Gramsci and Foucault in Central Park: Environmental hegemonies, pedagogical spaces and integral state formations

Abstract

Gramsci's and Foucault's readings of power provide critical illuminations for understanding the linkage of state formations to urbanization and the spatial production of subjectivity. This article uses Central Park to illustrate how a combination of their insights helps to elucidate the emergence of pedagogical spaces and environmental hegemonies. I first propose a conceptual framework drawing on diverse parallels and tensions in Gramsci's Quaderni del carcere and Foucault's investigations in the 1970s, reassessed here from the vantage point of the implicit debate with Marxism in La société punitive. Urbanization and the built environment are theorized as material apparatuses of a form of capillary power that reconfigures the relations between state, civil society and individual subjects, striving to forge common senses of space that buttress political hegemony. This analytical toolkit is then applied in a political reappraisal of Central Park, exploring the role of design in the pedagogy of subaltern spatialities and the normalization of a consensual regime of publicity. The discussion pays special attention to the park's assemblage of liberal and disciplinary spatial techniques, its connection to broader agencies beyond core state apparatuses, and their effect on the advent of an integral state formation.

Being surprised and surprising ourselves: A geography of personal and social change

“…Who we are as individuals is a reflection or refraction of the Zeitgeist – the spirit of the times. We are children of our times, which is a metaphor that stands in for the observation that people living in the same place at the same time tend to be interpellated by the same family of ideologies or discourses (Althusser, 1970; Elden, 2007; Philo, 2012; Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017). By being exposed to the same religion, the same language, the same system of formal education, the same popular television shows, the same celebrities, the same traditions, we grow up to be rather similar to one another.…”

Negotiating Green Space with Landed Interests: The Urban Political Ecology of Greenway in the Pearl River Delta, China

“…They may reflect an aggressive desire to open up more sites for capital accumulation (Smith ). They can be attempts of the state to normalise its population for stability (Sevilla‐Buitrago ). They can be emancipatory as well, aiming to stimulate new visions about the city (Loftus ).…”

The biopolitical commons: A revised theory of urban land in the age of biopolitical production

“…Campbell and Sitze, 2013; Deleuze, 1992: 5; Foucault, 1986). Because the post-disciplinary power formations of contemporary liberalism rest “upon the relative autonomy of individuals” (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 171), spatial mechanisms of direct control are generally viewed as just one possible mode of intervention among many under this mode of governance (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 172); and, in some cases, such mechanisms are viewed as superfluous. Consequently, biopolitical policy interventions—such as those underway in Englewood and Pilsen—entail a much broader set of spatial “normalization techniques” (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017).…”

“…Because the post-disciplinary power formations of contemporary liberalism rest “upon the relative autonomy of individuals” (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 171), spatial mechanisms of direct control are generally viewed as just one possible mode of intervention among many under this mode of governance (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 172); and, in some cases, such mechanisms are viewed as superfluous. Consequently, biopolitical policy interventions—such as those underway in Englewood and Pilsen—entail a much broader set of spatial “normalization techniques” (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017). These techniques take the “milieu” and the “effects of the environment” as their “field of intervention” and involve the hybridization of pleasure, education, and punishment (Foucault, 2003: 245; Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 172).…”

“…Consequently, biopolitical policy interventions—such as those underway in Englewood and Pilsen—entail a much broader set of spatial “normalization techniques” (Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017). These techniques take the “milieu” and the “effects of the environment” as their “field of intervention” and involve the hybridization of pleasure, education, and punishment (Foucault, 2003: 245; Sevilla-Buitrago, 2017: 172). Moreover, these spatialization techniques often function as racialization techniques, given that—for Foucault—the state becomes a key mediator in the production and reproduction of racial ideologies with the introduction of biopolitics (cf.…”