Richard Sennett, a sociologist who wrote the book “The Fall of Public Man,” continues the discourse of public space, which started with Jürgen Habermas’ discussions back in 1964 when he introduced the concept of “The Public Sphere.” To understand Sennett’s perspective, we discuss general concepts related to the public and the relevance of Sennett’s ideas today.
Public space—an expression architects and politicians like to ruminate on. “Public” is a late Middle English word that originated from the Latin word “poplicus,” which translates into “of the people.” And “space,” a word with many meanings, denotes the extent where objects and events occur according to its physical notion. Hence, public space means the area that belongs to people. Throughout history, many discussions have been had on the matter. What is public, and who qualifies to be public? This leads to a more familiar question for architects and designers: Who are the users?
Richard Sennett, a sociologist who wrote the book “The Fall of Public Man,” continues the discourse of public space which started with Jürgen Habermas’ discussions back in 1964 when he introduced the concept of “The Public Sphere.” To understand Sennett’s perspective and today’s perception of public space, we ought to consider all the main discussions made before him, and only then can we internalize the true meaning of Public Space.
Public space, with the most basic contemporary understanding, is the space that should always be available for all users. This means that all ethnicities, genders, and ages should be able to walk freely and wander into that space whenever they want. Most of the time when we try to think of public spaces, we consider our daily stops in our cities like malls and squares. But is it truly public and accessible if it is surveyed by security, if it has opening and closing hours, or if there is an owner who can restrict the space as they like? These are the questions we should be asking while considering the function of that space.
Starting the discussion with Habermas, we see that he defines the Public Sphere as a realm that consists of our social life and where public opinion is formed. He sees the Public Sphere as more than a stop or a transaction point that we use in our daily routine. It is not public if each person sits on their own and does nothing. For a space to be considered a Public Sphere to Habermas, it needs to include action and interaction between people where political ideas are formed. He states that authority is not a part of this interaction. And the people considered to be a part of this Public Sphere were only the bourgeois society who had the availability and means to have political discussions at the time. Many sociologists picked up the Public Sphere discussion where it was left off and brought in many other aspects and users, such as women, proletarians, all ethnicities, and all subordinated social groups that were left out in Habermas’ discussion. (Habermas, 1964)
Richard Sennett continues the public culture discussion through a more contemporary perspective while being above all the debate of who is public and who is not. He carries out the subject to a matter which we relate to most: intimacy. Standing at the end of the 20th century, he witnessed the drastic change in our cities, people, and public. He brings new factors to the table: media, individuality, and alienation. All these terms we are very familiar with even now, decades after Sennett’s book was published. Sennett states that the notion of public is broken because of the mass media public transformed into a spectator rather than being a witness. This means that the activity and interaction that are required to be public are gone. In addition to the media, transportation turning into individual movements in the city rather than being a collective movement caused barriers between people, letting cities die. With no interaction, there is no public opinion nor public. (Sennett, 2017)
Richard Sennett deepens the subject of the Public by widening his discussion into public and private realms, modern man, and the transformation of cities, and how this transformation affects the public and humanity. When did we stop being participants and turn into spectators? What is the role of politics and mass media in this transformation of the public, or is the fault entirely on us for choosing to prioritize individuality over community? Is intimacy needed in our interactions as humans with one another, or does it belong solely to private relationships? Is the intimacy we tend to share with each other so bluntly the very reason for our public losing its sense? Sennett, in his book “The Fall of Public Man,” delves much deeper into the perception of the public and individuals, creating a work that still holds relevance today and will resonate with and provoke questioning from our generation. Especially now, social media, which physically separates us but enables us to come together in cyberspace, redefines what the public means. Are we truly losing our sense of being a society with advancements in technology, getting lost within our individuality, or are we emerging in a new realm that didn’t exist before, coming together to become spectators-turned-activists? How are our cities affected by this, and do we still need physical gathering spaces to form public opinion, or is public space a new phenomenon not subject to physical constraints? Reading Richard Sennett will allow you to see your current social, political, and physical environment with new perspectives.
References
1-Sennett, R. (2017) The Fall of Public man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
2-Habermas, J. (1964) The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Artcile. New German Crittique.
3-Public (adj.) (no date) Etymology. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/public (Accessed: 05 February 2024).
