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.