Public Spaces of Dissent

Abstract

This article looks at some recent developments in the relationship between public space and dissent. The article does this by firstly distinguishing between dissent and resistance. Dissent is based broadly around disagreements between individuals in particular groups and contexts against a perceived grievance of some sort. As a result dissent can arise in a variety of contexts, especially within everyday life, popular culture, and with small acts of defiance against frustrations one experiences. These acts can also assume more overtly political modes in the form of resistance as when people demonstrate in the streets. The distinction is therefore useful because it helps us understand how the state and other governance mechanisms adopt policies and strategies to pre‐empt dissent and thereby prevent dissent from spilling over into resistance located in particular places. The article will examine how the state and governance have changed the way in which they pre‐empt the formation of spaces of dissent in order to effectively regulate them in the pre‐ and post‐9/11 climate. Taking examples from the USA and the UK, the paper explores these points through global social movements, law and dissent, planning and designing dissent, and the surveillance of dissent.

Poststructuralism against poststructuralism: Actor-network theory, organizations and economic markets

“…Naturally, the concept ‘resistance’ has obvious evaluative and ideological overtones and denotes among other things a challenge to those who hold power and legitimacy to govern (cf. Roberts, 2008). Whittle and Mueller’s use of this concept in their study is akin to this particular meaning.…”

Spatial dynamics of protest: Themes and trajectories

“…The literature on spatial control of protests extends to include indirect ways of policing dissent and control of space (Gillham & Edwards, 2011; Gillham et al., 2013), such as surveillance (Boykoff, 2007; Starr et al., 2008) and making decisions about location of controversial events (Fernandez, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Starr et al., 2011). Scholarship on surveillance as a form of repression examines how “surveillance forecloses space for civil disobedience” and how it is used as an effective tool to control space (Starr et al., 2008, p. 260).…”

“…Moreover, careful studies of repression models for controlling controversial events, such as international summits (especially in the aftermath of the 1999 WTO summit in Seattle), suggest that making decisions about location of these high‐profile meetings –at international, national, and local levels—works as an indirect way to control public space or avoid protests altogether (Fernandez, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Starr et al., 2011). Fernandez (2008) argues that both deciding the location of these events and policing tactics have become more careful and elaborate.…”

Seeking common ground: three perspectives on public space

“…However, behavioural control in public space is not limited to the 'undesirables'; it can also include middle-class shoppers and professionals when 'circulation is internalized in corridors under the gaze of private police' in shopping malls or office complexes (Davis, 1992: p. 226). Extending control to specifically political behaviour, Roberts (2008) describes how, although public space is the primary locus of the discursive activities of the public sphere, places that serve as sites to express dissent (e.g. through protests and rallies) are closely monitored and often designed with the potential for controllability in mind.…”