00

A Really-Possible Public Sphere?

Seminar with Malcolm Miles and Krzysztof Nawratek

The seminar is based on two papers prepared by Malcolm Miles and Krzysztof Nawratek. Excerpts could be found below.

"(...) Paper outlines the critical problem (with defining public sphere - przyp. red.), suggests cases of transitional zones of social formation as an alternative location for a potential public sphere; and argues for recognition of a more complex concept of a public sphere, or, more to the point, multiple and overlapping public spheres in which a society’s development remains always incomplete yet can be inflected in beneficial ways (towards a diminishing of present un-freedom)."

"In architectural vocabulary public spaces are defined as spaces where anybody can enter without charge – like parks, streets, squares etc. Contemporary public space is sometimes linked to the Greek's Agora - an archetypal space of political (democratic) action. Public space may also reflect Habermas' concept of a communicative public sphere. I would argue however, that public space is a misleading concept, preventing full understanding (and successful engagement) of complexity. There are (at least) three reasons for this:
- the concept is too narrow to effectively describe the phenomena of modern urban spaces such as shopping malls or thematic parks
- public space is not truly public, because it is defined according to social codes and conventions
- public space is only occasionally able to mobilise public political attention
Therefore the concept of public space (along with a notion of private space) should be revised, for example as 'inter-active space' (in opposition to 'intimate space'), as a space where people interact with / influence the socio-political realm. It could be a private room where one has access to the internet and takes part in a political debate, or a factory on strike, or a university."