Abstract

My paper on KU public space revolves firstly on how Kutztown University presents itself and its residents/students. I go through its various uses of propaganda which presents an image to the public, not only of itself, but also of the students who represent it. Most of my examples are ones that have already been discussed in class (ie. the clocktower, the website, etc.) however, i have added a few new ones, and went a little more in depth in terms of what we talked about in class. The second part of my paper focuses on the public space which Kutztown the town and the university offers to its relative "public." How do they present this as public space, and how does the 'public' actually use this space? Theres really not much more to it than that, but if anyone has any suggestions on what else i could incorporate, I am more than open to new ideas!!!!!

abstract

This paper is about the varying degrees of public space around Kutztown University. The three spaces discussed are the dorms, the Student Union Building, and the fountain. The fountain is the most public space of all, any one can congregate there, at any time, this differs from the Student Union Building, where people can only gather during certain hours, when it is open. The dorms are the least public of all, open only to students who live there, and students who have an escort who lives there, and only during visitation hours.
Also discussed in the paper is how the University portrays itself to be a working environment where people can study and learn, but that its reputation among students is of a party school. And how the public space is utilized by the public
This paper also references the Kutztown University mission statement, which outlines the goals of the University. The rules implemented by the University are meant to help accomplish the goals of the University, but through subtle resistance, some of the population are not following the rules. This can lead to the goals not being fulfilled.

Abstract

This paper analyzes the uses of public space that can be found on Kutztown University's campus, and on their website. It revolves around the ideas that the university presents to possible students and their family. Through the use of looking at posters, the discovery was found that they may at times be misleading. Things are represented on posters around the campus on alcohol, and general life of the student population. However, it was found that many of these posters used public space as a media for self-glorification and not as a true place for a free exchange of ideas.

Also, the school's website pushes a particular image that is not necessarily the image that is held by all students through the repetitive use of words like diversity, the school further strokes their own ego, and attepmts to make their image more pleasing to prospective students. Finally through the positioning of words on their website, the university attempts to display a false image of where their lolyalties lie, that they belong to academics rather than athletics.

This paper exposes the misuses of public space by Kutztown University. The paper shows how far from the "free exchange of ideas" the school has drifted in their drive to attract intelligent students, and to court their parents for their money.

Abstract of Paper

Since my paper isn't done this will have to be a short post.

So far my paper discusses different aspects of the Kutztown University website. There are 6 different sections of the website, each for a different group of people. Each one depicts the University as it wishes to be seen by that group of people. Some of the the sections are very similar like the "Current Students" and "Faculty/Staff" and some are vastly different like the "Faculty/Staff" and "Alumni". Some things are also indigenous to every section such as "Today @ KU" and the weather forecast for the day.

KU Public Space "Abstract"?

I also wasn’t very sure if we were supposed to be posting this, but I figured I might as well.

My paper focuses on Kutztown University being a public space. It also concentrates on what Kutztown wants the students to be and how they want to be viewed as a university as a whole. Concerning the public space part of it, I also talked about the borders between the town and the actual campus of Kutztown University. I noted the differences between what the college campus is and how public is is, compared to what the town is like. Included in the differences of the town is the high school setting which varies a lot from the college setting. Many more policies and rules are made around the high school area, restricting them from being as public as the university. There is a definite difference in public space at Kutztown University compared to the actually town of Kutztown (outside of the college campus).

When it comes to what Kutztown wants the students to be, I referred to the “Be a dear, please don’t bring in any beer” flyers to show how Kutztown does not allow alcohol in the dorms, but yet is still sort of lenient to the idea of it. Kutztown also focuses on the students doing well and wants everyone to achieve what they came here to achieve. Another main thing Kutztown strives to get across to the students and faculty is how diverse this university is. This university welcomes everyone and has many people from a variety of different cultured backgrounds. They like the students to come in with an accepting and positive attitude, ready for a new beginning and many changes to take place. They encourage the students to get involved in activities, organizations, sports teams, etc. Kutztown wants to create a happy, comfortable environment for the students, and these are some of the many ways they do so.

KU Public Space Analysis

I wasn't totally positive as to whether or not we were supposed to do this assignment, but I figured that I might want to do it just in case. Better safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

My paper about Kutztown as a public space probably doesn't differ much from everyone else's paper. Throughout my paper I discuss Kutztown as being a public space in which the general public, along with the students here, can all enjoy the scenery on campus, such as the water fountains. I then went on to talk about how this creates for a lot of interaction between those who attend the University, and those who live outside the borders of the campus. This is one of the characteristics of Kutztown University that they try to portray tIo prospective students because it provides for a feel of home.

The next point is the obvious persuasion that Kutztown is not a party school, and tries to show this on the posters found on campus, and in one's dormroom when they first move in. This poster says that "The Party Isn't As Big As You Think", and then goes on to say that KU students only have 0-3 drinks a week. The signs posted will probably catch the eye of touring students, and parents. A major thought in the majority of parents' minds is that of their son/daughter partying, and the probability of them finding a party and acting irresponsibly. Kutztown University is sure to promote themselves as a dry campus; the rules are posted in many places, and reminders are placed inside the halls, such as "Be a dear, don't bring in any beer".

Lastly, I bring up the fact that Kutztown portrays the school as an academic place where the students have fun in campus activities sports. On the website there are pictures showing students who are either studying, in class, or having fun participating in campus activities. Liberal arts learning is promoted as an education that creates students that are well-rounded in all areas of academics. Kutztown University wants all of its' students to be life-long learners, and claims to provide a path to success for all students.

Oops.

I completely forgot about this and it might not even be read before class.

Kutztown University does its best to sell itself as a competent institution with intelligent professors on staff. This, so far, has been quite correct in most cases. I also get the idea that KU wishes to give the school a false sense of antiquity or wisdom, even though it has only been "Kutztown University" since 1983. This idea of old age comes across through the choosing of the clocktower of Old Main as a symbol of the school, and the fact that the University seems to celebrate it's age dating back to the establishment of the Keystone Normal School in 1866 rather than it's current, more recent incarnation.

Disposable public space is offered abundantly. Unless one is breaking dorm visitation policy, one is allowed to be pretty much anywhere one would want to be on campus at any given time (taking into consideration that it would be abnormal for someone to want to be in any of the academic buildings after hours... let alone wanting to be there during the normal hours). There are open outdoor areas designed to give any KU student a place to just sit and relax.


This isn't fully developed, but I need to get my things together and head over to class. Like, now.

KU

One of the big things I noticed was just by walking around my hall. Johnson apparently has a very active (and manipulative) Hall Council. The walls, both in the lobby and each wing of the building, are plastered with posters and signs. There are constantly events going on in the hall. As somebody else mentioned in their post, this may be a deterrent to students going out and drinking. Some of these however, actually play on the students love of alcohol. Currently there is advertising for "Root Beer Pong". This particular event has 7 posters in the lobby, 2 in the elevator, and no less than 60 in the Hall. While it is Root Beer Pong, the word "Root" is in perentheses and approximately half a centimeter high while the words "beer pong" are no less than 3 inches tall and bold. This is just one of many of such events that did not turn out quite as they were advertised. Others included "Naked Coed Bingo", "Thong Party", and "Ice Cream Social". Hall Council puts on these lackluster events in an attempt to stop people from going out and drinking, doing drugs, or other such unseemly things; however, they advertise in such away that it actually works sometimes, and occasionally the events are actually fun.

Which is more public? KU or Kutztown?

This is a bit late, but my home computer at home has a virus that won't let us turn it on, and I decided to leave my laptop at school over the weekend...

There is an abrupt change when you're driving up Main Street and enter the campus of Kutztown University. At least, from what I noticed. You enter campus, and at once it seems more open. Must be the lack of houses and establishments just feet from the road, suffocating you, and the trees. To me, KU seems like more of a happier place, which is what we are wanted to think. We are supposed to feel comfortable here where we will learn and/or live. So far, the university has done a good job with that. They want you to be comfortable while stressing the fact that you're here to get higher learning and go on and do something with your life. I see it on the signs in my hall, promoting quiet hours, when you should be settling down and/or studying for your classes, those "be a dear" signs that tell you that this is a dry campus, not a party campus (though, KU is known as one of the big party campuses in eastern PA, according to most of the party kids in my town). You have public places such as the South Dining hall, gym, SUB, and most of the grounds. It's a comfortable atmosphere in the middle of rural PA, as the website states many times.

Looking back at the readings we have done, I would have to say that KU seems more public than the town itself, in some respects. When I step off campus, I automatically see no standing signs and no loitering signs all over the place, while, in front of Deatrick Hall, kids hang around all night. That goes along with what Davis said about partitioning off of space that is supposed to be public, and making it private. As far as I know, there is not a curfew on campus, just quiet hours, while in town there is a curfew in effect, which I would be held under, still being 17 (for 2 more days!!).

KU

One of the first things I noticed hanging in the dorms when I came to Kutztown, was the flyers saying, “Please be a dear, don’t bring in any beer”. This catchy, modern sounding slogan is to help prevent any alcohol from being in the dorms. The administrators know that students under the age of 21 drink alcohol, but they are trying to persuade them to basically not to do it on campus. They tried to make this slogan catchy and sound like a polite request, rather than a demand or even a rule (even though we all know it is one). I’ve seen many students walk by and read it and laugh, whether they’re laughing at the idea of it, or of the sound of it, it is getting their attention, which was the point of it.

Another thing, which isn’t really a material given to us, but it can be found on the Kutztown website if you take the “virtual tour”. However, I noticed it walking around campus. There are new street signs located all around the campus. These signs are big and bold; pointing to each direction any building is located. They are signs that help commuters, freshmen, transfer students, and are even welcoming to you as you drive around the campus. They even help with traffic, so people are not constantly turning around as they realized they just passed the building they were looking for. These signs make Kutztown and the entire campus more friendly and welcoming to the public. They are there for the public to use and they give you a sense of direction, making you feel more at home, which is nice for anyone who is away from home.

Also, on the website, there is a little ad saying Visit the Campus, with a pretty, fall background. It is very welcoming and gives a nice touch to the prospective students. The wording, “Visit the Campus”, may not be the friendliest phrase, but it at least is telling you to come out to the campus to look around.

Kutztown University is a public space when it comes to the academic buildings, student union building, the library, the gym, the dining hall, etc. However, dorms are not what would be considered public. Although, any guests can go into a dorm, you need to have an escort, and can only be in there at certain times if it is not your own dorm. Overall, Kutztown portrays itself as a friendlyand diverse campus, and I'd agree with that.

Diversity

In my observations of KU, I've noticed how much the university stresses the Diversity of the school. During orientation and throughout the website, that seemed to be one of the strongest messages out out there. And, considering the location of Kutztown, it is important to convey that idea. Infact, here is the opening of the 'Vision Statement' form the website:

'Kutztown University will be the region’s center for excellence in academics, culture, and public engagement, in order to prepare our students to meet lifelong challenges and responsibilities within a complex and diverse community.'

It also mentions KU as the 'Region's Center for Cultural Enrichment."
In the President's Letter, on the website almost a quarter of the text is devoted to the importance of diversity.

I've also noticed the university's stress on the control of substances. Each page on the website has a link to the KU Choices code of conduct.

Ok...I have a headache and need to go study for a test. Farewell...

KU vs. Etown

During my free time over my weekend at home, I went through some of the brochures, letters, and pamphlets that Kutztown University sent me. Taking particular notice to detail, I realized how academic these readings portrayed the campus to be. Steering the potential students, and parents of students, away from the idea that KU could possibly be a "party school" are posters on campus that show statistics saying that about 69% of students have 0-3 alcholic beverages in a week...or something like that. The many statements and pictures of the campus and students show an openly friendly area where excellent grades, student involvement, and on-campus jobs are the norm for every student that attends Kutztown. The fountains, trees, and shrubbery create a pretty environment and also provides for serene studying areas.

Sure, KU has nice trees and benches alongside fountains, but WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DO?! For the most part, Kutztown boasts of a dry campus and strict alcohol policies and that KU is NOT a party school. On the other hand, if one doesn't have the knack for sports, or doesn't become comfortable in any certain groups, there is nothing to do; which leaves much room for partying. Even so, I will give credit to the school, it is a lot nicer than I expected it to be. Coming to Kutztown University, I was biased in the beginning because Kutztown was not my first choice school. I was already in love with Elizabethtown College; I loved everything about it! So, when I visited here for the first time, which wasn't until Connections, I was holding the campus and school policies up to that of E-town. After Connections I became more fond of Kutztown University, but not more than Elizabethtown-not even close. My mind was set on attending Elizabethtown College; in my opinion, no other school could compare. However, due to financial problems, it turned out that I had to go to Kutztown, and I must admit that I have loved it so far. The campus is nice and for the most part, so are the people. On many occassions, I have seen the general public sitting by the fountains or rollerblading on the sidewalks, and they do not seem to cause any problems. As for students attending KU, we are often out and about in society and the borders between the two becomed blurred. It is stressed that Kutztown has a dry campus, but I hear of parties or drinking in the dorms quite a bit, but I think that comes with any college where students are let to their own choices and given responsibilites that aren't as freely given in high school. I think that KU holds true to its' painted portrait fairly well, and I have no regrets in coming here.

Kutztown's Public

Strictly looking at KU's website, you can tell that the main objective is to present
an environment that offers its "public" a picturesque place of excitement, and of course, a serene area for academic achievement. They explain their diverse assortment of clubs and sports, and showcase their academic programs as though none other could posibly come close. And, to appeal to the parents of the "public" they make sure that they mention the "state school" tuition rates, and post all the other expenses on seperate links.

What they don't mention is that the main reason they have so many clubs on campus, is because there is rarely anything else to do. So why not either start or join a few clubs or sports teams. And, yes, tuition is fairly reasonable, especially in consideration of schools like Delaware or Bucknell. The academics are what you make of them; in every school, you must put something into your work in order to take anything out of it. So, yes, they do have good programs, but that is determined mainly by the effort of the "public."

As for the aesthetics of the university...the campus is actually really pretty. And on nice days, it is very calming to sit in the shade by the fountains and read for class. However, this serentity is not forever available. It is determined by the weather, the time of day, day of the week, etc. Few people could argue that being at school isn't a fun experience either. After all, it offers you a freedom that can only be found in places of your 'own.'

And that's Kutztown's main attraction. As a member of its "public," i can honestly say that i do feel as though this campus is part of my own. Its a publis space-everyone can come through it, however, it really belongs to the students who live, learn, and play within it.

Kutztown U and Public Space

Kutztown University tries to portray it self as a educational place, there are rules and regulations to try to persuade students to focus on their studies (such as no drinking on campus, and no visitors after 12:00) The University sponsers academic activities such as "Constitution Week." The thing that most made a statement to me was a sign in my dorm hall the read "Be a Dear Don't Bring in Any Beer" until someone came and crossed out the word "Don't." While the dorms are not totally public space because you cant get in without an escort who lives there (which is incredibly easy to get around) the dorms are still public space in the sense that they are shared by many people who reside there, and are subject to the blatant vandalism found on the signs. The act of scribbling out the word "don't" on the sign shows that KU is not a purely academic atmosphere, and that the vandal is a likely suspect to bring in alcohol.
Another thing I've noticed about Kutztown University documents, such as brochures, is the official symbol is the Old Main clocktower. But as far as I have observed Old Main is not the main building of the campus, its not a major congregating place, nor a major classroom hall. Thats not to say that no one congregates there or has classes there, just that Old Main is not an accurate representation of the KU experience. To show where the students spend the most time they should have a picture of the Dining Hall, or even the library. To show Old Main on brochures may make the place look picturesque, quaint, and beautiful, but does not accuratly advertise the college experience.
I would consider the academic buildings, the library, the Student Union building, and the South Dining Hall, to be public spaces at Kutztown University, any one can enter them, and spend time there and congregate. The dorms are more restricted, to enter them you need an escort. The town is also a public space, there are no fences trying to keep us on campus and out of town. However while walking through town I saw a sign that said "No parking, waiting or standing" They are trying to take away our public freedom to stand in that one spot! It is easy to cross the borders and go into the town. The town seems friendly with signs in all the windows "Welcome KU students!" KU has many freedoms with places you can go on campus, or in town, or simply hanging out in your dorm.

observations

Here are a two of my observations of how Kutztown is trying to persuade us to be while we are students here. First, there was a sign that was posted outside my dorm-room door until just recently when someone tore it down. The sign designated that quite hours in the dorms are from nine to nine, for all of the hard-working students. So, the university is attempting to persuade all of us that students who will be working hard and getting good grades will be going to bed early. However, unlike what the sign presents, quite time generally doesn’t last from nine to nine. Quite time in the dorm does not truly begin until about eleven o’clock. Not to mention the fact that it gets worse on sundays and mondays. Last week, there was an Eagles game, and as I lay in bed at nine thirty with my ear-plugs in, I could still here some of the guys on my floor yelling about bad plays and yelling when their team finally did something good.

Another piece of media that Kutztown has attempted to use in order to teach us how we should be students here was waiting for us as we arrived on move-in day. We were given a poster with a fact on it along the lines that only 70% of Kutztown students have 0-3 drinks per week. Now, in order to get people to hang these posters up, they used bribery. The deal is that they are supposed to have walked around campus and if you had it up, you had a chance to win an ipod shuffle. Also, they are trying to convince the students using a counter-bandwagon method. The theory is that everyone else isn’t doing it, so why should you. These are just two ways that I’ve noticed Kutztown attempting to persuade the student population of how students are supposed to act.

Burger King Response

In his article, 'What is Democratic Debate,' Ian Angus makes very valid points to the importance of public space in a democratic society. He believes that in order to maintain a well-functioning democratic society, citizens must have 'widespread access to relevant information and, second, the ability to formulate the questions that must be decided.' This obviously and simply leads to the role of public space in democracy.
It is necessary, in a democracy, to have ideas and positions exposed to the public so that they, in turn, may consider the points. Without the involvement of the public, the system would distinctively not be a government run 'by the people.' Angus very clearly makes a point of this. He also proves that as a result of the involvement of civilians, it is essential that they may have opportunities for a 'process of interchange and formation of opinion' with each other. As Angus well-states, 'The process of opinion-formation itself in the give-and-take of discussion and argument provides a corrective against short-sighted or merely self-interested views.' Without an exposure to other public opinion, a singular view will be formed, producing a bureaucratic society.
This was a short response but, I felt that Angus clearly and effectively got his point across. The End.

Angus' Democracy

Angus makes some really good points in this article. As Americans, we tend to view our freedom to vote as the epitimy of our "democratic" practices. We look at ourselves as being learned and civilized due to this right, but in reality, our voting practice has many flaws within it. Angus points out in particular: the lack of access to relevant information and the ability to decide what i actually relevant in an election.

The first flaw is characterized by the word relevant. While, yes, the internet offers tons of information, and news reporter and TV shows tell us plenty, in reality, most of the information they expel is not at all important to the voters. The second major flaw he points out is simply a reaction to the first. With all the information that is floating around in the media, very few people can easily determine which points are relevant to anything. Angus also points out the need for public places for debate; a wonderful idea except that very few people possess the slightest interest in pulling themselves away from thier TV screens.

Angus had some good ideas and valid points about America's democratic system. However, as easy as it is to say what's wrong and call for change, it's a process much easier said then done.

Angus.

Angus is such a funny word when you look at it.


Ian Angus's primary concern is that the means of disseminating opinion and news that are unbiased are very limited in our current democracy. He appears to place blame upon our media institutions, which have their own agendas and therefore the objectivity of their reporting is in question. Lack of clear information does not allow an accurate discourse on the issue and thusly affects the public's perception of the issues and those in positions of power. Angus seems to think that this has come about as the result of the lack of public space where such issues can be openly discussed and opinions can be formed. Only when these ideas and opinions can be truly formed and expressed will there be a true participatory democracy. Without this, we are only acting on/reacting to the common manner of thinking of the greater society, and becoming a society of apathetic thinkers being spoon-fed what those in power desire us to know.

The one and only Ian Angus

Immediately, Ian Angus presents his views on American politics and democracy by stating, "I will suggest that this isn't a democracy at all, at least not its most important part". He then goes on to say that in order to function properly as a democratic nation, the government must act out two key ideals. The first being that all citizens of the United States should have open and equal access to information that is harmonious with the truth. Along with this thought, Angus believes that the people should be given the ability to decide what is important and debate and question the law-making or policies of the government. Eventually he comes to the point that many of our minds are influenced by media and biased opinions which, in turn, creates an electorate that forms its' opinions on other persons' opinions, therefore lowering their own standards. How are we expected to know what is going and what needs changed, if we're influenced by the mass media. Angus realizes that in order to form our own opinions and to keep the general publics' best interest in mind, debate is a necessity. Consequently, public space becomes an issue. Public spaces are desired so that the electorate may have somewhere in which to meet and have discussions, or debates, on particular areas of interest. If the general public had a meeting place to discuss what they feel is important, this would take away the advantage that many government officials have today; the media has become the most outstanding way to relay their messages, and to form questions about certain issues. Throwing out questions to the audience about concerns of the nation stops individual thinking, and makes the audience attentive to the problems and concerns of whomever may be relaying their messages at the moment. Angus believes that those who are going to vote should begin to form their own questions, in which the government would have to answer, instead of the other way around. Isn't this how democracy was intended to work? Democracy is supposed to provide an equal voice for all of its' citizens, whether it be in consensus or in debate, which in turn creates a "civic identity" for the whole, not just the government officials and media persons.

i tried to turn my monitor on its side for this one

Yeah, I saw it and was like "why is this sideways?" and picked up my monitor and tried to turn it, but the way the wires were set up, it wouldn't work. I also forgot what the article was about, so when I went to the blog and saw Angus and Burker King, I was like "omg food! I'm gonna like this article!". I was disappointed at first, but then I read it and I actually enjoyed reading it.

In this article, Angus showed to us some flaws in our political system. His main point was that we, as a society, do not have sufficient areas for democratic debate. He points out that television is what most citizens use to gather their news and information, but then says that everything on TV is what they want you to see and hear about, not exactly always what you want to see and hear about. This poses a few problems, however. It allows for only one way conversation, so if you have any questions on the material, or if there's something else you want covered, well too bad, it sucks to be you then. Also, it allows the people in charge of the news to give it a personal bias, only telling you what they want you to know about the topic. They're like advertisers or promoters then, trying to sell you an idea instead of a tangible commodity. This really can be true for any sort of media, but seems to be most prevalent in television.

Another point that he makes is that our citizens seem to be more interested in pleasure and enjoyment than politics. He mentions sporting events a few times, and later on mentions that we have strong tendencies towards consumerism and entertainment in today's society. This reminds me of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where it shows a society whose citizens are completely immersed in self-pleasure and indulgment that they are taken advantage of and totally controlled by the government.

There are other things in this article I could expound upon, but those are what I feel stuck out in his article the most to me. I figure that Ian got his other points across very well and that other people will probably spend more time on that anyway, so I decided to take a look at some other points of his. I enjoyed reading this article a lot more than I did Fiske's or Davis's, because I felt that his point actually had relevance (Davis's did, but I just didn't enjoy it) and I was interested in Angus's writing much more than the other two.

Well said...

In Ian Angus’s essay, “What is Democratic Debate”, he defines democracy a few times. He describes it as an idea where the people can control the functioning of the society, not just its established political institutions, but that people should make decisions about all the issues that affect them. The citizens come together to share, criticize, and modify their opinions. He explains that the people engage in public discussion in order to make decisions having to do with their common life. For them to do so, they must have access to public places where discussions occur for each citizen to shape his or her own opinion. By places, Angus gives the examples of a marketplace, parks, pubs, street corners, etc. He even considers places as newspapers, pamphlets, and even television and internet. For a true democratic society to be effective, the citizens must have access to these meeting places for discussion and debate.

Public participation and public opinion are a huge part of distinguishing democracy, according to Angus. For democracy’s public to decline, he said it would be “the loss of civic discourse”, which means losing the essence of democracy is at risk. The one concept he emphasizes is how many individuals believe that their participation means nothing when it comes to decision making processes, which is very true in many societies. He believes that if citizens begin to feel that their opinions and participation actually matters, “they might start to expect to have the right to public participation in many, or even all, large organizations”. It is important for the citizens to feel as if they make a difference.

Angus emphasizes that the public sphere is a key component of democracy and determining the degree of it. Democracy is a constant process in Angus’s eyes. Although, it is continuously changing, much of it stays the same as well.

Angus clearly got his point through in this essay, I believe.

Angus

Let me first start by saying that the article came up sideways on my computer and in order to read it I either had to tilt my head or prop my computer up on its side...that alone made this an unpleasant reading experience, not to mention that I ended up reading the last two pages of this article before realizing that the sideways appearance of the article did some thing to the order of the pages and that I had to start at the end read one page forward and two pages back. It was quite a complicated process just to read an article.
"What is Democratic Debate?" tells about the importance of Democracy and the need for debate. Democracy is rule by the people. If only a few people participate in the government it becomes an oligarchy (rule by a few). Debating is a way for the people to get involved in the government and make their views heard. This creates the need for a public forum (public space) in which the different views can be presented.
Public space is important because without it democracy cannot exist, we need the public space for debates, without which the ruling body becomes unrepresentative of the general population. Angus mentions the "declune if the public." The public needs to be involved in government, and needs the public space in which to voice their views.
Different categories that distinguish "democracy" from other forms of social organization are the civilized debate as opposed to ruthless violence and bloodshed that is used in other countries to make opinions known, or to keep order. We have a participatory government, in which all are welcome to be a part off, to share their views and to vote for our leaders. We are not a monarchy, with a permanent ruler, nor are we a tyranny, subdued by military power. Since all are welcome to participate democracy is not an oligrachy ruled by only a priviledged few, although that it what our government is becoming due to the large amounts of funding that campaigns need.
Angus points out the need for large funding in order to lead a successful campaign. He says that more important than this though is the ability to debate. Debate is not costly and every citizen should have the ability and opportunity. This is what makes democracy what it is.

My sympathetic look at Angus - the man.

Gosh. I post this thing and it's a monster. Don't be overwhelmed. I just rambled through most of this...

In the assignment, it says that we had to look at this article by Ian Angus in a sympathetic way, understanding where the author is standing and what view he's taking. I read through the article a couple times, as I have to with every article I read in this class to be able to somewhat comprehend what in the world these guys are trying to get at...

Anyway, Angus looks at democracy today and is unhappy with what it has become, looking at the election signs, media domination, and millions of dollars used. This isn't all democracy is, it's not just the elections and the mass media representation of it. A democracy calls for full attention from the citizens that make up that democracy. In order to be an active citizen, you need to have the access to relevant information and you have to have informed decisions about political topics. Public discussion and debate are the inner workings of the fully-functional democracy. In order to be politically aware in a democracy, you need a form of communication that will get ideas out there to the public to look upon and debate. Since the birth of our nation, and the beginnings of many other nations, the forms of communication have grown from just public debates and printed material to tv and internet. These later forms of communication became important because it was becoming impossible for all citizens to meet together. Angus then brings up his argument that in order for democratic rule to continue in a nation, public discussion and debate is a nesessity, but the way citizens go about meeting changes as time goes on. Social participation and public participation require a meeting place and a one-on-one discussion/debate where citizens can exchange their views on certain topics. Contemporary media hands you already formed questions and don't allow the public to debate the political issues face-to-face. Tv does not allow the viewer to question the material presented. The news is selected, and could be leaving potentially important debatable topics out and throwing in fluff that doesn't have any meaning. Marketing, advertising and entertainment also take up so much time on these new contemporary media units.

Well, I've pretty much spit out what I read in the same exact terms. That's what sympathetic reading is, right? Understanding what the writer is saying and being able to pick out what the writer is telling you without all the big words. I might not have done this right... I'm definately looking forward to a group discussion on this one.

There were a couple quotes I wanted to pull from the text that I found interesting:

"Democracy requires a way of life in which the enemy is transformed into an adversary so that differences can be dealt with peaceably and argument can replace violence."

- In politics today, I don't think that parties can come together and debate one-on-one enough to understand eachother, thus the radical seperation between parties that seems to be widening as time goes on. People of a certain party seem to look upon someone from another party as 'the enemy'. (I'm sick of that...) The only debates I've seen between parties is on tv, mostly on Fox News or CNN, where one guy is in the studio, and the person they are talking to is on a split screen, talking to them from across the country. This is what Angus is talking about, I think, that the ways citizens used to communicate are gradually breaking apart due to new innovations in media, enabling people to discuss and debate from across the world. You can't discuss on a more personal level. But I also see it this way: some people have views and they stick to them, not even listening to what the other person has to say. That is not part of a democracy either, in my opinion.

"It depends on a common determination to maintain the bounds of mutual respect in social life."

- I had this underlined in my printed copy of the text, and I don't remember why at the moment... my eyes hurt and I'm tired, hopefully I'll remember why I thought this was interesting tomorrow for class.

mmmmm...Angus

The points made by Ian Angus are very clear, and he presents his opinions very clearly in what sounds like the preface to his essay on democracy. He begins very openly stating his point, so any unsuspecting readers who decide that they probably won't like it can change their minds and put it down.
He lays out his two definers for democracy in the second paragraph, stating that for true democracy, defined as "rule by the people," there needs to be complete access to all relevant information to political topics, and people need to be allowed to form political question given the spirit of the times. He then goes on to support these points in his following paragraphs.
Angus begins by discussing some ideas about democracy and how it is to be practiced. He talks about how it is a system in which the people that are subject to the laws are originating them. He also discusses that it is imperative, if the citizens are able to formulate their ideas through challenging each other, that even if they don't see eye to eye, they need to see each other as equals. One of Angus' main points revolves around there needing to be a space in which people are able to give and exchange ideas freely, without having some say that they are wrong. Angus believes that this should lead to people being able to share, criticize, and modify their ideas without being threatened. He blames the institutionalization of democracy on the fact that there is a lack of civic discourse, leading to automatic acceptance of government and it's means. Another point of development for Angus comes in the ways he describes civic identity. He describes it not as always being in agreement, but being respectful of one's fellow citizens.
The other main emphasis of this preface, as listed in the second paragraph, is that information needs to be abundant so that people are able to make their own questions about politics, rather than be handed questions that they are to look at and debate by the politicians themselves. One thing that Angus addresses on this issue is that of television. He discusses the fact that as means of dissemination of information have changed, it has affected democracy. This, he believes has had a negative affect. He sees that people are learning things and developing questions as they watch TV. However, afterwards there is no way to address the TV for answers, thus fostering the development of an ignorant electorate. He also sees the need for all information to be present. Too many times there is one view represented in every place that people go to in order to discuss issues of "democracy."
Finally, Angus gives a decent conclusion where he prepares the reader for the rest of the essay. He writes of two questions he hopes to fully answer in his essay, and writes that he is going to answer these question through the examination of social movements. He concludes by giving democracy a power of change. People generally do not think of democracy as something undergoing change, yet Angus says that it is happening right beneath our noses. He pushes people to realize that democracy is not an institution that is never to be altered, but one that is ready and willing to change if the citizenry will stand up and take its place behind the wheel.

I can't come up with a good title.

John Fiske's essay Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance seems to be primarily concerned with the abuse of the "public" space of the mall. I think this argument is fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: malls are not public spaces. Public spaces are sidewalks, streets, parks. Shopping malls are privately owned, privately operated commercial collectives, and their goal is capitalistic, not philanthropic. This space is only perceived as "public" because malls desire to be inviting to the consumer. Fiske says that the "youths who turn [malls] into their meeting places... are not actually behaving any differently from lunch hour window shoppers... with no intention to buy". I also believe this is simply a bold generalization to denigrate the retailers and their perception of the public. These "lunch hour window shoppers" can be perceived by other shoppers as potential consumers, and therefore should not be compared to the youths that simply and obviously are there to loiter.

Mike Davis's essay Fortress Los Angeles also seems to take on the attitude that there is a conflict at hand. He describes practices of social, geographic, and economic stratification. He seems to be outraged at the city of Los Angeles for allowing this to happen. Perhaps he believes that in our modern area, we have solved these problems and are on our way to a more egalitarian and accomodating society. It is my opinion that these circumstances and their resulting reactions are inescapable, but we have created means of aiding the less fortunate. Unfortunately, such circumstances have existed since the earliest cities, and will continue to happen until cities cease to be. Interestingly, I have encountered something similar to the benches Davis describes. In the cities of Chicago and Baltimore, certain parks or public areas have installed benches that are partitioned, and appear to be designed so each individual sitting on the bench can have arm rests, and space that is temporarily theirs. Interestingly enough, these benches are placed in either high-dollar areas (Chicago's Millenium Park), or in areas where there is heavy tourist traffic (Chicago's Navy Pier, Baltimore's Inner Harbor). These benches are not created to accomodate the discriminating sitter, but to turn out potential squatters. Unless you're under 3 feet tall, these benches would be impossible to sleep on. This could, in the eyes of someone seemingly sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, be seen as cruel, depriving these drifters of a place to sleep. But all of these cities have numerous homeless shelters, replete with beds and meals to accomodate the homeless. Unfortuantely, the government or these aid organizations cannot babysit everyone, and those who live on the streets and do not go to shelters can be subject to poor conditions.

Apparently, I do not seem to agree with either Davis or Fiske. I feel that they are exaggerating the degree to which these "spaces" are regulated or controlled or policed.

Fiske and Davis are Right

Both Fiske and Davis obviously disagree with how "public space" is being used. Based on the arguments presented in each of their articles, I agree with both of them.

Fiske points out that malls are only for people that have the money to spend and are willing to spend it. There is another part of this that he did not mention though. It is people who look like they don't have the money to spend who are also harassed by mall authorities. This is particularly true of many teenagers who actually spend a good deal of money at the mall but are expected not to. This also works in the opposite way for adults. Many adults go window shopping and never actually buy anything but they are accepted because they are expected to have money. Fiske also mentioned how many senior citizens use malls to go for walks during colder months. This is perfectly accepted but when teenagers use a mall for essentially the same purpose they are unceremoniously thrown out.

I also agree with Davis that it is ridiculous for the government in Los Angeles to be displacing all these people. This is a common thread in history where the very rich, powerful minority is doing anything it can to stay in power even at the expense of so many others. I do think that Los Angeles should be doing what it can to make areas inhospitable for homeless people and also work to stop the drug trafficking, but there are other things that must coincide with this. The police are actually not following the laws by arresting street vendors. Many of those people have nothing to do with the drug trafficking and by taking away there business you are just creating more "homeless vagrants". I think that some money should be spent to make areas inhospitable for the homeless but that more money needs to be spent to make those people no longer homeless. With all these rich companies there is obviously an excess of money, so they need to stop being greedy and shell some out to help other people. Help them learn and get back on their feet. You not only help these people but you also would be helping yourself. By doing all of this public service they would put a much better face on their company, most likely causing them to have more customers.

So obviously I agree with Fiske and Davis, that public space is not too public and that this needs to be fixed.

finally, after 1½ hours of uncooperative internet...wtf

I really don't know when/how I'm gonna get this posted online, so I might just be printing it out and bringing it to class if I can't get the internet to work here.

But anyway, I didn't like either one of these articles. While reading Fiske's passage, I had my dislike of malls in the back of my head, which made me think the essay was dumb to begin with, because if I don't like malls, it would follow that I don't like reading about them. Regardless, I sludged through the text and digested it anyway.

Fiske makes a comparison in the first sentence that he uses throughout the passage, comparing a mall to a cathedral. Malls to me are more like a center of wastefulness. I feel like too many people waste their money in malls on overpriced products that are mostly unnecessary, as well as people with nothing better to do just hanging out there and wasting their time. The author brings both of these points up, but he seems to believe that the "proletarian shoppers" are a big problem. Personally, I think that they aren't a problem at all and that they shouldn't be bothered unless they're causing a distraction or something of that nature. Furthermore, people like this occupying any kind of public space is inevitable, since humans are social beings and this is a free opportunity to be with and meet other people. He also stresses a distaste for these "proletarian shoppers" throughout the passage, for example, he makes a somewhat belligerent comment to close his essay, making it seem like the window shoppers have a great super secret enormous gigantic tremendous master plan to viciously annihilate, emphatically destroy, vehemently remove, and forcefully exterminate the mall businesses. It seems to me that they're just bored teenagers with nothing better to do, with no hostile intent whatsoever.

In Mike Davis' essay "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space", he shows some of the same points as Fiske about public space; that the powerful should reign supreme over the weak. I found his essay a lot harder to believe than Fiske's, due to some of the events he describes. I wouldn't be surpised if any of it was exaggerated. He makes various points showing how people go out of their way to make life harder for homeless people, both city government and normal citizens. For example, the fact that sprinkler systems being installed to randomly go off in the middle of the night to scare away homeless people from sleeping there is absolutely ridiculous. For that same amount of money, you could give one of those people some shelter or something to help them along. It's rough having to live on the streets as a scavenger, and some of the events in this article are ridiculously inhumane and he makes it seem like people in Los Angeles have no sympathy at all for those poor people. This article made me emotionally upset the first time I read it, and going back to write about it the day afterwards has made that feeling worse. I don't really want to write any more and just forget about all of it.

Both Fiske and Davis brought up similar points about public space, but I don't find their points valid at all. I had a personal bias going into each article, and I believe it shows in my writing. Fiske's article was really stupid and pointless to me, it seems like he was trying too hard to make a point about something so mundane and commonplace in our society like a mall. Like I said earlier, people tend to go to places where there are other people due to our social nature, and nothing is going to stop that. In Davis' article, it's just hard to believe that people go out of their way to make life a living hell for people that have less than what they have.

Fiske and Davis Response

Upon starting Fiske's article, I couldn't help but have distaste for it. I did not appreciate Fiske's comparison between shopping malls and cathedrals. He had only discussed the structure of each idea and not the meaning of the institutions. I think it was a bad choice on his part to use the institution of religion because it is a very personal subject for many people who may find it offensive to see their system of beliefs related to consumerism. Though, not a very religious person myself, I couldn't help but enter this article with bias.
In my opinion, The Mall is simply a place used for mindless self-indulgence, a time-killer.
Davis, thankfully, wrote of a much more literal topic that I found more interest in. I couldn't help relating his ideas to the invocation of the Patriot Act. All you have to do is replace terrorists with societies down-trodden. In order to make public space safe, according to Davis' article, you must control the public, while keeping us safe but reducing our freedom. Well, this obviously contradicts the definition of public. Or, so I thought. I found that in the definitions of the word public, all include the word community. When was the last time that you heard of homeless people and drug-dealers as a part of the community? I'm beginning to realize that the idea of 'public space' exists in a black and white world. Everything in between does not belong. They confuse our societies identity. We must hide all that is ugly and grey in order to all fit in a pleasant environment.
I had begun this assignment completely uninterested by Fiske's ideas. But, I found Davis's to be very valuable. In fact, I am still having trouble relating to Fiske's essay, so I apologize that I wasn't more indepth with that portion of the assignment. Hopefully, I will get a lot out of the discussions we have in class.

Fiske/Davis

The phrase "public space", in my opinion, pertains to any area in which any group in society may occupy. Examples of public space, according to John Fiske and Mike Davis would include malls and the streets; although each man takes his own stance on each issue.

To begin, I'll talk about Fiske's article, "Shopping For Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance". In his article about people who use the mall as a sort of a playground, Fiske points out that one can differentiate between the haves and the have-nots by the way they shop, or don't shop so-to-speak. His belief is that those who only walk the mall and browse, or window shop, should not really be in the mall at all because they are only wasting the time of the shop owners, employees, and, oddly enough, the mall security. Although Fiske seems to take sides with the bourgeois, albeit in a somewhat comical attitude, he also explains of the youth's attendance at malls in order to build status and reputations. He stated that "youths consumed images and space instead of commodities, a kind of sensuous consumption that did not creat profits." When speaking of wasting the time of mall security, Fiske is referring to the youths that tempt and use "trickery", but also says that these same kids are not much different from the "lunch hour window shopper", therefore stating that these young people and non-consumers really have no business in the mall whatsoever-they are just in the way.

Mike Davis' article, "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space", on the other hand, came from a very different perspective on a serious subject. Davis enlightens us about the loss of public space for the ever-growing population of poverty stricken that are residing in Los Angeles. In a grave tone Davis gives us a timeline from the once "pleasure domes of the elite Westside" to the now "repressive ghettos and barrios", and then informs us of the government's lack of interest, or help for those in dire need. In contrast to Fiske's article, the subject matter in this article are have the right of public space taken away from them, and they can do nothing about it. The areas of major trouble are being quarantined, bull-dozed, and the people being pushed out with malicious intent. In short, and well-sta

Public Space..?

Fiske’s essay, "Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance", and Davis’s essay, "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space," both discuss the value of public space. Fiske proposes the comparison of “consumerism to religion”. In Fiske’s essay, he talks about the “unemployed youth”, who are the common crowd at the shopping malls, compared to attending church. Although, his comparison is interesting, I want to disagree for some reason. The mall is not made for just shopping. It is meant to be a social scene, an eating place, and more. He also talks about the unemployed crowd as the uninvited guests, and that to me, is not a fair accusation. Why would a mall have unvited guests? Since when was anyone given a special invitation to visit one of the most public places in a town or city?

Davis talks about how in a city they are trying to make the streets as unlivable as possible for the homeless and poor. He also talks about getting rid of the public lavatories in a certain city. How is doing any of this, or discriminating about who walks into a mall, being considering a public space? If you are trying to control what kind of people are in a certain building or on a certain street, why is it being considered PUBLIC space. To me, that is far from public.

Both of these articles bring up good points throughout them, but for the most part I did not enjoy them. This is probably because I disagree with a lot of the topics they bring up to support the idea of public space. Both Fiske and Davis seemed to see a lot of problems with public space. However, if it's supposed to be public, then let it be public.

Public space is...well...public

Public space is an idea pertaining to people "imprinting" themselves on their surroundings and embracing their culture as a way of life. Both Fiske and Davis deal with this by showing the contrasts that exist between cultures of a similar area.

Fiske text utilizes a metaphor to get his point across about public space. He compares consumerism to religion, and people to the "faithful." The values that Fiske presents in regards to public space involve the distance created in some public spaces by authority and social status. Social status comes into play because of the difference between the workers and unemployed in a public arena in Australia. Fiske sees public space as a place where people should be able to come together without being harassed. But, because of societal norms and standards, the malls have become a place where this is being outlawed. The upper crust, which moves through and actually purchases at these stores is offended by the people who come to congregate without the means to buy. The unemployed are there to socialize and look at what their wealthier counterparts are currently "in-to." One interesting point that Fiske brings up is that the youth are "tricksters." His definition of a trickster is someone who bends the rules. It is amusing to imagine all of the well-to-do members of Elizabeth being "subjected" to being around people that are obviously beneath them. It is ironic how the "vagrants" are really geniuses in their own right they are able to turn all the rules and laws into things of enjoyment instead of repression. So, the value of public space to Fiske, is as a place where the true intellects of the common man are able to flower and create a community, unique and exciting.

Finally, there is the very evocative piece by Davis. This essay is also attempting to delve deeper into the meanings behind public space. Davis’ entire text revolves around his opening statement of the fact that there is a lack of democracy in Los Angeles. Davis sees public space as a place where democracy is upheld. A definition for democracy is "control of a group by the majority of its members." According to this definition there is virtually no democracy available in any public space in L.A. He then moves on to list instance after instance where the minority, mostly the city council and it’s wealthy and business constituency, are imposing themselves on everyone. This is a huge problem for Davis. He sees and feels the pain of all of the people that are displaced by this inegalitarian policy. He sees the values of public space being redefined as places where only a select group are eligible and deserving to be present. Davis’ values regarding public space revolve around wealth making things conform to keep the wealthy happy. He sees it still as a problem of the wealthy land-owners running the show similar to the days when our country was original founded. He, however, believes that in this time and this place, we need to not fall back into those ways of the past that were unequal and truly undemocratic.

Fiske v. Davis

It's somewhat amusing to me the way that the two author's express their views on public space, and the public in general. Ideally, the "public" encompasses everyone: people from all socio-economic statuses, races, ages, and genders. Therefore, "public space" should be defined as areas (space) set aside for the use of everybody (the public). According to Davis and Fiske, however, my assumptions are slightly inaccurate.

Fiske's piece "Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance" is more comical than informative, but he makes a few good points. One, people who go to the mall purely for the pleasure of "window shopping" DO exist and are wasting their time as well as the time of the poeple who DO go to the mall to shop; and two, security guards have nothing better to do with their time than to harass young people who walk around the mall with soda cans. Point taken. From what i could make of his views on public space, they seem to fit the catagory of, "if i can afford it, it's mine, and if you can't, get out." Very strictly, he aligns himself to the Marxist theory of the 'haves' and 'have-nots.' Public space, he seems to think, is meant only, for selected members of the public (the 'haves'), and only for the uses they deem worthwhile. His analogy between the church and the 'religion of shopping,' however, seemed to be barely relevant to the idea of the public and public space, or maybe that's just me.

Davis' article "Fortress Los Angelos: The Militarization of Urban Space" was written in an entirely different style, and meant with an entirely different opinion. He is much more sensible about his presentation of what he views as an important issue in America: the decline of public space available to the public. Even the homeless, he claims, no longer have a right to be on the public streets. His public is all encompassing, but again is divided between those who have, and those who have-not. Those who 'have' are diminishing the amount and the uses of public space, either by simple neglect (he mentions "parks falling derelict") or flat-out removal (the homeless).

All in all, what is "public" and "public space?" Do either of these concepts really exist? And if they do, how do we determine who's idea of them is the correct one? I think that Davis and Fiske both hinted at the same answer in different ways: those who are in control and 'have' power are the ones who determine what is encompassed in the public and its space.

Those articles by Fiske and Davis....

In the article "Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance", Fiske uses a metaphor relating malls to cathederals, making a mall seem secular. I, in no way found this a helpful metaphor, since I absolutely abhor malls in every way. Anyway, Fiske uses this metaphor and then describes how metaphors can pose as a problem when trying to describe something. The metaphor used means that the power of consumerism on consumers is similar to the power of religion on its followers. I took the metaphor in this way: The consumer's religion is her shopping mall, and Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, Gap, etc. are the gods she worships.
As Fiske put it, "... a resisting reading must align itself with the differences rather than the similarities...", and that's exactly how I started reading this assignment, mostly because of my biased look at the shopping mall in my area.
A shopping mall does not discriminate against who is admitted, be it someone with the money to throw away on things they don't actually need, but are told they need it by artfully composed advertising, or a "mallrat" who virtually lives at the mall and has never actually given in to the sermon to buy, buy, buy.

The excerpt from Mike Davis' City of Quartz about the "Militarization of Urban Space" in Los Angeles seemed a lot like a work of fiction to me, and reminded me of a horrible movie I remember watching called "Escape from Los Angeles" with Kurt Russell. When I looked up Mike Davis on the internet I found a few articles from major newspapers that stated that the information Davis provided in his work was blown out of proportion to the actual situation in Los Angeles. I know that the internet is not one of the best places to look up information , seeing that the information may not have been gotten from a legit source, but I don't think that you can look at a lot of essays and works and believe everything they say either, especially when it's as seemingly biased as this work by Davis.
My parents grew up in and around the L.A. area, my relatives still live there, and I visit every summer. I have never seen anything on such a large scale as what Davis describes happening in Los Angeles. When I walked through downtown Redondo, which had been known as a "badland" when my parents first got married and lived there, I don't see any racial discrimination, I don't see a dystopia as Mike Davis put it. Driving around, I've seen many homeless shelters that provide a place to stay and food for such unfortunate people, and I didn't see many people sleeping in parks or on benches at bus stations (though I admit I did see a couple), but on a few occasions I've seen more homeless while driving around Allentown than I have seen on the streets of L.A. on my roundabout walks with my cousins. The views presented in this excerpt by Mark Davis seemed incredibly biased and were borderline decietful in my eyes. He magnified certain things that are actually happening on a smaller scale to try to prove his point that Los Angeles, instead of being the "town of dreams" and full of opprotunity for everyone, is in fact infested with mass riots, racism and anything else you can throw in.

Public Space Blog

The two essays, "Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance" by Fiske, and "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space," by Davis adress the idea of public space and give specific examples of space the general public occupies, and what the officials response to this occupation is. The Fiske's essay the public he writes about are the "unemployed youth" who frequent shopping malls, not to shop, but rather to hang out and window shop. He compares this to a religion, where the ritual of going to the mall is comparable to attneding church. He also compares the mall visitors to a war. The authorities, shop owners and security guards are powerless against the "invaders," and can only get rid of them for engaging in illegal activity, such as underage drinking. This contrasts Davis's article which has homeless people being kicked of the streets (a public area) for loitering. Davis's article is more harsh than Fiske's. It shows how Los Angeles is being redesigned to gear different areas of the city toward specific groups of people.
Both authors show the value of public space, something needed and wanted, but being taken over by certain groups of the public, namely lower class. The malls are being taken over by the unemployed youth, not the comsumers who actually purchase and affect the economy. The public street of Los Angeles are being over run by drug dealers, homeless, local goods peddlers, and other loiterers, and all are being rounded up as criminals, regardless of whether they break the law or not.
The assumptions made about public space is that it is being wasted on the public and thatthe elite public will make better use of the space, and so the general public, the youths, and loiterers, should be relocated. The problem is that this is not making "public space" truly public, really it is privatizing the space for the elite.

Save the best for last!

Hello. My name is Joe Stempo, and I am from the beautiful streets of Catasauqua, PA. I am majoring in Physics and considering becoming a teacher. I work at a boy scout camp during the summer, and it is a great experience. I'm really not a big fan of reading at all, mostly everything I sit down and try to read either bores me or I get distracted. Henceforth, I never read for enjoyment and I have a growing list of books that have been suggested to me but I've yet to touch. I know that I should change this, but I'm not really motivated to. I'm also very sarcastic at times, so if I say anything that seems conceited or whatnot, it's probably not true (i.e. my title).

Williams begins this essay with a brief description of a bus trip taking his from Cambridge University, where he attended, and his hometown in the Black Mountains of Wales. He describes the changes that have happened in both cultures, with a cinema showing animated films right across the street from a cathedral with hundreds of years of history behind it. He also describes the widening of the roads through the valley he grew up in as another example of how culture changes over time. He also describes how he, his father, and his grandfather all share different ideas.

He then begins to describe culture as having two aspects, where it is a growing entity that teaches its members "known meanings and directions", which the members in turn use, in addition to "new observations and meanings", to further itself along. Essentially, he is saying that the past experiences and new ideas and discoveries both help to advance the future. Culture is ever-changing, and cannot flourish without a rich knowledge of both of these aspects.

One thing, however, I did not like about his essay was his word choice. I personally thought of "ordinary" to mean something plain, mundane, or pretty much boring. Culture is definitely not any of those things. It is very diverse, it means many things to many people. It also is ever-changing, always filled with new occurances, thoughts, and findings. After thinking about it, though, I understand what he means. Culture is everywhere, every second, in every thought, and in that sense, I guess it is very "ordinary".

"Culture is Ordinary"

My name is Greg Brittain, and I am a freshman this year at Kutztown University. I was born and raised in Mechanicsburg, PA, a suburb of Pennsylvania's state capital, Harrisburg. This location is integral to who I am as a person and who I am becoming. I have had an aversion to "blogging" the last year or so in my life, because most that I have encountered have been self-absorbed and were created for the sole purpose of drawing attention to oneself. More recently, I have discovered political blogs, which often aren't far removed from extremist propaganda on each side of the "ideological identity" spectrum. Sensationalization is paramount for these blogs in order to gain a certain amount of "hits", either for egotistical satisfaction or money from advertisers. I digress; my writing tends to lack the organization or cohesion necessary to communicate a complete thought. Hopefully this class or this forum can help me to build a clearer, stronger narrative.

My initial reaction to Williams' essay was that he felt not so much that culture was "ordinary" in the sense of it being plain, but more that culture is "the expected or commonplace condition" (WordNet, wordnet.princeton.edu). It is expected, of course, that humans develop a culture as an aspect of the greater structure of "civilization". "Every human society has it's own shape" seems to be a clear statement that the existence of a society necessitates the existence of individual or unique aspects that are discernable enough to set specific societies apart from one another. The society creates a "cultural currency" when it establishes "common meanings and direction" that are shared by those who partake in that society's activities. Therefore, I interpret that Williams is telling his reader that ones actions that are not apparently tied to what is considered "culture" will consequentially affect the greater society and therefore the culture. This connection is well illustrated by Williams' as he describes the widening and straightening of nearby roads to accomodate larger lorries. The reason larger transportation is needed is likely the result of local farmers creating a surplus of goods, and the need to sell their goods on a larger market. After being "turned out" as a farm labourer, likely the result of the change of the farming "culture", Williams' grandfather becomes a roadman. This eventual yield to a change in culture by Williams' grandfather is ironic because of the somewhat indirect connection to the loss of his farmworking job as the result of the increasing agricultural success of local farmers.

edit: After rereading my post, I'm not entirely sure I "got" the essay.

Culture is in the eye of the beholder

Brief introduction: BenHarvey, Library Science, from York, Pa
After having read Raymond Williams’ writing, I decided to break the piece into two sections. The first contains the first two paragraphs, and is a look at the contrast between the cultures of the past and present in Wales. The second section encompasses the third and fourth paragraphs and is the part of the work that lays out Williams’ arguments on why culture is ordinary.
In the first section, Williams juxtaposes past and present culture of Wales. One example that he gives is a cathedral on one corner, with a cinema on the other. The cathedral represents past culture, and is probably hundreds of years old, while the cinema is relatively new, and showing cartoons! This contrasts the religious and pious culture of past generations with the newer culture focused more around self-gratification and enjoyment. Another reference to the evolution of culture in the first segment deals with the expansion of the roads to accommodate the lorries. This visual shows the shift in an agricultural culture. The goods farmed by Williams’ parents and grandparents would have been taken to market by train, however in this new generation, the culture has evolved to using trucks and gasoline instead. This entire section serves the point of illustrating the change of culture, which Williams gives his opinions on in the next section.
In part two, Williams lays out the thesis of his work. The thesis is that culture is ordinary. I, however, do not wholly agree with this. Though many of Williams’ points are excellent, the fact that he has so much to write about culture alone proves that it is extraordinary. Williams writes in the fourth paragraph, "Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings." This alone verifies that culture is more than mundane. The fact that culture can have a life of its own makes it a thing of amazement. Williams’ defines culture as society, "writing themselves into the land." This too is an aspect of culture that makes it something special. The fact that business, people, and government can imprint itself on culture, considered the arts and learning, is amazing. It is fascinating to see culture change in front of your eyes and even though you may see it as commonplace, someone else probably views it as a miracle. So, I guess my views are not entirely at odds with Williams’. I however, believe that culture’s ability to be ordinary is in the eye of the beholder.

Response to 'Culture Is Ordinary'

Hi, everyone. My name is Jill McGregor. I'm a Freshman at KU and have yet to decide a major, though I am leaning toward a career involving Social Sciences. I was born and raised in Allentown and graduated from Dieruff High School. I am currently living in Kutztown with my Aunt (to save on housing) and unfortunately haven't had much opportunity to meet many people, so I am looking forward to getting to know everyone in class and through the blogs. I am also very shy, so I apologize if I seem stand-offish. I promise I will open up more. Especially in such a small class.

When first thinking about the title of Raymond Williams' "Culture is Ordinary," the word 'familiarity' couldn't help but come to mind. Personally, I believe that familiarity and ordinariness are very closely related and both very comforting ideas. But, obviously, times change. Cultures change.
Williams introduces the topic of change while considering his travels through the country. Growing as a boy in his familiar 'farming valley' while still bearing witness to the growth of industry that will, in given time, swallow his environment. Evidence is shown is Williams' discussion of his Grandfather having worked on a farm, being 'turned out of his cottage' and having to work as a roadman. Also, it is shown in his father's transition from being a farm laborer to becoming a signalman for the railroad company. Williams advanced in a turning point of a great cultural change in American history.
Through the generations of his family, Williams expresses ones familiarity with their culture. His Grandfather, having lived much of his life in Agricultural Society, had the hardest transition into Industrial Society. While, his father 'spoke quietly and happily of when he had started a trade-union branch and a Labour Party group in the village.' And, Williams himself becoming a thriving member of industrial Society, attending college in Cambridge. As he ages, the new culture becomes familiar and 'ordinary.'
Obviously, with this sort of meaning, a persons Culture will be as varied as there are people in the world. But, in an individual sense, "Culture is Ordinary" to all who experience it.

Ok, this is the point when I feel very vulnerable about my writing and hope that I was able to get my point across without losing track or throwing anyone completely off. Let me know what you think.

My introduction and thoughts on "Culture Is Ordinary"

Hi, I'm Sara Lippman and I'm a freshman this year. Kutztown was the only college I applied to and I am majoring in Studio Art. I come from Catasauqua where I live with my dad, who is a pilot, my mom, and my brother, who is starting high school this year.

Raymond Williams looks at the culture of where he lived as "ordinary", just as anyone else in any other society would look at their culture. That common culture Williams knew in the country will keep growing and finding more directions to grow in. Raymond Williams' grandfather and father had to adapt to changes set upon them, or changes they set into motion, just as society as a whole does. That is ordinary.
Williams insisted that culture is both a way of life and the process of discovery and creative effort. In life, you discover and learn. The arts around you are also a form of culture in society that makes a common area "ordinary", depending on your relationship to the area, or your knowledge of the area.
When I first read the assignment, I wasn't quite sure where Williams was going with the first paragraph, in context to the rest of the reading. But when I looked back at it, I noticed that he described the bus trip as a "journey that in one form we have all made". All the stages they passed through - from the city, through the fields and mountains, up through valleys - were all culturally "ordinary" to the people who dwell there. This "journey", I believe, is our reflection upon our own culture and heritage.

I look forward to the discussion of the assignment in class on Tuesday!

Blog: "Culture is Ordinary"

First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Natasha Zimmer and I am a freshman here at Kutztown University. I live with my mom, my brother, and my sister. I am the oldest, therefore I am the first to attend to college.

As I came to the conclusion of Raymond Williams' piece entitled "Culture is Ordinary", I began to liken it to our college experience as freshman this year, such that we are all used to the norms of our hometowns. Williams uses his family history to show the importance of culture and how it shapes an area and its' people, which I feel captures his point of view and makes it clear. He states that "human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings." Once again referring to our newly beginning college experience, Williams' ideas hit home in the sense that one becomes accustomed to the conveniences and culture of the area that they hail from. All of the things, people, and places that we were used to are at home, and we are all in a new place, gaining more knowledge, not only academically speaking, but of the world surrounding us. I agree with Raymond Williams that each and every group of people creates a culture that fits their wants and needs, no matter where they live. Therefore, in their eyes or our eyes depending on where you are from, the thoughts and people and places that surround your every day life are what become "ordinary" to you. To conclude, Williams uses his family's experience, along with his own, to create an image of what they considered "ordinary", but then goes on to prove that the area you live in and the people that you are surrounded by add to ones' perception of "ordinary", which in turn creates different opinions of normal for everyone.

1st Blog

Hi all! My name is Katie, and I am a library science/elementary education major here at KU. I like books, especially those of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I am interested in the martial arts and I like to bowl, even though I'm not very good at it.
"Culture is Ordinary" by Raymond Williams is an essay which reflects life, and society. Williams says that "culture is ordinary." He says that all societies have a culture, and while all cultures have their differences they consist of the same elements. The two definitions of culture that he gives are 1. "the known meanings and directions which its members are being trained to," and 2. "the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested." William says culture is not only the common everday living of life, but the special aspects of life: the celebrations and the art.
Williams's style of writing confused me. At first it seemed like the first part of this essay did not fit with the second part. However upon consideration the first part seems to be an example of ordinary culture. We see the nuances of the city, where he waits outside a Cathedral, and the city is busy and filled with life. Then he begins a journey away from this civilization into the country, where the culture is less busy, more focused on survival, and making ends meet.
William ends this essay by saying "Culture is ordinary, in every society, and in every mind." His insights show deep thoughts about life and society. Every society has a culture, and while they are all different, each society has a culture that fits it, whether it be a fast paced culture centered around enjoyment or a survival based cultured focused on making a living and provinding for your family.

Blog #1

My name is Emily Moyer. I am a freshman at Kutztown with a major in Special Education/Elementary Education. I graduated from Pennridge High School in Perkasie, Pennsylvania. My parents are both elementary teachers in the Pennridge School District, which is probably a part of why I would like to be a teacher. I also have two older brothers. I used to play volleyball, basketball, and softball, but now am just going to be playing a club team or two at Kutztown probably. I love Kutztown already and that about wraps up my introduction of myself.

It took me a few times to read, Raymond Williams’ essay, “Culture is Ordinary”, before getting a pretty good idea of what he was trying to say. The way he began his essay describing the journey “that in one form or another we have all made” was a good introduction for his point that he is making throughout the essay. He describes the change that has occurred in the things that you see throughout that bus journey, which I did not understand at first. However, I linked it to his point about cultures.
At first, saying culture is ordinary, sounded absurd to me. A culture is a detailed combination of arts, beliefs, institutions, and many other products of human work and thought. And to me, ordinary is used to describe something common, not something with such depth. However, Williams’ argument began to make sense to me. Although every culture has its own ways and meanings, as Williams said, the making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions. Changes are made within each society, based on the human’s experiences.
Each individual has a different perception of their own culture, which made me hesitant to see Raymond Williams’ point, because to each individual they might see something different, making their culture far from ordinary. However, as he talked about the culture growing and changing, how is that different than any other thing in life? Change is one of the most constant things in a human’s life. Change occurs everyday; in the things we see, the relationships we have, the activities we do, etc. Every culture is made up of change, because CHANGE is ordinary. So wouldn’t that make culture ordinary as well?

Post 1: "Culture is Ordinary"

My name is Evan Battilana. I'm from West Chester, PA and very glad not to be there anymore. I'm a freshman at KU. I like to play Ultimate and Football. I'm a huge fan of Football and especially the Eagles. I just got my driver's license a month ago and I tend to see speed limits in doubles.After reading "Culture is Ordinary" it seems to me that Williams is all over the place with his descriptions of Culture. Even in re-reading it, the only constant that I can find is change. Everything he says is about how Culture is never the same from one moment to another. "The making of a society...and its growth is an active debate and amendment". Amendment is the same word used for changes in our Constitution, which is considered to be a living document because it is always changing. This change is based on the Culture and opinions of the people alive at that time. "All men are created equal" means a very different thing than it did 200 years ago.Williams shows how things can change even just from one generation to the next. His grandfather was a manual laborer, his father worked for the railroad, and he himself went to grammar school and was eventually educated at Cambridge. This is the same now. My grandparents never had a thought in their mind to go to college. My mother only went because her company asked her to and paid for it. For me and other people my age it is expected to go to college. In just 50 years people go from being surprised that you're going to college to surprised if you don't go to college.
Because of all this I think Culture is ordinary. Every Culture is ordinary for the people that are in it. They created it based on their opinions and beliefs so for it to be anything other than ordinary would be ridiculous.

My First Blog

Well, this is my very first blog, so I guess I should introduce myself. My name is Amber Benson, I am a freshman at KU, and I graduated from Henderson High School in West Chester, PA. I have three brothers, two younger and one older, and no sisters. I am originally from Philadelphia, but my parents moved my brothers and I to Chester County after I finished my freshman year of high school. I don't play any sports right now, but I used to play tennis and softball, and I was also part of a cheerleading and dance team. Other than that, there isn't much to say...oh, and I'm a terrible driver.
After reading Raymond Williams' "Culture is Ordinary," I must say that I am impressed by his ideas and his provacative writing style. His opening is a scenario of a personal journey, one that can be taken, in this case literally, but also can have a figurative interpretation. What I liked the most about this portion, was that it was very easily transferred from the writer's past, to the personal experience of the reader. Next, Williams comments that "culture is ordinary." My first reaction to the reading was that he was crazy. Culture is a complex set of social norms, rules, and ideas. It is forever changing and molding to the newest trends and fads. How is that ordinary?
SO, I decided to read his piece again. This time however, i took a closer look at his arguements. In a sense, his examples almost personify culture in and of itself. He says that culture undergoes change through the learning og new skills, and the emergence of new ideas. It grows, just as infants do, through learning and thinking. He also claims that culture 'makes' society, operating via common meaning and growing by way of debate and amendment. What else works this way? Imediately i thought of the scientific processes used in experimentation; an idea that is known and exists is tested and sometimes amended.
Suddenly i understood his point. Children growing up and scientists testing ideas are perfectly normal in our world. Therefore, if culture consists essentially of the same processes, is it not just as ordinary?