INN“WNWWWlWlWlHHlW(IIWIHIW

   

 

THESIS

llllllllllllllllllllllIMHHIIWlllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01706 9794

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Patterns of Power and Place:
Preliminary Research in Identity and
the Use of Public Space

presented by

Maria Lourdes Pease

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Artsdegree in Sociology

 

 

</L// “‘in ARLL//

Major professor
(Ruth Simms Hamilton)

Dau3December 2, 1997

 

0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State ‘
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use cmunwmm.m.14

 

PATTERNS OF POWER AND PLACE:
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH IN IDENTITY AND

THE USE OF PUBLIC SPACE

BY

Maria Lourdes Pease

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

December 1997

ABSTRACT

Patterns of Power and Place:
Preliminary Research in Identity and
The Use of Public Space
BY

Maria Lourdes Pease

Historically, the use of public space by Americans of
African. descent has been circumscribed. by larger social
conditions. Empirical evidence suggests that the use of public
space is contingent on the social context in which it exists.
Cultural dynamics of groups who are defined by "race" promote
the differential use of physical space which is presumed to
have specific purposes. This paper uses qualitative data to
examine the use of a public lobby by people of Asian,.African
and European descent, in consideration of the social dynamics
of power, place and identity, as they relate to the physical
and social location of racial groups. This study supports the
notion that those who most closely identify with groups who
hold power are more likely to occupy spaces which are

designated as "public."

Copyright by
MARIA LOURDES PEASE
l 9 9 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I . Statement of the Problem ............................... 1
II . Conceptualization of the Problem ....................... 7
III. Research StrategyandMethods .......................... 14
A. The Setting ....................................... 17
IV. Findings ............................................... 21
A. Lobby as Public Space: Socialibility
and Passage ....................................... 21
B. Individual and Group Sociability:
Behaviors in the Lobby Area ....................... 23
C. Racial Difference and the Using and
Traversing of Public and Social Space ............. 24
V. Analysis of Findings ................................... 30
A. Circumscribed Space ............................... 30
B. Place and Power: Occupation and
Utilization of Space .............................. 33
C. Legacies of Power ................................. 35
D. Social Boundaries ................................. 39
VI . Conclusions ............................................ 41
Bibliography ................................................ 43

iv

TABLE OF TABLES

Table Number E2
1. Classification of the Sample According

to Location ............................................ 25
1A. Distribution of Sample According to Race ............... 26
2 . Lobby Area Usage According to Race ..................... 27

 

I . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

All physical space exists within a social context. This
social fact is illustrated by the transformation of access to
public accommodations, and therefore the public, under Title
II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under that bill, equal access
tijublic accommodations for Black as well as White people was
secured” This essay reflects on.collected.data.which indicates
a differential use of public space within a racially diverse
population. In fact, although racial distinctions are used,
the real issue here is the construction of identities, public
space, and social space. Culture, and the myriad
manifestations of that process, including identity,
architecture, design.and.ideology, derive from.social history,
and from a social and spatial division of labor which produces
social relations which.are themselves part of the formation.of
culture. Specifically, the construction of social relations
and the construction of culture are simultaneous. Rather than
being immutable, culture, and cultural productions, while not
inherent to a group, are formed dialectically as part and
parcel, and are a residual consequence of that group's
traditions, myths, pragmatisms, and.life conditions, including
their relations to and.with other groups. Culture is a sort of

"build-as-you-go" proposition.

 

2

In this qualitative study, cultural relations are seen to
be manifested in the differential use of public space by a
people who might be regarded as having held social positions
very much like Georg Simmel’s strangers.1

This data may reveal a direction for future in-depth
research on the very historical, and nonessentialist, nature
of culture as it is reflected in the use of "public" space
and, by extension, on the nature of "the public." In other
words, this participatory-observational study in the lobby of
Owen Center Graduate Dormitory should support the notion that
the public-ness in public spaces may be mediated by other
social factors, like racial identity or cultural relations.
This initial study may be useful as an indicator of larger
social phenomena, as it may be useful in helping to understand
some of the more subtle dynamics of "racial climate," cultural
disjuncture, and. of the need for a democratization. and
diversification of public spaces.

The obvious questions which.we can derive from this study
are about the boundaries of power, identity and cultural
relations as they are constructed and.mediated through social
relations. Are there larger, more generalizable patterns of
power and place? What relations exist between the use of
public facilities and power, and what social facts mediate

those relationships? Are patterns of domination and

 

1 Georg Simmel. "The Stranger" in Georg Simmel, 1858-1918: A
Collection of Essays. Kurt Wolff (ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University Press, 1959. pp 402—408.

 

3

subordination reflected in the occupation or use of physical
space. One supposition is that what space a people occupy or
control is indicative of their access to power in that
society. Clearly, the history of Native Americans and African
descent people in this society supports the notion that
identity, place and power have been intimately connected.

Contemporary academic social theory has just begun to
deal with this most material structuring of social relations,
where studies of environmentalism and post-modern theories
have created a natural nest for the emergence of issues
surrounding the relation between our physical and social
locations. Investigation into the relationship of physical
space to social relations has been discussed by.Anthony King,

who suggests that,

if built environments, in all their various
conceptualizations, are as important as socially-
constituting mechanisms . . . then they should (as

indeed they do) provide us with some evidence, some
data about the nature and organization of society
and culture as well as its spatial expression or
constitution.2

An ideology of manifest destiny resulted in the
reservation of certain lands for occupation by native nations.
A myriad of other rational, scientific and otherwise were

manufactured to accommodate the physical and psychological

 

2 King, Anthony. "Architecture, Capital and the Globalization

of Culture." in Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalism, and
Modernity. Mike Featherstone (ed.) . London: SAGE Publications,

1990. pp. 404-405.

 

4
subjugation of enslaved Africans as concerned their "proper
place" in society, which were manifested socially as Jim Crow
restrictions on Black occupation of selected land, apartments,
school rooms, jobs, restaurants, buses, and other private and
public accommodations. All this lent credence to the notion
that the particular social construction of race in the United
States has made the occupation of space a real and symbolic
representation of the control and access to power to which
race has been summarily wedded.

The social and physical "place" of Black people was
circumscribed, for the majority, by legal and extra legal
restrictions. Where one sat, lived and congregated was
constructed around a "one drop rule," which rendered any
person with any African ancestry, Black.

This definition emerged from the American South to

become the nation's definition, generally accepted

by Whites and Blacks alike. Blacks had no other

choice. As we shall see, this American cultural

definition. is taken. for' granted. as readily' by

judges, affirmative action officers, and Black
protesters as it is by Klu Klux Klansmen.3

The application of this rule in the United States is
crucial to racial identity since it is the social aspect of
race and, therefore, the only aspect.

At an earlier point in time in the history of our nation,

the physical spaces that racially differentiated groups could

 

3 Davis, James F. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition.
University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1991. p. 5.

 

5
occupy were circumscribed by law. These de jure boundaries
included segregated neighborhoods, restrictions on land sales,
and the regulation of public spaces like parks, waiting rooms
in train and bus depots, as well as the trains and buses
themselves.

Then there were de facto norms of spacial use. Black
people could only enter White-controlled public spaces through
back doors, and could not enter the lobbies of White hotels.
Furthermore, at some time, in at least some places, Black
people were required to give passage to Whites on sidewalks.
These were questions of etiquette, not of law.

These de jure exclusions, related to the social use of
public space, were legally smashed in the 19608. Many of the
de facto exclusions atrophied, metamorphosed, or went
underground without the complementary force of law. Today the
concerns are different, as we see apparent concern about the
self—segregation of students by racial groups on college
campuses. White, Black and Asian students sit at separate
tables in cafeterias. There is concern about theme houses on
campus which cater to Hispanic, Asian, White or gay students.
Thus, even without laws, "birds of a feather flock together."

Now, this study looks at a related issue, but one that
involves the differential use of public space by individuals
or groups that are differently defined.by social race. Perhaps
only accidentallyy the boundaries of racial identity'and place

have converged to become representative of access to power,

6
and of the attendant material conditions for Blacks and
Whites.

It is worth investigating whether, even with the removal
of Jim Crow and other sanctions, space and place are still
representative sites of differential social perspectives and
positions. This study specifically looks at Black people’s use
of public space as representative of the degree of their
social integration into the community which we can call Owen

Graduate Students.

 

II. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE PROBLEM
Much of the contemporary discourse around questions of
public space, culture and identity is situated in the realm of
post-modernism. Place connotes viewpoint, weltanschauung and
social position in the same‘way'that it denotes territoriality
and even nationality.1 The familiar tropes of Black
dislocation, Black dispersion, or Black resettlement situate
some relations of place to race in ways that are fundamental
to notions of identity, and.the contradictions of<dislocation/
access and disuse/privilege. Prior to the desegregation of
public accommodations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Black
people’s (public and private) place was socially and
materially defined as subordinate to White comfort and
control. In his discussion of the concept of social race,
Charles Wagley explains some of the importance of the "one-
drop rule" which was unique to the United States:
In the United States, by emphasizing ancestry
combined. with. a rule of descent, a system. of
castelike social races with little mobility between

the groups has been amenable to segregation and
productive of tension.2

 

1 Gilroy, Paul. "It’s a Family Affair." in Black Culture. Gina
Dent (ed.). Seattle: Bay Press, 1992. p. 303.

2Wagley, Charles. "The Concept of Social Race in the
Americas." in Contemporary Cultures and.Societies ofILatintAmerica.
Dwight B. Heath (ed.). New York: Random House, 1965. p. 531.

7

 

8

African-Americans are both a social and a numerical
minority in the United States. Census data for 1990 for the
United States indicate that within the resident population,
Whites make up approximately 80 percent, Blacks 12 percent,
Asian or Pacific Islanders 2 percent, and Hispanics 9
percent.3 Furthermore, Black people in the U.S. are a social
minority. And, like the social aspect of race, it is the
social aspect of minority status that is most meaningful. As
we know from the history of South Africa or pre-Zimbabwe
Rhodesia, a numerical minority has the potential to wield
great control over social and physical space.

The heritage of the Black experience in the United States
is a history of racial exploitation and exclusion, de facto
and de jure. From the kidnapping of millions of Africans
transported across the middle passage to the enslavement of
those Africans across this country, the history of Black
people in the U.S. has been one of physical and social
subjugation of a very violent sort. However, that is only part
of the story. An equally, if not more important, element of
the Black experience has been the agency of Black people
acting for themselves not always as victims but as map-makers
creating their own realities and being that led to their

social identity.

 

3 1993 Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Resident
Population.by Race and.Hispanic:Originu Washington.D.C.: Department
of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1993.

9

Black people’s status as a numerical minority and their
heritage of subjugation, exclusion and agency have, in the
past and present, led to particular racial identities of
themselves and definitions by others, the internal—external
nexus. One result is what W.E.B. DuBois calls a "two-ness,"
which is a reality that lends itself to a "strangerness
complex."

Some notions of identity' are implicit in, questions
postulated early on in sociological studies. For example, of
the contributions ofiGeorg Simmel to sociological thought, one
of the most important, because of its fundamental nature, is
his presentation of the stranger. For these purposes, the
stranger as a social type is not as important as the notion of
strangerness; that is, the dynamics of social relations that
engender particular boundaries of social and physical space.

Simmel’s essay is instructive inmdescribing the:notion.of
social distance which can sometimes become manifest through
material culture and the use of public space. Strangerness
provides a way of conceptualizing a historical social relation
and helps define the (fluid) social boundaries of identity
and, in turn, the physical boundaries of space for Black
people.

However, Simmel’s conceptions of the stranger are
predicated on relations between groups which crystallized out
of individual relations. Rather, the point is otherwise.

Relations of strangerness derive from economic, social and

10
political relations that are historically conditioned,
including, and especially, the ever-present ideological
spheres that help create and become culture.

The first step in attempting to understand public space
use by people of African descent in social relations of
strangerness is to clarify strangers. Simmel’s essay on the
stranger posits the social type of stranger as having four
interlocking elements: mobility, social distance, objectivity,
and commonality; But it is the element of social distance that
most concerns us here.

Key here is the symbolic nature of otherness as it has
been embedded in a systematic non-incorporation of a distinct
segment of society. Obviously then, time and redundancy might
exaggerate and reify these relations into increasing social
distance and social space between supernumerary others and the
dominant group. Rather than socialization of a mechanistic
kind, history is the driving force behind the construction of
strangerness.

An increase in social distance implies the heightening of
the dialectic relationship which positions the stranger as
simultaneously part of, and distinct from, the group.
Strangerness requires being in a foreign element without being
integrated within that element. It is arguable that this is
the case with African-Americans.

It is social distance which is at the heart of Simmel’s

conceptualization of the stranger and.which concerns us here.

11

Several aspects of mobility are played out in social space,
creating social distance which helps delineate strangerness.

Simmel describes this dynamic in terms of nearness/
farness. The relative nearness or farness is implied by both
supernumerary and otherness status, which exposes the
paradoxical nature of strangerness which Simmel describes:
"... in relationship to [the stranger], distance means that
he, who is close by, is far, and strangeness means that he,
who is also far, is actually near."4

According to Simmel, social space is often typified by
the social position and therefore the social relations of
strangers, or, as it is being articulated here, strangerness
to the dominant group. That is, strangerness is largely
defined by the relation of one segment of the population to
another. In particular, strangers occupy positions in society
that regular members do not.5 Certainly in the case of
African—descent Americans this is historically true. As
enslaved and then "reserved“slabor, their position has been
distinct from all other groups in the U.S.

However, whether Black people occupy these positions

because they are strangers, or vice versa, seems generally

 

4 Georg Simmel. "The Stranger." in Georg Simmel. 1958-1918: A
Collection of Essays. Kurt Wolff (ed.). Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, 1959. p. 402.

5 Ibid.
5 Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital. The

Deqradation.of Work in the Twentieth.Centurvu Monthly Review Press,
1974. pp. 377-403.

12

problematic in Simmel’s construction of social types, not
least because of ahistoric and static elements in formalist
logic. In this society, as race has been constructed, the
degree to which one can or does identify with the descendants
of Europeans helps describe the degree to which relations of
strangerness exist. It is the descendants of Europeans who
have most often occupied and controlled territory in the
United States and who are more able to settle within economic
and social mainstreams from which the dominant culture is
forged. This is a structure as well as an ideological reality.
Furthermore, throughout their history in this country, Black
people have had legal and social sanctions around mass public
gatherings, so much so that much African-American
socialization has often occurred in private, or even
surreptitiously. Where Black people went was constrained, but
so was what they did in public places.

The occupation of public spaces, like the lobby of a
building on the campus of a major university, reflects an
ideological and social relation, and a relative place of
power. Walking down a public street and gathering on the
sidewalk of a public street represent distinct uses of space.
It was this implicit understanding of the relation of physical
space to power which made the sit-in such a powerful tool for
Black.people in the 1960s. When.we talk about access to public
space, we must conceptualize that space as social; that is, as

both physical and.cultural. The analysis which follows focuses

13
on the relations of space, power and identity as they reflect
and shape the social relations that form the basis of cultural

relations.

III. RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODS

The data for this study was gathered over an 11—week
period in the Spring of 1994, during which I observed the use
of the lobby of Owen Graduate Center. Owen Center at Michigan
State University is a dormitory ostensibly reserved for
graduate: students. Occasionallyy older ‘undergraduates rare
housed there as well.

I sat on a couch in the northeast corner of the lobby of
Owen Center for two—hour periods on different days and times
of day to attempt to gather a sample, and to observe whether
types of behavior on various days and times could be compared.
Initially, I expected to observe the different kinds of
behaviors in.a public place as that space is mediated by times
of day and days of the week.

The decision to "sample" various days and times of day
was an appropriate research strategy to determine whether
there was a positive relationship between the temporal and the
spatial. The sampling of days indicates that it was not
parameters of times of day that could account for the absence
of African-descent Owen graduate students. Over a cumulative
period of 24 hours we can assume that the pattern of usage of
a public space is somehow representative of a general pattern,

irrespective of day or time of day, and therefore neither is

14

an essential variable affecting the use of the lobby by
African-descent residents. As I sat in the lobby observing the
patterns of use, I became not just an observer but a
participant, to the extent that my presence there as a woman
of African descent created an anomaly and, perhaps, observably
so. Also, observations were limited to those who either
stopped in the corridor or lobby. People who walked through
the corridor without stopping were not observed, noted or
considered in this study.

Since the notion of race is central to my study, I was
guided by the use of Wagley’s notion of social race. He
asserts that:

The term "social race" is used.because these groups

or categories are socially, not biologically,

defined in all of our American societies, although

the terms by 'which they" are labeled. may' have
originally referred.to biological characteristics.1

The idea that social relations determine the substantive
meaning of race in the United States2 gets to the core of the
issue by linking the :material and social in. ways that
illuminate some of the paradoxical and primary elements of
cultural formation.

Four groups are identified in this study: Blacks or

African—Americans, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics. Of those

 

1 Wagley, Charles. "The Concept of Social Race in the

Americas." in.Contemporary Cultures and.Societies of Latin America.
Dwight B. Heath (ed.). New York: Random House, 1965. p. 531.
2 Ibid., 539.

15

16
groups, my focus was on the use of space by Black people,
especially in relation to Whites.

My notes indicate that people were identified a priori
according to my subjective definitions, based on physiognomy,
while recognizing that "racial and ethnic definitions are
highly variable, not so much between individuals but more
particularly between groups and societies."3 Moreover, notes
also indicated some ambiguity in the categorization of
"Latinos," as they are differentiated from Black and White
people. This ambiguity, the sample size, and the generally
short duration of the investigation reflect some of the
limitations of this study.

Besides field notes, this study incorporated notes from
three informal interviews conducted at the end of my field
observations. Interviewees in this study were selected at
random, according to their availability and willingness to
talk.

The data presented here describes a social phenomena
which arises through relationships among power, place and
race. The relative absence of Blacks from the lobby is an
observable fact. Black people’s relation to the University in
general, and to Owen Center in particular, is observably
different than that of other groups. It is my contention that

a longer study along these same lines would support the notion

 

3 Stone, John. Racial Conflict in Contemporary Society.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985. p. 19.

17
that groups who identify with those who are predominantly in
power are more likely to occupy spaces which.are designated as

"public."

A. The Settinq

The dormitory, Owen Graduate Center, houses approximately
1,900 students, many of whom are foreign nationals.
Intentionally or not, Owen has served as transitional housing.
In many cases, international and domestic students are housed
in Owen while they await housing in Spartan Village,
University Village or Cherry Lane, the University’s three
apartment complexes. Broadly speaking, and if we accept the
idea that matriculation through a major university such as
Michigan State is a mechanism of social mobility, then we can
state that the University is used.as a path to larger, longer—
term goals in the form of education, knowledge, university
degrees, steady (tenured) employment, (grant motivated) self—
employment, and generally higher salaries than those who hold
only a high school diploma, or no diploma at all. Likewise,
one of the functions of the lobby is as a thoroughfare to more
specific goals: another room, the cafeteria, the front desk,
front door, and exits.

According to one of my informants, because the rooms at

Owen are so small, few people choose to live there for more

18
than a year.‘1 It is not surprising, therefore, that the
transitional nature of the space loomed as a critical factor
in the investigation. What had not yet been "discovered" was
the role of this space for different segments of the Owen
population, especially African-Americans.

This study was conducted during Spring Semester 1993.
Owen Center is a seven-story, L-shaped brick building. The
entire building, with the exception of the first floor of the
west wing and four rooms of the second floor of the west wing,
is residential. The first floor and the four rooms on the
second story of the west wing house the offices of Urban
Affairs Programs. The dormitory'rooms at Owen Center are quite
small, about 10’ x 15’, and are adjoined to another such room
by a bathroom, which is shapred by the occupants of the two
rooms.

The lobby which was the setting for this data collection
is located on the first floor of Owen Center. It is a public
space, centrally located between the East and West residence
wings of Owen Center. To go from one wing of the dormitory to
the other, it is necessary to go either along the hallway that
runs past the lobby area itself or cut across the lobby. The
lobby area proper can be distinguished from the hall by the
carpeting that covers the lobby and a three—and-one-half-foot

wall that runs the partial length of the lobby.

 

4 Interview with former Owen resident "Kathy" in the lobby at
Owen Hall, April 27, 1993.

 

19

The lobby can be looked at as desirable territory, in
that it is centrally located and apparently intended for
relative comfort. The area is carpeted and has eight banks of
upholstered couches and chairs. The carpeted lobby is
pleasantly decorated with decorative incandescent lights,
rather than institutional fluorescent lights, coffee tables,
end tables, and ashtrays. It is also a very open, airy space,
with a wall of sliding glass doors that allow for maximum
natural daylight. This area is in contradistinction to the
corridor, which is aa fluorescent-lit, uncarpeted linoleum
floor that runs in a soft arc around three sides of the lobby
and leads to and from the east and west residential wings, as
well as the front desk, front and. side doors, and. the
cafeteria that provides meals for Owen graduate students.
Across the hall from the lobby is a stairway that leads
downstairs to Owen’s game room, TV’s and laundry rooms. This
downstairs area, set apart in the basement of Owen, is clearly
not public. Besides limitations of access because of its
physical positioning in the basement, Owen Residence Hall
identification cards are required.to gain access to the TV’and
game room, although not the laundry rooms.

Approximately a dozen people are employed by Owen
Graduate Center. Among them are a«daytime manager, five or six
members of a maintenance staff, a front desk clerk and a
cafeteria manager. These positions are full-time and are held

by non-students and non-residents. However, some students are

 

20
also employed at Owen on a part-time basis. These part-time
positions include maintenance and the front-desk clerk, and

are held by Owen residents, as well as non-resident students.

IV. FINDINGS
A. Lobby as Public Space: Sociability and Passage

The area of observation in this study included the
corridor and lobby (the lobby area). The lobby area at Owen
Center is a public space. It is not behind doors, and there is
no requirement that you show identification or be a member to
enter. Entrance into the lobby itself is accomplished by
merely stepping from the corridor onto the carpeted area that
constitutes the lobby proper.

From my observation, the lobby at Owen appears to be a
space that is used in one of two essential ways. First, it
serves as a site for social interaction among individuals and
groups. Second, it serves as a zone of passage. Thus,
individuals and groups either assemble or use the area as a
thoroughfare from one place to another. In general, these two
aspects can be thought of as sociability and passage, and as
such they represent two substantially different uses of the
space. The sub-category "rendezvous" represents a sort of
midway point between sociability and passage. Field notes
indicate that people pass through the lobby and adjacent
corridor (the lobby area) to and from all other areas in Owen,
and that they also congregate for scheduled and impromptu

meetings throughout the lobby area.

21

22

Passages In the first set of notes from my observations,
there are references to the lobby being "both.a throughway and
an area of relaxation." Although the conceptualization had not
yet congealed, I noted early in my observations that there
were those who made use of the comfort/relaxation element of
this public space and those who only passed through it. An
early set of notes from the field included an initial glimpse
of the distinctions among populations in this transitional
space. In fact, it is this transitional nature of the lobby as
a passage that may most emphasize its public-ness. Visitors,
residents, employees and construction workers from.nearby on—
campus construction make use of the lobby and corridors at
Owen Center.

Sociability: Throughout my notes there is evidence that
there are two basic types of sociability. The data indicates
that the two most frequent forms are rendezvous and meeting.
Lobby meetings occur for academic reasons, but more often for
non-academic interaction (i.e., goofing off, chillin',
hanging, kicking back). Rendezvous, on the other hand, can be
seen as a nddpoint between sociability and passage that is
more transitional in nature, wherein groups meet and perhaps
linger, but go elsewhere for their primary activity.

In general, for both groups and individuals, activities
of sociability took place in the lobby, while activities of
passage occured in any of the lobby areas. For example, I

noted a "marked contrast" in the tones of two different

 

23
conversations that. were taking' place simultaneously7 one
conversation was in the lobby between two people who were
seated in one of the banks of seats, the other was between two
people who were standing in the corridor adjacent to the
carpeted area that constitutes the lobby. Of the two couples,
only one occupied space in the lobby. I noted that the couple
in the corridor, who were African—Americans, were speaking in

hushed tones, almost as though they were telling each other

 

secrets.
B. Individual and Group Sociability: Behaviors in the Lobby
Area

Based on a cataloging of the people present in the lobby,
and the nature of their social interactions, behaviors were
broken down into several categories: studying, smoking,
reading, eating, and talking/discussion. These categories have
a clear relation to one another in that they all indicate a
duration of stay in the lobby, which in terms of length of
time tended to range from 3 to 60 minutes. Shortly after
beginning my observations, the lobby area started to take on
a particular shape. Watching the interactions, behaviors and
traffic flow through the lobby' of Owen Center, I soon
recognized that movement through the space, and behavior
within the space, marked a clear distinction in the meanings
and use of that space. The lobby area was used by both

individuals and groups. Individuals met and became groups,

 

24
collectives of individuals sat and.talked, individuals sat and
read newspapers, then joined other groups . Couples would smoke
and talk. The levels of sociability ranged from two—person
meetings to larger groups.

In general, my findings indicated.that there seemed.to be
more people interacting during evening than daytime hours.
Different days and times of day also reflected distinct types
of behavior and "quality" of activities (waiting for laundry,
waiting for food, reading, group conversations, passing

greetings, comments and conversation, and academic meetings).

C. Racial Difference and the Using and Traversing of Public
and Social Space

Data from this study indicated that there were
significant differences in the use of the lobby according to
race. Based on this study, there appears to be measurable
differences in how people of African descent made use of this
public space in contrast to other groups.

Table 1 shows the general classification of the sample
according to space use. As one might expect, the majority of
activity, nearly 80 percent, occurred in the lobby. As we can
see, only 20 percent of the same made use of the corridor for

passage or sociability.

25
Table 1: Classification of the Sample According to

Location, 1994

 

 

 

Location Frequency Percentage
Corridor 33 20.2
Lobby 130 79.8
TOTAL 163 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of activities catalogued occurred in
the carpeted area of the lobby proper. Within the observable
ranges of group and individual behavior, White residents of
Owen spent more time, and longer periods of time, engaging in
more diverse activities in the lobby. The range of behaviors
which European—descent residents engaged in seemed to cover
the spectrum of coded behaviors. From solitary, quiet
introspection to a young woman’s introduction to chewing
tobacco by two young men, White students used the lobby area
for a much wider range of behaviors.

Table 1A shows the racial distribution of the sample. As
we see, Blacks made up 19 percent of the sample, which is
considerably over-representative of their percentages of the
population of both Michigan State University and the United
States, where the percentages are 7.1 and 12.1, respectively.
Whites, who represented 43.0 percent of the sample are 79.9
and 80.3 percent, respectively, of the Michigan State
University’s and. the 'United. States’ population. So that

although Whites are the vast majority of the population of the

 

26
United States and MSU, they represented only 43.0 percent of

the observed users of Owen lobby.

Table 1A: Distribution of Sample According to Race, 1994

 

 

 

Asian Black Hispanic White Total
Frequency 54 32 7 54 163
Percent 33.1 19.6 4.3 43.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asian students, who made up 33.1 percent of the sample,
also engaged in a fairly wide range of behaviors.

Most notable, because of its virtual pariah status, was
the consistent use of the lobby for smoking. An interesting
future study might include research on the range of behaviors
in public spaces among different groups.

Table 2 shows that among racially differentiated groups,
there is a notable difference in their frequency of lobby
usage. Of the four differentiated groups, the Hispanic and
Asian students made the most consistent and exclusive use of
the lobby proper. All of the Hispanic interactions and 94.4
percent of the interactions of Asians occurred in the lobby.
For Black and White students, the usage of the lobby and
corridor showed a highly differential use of space Vis—a—Vis
each other. While 87.1 percent of the interactions of White
students occurred.within the lobby, 39.4 percent of the Black

students’ interactions did so. The majority of Black students

 

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOH mma m.ON mm w.mb OMH @4909
OOH Oh m.mH m H.bw HO muflflz
OOH h I I 0.00H O OHGchflm
OOH Om O.m m w. m Hm nmflmd
OOH mm m.mm Hm m.wm HH xUMHm
w hocmdomum w hocwsomnm w hocmdvmnm

00mm

Hmuoe Hopfluuoo hnnoq

 

 

 

 

 

wmma cmomm on mcflpnooo< mmcmb comm NQQOA ”m canoe

28
used the corridor rather than the lobby for passage and
sociability.

Within.my first few trips to the field, as I observed the
range of behaviors of those sitting around me, I noted the
absence of Black people, and so the parameters of this study
began to emerge. What became clear was that African-descent
students made little or no use of the lobby itself. For
example, I noted that, "Black students don’t seem to
congregate in the lobby," and "I have yet to see an African
student using this area as a meeting, waiting, or resting
area," and yet notes still indicate that "the lobby is a very
public place." The majority of prolonged interactions among
Black Owen residents occurred in the hallway area and not in
the lobby proper, as Table 2 shows.

Throughout the period of observation, there was only one
occasion of prolonged lobby usage by Black people, most of
whom appeared to be non-residents. The use of the lobby area
by a large group of Black people occurred in the context of a
rendezvous. The group*was attending a conference on the campus
of Michigan State. As they waited, these Black people, wearing
name tags and.carrying identical green folders, milled through
the lobby and.corridors, alone and.in groups. Even though this
interaction occurred, it was uncharacteristic in that these
people had entered the space as part of an organized usage.

Even.in that context, for these African-Americans, their lobby

 

29
usage was more as a midpoint rendezvous than as an area of
sociability.
This mass of people moving as they are seem almost
organic. They are like a living organism. It is as
though each person is in reaction to those they are
near. Some follow, some break off of groups they

are with, some stand up, but virtually everyone is
in some sort of motion.1

So, except in cases of planned and organized or
invitational usage, Black students tended to use the corridor

rather than the lobby of Owen Center.

 

1 Field Notes. Observation set 6, page 3. February 20, 1993.

 

 

 

V. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

A. Circumscribed Space

As stated previously, public spaces exist within social
spaces and are to one degree or another, and in one way or
another, circumscribed by that social context. Owen Center
exists within the social space of Michigan State University.
The public—ness of the lobby in Owen Center seems to be
circumscribed in three distinct ways. First, the public-ness
of the lobby in Owen Center is circumscribed by the social
parameters of the University at large. Clearly the vast
majority of the population.to be found on the campus of MSU on
any given day are affiliated with the University as students
or employees. The University is a public space which is open
to the public, but which is circumscribed by other factors,
foremost among them being University affiliation, which seems
to keep the non-affiliated.community from.coming to the campus
in any significant number without explicit invitation. At no
time during my observations did I see or note anyone in the
lobby who did not seem to belong, in some way, to the
University community. During my observations there were no
obViously homeless people, no evidently poor or working-class
people in the lobby or corridor of Owen. The University is not

a place where the general public roams around. It is a public

30

 

31
space, and yet only that distinct segment of the population
who have a direct connection to the University is usually
present.

Next, the lobby of Owen Center is sometimes circumscribed
by organized and planned use of the space, as in the various
"ethnic nights" which occur in Owen's lobby. I noted that:

It is common in Owen to find committees being

formed for the purposes of Ethnic nights, or other

thematic jpublic festivities. There has Ibeen. an

Asian Night, an African Bazaar, various types of

multiethnic performances. Sometimes they happen in

the .basement rooms and sometimes right in the
lobby.

‘These ethnic nights represent a nuanced departure from
the usual circumscriptions of the space. Under conditions of
the ethnic nights or other planned or organized utilizations
of the lobby area for approved workshops and seminars, there
is a recognizably different dimension of public-ness. In these
cases there is a dimension of invitation which would need to
be considered. In the cases of advertised or organized events
where residents and others are publicly informed of an event
in a University building, virtually all of the University
campus becomes public for the duration of the event. The
campus at large and, in this case, Owen’s lobby areas in
particular, become differently bounded as public space.

Finally, there is some indication that the public-ness of

the lobby is circumscribed.by individual assessments. As such,

 

32
it is public space that is subject to rules of the nearest
authority.

An anecdotal report in a phone interview with a former
Michigan State graduate student indicates this sort of
circumscription of the lobby. Myra is a Black woman of about
32 years of age. She was a graduate student in American
Studies and.a'Teaching.Assistant in the History Department. As
such, she was often up late, and.preferred to grade papers and
study from late at night until morning whenever possible. She
shared.an apartment with.two other graduate students and often
studied. in restaurants, dorm. lobbies, or' other "public"
spaces. Her description.of an incident in Owen Hall points out
some of the several parameters which circumscribe the public-
ness, or the use of the lobby, of Owen Center as a "public"
space.

One night during finals week, a few terms ago, I

was studying in the cafeteria of Owen late into the

night. I was studying there because I could stay up

late without disturbing anyone, and because I was

too broke to go to a restaurant. At about 3 or 4

that morning I started to get very tired and moved

out to the lobby, where I stretched out on one of

the couches. I was only there for about 15 minutes

when the Manager of Owen came. He woke me up, and

made me give him identification that I was a

student. Then he asked if I lived in Owen. When I

said I didn’t, he told me I would have to leave. I

tried to tell him I had no way to get home at that

hour, and that I needed to study. He told me I

could stay sitting upright in the cafeteria if I
wanted, but that I could not sleep in the lobby.1

 

1 Phone interview with Myra Martin at the University of
Illinois, Urbana—Champaign. April 25, 1993.

 

33

We see from this that at least for some hours, the
population and their use of Owen’s lobby is circumscribed.
This incident is illustrative of a circumscription according
to subjective judgment. Whether' Myra was judged, by' her
appearance, which.was typically quite casual, or even.a little
scruffy, or because she was Black, or*a woman, or too tall, or
because this manager believed that sleeping is a private
behavior which should only occur in private, is a matter for
speculation. What is public space and who the public are may
be mitigated or circumscribed by individual, perhaps even
idiosyncratic, tastes, preferences and interpretations in any

given situation.

B. Place and Power: Occupation and Utilization of Space

The decision to problematize the absence of African-
Americans in the lobby of Owen Center is predicated on the
idea that public spaces may not be accessible to the "public"
whom they intend to serve. As part of a historical legacy,
African-Americans are usually aware that this society has
often "brutally prohibited blacks from participating in and
partaking of the ‘public sphere.'"2

"Brutal prohibition" is indicative of one group’s degree
of power over another. Most of all it implies a relationship.

The ability to prohibit anything to a group of people, let

 

2 Jefferies, John. "Toward a Redefinition of the Urban." in

Black Popular Culture. Gina Dent (ed.). Seattle: Bay Press, 1992.

p.

160.

 

34

alone to prohibit it brutally, implies a relation of
subordination/domination, and domination is a demonstration of
power. It follows then that the explicit and implicit control
of space, and the regulation of which groups may and may not
use or occupy a given space, are exercises of power. Legally,
segregation is prohibited. However, the historical nature of
race relations tells another story. In many ways, integration
is part mythology. One cannot ignore some of the fundamental
aspects of identity and place that have fueled conflicts,
including the current one among Moslem, Serbian and Croatian
people in Eastern Europe. The premises for all civil actions
on the behalf of Black people have been predicated on the
belief that Black people’s involvement in civil life can be
legislated into being commensurate in opportunity and practice
with that of the White population within the U.S. While in
fact all citizens in the United States are equal under the
law, there are nuanced.differences in spheres of daily living,
where the initial and subsequent design and orientation of
services and spaces reflect cultural processes which are
significantly different from at least some of the public whom
they serve.

These public services and spaces are individually and
collectively representative of the larger social exclusions
that are sociocultural and, therefore, implicitly, rather than
explicitly, political. The differential use of Owen’s lobby

may be indicative of the differential accessibility of other

 

35

services, opportunities and. places which are ostensibly
"public." Public-ness is predicated on access. Access is
predicated on an awareness (or verstehen) of oneself as having
the privileges which.commonly'accrue'with.citizenshipror other
forms of political and social inclusion. Yet, when historical
memory and social conditions coincide to limit this sense of
awareness, access and public-ness both become problematized.

Use and occupation of public space in the United States
has, until 30 years ago, been constrained and proscribed by
individuals and. groups. It is safe to .assume that what
occurred as a process emerging out of at least two centuries
of systematic limitations on physical and social mobility, as
well as on the use and occupation of space, would not and
could not be reversed over only three decades. Moreover, the
question remains whether, over time and through redundancy,
those relations of "strangerness" which were imposed through,
among other things, the use and occupation of public places,
have been reified in space such that those social relations

govern the use of public space in the United States today.

C. Legacies of Power

The range of behaviors described for the public usage of
Owen Graduate Center’s lobby area represents a range of
sociability within and between groups and individuals in that
context, and perhaps in a larger community as well, whether

MSU, East Lansing or Michigan. Moreover, ever-changing

 

36
boundaries of identity which mediate the use of public spaces
may emerge from various aspects of "strangerness." Again,
Anthony King is instructive when he says:
To understand any built environment we need to
understand the economic, social, and political
formations on which it is based; we need to

understand both a social and a spatial division of
labor.3

Stranger relations have alchemized out of a social and
spatial division of labor and may be manifest in the use of
public space by African—descent people. For this reason, it is
important to note that students of European.heritage tended to
occupy the lobby, while people of African descent merely
passed through it. The social dynamics of strangerness are
born out of a social identity rooted in the position of
"otherness. " This particular set of boundaries was constructed
out of a social history of prolonged legal and material non-
incorporation into the United States’ economy and body
politic. Moreover, those boundaries help circumscribe the
behaviors and use of physical space, as much as they help
delineate identity and social location.

The differential use of the space by Asian students
represents a departure from the rest of the data. Notes reveal
that the vast majority of the Asian students whom I observed
in the lobby were men. They also had two other things in

common as well: these men smoked and were international

 

3 King, p. 406.

 

37
students. Unlike Asian-Americans, African-Americans, or
European Americans, international students are able to operate
without the burdens of the particular social histories which
various segments of the domestic population carry and which
inform their cultural lives.

The data showed that people of European and Asian descent
tended to occupy the lobby, while people of African descent
passed through the lobby and sometimes occupied the corridor.
Interviews indicated one reason for this may be that Black
students have an.intuitive, as well as explicit, understanding
of themselves as a numerical minority.4 One informant
indicated that she estimated Owen’s Black population as being

5 With an image of oneself as a

"no more than 5 percent."
minority population, and a known history of marginalization,
segregation and violence, it is reasonable to think that some
sort of self-consciousness could.arise. Seeing oneself defined
by others through history may have created a self-
consciousness, like the seeming self—consciousness which is
implicit in the statement, "Black people don’t like having
whites around when we socialize." Whether that reluctance
grows out of a historical legacy, or whether it is a

consequence of more contemporary experiential knowledge, or

both, the sentiment expresses atclear'hesitancy'to "socialize"

 

‘1 According to the Manager of Owen Center, no data on the
racial composition of the dorm is collected.

3 Interview with Staff Assistant, Charity, at Owen Graduate
Center Offices, April 27, 1993.

38
openly around their White counterparts. The reticence to
expose too much smacks of deep suspicion. There is an
indication of a sort of siege mentality, born out of the
assumption that one is not fully physically or socially
secure.

One Black woman, who was a former Owen resident, was
quite clear. When asked if she liked being at MSU, she said:
It’s alright. I like to take the best of a place. I
look for what’s good about it. It’s peaceful here.

But not enough Black people. I’m used to being
around Black people.6

In the U.S. today, most Black people still live in
segregated neighborhoods andmattend.segregated.schools and, as
a consequence, interactions between Black and White youth are
probably'rxn:ea daily occurrence. MSU’s Black population is
part of the larger Black population of the United States and,
as such, it is likely that many of MSU’s Black population have
grown.up such.that traveling through White neighborhoods means
being alert, being aware of their surroundings and where they
are vis-a-vis other groups. Incidents at both Jones Beach and
in Bensonhurst, New York, demonstrate the potential
consequences when one group crosses the boundary of another,
irrespective of the type of boundary. For many Black students,
going to MSU’ may be equivalent to going into a white

neighborhood. It is best to exercise caution. In this sense,

 

6 Interview with former Owen resident, "Kathy." Owen lobby.
April 27, 1993.

39
MSU can be understood as a microcosm of the larger U.S.

society.

D. Social Boundaries

The relations among public space, identity and culture
loom important in the face of social science and cultural
studies discourse around.nationality, localism and globalism.
Anthony King has gone so far as to say that:

the built environment, building and urban form in

all their conceptualizations, do not just

represent, or reflect social order, they actually
constitute much of social and cultural existence.7

To account for the distinct use of Owen Center among the
racially diverse population, several issues are crucial. Just
as is the case with the United States population, the Black
population at Michigan State University is a numerical
minority. The Spring 1993 Enrollment Highlights, published by
the Office of the Registrar at MSU, reports that the student
population of MSU for Spring 1993 was 37,829. Of these
students, 79.9 percent were White, 2.3 percent Hispanic,
American Indian or Alaskan Aleut, 2.8 percent Asian/Pacific
Islander, and 7.1 percent were Black. Although represented in
greater numbers than Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Island
students, Black students on the campus of MSU are a numerical

minority vis-a-vis Whites.

 

7 King, Anthony. p. 404.

 

40

It is the state of social minorities, however, which
concerns us here. We can see manifestations of the social
diminution of Black people by the fact that within the United
States, people of African descent continue to live in
segregated neighborhoods, attend resource poor segregated
schools, and are disproportionately represented in the prison
population. These things reflect some.of the social boundaries
of minority-ness which are demonstrated through the use of

some public space.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The notions of boundaries and occupation are crucial to
this study, in that boundaries and occupation are primary
constructions in issues of identity and territory. History
indicates that the control or occupation of space is a basis
for power. Through this study, then, we can begin to
understand some of the calculus of boundaries of identity and
place which might be fundamental to questions of access and
power.

This research has supported the notion that identity and
territory intersect in a way that may expose aspects, if not
levels, of social distance, which may, in turn, play out in
the use of public space. An idiosyncratic circumscription of
the usage of public space for this distinct segment of the
United States’ population may indicate that despite legal
integration, and even among upwardly mobile segments of the
Black population, there remains a lack of substantial social
integration.

Follow-up research that might further delineate the use
of public facilities might have implications for future policy
or other social change as pertains to inclusion and.diversity.

One fact is clear from these observations: Black

residents of Owen Hall make little or no use of the lobby at

41

42

Owen.Graduate Center. This assertion has been confirmed.by the
data and all informants. Ultimately, boundaries of identity
and race help to explain the differential use of space by
Black Owen graduates. To the extent that Black students
identify more with the smaller Owen or MSU Black population,
they distinguish themselves from the general Owen Graduate
Center and MSU populations. In Anthony Cohen’s discussion of
the Symbolic Construction of Community, he addresses the
occupancy of someone else’s social space in the context of a
"mental construct." He says,

if' outsiders trespass :hl that space, then its

occupants’ own sense of self is felt to be debased

and defaced. The sense is always tenuous when the

physical and structural boundaries which.previously

divided the community from the rest of the world
are blurred.1

Perhaps that is the state of African-American social
integration. If so, then perhaps the non-use of space in Owen
is merely a phase in the United States’ emergence as a nation
that reflects a mosaic of communities which feature individual
integrity, flexibility, social justice and self—determination

as their hallmarks.

 

1 Cohen, Anthony P. The Symbolic Construction of Community.
Sussex, England: Horwood/Tavistock Publications, 1985. p. 109.

 

Bibliography

Balibar, Etienne and Immanuel Wallerstein. Race, Nation,
Class: Ambigpous Identities. New York: Verso Press, 1991.

Blundell, Valda, John Shepard and Ian Taylor (eds.).

Relocating Cultural Studies. Developments in Theory and
Research. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Braverman, Harry. Labor and.Monopolv Capital. The Degradation
of Work in the Twentieth Century. London: Monthly Review
Press, 1974.

Cohen, Anthony P. The Symbolic Construction of Communities.
London: Horwood/Tavistock, 1985.

Davis, James F. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition.
University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1991.

DuBois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folks. With an Introduction
by John Edgar Wideman. New York: First Vintage Books, 1990.

 

Gilroy, Paul. "It’s a Family .Affair." in Black Popular
Culture. Gina Dent (ed.). Seattle: Bay Press, 1992. pp. 303-
317.

Jefferies, John. "Toward a Redefinition of the Urban." in

Black Popular Culture. Gina Dent (ed.). Seattle: Bay Press,
1992. pp. 153-164.

Keith, Michael and Steve Pile (eds.). Place and the Politics
of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1993.

King, Anthony. "Architecture, Capital and the Globalization of
Culture." in. Global Culture Nationalism. Globalism and
Modernityn Mike Featherstone (ed.). London; Sage Publications,
1990. pp. 404-405.

 

Simmel, Georg. "The Stranger." in Georg Simmel. 1858—1918: A
Collection of Essays. Kurt Wolff (ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University Press, 1959.

Stone, John. Racial Conflict in Contemporary Society.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.

43

 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllll