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.