![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper focuses on the way people define and challenge practices of distance during protest and the way protesters disrupt ‘generally established and universally visible and valid distances’ associated with the place. In illuminating these ideas, two case studies with seemingly similar socio-spatial characteristics are explored. The first case was initiated by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and aimed to call attention to the nation's neediest people by embarking on the ‘Poor People's Campaign’, which settled people on the National Mall in an encampment they called Resurrection City (RC). The second action, the Occupy Movement, was an international protest movement directed towards social and economic inequality. The Occupy Movement called upon protesters to ‘flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months’ to call attention to the inequalities of global capitalism. The paper interprets the strategies and tactics used by the Poor People's Campaign and the Occupy Movement to challenge distance, concluding with some reflections on the way contemporary forms of dissent are changing the way we perceive public space and its politics.
Acknowledgements
Almost a decade ago, while I was a postdoc at MIT, working on a large project that addressed the dynamic between urban design and civil action, I had the great good fortune to meet Prof. Larry Vale. At that time, Larry suggested exploring the fascinating case of Resurrection City. This study evolved from our conversation on the relationships between space and politics, and I am deeply indebted to him for introducing me to this case, which I had not previously encountered. I am also grateful for the help of Tunney Lee, whose thoughts and wisdom helped me to better understand the dynamic during the 1960s in the USA. Thank you to my research assistants at the Laboratory for Contemporary Urban Design: Rachel Bikel, who helped me with organizing the archival documents collected, and Roni Bar, who helped with the drawings. Finally, I am extremely grateful for the encouragement and guidance of Michael Hebbert, the editor of Planning Perspectives, and to several anonymous reviewers for their valuable input and helpful suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Tali Hatuka is a senior lecturer and the Head of the Laboratory for Contemporary Urban Design, the Department of Geography and Human Environment at Tel Aviv University. Hatuka works primarily on planning and architectural issues, focusing on the relationships between politics, urban design and development in contemporary cities.
Notes
1. For further reading on the relationships between the design of place, national identity, and power, see Dovey, Framing Places; Leach, Anaesthetics of Architecture; Torre, “Claiming the Public Space”; and Vale, Architecture, Power.
2. For a discussion of the psychological approach to distance, see Liberman and Trope, “Psychology,” 1201.
3. Canetti, Crowd and Power, 20.
4. Davis, “Power of Distance.”
5. Canetti, Crowd and Power, 20.
6. “Occupy Wall Street.”
7. Key actors and active planners in the development of RC were James Goodell, Kenneth Jadin, Tunney Lee, and John Wiebenson.
8. Among the scholars who supported and analysed the event were: Peter Marcuse, Jonathan Massey, and Brett Snyder.
9. This analysis of the cases is mostly based on archival documents supported by a limited number of interviews with key actors.
10. Goffman, Behavior in Public Spaces.
11. Collins, “Private/Public Divide.”
12. Souza de Silva and Frith, Mobile Interfaces, 51.
13. Dovey, Framing Places, 11.
14. Vale, Architecture, Power, XII.
15. Edelman, From Art to Politics, 76.
16. Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht, Sidewalks; Low and Smith, Politics; and Zukin, Cultures of Cities.
17. Gershuny, “Web Use and Net”; Pfaff, “Mobile Phone Geographies”; and Ratti, “Mobile Landscapes.”
18. Sarjakoski, “Networked GIS for Public.”
19. Brighenti, “New Media” and Manovich, Language.
20. Sheller, “Mobile Publics”; Young, Exclusive Society; and Wacquant, “Territorial Stigmatization.”
21. Sennett, Fall.
22. Putnam, Bowling Along.
23. Turkle, Alone Together.
24. Bauman, In Search of Politics; see also the remarks of ˇZǐzek to the activists of the occupy movement:
There is a danger. Don't fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember, carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after, when we will have to return to normal lives. Will there be any changes then? (“Occupy Wall Street”)
25. Edelman, Symbolic Uses, 95–113.
26. Parkinson, Democracy and Public Space, 202.
27. These resources include the Washington Monument, Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, DC War Memorial, World War II Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, George Mason Memorial, Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House, and numerous other historic sites, memorials, and parklands. For additional details, visit the official website, http://www.nps.gov/nama/index.htm.
28. For the history of the planning process, see Longstreth, Mall in Washington.
29. See website: http://www.nps.gov/nama/historyculture/index.htm.
30. Ibid.
31. Capitol Hill is the only area where monumental Washington abuts the city's ordinary fabric in any way. Although the mall provides a superb site for special occasions, for most of its expanse, it lacks easy integration with the life of the city. See Longstreth, Mall in Washington, 31.
32. See SCLC, “Minutes of the Shelters,” 395. In an interview conducted with Tunney Lee, one of the planners on the team, other options were mentioned including Rock Creek Park and the National Airport. The airport had many advantages because of the asphalt, toilets, and restaurants. Lee and Vale, “Resurrection City,” 113–14.
33. For further reading on the City Beautiful movement and the McMillan Plan, see Hines, “The Imperial Wall.”
34. The particular significance of the Lincoln Memorial comes from Lincoln's legacy of preserving the Union while ending slavery and promoting economic and financial modernization.
35. SCLC, “Questions & Answers,” 24.
36. Ibid.
37. Zuccotti Park was damaged by the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and redesigned in 2006 by Cooper, Robertson & Partners. For a further spatial analysis of the park and details regarding the physicality of the event, see Massey and Snyder, “Occupying Wall Street.”
38. Kayden, “Occupying Wall Street.”
39. Ibid.
40. Massey and Snyder, “Occupying Wall Street.”
41. See Massey and Snyder, “Mapping Liberty Plaza.”
42. Indeed, technically, some would argue that Resurrection City is not ‘on’ the mall but off the main axis of it and adjacent to the location of other major protest events (the March on Washington in 1963 or the Marian Anderson concert in the 1930s), yet it was perceived by the authorities and protestors as being placed on the Mall.
43. Fager, Uncertain Resurrection, 15–17.
44. Poor People's Campaign News, “Dr. King Touring Nation,” 185.
45. King wanted a multiracial movement, hence the name ‘Poor People's Campaign’, rather than a ‘Civil Rights’ movement that could be seen as centred on expanding opportunities for blacks only. Garrow, Protest at Selma and Lee, Interview with Author.
46. Poor People's Campaign News, “Dr. Abernathy Announces,” 54.
47. Poor People's Campaign, “Questions & Answers,” 24.
48. Members of the Structures Committee were James Goodell (then at Urban America), Kenneth Jadin (Department of Architecture, Howard University), Tunney Lee (architect and planner from Washington, DC), and John Wiebenson (School of Architecture, University of Maryland). See the SCLC, “Minutes of the Shelters” and Wiebenson, “Using Resurrection City,” 58–68.
49. SCLC, “Administrative Units,” 517.
50. Ibid.
51. See SCLC, “Minutes of the Shelters” and Wiebenson, “Using Resurrection City.”
52. Lee, Interview with Author.
53. See SCLC, “Administrative Units.”
54. Lee, Interview with Author.
55. SCLC, “Statement by Martin Luther King Jr.,” 705.
56. SCLC, “Administrative Units.”
57. Wiebenson, “Using Resurrection City,” 58–68.
58. See, for example, the considerations for exploring alternate housing and transportation, as noted:
To develop alternate housing arrangements in the Washington Metropolitan area (e.g., private homes, churches, gymnasiums, and hotel facilities) in case the participants are unable to live in New City. To develop resources (e.g., buses, cabs, and private cars) for transporting participants without expense to various campaign activities in the Washington Metropolitan area. (SCLC, “Poor People's Campaign,” 298–9)
59. SCLC, “Nonviolent Action,” 779.
60. Ibid.
61. SCLC, “Administrative Units.”
62. Wiebenson, “Using Resurrection City.”
63. SCLC, “Questions & Answers.”
64. Valentine, “Confusion Obscures Specific Demands.”
65. Weil, “Rain Causes Area Flooding.”
66. Valentine, “Poor People Get Extension.”
67. Wiebenson, “Using Resurrection City.”
68. Tahrir Square, located in the centre of Cairo, was the key space for protests during the 2011 protest in Egypt. The space became a symbol of mega-scale dissent not only for the Egyptians but also universally.
69. Writers for the 99% (Group), Occupying Wall Street.
70. Graeber, “Playing by the Rules[.”]
71. Marcuse, “Danger of Fetishizing Space.”
72. Juris, “Reflections on #Occupy.”
73. Marcuse, “Danger of Fetishizing Space.”
74. Writers for the 99% (Group), Occupying Wall Street, 63.
75. Juris, “Reflections on #Occupy.”
76. Marcuse, “Danger of Fetishizing Space.”
77. Deleuze and Guattari, Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
78. Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, http://www.nationofchange.org/reader/2468.
79. Ibid.
80. Juris, “Reflections on #Occupy.”
81. Cordero-Guzman, “Main Stream Support.”
82. Hardt [and] Negro, “Fight for ‘Real Democracy’”; Maeckelbergh, Will of the Many; and Smith, “Contours of a Spatialized Politics.”
83. Graeber, “Playing by the Rules”[;] Juris, Networking Futures; Nugent, “Commentary”; and Polletta, Freedom.
84. Writers for the 99% (Group), Occupying Wall Street, 11.
85. Ibid., 12.
86. Ibid., 27.
87. Ibid., 31.
88. Ibid., 32.
89. Hatuka, “Transformative Terrains.”
90. Writers for the 99% (Group), Occupying Wall Street, 187.
91. Goffman, Relations in Public.
92. Goffman, Behavior in Public Spaces, 199.
93. Iveson, Publics and the City, 9.
94. Hatuka, “Civilian Consciousness.”
95. Massey, For Space, 148.
96. In addressing contemporary protests, much attention has been given to the role of communication technologies and their impact on the relationships among activists. For further reading about how communication technologies impact dialogical dynamics in daily life and during protests, see, for example, D'Arcus, Boundaries of Dissent; Juris, Networking Futures; “New Digital Media[”;] McCaughey and Ayers, Cyberactivism; and Souza de Silva and Frith, Mobile Interfaces In Public Spaces.