mike crang - public space

8/11/2019 Mike Crang - Public Space

1/25

Title: PublicSpace, Urban Spaceand Electronic Space: Would the Real City Please Stand Up?

Subject(s): CYBERSPACE; C!ES " to#ns; $ASS %edia

Source: Urban Studies, &eb'(((, )ol* + ssue ', p+(-, -p

Author(s): Cran., $i/e

Abstract: Presents in0or%ation on a study #hich e1plored ho# the notions o0 urban and public

spacecan in0luence the debate o2er electronic %edia* Cities and cyberspace; $etaphorical

adoption o0 urban %odels to loo/ at electronic sociality; Conclusions*

AN: '3+'(4

ISSN: ((5'6(73(

Database: Acade%ic Search Elite

PUBLICSPACE, URBAN SPACEAND ELECTRONIC

SPACE: OULD T!E REAL CIT" #LEASE STAND U#$

Su%%ary* Co%%entary around the electronic %edia has raised issues o0 political action,

co%%unity 0or%ation and chan.in. identities* !his paper e1plores ho# the notions o0 8public

space8 can in0or% this debate o2er electronic %edia* t e1a%ines the %etaphorical adoption o0

urban %odels to loo/ at electronic sociality and su..ests 0our principle approaches: cities set in

or a.ainst #orld 0lo#s, suburbanised telecities, co%%unitarian 2isions and accounts that appeal

to a rene#ed publicsphere* !he paper e1a%ines ho# these share %any assu%ptions* 9o#e2er,

instead o0 tryin. to si0t these %etaphors by contrastin. the% to a purported real #orld, the paper

e1a%ines ho# they shape an electronic architecture* Spatial %etaphors and electronic practices

are seen as entan.led and shapin. each other* !he paper su..ests that the di00erent %etaphors 0or

the city re0lect a ran.e o0 an1ieties about and desires 0or urban li0e* n this sense, the 8real8 city is

the inde0inable co%ple1ity and 0oldin. o0 spaces66lyin. outside the 2isualisations o00ered o0

cyberspace*

I%tro&uctio%

Cyberspace as a #hole, and net#or/ed 2irtual en2iron%ents in particular, allo# us to not only

theorie about potential architectures in0or%ed by the best o0 current thou.ht, but to actually

construct such spaces 0or hu%an inhabitation in a co%pletely ne# /ind o0 publicreal%* !his

does not i%ply a lac/ o0 constraint, but rather a substitution o0 one /ind o0 ri.our 0or another*

When bric/s beco%e pi1els, the tectonics o0 architecture beco%es in0or%ational* 5*

When it co%es to thin/in. about the city and in0or%ation and co%%unication net#or/s, #e need

to address the @uestion #hat is 8urban8 about these net#or/s at all? su..est it is less the location

o0 access points than interactional spaces created* !hese are o0ten or.anised usin. an urban
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22CYBERSPACE%22&wlSearchTerm=%22CYBERSPACE%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22CITIES%20%26amp%3B%20towns%22&wlSearchTerm=%22CITIES%20%26amp%3B%20towns%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22MASS%20media%22&wlSearchTerm=%22MASS%20media%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/jndetail.asp%3FbooleanTerm=%22Urban%20Studies%22&maindatab=Academic%20Search%20Elite&searchTag=JNhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=JN+%22Urban%20Studies%22+AND+DT+20000201http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=AU+%22Crang%2C%20Mike%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22CYBERSPACE%22&wlSearchTerm=%22CYBERSPACE%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22CITIES%20%26amp%3B%20towns%22&wlSearchTerm=%22CITIES%20%26amp%3B%20towns%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=DE+%22MASS%20media%22&wlSearchTerm=%22MASS%20media%22http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/jndetail.asp%3FbooleanTerm=%22Urban%20Studies%22&maindatab=Academic%20Search%20Elite&searchTag=JNhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=JN+%22Urban%20Studies%22+AND+DT+20000201http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/resultlist.asp%3FbooleanTerm=AU+%22Crang%2C%20Mike%22


2/25

architecture* be.in by e1a%inin. accounts that loo/ to the dislocation o0 the city, its

o2ere1tension and disappearance* &ollo#in. this are accounts that see a suburban %ode o0

e1perience66a tele%atic 8Cyber2ille8*n- pposin. this, so%e point to electronic net#or/s

re2italisin. co%%unities* !hen #ish to address ar.u%ents 0or the trans0or%ation o0 the public

sphere* !hrou.h these contrastin. stances, #ant to e1plore a 2ie# lin/in. these discontinuous

2isions into a labyrinthine 2ie# o0 the city, o0 di00erent %edia and associated spatialities 0oldin.

into one another*

Usin. spatial %etaphors 0or the subroutines and pro.ra%%es o0 so0t#are is not unproble%atic*

!hese %etaphors o0 8electronic space8 or.anise the e1perience o0 electronic technolo.ies into

techno6spatial practices that e%body particular conceptions o0 cyberspace neale, -777, p*

'(4* o the current i%a.ined spatial ontolo.ies, applied to so0t#are #orlds, inhibit possibilities

by %appin. the% into con2entional understandin.s +? Spatial %etaphors

%a/e the lo#6le2el abstractions o0 %achine code tan.ible, but %ay naturalise so%e

con0i.urations o0 cyberspace; thus i%a.es o0 techno60rontiers %ay o00er connotations o0 a

%ythical, indi2idualistic libertarian past #ith a 0aith in pro.ress, #hile in0or%ation hi.h#ays

and their il/ brin. the ba..a.e o0 state inter2ention see Dones, -773, p* '; oc/ard, -774; Ro#e,

-774* And yet #e cannot bypass spatial representations, because they are an idio% throu.h

#hich net#or/s are e1perienced* !he city is both obFect and %etaphor in a re0le1i2e syste%

#here the i%a.inin. o0 electronic spaceis 2ital to creatin. it* !his paper su..ests that spatial

%etaphors pro2ide #hat errida %i.ht call the 8hauntolo.y8 o0 cyberspace; not .roundin. but

structurin. absences, #here their apparent solidity and co%%onsense %a/e 0or both their utility

and their li%its* !o e1plore this, the paper traces throu.h accounts o0 urban and electronic space,

connected to o0ten 2ery distinct spatial i%a.inaries and 0osterin. particular appropriations and

creations o0 electronic spaces* !hrou.h this it su..ests that these spatial i%a.inaries and sy%bols

articulate the city throu.h a series o0 di00erentiated an1ieties*

orl& Cities a%& the orl& ire& Cit'

Dust as chaos and co%ple1ity ha2e s#itched polarities 0ro% ne.ati2e to positi2e, so too are all the

e1pressions o0 disFunction and discontinuity bein. re2isited as 0or%s o0 a hi.her order* Unli/e

the disFunction o0 colla.e that has characteried %uch o0 this century, the ne# disFunction is one

o0 %orphin.


3/25

%etropolis e1pand to constitute a #orld6#ide city, a sin.le o%nipolis* A 0irst ta/e e%phasises

net#or/ed in0or%ation and co%%unication technolo.ies, or tele%atics, as e1tendin. e1istin.

co%%and6and6control 0unctions in 8#orld cities8, hi.hli.htin. their positions in a .lobal order

uithlen, -773; Sassen, -77, -773* !here %ay be bi0urcatin. paths 0or cities in the .lobal

in0or%ation econo%y, also #ithin cities, #here do%inant sectors use enhanced co%%unication to

increase their sphere o0 control, #hile others are bein. %ana.ed and still others are cut out o0 the

syste% alto.ether Auri.i and Graha%, -773, pp* 4+64=* 9o#e2er, e2en do%inant cultures are

not delocalised* Structural position does not Fust create do%inance, this has to be acti2ely

produced in that locale Sassen, -77, pp* = and * E2en then it is too easy to read the speed and

distanciation o0 co%%unication technolo.ies as i%buin. the li2es o0 their users #ith si%ilar

properties !hri0t, -774*

n an alternati2e ta/e on the .lobal order, Castells -737, -774 0lips these ar.u%ents o0 e1tended

co%%and and control, depictin. cities o2er#hel%ed by 0lo#s o0 in0or%ation* Chartin. the

increasin. 0lo#s o0 in0or%ation alon. di.ital conduits, su..ests the .ro#in. i%portance o0

in0or%ational space* &or Castells, the city as a place o0 e%bedded cultures is eroded by

delocalised 0lo#s* !he speci0ically urban @uestion di%inishes #ith states, let alone cities,

0or%in. Fust Hnodes o0 a broader 0ra%e#or/ o0 po#erH Castells, -774, p* +(5* Pic/in. up %any

o0 the sa%e the%es, a third readin. sees an e1pansion o0 the urban* Guattari -77'b, p* -'5

su..ests that, #hereas particular cities #ere at the ape1 o0 #orld syste%s in 2arious epochs,

a capital do%inatin. the #orld econo%y no lon.er e1ists* !here is instead an 8archipela.o o0

cities8 or e2en, %ore precisely, sub6ense%bles o0 bi. cities, connected by tele%atic %eans and a

.reat di2ersity o0 co%%unication %edia* ne %i.ht say that the #orld6city o0 conte%porary

capitalis% has been deterritorialied, that its 2arious co%ponents ha2e been scattered o2er the

sur0ace o0 a %ultipolar urban rhio%e*

!he account %o2es 0ro% cos%opolis to o%nipolis, one 2irtual city o0 #hich others are suburbs,

#here Hthe 2irtual spaceo0 the teleco%%unications era is .earin. up to ta/e o2er 0ro% the

.eo.raphy o0 nationsH )irilio, -77, p* 35* !his disa..re.ation and disasse%bly is lin/ed to an

e1istence that sees e2erythin. circulate yet di00erence erode*


4/25

instant, technolo.ised, totalitarian control and response* Cyber6enthusiasts too o0ten portray ti%e,

spaceand %aterial as constraints to be o2erco%e or transcended into a real% o0 8real6ti%e8

interaction* And yet, the political 0antasy o0 i%%ediacy and the suppression o0 distance ha2e

been lin/ed to the aesthetics o0


5/25

constructed .eo.raphical spacehas been replaced by chronolo.ical topo.raphies, #here

i%%aterial electronic broadcast e%issions deco%pose and eradicate a sense o0 place, the city lost

0or% e1cept as connector or %e%brane Boyer, -774, p* -7*

Cities are no lon.er unitary entities #ith bounded insides and outsides $aoleni, -77(, p* -((;

$andarini, -773* !he relationship bet#een %icro and %acro spaces is not linear e1pansion, or

inside and outside, but a series o0 /nots and spirals* !he urban #all, the boundary that %ade the

city coherent, has been replaced by a ran.e o0 i%bricated spaces at di00erent scales* !his is not

the classical polis o0 9aber%as or Arendt, but a Babylonian

#orld city66a settle%ent o0 enor%ous scope, #hich is the opposite o0 a co%%unity throu.h its

hetero.eneity and lac/ o0 citienry *** Yet in contrast to the polis, this cos%opolis possesses a

tolerance o0 di2ersity, the co6e1istence o0 2arious .roups #ho %in.le in acti2e street li0e, but

#ho do not Foin to.ether in acti2e citienship &eatherstone, -773, p* 7--*

9o#e2er, the totalisin. tenor o0 the accounts66#here apparently e2eryone, e2ery#here

e1periences the sa%e electronic 8no%adis%8, and the reduction o0 urban li0e to the 0latness o0 the

scanscape Burro#s, -77, p* 5-66is proble%atic* !hey lea2e too little roo% 0or the ordinary

citien and al%ost none 0or the ordinary city66or suburb66and the di00erent de2elop%ent paths that

#orld6city analysis hi.hli.hts* espite )irilio8s -773 re0erences to $e1ico City, a pro0ound

%etropolitanis% is re2ealed i0 #e try to i%a.ine a 8post6colonial8 2ision Gabilondo, -77=;

Robins, -777* Althou.h those e1cluded 0ro% these electronic net#or/s are noted, it see%s 0or

authors li/e )irilio -77 that, i0 one thin. is #orse than bein. s#ept up in these co%ple1

net#or/s, it is bein. cut o00 and stranded into a local ti%e see Graha% and Auri.i, -77a* !here

is a sense that the une2en access to this technolo.y %ay #ell increase rather than a%eliorate

social polarisation*

C'berille


6/25

rather than contributin. to a solution Robins, -777, p* ='* As El#es put it:

Co%puter technolo.y #as desi.ned to pro%ote and speed up .lobal co%%unication and yet the

e00ect is so%eho# one o0 disconnection and distance* ndi2iduals are increasin.ly loc/ed into the

isolation o0 their ho%es *** and they only %a/e contact #ith the outside #orld throu.h

teleco%%unications and net#or/ed co%puter6in0or%ation syste%s*


7/25

Social li0e is ato%ised, lea2in. indi2iduals see/in. narcissistic pleasures in 8placeless8

en2iron%ents de2oted to consu%er capitalis%* !he %all already represents a 2irtual en2iron%ent

in so%e senses* !he 2irtual %all is one o0 the endlessly heralded opportunities pro%oted 0or the

nternet* And this should not be surprisin. since the a2era.e 8netien8, is a00luent, educated and

interested in consu%er .oods Auri.i and Graha%, -773; Graha% and $ar2in, -774* We are

pro%ised a three6di%ensional #al/ throu.h en2iron%ent, #ith 2irtual reality allo#in. us to

inspect products and ready credit lines to buy the%* Per0ectly si%ulated capitalis%* Stores, that

need carry no stoc/, 2isited by shopper8s 8a2atars8 co%puter6.enerated 0i.ures that represent the

user or, better, o00er tele6presence placin. orders by electronic cash, #hich lead to transactions

in ban/ net#or/s and the tele%atically co6ordinated, Fust6in6ti%e production o0 .oods*

Co%poundin. this is the 8data2eillance8, so6called, #here interests and actions are lo..ed and

recorded to build up %ar/etin. pro0iles o0 interests* !a/en to e1tre%es it leads to a di.ital

Dapanese hostess bar, #here the #eary consu%er is tended to by an auto%ated hostess66their

8personal data 0airy866#hile co%pilin. the indi2idualised %ar/etin. pro0ile Ba/er, -773* !he

suburban shoppin. %all is ta/en to a hi.her order; cyberspace e1tends a .eneral urban proble%

o0 the co%%odi0ication and closure o0 publicspace&eatherstone and Burro#s, -77=, p* -'*

9o#e2er, it is surely not too %uch to ad%it that there are 0or%s o0 sociality in the %all, nor

should #e 0or.et the hetero.eneity o0 these se%i6public, partly pri2ate spaces 0ro% %e.a6%alls

to hu%ble arcades* $oreo2er, i%plyin. a contrastin. authentic, ori.inary urban e1perience

see%s proble%atic since %any o0 the classic locales o0 8public8 interaction #ere co%%ercial66

0ro% ca0es, to depart%ent stores i.ht, -777, p* --=*


8/25

technolo.y deter%inin. the outco%e* Recent urban history is told as a story o0 declinin.

co%%unal spaceand increasin. ato%isation; the di00erence co%es in a belie0 that this ti%e

technolo.y o00ers a solution instead o0 causin. 0urther crises, that 0ibre optics can reconnect

co%%unities bro/en up by tar%ac* n an uncanny resta.in. o0 classic urban accounts, cyberspace

%eets Si%%el and !onnies* Si%%el8s alienated, o2ersti%ulated urban bricoleur, stitchin. an

identity 0ro% 0ra.%ented sources, 0its #ell #ith accounts o0 in0or%ation o2erload in cyberspace

Bouchet, -773* 9o#e2er, instead o0 this 0ra.%ented subFect, adri0t in oceans o0 in0or%ation,

there is a 2ision, or, as detractors #ould ha2e it, a 0antasy o0 recreatin. co%%unity $cBeath and

Webb, -77=* Co%%unication is not seen as a trans%ission o0 in0or%ation, as .lobalised

accounts tend to ha2e it, but rather as a socially bindin. ritual Dones, -773, p* -=*

Co%%unication technolo.ies are clai%ed to o00er possibilities 0or puttin. co%%unal li0e bac/

to.ether a.ain66to re2i2i0y disappearin. in0or%al and associational spaces Rhein.old, -77+, p*

-5* !ele%atics are seen as o00erin. pra.%atic possibilities 0or i%pro2in. real li2es* 9ard6#ires

could support local social net#or/s*n+ !his has been pro%oted as al%ost a direct %appin.

#here local initiati2es could use technolo.y to re2italise their nei.hbourhoods see, 0or e1a%ple,

Schuler, -774* So pra.%atic critics li/e oheny6&arina -774, p* 1iii and -== call 0or 8ci2ic

net#or/in.8 that reinte.rates people #ith places and the e2aluation o0 technolo.ies not by their

.lobal e1tent but by the intensity o0 localised connecti2ity in places* 9is approach locates the

2itality o0 co%%unity in e%placed interaction, #hich %ay be supple%ented by net#or/ed

co%%unication, but relies at heart on unplanned interaction see Calhoun, -773*

A co%%unity is bound by place, #hich al#ays includes co%ple1 social and en2iron%ental

necessities* t is not so%ethin. you can easily Foin* You can8t subscribe to a co%%unity as you

can a discussion .roup on the net* t %ust be li2ed* *** !he hope that the incredible po#ers o0

.lobal co%puter net#or/s can create ne# 2irtual co%%unities, %ore use0ul and healthier than

the old .eo.raphic ones, is thus %isplaced* !he net seduces us and 0urther re%o2es us 0ro% our

localities66unless #e ta/e char.e o0 it #ith speci0ic co%%unity6based, local a.endas oheny6

&arina, -774, p* +

ndeed, i0 #e loo/ at ho# tele%atics 0it in #ith other practices and co%%unication technolo.ies,

#e can see that althou.h they are sui .eneris 8delocalised8, a lot o0 interaction is actually bet#een

people in the sa%e area #ho %eet in person, telephone and share other connections Well%an

and Gulia, -773, p* -7*

9o#e2er, an alternate ar.u%ent sees non6localised 82irtual co%%unities8 independently o0 locally

e%bedded urban net#or/s* !he idea that 2irtual co%%unities are escapist or in0erior is reFected,

and they are seen as co6e@ual #ith other 0or%s o0 belon.in.* nstead o0 spaces o0 in0or%ational


9/25

0lo#s, tele%atics allo# places to #hich people can 0eel attach%ent and belon.in.* Real is the

description 0or %eanin.0ul interaction66be it do#n a phone or 0ace6to60ace $ar/ha%, -773, pp*

-=46-4'* !he %ost pro%inent e1ponent o0 this 2ie# has been 9o#ard Rhein.old -77+ #hose

0ol/sy, ho%espun 8#isdo%8 and #est6coast style ha2e enchanted and an.ered co%%entators in

e@ual %easure* 9e too/ a co%puter6%ediated discursi2e co%%unity and charted the len.thy

interactions, the .radual build6up o0 shared 0eelin. and %utual support a%on. a spatially

dispersed .roup: a .roup, he su..ested, that e2entually 0or%ed a co%%unity* !o recite one o0 the

%ore 0a%ous passa.es o0 his #or/, 2irtual co%%unities are

social a..re.ations that e%er.e 0ro% the


10/25

co%%unities #ith other places*


11/25

and separatin., not si%ply instru%ental, but purposi2e .roupin.s, that are partly electi2e* !hese

are .roupin.s that are achie2ed rather than bein. born into itchin, -773, p* 75, that

ne2ertheless %obilise unspo/en, shared sociality throu.h a sense o0 8tactile pro1i%ity8 rather than

rational order Poster, -773, p* -73; Stone, -77=* 9o#e2er, such .roupin.s %i.ht be Fust

another 0or% o0 8li0estyle encla2e8 that Bellah noted His 0unda%entally se.%ental and celebrates

the narcissis% o0 si%ilarityH 9ealy, -774, p* 4-*

t is not a case o0 @uestionin. the authenticity o0 %ediated .roupin.s see Watson, -77* &ro%

early telephone net#or/s, %any social .roups ha2e relied upon %ediated co%%unication* !hese

.roupin.s sho# that net#or/s cannot be si%ply opposed to interactional space* But are

co%%unities the best %etaphor 0or .roupin.s such as alt*rec*%usic*indi.o6.irls? !he dispersed

interest6.roup o00ers so%e connections to an earlier incarnation o0 ci2il society as dispersed

co%%unities o0 scholars sustained by correspondence* !he circulation o0 /no#led.e and

in0or%ation, leadin. occasionally to in0or%ed discussion, see%s to o00er so%e parallels Stone,

-77- to a ci2il society #here a.ency is .rounded in interaction, not a presupposed collecti2e

identity Dones, -77, p* +(* !he si%ilarity then appears to be #ith the sel06re0le1i2e critical

e1a%ination o0 0oundational positions associated #ith the outline proposed by 9aber%as 0or the

publicsphere*

Ne+ PublicSaces

!he .eo.raphy o0 the %odern city, li/e %odern technolo.y, brin.s to the 0ore deep seated

proble%s in Western ci2ilisation *** !he co%puter screen and the is lands o0 the periphery are

spatial a0tershoc/s o0 proble%s unsol2ed in streets and to#n s@uares, in churches and to#n halls,

in houses and courtyards pac/in. people close to.ether in old constructions in stone, 0orcin.

people to touch, yet desi.ns #hich 0ailed to arouse the a#areness o0 0lesh pro%ised in 9o.arth8s

en.ra2in.s Sennett, -775, p* '-*

An alternati2e approach loo/s not to the rene#al o0 co%%unity but the publicsphere*


12/25

beco%es increasin.ly constructed throu.h te1tual %eans #hile the body ceases to be pri2ile.ed

Stone, -77-* !he e00ect is the creation o0 a te1tualised and less corporeal publicpersona*

ndeed, it is possible to %a/e the case that the publicsphere has al#ays been 2irtual, reliant

upon, not opposed to, te1ts and technolo.y 0ro% telephones to %ass %edia Dones, -773, p* '=;

i.ht, -777, p* -'+ and part o0 an on.oin. and ra%i0yin. de2elop%ent o0 con.eries o0 se%i6

pri2ate social spaces Calhoun, -773; Stone, -77=, p* 5('* t is the co%%unitarian criti@ue that

too o0ten this decorporealisation blurred into a uni2ersalis% that repressed the actual speci0icities

o0 the subFect66bour.eois, #hite and %ale* 9o#e2er, the approach does chi%e #ith the play o0

te1tualised identities 0acilitated throu.h tele%atic %eans*

!o reprise so%e si.ni0icant %o%ents 0ro% 9aber%as8 -737 !he Structural !rans0or%ation o0

the PublicSphere, an in0or%ational sector o0 society co%prisin. a ran.e o0 institutions allo#s

people access to in0or%ation to 0oster re0le1i2ely a#are understandin.s in a condition o0 relati2e

autono%y Webster, -77=* 9aber%as ar.ues that the sphere is in decline throu.h the increasin.

ability o0 states and corporations to %anipulate in0or%ation and thus discussion throu.h public

relations, ad2ertisin. and so 0orth* espite his distrust o0 historicis%, 9aber%as see%s to locate a

.olden a.e o0 the publicsphere in the -th and -3th centuries lin/ed to certain urban institutions

and spaces* !he crucial loci are the co00ee houses o0 -th6century ondon and the salons o0 -3th6

century Paris66both, #e should note, se%i6pri2ate i.ht, -777, p* --=* !hese o00ered an arena

0or a risin. class 0raction to articulate itsel0 a.ainst a 0eudal state* 9aber%as is notoriously

di00icult to pin do#n in ter%s o0 concrete spatial i%plications 0or publicspace9o#ell, -77+*

Yet there are parallels #ith co%puter6%ediated co%%unication: 0irst, distribution and access to

in0or%ation; secondly, the relationship to %edia institutions* n both counts, the net, bein. less

controllable and based on %any6to6%any e1chan.es, has been proclai%ed as re%edyin. the

crises 9aber%as depicts* !hirdly, in ter%s o0 the salons and co00ee houses, could #e not see

discussion .roups and so on in this li.ht, as spaces o0 associational de%ocracy &ernbac/, -77;

Gi%ene, -77, p* 3; Weston, -77?

!he decentralised and non6hierarchical syste% see%s to resist the distortions 9aber%as depicts

in the current %edia*n5 Where Poster -77=, -77 noted that #ith the %edia industries, the

publicsphere #as o0ten a silent sphere, dri2en by the pairin.s o0 sender6recipient, producer6

consu%er, then tele%atics o00er a 0ield o0 .eneralised interacti2ity* !hus e60ora o00er rational

discourse bet#een sy%%etrical indi2iduals, pursuin. consensus throu.h the presentation o0

2alidity clai%s Poster, -77, p* '-3* !he procedures 0or establishin. a usenet con0erence

in2ol2e the e1a%ination o0 the rationale and presuppositions o0 the proposed .roup throu.h

publicdebate and discussion o0talian, -774* !hat said, the co6present, e%bodied encounters


13/25

o0 9aber%as8 account are syste%atically denied to electronic spaces6e660ora bein. asynchronous

%edia as #ell as dise%bodied* r #e %i.ht turn to the e2olution o0 %ulti6user .a%in.

technolo.y $s or %ulti6user di%ensions obFect oriented pro.ra%%in. to produce electronic

spaces #here people can socialise and interact66either throu.h te1tual channels or as 8places8 that

o00er ones #hich are spatially con0i.ured to allo# real6ti%e interaction see 0or e1a%ple, Bay%,

-773; ol/o and Reid, -773; $cau.hlin et al*, -77* !he spaceis the opposite o0 the

8in0obahn8* nstead o0 the producti2ist spaceo0 the hi.h#ay, 0ull o0 sur.in. data, there are

pluri0or% spaces o0 associati2e de%ocracy ro/er, -774, p* -(* An e1a%ple o0 this in ter%s o0

urban politics is the publicelectronic net#or/ o0 Santa $onica* !his net#or/ allo#ed interaction

bet#een city o00icials, elected o00icials and the populace throu.h a series o0 con0erences

Sch%it, -77* !he e00ect #as not as s#eepin. as hyperbolic co%%entaries portend, but it did

allo# so%e ne# and direct political discussions that crossed con2entional boundaries*n=

9o#e2er, be0ore this none6too6cle2er tric/ o0 %appin. one century into another .ets out o0 hand,

there are so%e thin.s that do not 0it so #ell* &irst, the pri2ile.in. o0 rational, in0or%ed

co%%entary see%s to %iss the o2erload o0 in0or%ation and irrational aspects o0 0la%e #ars*

Secondly, a% sceptical about lin/in. these de2elop%ents to class 0ractions* While there are

ar.u%ents 0or 8in0or%ational classes8, these o0ten obscure radically di00erent relationships both to

the rest o0 society and the in0or%ation handled see u%ar, -77+* !hey see% too incoherent to

co%pare to the co%%ercial bour.eoisie, thou.h they o00er so%e purchase on stru..les bet#een

0ractions a%on. in0or%ation producers* !hirdly, thepublicsphere %arched to a publicti%e; that

is the in2ention o0 a linear chronolo.y allo#in. rational choices to predict and control the 0uture*

A real6ti%e society poses proble%s 0or such conceptions* &inally, the publicsphere #as 0ounded

on the in2ention o0 a stable and bounded political sel0* 9o# is this concept able to deal #ith the

%ore 0ra.%entary, unbounded and distributed sel0 o0 the net#or/? o #e 0ollo# Poster -77, p*

'''6''5 and see a %o2e 0ro% 2alidity clai%s bein. presented to usin. the technolo.y to

constitute sel2es? r do #e appeal to 8location technolo.ies8 desi.ned 0or 8#arrantin.8 users66that

is, connectin. %ediated presence to a body, to create a 8socially apprehensible citien8 Stone,

-77=, p* +77? n short locatin. the co%petent subFect o0 attributable actions is rendered

proble%atic*n4

irtual PublicSaces$

IStone8sJ studies o0 electronic co%%unication syste%s su..est that participants code 82irtual8

reality throu.h cate.ories o0 8nor%al8 reality* !hey do so by co%%unicatin. to each other as i0

they #ere in physical co%%on space, as i0 this space#ere inhabited by bodies, #ere %appable

by Cartesian perspecti2e, and by re.ardin. the interactions as e2ents, as 0ully si.ni0icant in the


14/25

participants8 li0e histories Poster, -77=, p* 7(*

So%e analyses read 2irtual urban spaces directly into types o0 social #orld66a Platonis% that

sees a per0ect correspondence bet#een in0or%ation, 0or%s and consciousness Stallabrass, -77=,

pp* = and 3* &or e1a%ple, a neoclassical re2i2alist architecture, associated #ith Kuinlan !erry or

Christopher Ale1ander, loo/s to unco2er an archetypal urban .ra%%ar in neoclassical 0or%s that

#ill pro%ote a %ore co%%unal, or.anic urban li0e* t see/s to create spaces clai%able and

8inhabitable8, in a stron. sense, throu.h #hich people can shape their o#n collecti2e belon.in.

9o#ell, -77+* 9o#e2er, unli/e %odernist ci2ilisin. plans 0ro% Bentha% or &ourier, the

classical techne says little about the relationship bet#een created spaceand social li0e Scar0,

-77=, p* 45* $ore interestin. perhaps are neo6rationalist interpretations by architects li/e Rossi,

#here classical 0or%s are not about co%%unal identity so %uch as a 0reein. o0 the publicreal%

0ro% co%%odi0ication in., -774, p* -=-* !he in2ocation o0 classical 0or%s is so%e#here

bet#een in2entory and %e%ory66not eternal .ra%%ar but e2o/in. the historical speci0icities o0

past publicreal%s* !hus the #or/ o0 architects li/e eon rir does not ai% to recreate an

essential public0or% but rather a relationship bet#een ne# and old 0or%s

that #ill #ea2e their path throu.h the Fun/ o0 the co%%ercialied city, re6establishin. a public

real% and /nittin. to.ether the presently disparate bits66a ne# order to be layered on the urban

detritus in., -774, p* -='*

t is a 0or% o0 buildin. spaces 0or publicassociation that deploys stron.ly classical ideas o0

spacenot to su..est classical 0or%s deter%ine publicli0e, but to ani%ate their cultural %e%ory*

!his e2ocation o0 urban pasts %i.ht be contrasted #ith %ore a2o#edly post6%odern #or/s li/e

Gehry8s oyola a# School #hich asse%bles disparate detritus, creatin. a publicspacethrou.h

0ra.%ents o0 te%ples, deliberately inco%plete, #ithout capitols or bases, and baro@ue stairs

#ithout balustrade in., -774, pp* -4(6-4=* t is a physical %ani0estation o0 the in0or%ational

real% o0 the tele%atic city, as 0ra.%ented, si%ultaneous 0lo#s o0 in0or%ation* A sense o0

co%plication echoed in the a2o#edly deconstructi2e Parc de la )illette in Paris, #hich ta/es up

lee and andins/y, to produce disFunctural landscapes, #ith a loopin. path o0 cine%atic i%a.es

to be #atched, o2erlain by a red .rid parodyin. Corbusier in., -774, p* --*

9o# %i.ht these i%a.inati2e publicspaces o0 architects in0or% tele%atics? Graha% and Auri.i

-77b o00er a tentati2e typolo.y separatin. si%ple electronic brochures, then data access

syste%s, 0ro% those that encoura.e interaction by e%ulatin. real cities, or in2entin. ne# ones*

!hus i.ital A%sterda% has 2arious 8a.ora8 0or publicdebate %odelled on city s@uares as a

%etaphor 0or a publicsphere o0 in0or%ation and discussion66urban %etaphors #hich e1plicitly

in2o/e 8Athenian participatory de%ocracy8 &rancissen and Brants, -773, p* '(* ne o0 the ai%s


15/25

#as to 0oster a 2irtual publicspace#here decisions can be @ueried and issues discussed, in order

to redress a decline in con2entional political participation* !he urban %etaphor see%s reassurin.,

usin. a 2ocabulary li/e a.ora and 0oru% in the sa%e #ay that rir e2o/ed Western history* $ore

directly, the 9elsin/i Arena'((( proFect o00ers a direct replication o0 the city* t o00ers 2irtual

2isits to e1istin. places, #ith


16/25

!hus Parc de )illette is co%piled 0ro% one rubric o2er another, cuttin. across each other denyin.

coherence66a layerin. o0 di00erent types o0 space* r the etchin.s o0 Piranesi in the -3th century

that, echoin. anato%ical dra#in.s, e1ca2ated Ro%e throu.h ruins, creatin. .aps and irruptions

o0 the past into the present* !his sense o0 the publicas disFunctural politics and space, su..ests

counterin. the narrati2e that the loss o0 the publicsphere is the loss o0 enclosure throu.h 0lo#s

Boyer, -774, p* '(4* !he architect ebbeus Woods 80reespace8 proFects try to create such an

arena throu.h an 8anarchitecture8 #here there are scars and cuts, sudden discontinuities and

irruptions in the urban 0abric* !hus a li2in. roo% is suddenly opened to the #orld, or transposed

to another part o0 the city, blurrin. di%ensions o0 inside and out, here and there Wood, -773; see


17/25

$assey, -775; $cBeath and Webb, -77=, p* '='* t %i.ht be then that #e can see a 0ractured

publicspacebein. 0or%ed; rather the ano%alously localised urban 2illa.es, a spacethat Fu%bles

pre2iously distinct cate.ories*

Electronic spaceinteracts #ith urban spaceto create heterarchic spaces, #hich disrupt

con2entional boundaries $enser, -774* !he 2irtual is the %ultiplication o0 spaces, and

te%poralities, in the sa%e place Stone, -77-* !he publicspaceo0 the 2irtual city is thus 2ery

%uch the electronic a.ora66not as Al Gore i%plied in his 8ne# Athens8 2ision, but in the sense

that the a.ora #as the point #here the con2entional orderin.s and rules o0 the classical Gree/

city bro/e do#n* t #as the place that disrupted the uni0yin. sy%bolis% o0 the city, #here no2el

0orces 0ro% outside s#irled inside the #alls, #here there #as cultural %i1in.* Where the

acropolis held the depth o0 the past and unity o0 the city8s .ods, the a.ora #as about spatial

e1tension and 0leetin. %eetin.s #hich e1pressed no unity st#ald, -77, p* -++* !his sense o0

publicspacesu..ests that the electropolis is not an alternate real%, but o00ers conFunctures o0

di00erent 0or%s o0 space66di00erent electronic, physical, social and political spaces* Runnin. these

to.ether produces a 0ractured publicsphere, not one o0 sel06present indi2iduals interactin., but

the interactions the%sel2es 0or%in. a publicspacethat is necessarily inco%plete: a space#hich

is one o0 sin.ularity not stability, one o0 partial obFects not products, #hich re@uires partial

/no#led.es not o0 the spatially distinct and te%porally ho%o.eneous, but o0 so%ethin.

e1perienced in 0ra.%ents Guattari, -77'b*

t see%s then that #e should be care0ul o0 all atte%pts to %a/e these spaces coherent and

representational* nstead, perhaps they are unsy%bolisable66#hat acan #ould call the trau%atic

real; as de Certeau8s -735 criti@ue su..ests, the city is haunted by di00erent practices and

/no#led.es* !he %appable, plannable electronic 2isions su..est both a desire to /no# and the

li%its o0 that /no#in. subFect* Co%parin. these 2isions o0 cyberspace, #hat they share is the

hauntin. by urban 0ears and urban i%a.inaries* !hey spea/ loudly o0 0ears o0 incoherence and

instability* !he real city is then not the contrast o0 the electropolis #ith solid .round, or 0leshy,

s%elly, shoe leather and petroleu% city* !he real city is then not the base around #hich 2irtual

cities encrust* Rather, it is a hole, a puncture, created throu.h tele%atics as %uch as any other

%eans; the trau%atic /ernel o0 the real city is inarticulable* &ear0ul and an1ious, ho#e2er, #e

paste o2er co%0ortin. .raphics* Electropolis is another an1ious urban i%a.inin., con0usin. and

co%poundin. codes o0 order* Bein. al#ays else#here, it de0ers the idea o0 the presence o0 the

city* !he ideal city66be that the cyber6utopian or the anti6cyberian66see%s to 0unction as a

hauntin. ideal and necessary loss*

Notes


18/25

n-* !he ter% Cyber2ille #as used in a Channel 5 docu%entary by ai Productions in

ece%ber, -775, in a %ore a%bi2alent %anner*

n'* Sli.htly contrary to this, recent trends su..est that te1t6based $Us are so%e o0 the %ost

endurin. co%puter .a%es around, because they utilise the traditional stren.ths o0 i%a.inati2e

literature*

n+* t is #orth notin. that in the early -7(s the arch6co%%unitarian Etioni #as publishin.

reports on #irin. local co%%unities66but in that case #ith Cable !) oheny6&arina, -774, p*

-4'* &or a criti@ue o0 ho# this translates social to spatial net#or/s, see $cBeath and Webb,

-77=*

n5* Whether this lasts or not is a %atter 0or debate* t is #orth re%e%berin. that telephones in

the US be.an as o2erlappin. and %ultiple net#or/s allo#in. %any6to6%any con2ersations,

be0ore bein. shaped into corporate %onopolies $ar2in, -733*

n=* Rural initiati2es li/e the S#edish !ids2a. noll and $ontana8s Bi. S/y !ele.raph ha2e also

atte%pted to create a 2irtual urban publicsphere 0or rural co%%unities #ho #ere con2entionally

debarred 0ro% this by scattered residences and in0re@uent interaction Schuler, -774, pp* 7467

and -736-77; Uncapher, -773

n4* &or instance, $s o00er dele.ated a.ency #here a2atars and bots represent their creators,

but the latter are se%i6auto%ated to per0or% certain tas/s* !hus #hen a user represented on

screen by a %o2in. %anne@uin and sel06selected na%e enters the 2irtual ca0e desi.ned and

controlled by the host and is .reeted by a 0riendly 0i.ure o00erin. so%e ne#s but #hich is

actually a but subroutine .reetin. e2ery .uest, then #ho is the co%petent subFect here? And #ho

can be held accountable under #hich Furisdiction 0or any o0 the actions?

n* HUnder the protection o0 the #ord public, so%e critics return to unproble%atied,

precritical uses o0 the adFecti2e real66real people, real space, real social proble%sH eutsche,

-774, p* +-3*

Re/ere%ces

AURG, A* and GRA9A$, S* -773 !he 8crisis8 in the urban publicreal%, in: B* AER

Ed* Cyberspace i2ide: E@uality, A.ency and Policy in the n0or%ation Society, pp* =63'*

ondon: Routled.e*

BAER, R* -773 P& !rade%ar/: the di.ital hostess, in: D* W Ed* !he )irtual

E%bodied: Presence> Practice>!echnolo.y, pp* '(46'-'* ondon: Routled.e*

BAY$,


19/25

BERA


20/25

Cybersociety, pp* +46=5* ondon: Sa.e*

&RA

Cyberde%ocracy: !echnolo.y, Cities and Ci2ic

Uni2ersity Press*

GUA!!AR, &* -77'b Spaceand corporeity: no%ads, city dra#in.s, in 9* LE!A< Ed*

Se%iote1te>Architecture, pp* --36-'=*


21/25

9WE, P* -77+ Publicspaceand the publicsphere: political theory and the historical

.eo.raphy o0 %odernity, Society and Space, --, pp* +(+6+''*

D


22/25

Cree/, CA: Alta$ira Press*

$AR)< C* -733 When ld !echnolo.ies Were


23/25


24/25

S!>###*socresonline*or.*u/>socresonline>5>->#ard*ht%lO*

WAR, $* -775 )irtual Geo.raphy: i2in. With Global $edia E2ents* Bloo%in.ton,


25/25

net#or/in., !he n0or%ation Society, -+, pp* -7=6'(-*

WBUR, S* -77 An archaeolo.y o0 cyberspaces: 2irtuality, co%%unity, identity in: *

PR!ER Ed* nternet Culture, pp* -'6'3* ondon: Routled.e*

WS

mike crang - public space

Documents