cfp – international conference on living with difference

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LIVING WITH DIFFERENCE
12-13 September 2012, Marriott Hotel, Leeds, UK

CONFERENCE THEME — how do we develop the capacity to live with difference?

We are witnessing an era of unprecedented population change. This is a product of the twin forces of the global economy and global conflicts which have accelerated patterns of international migration. Other forms of rapid population change are evident too. The historical shift from narrowly hierarchised forms of society to new modernities, in which individuals are assumed to be released from traditional constraints and to have more freedom to create their own individualized biographies, choosing between a range of lifestyles and social ties, has resulted in the more open public expression of a diverse range of social identities and ways of living (e.g. in terms of sexual orientation, disability, gender, religion and belief etc). In this context of super mobility and super-diversity, Stuart Hall (1993: 361) has claimed that ‘the capacity to live with difference is…the coming question of the 21st century’. It is an issue that is becoming even more pertinent given growing tensions arising from post 9/11 terrorism and subsequent Western military interventions and the current international financial crisis because historically there has been a hardening of attitudes towards ‘others’ and a rise in intolerance during times of crisis.

In this context one strand of interdisciplinary research has celebrated the potential for new hybrid cultures and ways of living together with difference to be forged. Yet, while an internalised globalisation of society has occurred at least in parts of many societies, not everyone has access to or sees themselves as part of this cosmopolitanism or will choose to participate in interactions with people different from themselves when such opportunities occur. Spatial proximity can generate positive intercultural encounters but it can also breed defensiveness and the bounding of identities and communities by generating or aggravating comparisons between different social groups in terms of perceived/actual access to resources.

We therefore invite papers from any discipline or geographical context that critically engage with this exciting topic to stimulate further debate about how societies can develop the capacity to live with difference, while also providing the chance to hear from leading thinkers on this topic.

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Ash Amin
Zygmunt Bauman
Davina Cooper
Patricia Ehrkamp
Anne-Marie Fortier
Sophie Watson

THEMES
The conference will be organised around four strands:
•         Theorising and Researching Difference
•         Encounters with Difference
•         Contesting Values in the Public Sphere
•         Managing Difference: Socio-legal Responses

Potential topics for submissions might include, but are not limited to: identification and belonging; attitudes towards any form of diversity (e.g. sexual orientation, disability, gender, race and ethnicity, religion and belief, age etc.); embodied  encounters with difference; theories of cosmopolitanism; competing group rights claims; intercultural competencies; patterns of prejudice (e.g. homophobia, Islamaphobia, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, disablism, ageism etc.); concepts of tolerance and intolerance; structural challenges to inclusion; strategies for managing difference.

SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS
The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 13 April 2012. Abstracts of up to 300 words should be emailed to geo-LIVEDIFFERENCE@leeds.ac.uk.  Abstracts should include a title, the presenter(s) institutional affiliation(s) and contact details and an indication of to which of the four conference themes the paper relates. Authors of accepted abstracts will be notified in the week commencing 23 April 2012.

ACCOMMODATION AND REGISTRATION
Leeds has a great range of accommodation to suit all tastes and pockets.  Delegates will have the opportunity to make on-line reservations at best rates, on a selection of hotels that are being reserved for use by LIVEDIFFERENCE conference delegates.   Details of the hotels and booking process will be available on the conference registration pages.  Registration will open on 23 April 2012. The conference registration fee is £60 per day, with a reduced rate of £30 per day for postgraduates.  Fees include all day catering and a wine reception on day one.  Evening dinner and accommodation are not included.

ABOUT THE VENUE
From shopping and dining, to contemporary arts and a vibrant nightlife, Leeds offers something for everyone. The compact city centre is easy to explore, and boasts interesting architecture like the Leeds Town Hall, and the Victoria Quarter.   Attractions include sport, theatre and an eclectic music scene, alongside Leeds Art Gallery (which includes the Henry Moore Institute) and Leeds City Museum. Leeds is also less than 20 miles from the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. For more information about Leeds see http://www.visitleeds.co.uk/, and the surrounding attractions in the Yorkshire countryside see http://www.yorkshire.com/

Organised by:
This conference is organised on behalf of the European Research Council funded project – Living with Difference led by Professor Gill Valentine, with colleagues Johan Andersson, Aneta Piekut, Joanna Sadgrove, Alison Suckall, and Nichola Wood.

If you require further information or have any queries please contact either: Gill Valentine – g.valentine@leeds.ac.uk; or Alison Suckall – a.j.suckall@leeds.ac.uk
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/livedifference/

some dangers of organizing through .edu email

So there’s been this big flap in Wisconsin over the fact that a university professor had the audacity to point out that the legislation to eliminate public unions wasn’t original to Wisconsin, and in fact is part of the strategic plan of many right wing “advocacy” groups. Republicans responded by filing a FOIA request to access all of historian Bill Cronon’s emails. A fellow blogger, Tenured Radical, posted a few FYI’s that I thought I should repost here about how your .edu email address, university computer, and university office are NOT YOURS and you have no expectation of privacy.

• Your university email account belongs to the university. While Bill Cronon is being persecuted by a bunch of right wing Republicans determined to reduce the American working class to pre-industrial conditions, technically your employer can enter your email account whenever it chooses.  This means that we should all be careful what we say when we write from, or to, an edu address.  In fact, it isn’t such a terrible idea to add your gmail or yahoo account to the signature line of your university account requesting that all personal communication be sent there.
• People (including students) who work in IT can get access to your university email through the web server whenever they want to.  They shouldn’t, and they probably don’t, but they are capable of it.  Don’t put anything in an email that you would not want circulated.  This includes personal matters (sex), conflict with colleagues, and correspondence about personnel cases that reveals any information that you, the department, the referees, or the candidate might consider private.
• The computer you are assigned by the university belongs to the university, and they can search it at any time.  They can also search your office without a warrant. According to FindLaw, unless you are covered by a state law or a union contract that prohibits such searches, “Employers can usually search an employee’s workspace, including their desk, office or lockers. The workspace technically belongs to the employer, and courts have found that employees do not have an expectation of privacy in these areas.  This is also the case for computers. Since the computers and networking equipment typically belong to the employer, the employer is generally entitled to monitor the use of the computer. This includes searching for files saved to the computer itself, as well as monitoring an employee’s actions while using the computer (eg, while surfing the internet).”  Does this mean that we should all be thinking about buying a home computer for all activities we wish to ensure privacy for — downloading pornography, getting divorced, blogging?  Maybe.  And technically, the university could prohibit you from blogging on the computer they provide, although arguably this would be an infringement of academic freedom.
• You can’t be sure you have erased something from a computer or a server. In fact, according to Daniel Engber of Slate, you can be pretty sure that you can’t erase anything permanently, even if you use a utility like Evidence Eliminator.  And even if you could, those emails that you sent are now on someone else’s computer, someone else’s server, and so on.  They are retrievable.
• The Republican Party is owned and operated by vicious thugs who abuse their power to make us all into corporate servants and lackeys for capitalist special interests. This has nothing to do with computers:  I thought I would just throw this in.  But we are reminded that there is a long  history for this sort of activity in the United States:  in the late 1830s, for example, the southern slaveocracy pushed for national legislation to censor abolitionist literature. When they didn’t get it, beginning with South Carolina, they passed state laws that allowed local officials to seize these materials and open the mail of private citizens.  The parallel is obvious, isn’t?  Freedom to have absolute power over labor > constitutional right to free speech.  It’s a good thing the Grimke sisters didn’t have an email account.

 

more Egypt links

On leaderless revolutions and the fall of Mubarak – Revolution by the Book

Egypt’s new day – Continental Drift

The revolution in Egypt: The end of the new pharaohs – The Translation Collective

Egypt erupts as Mubarak steps down – NYT

Uncharted ground after end of Egypt’s regime – NYT

A brittle leader, appearing strong – NYT

Photos from Egypt – NYT

Egypt’s military leaders face power sharing test – NYT

Birthplace of uprising welcomes its success – NYT

Obama presses Egypt’s military on democracy – NYT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kasich out to punish public sector unions in Ohio

Cross-posted from www.osugeso.wordpress.com

*****

An article in the Columbus Dispatch today painted a bleak picture for the future of public sector unions in Ohio. At the core of Kasich’s proposal is an assumption that public unions are obstinate in insisting that they be leveled “special privileges” due to their ability to disrupt everyday governance; due to this obstinacy, according to Kasich, public employees are making too much money, are exploiting taxpayers, and holding the towns and cities, and therefore the state, of Ohio hostage.

A professor at Rutgers University (NJ) was quoted:

“Jeffrey Keefe, associate professor of labor and employment relations at Rutgers University, recently completed a study of public-worker compensation in Ohio and found that hourly wages of state and local workers are 3.3 percent lower than those of comparable private-sector employees. // ’State and local government employees in Ohio are not overcompensated,” Keefe said. “If anything, they’re undercompensated, but basically what I see is that they’re equitably compensated’.”

What Kasich wants to do is eliminate the one primary tool public workers have in negotiating with their employers: their labor power. While most unions, and union members, don’t want to go on strike with any regularity – indeed, it is a tactic that is usually a last resort, following failed negotiations – the strike is integral to the very notion of unions. An employer has a set of powerful tools to exact what they want of an employee: the ability to hire and fire, the wage, the access to benefits, and others. Stripped of the ability to strike, public employees are left to rely upon the goodwill of their employer, which we know from history has never worked in favor of workers and their families.

The notion that an employer can punish a worker who goes on strike is clearly a violation of the spirit of the law, which allows for the formation of unions to protect workers’ interests and to use safe, non-violent tactics to protect their rights. The exceptions within the law – such as those states which outlaw certain types of public employees (police, fire, teachers usually) – from going on strike are meant to be exactly that, exceptions, not the rule. But Kasich has already demonstrated time and again that he has little real concern for the working people of Ohio, favoring his cronies on Wall Street. This effort to destroy public unions is first and foremost an attempt to erode the quality of life of most Ohioans, making his proposals for complete privatization seem like common sense. But privatization, the destruction of working class unions, and the elimination of taxes are not common sense solutions to objective problems; they are ideological choices made to favor the already wealthy and roll back years of gains for working people.

Fight Kasich, Defend Ohio.

 

ohio state graduate employees’ student organization blog

I’ve added a page to the OSU GESO website that redirects to a new GESO blog on wordpress. I figure it’s a good way to share our newsletter articles and lots of information, clippings, headlines, and stories from around the web that perhaps aren’t relevant enough to make it onto the main GESO website.

GESO website: www.osugeso.org

GESO blog: www.osugeso.wordpress.com

attack on public sector unions

Reposted from Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog.

*****

Richard Trumka is pleasingly direct about the actual class warfare going on:

November’s election has unleashed a coordinated effort to block the path to the middle class with an attack on workers’ rights.  When I say an attack on workers’ rights, I am not talking about demands for concessions in tough times by employers.  Wise or not, such demands are a normal part of collective bargaining.  I am talking about the campaigns in state after state, funded by shadowy committees created in the wake of Citizens United, aimed at depriving all workers—public and private sector—of the basic human right to form strong unions and bargain collectively to lift their lives.

This attack is fueled by the enthusiasm – and the financial support — of people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire publisher behind Fox News.  Both participate in a committee formed to raise business funds to attack public employees, based on the proposition that firefighters and nurses and medical orderlies are overpaid.

It’s a funny thing, when the firefighters arrived at the World Trade Center on September 11th and started that long climb up the stairs to rescue the bond traders trapped on the upper floors, it didn’t occur to any of them to call up and ask, “What’s it worth to you for us to come and get you?”  So how did we come to the point where our country’s ruling class thinks that firefighters…and teachers and nurses are the problem, and people like Lloyd Blankfein and Rupert Murdoch are the solution?

And in some state capitals we see not just an attack on the middle class, but an attack on economic rationality itself.  What else can explain governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin rejecting high-speed rail through their states?  Turning their backs on jobs, turning their backs on their own state’s future.  Betting on misery and anger, rather than hope and progress – and common sense.

George Orwell once said it was fashionable among the really rich to bemoan the materialism of workers.  I can’t fathom what spiritual values drive billionaire Pete Peterson to make more millions by doing a leveraged buyout of Hilton Hotels and then trying to take health care away from the people who clean the rooms for $12 an hour.  But I know from my own experience in the coal mines that when Hilton workers stand up for their health care it’s not about money—it’s about their families’ lives—the difference between lives dogged by fear and lives of dignity and security.

And I don’t know what deep moral force drives Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase to fund attacks on firefighters’ pensions, but I know why firefighters and construction workers have always needed early retirement—because you can’t run into burning buildings in your sixties carrying a hundred pounds on your back.  Too old to work and too young to die has real meaning when you don’t have a Goldman Sachs partnership to live off.

If it is really true that we cannot afford to make the investments we need to sustain a middle class society, then we will end up a winner-take-all society, a faded casino that pays a big jackpot now and then, but is headed inexorably downhill.

For the privileged few on the winning end of America’s explosion of inequality, inaction may be a tolerable state of affairs.  But working people, our members and the vast majority of people here in America and all around the world who cannot live off their investments, face an intolerable future unless we act—a future of protracted unemployment, stagnant wages, an insecure old age, rising energy prices and environmental deterioration—a kind of 21st century peonage to the lords of finance and energy and global supply chains.

These developments are, of course, directly relevant to recent efforts by university faculty to organize, for example, in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  (Thanks to Alan White for the last two links.)

*****

The only thing I would add is that both Trumka and Leiter leave out graduate employee unions, like GESO, who are trying to do the same thing.

More healthcare absurdity

Ryan Sager wrote an Op/Ed piece in today’s New York Times called “Keep Off the Astroturf.” He’s arguing that “the ‘public option’ part of President Obama’s health care reform plan” looks “dead in the water” and that the opposition many Democrats are now voicing to the “town hells” and the corporate-sponsored healthcare opposition is misplaced. He writes,

““We call it ‘Astroturf,’ ” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said of the protesters at town-hall meetings. “It’s not really a grass-roots movement.””

His basic argument, though, is that this kind of activism is “basic politics” and that labeling it fake activism (astroturf) is unfair because “With voters split fairly evenly down the middle on health care reform, it seems presumptuous to label your side ‘real’ and the other synthetic.”

His entire argument is spurious, because it does matter if your activism is corporate-sponsored but sold to the general public as grassroots.

First, I question his assertion that voters are about evenly split 50/50 about healthcare reform. Aside from a vocal minority of conservative activists and the idiots in congress (progressives included), it seems that most Americans want some kind of reform, they just disagree as to what it should look like and how much it should cost. So, pointing out that one side is being artificially driven into a frenzy is an important aspect to this policy “debate.”

Second, he presents the fact that there are certainly people who have to engage in the activism, and even if they are being organized by corporations it does nothing to dilute the fact that there are actual people showing up at town halls and turning them into “town hells.” Granted. But pointing out the absolute vacuity of their arguments, by unburying the money trail that shows that the corporate sponsorship is pushing lies, distortions, and acting in the interests of profits over people is not being unfair. These people certainly have a right to voice their opinion, but the public, policy makers, and the media are not obligated to treat their opinions as valid, because they aren’t. Debating the estimated costs and sources of funding for reform is valid. Debating whether we should have reform at all is valid. Debating the role of government in providing a human right to health is valid. However, “debating” the “fact” that the government wants to kill grandma using death panels of government bureaucrats is not. It just has no basis in reality, so it completely undermines Sager’s argument that they should be engaged just like any other political organizing.

Politics, in the context of liberal democracies, necessitates certain assumptions about truthful dialogue.

Of course, as I said in an earlier post on conservative activism, this entire situation is revealing the absolute absurdity of liberal democratic politics. The illusion that the management of interests is actually somehow always already political simply because it happens in the realm of government is just silly. We’re deluded into thinking we’re having a policy debate when what we’re really revealing is that the state-form itself limits our ability to engage in politics from the outset.

This “debate” isn’t about politics, it’s about profit.

Pedagogy of a Public Market – Part 3 (final)

This post will conclude the paper I wrote after the initial phase of my research at the Columbus North Market. My research is by no means done, in fact this paper really only serves to highlight a few areas where future research is necessary. I will continue my fieldwork this quarter and continue to report as I go.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

Neoliberal
Pedagogy in Public Space: “Safe Gathering” vs. “Dangerous Assembly”

The elision of gathering place and conspicuous
consumption is indicative of the new neoliberal paradigm.[1]
The injection of economic thinking into every aspect of life is one facet of neoliberalism,
one supported and inscribed through the shift of our public spaces into
commercial spaces. The historical development of the market shows that there
never really was a time when the two spheres were separate; however, the
redefinition of public space, combined with contemporary policing practices,
physical limitations of an indoor market, and the presence of mostly
prepared-food vendors marks a shift in the market’s relationship with the
citizens of Columbus.

According to Mark Cotè, Richard J.F. Day, and
Greig De Peuter, “The neoliberal project includes what is known as the
globalization of capital, as well as the intensification of societies of
control.”[2]
Problematic in such definitions (and they are common), however, is the
anthropomorphization of neoliberalism. Referring to a neoliberal project grants
agency to an ideology that is better described through the articulation of
numerous practices in mundane places, such as Columbus’ North Market. Observing
the market over a period of weeks in the winter of 2009 highlighted a number of
practices that seem to articulate with established thinking about
neoliberalism. I categorize the practices as drawing a distinction between
“safe gathering” and “dangerous assembly.”

I am defining “dangerous assembly” as any
gathering that disrupts commerce or tarnishes the appearance of the hyperreal.
This assembly is often intentionally disruptive (such as the Reclaim the
Streets movement[3]), directed
at capitalist enterprise (such as Reverend Billy’s Church of Stop Shopping[4]),
and can occur in large-scale or small-scale forms often without clear
leadership which makes it hard to eliminate.

At least since Seattle hosted the World Trade
Organization’s third Ministerial meeting in 1999, which exploded into violence,[5]
cities around the world have been extremely careful in regulating conduct in
public spaces. Coupled with the September 11^th terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, large-scale assembly has become
difficult to organize and execute without inciting preemptive state violence.
The Democratic and Republican National Conventions in both 2004 and 2008 are
further examples of a tightening of control in the wake of Seattle 1999. My
point here, though, is not to illustrate how the North Market is no longer a
place of dissent (by some accounts, it has been a place of political activism),
but rather the trickle-down effect from neoliberal policing practices has meant
that only a certain kind of dissent is
allowable, and “dangerous assembly” is not it.

Instead, “safe gathering” is encouraged, which
I am referring to as the regulated and parsed gathering of small, private
groups of people in public space that does not impede commerce or shine a
critical light on the hyperreal. These practices are acceptable to the
commercial enterprise of the market while still allowing for some (limited)
choice-making activities. By allowing for small groups of people to gather
around tables to talk about whatever they like, an appearance of freedom is
generated that makes “dangerous assembly” practices seem outside the norm. It
becomes an affront to common sense to see people disrupting commerce in any
way. These practices ensure that it appears that there is a balance of commerce
with public engagement, while in reality the clearly commercial enterprise is
never interrupted.

Conclusion

What all of this points to is the preliminary
finding that the North Market does indeed help educate for neoliberal
sensibilities, even while it contains the seeds for its own subversion. This
amounts to what Foucault referred to as heterotopic space. Foucault describes
heterotopic spaces as fitting a number of criteria.[6]
First, the market is a space that has changed over time, most notably from a
site of daily necessity to a space for conspicuous consumption. Second, the
market is a space in which multiple spaces exist. It is simultaneously a space
of commerce, social gathering, law enforcement/policing, marketing (for the
city), and perhaps even a kind of “theme park.” Third, the market is linked to
“slices in time.” It acts as a museum, indefinitely collecting time through
artifacts on display and the historical narrative constructed for public view.
It also acts as festival, through its special events (like Fiery Foods Festival)
in particular. Finally, the market operates in relation to remaining space, in
this instance, the city of Columbus. For this criteria, the market acts as a
“real” space of commerce in relation to the normally messy practice of everyday
life in America. So, while I have focused on the neoliberal pedagogy of the
North Market, there are other stories to be told. Most evident from this
project, then, is the need to continue this line of research. There are still
numerous questions that need to be answered, and observing the market in spring
and summer will give me a more complete picture and most likely change my
findings.

---

[1] As
articulated by Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the
College de France, 1978-1979 (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

[2] Mark Cotè,
Richard J.F. Day, and Greig De Peuter, ed., Utopian Pedagogy: Radical
Experiments Against Neoliberal Globalization
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007).

[3] Giorel
Curran, 21^st Century Dissent: Anarchism, Anti-Globalization and
Environmentalism (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2006). Reclaim the Streets organizes, among other things, seemingly
spontaneous “parties” in the middle of traffic intersections or on major
highways to disrupt traffic and draw attention to the way public space is used.

[4] http://www.revbilly.com/. Reverend Billy is
famous for coordinating direct situationist actions such as performing an
exorcism on the flagship Macy’s store in New York City during the Christmas
shopping season.

[5] It is unclear
as to what the “first” act of violence was and who committed it, but what is
clear is that the peaceful civil disobedience of the majority of the protestors
was met with an excessive (impressive?) display of state violence justified by
the destruction of property by some Black Block Anarchists.

[6] Foucault,
“Of Other Spaces.”

Read and post comments |
Send to a friend

Pedagogy of a Public Market – Part 2

Pedagogy
of the Market

Linking Past
to Present: “Presenting” the History of the North Market

One of my first observations is the series of
framed signs along the east wall that provide a historical account of the
market’s existence. Beginning in the 1800s, each sign accounts for a period of
time highlighting the role of the North Market in Columbus’ development from
frontier town to Midwestern metropolis. Toward the latter end of the historical
narrative is a discussion of the declining role of the market and its
subsequent revitalization. Integral to this historical revival is the North
Market Development Authority, which leases the market property from the city
and, in turn, leases space to the numerous vendors.

Whereas the market had once been fully public
space, it has, like many other spaces, become privatized in order to maintain
viability.[1]
Generally, it seems as if this privatization has been a good thing – the market
still exists. However, the historical account provided by the market tells the
story of inevitable and beneficent privatization. No conflict is highlighted in
the account; it is presented as a common sense solution to a market that was
once struggling within a changing urban environment. Indeed, the signs appear to
be intended to tie the current iteration of the market to an idealized past
where the market served as a major focal point for public gathering in
Columbus. This “presenting” of the past aids in marketing efforts.

Providing a historical narrative that locates
the contemporary market within a tradition that is highly populist and deeply
nostalgic (two things Americans seemingly cannot live without) helps realize
the North Market as hyperreal space.[2]
Eco points to Disney Land as the ultimate hyperreal space. Where “real” pirates
rub up against “real” American Main Street, Disney is completely imaginary,
while being thoroughly real. He notes, “The American imagination demands the
real thing, and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake.”[3]
It is in these hyperreal spaces where the copy becomes more real than the
original itself. Tying the contemporary market to the markets of the past is an
attempt to provide an air of authenticity, which attracts American consumers.
However, this process also marks out the market as a kind of exceptional space:
one that is rare, valuable for the public good, and historic in such a way as
to obligate citizen consumers to utilize the space in particular ways.

Educating
About Cheese: Buying and Selling at the Market

I am wandering the market without any
particular agenda today. I am still trying to get a sense of how people move
through the space, interact with one another and the merchants. I skirt around
a knot of people talking animatedly to one another near the foot of the
stairway that leads to the balcony seating area. After ducking under an arm
thrown outwards to emphasize some point, – “I’m so sorry, I didn’t see you!” Don’t
worry about it, I survived, I reply with a
laugh – I find myself in front of a counter filled with cheeses. The deli case
I almost ran headfirst into is stickered with numerous signs with typed
descriptions of certain cheeses. The signs note the name of the cheese, provide
the country and region of origin, and describe the taste, texture, and smell.
Often there is a suggestion for what wine or other foods should be served with
the cheese. Intrigued, I approach the counter.

After looking into the case for a few moments a
woman in an apron approaches me from behind the counter. Her nametag reads “Sue.”[4]
She appears to be in her late 50s or early 60s. She is wearing hornrimmed
glasses, her hair reaches her chin and is salt and pepper colored, mostly salt.
She smiles.

“How
can I help you?” Hi, I’m looking to try something new. I like parmesan,
pecorino, and softer cheeses but I don’t remember their names. I don’t really
like bleu cheese or brie. What do you recommend, maybe a goat or sheep cheese?

Sue’s face
brightens, her tone of voice carries enthusiasm. It is clear that she enjoys
talking about her product. She asks a few more questions.

“Do
you like soft cheeses?” Yes.

She reaches into
the case.

“This
is our most popular cheese. It’s a French cheese, made from cow’s milk called
St. Nectaire. Would you like to try it?” I’d love to.

She cuts a thin
slice from it with an enormous knife (I was amazed at her ability to wield it
at all, let alone so deftly), places the cheese onto a piece of wax paper, and
hands it to me. I sniff at the thin slice, then ask,

Do
I eat the rind? “If you like. You don’t
have to.”

I pop the cheese
into my mouth. It is delicious. I ask for a small wedge to take home.  Like a good salesperson Sue asks me if
I would like to try another.

“I
have another cheese in mind for you. You said you like pecorino, was that
Tuscano or Romano?? Pecorino Toscano.  I ate it often when I lived in Florence. “Oh good, you’ll love this, it’s the Romano.

She cuts another
slice with the comically large knife. I order another wedge to take home with
me.

After the buying and selling is over, I inquire
about the signs in the deli case window. Sue informs me that they are a benefit
to the business. Even though every cheese is not described in the window signs,
they are enough to both attract attention (most people will read at least one
or two signs, even if they do not buy anything) and entice people to buy. Sue
shares that 30 to 50 per cent of customers are returning customers, depending
on the season. So, anywhere from 50 to 70 per cent are new customers, and many
of those people, she notes, are drawn in by the signs. When pressed further she
comments on the notion that she, along with many of the vendors at the market,
try to educate their customers about their product. This creates an ethos of
connoisseurship at the market, with a gastronomically educated clientele with
whom the vendors can engage. I suspect this serves at least two purposes.
First, many of the vendors are enthusiasts and like most enthusiasts love to
share their interests with others. Second, it appears that an ethos of
gastronomic connoisseurship facilitates the seeking out of more esoteric
foodstuffs, which seem to be fairly profitable for the vendors.

Unique challenges face the produce vendors,
including Curds and Whey. As the historical account of the North Market shows,
the market experienced a decline in consumer relevance and economic viability
from the end of World War II through the 1970s. In order to counter this
decline, the North Market Development Authority was created. Part of the
group’s success has been tying the market’s operation to the surrounding Arena
and Convention Center district, which meant that a number of the leased spaces
went to prepared-food vendors. Currently, less than half of the stalls are
dedicated to the buying and selling of produce, bulk goods, and other raw
materials, which have historically been the hallmarks of public markets. This
environment makes the “presenting” practices that seem to attract American
consumers all the more important, but it also means the produce vendors have to
work harder and harder to attract, educate, and retain consumers.

Learning
Space: Private Consumption Versus Public Gathering

There are groups of people of varying numbers
sitting at tables around the entire area. A student working with a laptop sits
alone at one table. A group of four men sit at another talking loudly about the
upcoming NFL Superbowl. A group of three middle-aged (around 45-50 by my
estimation) women sit talking and laughing at yet another table. It is a useful
space for eating the numerous food offerings from the first level. As a social
space, however, it is a differentiating space. The physical limitations of the
relatively narrow distance between wall and railing offer limited opportunity
to congregate in large groups. Instead, the space is far friendlier to small
groups, up to about 15 to 20 people if several tables are pushed together.
Beyond that, however, it seems like it would become difficult to hold any sort
of conversation as many in the group would not be able to see or hear others at
the far end of the table.

According to a pamphlet I picked up on my
initial tour of the market, the market has always been a site of gathering.

In 1876, the
market was the only place for people to find all of life’s necessities. Things
haven’t changed much. Throughout its history, the North Market has served most
importantly as a meeting place. Although today’s North Market may look
different from the original Market [sic]
built in 1876, the purpose of the Market remains the same. It’s a place where
people gather together, to shop, eat, mingle, and enjoy themselves.

 

It is clear that
the North Market remains a place where people shop, eat, mingle, and possibly
enjoy themselves. It is less clear, however, that the market retains its
identity as a gathering space in any more meaningful sense. At a micro level,
it is certain that people gather in the market. In my limited observations, I
was able to identify numerous groups of people conducting business, talking,
eating, and consuming. The longer I stayed, though, the more I realized that it
would be difficult to gather on a larger scale.

The physical limitation of the upper floor and
the obviously commercial use of space on the first level would hinder any large
gathering, demonstration or protest, or other coordinated action. In a sense,
the space is designed to keep private the gatherings in this ostensibly public
space. Unarmed security guards and armed police officers patrolled the ground
floor, asking people to keep at least a minimum amount of space open to keep
foot traffic moving. However, at the stalls attracting a larger crowd, the
requests were dropped, as the line was too long to move anywhere else. On the
upper levels, the space facilitated long, narrow groupings, which can easily
dictate the effectiveness of a speaker attempting to address a crowd. These
practices and limitations diffuse gatherings on a large scale.

The main purpose of the North Market is clearly
commercial. With this in mind, it becomes transparent that the market’s
function as a meeting place is elided with the practice of conspicuous
consumption. The produce, meat, and seafood vendors are local, organic,
earth-friendly businesses. The majority of the vendors are local and regional
franchises, with a majority being stand-alone, independent businesses. So,
while the market serves to attract a fairly liberal, eco-friendly,
activist-oriented crowd, a crowd perhaps more likely to value such a
community-oriented space, the value of the North Market as a meeting place is
undermined.

---

[1] Margaret
Kohn, Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space (New York: Routledge, 2004).

[2] Umberto Eco,
Travels in Hyperreality (Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace & Co., 1986).

[3] Ibid., 8.

[4] Even though
I am not disguising the name of the market or the particular vendor I am using
pseudonyms. I do not feel comfortable using real names because I did not secure
permission to do so.

Read and post comments |
Send to a friend

Pedagogy of a Public Market

I've been working this past quarter on a project studying the North Market in Columbus, OH. For the next few posts, I will excerpt from the paper I wrote for a class. I'd love feedback, as this is an ongoing project.

The following is my introduction and initial scene-setting. Following soon will be my discussion of the pedagogies of the market.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

“The space in which we live,
which draws us out of ourselves, in which the erosion of our lives, our time
and our history occurs, the space that claws and gnaws at us, is also, in
itself, a heterogeneous space. In other words, we do not live in a kind of
void, inside of which we could place individuals and things. We do not live
inside a void that could be colored with diverse shades of light, we live
inside a set of relations that delineates sites which are irreducible to one
another and absolutely not superimposable on one another.” – Michel Foucault[1]

 

Entering the Field

I
shut my car door, breathe in the winter air, cool and crisp, and look around
me. As I stand in the pay-per-hour parking lot, I take account of my
surroundings. The first things I notice are the numerous cars in the lot. It
appears that it will be crowded inside. I begin making my way toward the front
doors; the canopied entrance is lined with empty picnic tables, clearly
intended for warmer weather. The building has a façade that mixes weathered red
brick with newer materials, giving the impression that an old building (the red
brick) has been renovated for more contemporary use (the glass doors and
external staircase). An enormous sign announces the purpose of the building; it
reads “North Market” in large letters, with the O containing a rooster’s head
surrounded by a radiant sun. I enter the front door and am immediately met with
the hustle and bustle of commerce. I am bumped from behind and realize that I
am standing in the doorway – Oh, I’m sorry, I should get out of the way, I say to the man who had run into me. “Not a
problem, I didn’t see you.”

I
move to the side and wonder what I should do first. I have no known connection
to any of the shoppers, workers, or employees of the North Market Business
Authority (the market management council). I decide to walk the floor and get a
feel for the layout, at the same time exploring the shops and getting a sense
of how people move through the market.

At
first, it is easy to see that this is a converted warehouse, as the stalls have
a haphazard, semi-permanent feel to them.[2]
There are few dividing walls; different proprietors separate from one another
by using deli cases, jar-laden bookcases, or produce containers. The North
Market is clearly not a purpose-built environment with permanent partitions.
However, the benefit is that the space can be broken up as necessary making it
easier to bring in businesses of different sizes and means, as the space can be
tailored to meet specific needs. The meat- and fish-mongers at the north end of
the market take up a greater, more specialized space than do the bakery and
popcorn stalls at the south end; the coffee shops and hot dog stands have
specialized equipment, the bbq and hot sauce vendor is simply an open space
lined with shelves with a cash register on a table. One vendor’s space is no
more than six feet wide by ten feet deep or so, and has the feeling of an
over-stuffed closet at grandma’s house. Everything from Bert’s Bees lip-gloss
to Ohio State University shot glasses line the shelves.

As
I complete my circuit, I determine that the ground floor consists of numerous
vendors arranged around a rectangle. The two main thoroughfares run
north-south, intersected by perpendicular east-west alleys. Almost every inch
of walkway space is lined with display cases, serving counters, cash registers,
or lunch counter-style seating. After finding the restrooms, I realize there is
a staircase leading up to a second level. Not knowing what to expect, or even
if I was entering an open area of the market, I head up. Upstairs is a large
open space; tables and chairs line the walls and the inner railing that overlooks
the ground floor shops. At the north end are the North Market business offices.
At the south end is an enclosed seating space that is, according to a sign,
available to rent for private gatherings but is currently empty. I sit down at
a table to observe for a while.

---

[1] Michel
Foucault, “Of Other Spaces,” http://www.foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html,
1967 (accessed March 12, 2009).

[2] My
observation was later confirmed when visiting the North Market website, http://www.northmarket.com/about-us.
The building currently housing the market was formerly the Advanced Thresher
warehouse, purchased by the city in 1992, leased to the North Market
Development Authority, and opened to the public in 1995.

Read and post comments |
Send to a friend