Few studies in the social sciences have explored the complex and
entangled transformations of public spaces in the varied socialist contexts of
East Asia (limited in this issue to China, Vietnam and Laos). As the
revolutionary socialist project was altered by the emergence of
State-controlled capitalism and a consumer society partially opened to global
flows from the 1980s onward, practices and imaginaries developed around public
spaces have been deeply impacted.
Motorised mobility, for instance, has become
accessible to most citizens and dramatically changed traffic practices (Qian
2015); the development of real-estate projects radically transformed the urban
fabric (Harms 2016); new forms of consumption by emerging middle-classes and
increasingly autonomous youths triggered the creation of new spaces to adapt to
new expectations; processes of patrimonialisation have created new symbolic
maps; hybrid publics have emerged through migrations as well as domestic and
international tourism; political and police scrutiny are increasingly supported
by new surveillance technologies; and the Internet has created a virtual space
that duplicates and influences interactions and usages in physical spaces.
Scholars working on public spaces in East Asian socialist contexts often
limit their research to one specific country or area (Gaubatz 2019; Gibert
2014; Kim 2015; J. Qian 2018; Kurfürst 2012). This special issue, by contrast,
offers an original crosscutting perspective on societies that share many
similarities (McGee 2009). Contributors will discuss the transformations of
public spaces while remaining alert to their physical, visual and interactional
features. From this perspective, public spaces differ from public spheres,
which, in Habermas’ approach (1978 [1962]), mainly refer to the locus for
social debate and political deliberation.
Public space in this special issue is
instead defined by its assumed accessibility to all; by the visibility of the
actions, events, or situations unfolding through them; and by a certain type of
sociability that goes beyond “minimal interactions” in urban traffic as
described by Hannerz (1980). As such, visuality, performativity and
interactions are at the heart of the conceptual stakes raised by this special
issue.
Parks, markets, lively squares and busy shopping streets immediately
come to mind; however our scope of interest also includes museums, temples,
food courts, spaces dedicated to celebration, leisure and sports. The list of
public spaces cannot be restrictive, as the publicness of a space is never
settled. Indeed, empirical studies have arguably challenged the private/public
dichotomy, including in the West where the distinction was initially theorized.
This porosity takes specific forms in East Asia, where domestic spaces overlap
with external spaces (inside out), and conversely domestic spaces are opened to
the outside gaze, if not to State agents (outside in). (Drummont, 2000;
Farquhar and Zhang 2012: 57; Kim 2015). Moreover, these spaces are marked by a
history that has affected their nature, which itself is shaped and altered
through different temporalities: political temporalities – as State congresses
or public celebration days (Richaud 2016a) may take place –, as well as casual
temporalities such as the time of the day, days of the week, or seasons.
Accelerated film images of the occupation of a public space throughout a day
are useful indicators of the significance of this temporality that research
often overlooks (Hanoi Youth).
Considering their physical, symbolic and memory-related features, public
spaces encompass important political issues. A privileged setting for State
propaganda, public spaces are also spaces to gather and protest, as reminded by
the Tian’anmen demonstrations in Beijing in 1989 (Wu 2005). This special issue
seeks to highlight the diverse modes of political agency in public spaces, as
well as the ways in which political agency can itself be a product of
spatiality (Butler 2015). How did propaganda evolve (or not) with the
development of digital technologies and the spread of commercial advertising?
How do passer-by and other users receive these messages? What are the modes of
adherence, resistance, circumvention or indifference in this new context, and
how are these modes shaped through physical space itself? What can we learn
about strategies to attract and retain attention through visuals in public
spaces in socialist contexts? Furthermore, to what extent can we look at users’
activities in public spaces through the lens of politics, when playfulness,
sensorial and emotional experiences prevail in the analysis (Farquhar 2009;
Petit 2013; Qian 2014a; Richaud 2016b, 2018)? How can individual experiences
and practices exposed to the public gaze be taken into consideration?
Engaging with Goffman, Hannerz (1980) has highlighted the benefit of an
interactionist perspective on urban spaces. Interactions unfolding in public
spaces in socialist East Asia, however, have barely been explored in concrete
terms. How can we qualify interactions between users, which are seemingly
characterised by openness while retaining the need to protect one’s intimacy
and reputation (Qian 2014b; Richaud 2018) – except of course when public trials
are performed in these spaces? What methodological and conceptual approaches
can help to understand the specific structure of interactions in public spaces?
What are the material, visual and sonic arrangements that give public spaces an
atmosphere that fosters exchanges? How do intergenerational relationships
develop in these spaces (in terms of transmission of memory, for instance), as
well as relationships between genders, socioeconomic classes or other assigned
categories? What is at stake, for the authoritarian regimes explored here, in
these very forms of “stranger-sociability” (Warner 2002)?
Beyond their explicit function, how do certain public places achieve the
status of symbolic, or even “iconic sites” (Edensor 2002: 45)? How do they
contribute to the social production of “collectives of belonging” (Hilgers
2009), along various scales ranging from the neighbourhood to the city; and
from the nation to the global ecumene? How do people related to these various
spheres come into contact, and in possible friction, notably when tourism
intensifies, or when processes of heritagisation transform the very status of
an area (Berliner 2010)? How do social actors appropriate the symbolic value of
a place, through perambulation, gestures, consumption or photograph – with
selfies posted on social networks in real time?
Based on contextualised and historicised empirical research, the authors
are invited to adopt a reflexive stance on methodology, concepts, theoretical
frames, and research ethics, in order to foster mutual heuristic benefits. The
journal welcomes figures, maps, photographs, screenshots, and other visual documents.
Long and short reviews of recent (2015-) books on the topic are equally
welcome.
Article proposals, in French or in British English (a title and a
300-word abstract) are to be sent to the journal office
(civilisations@ulb.ac.be) by 30 September 2019.
Civilisations is a peer-reviewed journal of anthropology issued by the
Université libre de Bruxelles. Published continuously since 1951, it features
articles in French and English in the various fields of anthropology, without
regional or time limitations. Revived in 2002 with a new editorial board and a
new subtitle (Revue internationale d'anthropologie et de sciences humaines),
Civilisations particularly encourages the submission of articles where the
approaches of anthropology meet those of other social sciences, revealing the
processes of society making.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario