Flash Mobs: Social Construction of Public Spaces As Places for Sociability & Public Discourse
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Flash Mobs: Social Construction of Public Spaces as Places for Sociability & Public Discourse “What is the Citie, but the People? True, the People are the Citie” – (Shakespeare, Coriolanus, act 3, scene 1) Master Thesis Report Research Master of Human Geography and Planning Author Supervisors Mila Stamenova Dr. I.C. van Liempt [email protected] Prof.Dr. Rob van der Vaart Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University March, 2014 Key words public space, flash mob, public discourse, sociability Abstract According to Young’s normative definition, public spaces should be cosmopolitan places where people from different backgrounds can meet and learn from each other, resulting in new insights and new tolerant social relationships (Young, 1990), however, many scholars have pointed out to the apparent decline in importance of public space for sociability and public discourse (Sennett, 1977, 1992; Sorkin, 1992; Mitchell, 1995). Nonetheless, the flash mob phenomenon, as an ephemeral and partially extemporaneous social event occurring in public space, might provide counter argumentation to the apparent decline of public spaces. Recognizing its increasing popularity and practice over time, scholars in the field of anthropology, sociology and media studies have examined the sociological and ICT aspects of flash mobs (Rheingold, 2003; Nicholson, 2005; Gore, 2010; Molnàr, 2010; Rodriguez, 2010), yet, no urban geographical research has attempted to understand this phenomenon and its relation to the public spaces where it occurs. Thus, utilizing a humanistic approach to the geography of flash mobs, this study aims to understand the affect of the flash mob phenomenon on the social construction of public spaces. Through Lefebvre’s (1991) spatial triad of space construction and Tuan’s (1977) perspective of experience, the research will examine how people socially construct public spaces through their ephemeral flash mob experiences. Moreover, considering previous research claiming a cultural and societal difference in the effects and types of flash mobs for the developed and developing societies, this research focuses on two case studies of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Skopje, R. Macedonia, attempting to elucidate whether and how the flash mob affects vary in different societal contexts. Could something frivolous as a flash mob socially construct public spaces as places for sociability and public discourse? 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ….4 2. The Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 3. Public Spaces: Definitions & Debates…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 4. Flash Mobs: Existing Research.......................................................................................................................................................................9 5. Geography of Flash Mobs: Humanistic Approach ...........................................................................................................................................13 5.1. Lefebvre: Social Production of Space ............................................................................................................................................................13 5.2. Tuan: The Perspective of Experience ............................................................................................................................................................16 6. Research Design & Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................17 6.1. Design & Opera tiona lization ........................................................................................................................................................................17 6.2. Case Study Selection ...................................................................................................................................................................................20 6.3. Data Collection...........................................................................................................................................................................................22 6.3.1. Desk Research……………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………….………………….23 6.3.2. In-Situ Pa rticipa nt and Non-participant Observations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 6.3.3. Semi-structured In-depth Interviews ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..27 6.4. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................................30 6.5. Concluding Reflection on Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................31 7. Macedonian Flash Mobs: Activism in Public Spaces .......................................................................................................................................35 7.1. The Transitional Society & Skopje’s Public Spaces…….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..35 7.2. The Rise of Macedonian Flash Mobs…………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37 7.3. The Risky Activist Flash Mob Experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42 7.4. Socia l Cons truction of Ma cedonian Public Spaces…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….46 7.5. Cyber Space for Promotion & Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49 7.6. In-group Sociability……….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50 7.7. Public Discourse Fla sh Mobs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 7.8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 8. Dutch Flash Mobs: Sociability & Spectacle in Public Spaces .............................................................................................................................55 8.1. The Tolerant Society & Amsterdam’s Public Spaces………….…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………..55 8.2. Dutch Flash Mobs in All Shapes and Sizes…………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59 8.3. The Fun ‘Pointless’ Flash Mob Experience………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65 8.4. Socia l Cons truction of Dutch Public Spaces………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………68 8.5. Cyber Space for Mobilization & Organization…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………….71 8.6. Connecting Through Ephemeral Sociability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….72 8.7. Commercialization of Flash Mobs…………………..………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………74 8.8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..76 9. Final Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................................77 10. Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................................................83 11. References.................................................................................................................................................................................................94 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................................................98 3 1. Introduction According to Young’s normative and ideal definition, public spaces should be places where people with different social perspectives, experiences and affiliations encounter each other (Young, 1990; Mitchell, 1995). Therefore, to many theorists, the public space is the material location where social and political interactions of the public sphere occur (Habermans, 1989; Mitchell, 1995; Fraser, 1990). Accordingly, most authors have stressed the social meeting function of public spaces (Lofland, 1973; Sennett, 1977; Zukin, 1995), describing the symbolic interaction and playful and fleeting social encounters that occur (Goffman, 1971; Hollands et al., 2007; Stevens, 2007), stating that public spaces should be multicultural and diverse places where people from different backgrounds can meet and learn from each other, resulting in new, open and tolerant social relations (Mitchell, 1995; Melik, 2008; Hou, 2010). However, there has been an ample of argumentation to support the apparent decline in importance of public space for social interaction and public discourse (Sennett, 1977, 1992; Sorkin, 1992; Mitchell, 1995). This end of public space has been related to a set of societal developments, among which two seem to be of great importance. One is the overturn of public politics and social discourse by capitalist commercial and homogenized semi or pseudo public spaces (Sennett, 1977; Davis, 1992; Sorkin, 1992; Mitchell,