More Than Just Geography: Social Spaces in Urban Places - Research Paper Example

?More Than Just Geography: Social Spaces in Urban Places Prologue Looking at the expansive lawn of Bryant Park in a lazy summer afternoon is like watching over the entire New York City, with all the elements of the of the world’s busiest place squeezed into the nine-acre space. As Michel de Certeau said, in order to see the city, there has to be means to satisfy it (92). True enough, the park reflects New York with its diversity of establishments and amenities that it leaves no wonder why the place is easily filled up with visitors in an instant. If one would go to the top floor of the Bank of America tower overlooking the park, the once capacious area below becomes cramped, as people move like ants in the limited space left. Yet people continue to engage in their own activities, oblivious of their compromised surroundings. For as long they are able to carry out their purpose in the place, all the rest remain strangers to them – never mind, if they are already literally rubbing elbows with one another. Nevertheless, this is typical in the urban land. While those who are used to living in the countryside may find this situation suffocating, it is quite astounding how city dwellers seem to have adopted survival strategies to cope with the continuously crowding area, as though they do not need space. Going back, an imaginary view of the Bryant Park on top of Bank of America tower creates a vivid and lively scene where stories are formed. Perhaps, in one of the couches in the Southwest Porch, there may be a woman who would say, “I just need space”, a typical spiel when two people are in the brink of breaking up. This line serves as an easy way to warrant the ending of a relationship, especially if the individual, for some reason, desires to get freed from whatever attachment – may it be physical or emotional. Although it may be an effective way out, there seems to be more to ‘needing space’ aside from a reasonable means to end a relationship. While the literal meaning of a space is a spot left empty, it remains to be related to its figurative definition such that the space between individuals actually separates them, limiting their social interaction and attachment. Yet for a place like Bryant Park, keeping a space seems impossible. But perhaps, the city dwellers’ concept of space has indeed gone beyond just a simple matter of geography. Introduction The innovation of the concept of space probably roots to the time of Edward T. Hall, an anthropologist whose field of interest and expertise centers on spacing behavior of individuals. Hall identified several terms related to space – most notable of which is the social space. By definition, social space is such which individuals feel comfortable enough to engage in occasional social interactions with friends and strangers. Moreover, Hall proposed that people have an unconscious perception of space which can be manifested by the way that they behave towards it and the people that they are sharing the physical space with. This behavior is largely based on the culture from which an individual belongs. As such, “public space always becomes cultural space” (Ferrell 14). Meanwhile, as a result of this proposed concept, social space has become a subject of studies for many years. Generally, these studies were geared towards simply finding out why this space exists and how it is manifested. Based on the findings, it is surprising that several factors actually account for what was once seen a simple yet perplexing matter. The present research also attempted to explore many aspects of this ambiguous concept; however, in the context of urban settings where crowding is inevitable and violation of physical space is likewise expected. It may be assumed that spacing behaviors could only be maintained in low-density situations when there is a small number people who can act on their respective assumed space. But then again, given the limited physical space in the urban area, the social concept of physical space is therefore more evident. This research answers many question related to the matter. What is the role of space in the social context? Why does this space exist? How do people maintain the space? Why do individuals need it in the first place? Each question is answered by conducting an extensive participant-observation. Being the most populous state, New York is faced with everyday situations of overcrowding. Since it has already been established that social space is evident in a broad range of situations regardless of density, the state could have been a perfect subject to study. However, observations of social space are only possible in small-scale settings. As such, Bryant Park was chosen instead because it seems to represent the entire state with its diversity of establishments that cater different needs of the visitors. Moreover, in line with the recommended requirement of sociologist Whyte, the Bryant Park had more people per acre occupying it than any other parks, making observations more objective (283). Thesis The problem that the present study aimed to solve is to determine how individuals in crowded places like Bryant Park preserve their social space given the limited physical area. The idea is that people engage in certain behaviors in order to claim an area which they control to influence or affect interactions with others. These behaviors act like imaginary barriers that demarcate the comfortable space occupied by an individual. Moreover, the kinds of behavior and the extent by which an individual would protect this space are highly influenced by several factors. Likewise, these spacing behaviors may actually be determined by typical American cultural beliefs and practices. Furthermore, if engaging in spacing behaviors is unsuccessful, social space will then be violated, which can result to unfavorable consequences. Significance of the Study Social space is an important but oftentimes ignored aspect of human behavior. As one of the states with the highest population, crowding is unavoidable in urban New York, and therefore violations of space are expected. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that spacing behavior still occurs in small-scale settings, where crowding may or may not be very evident. This paper, for instance, explored spacing behaviors manifested by people visiting the Bryant Park in different times of the day. While there are several researches conducted regarding social space, many of these were based in other societies and may not even be applicable to all settings since the available literature itself stated that perception of social space is culturally embedded. Therefore, a study that probes into spacing behavior of individuals in the context of the American urban culture, taking into consideration other factors overlooked by similar researches, such as values and societal norms, is necessary. Moreover, as what will be shown in the next parts of this paper, a great deal of studies have looked into the different facets of social space including the detrimental consequences that may arise upon violation. Therefore, the mere fact that there are adverse effects of space violation is sufficient to presume that indeed, studying social space is significant. Bryant Park was once a place of rampant drug business and crimes. While the management has successfully restored the park by creating amenities to encourage activities within it, new problems can still ensue as more people are now visiting the place. In this regard, in a more idealistic note, the present study serves the purpose of predicting human behavior in busy urban places. In order for public places to serve its function effectively, it is necessary that people’s behavior and action be both regularized and predictable. This in turn, would lead to more preparation on the part of the authorities, in avoiding unfavorable effects brought about by violation of space such as mass panic and aggression. Consequently, this study would hopefully call the attention of planners and architects of human environments for designing a setting which gives more importance on the behavioral needs and demands of the people rather than on the physical design of the structure. It seems that the rational concept of the city is tantamount to allowing continuous progress to earn profits through transformation to the point that space itself is forgotten (De Certeau 95). According to Ferrell (5), appropriate design and efficient use of physical environment can result to certain effects in behavior and action, which, in turn, can decrease the incidence of fear of violence or crime; hence, improving the quality of city dwellers’ lives. However, if altering of the physical space is not possible or too idealistic, at least, the management itself can be improved, perhaps, through the implementation of certain revised rules and regulations that will encourage social space preservation. In this case, the effectiveness of Bryant Park in rendering its functions will determine the convenience felt by the visitors. The design of optimal physical environments is greatly enhanced through organized investigations of the interactions among different environmental factors and people’s behavior. Furthermore, in a broader perspective, the findings of this research can contribute to the pool of information regarding social space perception and behavior. Likewise, this might serve as a comparative basis for future studies in other societies. As one of recent attempts to explore on the spacing behavior of American city dwellers, the findings of this study can be checked or compared against previous studies or against future researches that will be done on similar kind of culture. Moreover, this study reflects the culture and values of Americans that in turn influence their personal space perception. Review of Related Literature Spatial Practices and Behavior Individuals have a concept of ‘space’, which is said to be a sociological rather than physical construct. In the urban settings where the physical space is very limited, individuals actually use spaces that cannot be seen (De Certeau 93). This is because people define space based on the activities that can be carried out within it, the characteristics of the occupants and the perception of the occupants to the physical structures present in the space (Fainstein and Campbell 8). In a way, people perceive and create space depending on the relationship between the properties found within it (De Certeau 94). Moreover, individuals develop a sense of ownership for the space that they are occupying because this is their way of being one with the world (De Certeau 100). As a result, they engage in unconscious yet voluntary means to control the standards and interaction between them and others (Jacobs 32). In other words, individuals claim ownership of their respective spaces by exhibiting practices that would protect it. According to De Certeau, it is rational for a space occupant to suppress all kinds of “pollutions” that may compromise the space (94). Factors Affecting Space Perception Meanwhile, available literature has suggested a number of key factors that account for space perception. Though significant, some findings are inconsistent among the research studies conducted. Perhaps, the inconsistency lies in the fact that all these factors identified are culturally embedded. According to Zukin, “culture is a means of framing space” (6). As such, people shape public space in a way that would suit their desired social interaction and representation of space (Zukin 6). The creation of space is based on the meanings rendered by the society as the norm such that others who do not qualify within the norm are stereotyped and considered as outsiders (Fainstein and Campbell 400). In America, for instance, racial segregation is very much evident in certain residential spaces (Duneier 118). Cultural differences and economic inequalities account for separation of spaces (Duneier 120). Consequences of Social Space Violation Nevertheless, not all situations favor preservation of social space. At times, an individual’s social space may be violated, especially in crowded situations, as in the case of urban cities, resulting to unfavorable effects. According to Fainstein and Campbell, in urban spaces, the most attributable response to violation of space is to assert different oppressive controls (400). This is how the urban society functions. This control can be likened to competition for advantages of transportation and communications in which people struggle with (Fainstein and Campbell 200). For those individuals who were deprived of space due to marginalization, the response is often violent and vociferous (Fainstein and Campbell 399). As such, social conflicts arise mainly because of different perceptions on the function of the available physical space (Duneier 126). Methodology A descriptive research design through stratified random sampling procedure was used in this study. This design was employed to describe the spacing behaviors that visitors of Bryant Park engage in to preserve their social space in different density situations. Likewise, this design made it possible to explain the factors that account for these behaviors and the consequent effects of violation of social space. Prior to the conduct of the study, necessary data and statistics were requested from the management of Bryant Park. Based on the data provided, the number of visitors is greatest on weekends. For weekdays, on the other hand, the number of visitors per day is inconsistent; nonetheless, there was no day in which the number is significantly small. As such, the researchers came up with two groups of subjects to be observed on medium and high-density situations – that is, on weekdays and on weekends respectively. Since the number of visitors in Bryant Park is too large to include a significant number of subjects, the researchers arbitrarily set the number of subjects at one hundred per density situation. Moreover, in order to ensure that the sample size is representative of the entire park, observation spots were assigned at five ground areas identified at the Bryant Park map: library terrace, upper terrace, fountain terrace, 40th street allee and 42nd street allee. In total, the sample consists of two hundred visitors of Bryant Park regardless of age, gender and ethnicity. For the medium-density situations, observations were done at twelve noon on Tuesday and Friday. For high-density situations, on the other hand, observations were done on the same time on Saturday and Sunday. For each day, fifty subjects were observed. Meanwhile, one observer was assigned for each ground area mentioned previously; hence, there are five observers each day. Each observer was instructed to observe ten random people within his/her visual periphery at any period between twelve and one o’clock. Observation period lasted for thirty-five minutes since this is the average duration of visit of each visitor based on the statistics provided by the management. Those subjects who stayed less than thirty-five minutes were eliminated from the study. Meanwhile, in order to make the observation as objective as possible, a behavioral checklist was developed beforehand that contains different spacing behaviors observed in previous studies. These behaviors were grouped into three domains: demarcation of space, reaction against intruder and deterioration of social relations. During observation periods, each researcher assumed any standing or sitting position near the subjects. The checklist was hidden by putting it inside a newspaper, a book or any material that would not arouse suspicion. Frequency and duration of particular behaviors were recorded as well as other significant observations. In the first part of the observation, the researchers simply observe passively how the subjects demarcate their space. Further, for the second and third domains, the researchers engaged in certain activities that will verify some expected behaviors listed in the checklist. These activities include maintaining an eye contact with the subjects, moving close to them and some other acts that will invade their social space. Furthermore, in all subjects, ethnicity was noted as either black or white. Qualitative analysis of the results was done by considering both the number of behaviors exhibited per variable and the duration of action. For instance, subjects who exhibited several behaviors under the variable demarcation of space are presumed to keep a large social space around them. This presumption was then related to the two other variables measured. Moreover, observation results were also quantified based on the number and frequency of behaviors exhibited in each domain or variable. The obtained frequencies of exhibiting behaviors listed in each variable were added up, corresponding to the score or the measure of that variable. Descriptive statistics (i.e. mean, frequency, percentage) was employed to illustrate spacing behavior, and the aspects covered by it. Results Medium-Density Situations During medium-density situations, almost all seats are occupied and the presence of standing visitors is evident. However, the space is not so full that non-contact among the visitors is still possible, although this is not always the case. Since the choices of seats are limited, subjects who had just arrived ended up getting the most accessible seat. If choices are available, subjects usually prefer the corners where they can see other people from just one side. Other preferred spots are near the trees, edge of the benches, last innermost or the outermost kiosks. It is also noteworthy that many of the subjects preferred to stand instead of pushing their way into the available seats in the middle of the crowd. Most of the time subjects engage in different activities (e.g. reading a book, eating lunch, having a conversation with a companion). Those subjects who were alone and were not in any significant activity usually look out through a window or stare in an empty space. Body positions such as folding hands in front of the body, spreading of legs wide apart by men and placing things around the body were also observed as means of demarcating space. When observers assumed position near the subjects, the latter engage in certain behaviors to protect their space. Those seated in the moveable green chairs transfer their chairs in an available space. In instances when this was not possible, subjects simply adjusted their chairs, usually with their back turned against the observer. The density situation also allowed the subjects to adjust position when a space near them is vacated. Moreover, when observers initiated a conversation, most of the subjects gave short responses. At one event, the observers put on hippie attire and try to invade the space of subjects. Those subjects who were in the library terrace were the least tolerant upon this invasion. Some flashed a frown while some did not respond at all even if a conversation was initiated. Furthermore, eye contact was also avoided by all subjects. When observers insisted on intruding the space of the subjects, most of the subjects who were engaging in significant activities were tolerant. They simply ignored the intruders and continued their work. However, it is noteworthy that those who were not doing anything were the least tolerant. Some subjects confronted the intruders and even warned them that they would call the security. High-Density Situations During high-density situations, all seats were occupied and there were many standing visitors waiting for chairs to be available. All ground areas were packed that it is impossible for the visitors not to make contact with each other. Since it is not possible to allot large space, sitting subjects who were simply passing time close their eyes most of the time, if not through the entire stay. Subjects also engaged in different activities to demarcate their space such as using the phone and listening to music through their earphones. Also, there were very minimal conversations among the subjects who do not know each other. Usually, conversations consisted of no more than five words. These kinds of behavior were evident in all observation periods of high-density situations. When empty seats were sighted people tend to hurry in, as if competing to get a space. However, the situation does not favor deliberate choosing of space. When the observer competed to get a vacated space, it is often accompanied by complaints and argument from the subject. Moreover, arguments did not necessarily stop even after the subject and the observer have established their positions. Arguments and complaints usually concern being hurt by pushing and showing dislike to the observer who did not want to move from their places. Further, too much crowding also led to nasty remarks by some subjects, which are not necessarily directed to anyone. Discussion In both medium and high-density situations, individuals engage in certain behaviors to demarcate their space. In the medium-density situations, the choice of space is based on the possibility of increasing interpersonal distance in case an intruder comes. The elements of the physical space such as trees and corner walls somehow frame the space and separate them from others. This is in line with De Certeau’s idea that people create space based on the relationship between the physical properties found within it (94). Also, the choice of space is due to the fact that the most characterized response of people to establish space especially in urban places is to find a spot which is defensible and at the same time exclusionary (Zukin 2). On the other hand, in the high-density situations where the physical space is very limited, individuals use spaces that cannot be seen (De Certeau 93). They do this by engaging in different activities such as avoiding eye contact and conversations because these would depersonalize other individuals around them enabling them to define their space in relation to the other structures present within it (Fainstein and Campbell 8). Individuals may not consciously engage in these behaviors but these provided means to control standards and interaction between them and other people (Jacob 32). Meanwhile, there are several factors that determine the personal space of individuals. In this study, determinant of social space that was measured is limited to ethnicity and perception or impression of fellow passengers and competition for space. Nevertheless, these are largely ingrained in one’s culture. In the urban city of limitless possibilities yet limited space, culture provides a powerful means of control (Zukin 1). However, no significant difference was found among different races probably because of the little diversity in ethnicity among the subjects observed although it was expected that blacks would distanced themselves more to the white observers since in America, racial segregation is very much evident (Duneier 118). But then again, culture will always play a role in creating symbols and images that would assert ownership to a space (Zukin 1). Nevertheless, it seems that the subjects’ perceptions of other subjects play the greatest role in determining the extent of the space they keep. When the observers put on hippie attire, most of the subjects engage in behaviors to avoid the intruder. These responses reflect the subjects’ prejudices as they create ideas of people whom they do not want to be near to. This can be explained by Zukin’s idea that people shape public space in a way that would suit their desired social interaction (6). In line with the explanation of Fainstein and Campbell (400), the space that the subjects created is based on the meanings considered by the society as the norm such that others who do not qualify within the norm – in this case, the observer dressed in a deviant manner – are stereotyped and considered as outsiders. Also, Zukin (1) explained that images and memories created by the culture determine who belongs to specific places. Meanwhile, among the different means by which subjects protect their space from intruders, increasing interpersonal distance is mostly practiced in medium-density situations. Most probably, this is because, such practice is the easiest to perform and at the same time, it guarantees immediate regaining of space. For the high-density situations, on the other hand, it seems that subjects were more tolerant of the intruders as minimal behaviors were observed. This may be due to the fact that subjects were left with no other choice since the physical space was actually very limited. When spacing behaviors were not sufficient to maintain social space, subjects in medium-density situations especially those who were engaging in significant activities were more tolerant and calmer. The opposite holds true for subjects in high-density situations. Nonetheless, as expected, the effects of violation of space are detrimental – a condition which was most evident in high-density situations. Competing for space leads to arguments and fights between the subjects and the observers. This may be because of high degree of stress associated with violation of social space that arouses aggression among the subjects. This confirms the assertion of Fainstein and Campbell that the most attributable response to violation of space is to assert different oppressive controls (400). Furthermore, the difference in the reaction of subjects can be explained by the fact that social conflicts arise mainly because of different perceptions of people on the function of the available physical space (Duneier 126). Conclusion In conclusion, utilization and perception of space occurs in several steps. First, individuals engage in certain spacing behaviors in order to demarcate their space, regardless of the actual size of the physical space. Consequently, when this space is violated, individuals react by asserting control over the area in order to protect it from intruders. When these practices are not sufficient to maintain their space, adverse consequences occur. The most common detrimental consequence of violation of space is deterioration of social relations or social conflict. When social space is violated, individuals feel threatened, eventually attributing this violation to the person who caused it. The result is lack of orderliness and peace as individuals are more prone to engaging in conflicts given these stressful situations. This situation will just add up to the already existing problem of crowding in urban places. The aspects of spacing behaviors that are discussed in this study is beneficial such that it would perhaps call the attention of planners of human environments for designing a setting which takes into consideration social spacing behavior aside from the physical design of the structure. According to Jacobs, “there must be a clear demarcation between public and private spaces” (35). Being able to do so will help in the maintenance of order and comfort of people living in crowded cities. Nevertheless, while the findings of the study are significant, it remains to have its limitations. First, the sample size is not too large to significantly represent the whole study population. Second, other factors such as gender and age which could have an effect of space perception were not taken into consideration. Lastly, while the ethnicity of each subject was noted, no direct comparison was done among different races, which, according to previous studies, has an impact on space segregation. Works Cited De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Los Angeles: University of California Press,1984. Print. Duneier, Mitchell. Sidewalk New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1999. Print. Fainstein, Susan and Campbell, Scott. Readings in Urban Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002. Print. Ferrell, Jeff. Tearing Down the Streets. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Print. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. Print. Whyte, William. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Print. Zukin, Sharon. The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1995. Print. Read More