Space is A Social and Political Product

Space is a social and political product and therefore contains political interests (Lefebvre 1991). As a political product, space is the result of strategy that contradicts representation, appreciation, and practices following the socio-cultural model the special interests of groups, and certain social classes’ position. This happens because the capitalist mode of production produces a specific space; the revolutionary strategy must create another mode of generating space, which, according to Lefebvre, can be done by collectively regaining control of the city (Lefebvre 1991) and by taking back and liberating everyday life, which is highly impossible except the non-capitalist mode of production. Not only function as physical infrastructure, but pedestrian space in urban areas also reflects the city’s existence and stakeholders’ conflicts. The situation shows the domination over space that is associated with the social relations of capitalist production. The diverse use of public spaces is an indicator of  the balance between the value of utilization and space exchange value. White (2001) concluded that  the greater the number of prominent features in a public space, the more people are attracted to come and use such space; the public space that attracts the most people is the space that can be used as a gathering place accessible for visitors. White also describes cities as inherently messy places, but human interaction and commerce activities take place on the streets, including in the pedestrian areas. The activity creates an attractive environment for the road user.The pedestrian zone as a public space has a competitive nature for its users: as a space for interaction, public domain, political space, livable space, and as a space for commerce (Zavetovski 2015; Madanipour et al. 2014). Research conducted by Nagati and Stryker (2016) revealed that pedestrian zones are a place for the informal sector economic activities of street vendors in Cairo. 
Courtesy of Freepick.com 



The existence of street vendors’ existence of spatial practices has led to competition among stakeholders in the pedestria zone. Bandyopadhyay (2017) found that pedestrian space describes the real collective life in an urban. In the History of the Right to the City, in Henri Lefebvre’s (1967) version, all citizens without exception are rightful to obtain their rights in gaining quality and benefits of city life. Lefebvre emphasizes the nature of social to spatial relations and avoids ideological claims. Meanwhile, for David Harvey, city’s right is about the working class’s strength, people of color, immigrants, youth, and all those who are committed to creating a democratic society. This refers to a condition where all city residents have capacity and power to make decisions that affect and benefit their lives. Meanwhile, the practice of controlling street vendors on pedestrian zones is also acknowledged as part of social drama (as concluded by Soja, who conducted a dialectic analysis of the spatial concept of Foucault and Lefevbre. During control from security officials, field observation reveals that officers who carried out the control only act as a formality. The street vendors-free pedestrian zone is an attempt to propose a socio-political innovation by the Government of Surabaya in developing pedestrian space. It was said that, after the Satpol PP (civil service police unit/municipal police) moved to order another pedestrian space, the street vendors returned to occupy the pedestrian zone.

Komentar

Postingan populer dari blog ini

Carok Research 2021

Collective Violence/Social Movement of Student?

The significance of studying Political Science: Teaching Activities 2022