Urban Subculture and Capitalist Society in NY City - Research Paper Example

How Urban Subculture and more especially Guerrilla Gardening constitute the Trojan Horse of Consumerist and Capitalist society in New-York Professor: Course: Date: Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 1.1 Background to the Study 3 1.2 Aim and Objectives 3 1.3 Research Question 4 2.0 Background Literature 4 2.1 Guerrilla Gardening as an Urban Subculture 5 2.2 Extent to which guerrilla gardening is subversion 5 2.3 How capitalist and consumerist societies can modify its approach toward urban subversion 6 3.0 Data Collection Method 7 4.0 Key Findings 8 4.1 Where and how the guerrilla gardening take place in New York City  8 4.2 How the guerrilla gardeners organise themselves  9 4.3 How guerrilla gardening modifies the urban space 9 4.4 How guerrilla gardening is linked to politics within the city and with consumerist society  10 4.5 How the guerrilla gardeners shape their practice  10 5.0 Summary and Conclusion 11 References 12 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Study Guerrilla gardening remains a very controversial subject in literature. This is because regardless of the fact that the term and concept is generally frowned upon as subversion and a means of protesting (Adams and Hardman, 2013), there are some who defend the practice and justify why it may be considered as acceptable (Brenner and Theodore, 2002). There is a long history of guerrilla gardening with most literatures pointing to periods as far back as 1649 when Gerrard Winstanley of the Diggers, England was considered to be a celebrated guerrilla gardener. In 1801 also, the activities of John Chapman were widespread in Ohio, USA (Adams and Hardman, 2013). In modern practice, there continues to be a struggle for the place of guerrilla gardening in globalisation with some thinking that the term has been negated to levels that it least deserves to be (Harvey, 1978). There continues to be those who however opine that guerrilla gardening, since the official term was coined in 1973 by Liz Christy, has never become a positive or good concept that must be embraced (Lamborn and Weinberg, 1999). As debates and discussion of the place of guerrilla gardening in the modern globalised world go on, one fact that cannot be denied is that the concept has actually become an urban subculture in most consumerist and capitalist cities including New York. It is against this backdrop that this research was conducted to find the impact of guerrilla gardening as an urban subculture on New York. 1.2 Aim and Objectives As subversion remains a very negative concept that is frowned upon, one wonders why it continues to exist in parts of the world that could be regarded as politically powerful and protected. Based on this, the researcher was interested to direct the aim of this research to understanding the role of subversion in such a symbolic city as New York. New York was selected to understand the influence of the consumerist and capitalist society nature of the city on subversion. To achieve this overall aim, the following specific objectives were pursued. 1. To understand how guerrilla gardening works in New York. 2. To identify the extent to which guerrilla gardening is subversion. 3. To find if capitalist and consumerist society is capable of modifying its approach toward urban subversion formations to maximize its profits. 1.3 Research Question Because of how broad the subject of guerrilla gardening is, it was important that the researcher had a way of guiding the scope of data collection for the research. To achieve this, a research question was set to be delimitation for the research. This means that out of the research question, the researcher was going to be guided as to the type of data to include in the research and those that had to be overlooked. The research question was thus given as, “Are urban subcultures and more especially guerrilla gardening constituting the Trojan horse of the capitalist and consumerist society within New-York City?” 2.0 Background Literature The researcher reviewed literature on the subjects of urban subculture and guerrilla gardening. This was done to ensure the research was as empirical as possible and backed with existing academic works of literature. To ensure that the whole study was confined to a specific scope, the literature review was done with the use of the specific objectives of the study as themes. This means that there were three major themes, which have been expanded below. 2.1 Guerrilla Gardening as an Urban Subculture To better understand the place of guerrilla gardening as an urban subculture, literature on urban subculture were reviewed. In this, Maria Daskalaki and Oli Mould (2013) noted that urban subculture is a concept that emanates within a well constructed urban area as urban social formation. By implication, urban subcultures begin as people within the urban area seek social formations and changes that satisfy their societal needs (Mitchell, 2003). Based on these lines of argument, Jones (2009) opined that the reason urban subcultures begin at all is became urban areas are often occupied by people from many different backgrounds, each of who seek to have the social needs of their origins satisfied. Habermas (1962) therefore stated that urban subculture is a way to make cities such as New York to survive the social thirst that it is often plagued with. From this, urban subculture is seen as a necessary evil that must be controlled only when it is seen to becoming subversion. Relating these ideas with guerrilla gardening, one is most likely to understand guerrilla gardening as a form of urban subculture on its own. This is because according to Flores (2006), guerrilla gardening actually started as a means of filling most geographic space with social formation ideas of gardening. The Liz Christy Community Garden, which was founded in New York in 1973 is there as an evidence to this as the large farm owned by Peter Stuyvesant who was the last Dutch Governor of New Amsterdam was abandoned (Loggins, 2007). 2.2 Extent to which guerrilla gardening is subversion After establishing guerrilla gardening to be urban subculture, it was necessary to justify if the concept was necessarily subversion. To do this, literature was reviewed on the term subversion and later linked with activities of guerrilla gardening. Rhyne (2009) noted that subversion is a situation where established social norms are attempted to be changed. Because there are various legally accepted means of changing social orders such as the use of democratic elections, Gill (1994) further explained that when it comes to subversion, reformers use means and procedures that are considered to be contrary to accepted social principles and norms. In relation to guerrilla gardening as an urban subculture, Reynolds (2008) sees the concept to be equivalent to urban subversion as guerrilla gardeners often use areas of land that is not considered to be their legitimate property. Meanwhile, the guerrilla gardeners have a mentality and ideology that the pieces of land that they use for their activities are being socially mismanaged, for which reason the social order guiding their usage must be changed. Arguing from this premise, Maria Daskalaki and Oli Mould (2013) indicated that even though the idea of putting an abandoned piece of land to good use through guerrilla garden may sound reasonable, it is as unacceptable as stealing someone’s money with the idea that the person has so much money that he does not need what is stolen. From this context, guerrilla gardening is totally condemned as an illegality and subversion. 2.3 How capitalist and consumerist societies can modify its approach toward urban subversion There are several works of literature that consider guerrilla gardening as subversion. However, McKinley (1998) believed that when it comes to issues such as the need to greening the ecosystem guerrilla gardening cannot be classified as subversion as it is a positive concept. As controversial as this position may be, there are works of literature that seem to justify the fact that capitalist and consumerist societies such as New York can actually modify their approach towards urban subversion activities such as guerrilla gardening to make it more positive and acceptable in the eyes of all. As part of this, Sorkin (1992) mentioned the need to taking steps towards the legalisation of the ownership of abandoned pieces of land to make them acceptable for use by guerrilla gardeners. But in such a situation, Sassen (2009) wondered if the legalisation process would not change the entire concept of guerrilla gardening into something more formal like community gardening. Meanwhile, the need for capitalist and consumerist societies to modify their approach to urban subversion have been said to be a necessity, given the premise that such societies can hardly do without the need for one form of social order or the other to be changed (Brenner and Theodore, 2002). By modifying the approach to urban subversion to something more formal, official and legally accepted, it becomes possible to achieve the goal of subversion through a more acceptable procedure (Reynolds, 2008). 3.0 Data Collection Method After collecting various forms of literature for the study, the researcher took a step further to collecting primary data that could serve as backup evidence to the data that had been collected through secondary sources. Because of this, the researcher adopted the use of an ethnographic research design to collect primary data. Using ethnographic research design meant that the researcher was to focus on the cultural variables of the people who were to be included in the data collection exercise (Remenyi, Williams, Money and Swartz, 1998). The rationale for ethnographic research was because the core concept of guerrilla gardening was being researched from a cultural perspective, more specifically, for it being an urban subculture. As part of the ethnographic research, the researcher adopted the use of interview as data collection procedure, where various guerrilla gardeners in New York were subjected to a question and answer session where their opinions on various issues of guerrilla gardening were collected. The interview was conducted with the use of an interview guide to make the data collection process very uniform and systematic. Whiles conducting the interview, the researcher also focused on the use of critical observation, which involved the need to look at a predefined situation and make an academic meaning out of it (Remenyi, Williams, Money and Swartz, 1998). The critical observation focused on collecting data pertaining to the geography behind guerrilla gardening. There were several variables that were tested as part of the data collection, the results of which have been presented in the next section of the report. 4.0 Key Findings Based on the interview and observation conducted, the following primary data were collected. 4.1 Where and how the guerrilla gardening take place in New York City  The observation showed that most forms of guerrilla gardening took place at publicly abandoned sites. Some of these sites included old school and libraries as well as old church premises. Even though there were a number of private properties that were also used, these were not as common as the public property. The interview sought to identify reasons to why this situation exists. From the interview, it was noted that private owners were more likely to press charges for unlawful entry than public owners. To be safe therefore, the guerrilla gardeners indicated that “we would rather choose public places because it is less likely we will get any trouble with the law”. The mere fact that there were chances of getting trouble with the law also influenced how guerrilla gardening was done. This is because most people did it in secret and most preferably during the late night hours. 4.2 How the guerrilla gardeners organise themselves  The guerrilla session further sought to know from the guerrilla gardeners how they organised themselves. This was an important part of the data collection to understand the ethical consumption aspect of their work. This is because where ethical considerations were applied, these guerrilla gardeners would want to be open and come up with innovative ways of dealing with the issue of guerrilla gardening as an urban subversion. When interviewed, it was noted that there were no formal ways of organising themselves. Rather, the guerrilla gardeners tend to know themselves casually. Consequently, they would inform each other of the trend in their practice and what they needed to do differently. One respondent agreed that “our lack of organisation can be blamed as a reason why our style of practice has not changed much and our actions are still considered to be urban subversion.” 4.3 How guerrilla gardening modifies the urban space When asked if their work was a form of urban subversion, only a few guerrilla gardeners agreed to this claim. Rather, the guerrilla gardeners opined that their practice helped in modifying urban space and making abandoned space come of use to the larger society. In effect, “the fact that we are responding to calls for a greener earth should be seen as a positive thing we are doing” one of the respondents answered. The respondents argued that without their work, most places would have had no value to the ordinary New Yorker but today, thanks to their activities of modifying urban space, there are people that travel distances to admire and appreciate their works. Further observation showed that the guerrilla gardeners modified urban space by creating green atmosphere and environment for everyone. Meanwhile, the advantages of such a green environment are many and helpful. 4.4 How guerrilla gardening is linked to politics within the city and with consumerist society  Even though the guerrilla gardeners opined that their actions were helpful for the society, the researcher further inquired from them if they did not feel that there were instances that activities were linked to politics within the city. In this, there were a number of respondents that accepted the notion, even though greater percentage argued that their actions were based on their own reasoning and consciousness. For those that said their actions were sometimes linked to politics, they indicated that there were moments that political opponents took advantage of them to use guerrilla gardening as a form of protest against government and people in authority to cast their eyes back into righting basic wrongs with urban space. This means that even though there were political influences with guerrilla gardening in consumerist societies such as New York, this was generally accepted to be a practice with good intention and for positive reasons. 4.5 How the guerrilla gardeners shape their practice  The interviewees were made aware of the consensus in the media and literature about how their practice served as the Trojan horse in the consumerist and capitalist society and were made to indicate if there were any means that they were trying to shape their practice. When quizzed, it became clear that very little is being done to shape their practice, such as finding a means to legalising their practice. In effect, their idea and concept of making good use of urban space can only be likened to doing the right thing at the wrong time or through the wrong means. As long as the modern society is governed by rules and laws, such actions cannot be accepted. There were however some interviewees who indicated that they have been trying to make their voices heard through the use of various platforms and media, particularly the new media that their actions come with positive intentions and must therefore be accepted. 5.0 Summary and Conclusion The research was conducted with the aim of finding the role of subversion in such an iconic city as New York. To do this, the concept of guerrilla gardening was investigated as urban subversion. Further data were sought about the concept in terms of understanding why it was practiced and how it could be used in a more positive way to influence social growth of New York. Data collection came in the form of both primary data collection and secondary data collection with emphasis on the need to justifying the secondary data collected with primary data. Through the data collection, there were several findings that were made. These findings make it possible to draw an empirical conclusion for the study. For example, the research question of whether guerrilla gardening as urban subculture constitutes the Trojan horse of the capitalist and consumerist society within New York City can be answered in the affirmative. This is because until now, there have not been any way the city has taken advantage of its consumerist and capitalist nature to modify its approach towards urban subversion. As a result, the concept remains a virus that continuously militates against the need to use abandoned space within New York City in a more justifiable means. The research would thus end with the recommendation that guerrilla gardeners still have a lot to do to make their trade and style of work acceptable to society. Once this is done, guerrilla gardening will not be merely considered as urban subversion for political reasons. References Adams, D. And Hardman, M. (2013) Observing Guerrillas in the Wild: Reinterpreting Practices of Urban Guerrilla Gardening. Sage Publications Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Flores, C. H. (2006) Food not Lawns: How to Turn Your Garden and Neighbourhood into a Com- munity. Chelsea Green: White River Junction. Gill, P. (1994). Policing politics: security intelligence and the liberal democratic state. Routledge: London Habermas, J. (1962) The Structural Transforma- tion of the Public Sphere: Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Harvey, D. (1978) The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Jones, A. (2009) Theorizing global business spaces. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography Lamborn, P., and Weinberg, B. (1999), Avant Gardening: Ecological Struggle in The City and The World. New York: Autonomedia. Loggins D. (2007). Liz Christy Community Garden. [Online] Available at http://www.lizchristygarden.us/ [18th May 2014] Maria Daskalaki and Oli Mould (2013). “Beyond Urban Subcultures: Urban Subversions as Rhizomatic Social Formations” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-18 McKinley, J. "Adam Purples Last Stand". The New York Times. 22 February 1998 Mitchell, D. (2003) The right to the city. Guilford Press, New York, NY. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998) Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage Reynolds, R. (2008), On Guerilla Gardening: A Handbook For Gardening Without Boundaries. Bloomsbury: Texas Rhyne, R. (2009). “Patterns of Subversion by Violence.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 341, pp. 34-55 Sassen, S. (2009) Reassembling the urban. Urban Geography Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and Wang. Read More