What Makes Public Space Public? The Chaos of Public Space Definitions and a New Epistemological Approach

• Author: Yanling He,Xuefan Zhang
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719852897
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719852897

Administration & Society

2020, Vol. 52(5) 749 –770

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399719852897

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

What Makes Public

Space Public? The

Chaos of Public Space

Definitions and a

New Epistemological

Approach

Xuefan Zhang1 and Yanling He1

Abstract

While the concept of public space is frequently referenced, its

definition is ambiguous. Current studies have attempted to clarify the

definitions of public space. However, the supposed definitions of public

space are usually contradictory upon further inspection. This article

argues that epistemological assumptions are the main reason for these

logical problems. The entity view, the preference for a real definition,

and the concentration on “space in plan” should be changed. Inspired

by Wittgenstein’s epistemology, this article proposes a framework

for defining public space, which will help administrators flexibly and

consistently identify the public nature of diverse semipublic spaces.

Keywords

public space, logical consistency, spatial publicness, epistemology, dispositional

theory

1Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Corresponding Author:

Yanling He, Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, School of Government, Sun

Yat-sen University, Waihuan donglu 132#, Guangzhou 510006, China.

Email: 2006HYL@163.com

852897AASXXX10.1177/0095399719852897Administration & SocietyZhang and He

research-article2019

750 Administration & Society 52(5)

Introduction

Identifying the logic of being “public” has been a key concern of public

administration theories for a long time. As for the concept of “public space,”

scholars have elaborated on the ideas of “authentic public space” (Hummel,

2002; Stivers, 2002; Zukin, 2010), democratic issues (Goodsell, 2003;

Madden, 2010), and the norms within public space (Harvey, 1992). As

identifying a public space is a normative activity that shapes power and

rights, the meaning of public space is an important basis of administrative

legitimacy. The question of what makes public space public seems simple

to answer, but the answer is usually elusive upon further inspection. After

all, “spaces and places can have all, some, or just one of the features that we

generally label public and yet therefore still be considered ‘public space’”

(Parkinson, 2013, p. 300).

Especially, as the forms of public space today are diverse and far more

complex than the traditional park or square, the norms and legitimacy based

on public space might be fragile among contradictory identities. For example

in 2003, a man was arrested by the authorities in upstate New York, because

he was wearing a t-shirt that read “Give Peace a Chance” in a shopping mall

and the owner of the mall did not like that (Mulligan, 2003). In this case, any

further discussion about the legitimacy of the arrest relies on the identity of

the space: whether a mall is a private space where the owner has the right to

expel whomever he wishes or a public space that everyone, regardless of

whether they supported the Iraq War, can access. Similarly, when an Arizona

teacher posted her salary on Facebook to support the RedForEd movement,

was this not a privately owned site used as a public space to try to elicit public

concern (Castle, 2018)? However, if Facebook is a public space, does it mean

that a law enforcement agency or government can legally collect information

from people’s accounts as they do when monitoring what happens in a physi-

cal public space? These and similar subtle cases about semipublic spaces

usually become normative challenges to administrative practices. They rep-

resent the incapacity of the traditional public–private dichotomy to identify

“public space” today. A better understanding of what makes public space

public is necessary to push the boundaries of current studies.

Although numerous studies have contributed to the clarification of pub-

lic space, few studies realize a paradox: on one hand, people usually

assume that some fundamental or universal essences exist in almost all

public spaces. On the other hand, the concept of “public space” encom-

passes diverse spaces for different reasons. Owing to this paradox, the

current attempts to develop a unified concept (framework) of public space

more or less face logical problems.