INTERCULTURAL MODES OF PRODUCING A DEMOCRATIC,

PARTICIPATORY AND INCLUSIVE URBAN SPACE

RIGHT TO DIFFERENCE

JOY ALISE DAVISTHEORIES OF URBAN PRACTICE MASTER OF ARTS THESIS THESIS ADVISOR | MIODRAG MITRASINOVICSPRING 2014

CONTENTS

PREFACE 6COEXISTENCE IN CITIES OF DIFFERENCE 9RISE OF AMERICAN COEXISTENCE ERA 10

POLITICS, CULTURE AND HISTORY 12

THE SPECTACULARIZATION OF CULTURE | 2012 CHICAGO CULTURAL PLAN 12

PERPETUATING CULTURES OF DOMINATION 13

A DIVIDED AMERICA 16

RACIALLY-BASED CRIMINAL DISCRIMINATION 17

COHABITATION IN CITIES OF DIFFERENCE 19THE RIGHT TO THE CITY AND THE RIGHT TO DIFFERENCE 19

INTERCULTURALISM 37

3

NATURALIZED CLAIMS AND SOCIAL CLAIMS TO INTERCULTURALISM 38NATURALIZED CLAIMS | THE NEXT AMERICAN 39

IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION 39

INTERETHNIC AND INTERRACIAL IDENTITY 42

INTERCULTURAL MODES OF PRODUCING A DEMOCRATIC, PARTICIPATORY AND INCLUSIVE URBAN SPACE 43THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY | KNOWLEDGE OF SELF (DETERMINATION) 50

THE CODESIGN OF THE PUBLIC REALM | INTERDEPENDENCY OF 53

DIFFERENCE STRENGTHS 53

THE CO-CONFIGURATION AND PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL ENVIRONMENTS 56

HESTER STREET COLLABORATIVE 58

CONCLUSION 65BIBLIOGRAPHY 65

4

For Audre Lorde, and for Stuart Hall in memoriam

5

PREFACE Prior to writing my thesis, I have presented this study numerous times to my fellow students and to the core

faculty members at the Theories of Urban Practice program, at Parsons the New School for Design. Each

person had his or her own opinions and comments for how this study should be argued, presented and

executed; and each continued to advise me to take my thesis in a very different direction than the next. It got

to the point where my words mattered very little, while the very title of my study created different meanings

for each person. The American society is no different; the mere mention of race, ethnicity and culture sparks

something different in each of us. For some of us, shame is the guiding feeling when talking about the

complex issue of culture. Others have feelings of anger, even resentment. For many Americans, it is far easier

to falsely promote a post-racial country than to address the conflict associated with coexistence. While race,

ethnicity and culture are very emotional topics, they must not be overlooked.

When talking about culture, there are only two categories that are deemed acceptable by academia for

the black student and/or scholar, and ironically, I don’t fit in either one. First category would be a study of

historical/cultural analysis of the social and spatial injustice in this country. While I recognize the influence

this discourse has on my perceptions and arguments, this is not a historical study and I will not be solely

presenting that type of narrative. The second category would be a documentation of the current conflict and

violent struggle associated with coexistence. While this conflict has fueled my desire to promote justice in

my own practice, this is not a study of conflict and struggle and I will not be solely presenting that narrative

either. Both types of narratives should and will continue to contribute to the discourse of alleviating cultural

inequality and injustice, but this study will not be limited to such confines.

My thesis challenges the current practice of cultural coexistence and its failure to evolve beyond the 1960’s

rhetoric. At the same time, this thesis is not in favor of promoting a false sense of post-racial unity because the

demographic of the country is changing: the United States is a country at a tipping point. We can continue

to ‘celebrate’ our cultural differences, but we cannot continue to ignore deep cross-cultural dialogue and

the production of true intercultural understandings. This is not an issue that can only be discussed solely in

the cultural study or social science discourse; this is a national civic issue that deserves national attention. In

2060, the country will be roughly 43 percent White, 13 percent Black, 31 percent Hispanic, and 8 percent

Asian which leaves 5 percent to be labeled as ‘other’ (Taylor 2014). For the first time in American history,

the majority of citizens will be non-white. Yet, we are not preparing our complex nation of difference to be

successful in the future. Without adequate preparation, the country is at risk of continuing the cycle of conflict

and cultural distrust. The future of America is changing, and the question is what roles do design and planning

6

play in the type of urban transformation we seek? How can urban practitioners meet the needs of multiple

publics and cultural groups, and move beyond the coexistence of different groups [multiculturalism] into the

co-production of difference and cohabitation [interculturalism]? How can urban practitioners and citizens

advocate for the right to difference in their daily practices?

In 2013, bell hooks released a book entitled Writing Beyond Race. In her introduction she wrote, “Many of

us found that it was easier to name the problem and to deconstruct it, and yet it was hard to create theories

that would help us build community, help us border cross with the intention of truly remaining connected in

a space of difference long enough to be transformed” (hooks, 2013: 2). This study argues for the practice

of interculturalism and the practice of cohabitation through intercultural modes of producing a democratic,

participatory and inclusive urban space. My recommendations for cohabiting in cities of difference, involves

three intercultural modes for promoting the right to difference within the public realm:

1) the co-construction of identity: knowledge of self (determination);

2) the codesign of the public realm: interdependency of difference strengths; and

3) the co-configuration and production of material environments

For the right to difference is not inherently given; it is produced and coproduced perpetually. America cannot

truly become an intercultural society without that constant negotiation of differences.

CULTURE, DIFFERENCE AND THE PUBLIC DEFINEDCulture can be defined as the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social

group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people

in a place or time. (Merriam Webster-Culture) Culture has influenced society’s perception of place for centuries

and it is culture that gives space its meaning and function. Culture can be realized in many disciplines and

professional fields and is often referenced by the shared behavior traits, cognitive constructions, inequality,

beliefs, artifacts, symbols, perceptions, values, motives and/or patterns by a particular group of people.

Julian Agyeman wrote in his book Introducing Just Sustainabilites: Policy, Planning, and Practice, that diversity

has become virtually synonymous with race and/or gender. On March 22 2014, Angela Davis while giving a

talk on Audre Lorde and Lorde’s essay titled Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference, stated

that many carry the assumption that diversity has become equivalent to the end of racism. “It seems that

once the word diversity entered into the frame, it sort of colonized everything else. All we talk about now is

diversity.” (Davis, 2014) Davis goes on to say that sometimes diversity is limited to integrating marginalized

people into a process that remains the same. Instead of challenging and transforming the structures of

7

exploitation and oppression, diversity became a corporate model for inserting marginalized groups into the

system, so that they too can reap small benefits from that exploitation. Essentially Davis argues that diversity

is “difference that does not make a difference” (Davis, 2014) Diversity is not the only process through which

the right of difference can be achieved. By using the term diversity we are limiting our reach towards justice.

Differences... Takes many forms. It acknowledges that population groups, differentiated by criteria of

age, gender, class, dis/ability, ethnicity, sexual presences, culture and religion, have different claims on

the city for a full life, in particular, on the built environment.[ii] (Sandercock 2000, page15)

Like Agyeman and Davis, I prefer to cohabit cities of difference than to cohabit cities of diversity. Like the

public sphere, the right to difference must be constantly negotiated and reconstructed. For the right to

difference is not inherently given; it is produced and coproduced perpetually. America cannot truly cohabitate

without that constant negotiation of difference. It is important to note that promoting difference within the

public realm on multiple scales can break down the walls of oppression that segregates and divides our

cities. “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those

differences.” (Lorde, Our Dead Behind Us: Poems, 1986)

In this thesis I often mention terms like the public space, public realm and the public sphere. In its simplistic

form, I define public space as the physical material environment or form that enacts and/or allows for social

interaction. It is within that space or territory that the public realm comes to fruition. In 1998, Lyn Lofland

released a book entitled The Public Realm. Lofland referred to the public realm as the unique social and

psychological environment provided by urban settlements. (Lofland, 1998:xii) Lofland understood that the

“public realm not only has a geography but also having a history, a culture (behavioral norms, esthetic values,

preferred pleasures) and a complex web of internal relationships.” (Lofland, 1998:xv) The public realm is

only realized when public space is subjugated by the relationships between and among strangers. (Lofland,

1998:xii) It is often a site of friction, a site of debate and ultimately an arena for the constant negotiation.

In this study I refer to the public and public sphere interchangeably. The public sphere is much more abstract

and transcends public space. It is defined by its constant deliberation and its discursively constituted social

claims and interests. The twenty-first century American public realm has a population made up of multiple

public spheres. In Nancy Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere, critiquing Jürgen Habermas’s 1 concept of

the “bourgeois public sphere”, she makes the claim that there never was and never should be one singular

public sphere. Fraser argues that the public sphere is fundamental to critical theory. She found Habermas

deconstruction of the public sphere lacking the critical theory of the existing limits of democracy. Fraser essay

1 The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964) Jürgen Habermas, Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox, New German Critique.

No. 3 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 49-55 Published by: New German Critique

8

explores the merits of single comprehensive publics versus multiple publics in both stratified2 and egalitarian3

multicultural societies.

…I argue that it is not possible to insulate special discursive arenas from the effects of societal inequality

and, that where societal inequality persists, deliberative processes in public spheres will tend to operate

to the advantage of dominate groups and to the disadvantage of subordinates. (Fraser 1990:66)

Meaning, that within a stratified society, a singular public sphere will not allow for an arena for deliberation

among subordinated groups regarding their needs and strategies. Fraser states that a society made up of

multiple cultures cannot exist in homogenous egalitarian society. If an egalitarian society is without classes,

gender or racial division of labor; the society should permit free expression and association, which likely to

inhabited by diverse cultural groups with multiple values identities and styles. This freedom of expression

allows the space to hence be multicultural. (Fraser, 1990:122) Like Fraser, I believe that public spheres are not

spaces of zero-degree culture and that multiple cultures cannot exist exclusively in a singular public sphere.

Hence, there can be no democratic society free from inequalities within one singular public sphere.

Fraser then names the alternative publics of subordinate social groups -women, workers, peoples of

color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and (I would add marginalized immigrants to that list); subaltern

counterpublics. Fraser uses the term subaltern counterpublics in order to express their parallel discursive

arenas where subordinate social groups invent and circulate counter-discourses to formulate oppositional

interpretations of their identities, interest and needs. (Fraser 1990:120)

COEXISTENCE IN CITIES OF DIFFERENCEThis brings us to the topic of multiculturalism. The American twenty first century society is made up of

multiple publics. This thesis uses the complex term of multiple publics, not the term multicultural to refer to

the multiplicity of cultural groups. The term multicultural, much like diversity has become politicized as the

synonym for racial and ethnic inclusion. This normative framework advocates for tolerance while encouraging

inter-group coexistence in the public realm (Howarth, Andreouli). Multiculturalism is also a political and social

philosophy that advocates for cultural inclusion within existing systems. Multiculturalism also advocates for

coexistence within cities of differcence.

“Multiculturalism is also a matter of economic interests and political power; it demands remedies to

economic and political disadvantages that people suffer as a result of their minority status.” (Song, 2014)

2 the state of being divided into social classes (Merriam Webster, stratification)

3 a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs; a social philosophy advocating the

removal of inequalities among people (Merriam Webster, egalitarianism)

9

The term coexistence in this context does not imply that the cultural groups are interacting beyond residing

or dwelling in the same place or time. During this section I will argue that multiculturalism as a philosophy fails

to move beyond the recognition of difference into active participation of difference.

RISE OF AMERICAN COEXISTENCE ERA

While the American coexistence era began after slavery was abolished from the Emancipation Proclamation

on September 22nd, 1862; I would argue that the American coexistence era became realized during the Civil

Rights Movement when citizens demanded the end of racial discrimination and segregation. This movement

fought for non-white citizens and white citizens to coexist in the American public.

Prior to this social movement, the country mandated the legal doctrine of ‘separate but equal’4 . This 1896

law allowed for private and public institutions to legally separate racial and ethnic groups in equal facilities.

In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court found this law just according to the U.S. Constitution. This law would remain

legal as long as the facilities were equally accommodating for each cultural group. While the concept of

state-sponsored segregation was not new to most American cities, this Supreme Court decision provided the

federal support to continue the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes that restricted the rights of American citizens

based on the color of their skin. Jim Crow was a name that personified a racial caste system of laws from the

late 1876 to the mid-1960s. The name was inspired by a malicious minstrel song that stereotyped African

Americans in 1836. While the laws were not exclusively in the southern and border states, this name was used

to describe the tragic racial discrimination of coexistence in post-slavery America.

While there were many Supreme Court cases5 that predated the establishment of the right to coexist in cities

of difference; In 1954, two landmark Supreme Court cases mandated the push to coexistence in cities of

difference; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954) and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

The Hernandez v. Texas court case “held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the two

classes of white or Negro, and extends to other racial groups in communities depending upon whether it

can be factually established that such a group exists within a community.’ (Oyez, HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS.

347 U.S. 475 (1954) After many civil rights campaigns, protests and lawsuits, the landmark case of Brown

v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision,

which declared separate educational facilities inherently unequal and unconstitutional. This case made racial

segregation a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

4 Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In this court case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate facilities, if equal, did not

violate the Constitution. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 539 (1896)

5 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); Henderson v. United States,

339 U.S. 816 (1950)

10

Constitution. (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §2.)

The conflict and violence associated with the enactment as well as the enforcement of the coexistence

mandates solidifies the contradictory behavior of a country created on the foundations of freedom and

equality. Conflict can be seen in massive resistance to policy and local norms to prevent desegregation.

There are many examples of violent resistance to coexistence. From the conflict centered around the arrest

of fifteen-year-old African American Claudette Colvin6 ; The Little Rock Nine7 (See Figures 1-2); the murder

of fourteen-year-old African American Emmett Till8 ; the arrest of Rosa Parks ; The Montgomery Bus Boycott9

(See Figure 3) and of course the violence centered around the Freedom Rides10 (See Figures 4-5). The

violence associated with many nonviolent demonstrations was projected across the media worldwide, which

had significant influence on the enforcement of federal law. The contrast between the nonviolent resistance

and the white mob held weight in the hearts of America. For many who were naively blind or far removed

from the daily conflict of coexistence, the media shed light to the hated associated with sharing space.

6 On May 2, 1955 fifteen-year-old African American Claudette Colvin refused to relinquish her seat on the Montgomery,

Alabama city bus for a white passenger. Colvin was arrested on violating segregation laws and for assaulting a policy office, which

influenced the deliberate challenge of the law by Rosa Parks in partnership with the National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People (NAACP). (Adler 2009)

7 On September 4th 1957, 9 African American students were confronted by white mob opposed to desegregation for Little

Rock Central High. Current Governor Orval Faubus publically defied the Supreme Court, which resulted in the Arkansas National

Guard preventing “The Little Rock Nine” from entering the building. The violent resistance took place for 10 days before Faubus and

President Eisenhower agreed to protect The Little Rock Nine with the National Guard. Soon after Faubus dismissed the troops leaving

the nine exposed to the white mob. President Eisenhower dispatched 101st Airborne Division paratroopers to Little Rock and put the

Arkansas National Guard under federal command. After the event, the federal government protected The Little Rock as they finished

the school year. (National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior)

8 On August 28, 1955 fourteen-year-old African American Emmett Till was kidnapped, brutally beat and murdered by white men

who believe he whistled at a white woman. (Adams, 2004)

9 1955-1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott. (Edwards and Leventhal, 1998)

10 The first of compliance rides took place in April 1947 called the Journey of Reconciliation. Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)

orchestrated this two week the nonviolent protest in support of the 1946 Irene Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia 328 U.S. 373

(1946). The second ride took place in 1961. This nonviolent protest of racial discrimination on commercial bus routes called Freedom

Ride. Ultimately there were 436 carefully chosen white, black intergenerational freedom riders to deliberately challenge and violate

the segregation laws in the south by traveling together via bus from Washington DC to New Orleans. The goal was to challenge the

federal government to enforce the federal laws. Despite the court case Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960) many white supremacists

violently opposed the constitutional rides.

11

Cultural exclusion can be best understood while examining the complex histories of the marginalized

populations of racial and ethnic minorities. These histories of conflict and exclusion (in particular from

participating in civic activities that shape the urban fabric) and histories of violence still remain a memory to

many cultural groups. This complex history may also influence the future participation in civic issues. While

legal forms of segregation only ended little over than 50 years ago, many exclusionary practices still remain.

Breaking that cycle of exclusion takes a dedication to understanding the sensitive nature of history and

heritage. This begs the question, has multiculturalism failed us?

POLITICS, CULTURE AND HISTORY

To many scholars, Stuart Hall was known as the godfather of multiculturalism. Hall also made big contributions

to the cultural studies discourse with his theories on representation and culture. His representation theory will

be discussed in later in the recommendation section on the coproduction of configuring material form; but for

now let’s look at his contributions to culture politics.

In a 2013 interview with Sut Jhally , Hall comments that a cultural study was never suppose to be an enterprise

that solely produced cultural theory. In the interview he states that culture studies must return to finding a

language to integrate between politics, culture and history. (metBlog,2013) “For him culture is not something

to simply appreciate, or study; it is also a critical site of social action and interventions, where power relations

are both established and potentially unsettled.” (Procter, 2004) Hall was a leader in dissecting racial prejudices

in the media, cultural identity and African Diaspora identity until his death February 2014.

Like Hall, I believe that the cultural discourse (which includes the studies of diversity, difference and

multiculturalism) has failed to evolve into a sociopolitical praxis. By sociopolitical praxis I am referring to

constantly challenging existing systems. The way multiculturalism has been realized has focused too heavily

on the temporary representations in form, dissecting conflict and historic preservations. I challenge culture

to evolve into a key component in the sociopolitical design of the public realm. In the next section, I further

explain how diversity and multiculturalism have been realized and how it must move beyond tolerance and

coexistence.

THE SPECTACULARIZATION OF CULTURE | 2012 CHICAGO CULTURAL PLAN

Multiculturalism has also become an art-centric concept that has been recognized in its temporality within the

public space through cultural festivals, parades, visual art and performance. While this art-centric contribution

is seen as a victory in multiculturalism, it is only one step towards cultural cohabitation. How do we look

beyond temporary multicultural spaces and create true permanent cohabitation within the public realm?

In this section I will critique the 2012 Chicago Culture Plan as a cultural spectacle of art. As a government

12

sponsored plan, this plan is an example of how culture has become realized in public space.

Culture and the arts are essential to the quality of life. They help identify our place in the world and

provide opportunities for creative expression. With this plan, Chicago states its commitment to providing

citizens with these opportunities. (Chicago Cultural Plan 1986)

In 1986, under Mayor Harold Washington’s administration, Chicago Illinois developed their first citywide

cultural plan focused on the relationship between culture and art. Managed by the Department of Cultural

Affairs, which was established through Mayor Washington’s 1983 Transition Team Report; this comprehensive

strategy combined art and education under the same goal of “Culture Matters”. (Chicago Cultural Plan 1986)

Culture comprises our common heritage and avenues of expression - the visual arts and crafts, humanities,

anthropology, science and technology, performing arts, architecture and other means of expression - which

people use to communicate their fundamental character and aspirations. (Chicago Cultural Plan 1986)

While cultural institutions, artists, community groups, city government agencies, and political leaders carried

out the recommendations; concerned citizens had a big role in the development of the plan. In 1995, under

the administration of Mayor Richard Michael Daley, the city revised the second Chicago Cultural Plan. Still

focusing on the arts, the 1995 cultural plan added a new international multiculturalism dimension, while

continuing the legacy participatory planning.

In 2012, under Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration the Chicago Cultural Plan was revised once more.

Almost twenty years after the previous revision, the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events lead

efforts to reimagining a city of cultural coexistence. Similar to the 1986 plan, this new cultural plan was

promoted as a shining example of civic engagement.

By solely focusing on strengthening and expanding Chicago’s creative capital, this plan missed an opportunity

to expand the culture beyond the arts. This forty-eight-page plan began by mentioning how culture impacts

civic engagement. The plan recognized cultures impact on the objectives of Economic Development, Strong

Neighborhoods, Innovation, Environmental Sustainability, Public Health, Lifelong Learning, Public Safety

And Well-Being And Quality Of Life; but fails to provide any civic recommendations for promoting those

objectives. This plan failed to see culture through any other lens beyond temporary art installations. Culture

is not limited to the confines of one form. While art is a great means of expressing ones culture, culture

can be more than a tool for entertainment. Earlier I mentioned that Hall argued culture is not to be merely

appreciated but also understood as a critical site of social action. Ultimately The Chicago Cultural Plan

disappoints in viewing culture as an agent for social and civic action.

PERPETUATING CULTURES OF DOMINATION

13

It is impossible to talk about the multiplicity of cultures in America without talking about the cultures of

domination. You can’t talk about discrimination without talking about the privileged. We cannot discuss

difference without talking about sameness. In 2007 Tim Wise gave a speech on the color-blind politics. Wise

stated,

“… For everyone who’s targeted (by that discrimination which we’re willing to admit exist), there is somebody

else not being targeted (guess whom?). And that those individuals are elevated by definition and received an

advantage, receive a subsidy, receive a privileged in the process. You see, we like to talk about those who are

down, as if there is no up. Right, we like to use language that obscures the interrelationship of down and up.

Now down has no meaning without an up, it is a relative term. (Wise, 2007)

Wise was pushing for more holistic approach to discussing social inequalities, which includes an awareness of

privilege and dominant cultures within the public realm. Social privilege directly influences the material form

and the sociopolitical norms of the pubic realm. This section will take a closer look at naming the cultures

of domination and national promotion of colorblind universalism; which can be seen in the 1965 The U.S.

department of Labor release The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Moynihan Report); and the

constant reaffirming association of fear and African American male in the media.

The renowned culture and race critic bell hooks often uses the phrase Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist

Patriarchy when discussing systems of oppression and systems that create privilege. hooks uses this phrase

because it does not prioritize one system over the other; this phrase reminds us of the interlocking systems

that created, upheld and maintained cultures of domination. (hooks, 2013) It is within those systems that

cultural race-based hierarchies were created in favor of a singular dominant culture. These contradictions

can be traced back to the country’s origins. The hypocrisy of a country forged in the ideals of freedom and

equality can be contradicted throughout American history when discussing cultural, ethnic and racial relations

in the material form. From the colonization and stealing of land from the Indigenous Native Americans; the

forced migration and enslaved of 10 to 12 million Africans, the unjust Japanese American internment camps;

the forced displacement of African Americans with porgrams and policies which resulted in root shock ,

the cultural-based discriminatory immigration policy towards Hispanic immigrants; America has a history of

favoring white inhabitants at the expense of the non-white inhabitants.

Fraser’s critique of Habermas’s concept of the ‘bourgeois public sphere’ is the perfect example of how

privilege hindered Habermas from fully understanding the limits of democracy in a public. Habermas’s utopian

public sphere was constructed under masculine gender assumptions of status, access and publicity. He failed

to fully understand how exclusion could hinder participation. “There is a remarkable irony here, one that

Habermas’s account of the rise of the public sphere fails fully to appreciate, A discourse of publicity touting

14

accessibility, rationality ad suspension of the status hierarchies is itself deployed as a strategy of distinction.”

(Fraser, 1990: 115)

In 1965, at the heart of the Civil Rights Movement, The U.S. department of Labor released The Negro Family:

The Case for National Action often referred to as the Moynihan Report on the Black Family. Daniel Patrick

Moynihan penned this controversial report focused on African American poverty in the United States of

America. He viewed this poverty as the direct result of the internal, cultural crisis of single-parent homes,

criminal violence in cities and an inadequate attachment to dominant social norms and mores. (Wise, 2010:28)

At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the

fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time (Moynihan, 1965, chap1)

Like many liberals, Moynihan uses data to make correlations between low-income black communities and

‘broken family structure’, rather than the systemic discrimination and history of injustice. This report proposed

that the problems within the black communities needed to fix internally and not through addressing racism in

the sociopolitical arena.

Like Habermas the color-blind universalism agenda of Moynihan is constructed with the assumptions of status,

access and publicity. Moynihan’s assumptions on social inequality allows him to place blame on poor African

American communities without recognizing the stratified society. Moynihan emerges as a leading contributor

to the culture of poverty social theory. In this theory the poor is credited for perpetuating cycles of poverty.

Moynihan was one of the first to support post racial liberalism. In 1965 Moynihan affirmed this ideal at a

public forum sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Science that addressing social inequity at the

systemic level should be color-blind or race-neutral. (Wise, 2010:28) Moynihan found colorblind universalism

as a political ideology necessary to reject efforts aimed at addressing unique problems over problems sought

to uplift all in need. (Wise, 2010:28-29)

Sameness is not a prerequisite for unity. The politics of cultural recognition (James Tully, 1995) and

the fight for the right of difference is still being seen as a problem within the popular framework for

urban transformation. In an attempt to be unbiased, neutral and universal; the current framework is

only perpetuating the dominant culture’s values and norms in both the theory and practices of urban

transformation. (Sandercock, 2000, page 15) While the dominant culture and the majority culture were virtually

the same in 1960, which I will discuss further in later sections; it is important to differentiate between the

dominant culture and the majority popular opinion during critiques on modern day America. Like Moynihan,

the dominant culture sets the standard for what the American household must look like, and judges each

counterculture by those standards.

15

A DIVIDED AMERICA

Recognizing the social claims to difference within multiple publics has become a very political act and goes

against the color-blind/culture-blind narrative, which promotes one united America. Many find it easier to

promote a ‘post-racial’ America instead of addressing the conflict associated with coexistence. In 2004

President Obama gave the Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention and stated:

… there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America.

There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; (Obama,

Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention)

While the previous statement is typically understood as great steps towards unifying America, by not

acknowledging the different strengths that make up the public realm, President Obama is falsely promoting

a singular public sphere. The reality is, there is no public realm without multiple publics negotiating and

creating meaning. Until we become honest about our differences as well as our similarities, we will never

move towards a unified country. In this section I will not only present that America is still very much divided

spatially by race, but also how the country views racial discrimination today.

In 2012, researchers from Duke University published a reported called The End of the Segregated Century.

While it is true that American cities are less segregated than they have ever been, especially since 1910, we

know that they are not truly integrated on the neighborhood level. The report finding includes:

• ThemoststandardsegregationmeasureshowsthatAmericancitiesarenowmoreintegratedthan

they’ve been since 1910.

• Segregationrosedramaticallywithblackmigrationtocitiesinthemid-twentiethcentury.Onaverage,

this rise has been entirely erased by integration since the 1960s.

• All-whiteneighborhoodsareeffectivelyextinct.Ahalf-centuryago,one-fifthofAmerica’surban

neighborhoods had exactly zero black residents. Today, African-American residents can be found in 199

out of every 200 neighborhoods nationwide. The remaining neighborhoods are mostly in remote rural

areas or in cities with very little black population.

(The End of the Segregated Century, 2012)

In 2013, Dustin Cable at University of Virginia’s Weldon Copper Center published the most comprehensive

map of race in America for Public Service. This visually striking map is the first to show both the country’s

ethnic distribution while also spatially showing every single citizen color-coded by race. Despite the limited

capacities of the 2010 U.S. Census in term of ethnicity and culture, this map still visually show sthe current

16

spatial division associated with coexistence. From each of the 308,745,538 dots, it is easy to understand the

racial and ethnic divisions of this country. From U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 data featured11 in the Racial Dot

Map, it is evident that while legal segregation has ended, America is not racially or ethnically integrated.

The Racial Dot Map is color-coded to show the difference in race and ethnicity. All White Americans are

coded as blue; African-Americans/Black Americans as green; Asian Americans as red; Hispanics as orange;

and all other racial categories are coded as brown. It is common to see new shades such as purple, teal or

other colors depending on the number of colored dots within that pixel. The purple, teal and other colors can

be a measure of radical integration in a particular area. But it is important to note that areas may appear to be

integrated in wider zoom but truly be segregated on the city or local level. It is also important to note that the

map does not show actually addresses of each person but census blocks.

After viewing the dot maps (Figures 7- 17) it’s hard to make an argument that America is truly integrated

on the basis of race. There is a widely popular fear that by recognizing cultural differences, the country will

somehow become divided and produce spatial culture conclaves. The reality is, no matter what popular

opinion says we cannot be a post racial country if we are still segregated on the neighborhood level by race.

While this division can be the result of systemic discrimination, individual preferences or conscious separatism,

this separation is creating an unjust city.

RACIALLY-BASED CRIMINAL DISCRIMINATION

Americans are not just divided on a spatial front; studies show that Americans are also divided when it comes

to how they view racial-based discrimination in this country. On February 26, 2012, 28-year-old George

Zimmerman Hispanic White male fatally shot Trayvon Martin during a scuffle in Sanford, Florida. Martin was a

17-year old African American male high school student walking to his father’s fiancée’s home from the store in

a gated community. According to Zimmerman’s testimony, he felt Martin was suspiciously walking around in

the rain and up to no good.

On March 20, NBC aired Zimmerman conversation with the 911 dispatcher.

“Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his

waistband. And he’s a black male.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

11 All of the data displayed on the map are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Summary File 1 dataset made publicly available

through the National Historical Geographic Information System. The data is based on the “census block,” the smallest area of

geography for which data is collected (roughly equivalent to a city block in an urban area). Racial Dot Map, Dustin Cable 2013

17

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.”

(Korva Coleman, NPR,2012)

On July 13, 2013 , the six-woman jury announced Zimmerman not guilty after 16 hours of deliberation over

two days. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting of the

unarmed African American male teen. (Calamur, NPR , 2013) The brutal death of Martin shed light on Florida’s

Stand Your Ground law.

Prosecutors had portrayed Zimmerman as a “wannabe cop” who “profiled” Martin and “automatically

assumed that Martin was a criminal” even though the youth was not trespassing in the gated community

where the deadly confrontation took place. (Korva Coleman, NPR,2012)

On July 8 2013 (After the Zimmerman case), Gallup Politics reported that 41percent of Black Americans, 69

percent of Asians, 49 percent of Hispanics and 48 percent Arabs feel very/somewhat satisfied with the way

their racial/ethnic groups are treated in the United States. (Jones, Gallup Politics, 2013) Gallup also found

that 62 percent are very/somewhat good with White and Black relations; 84 percent with White and Asian

relations; 64 percent with White and Hispanic relations; and 78 percent with White and Arab relations. Shortly

after the verdict was announced, a July 16-21 Gallup poll found 85% of blacks, compared with 30% of whites,

describing the verdict as “wrong.” (Jones, Gallup Politics, 2013) Gallup studies show that the Zimmerman

case slightly negatively impacted the blacks view of black-white relations. Blacks’ views of white-Hispanic,

white-Asian, and black-Hispanic relations are unchanged. See Fgure 18 for Travyon Martin March

Not only does this court case provide insights for the divide in perceptions of cultural-based injustice in this

country, it also shed light on the socio-spatial injustice of coexistence. Martin was deemed suspicious in

Zimmerman’s eyes in a public space due to his clothing and the color of his skin. For decades the media has

projected tales of violent African American men. I believe this resulted in the over criminalization of a cultural

group in the public realm. New York City’s Stop and Frisk policy was also an example of racial/ethnic profiling

and distrust in public space. Stop and Frisk was a New York Police Department practice that would stop,

question and frisk inhabitants of public space due to their suspicion of criminal activity. According to the New

York Police Department own reports, 97,296 stops were made in 2002. 80,176 (82 percent (were innocent). In

2011 that figure rose to 685,724 stops with 605,328 (88 percent) innocent. 53 percent of all stops were black;

34 percent Latino; 9 percent White and 51 percent between the ages of 14 and 24 years old. Only 1.9 of all

frisk resulted in a weapon found. Since 2002, 5 million police stops and street interrogations took place. (all

data from New York Civil Liberties Union) On July 16 2012, WNYC 93.9 FM published Map: NYPD Finds Most

18

Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots out all stop and frisk in 2011. See Figure 19-20. The blocks with the

most stop and frisk sites all occur in predominantly Black and Latino communities.

19Figure 1 | Arkansas Democrat Front page 1957

Figure 2 | National Guardsman prevents the students (including Carlotta Walls on the left) from entering the school, September 4, 1957. Photo by Will Counts, courtesy of Arkansas History Commission (Smithsonian magazine, 2013)

20

Figure 3 | Little Rock, 1959. Rally at state capitol, protesting the integration of Central High School. Protesters carry US flags and signs reading “Race Mixing is Communism” and “Stop the Race Mixing March of the Anti-Christ”.

21

Figure 5 | Ku Klux Klansmen beat black bystander George Webb in the Birmingham Trailways bus station, May 14, 1961. The man with his back to the camera (center right) is FBI undercover agent Gary Thomas Rowe. Courtesy of Oxford University Press

Figure 4 | A “Freedom Bus” in flames, six miles southwest of Anniston, Ala., May 14, 1961. (Birmingham Public Library) Courtesy of Oxford University Press

22

Figu

re 7

| U

nite

d St

ates

of A

mer

ica.

Imag

e: D

ustin

Cab

le

23

Figu

re 8

| N

ew Y

ork

City

, NY.

Imag

e: D

ustin

Cab

le

24

Figu

re 9

| A

tlant

a, G

A. I

mag

e: D

ustin

Cab

le

25

Figu

re 1

0 | C

hica

go, I

L. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

26

Figu

re 1

1 | S

outh

ern

Los

Ang

eles

, CA

. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

27

Figu

re 1

2 | N

orth

ern

Los

Ang

eles

, CA

. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

28

Figu

re 1

3 | D

etro

it, M

I. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

29

Figu

re 1

4 | P

ortla

nd, O

R. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

30

Figu

re 1

5 | D

alla

s, T

X. I

mag

e: D

ustin

Cab

le

31

Figu

re 1

6 | S

an F

ranc

isco

, CA

. Im

age:

Dus

tin C

able

32

Figu

re 1

7 | B

irmin

gham

, AL.

Imag

e: D

ustin

Cab

le

33

Figure 18 | Tumblr, skin color is not a reasonable, 2013

34Figure 19 | Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots, WNYC News, 2012

35Figure 20 | Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots, WNYC News, 2012

36

COHABITATION IN CITIES OF DIFFERENCETHE RIGHT TO THE CITY AND THE RIGHT TO DIFFERENCE

In 1968 Henri Lefebvre published the book Le Droit à la ville (The Right to The City). Lefebvre saw the Right

to The City as a demand that can only truly be formulated as a transformative right to urban life. (Lefebvre,

1968:15) In 2008, David Harvey published the essay titled The Right To The City. Harvey reintroduces

Lefebvre’s 1960 concept by discussing the struggle towards collective rights both politically and ethically.

Harvey stated

The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to

change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this

transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of

urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most

precious yet most neglected of our human rights

In Michael Rios article MULTIPLE PUBLICS, URBAN DESIGN AND THE RIGHT TO THE CITY: Assessing

Participation in the Plaza del Colibri, Rios merges both the right to the city and recognizing multiple publics

to argue the limitations of citizen participation within design and planning. He argues that Heterogeneity and

multiplicity in the public sphere presupposes openness to social differences as a starting point for discussions

concerning the public. (Rios, 2004: 123) Rios talks about the exclusionary practices of citizen participation.

That when discussing public concerns and priorities design professions typically favor certain social groups

over others.

Rios discusses the work of geographer Don Mitchell, (also influenced by Henri Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the City’)

who released the book, The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. In this book,

Mitchell uses Lefebvre to metaphorically and materially discuss the struggle over social and spatial justice.

Mitchell argues that such a right is dependent upon public space—how it is produced, who can make claims

for its use, and ultimately as an expression of a truly democratic society. (Rios, 2004: 122)

In Mitchell’s book, he stresses the importance of different political identities and argues that the society relies

on the multiplicity of publics to appropriate, produce and ultimately negotiate the public realm. Rios believes

that it is both the right to the city and the right of the multiple publics that calls for active citizen participation

in the design and the creation of the public. (Rios, 2004:123)

The right to difference goes beyond the inclusion, recognition and the accommodations of difference into

active participation in the public sphere, public space and public realm. It is not enough to only celebrate,

37

theorize or deconstruct difference; it must be a guiding factor of citizenship within a society made up of

multiple cultures. Like the right to the city, this right is not inherently given; it must be negotiated and

coproduced perpetually. There can be no right to the city without the right to difference and no right to

difference without the right to the city. Both concepts rely on each other but refer to different aspects of

citizenship.

INTERCULTURALISM

Interculturalism is defined as the practice of moving beyond the passive acceptance of coexisting within

multiple cultures into supporting cross-cultural dialogue, interaction and understanding. Interculturalism seeks

to address issues surrounding self-segregation and encouraged a true integrated society. Many scholars12 and

practitioners contribute to the practice of interculturalism and suggest that multiculturalism is too limiting.

Multiculturalism suggests an appreciation of cultural differences as coexistence but fails to address issues of

cohabitation within the public.

The term is used to stress cultural respect and dialogue, and it contrasts with versions of multiculturalism that

either stress cultural difference without resolving the problem of communication between cultures, or versions

of cosmopolitanism that speculate the gradual erosion of cultural difference through inter-ethnic mixture and

hybridisation. The literature on race, multiculturalism and citizenship has tended to discuss these possibilities

at the level of national rights and obligations, individual or collective. (Amin 2002)

The contrast between multiculturalism and interculturalism can be better explained when discussing public

spaces in the city. Ideally, urban public spaces can be understood as a platform, a context and in some

cases even a stage for multicultural engagement. (Amin 2002) The urban public space is romanticized for

its diversity of thought, when in reality, historically, many cultural groups (women, foreigners, slaves) were

excluded from participating in urban society in public arena. This exclusionary history resulted in many public

spaces failing to foster intercultural communication.

“We must ... come to processes of learning how to collaborate, how to be together, both in our difference

and in our unity. There is work to be done in which we hold the cultural differences in community and

communication as both basic problematics to be worked out and opportunities for enrichment. Groups and

communities coming together can be seen as places of emergence, creation and transformation “(Grand,

1999: 484 cited through Amin 2002, p8).

12 Ash Amin (2002) ‘Ethnic and the Multicultural City: living with diversity’ Environment and Planning A 34 (6) 959-80, Peter Hall

Leonie Sandercock

38

NATURALIZED CLAIMS AND SOCIAL CLAIMS TO INTERCULTURALISM

As a society there exist both naturalized and social claims to the practice of interculturalism in the public

realm. While some assume that naturalized claims are more passive than social, I would like to stress the

important of recognizing the both claims within the public realm.

Biodeterminism13 is often referenced when talking about naturalized claims in the public realm due to race

or ethnicity. This controversial scientific theory was once used to assert the patriarchal white supremacy

discriminatory practices and affirm racial and gender hierarchies in this country14 . Today, majority of

geneticists understand the racial taxonomies at the DNA level to be invalid. (Duster, 2009;Cosmides,

2003 cited through Stanford University, Gendered Innovations: Race and ethnicity) Race however can be

understood as a social claim made through natural causes. While race does not biologically produce definite

information on behavioral traits of humans, social hierarchies have been developed due the pigments in skin.

For this study, natural claims to interculturalism will be defined by the complex nature of living within multiple

cultural identifies. This identity is deemed natural due to the process naturally containing two or more

cultures, races or ethnicities due to recent ancestry. Naturalized claims don’t require any social action beyond

existing. Social claims to interculturalism can be defined the choice to participate, interact and cohabitate in

environments of difference. In the next section I will outline three naturalized claims as well as three modes for

promoting social claims within the practice of interculturalism.

NATURALIZED CLAIMS | THE NEXT AMERICAN

In April 2014, the Pew Research Center released a brief report to introduce the new book titled The Next

America by Paul Taylor. This data-rich report tracks the current transformations and future speculations

in public opinion, economics and demographics from 1960-2060 for the American Society. This report is

13 Biodeterminism is a form of reductionism (the study of organs, tissues, and molecules can yield important information about

how organisms, and hence societies operate.) that explains individual behavior and characteristics of societies in terms if biological

functions. (Hubbard,1990)

14 Much research was done in the nineteenth century in efforts to show that differences in brain structure between whites and

blacks reflected the lesser evolution of non-white peoples (Tucker, 1996). Twentieth-century debates over IQ and brain structure played

a similar role (Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

Cited through Stanford University).

39

empirical evidence that the American society is changing and that politics, policies and design must shift to

reflect this transformation. While some may mistaken this data as support for the naive post-racial agenda, I

believe this data proves more than ever that outdated racial systems must evolve into a ethnic and cultural

conscious society.

IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION

America has always been a country of immigrants and settlers, but the demographic of the recent immigration

has changed the country’s complexion. In the 1960s, America was a Black and White country, 85 percent

of the population was White, and 10 percent was Black, leaving only 5 percent to be labeled as other.

(Taylor 2014) In 2060, the country will be roughly 43percent White, 13 percent Black, 31 percent Hispanic,

and 8 percent Asian which leaves 5percent to be labeled as other. This shift is partly due to the 40 million

immigrants who have arrived in this country since 1965. (Taylor 2014) Since 1965, 50 percent of the arriving

immigrants have been Hispanic, nearly over 20 percent is Asian (It is important to note that Asian American

has suppressed Hispanics in new arrivals since 2009, which could influence the America’s demographic in the

future.) and 10 or 12 percent of immigrants are from Africa, the Middle East, and other regions. (Taylor 2014).

Prior to 1960, 88 percent of all U.S. Immigrants were European, now that figure is 12 percent .

The youngest adult generation, Millennials are the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in American

history. 40 percent of Millennials are non-white. Paul Taylor notes that in light of the new demographic

changes, “America isn’t about to go color-blind; race is too hardwired into the human psyche” (Taylor 2014)

What does this mean for the future of American policies, planning, design and programs? Can this new

culture affect the policies and design of future cities? Can marginalized racial and ethnicity groups play a

larger role in challenging universalism in urbanism now that they are no longer the minority cultural group?

How do we produce alternative, culturally attuned spaces? What design strategies empower communities

and promote these alternatives? And what might these alternative spaces look like?

The social and cultural integration of the new immigrants is also something to note. The close proximity to

countries due to globalization, modern transportation and the rise of social media as the third public space

have allowed immigrants to retain their cultural ties to their countries of origin which reduces the pressures to

adopt America’s dominant culture of language, customs, values etc. More than 9 in 10 say that it is important

to for future Hispanic Americans to be able speak Spanish, 8 in 10 already say they can speak Spanish pretty

well. (Taylor, 2014) In fact, majority15 of the Hispanics that participated in The Pew Center’s study say they

15 Pew Research Center National Survey of Latinos, Nov-Dec. 2011 N=1,220 US Hispanic adults. This data includes first

generation of Puerto Ricans. The Pew Research Center found that even though individuals born in Puerto Rico as U.S. citizens, they are

40

self identify by their family’s country origin. Fifty-one percent identify as their country of origin (for example

Mexican-American); 24 percent as the pan-ethnic label as Hispanic or Latino; and 21 percent identify as

American. This data can be understood further by examining the data by each generation. Sixty-two percent

of first generation16 Hispanics identify as their country of origin; 28 percent as the pan-ethnic label as

Hispanic or Latino; and 8 percent identify as America. Forty-three percent of second generation17 Hispanics

identify as their country of origin; 18 percent as the pan-ethnic label as Hispanic or Latino; and 35 percent

identify as America. Twenty-eight percent of third and higher generation18 Hispanics identify as their country

of origin; 21 percent as the pan-ethnic label as Hispanic or Latino; and 48 percent identify as America. Taylor

reported that while second-generation Hispanic immigrants think of themselves as typical Americans (61

percent second-generation versus the 33 percent of Hispanic first generation immigrants).

This utopian interpretation of data has yet to be fully realized in the American public. Could it be that

integration has come to mean something different? Could the future of America no longer require its

immigrants to abandon their ancestor’s heritage and culture into the American “melting pot” (the a stock

phrase of the twentieth century American public in which cultural groups assimilate into the dominant

culture)?

U.S. CENSUS: THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN ETHNICITY AND RACE

Since 1970, the Census Bureau has mandated “Hispanic” as an ethnicity or origin, thereby forcing Hispanics

or Latinos to also choose a “race.” The census recognizes the multi-racial demography of the Hispanic culture

that leaves many to have to identify within the five sanctioned race choices. According the New York Times,

“In 2010, Hispanics were offered the option to select more than one race, but 37 percent opted for “some

other race” — a telling indicator that the term itself is the problem.” While this was not the first time Hispanics

were able to chose one or more race, it is a sign that current racial options are still too limiting.

Many legal documents call for each person to identify by one or two of the five races white; black; American

Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. As our country continues this

path of interracial union will the racial categories even hold weight? Race is a social construct made up of

physical biases, cultural fantasies, stereotypes and color. Neil Irvin Painter as historian wrote in her 2010 book

The History of White People. “…Race is an idea, not a fact”. (Painter 2010) Going forward we will need a new

born into a Spanish dominant culture and are closer to Hispanic born aboard to the Latinos born in the United States.

16 The term first generation refers to people who are “foreign born”. Taylor uses the “foreign born”, “first generation” and

“immigrant” interchangeably. (Taylor, 2014, Appendix)

17 The term refers to people born in the U.S with at least one first-generation parent.

18 The term refers to people born in the U.S with both parents born in the U.S. Used interchangeable with “third generation”

41

taxonomy, the “one drop rule”19 used for centuries will no longer cut it in the future society. What will the

future census look like?

The census’ racial classification of white has also been victim to outdated political hierarchical racial

classifications. Former Soviet nations migrants living in Central Asia are considered white according to the

census. Even Arabs and non-Arabs like Turks and Kurds are considered white due to their Middle Eastern and

Northern African ancestry. (Prewitt, New York Times, Fix the Census’ Archaic Racial Categories, 2013)

Questions on ethnicity and race in the latest census in Figure 21.

Currently, the Census Bureau does collect ancestry data through the American Community Survey (ACS). The

question is “What is your ancestry or ethnic origin?” followed by examples of ethnic groups. The question

allows for two write-in lines for the respondent to report the ancestry or ancestries they, which identify but

the ACS only codes for two ancestries. See Figures 22-24 for ACS ancestry questions from 1980, 1990 and

2000.The idea that race as a man made construct is becoming outdated on the census is positive proof that

the cultural, and ethnic identity of America is changing. This further indicates an immediate need to shift

our vision towards a future in which individuals will refuse to be limited by archaic racial structures that don’t

properly define them. I am not advocating that our country has suddenly shifted into a post-racial society, but

simply that the current structures no longer fit the complexity of cultural identity. We need a new structure

where ethnicity and culture takes precedent over racial boxes.

INTERETHNIC AND INTERRACIAL IDENTITY

As individuals, we are intercultural. We are multifaceted and posses the ability to be within many cultures at

the same time. This complexity in cultural identity cannot be diminished into a singular cultural stereotype.

(Amin 2002) This begs the question, how can we design for the complexity of cultural identity?

Agyeman stated:

In my view, culture is predicated on difference and on otherness, and is a complex, dynamic, and

embodied set of realities in which people (re)create indentures, meanings and values. Overlaying this

is the reality of hybrid or multiple cultural and group affiliations. In this sense, no one person can be

reduced to one single or fixed cultural or other form of identity.[i] (Agyeman 2014)

While immigration is also changing the demography, the rises in interracial relationships have also contributed

19 For centuries we’ve used the “one-drop rule” to settle such questions— if you’re not all white, you’re not white at all. (Taylor,

Paul; Pew Research Center (2014-03-04). The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown (Kindle

Locations 238-241). Public Affairs. Kindle Edition)

42

to the transformation of our cou¬¬¬ntry. Interracial marriage has only been legal for a half of a century; yet

in 2011 some 15.5 percent of new marriages were either interracial or interethnic. Currently one quarter of

Hispanics and Asians marry across racial and ethnic lines, 1-in-6 blacks and 1-in-10 whites. (Taylor 2014)

There is no doubt that the children of the rising interracial unions will challenge the validity of racial categories

in years to come. In 2000, the census allowed for persons to count more than one race and ethnicity. Having

the freedom to declare multiple racial identities is a big step, but it is hardly the solution.

In October 2013 National Geographic released the article along side striking photographs titled The

Changing Face of America. This cover story was released on the 125 anniversary issue of the influncial

magazine. Lise Funderburg not only provides an informative piece on the rise of naturalized claims to

interculturalism but with the help of renowned photographer and portrait artist Martin Schoeller, they

created a striking visual narrative about the rise in multiracial Americans. See Figures 25- 29 for more visual

representations on what the”average American” will look by the year 2050.

Certainly, race still matters in this country, despite claims that the election of Barack Obama heralded

a post-racial world. We may be a pluralist nation by 2060, when the Census Bureau predicts that non-

Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority. But head counts don’t guarantee opportunity or wipe out

the legacy of Japanese-American internment camps or Jim Crow laws. (Funderburg , 2014)

While some may assume that this data supports the post racial rhetoric, I agree with this article in stating that

the change in demography will not erase the history of racial and ethnic injustice. This article simply projects

creatively the future of the naturalized intercultural American. This could be seen as a rallying cry for the push

towards interculturalism. Whether the country is dedicated to making social claims or not, we will soon face a

society that no longer identifies within the limiting race and ethnic system.

Figure 22 |s The Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Ancestry Frequently Asked Questions, 1980 Census question on ancestry. http://www.census.gov Accessed 4/25/2014

Figure 23 | The Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Ancestry Frequently Asked Questions, 1990 Census question on ancestry. http://www.census.gov. Accessed 4/25/2014

Figure 24 | The Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Ancestry Frequently Asked Questions, 2000 ACS question on ancestry. http://www.census.gov Accessed 4/25/2014

43

Figure 21 | 2010 Census question on ethnicity and race

44Figure 25| National Geographic, Martin Schoeller, 2013, The Changing Face of America

45Figure 26 | National Geographic, Martin Schoeller, 2013, The Changing Face of America

KELLY WILLIAMS II, 17, DALLAS, TEXAS

SELF-ID: African American and German/multiracial

CENSUS BOXES CHECKED: black

46Figure 27 | National Geographic, Martin Schoeller, 2013, The Changing Face of America

DAISY FENCL, 3, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

PARENTS’ ID FOR HER: Korean and Hispanic

CENSUS BOXES CHECKED: has not yet been counted

47

HAROLD FISCH, 23, AUSTIN, TEXAS

SELF-ID: eastern European, Puerto Rican, Jewish, Texan

CENSUS BOXES CHECKED: other

Figure 28 | National Geographic, Martin Schoeller, 2013, The Changing Face of America

48

HELEN ROBERTSON, 54, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

SELF-ID: English

CENSUS BOXES CHECKED: white/Asian

Figure 29 | National Geographic, Martin Schoeller, 2013, The Changing Face of America

49

INTERCULTURAL MODES OF PRODUCING A DEMOCRATIC, PARTICIPATORY AND INCLUSIVE URBAN SPACE

My recommendations for cohabiting in cities of difference, involves three intercultural modes for promoting

the right to difference within the urban:

1) the co-construction of identity: knowledge of self (determination);

2) the codesign of the public realm: interdependency of difference strengths; and

3) The co-configuration and production of material environments

Each mode cannot stand alone in the fight towards equality and justice, neither one can outshine the other.

Each intercultural mode promotes the transformation of consciousness, which can lead to the liberation of

oppressive systems.

In the book Killing Rage: Ending Racism, hooks challenges the American society to create new tools for

transforming structures.

There must exist a paradigm, a practical model for social change that includes an understanding of ways

to transform consciousness that are linked to efforts to transform structures. (hooks,1996)

The following intercultural modes are designed to provide a practical model for creating social change within

the public realm. The four intercultural modes also contribute to the social sustainability goals of cohabitation.

The Young Foundation defines social sustainability as:

A process for creating sustainable, successful places that promote wellbeing, by understanding what

people need from the places they live and work. Social sustainability combines design of the physical

realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities,

systems for citizen engagement and space for people and places to evolve. (Caistor-Arendar)

The United States is a country at a tipping point, We can continue to ‘celebrate’ our cultural differences,

but we cannot continue to ignore deep cross-cultural dialogues and the construction, design, production

and maintenance of true intercultural understandings. The following intercultural modes promote collective

transformation. As our country’s demography changes, we must abandon outdated concepts of diversity

and multiculturalism. As Americans, we can no longer ignore our differences while simultaneously promoting

cultural dominance. Take the following model not as a step-by-step guide for achieving interculturalism but as

a framework for how we can move towards it.

50

THE CO-CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY | KNOWLEDGE OF SELF (DETERMINATION)

My first intercultural mode is a concept I’ve described as, The Co-construction Of Identity: Knowledge Of

Self (DETERMINATION). This mode focuses on the importance of cultivating consciousness, co-constructing

identity within cultural groups and viewing identity as a form of pedagogy. I define self-determination as the

right to co-construct political and social identities. As mentioned earlier, these rights live within the right to

difference, which is not inherently given. In Nancy Fraser’s Rethinking the Public Sphere, she also examined

the relationship between public sphere and social identity, Fraser found that “Participation means being able

to speak one’s own voice, thereby simultaneously constructing and expressing one’s cultural identity through

idiom and style.” (Fraser, 1990:122) . This mode strengthens the relationship between cultural identity and the

urban space.

This mode draws from concepts found in African American movements in culture, politics and critical theory.

Examples can be found in the Black Power Movement20 Black Nationalist Movement and from leaders like

Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Angela Davis, Audre Lorde and Bell hooks.

The original ethnic and cultural identities were stolen from enslaved Africans leaving no nationality to be

placed next to their hyphenated America. The social significance of naming the former enslaved Africans has

a complex history and takes constant negotiation. The terms Negro American, Black American and African

American have collective significance depending on the time period.

During the Revolutionary War era, blacks began calling themselves ‘Negro-Americans’ to be associated with

where they live and not where they are from. (John S, Butler, “ Multiple Identities” Society 27 May/June 1990

8-13 as cited in Vilna Bashi Treitler 20013) But not every black American agreed with this new identity; some,

like the founders of The African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church) preferred ‘African-American’

(Treitler 2013). Some black, intellectuals scholars like William Edward Burghardt “W.E.B” Du Bois (1868-1963)

and Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) used the term ‘Negro’ which replaces the term ‘Negro-American’

(Treitler 2013). The terms ‘Negro and ‘Colored’ were popular during the Civil War era. ‘Negro’ was favored by

freedmen while ‘Colored” was used among those freed prior to the Civil War. (Treitler 2013) Both terms later

became associated with racial epithets.

In the 1960s ‘Black’ as an identity became associated with activism, racial pride and power. Black was the

used as a balance to the term ‘white’. While some older people saw the term ‘black’ as a derogatory term and

preferred the term Negro; influential leaders such as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael promoted the power

and strength associated with this new identity. (Treitler 2013)

20 which was famous in the late 1960s to 11970s

51

Malcolm X’s 1960 speech,

If you call yourself ‘white,’ why should I not call myself ‘black’, … If Frenchmen are of France and

Germans are of Germany, where is ‘Negroland’? I’ll tell you it is in the mind of the white man! (C. Eric

Lincoln, Black Muslims in America, Boston Press 1961, page 68 as cited in Vilna Bashi Treitler 20013)

According to Ben Martin’s research in the ‘Negro to Black to African American: The Power of Names and

Naming’, In 1968 only 6 percent of blacks self identified as ‘Black” while 69 percent called themselves

‘Negros’ (Martin, ‘From Negro to Black to African American’ cited in Vilna Bashi Treitler 20013)

As an African American woman whose ancestors were brought to this country for the purpose of slave labor,

it’s hard to believe that my data would be captured alongside African immigrants who came to this country

post-slavery. The 2010 census has failed to gather accurate data on the large, diverse, racial and ethnic culture

of the African Diaspora. The census does not differentiate between the Black Americans brought to the

Americas through slavery, (United States of America or Caribbean/West Indies) from the African immigrants

coming to the United States post-slavery. The continent of Africa has 53 independent countries and several

thousand ethnic groups, languages, and dialects, each with a heritage, and culture more different than the

next. Surely the census can and should make a better effort to more accurately capture the difference within

the African Diaspora population.

The Black Power Movement formalized when Stokely Carmichael emerged as a prominent black leader.

In 1967, Carmichael and alongside Charles V. Hamilton wrote Black Power: The Politics of Liberation both

believed in organizing for the black liberation and the independence from the preexisting power of dominant

culture. I would also like to acknowledge Malcolm X for his many contributions during the 1960s and 1970s

for black self-determination. He is most recognized by his radical, racial politics, hyper masculine and black

separatist ideals. In Writing a Beyond a Race, hooks states that Malcolm’s fundamental ideology of opposing

white supremacist ideals and black self-determination have been co-opted by the hunger to participate as a

pseudo equals in the existing dominant culture. (hooks, 2013)

In 1964, Malcolm X gave a speech called A Declaration of Independence In this speech Malcolm X outlined

his plan to promote Black Nationalism in culture, politics, economics and social philosophy. He defines the

political philosophy of Black Nationalism as co-producing the political identity of the black community. He

sees this co-production as an internal process and must exist without the supremacy and dependency of

dominant culture.

… There can be no black-white unity until there is first some black unity. There can be no workers’

solidarity until there is first some racial solidarity. We cannot think of uniting with others, until after

52

we have first united among ourselves. We cannot think of being acceptable to others until we have

first proven acceptable to ourselves. One can’t unite bananas with scattered leaves. (Malcolm X, A

Declaration of Independence, 1964

While his speech can be interpreted as a push for black separatism and strong black patriarchy; this

intercultural mode will celebrate his core ideology of collective consciousness and decolonization of

psychological trauma.

The Black Panther Party also emerged as political movement that focused on educating the black community

of its rights to defend itself against violence but also focusing on the cultivation of collective consciousness.

The Black Panther Party also focused on how the Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy has

directly produced the racial inequality of the country.

As introduced in my section on cultures of domination, counterpublics (especially those that have been

marginalized and forced to live by the standards of oppressive dominant cultures) must go through the

process of reproducing identity. While many see this psychological transformation as a private matter, it is

necessary to strengthen and self define the counterpublics in which we operate. The act of claiming identity

in the public sphere is both a revolutionary and a social concept. It was revolutionary during the many waves

of black naming and it will continue to be revolutionary within other marginalized counterpublics. Subaltern

counterpublics must directly challenge the figurative and literal language of supremacist ideology by

reclaiming both the public sphere and the material public space.

53

Figure 30 | 20 Dec 1969, San Francisco, California, USA — A teacher leads his students with the black power salute and slogans at a Black Panther liberation school. — Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

Figure 30 | Students For Liberty, 2014.

http://studentsforliberty.org

54

THE CODESIGN OF THE PUBLIC REALM | INTERDEPENDENCY OF

DIFFERENCE STRENGTHS

My second intercultural mode is a concept I describe as, THE CODESIGN OF THE PUBLIC REALM:

INTERDEPENDENCY OF DIFFERENCE STRENGTHS. This recommendation calls for a true community-based

participatory design of the public realm, a design that sees the strength of difference as a force for structural

change. The foundation of this recommendation draws from the concepts outlined from the self-described

black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet, Audre Lorde. This mode requires collaboration to form community, for

without community there is no liberation (Lorde, 1979)

In 1979, Lorde delivered the renowned speech, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House

at an international conference held in honor of the thirtieth anniversary of Beauvoir’s book 21, The Second

Sex. In this speech Lorde criticizes mainstream white feminism for their unacknowledged dependence on the

patriarchal system. Lorde condemn the group for perpetuating tools of oppression and exclusionary practices

within the conference and within the feminism discourse as a whole. Lorde goes on to state that women have

been conditioned to see difference as suspicion instead of agents of change. Until feminists learn to recognize

and rise above the patriarchal conditioning of ignoring difference; the patriarchy will never be dismantled.

Lorde saw the patriarchal system as the Masters House; oppression and exclusion are both examples of the

Masters tools.

Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which

our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become

unthreatening. (Lorde,1979)

Like Lorde, I too believe the tools of exclusion will never disassemble the many layers of social inequality and

injustice in this country. While the dominant public discourse has made great strides since Lorde’s speech,

we still battle with exclusion when addressing the social ills of this country. We must not ignore or attempt

to rid ourselves of difference due to its complex nature. For it is within this complexity that new creative

tools can emerge and sustain the fight to end social inequality and injustice. Recognizing differences within

the multiplicity of public spheres will directly challenge the “post-racial’ rhetoric within culturally-blind and

colorblind universalism.

Lorde is not the only critic to bring to light the exclusionary practices of subordinated social groups. In

previous sections I mentioned Fraser’s introduction to the concept of subaltern counterpublics. Within her

scholarship, Fraser makes note that not all subaltern counterpublics promote democratic or egalitarian

21 The Second Sex 1946 by Simone de Beauvoir

55

ideals. While they emerged out of or in response to exclusionary practices from the dominant publics, some

counterpublics promote those same tools of exclusion whether informal or formal, in their own public spheres.

The main problem with hierarchical systems of oppression is that the oppressed typically internalized then

perpetuates the same practices of their oppressors. This sustains social inequality and injustice while creating

a system that divides the oppressed from its true goal of ending the structures of social ills. Lorde calls for

the interdependency of difference strengths to end this cycle of oppression. This concept seeks to change

the world from a divide and conquer mentality into define and empower. (Lorde, 1979) This combats the

hierarchical systems of exclusion and oppression by promoting a horizontal system of interdependency of

mutual (non-dominant) differences. This interdependency of strengths can manifest the creative potential of

difference instead of conflict and destruction.

As urban practitioners, we must not create a hierarchy that favors the actions of ending one form inequality

or injustice above the other. Fixing economic inequality will not solely solve the issues of the American

public realm. I will also make a similar claim that fixing all social inequalities will not automatically solve social

injustice. For the right to difference requires both equality and justice, and favors neither one over the other.

The only way to truly dismantle the master’s house, are for those who are dedicated to fighting social ills to

come together to codesign the public realm with new tools of collaboration and independency.

THE CO-CONFIGURATION AND PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL ENVIRONMENTS

My third intercultural mode is a concept I describe as, The Coproduction of Configuring Material Forms, which

focuses on the connection between the social and the material. This mode not only answers the question of

how cultural groups can interpret, use and perceive form but also provides the strategies that utilize the right

to difference within coproducing culturally inclusive cities. This concept draws from the methodologies of

Stuart Hall’s concept on how representation connects meaning and language to culture. This mode also draws

from the 2002 Lincoln Park Study on racial differences in Chicago and lastly the urbanism practice of Hester

Street Collaborative in New York City. Hester Street Collaborative is an example of how creative community

engagement can coproduce form.

Stuart Hall was a leading expert for over six decades on the connection between cultures to politics as well

as how representation connects to meaning and language to culture. James Procter wrote in his book titled

Stuart Hall, “For Hall, the study of culture involves exposing the relations of power that exist within society at

any given moment in order to consider how marginal, or subordinate groups might secure or win, however

temporary, cultural space from the dominant group.” (Procter, 2004) In Hall’s book titled Representation:

Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, He recognizes the complex meaning behind the term

representation. Representation has a greater meaning beyond the essential part of the process by which

56

meaning is produced and exchanged between members of a culture. (Hall 1997:15) There are three

theories of representation: reflective, intentional and the construction. The reflective approach examines

representation as a mirror to reflect the true meaning, as it already exists in the world. This approach sees

objects, events and people as imitating the truth that is already fixed. The intentional approach is the

opposite of reflective. This approach sees the person (the speaker, the author) who imposes his or her unique

meaning on the world. Hall recognizes the flaws within the intentional approach. We cannot be the sole

creators of meaning in language. “Our private intended meaning, however personal; to us, have to enter into

rules, codes and conventions of language to be shared and understood.” (Hall 1997:25)

Hall focuses his writing on the constructive approach, how representation is the production of meaning of

concepts in our minds through language. Representation serves as the link between concepts and language.

This link allows us to recognize the ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’ world of objects, people and events. Hall finds that the

meaning is not in the word, object, person or event but in the construction by the system of representation,

by the code. “One way of thinking about ‘culture’, then is in terms of these shared conceptual maps, shared

language systems and the codes which govern the relationships of translation between them.” (Hall 1997:21)

Hall goes on to state that meaning can never be fixed; it is the results of social, cultural and linguistic

conventions. Meaning is the result of the practice of construction and production.

Representation is a practice, a kind of ‘work’, which uses material objects and effects. But the meaning

depends, not on the material quality of the sign, but on its symbolic function. It is because a particular

sound or word stands for, symbolizes or represents a concept that it can function, in language, as a sign

and convey meaning- or, as the constructionist say, signify.” (Hall 1997:25-26)

That being said, it is the social actors that use conceptual systems to construct meaning to the material world.

In 2002, Paul H. Gobster conducted a study on the recreation uses, patterns and preferences of a diverse

racial and ethnic group of 898 users located at Lincoln Park in Chicago, Illinois. The group consisted of 217

Black users, 210 Latino users, 182 Asians users and 29 White users. Gobster also found distinct differences

between ethnic groups within the same racial group. Gobster begins his analysis by stating that research

on growing racial and ethnic populations are difficult and the information on minority needs and interests

typically fall short. While this study took place over 10 years ago, it is still difficult to find studies on the

minority needs and wants as it pertains to place. (GOBSTER 2002) This study examines the culture-based

differences in park usage and offered evidence of substantial differences in ethnic, racial and cultural groups

in park usage. (Agyeman 2014) Gobster primarily focuses on racial groups but also recognized the many

subcultural differences associated with race. The results of this study showed that participants self-identified

beyond race into cultural subgroups of ethnicity and regional groups.

57

This study showed that in spite of the park’s diverse racial and ethnic population, there seemed to still be

places with populations of homogenous racial and ethnic groups. Gobster found evidence that certain

cultural groups favored certain locations. Many responded said they knew of popular areas in the park where

members of their racial or ethnic groups went, including 43 percent of Blacks, 51 percent of Latinos, and

82 percent of Asians. (GOBSTER 2002, 151) The three mentioned racial and ethnic groups highly populated

in the north end of the park. When asked specifically where the groups were located, 12 percent of Blacks

mentioned the northerly beach area, 10 percent of Asians mentioned south of the northern beach and 14

percent of Latinos mentioned areas further south of the Asian location (GOBSTER 2002)

When asked “In your past use of the park were there any times or situations where you felt discriminated

against because of your race or ethnic background?” One and 10 park users cited being discriminated

against while in the park. 14 percent of Blacks reported discrimination, making them the highest reported in

the survey. Latinos reported 7 percent and Asians at 9 percent . Examples of reported discrimination from

other users (4 percent) included physical gestures, verbal harassment or assaults, and nonverbal messages

resulting in feelings of discomfort. Examples of reported discrimination from police (4 percent ) included

verbal harassment and complains about being treated unequally compared to white users. Examples of

reported discrimination from facilities and staff (0.5 percent ) included unfair treatment of minorities and

unequal distribution of facilities in predominantly white versus predominantly minority areas of the park.

Unidentified sources amounted to 1.5percent of the 10 percent average total for all minority groups.

(GOBSTER 2002)

Gobster also found that racial and ethnic groups had some similarities of favoring natural landscape features

while disliking vandalism and litter; the groups differ in their activities and access. Overall, minority park

users lived further away from the park and were most likely to visit less frequently than white park users in

large family-oriented groups. (GOBSTER 2002) Gobster also found pattern in activities from minority groups.

Minority groups were found to participate in passive activities like picnics, socializing, parties and festival

overall white users. White users were found to participate in more individual athletic activities such as jogging

and bicycling and walking the dog.

Gobster also looked at ways to improve the management of the park to improve social interactions. Leisure

styles are defined by the combination of social patterns, activity preferences and attitudes. (Floyd 1999)

Gobster discovered that minority park users found social interaction important within each cultural group but

not between different cultural groups groups. At the end of report, Gobster urged for an abandonment of

universalism in policies and programs for planning based on the culture.

Research that identifies racially/ethnically-based differences in activities and preferences may support the

58

implementation of policies and programs that meet the interests of individual groups. Instead of planning

solely for the majority, data from the study show that a more equitable strategy would identify what different

groups like and do, and would integrate these preferences and activities into current programs and budgets.

(GOBSTER 2002, 155)

HESTER STREET COLLABORATIVE

In 2002, Hester Street Collaborative (HSC) was founded by the architecture practice Leroy Street Studio. HSC

was created to utilize design and creative cultural community engagement as a tool for community-led social

change. HSC harnessed its positioning as a community-based organization in the Lower East Side (LES) to

cultivate relationships and partnerships for the continued goal of social sustainability. This allows HSC to lead

as agents of transformation without having to wait for an official invitation from a client due its presence in the

community.

In 2004, the Sara D. Roosevelt park (which was constructed in 1934 with a goal to be a playground and

resting place for mothers and children) was slated for reconstruction. Being within the vicinity of the

Hester Street Collaborative office, HSC decided to organize a capital re-design and a mosaic installation in

partnership with students from the local school, Middle School 131 (M.S. 131). Many designers assume that

the interaction between the social and the material world is limited to the role of a mediator between the

state and the society. While many envisioned the public material world as a space for democratic exchange,

and temporary appropriations of culture through programming, they fail to realize that different cultural

groups interact with material form differently. Hester Street Collaborative decided to focus their efforts on

permanent mosaic installations which allowed or youth to establish ownership with the park. (See Figures

31-34) Working with M.S. 131, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, as well as other partnering

with other nonprofits, HSC transformed the 7.8 acre space with the permanent art installation. What began as

an art installation soon evolved into a community-led design project.

The first principle of co-production begins with ‘who is setting the table’. Being dedicated to co-produce

culturally inclusive spaces involves doing deep research on the complex cultural makeup of the area.” If

public spaces are produced and managed by narrow interests, they are bound to become exclusive places.

“ (Madanipour, 2010,II cited through Agyeman) Designers must be intentional in their efforts. Hester Street

Collaborative created relationships with multi-stakeholder and community member to channel aspirations

for the park to the designers. Gathering input from community member before the design process is

very important for HSC. Over 1,000 residents came out to participate in this event, which resulted in HSC

collecting community input and advocating for the community vision to be apart of the part overall design.

(Hester Street Collaborative, 2012: People Make Parks)

59

Urban Practitioners should participate in the co-producing of space, which can help the space feel like

home to its user A key principle of this practice interculturalism is the practice of involving hands-on tactile

experiences that make participation and co-production accessible to people of all ages and linguistic abilities.

(Frederick, 2015) This is especially important for communities like the Lower East Side that can be categorized

as a multiethnic, multilingual, and immigrant community. Hester Street Collaborative enacts multiple creative

tools that create community ownership of space beyond temporary programming. One effective tools used

in the Sara D Roosevelt Park visioning day was the Lantern Activity, simple way for community members to

visually share their big ideas for what they want to see in the park. Participants were encouraged to write

in the language that is comfortable for them and use nonverbal skills to participate in transforming their

community. After the activity, lanterns hung in the part as an art installation which eventually turned in an

annual lantern festival. This tool is a great example of using culturally inclusive art as agents for change.

(Hester Street Collaborative, 2012: People Make Parks)

Some additional examples of engagement tools include: Story Mapping, this community mapping activity

allowed residents to provide personal narratives for geographic locations ; Design Hoops, this youth game

was designed to be a fun activity that provided insights for participatory design; as well as Model Making,

which allowed for residents to bed involved in creating visions using hands-on methods instead of relying on

verbal communication. (Hester Street Collaborative, 2012: People Make Parks)

Another principle of co-production is ensuring that the material form supports cultural interaction through

creating relationships and partnerships not simply facilitating partnerships. Most engagement during design

projects is limited to town hall meetings and simple communication exchanges. The partnerships must

be dedicated to establishing trust, effective communication and honesty. All parties must be clear and

honest regarding their stake in the future material form. This can also translate into the physical design of

the interactions. Earlier I mentioned the different cultural groups interact and use urban space differently.

Seating for example can influence park usage. For certain cultural groups that use public space as an arena

for socializing or celebrations; the standard park design could turn away potential users. For the nuclear or

extended family, standard park benches designed for one-on-one social interaction may not be ideal. “Some

of the characteristics of parks that have been found to increase feelings of discomfort are fences, dense

vegetation, and hedging that provides privacy for drug dealers and other criminals” (Francis 1987 cited

through Agyeman 2013:151)

Urban practitioners must be dedicated to intercultural stewardship of public pedagogy. Stewardship

is typically overshadowed by construction. Stewardship can be realized in everyday management and

maintenance of the public space, public sphere and public realm. It is important to not only promote urban

transformative change, but consider new strategies for utilizing difference of strength to sustain the space,

60

sphere and/or realm. Promoting a shared management will allow for new creative appropriations of the

space. By summer 2004, The Sara D. Roosevelt Park Coalition was formed with a mission to “bring together

local stakeholders who seek to foster community-based stewardship by providing a voice for all who love the

park and the communities it serves. With community input, we solve problems, offer positive solutions, and

preserve the vital role the park plays in our lives” (http://sdrpc.mkgarden.org) Hester Street Collaborative

worked in partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Sara D. Roosevelt Park Coalition to

advocate for culturally inclusive design process for the public space.

This intercultural mode can promote difference as an asset as opposed to a source of tension. “Designing

culturally inclusive spaces aims to remove the barriers that create undue efforts (in accessing those

spaces) and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and

confidently.” (CABE 2008a; 2008b cited through Agyeman 2013)

By promoting the concept of form follows culture22, this mode combats the spatial and social injustice that is

often associated with marginalized cultural groups. It should be no surprise that the material world is directly

influenced by the cultural, political and social climate of the public sphere. The goal of this mode is to design

culturally inclusive spaces through the coproduction of configuring material form.

22 In 1896 Architect Louis Sulivan stated in his popular article The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, … form ever

follows function, and this is law. (Sulivan, Sec 3., Par15) By this law, cultural groups should play a larger role in the design of the built

environment. The relationship between culture, functionality and form is not a new theory, yet many socially driven designers and

urbanist focus their efforts on universal approaches. Sulivan suggests that the designs should be dictated by the requirements of this

built form and not bound by the architectural precedent. Essentially, Sulivan is arguing for that abandonment of the universal approach

to constructing the built environment into designing for functionality. While this concept of form follows function may be outdated in

the popular discourse of urbanism as a principal theory, it can be used to as a metaphor for creating social form.

61

Figure | 31 Groundbreaking of Sara D. Roosevelt Park in Chinatown. hesterstreet.org

62

Figure | 32 Collecting input during the Visioning Day., http://sdrpc.mkgarden.org/

Figure | 33 BRC Building used as community meeting place for Community Board meetings, etc.

63

Figure | 34 HSC presents the fourth annual Lunar New Year Lantern Installation at Sara D. Roosevelt Park in Chinatown.2011, hesterstreet.org

64

CONCLUSION‘If we want the intercultural city, we cannot leave it to chance.” (Wood and Laundry 2007,320) The United

States of America is a country at a tipping point. We can continue to ‘celebrate’ our cultural differences,

but we cannot continue to ignore deep cross-cultural dialogue and the production of true intercultural

understandings. As a society, we have both naturalized and social claims to the practice of interculturalism

within the public space, public realm and the public sphere. My recommendations for promoting the social

claim include interculturalism the three modes for promoting the right to difference within the public

realm: 1) the co-construction of identity: knowledge of self (determination); 2) the codesign of the public

realm: interdependency of differen ce strengths; and 3) the co-configuration and production of material

environments.

We cannot sustain ourselves by simply coexisting in cities of difference. Without adequate preparation,

the country is at risk of continuing the cycle of conflict and cultural distrust. We must evoke methods for

transforming our society that cohabitates. This transform requires us to be honest about our differences and

see them as strengths not hindrance to progress.

For the right to difference is not inherently given; it is produced and coproduced perpetually. America

cannot truly become an intercultural society without that constant negotiation of differences. As the great-

granddaughter of slavery, the granddaughter of legal segregation, the daughter of Jim Crow and the sister

of cultural fear-based discrimination and racial profiling; I refuse to promote naïve culture-blind policies and

design in my own practice.

This thesis marks the beginning of my journey towards advocating the right to difference, which is the right to

coproduce the inclusive and democratic urban space through the practice of everyday life.

65

BIBLIOGRAPHYAdams, Noah. “Emmett Till and the Impact of Images: Photos of Murdered Youth Spurred Civil Rights

Activism.” NPR.org. June 23, 2004. Emmett Till and the Impact of Images (accessed May 9, 2014).

Adler, Margot. “Before Rosa Parks, There Was Claudette Colvin.” NPR.org. March 15, 2009. http://www.npr.

org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101719889 (accessed May 9, 2014).

Agyeman, Julian. “Culture.” In Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice, 136-169. New York, NY:

Zed Books, 2013.

Amin, Ash. “Ethnic and the Multicultural City: living with diversity.” Department of Transport, Local

Government and the Regions and the ESRC Cities Initiative, 2002.

Banks, J.A., Banks, & McGee, C. A. . “Multicultural education.” Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1989.

Calamur, Krishnadev. “Judge To Zimmerman: ‘You Have No Further Business With The Court’.” NPR, July 14,

2013.

Chang, Ailsa. “Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots .” WNYC News. July 16, 2012.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/222809-wnyc-map-police-find-guns-where-they-stop-and-frisk-less/.

“Claudette Colvin: The First “Rosa Parks”.” CORE CONGRESS OF RACIAL CONGRESS. http://www.core-

online.org/History/colvin.htm (accessed MAY 9, 2014).

Coleman, Korva. “George Zimmerman Sues NBC, Says He’s A Victim Of ‘Yellow Journalism’.” NPR, December

7, 2012.

Collaborative, Hester Street. “People Make Parks: Community Visioning Tools at the Hester Street

Playground.” Vimeo. 2012. http://vimeo.com/29055105.

Davis, Angela. “Angela Davis on Audre Lorde.” Center for Black Literature in partnership with The Du Bois-

Bunche Center for Public Policy. Edited by Troy Johnson. Compiled by You Tube. Medgar Evers College,

March 22, 2014.

Department Of Cultural Affairs Advisory Board; Chicago Cultural Plan; Department Of Cultural Affairs ;

Chicago Office Of Fine Arts; Mayor’s Office Of Special Events; Mayor’s Office Of Film And Entertainment

Industries;Chicago Artspace Project. Chicago Cultural Plan. Chicago: City of Chicago, 1986.

Edwards, Bob, and Willy Leventhal. “The Modern Civil Rights Movement.” NPR.org. December 22, 1998.

66

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048457 (accessed May 9, 2014).

Floyd, M. Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. 1(2), Social Science Research Review, 1999,

1–24.

Fraser, Nancy. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy .

Duke University Press, 1990.

Frederick, Ann. “Hester Street Collaborative: Developing a Model for Community-Led Design.” In Concurrent

Urbanities: Designing Infrastructures of Inclusion., by Miodrag (Ed.) Mitrasinovic. Routledge (forthcoming),

2015.

Fuentes, Marc. Immigration March 2010, Do I look reasonably suspicious? . http://i42.photobucket.com/

albums/e306/mdf76/Immigration%20March%202010/F91.jpg.

GOBSTER, PAUL H. Managing Urban Parks for a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Clientele. Leisure Sciences,

USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station , Chicago,: Taylor & Francis, 2002, 143-159.

Harvey, David. “THE RIGHT TO THE CITY.” New Left Review 53, 2008: 23–40.

HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS. 347 U.S. 475 (1954) (United States Supreme Court , May 3, 1954).

Jhally, Sut, and Stuart Hall. “Stuart Hall: Politics’ Place in Cultural Studies.” YouTube. Media Education

Foundation Blog. August 30, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyuKRwd5Lqg (accessed May 9,

2014).

Jones, Jeffrey M. U.S. Blacks Less Satisfied With Way Blacks Are Treated. Gallup Politics, http://www.gallup.

com/poll/164129/blacks-less-satisfied-blacks-treated.aspx, 2013.

Jr., Henry Louis Gates. “How Many Slaves Landed in the US?” The Root, january 2014, 2014.

Lofland, Lyn. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory (Communication and Social

Order) . Aldine de Gruyter, 1998.

Lorde, Audre. Our Dead Behind Us: Poems. W.W. Norton; 1st edition, 1986.

McCarthy, Justin. Stark Racial Differences in Views on U.S. Status. Gallup Politics, http://www.gallup.com/

poll/167072/stark-racial-differences-views-status.aspx, 2014.

NPR.org. “Civil Rights Icon Rosa Parks Dies.” NPR.org. October 2005, 2005. http://www.npr.org/templates/

story/story.php?storyId=4973548 (accessed May 9, 2014).

67

Painter, Nell Irvin. The History of White People. W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition, 2011.

Plessy v. Ferguson . 163 U.S. 537, 539 (1896) (United States Supreme Court, May 8, 1896).

Procter, James. Stuart Hall. London: Routledge Critical Thinkers , 2004.

Rios, Michael. “Multiple Publics, Urban Design and the Right to The City : Assessing Participation in the Plaza

del Colibrí.” In (Re)constructing Communities Design Participation in the Face of Change, by Jeffrey. Hou,

122-127. http://www.ct.ceci-br.org, 2004.

Saad, Lydia. In U.S., 52% of Blacks Unhappy With Societal Treatment. Gallup Politics, http://www.gallup.com/

poll/163553/blacks-unhappy-societal-treatment.aspx, 2013.

Sandercock, Leonie. “When strangers become neighbors: managing cities of differences.” Journal of Planning

Theory and Practice , 2000: 13-20.

“skin color is not a reasonable suspicion.” http://feminonymous.tumblr.com/post/25873609363.

Song, Sarah. Multiculturalism. Vol. Spring 2014, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by

Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/multiculturalism/, 2014.

Sostaita., Barbara. “The Black Panther Party Revisited.” Students For Liberty: A Free Academy, A Free

Society . february 10, 2014. http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2014/02/10/the-black-panther-party-revisited/

(accessed May 15, 2014).

Sullivan, Louis H. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott’s Magazine, 1896.

Taylor, Paul. The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown. Kindle

Edition. Pew Research Center, 2014.

Treitler, Vilna Bashi. “African Americans and the Failed Ethnic Project.” In The Ethnic Project: Transforming

Racial Fiction into Ethnic Factions , 154-186. Stanford University Press, 2013.

“United States Census 2000.” Census.gov. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf (accessed April

19, 2014).

University of Washington Department of History . “Primary Documents: Browder v. Gayle (1956).” University of

Washington Department of History . http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/documents_us/browder_v_gayle.

htm.

Wise, Tim. “Youtube.” A Political Ideology (Tim Wise - White Privilege). 2007. https://www.youtube.com/

68

watch?v=YN8pmhQwcnY (accessed 2014).

WNYC. Map: NYPD Finds Most Guns Outside Stop-and-Frisk Hotspots. Map, WNYC NEWS, http://www.wnyc.

org/story/222809-wnyc-map-police-find-guns-where-they-stop-and-frisk-less/, 2012.

Woolley, Gerhard Peters and John T. “Barack Obama: Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National

Convention \.” The American Presidency Project. July 27, 2004. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/

ws/?pid=76988 (accessed March 2014).

X, Malcolm. A Declaration of Independence. March 12, 1964. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/

document/a-declaration-of-independence/ (accessed May 1, 2014).