2.4. Privatisation of Public Space and the „New‟ Public Spaces
2.4.2. Crime, Paranoia and Fear – Demand for a New Type of Public Space
A principal reason for the contemporary process of the privatisation of public space is the
„ecology of fear that has been cultivated amongst the rich and middle class citizens in many cities in North America but also in South American cities as well as in the post-apartheid South African city (Davis, 1990; Zukin, 1995; Dawson, 2006; Lemanski, 2006). Fyfe (1995) has shown that as a result of this fear of crime, cities have become the sites of increasingly sophisticated and complex forms of social control where shopping malls and other public spaces are equipped with state of the art video-surveillance systems and are designed reminiscent of Jeremy Bentham‟s Panopticon6.
Much of the literature dealing with the nature of „new‟ public spaces simultaneously explores urban social relations such as the fear of crime and hostility and suspicion of the „other‟ as
6 Panopticon means „all observing‟ and is the name given to the prisons designed by Bentham in 18th century England. It allowed the observer to observe prisoners without the prisoners knowing. This is comparable to many of the „new‟ public spaces (Zukin, 1995).
26 well as the marginalisation of the poor by the middle and upper classes. In combination, these social relations contribute to the development of these spaces which in turn appear to reinforce these relations. One author, Davis (1990), was one of the first to explore in detail the effects of fortified public spaces in Los Angeles in his seminal text, City of Quartz. Davis (1990) explores Los Angeles as a sprawling, highly segregated and fortified metropolis, and like Mitchell (1995) he too, places much emphasis on the poor and subjugated in the post- modern city. Within this fortified metropolis he focuses not only on public spaces in the traditional sense, i.e. parks, squares and streets but also on vast areas of residential public space. These are known as gated-communities, or gated-neighbourhoods, consisting of roads that by virtue of being sealed off to the public have become privatised.
This corresponds with Mitchell‟s (1995) application of the concept of representational of space, i.e. to an ordered environment with a strict code of conduct for both the users and the nonusers of public space. This code of conduct is applied to all groups of users through the ubiquity of surveillance cameras and private security as forms of social control. In the view of many authors (Zukin, 1995; Minton, 2006), these characteristics are creating a new form of sterile and restrictive public environment in cities and according to Mitchell (1995: 125) “is squeezing out other ways of imagining public spaces”.
One such mechanism through which this „squeezing out‟ is achieved is through private policing. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen an increase in the importance of private policing to the extent that in the post-World War II period, countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States are faced with a situation where private security policing personnel have outnumbered public policing personnel (Fyfe, 1995; Dawson, 2006).
Additionally, Zukin (1995) records that in the Unites States during the period 1970 to 1992, employment in the private security industry tripled. Results also show that detective and protective work was the 20th fastest growing employment sector in the United States and it is predicted that by the 21st century, 73% of the United States‟ protective employees will be from the private sector (Zukin, 1995).
This means that as more and more parts of the city are relinquished to private developments, such as shopping centres; residential estates; recreational areas; offices; industrial complexes and; university campuses, the number of private security personnel has also increased (Fyfe, 1995). Zukin (1995) also notes that the broader political shift to privatisation has also
27 contributed to the success of the private security industry. Fiscal restraint has also limited the extent to which government is able to spend on public policing (Zukin, 1995). But why have developers and urban citizens resorted to such extreme and very visible measures of security in public places and how then has this affected the nature of public spaces?
Davis (1990) notes that the market provision of „security‟ raises its own paranoid demand and the „consumption‟ of security has little do with personal security but serves more as a means of insulating people, whether at work or home or in consumption and travel environments from unsavoury groups, individuals, and even from crowds. Similarly Zukin (1995), who writes primarily about public and city culture, holds the view that as a way of dealing with material inequalities of urban life, a process of aestheticisation of fear has occurred. She concedes that the fear of crime in urban areas is based on the sporadic occurrences of
“physical assaults, random violence [and] hate crimes that target specific groups…” (Zukin, 1995:38).
Writing specifically about the post-apartheid city, but drawing strong comparisons with American cities, Dawson (2006) tells of the increasing isolation, suspicion and hostility along what was once racial lines but is now along class lines in South African urban society. Streets and public places in inner city Johannesburg which were once the preserve of the ruling white elite have been abandoned and are now the domain of an increasingly multinational African population. For Dawson (2006: 132)
“South African society is saturated not simply with violence, but with the pervasive fear of violence… discourses of crime and society have become the primary conceptual frame through which the economically hegemonic white minority represents national culture…
White South Africa… is just as gripped by a bunker mentality today as it was during the worst days of apartheid”.
Whilst the anonymity provided by public spaces contribute to its allure, some members of the public view this negatively to the extent that they associate this anonymity with rising levels of crime (Madanipour, 1996). Urban dwellers are beset with this crippling fear of being in certain public spaces at certain times. For Zukin (1995) this destroys the principle of open access and more ominously reveals that these violent conditions in cities make it unsafe for people to participate in what she calls a public culture. According to Miethe (1995) cited in Madanipour (1996), urbanites alter their behaviour in reacting to perceived levels of crime by distrusting others, avoiding certain spaces, taking protective action, changing their daily activities and participating in collective action.
28 The fear of the old public spaces and derision by the middle classes for those (considered
„others‟) who appropriate these spaces, destroys public culture altogether, e.g. the multi- nationally inhabited Johannesburg CBD. The poor and the homeless who are invariably categorised as „other‟, along with immigrants, Latinos and Blacks, drug users and street gangs have become, according to Mitchell (1995: 118), „indicator species‟ to mainstream society, “diagnostic of the presumed ill-health of public space, and of the need to gain control, to privatize, and to rationalize public spaces in urban places”. As a result, places that were once abandoned by the middle class and then reoccupied by the lower echelons of society have become places for contestation. There, the combined powers of the state and businesses are exercised usually to the detriment of the homeless and the marginalised (Zukin, 1995). The characteristics of public spaces as well as other less „ruthless‟ public spaces, marginalise women in some Arab cities because they do not feel safe enough to use these spaces at any time of the day (Kirby, 2008).
This sub-section has shed light on the process of crime, fear and paranoia that has led to the creation of a „new‟ type of public space. Urban citizens associate certain characteristics in public areas, such as anonymity, with crime and violence and due to their paranoia and fear have ensured that they do not frequent or come into contact with these areas. As a result new public areas that are exclusive and highly secure have been created. These areas attract a specific group of people, the middle class, because they eliminate the crime and violence of traditional public areas. In doing so, these insulated public spaces have destroyed public life but has also made parts of the city accessible to those who have otherwise felt marginalised e.g. women in Arab cities.