its ability to make things public, and the availability of these technologies becomes more available it seems as though some sort of cyber space will become a true public space. It would seem that the area that will be unlimited access will be online. Interesting points also come about from analysis of this point. It is becoming exponentially more reality to put things often thought as of "not public" into a public spectrum. "Blogs" are the first of this new trend. Blogs are internet logs of personal events, thoughts, ideas, and feelings. It is essentially an online journal viewable by all. They are making people reevaluate "private life", it is becoming a fact that having a private life is now an option for anyone with internet access.

This trend is becoming increasingly popular; therefore I contemplate what will be next. Many such blogs have already added audio ("pod-casting"), and visual elements of their owners life. It would follow that soon there will be streaming video on these blogs soon as well. It may turn into people wanting their lives so public that they will have a web cam streaming their home life all the time, twenty-four hours a day. One day there might be a real thing that you can tune into similar to The Truman Show .

In relation to this essay, the thoughts follow as this: The mind and home have often been considered the most private of all spaces. The colloquialisms such as "Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is your business" are quickly becoming antiquated and unapplicable. People are publicizing their lives, without a middle man. They are able to put what they want up for anyone with access to the internet to see. These people want to be heard, and they are being heard. What was once considered a "private moment" can now be published to anyone looking for it. This conversion of private space to public space is a trend that offers a contradiction to the countless essays that have been written about the "disappearance of public space" (presupposed that those spaces existed to begin with). It will be very interesting as this trend develops, to see where it leads. Being John Malkovich has given us a good idea where it could eventually go (technology willing). The mind could become as much a public space as any of the examples given before in this essay.