Pedagogy of a Public Market - Part 3 (final)

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.