One question i’ve been asking myself and will keep asking myself as I go through graduate school is: What is the Public? What purpose should it serve?
Today i’ll be sharing the beginning of a unfolding provocation I have that Publics should serve our sense of being-ness, and that this is deeply underserved in society today.
Embarking on a journey to dissect, explore, expand, or create a concept of “Publics” inevitably begs the question: “What is the purpose of the city?” It is through this filter that a “public” can begin to mirror and materialize that purpose to shape and be shaped by bodies in space outside of “I”. To this question, an infinite amount of answers can be given, all of them valid and dynamic through the prisms of constructs they shine through. The question then becomes: “What do I believe is the purpose of the city that I want to grapple with through my work in Publics?” Various discourses and historical typologies contend that the purpose of a city is a place for physical shelter and social security, economic growth, justice and social change, distribution of information, self-discovery or positive sum opportunity. City, considered man’s greatest political creation, formed the basis for Plato’s discussion of justice (Snyder, 1959), while in Aristides’ philosophy, the chief aim of the polis is happiness (Morrison, 2017, p. 11). The key thread that unifies these different conceptions is that they are interpretations to what we believe is a meaningful human life and the numerous ways in which our built environments and social infrastructures can propagate that belief.
The conception of the city that I'm most excited to translate into the public sphere is the one which helps people pursue their purpose. To become more of who they are. Through that lens, the city becomes an opportunity matrix which enables citizens to come in contact with and live out their truth, transmuting that essence into art, expression, and service in accordance with their evolving capabilities. Though people are born equal, their contexts cause them to grow inequitably. Cities should be a corrective antidote by which each individual can chart their own path, as opposed to reifying, degrading, or sanctioning lines of development.
Echoed by Unger and Fainstein: “It is a place of becoming, and the fulfillment of social potential, of democratic experimentation through the efforts of citizens themselves, as free and socialized agents. We see the city, more specifically its institutions, providing the opportunity for citizens to become something else and for mutuality to be strengthened.” Implicit in this ideal is that every individual should have access to resources which enrich their capabilities to fulfill their potential. “Human capabilities constitute an important ingredient of our quality of life. The richer the capabilities, the greater the freedom to achieve and to be.” (Sen, 1999). Though there are numerous capabilities that a city can provide and equalize access to - from educational resources, healthcare access and economic prospects - I believe the capability “to be” is one that is underserved by our public realms.
What does it mean “to be”?
“To be” is to exist in the space between stimulus and response before one “does”. To pause, contemplate, philosophize, grapple, and dream. To ask questions of ultimate concern: Who am I? What is meaningful? Why is it this way? What is good, beautiful, and true? What systems and conditions dictate my values and actions? Are there better and truer premises to live from? If we do not have the space to consistently ask these kinds of questions amidst the default machinery of life, truly knowing ourselves and acting from that knowing, will continue to evade us. And though these are deeply Individualized questions, their explorations are often enriched when done so in dialogue amidst a social fabric.
As such, if our cities and public spheres are to enable people to pursue their purpose, providing capabilities and equalizing access to spaces where one can engage in this state of “being” is quintessential. Churches, online forums, civic forums, educational institutions, private clubs, third spaces, bars after work and the private terrains of our inner circles are places where we may grapple with these questions. However, each of these mediums has limitations: some may require us to flatten our identities or choose a 'side', insulate us to homogeneous perspectives, or lack the social infrastructure needed to engender the trust required for deeper engagement. Across all of these “public spheres” there may be a sense of inner and outer, “self” and “other”.
Take for example the civic forum as a “publics for being”. The german philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, conceptualizes the public sphere as a place for rational-critical discourse between citizens that can influence political action or legitimize power. Sociologist Nancy Fraser expands on this by conceptualizing “subaltern counterpublics” as spheres for marginalized groups to challenge dominant power structures. Though the discussions that unfold in these forums are articulations of multiple groups’ conceptions of what is meaningful, good and true - they are embedded within a dualistic context or “we” vs “them”.
What would it be like to create a “publics for being” from a frame of non-dualistic pluralism instead? Non-duality, in this context, is a perspective that transcends the traditional separation between opposing forces or identities, such as "I" and "other" or "we" and "them” and motions at our underlying shared humanity. Pluralism creates openness to diverse ways of being from that common ground, where differing beliefs and values are not just tolerated but seen as integral to the collective exploration of meaning. It is not focused on conflict, opposition, or a change agenda between individuals and groups, however subtle. Rather it’s closer to political theorist Chantal Mouffe's concept of agonistic pluralism, where opponents respect each other's right to differ and perpetual negotiation of a dynamic center is a feature, not a bug, of deliberative democracy.
Like the nature of questions of ultimate concern, the point is not to arrive at answers, reify identities, or convince others over to a perspective. Instead, this “publics of being” is one where a mindset of cosmopolitanism and breadth of pluralistic perspectives not only co-exist but co-enhance one another. A container which can hold emergent, inconclusive, and often contradicting insights and truths between individuals and groups. And where big questions are unspooled together improvisationally and playfully - like a jazz set where each instrument is unique yet harmoniously contributing to a transcendent composition.
In this way, individuals are able to hold more and more complexity without collapsing into ideology or “retreating away from public life due to the need to reconcile identities and beliefs” (Sennet, 1977). A non-dualistic “publics of being” is a spatial personification of the premise that meaning-making is not a luxury, but a core human right, a public rather than private endeavor, and one that can be enhanced from a pluralism of diverging perspectives. We are both fundamentally alone and inter-connected on our unique journeys towards purpose. Communing with fellow travelers to dialogue, celebrate, meaning-making, and mirror one another, enables us to more consciously and nimbly navigate the soul-tides we tread. Cities, and our public spheres as a result, should create the conditions of emergence and civic spaces by which this unfolding can take place.
As such one current (and evolving) definition for a “Publics of Being” is as follows:
They are dynamic shared spaces where individuals gather to engage in reflective, pluralistic meaning-making. Transcending dualities like “I” versus “other” or “we” versus “them”, these spaces imply a baseline of inherent non-duality and oneness of humanity, while not denying the myriad of unique and pluralistic expressions that can co-exist from that truth. These emergent collectives are supported by designed environments that facilitate open-ended dialogue around life's fundamental questions, without seeking consensus or definitive answers. By fostering intentional, continuous interactions, “publics” become crucial spaces for individual and collective self-actualization, allowing participants to explore their unique evolving identities and perspectives, while deepening community bonds in that individuation.
The city and its public spaces serve as an optimal entrypoint for seeding this vision. Professor of Architecture, Starvros Starides, writes that common spaces “are a living laboratory where utopic ideas can be explored in real-world contexts”. In an era where our work, relationships, and dialogues are increasingly abstracted from the physical locations we inhabit, a sense of disorientation and disconnection naturally arises. This disjunction often fosters tribalism and flattening of 'the other.' Moreover, major cities are evolving into transient hubs of opportunity rather than long-term homes where people lay down roots for decades, further reinforcing our sense of incoherence. Meanwhile, our pre-existing places of sense-making have either been dwindling (50% of Americans are disconnected from a local congregation), privatized, capitalized, or further abstracted into the digital world. If cities, as Harvey (1973) suggests, are ‘socially constructed spaces’ born out of human imagination and agency, and inherently tied to politics and power, then they are not static. They can, and must, evolve in response to our shifting paradigms on politics, power, and the necessity of “publics for being”. The challenge before us is to build cities and public spheres that mirror the emergent edges of our collective consciousness, rather than propagating the dualistic mindset of pre-existing economic and socio-political imperatives. As such, we need to build public realms which can hold people amidst the surmounting complexity, increase their capabilities to hold and connect to themselves, and re-tether them to a place of meaning-making that is human scale and embedded amidst a rich community fabric.
What form factors will this take on? What physical qualities personify it? What social and programmatic infrastructures enliven it? What policy, governance, and financial instruments sustain it? These are the questions I’ll be exploring during my time at graduate school and beyond it~