Graduate School of Social Science MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance
From Boundaries to Belonging:
Arts’ Ability to Shift the Human Approach
Research Project: Art as a Tool for Conflict Transformation Author: Emma Brazil
June 2017 Amsterdam Student ID: 11233877 Supervisor: dhr. dr. David Laws Second Reader: dhr. dr. Martijn Dekker
“How can we stroppy strangers live together without doing each other too much violence?”1
“We’ve pretty much come to the end of a time when you can have a space that is ‘yours only’ – just for people you want to be there…
We’ve finished with that kind of isolating. There is no hiding place.
There is nowhere you can go and only be with people who are like you. It’s over.
Give it up.”2
1 Donald, 1999: 147 In: Sandercock, 2003: 85 2 Reagon, 1981: 357 In: Sandercock, 2003: 127
“When my daughter was about seven years old, she asked me one day what I did at work. I told her I worked at the college – that my job was to teach people how to draw.
She stared back at me, incredulous, and said, ‘You mean, they forget?’”3
Abstract
Through exploring the relationship between public domain, identity and art, this thesis focuses on how the use of creative mediums employed by four inter-cultural initiatives in Amsterdam, have an impact on integration and belonging. My interest in this subject matter stems from the rising tensions between newcomers and locals as multiculturalism and diversity grows in
European cities, motivating local and community actors in building innovate solutions to address these challenges. By asking the question: “How does the setting of, and events within, the public domain bridge distinct social worlds?” this thesis demonstrates the important impact which the concepts public domain, identity and, art have - when related to these initiatives - in shifting an individual’s act of agency. Reflecting on these concepts in light of the four initiatives, individual understanding of identities are revealed whereby such individuals recognize their ability to shift from passive to active during the process of integration. The four initiatives use of domains and creative mediums, thus contribute to participants’ process of identity development, and,
consequently, a deeper sense of belonging in Amsterdam. These findings are needed to help incorporate new ways of spatiality and communication in shared spaces of multicultural cities so that all individuals who participate feel a deeper sense of belonging which helps trigger their active willingness – and acceptance – of integration.
Preface
The depth of this thesis would not exist without the voices, trust and reflection I encountered from the participants involved in my research. The conversations I had with inspiring and artistic souls taught me the deeper meaning behind both theory and reality of public domain and identity. During my fieldwork, the power of the arts was revealed through the window of internal and external feelings that were expressed by my study participants. I came to discover how artistic expression exists within all human beings. The artistic soul is the essence of each of us. It provides room for deeper thought, reflection and active efforts in the encounters we share with others in our contextual surroundings. The brave, passionate and open-minded creators and participants involved in this study provided a platform for reflection within myself to further understand the complex layers that exists within the human condition. Through this, I discovered the relationship that exists between public domain, identity and art. This has furthered my
passionate interest in the power of the individual voice and its impact on public agency.
I must also thank the outstanding support I received from my supervisor, dr. David Laws. David challenged my approach to my research, questioned my thinking, and shared with me valuable insight which sharpened my confidence as a researcher, as well as my capabilities as an
academic writer. I would also like to thank my family, colleagues and friends who supported my commitment, perseverance, and confidence to complete the final product of this - my research Masters thesis.
Table of Contents
1. Chapter One: Introduction….………6
1.1) Conclusion: Research Study Approach………..12
2. Chapter Two: Theoretical Foundation……….14
2.1) Setting of: Place, Space and the Public Domain………15
2.2) Conclusion: Public Domain………19
2.3) Identity………20
2.4) Conclusion: Knowledge Gained……….25
2.5) The Strength of Art……….27
2.6) Artistic Conclusion and Research Approach………..30
3. Chapter Three: Research Design……….32
3.1) Research Components………32
3.2) Conclusion and Replicability………..42
3.3) Addressing the Research Question……….43
4. Chapter Four: Findings ………..45
4.1) Results 1: Issue: Exclusion and Polarization………..45
4.2) Summary of Issue………...51
4.3) Solution: Inclusion………..52
4.4) Results 2: Discovering the Public Domain……….54
4.5) Conclusion: Social Intervention to Target Social Transformation……….67
4.6) Results 3: Identity Development………68
4.7) Conclusion………..78
5. Chapter Five: Conclusion and Discussion………..80
5.1) Summary of Findings: Impact of Creative Mediums Within Public Domains……..80
5.2) Reflection on Findings and Integrating………..83
5.3) Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research………..85
6. References………..………87
Chapter One: Introduction
“ ‘Sonono’ is the Swallow bird. They have the same story like we do. The European Swallow, they migrate from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya and then they go to Europe in Spring. Looking for it, they struggle on their way, some of them die, and some of them starve” (Samer, 2017).
These words paint the image of the beautiful yet harrowing journey animal and human endeavor in the search for refuge and shelter. Crossing land and sailing over seas, those who endure the flight of migration are faced with challenging encounters throughout their journey. The warm, welcoming smile I meet from he who shares his personal voice with me, becomes increasingly treasured as I listen to the voyage of both challenge and opportunity he endeavored to construct his own bridge of migration in his search for safer cities. As we sit in a quaint and tranquil café in the heart of Amsterdam, it is in hearing Samer’s story that I begin to understand the
universality of the human experience in the struggle to develop a sense of being, belonging and identity.
As many regions face war and destruction, their inhabitants endure starvation, violence and poverty. For others, the voyage of migration is not the result of their home environment’s deprivation, but rather, their search for richer experiences, affinities and encounters. Leading into the unfamiliar, for some, borders are approached with uncertainty. For others, however, they are seen as a gateway to opportunity and a chance to rebuild a life they have lost, or one never quite found. It is here, in this moment when newcomer arrives to an unfamiliar place, that the self is faced with others that prompt a re-examination, and reflection of both their internal and external identity. Carrying themselves through further unfamiliar settings, encounters of diversity, difference and similarities with persons and places and objects and subjects, permits an individual to seize, or reject, future possibilities of opportunity.
As worlds change, both newcomers as well as their hosts, experience seismic shifts in their own culture, values and sense of identity, often becoming fixed and hard-wired. With the rise of multiculturalism, a widespread moral panic concerning immigrants and ethnic diversity in European countries has intensified (Vasta, 2007). In the Netherlands, the rise of populist
threat to Dutch security (ibid). As a result, common trends of community division, polarization and segregation, have seriously challenged efforts to implement effective policy for integration. More than ever before, diversity and difference - once perceived as success indicators of
globalization - are being seen as an objectionable mixture of too many colors on a single palate. Smeared across the canvas, increasing negative attitudes towards multiculturalism has begun to resurface the ‘us versus them’ debate and the concept of Othering. In turn, the prospects for societal-harmony are hindered as an individual’s sense of belonging is expelled, triggering a re-examination of his/her own identity. This demonstrates how the relationship between
multiculturalism and conflict resolution is at its most critical need of attention for increasingly diverse and unequal societies (Lebaron, McCandless, Garon, 1998).
With right-wing populism sweeping across the Western world, trends in animosity towards the European Union, Muslim immigrants and refugees as existential threats to national identities, continue to rise (Buruma, 2017). Such sweeping negative-attitudes represent growing concern of polarization and division in society and politics among the Dutch peoples (Schmeets and Coumans, 2013). As these notions of division intensify, high on the political and social agenda are concerns of how to best address community relations and social cohesion. In the year 2007, Vasta (2007) described the Netherlands as a poignant example depicting the challenges of addressing social cohesion amid increasing community division. From its turn in immigration policy, fuelled by public outcry as a result of the global influx of immigrants and, increase in right-wing populism, there emerged a widespread feeling that social cohesion in Dutch society was eroding (Schmeets and Coumans, 2013). This was echoed in regional attitudes and policies that moved from a relatively liberal approach to one more narrow and restrictive towards immigrant newcomers (Vasta, 2007).
Addressing matters of immigration, migration and diversity in the Netherlands has been a focus for religious, social and political thinkers since the early 1800’s. Halleh Ghorashi (2010), explains how sweeping attitudes of polarization within Dutch society today, is haunted by the political past of the ‘pillarization’ system initiated in the early 1800’s by religious leadership. Maussen (2013) describes the system of pillars as a ‘societal configuration’, resulting from specific historical and political processes in the Dutch system put in place to control and tolerate
migrant cultural groups of diverse religions living in the Netherlands. Various explanations of pillarization have developed historically, politically, and sociologically, however, it is commonly understood that the system was designed in order to differentiate religious practices and class-rankings (Maussen, 2013; Ghorashi, 2010).4 Thus, ironically, efforts to address social cohesion
in the Netherlands emerged by having a parallel and separate system implemented to tolerate religious diversity. This construction of pillars – ‘ own worlds’ - along lines of religious denomination and political ideology was long the dominant framework for thinking about difference (Ghorashi, 2009). Thus, through categorically emphasizing subcultural differences, Dutch society can be seen as institutionalizing a tightly knit web of institutions and organizations covering a broad range of societal domains, in order to approach harmonious, social cohesion (Maussen, 2013).
Since the 1980’s, twenty years after ‘depillarization’ unfolded in the Netherlands, European states began to develop more comprehensive strategies and enforcing institutions to effectively control immigration, diversity and conflict resolution (Kos, Maussen and Doomernik, 2015). This was in regards to both those entering the country and those people permanently staying [legally or illegally] (ibid). As populist politicians began to claim that immigrants refused to integrate and that governments had lost control in implementing policies to tackle
immigration, Dutch politics and municipal governments began shifting their approach in both refugee and immigration control policies (Vasta, 2007; Kos, et al, 2015). An example of
comprehensive strategies Dutch municipalities and government policies implemented to address the challenges of exclusion and cohesion was the introduction of compulsory programs for immigrant newcomers (Vasta, 2007). These were an attempt to ensure integration into Dutch society and culture to a much greater degree than in the past (ibid). For example, in September 2005, a Bill for a new Integration Act was introduced which included the main provision of a proposed law for measures to define and enforce immigrant obligation and responsibility, as well as the provision of compulsory programs and sanctions (ibid: 718).
Maja Korac (2003) explains how measures of integration on access to retraining, education, enhancement of employment opportunities, health and other social services and
support systems in the Netherlands demonstrate the ‘top-down’ approach to the concept of ‘integration’ and therefore, focus on structural and organizational aspects of the integration ‘system’ (54). To explain the Dutch efforts to address social cohesion requires a long history outside the scope of this thesis. However, essentially, Koracs’ and many others argue that Dutch policy should recognize the complexity of integration and acknowledge immigrants, refugees and migrants as social actors, rather than turning them into policy objects in order to facilitate integration (ibid: 54). Some progress has been seen in the Dutch government approach recently. However, despite efforts Dutch political policies to address inclusion, cohesion, and integration, they continue to neglect addressing many other [pressing] internal challenges newcomers struggle with to integrate, following the many complicated bureaucratic requirements and procedures.
Alternate Approach
Being referred to as ‘threatening facilitators of community tensions’, confusions migrants feel on their uncertain welcome to their new Dutch community contributes to them distancing
themselves and resorting to ‘backward’ elements of their own culture (Ghorashi, 2014). This results in questions for migrant newcomers surrounding: who they are to others and, where they stand in one group or another as they begin to re-evaluate the heart of their own identity (Migdal, 2005). Since bureaucratic and policy sanctions in the Netherlands tend to both informally and formally neglect internal struggles newcomers encounter, they in turn, overlook the feelings and sense of belonging and identity-transformation that coincides with entering a new and unfamiliar social setting. Thus, rather than addressing the topic of cohesion and integration in bureaucratic, conceptual and theoretical policies and sanctions, one must begin to focus on the resettlement challenges at both a practical level and approach (Korac, 2003: 54).
Opportunely, this informal [or formal] area of policy exclusion from municipalities is being increasingly cushioned via informal practices and informalities (Kos, et al, 2015). More than ever, individual municipal authorities, street-level bureaucrats and public professionals are becoming active in attempting to counter and cushion national policies (ibid). Seeing the issue of social cohesion becoming problematic, these community and local actors dealing with the
communities. By bending the rules, setting up facilities to support newcomers, and by being actively involved in networks, these actors strive for a more humane and inclusive approach to individuals of difference and their future encounters (Kos, et al, 2015). Rijbroek and Visser’s story on the after-events of the Theo Van Gogh murder that took place in Amsterdam in 2004, provides an illuminate example of how change through development of policy, practice and social cohesion can occur as practitioners take themselves out from behind their desks, and into the streets (Forester and Laws, 2015: 222). Following the act of a Dutch-Muslim murdering famous Dutch painter, Theo Van Gogh, the rise of radicalization and shift towards a common-negative perception towards immigrants heightened throughout Amsterdam (ibid). After city officials began to recognize that their efforts were failing in addressing the issue, Rijbroek and Visser pushed themselves to the streets to search for societal-stability. Through their personally approached experience by examining the tensions more deeply, they discovered what was occurring in more intimate settings of public spaces between peoples throughout the city streets (ibid). It was here that they were then able to discover where the problem was, and thus also where the solution could be found (ibid: 222). What this case reveals is how through translating across perspectives – between city hall and the streets – Rijbroek and Visser were able to find the emerging links and gaps between policy and practice work, whilst also addressing the pressing community division and radicalization between dividing community links (ibid).
This example elucidates to how aims community-actors make - with [some] government support- can help ease cohesion between ethnic diversities in the Netherlands. Further, as community actors increasingly address these links in personally-active measures, such shifts in approaches have been recognized as the cause in leading the question of: how we can shift our management of co-existence in shared spaces of multicultural cities through innovative practices (Sandercock, 2003). Through their own efforts in creating initiatives and community practices, projects and programs addressing tensions of multiculturalism, difference and further challenges of integration, are seen as informal solutions demonstrating how local experts and professionals, who are neighbours, can enable practical and democratic deliberations to solve pressing
Utility of Art
Authors and scholars, Jean Paul Lederach (2005), Phillips (2005), Sandercock (2007), Kent, (2013), Ranciere (2005), theorize that, by addressing this dilemma of difference through active participation and engagement in creative measures, cultural and social spatial manifestations between diverse groups of people can be brought closer together contributing to new and shared ways of thinking. These theorists, scholars and researchers contribute to building a poignant picture of the types of impacts creative social and cultural policies and practices have on
community transformation. By introducing new ways of releasing and nurturing the imagination, artistic practices, utilized in a space where interactions, exchanges, and self-reflection occurs, can contribute to the transcending of conflict between groups and communities of diversity and division (Kent, 2013).
As academics and professionals working in conflict transformation have long theorized, the creative-artistic expression that might be used to understand development and conflict resolution is becoming an impactful way to address and inform urban planning and policy towards societal-cohesion (Grodach, 201). While the search for improved social cohesion from policy makers continues, community and grassroots initiatives, actively contributing from the bottom-up, are utilizing skills in entrepreneurship, communication, urban planning and creativity as a way to facilitate unity, inclusiveness and cohesion for diverse cities of the 21st century. In turn, scholarship increasingly demonstrates that working with artists [and as artists] can function as a way of bringing people and groups into the urban conversation, as well as introducing new forms of expression and new ways of thinking into the planning processes that are pivotal in city, and in community building (Sandercock, 2003). Through utilizing practical activities, initiatives and their directors are increasingly demonstrating how the use of creative mediums within their program initiatives can help aid tensions and avoid conflict between diverse communities.
And so, we begin to see the promise of democratic discourse, not as a static goal, but as a creative process, local democracy and as an enacted political system of learning and invention (Forester and Laws, 2015: 19). This has started to show how - as scholars of political science and public administration have long known - both officials and grass-roots professionals alike can
actually shape, enact, and then give form, meaning and character to, contemporary governance and policy with the use of creative forums (ibid).
1.1) Conclusion: Research Study Approach
Since defining and addressing ‘social cohesion’ is convoluted from all actors who attempt to tackle it, in this research I decided to go around the term in order to find, and understand, tools that facilitate it. While recognizing how social cohesion continues to be a problem for growing communities of diversity and difference, I recognized the problem could be addressed through community-led (some government supported) interventions and their use of creative mediums. Through discovering how interactions and recognition of others in the same-shared space and social setting impacts community division, I set out to examine four distinct intercultural initiatives in Amsterdam that focus on art, integration, and community bridge building. As this research will view social cohesion as the bridge for each projects’ intent, the idea is to examine how each distinct design influences one’s understanding of what goes on within them to facilitate this cohesion. Through examining each initiatives mechanics, this research aims to demonstrate how the tools and design within each, address an individuals perception of identity and
belonging development, thus contributing to the the process of making both persons and places, actively public.
This research aims to demonstrate how community-led initiatives within public domains contribute to social cohesion and inclusion as they intend to target tensions of Othering,
polarization, and exclusion that occurs in diverse communities. As all four initiatives focus on teaching how space can be shared, their purpose is to positively impact individuals’ and
participants larger sense of belonging. This research will examine, and later illustrate, how these creative approaches help in bridging distinct social worlds in multicultural communities. By taking a research approach of examining each initiative’s mechanics and processes targeting integration, I aim to present these initiatives as means of future informing urban planning and policy in Amsterdam and its larger environ of the Netherlands (Godarch, 2010).
By understanding and examining the notions of public domain (as a more complex notion of place), identity (as multifaceted dimensions that make up an individual) and art (as an
installation of inclusion), my research considers how all these spheres can be used together. Through meaningful and productive ways in order to bring people, minds, and thinking [creatively] together, this research will examine how these concepts can facilitate social
transformation by producing unity and cohesion, rather than division. The aim of this research is to examine how artistically led initiatives contribute to identity, social transformation and community development in the diverse city of Amsterdam.
By asking the broad research question: “How does the setting of, and events within, the public domain bridge distinct social worlds?” this research allows for an examination of how community-led artistic initiatives, within the setting of a particular place, contribute towards an individual’s identity, set of boundaries and process of integration. However, in order to address the broad question more accurately, I will address a series of sub-questions in order to find how the setting and events within the public domain shift attitudes and perceptions of belonging and identity. Questions such as: “How are social boundaries constructed [and when] do individuals cross them? and, How do facilitators and organizers involved in these programs seek to shift community attitudes and/or perceptions of belonging? and, finally,“ How does the engagement of art contribute to, or alleviate, feelings of tensions between newcomers and locals within a shared public domain of society?” By asking these questions, the findings from my research aims to illustrate how shifts occur within an individual’s own sense of identity and belonging, as well as their perception towards an others identity, thus facilitating bridging of their prior distinct social world as a result of the creative mediums in which these initiatives employ.
Chapter Two: Theoretical Foundation
Introduction:
Chapter One set the puzzle and significance of the research question of this study by highlighting the rising tensions that occur between locals and newcomers and social cohesion as a result of migration and diversity in the Netherlands. This chapter also briefly discussed previous municipal, government and community efforts that have been made in addressing inter-group tensions in the city of Amsterdam and the Netherlands. What has been illustrated thus far, is the types of challenges, and efforts, that occur when individuals and groups of contrasting cultural backgrounds begin to share the same physical place.
This next chapter builds on the puzzle of addressing social cohesion in rising
multicultural communities by introducing the theoretical foundations upon which efforts to build cohesion and unity to de-escalate tensions can be analyzed. It examines the theory of public domain – understood as a social setting where person-to-person and person-to-place interactions occur, as well as identity development– understood as complex dimensions that make-up an individual - in order to develop the analytic foundation that will be employed (Lofland, 1998). These theories have been chosen in order to demonstrate how an individual’s identity is
developed and transformed, contingent on the social surroundings and encounters in which they experience in new social settings.
As newcomers (immigrants, migrants and refugees) arrive in an unfamiliar setting they are meant to call ‘home’, their efforts in participating among professional and personal environs are often dependent on their sense of belonging, meaning and personal affinity they feel towards the setting. The theories of public domain, and identity will expose how an individuals’ identity is contingent on perceptions from the self, and the interaction and exchanges they experience with others, within a particular setting. These theories will therefore help address and understand the research inquiry in how the setting of, and events within, a particular domain has an impact on formed social-boundaries, willingness of participation and, efforts towards tackling social cohesion and transformation.
The layout of this chapter is as follows: first, this chapter will illustrate the setting and social impact both place and public domains have towards an individual and/or group of individuals. Secondly, a description of identity development will be explained considering how both Othering and intersectionality add complexity to an individuals identity as interactions with others bring these to light in particular social settings. This section will then include a short summary of the knowledge gained from the theoretical relationship between domain and identity. Lastly, in order to lead into the subsequent Chapter discussing the empirical analysis of creative mediums impact on social transformation, this Chapter will provide an overview of research-examples that demonstrate the dynamics within creative and imaginative acts, and how they effectively address the de-escalation of tensions between others upon which conflict is founded upon.
2.1) Setting of Place, Space and the Public Domain
When questioning how to create a space where all agents within feel included and a sense of belonging, many theorists and philosophers have tried defining the terms space, place and public domain by drawing on the multifaceted features existing within these terms meanings. More recently, rather than stressing importance on the public physical-territorial aspects that make these places inclusive, scholars have limited themselves to a consideration of only the latter – the engagement and events that occur within it. Thus, understanding these terms settings where interaction and exchanges occur between persons and between person to places - often located in an open and accessible locations (i.e. cafes, parks etc.) - and, where societal networks can be formed, Massey (2005); Lofland (1998) and, Hajer and Reijndorp, (2001), illustrate the impact public domains can have both externally, internally, towards and in-between, both an individual and group of individuals who experience and share this setting together.
The Setting of ‘Space’
Lyn Loflands theory on the public realm (1998) describes a realm as a space accessible to all and a product of interrelations, thus stressing the significance of the social value that ‘gives a degree of physical and emotional safety…’(229) to the individuals who inhabit it. For Lofland (1998) two components make the public realm: the relationships that form among persons; and connections that are created between persons and place. For her it is not only the places that
matter when understanding the notion of space, but rather, it is the public places within the city that matter. Where strangers (or categorically known others) initially meet, the public realm comes into existence (ibid). In her view:
“The city, quite uniquely, provides a kind of social-psychological environment that is not duplicated else-where… on a permanent basis, it provides an environment composed importantly of persons who are personally unknown to one another – composed importantly of strangers” (Lofland, 1998: xi).
Through her description of what depicts a ‘city’, Lofland places less importance on the territorial and structured components that exist within the urban setting, and more importance on the opportunistic elements the cities offer. Comprised of strangers, unknown to each other, sharing the same physical setting, her differentiation between ‘space’ and ‘realm’ becomes clear. She writes:
“Realms are not geographically or physically rooted pieces of space. They are social, not physical territories. Whether any actual physical space contains a realm at all, and if it does, whether that realm is private, is parochial or is public, is not the consequence of some immutable culturally or legally given designation. It is, rather, the consequence of the proportions and densities of relationship types present and these proportions and densities are themselves fluid” (Lofland, 1998: 11).
Based on her ‘root assumption that the public realm has social value’ it is in her position that a complex web of relationships shapes the public realm (ibid: 229). Comprised of both the person-to-person and person-to-place interactions that take place, this ‘web’ includes both ‘alien’ forms of relationships between and among strangers, and between and among categorically known others’ (ibid: 51). As she defines these realms by their ‘predominating relational forms’ she demonstrates how they are a social and not spatial territory (ibid: 244). Further, Lofland argues that it is the significance of what social value means for separate individuals which determines the value of a public space to them (ibid: 229). Firstly, what she means by this is that all
individuals whom carry themselves through the public-realm attain social value. Secondly, what this means, is that although the value of: home and neighbourhood; community and
organizational set-ups; support and kin-based networks and, physical and emotional safety and so on, may differ among all, the sense of affinities in which the realm provides, provides one with affirmation of their personal worth. In turn, this affirmation [or search for it] ‘mediates’ one’s linkage to the powerful nation-state and larger environ, consequently determining the value
of what public space means most to each within it (Berger, 1997 in Lofland, 1998: 229). What I gather is, as a consequence, the use and experience humans make of this realm of public-ness, contributes to the social value each individual has in both receiving and adding towards the space, thereby providing reason for their purpose for being there, creating the social territory, in the first place.
Social Impact of ‘Space’
Taking Loflands’ understanding of the social-psychological environment of the public realm, Doreen Massey (2005) shifts to how the physical location of a particular space coincides with the development of an entity’s’ identity, as a result form the interactions the self has with the other in it. Doreen Massey thus focuses on how the way individuals interpret, think, and see a particular space, has an impact on their understanding of the world, attitudes towards others, and their politics. For her, the notion of space is understood as:
“The sphere of the possibility of the existence of multiplicity, in the sense of
contemporaneous plurality; as the sphere in which distinct trajectories coexist; as the sphere therefore of coexisting heterogeneity” (Massey, 2005: 9).
Gaffikin (et al, 2010) proposes that Masseys’ understanding about space includes elevating concepts which provide a deeper understanding of notions of change, openness, mix, difference and ‘relationality’ that occurs when individuals share a particular setting with others. Using these notions of difference (among diversity), relationality (understood as the development of relations), change (towards individual ways of thinking), and mix (concerning varied members of the community), Massey (2005) informs her readers that as these events take place, the setting itself makes space a setting that is under constant construction. As the space is considered under constant construction, through time, as diverse individuals carry themselves through it, they gradually develop ways of incorporating their understanding of spatiality into their own ways of being (ibid). Thus, as individuals’ unique way of being begins to evolve within the space, he/she gradually imposes influence on the self as well as with others with whom they share the same space. These interactions, within both the self and others, in turn influences how individuals form their understanding of the world, shape their attitudes towards others, and develop their politics (ibid). In this way, Massey’s notion of space, does not exist prior to identities and
entities and their relations, rather, ‘identities and entities and the relations ‘between’ them and the spatiality, are all co-constitutive (ibid: 8).
Forming the Public Domain
Adding to the social impact that realms and space provide, Maarten Hajer and Arnold Riejndorp develop the concept of the public domain. This concept looks to significance of ‘public space functioning as a transit zone between enclave variations of ‘our kind of people’ on one hand, and ‘them’ on the other’ (Hajer, Reijndorp, 2001: 84). The public domain offers additional
requirements that make it positively valued from people from different backgrounds or dissimilar interests (ibid: 84). Similar to the public realm of Lofland, the domain is not significant because of its spatial territory, but rather, by holding both a political and philosophical significance for individuals within it, and consisting of ‘exchanges’ between them’ (Hajer, Reijndorp, 2001). Use of the term ‘exchange’ rather than ‘meeting’, suggests the process of confrontation with other opinions and consequent further development of an individual’s own ideas (ibid). In their approach, the series of exchanges that occur between different social groups is what makes the public domain entail additional requirements as being positively valued for individuals that go there and, a place of shared experience of people from different backgrounds or with dissimilar interests (ibid: 11).
As this domain offers opportunity for exchanges between people from different
backgrounds, these exchanges provide confrontation whereby individuals begin to develop their own ideas, and observe and interpret the ideas of others (ibid). Hajer and Reijndrop (2001) explain how these exchanges provide individuals with awareness of their own values, and the values of others. Thus what I gather, is how these exchanges thus also lead individuals to uphold these values, or adapt to them. It is therefore during this time that individuals reflect, and self-reflect on the self and the other, allowed by the opportunity that space creates, that shifts the identities and entities within and between the particular space. Furthermore, this idea of the public domain provides reason to seek opportunities for creating spaces that facilitate cultural mobility, where people can have new experiences and where a change of perspective is possible’ (Hajer and Reijndrop, 2001:13).
2.2) Conclusion: Public Domain
In the end, what I gather from these theorists, is how Lofland (1998), Massey (2005) and Hajer and Reijndrop (2001) conceptions of realm, space, and public domain, depict the impact a shared-social setting has upon an individual and relationships between individuals. While they disagree on which term to use, their theoretical underpinnings help us think of settings that can provide opportunities for individuals to adapt to and reflect on the values and perceptions they embrace within themselves, as well as their values and perceptions of the other with whom they share a space. Rather than stressing the importance of physical territorial-locations, these theories demonstrate that the participants and events that take place within the setting, proves to be of greater significance in contributing to facilitating an inclusive, interactive, and meaningful place. From their theories, we understand that it is within this place where fluidity among relations and influence takes form. This opportunity of liquidity paves the way for creative thinking among reflection within individuals themselves as well as their efforts to form relationships within the greater community. Through this process of adapting and reflecting, the engagement within this space is no longer solely finding these places and creating these spaces. Rather, these places facilitate ‘cultural mobility’ of distinct cultures mobilizing around and within each other, thus acknowledging the dilemma of difference that exists between distinct social communities (Hajer and Reijndrop, 2001: 13). As a result of this mobilization, people begin to pave new experiences of the self while interacting with the other, allowing a change of perspective to become possible, begin to take form, and thus becomes the focal point of what happens within the particular space (ibid: 13).
In relation to this research study, the public domain will be understood as the setting these initiatives provide for their participants. By facilitating ways to exchange cultural mobility - understood as the expression, mobilization and adaption of the self’s own culture in relation to the other – through creative mediums, these initiatives are set up as domains which offer an opportunity for participants to reflect on their own sense of self and belonging, in relation to the other with whom they share the space with. By determining the value of what each domain means to each involved, individuals’ active exchange with others provides room for adaptation of the self from the expressed cultural mobility of the other. Thus, through participation in each domain, this research will examine how the self provides mobility to shift and adapt, relative to
the other through the events that are employed by the initiatives creators. This examination will therefore elucidate to how whether or not these initiatives ease the process and approach for their participants towards integration and – more largely - social cohesion. In order to examine how the process of self and other relations and perceptions shift in this study, the theory of identity development will now be explained.
2.3) Identity
As we learn to understand the features and meaning that exist within the term public domain, it nurtures our understanding in how certain spaces are created and expose inclusive features, which help contribute to individual’s sense of belonging. As Massey (2005) suggests that identities, entities and spatiality are all co-constitutive, it brings us question how the development of an individual’s identity and sense of belonging is truly constitutive and contingent on a particular setting. Despite the theoretical foundations of public domain
illustrating a setting where interactions between individuals pave opportunity for forming social relations and reflecting on personal values, it fails to address the complex layers inside an individual, which influence the acts they carry out, both towards, and in, this setting with others. What entices individuals towards a particular space, and what triggers their willingness to interact with others within it, are contingent on whom and how individuals’ perceive both themselves and the others.
This section will now discuss the theory of identity by drawing in on the relational, social-psychological, cultural-mobility, reflection and development features that are discussed within public domain theory. By digging deeper on the theoretical scholarship of Othering and intersetionality, these two theories will be described as processes and development stages that coincide with an individuals perception of their own identity during exchanges and interactions with categorical strangers in new shared social settings.
Identity Development
Political science, sociology, anthropology and psychology, often understand theories of identity, Othering and more recently, intersectionality, in conjunction with the social constructions of group and individual identity, ethnic and cultural formation. Those who do so, demonstrate how
identity boundaries are erected; dividing some populations and unifying others (Nagel, 1994; Castells and Ince 2003; Migdal, 2004; Said, 1978; Jones and Krzyżanowski, 2008; Ghorashi, 2010; Pickering, 2001).
Castells and Ince’s (2003) conversation on Identity and Politics, describes how,
historically, people had very little autonomy in the ways in which they identified themselves, and what was rooted in one’s history and ethnicity is what gave meaning to them (ibid: 66). This demonstrates how identity was fixed, for practical-categorical reasons. In the modern age, identity is increasingly becoming detached from ones history. People’s ability to create a self-definition of their own identity is becoming fundamental (ibid: 68). However, Nagel argues how history continues to construct our individual and cultural identity, since identity derives from both individual agency within, and the physical and social structures that surround us (Nagel, 1994). Nagel theorizes that as we move about our daily life, the situations and audiences that we encounter contribute to the formation of how we both perceive and define ourselves (ibid: 154). Consequently, what this shows is what impacts an individual’s situational and audience
encounters, is not far-off from the little autonomy individuals’ had historically.
Dependent on their influences and surroundings, an individual’s identity - in its fullest form – is thus a product of the social, economic and political boundaries in which the individual exists. Consequently, as constructed both internally –through self (re)presentation and alignment with others – and externally – by the powerful other – Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) explain how a constant kind of labeling process of social ascriptions are added to an individual. These ascriptions categorically signify to individuals that they are the other. When individuals of cultural and ethnic difference enter a new social environment, locals often perceive them as a newcomer other as a result from both race, and cultural mobility differences yet understood. Followed by this, these labeling processes received by newcomer castes into stereotypes from the generalizations which the self often perceive, as a way to place those whom appear to be
different in an understood way. Thus, whether derived from historical and cultural
understandings, or claimed through present social interactions and experiences, despite identity development, although ever-situational and changing, is also constantly contingent on the construction of boundaries that surrounds it (Castells and Ince, 2003; Nagel, 1994).
Othering
As newcomers enter a shared setting with locals, boundaries that these individuals create are often associated with ethnicity, culture and identity. When it comes to the practicalities of group formation, this process of boundary formation determine: ‘who is a member of a group, and who is not; the point to which something becomes something else; when the way things are done changes; and, ‘where ‘we’ end, and ‘they’ begin’ (Nagel, 1994; Migdal, 2004). These four points in the process of boundary formation are where individuals begin to create and facilitate the extent of cohesion and exclusion within and between their social groupings. As stereotypes often follow when mix of diversity exists within a shared arena, Michael Pickering (2001) explains how ‘this process of stereotyping operates as the socially exorcist ritual in maintaining the boundaries of normality and legitimacy within these social groupings’ (45). Elisabeth Bronfen writes:
“[The] stereotype of the Other is used to control the ambivalent and to create boundaries. Stereotypes are a way of dealing with the instabilities arising from the division between self and non-self by preserving an illusion of control and order” (Elisabeth Bronfen, 1992:182 in Pickering 2001: 47).
Here, it is explained how stereotyping operates as a means of evaluatively placing, and
attempting to fix in place, other people or cultures from a particular and privileged perspective (47). Pickering then goes on to say that this ‘process of forming stereotypes, is also true of the process of ‘Othering’’ (ibid: 47). He depicts how naming and defining the characteristics of others as others, also has as its effect as a denial of ones right to name and define themselves (ibid: 73). The process of naming begins with derogatory terms used to refer to those groups and collectivities perceived as different – as other – ‘pakis’, ‘coons’, ‘bimbos’, ‘poofs’ and all the rest. He explains how this process denies ones humanity because it ‘divests them of their social and cultural identities by diminishing them to their stereotyped characteristics’ (ibid: 73) Thus, when considering the concept of the Other, it is important to remember that those who are ‘Othered’ are [oftentimes] unequally positioned in relation to those who do the ‘Othering’ (ibid: 73).
Where and how the theory of Othering originated has long been debated. Said (1978); Pickering (2001); Krumer-Nevo and Sidi, (2010), similarly depict the term as: ‘a creation to set the self as distinct from an Other’ (Said, 1978: 1991). In his book Orientalism, Said discuses
how ‘US and European literary and cultural representations, academic disciplines, and public perceptions foster biases against non-Western peoples, casting them as Oriental Others’ (ibid: 1991). ‘The invention of the term Orient, was almost a European invention, and by categorizing the Orient as such, it was a way to come to terms with the Orients special place in European Western Experience’ (ibid: 1991). Said describes how the process of Othering is way of preserving a form of order and control between the self and non-self, as stated earlier by Pickering.
“The third meaning of Orientalism, can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it, in short: orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (Said, 1978: 1992).
Pickering (2001) explains how ‘the rhetorical vibrancy and force of Othering is undercut by the contingent historical basis on which it depends upon’ (45). He describes how those who do the Othering are often the ones who occupy a privileged space in which they can define themselves in contrast the to the others. ‘This designation is what prolongs and reinforces the inequalities between those who do the Othering and those who are categorically known as the ‘Other’’ (ibid: 73). Such is helpful in ordering and controlling social relations, as can be seen in Chapter One, where current challenges of addressing exclusion, inclusion and right to difference in the Netherlands is still haunted by the political past of the pillarization system initiated in the early 1800’s. As Ghorashi (2010) explains, ‘shaped by the elites in the service of national
pacification, or developed within an [already] existing pluralistic political culture, the concept of ‘own worlds’ facilitated by the pillar system, represented a dichotomy between the ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’’ (164-165). Thus, such were the efforts to create a system of Othering in order to deal with the ‘instabilities arising from the division between self and non-self’ and between local and newcomer in Dutch society (Elisabeth Bronfen, 1992 in Pickering, 2001: 47).
As the process of ‘Othering’ facilitates ‘own worlds’ and alienation, it gradually becomes a ‘moral code from those who do the ‘Othering’ of inferiority to difference; the critical
discursive tool of discrimination; and exclusion used against individuals on the basis of their belonging to marginalized groups’ (Boreus, 2006; Riggins, 1997 in Krumer-Nevo and Sidi, 2010: 300). It is thus these external factors that contributes individuals forming their own
boundaries within their identity, in order to differentiate who is member of their group, and who is not (Migdal, 2004). This process of Othering, if felt and experienced by newcomers in new shared social setting with locals can largely contribute to this sense of exclusion. By
experiencing this, the likelihood of neighbourhod relations forming between the two
[appealingly] distinct communities, is likely to result in tensions of Othering, ever-lasting in a shared society. Thus, it is important to take into account that the experience of culture, ethnicity and identity is not that of an isolated, self-sufficient being; it is achieved through our complex interactions with a range of other people, in various relationships, scenes and settings (Pickering, 2001: 80).
Intersectionality
This last point made by Pickering above, highlights the significance of the theoretical understanding of Othering and how we can shift these perceptions whereby recognizing an individual as neither an isolated being nor entirely self-sufficient. Through illustrating the complex interaction that exists between the self and other, Pickering demonstrated how this relation is set up as a system of oppression between distinct social worlds that share a particular setting. Thus, while identity theory attempts to provide an understanding of how we situate ourselves within the social world, Jones and Krzyżanowski (2008) believe that researchers in this tradition often overlook the vastly complex and contingent nature of individual attachment and belonging. As individuals, we have huge ranges of affinities and attachments that shape the way we perceive ourselves, in relation to others (ibid).
This is where Laurel Weldon’s theory of intersectionality becomes significant. She explains that intersectionality grew out of the understanding that social structures intersect to shape social positions (Weldon in eds. Goertz and Mazur, 2008). Her research examines challenges African-American woman face as a marginalized group in Western society. By examining the intersections that exist between race and gender for women, her research provides understanding on how an individuals identity is dependent on how the social world is constructed around these features. She discovered, that intersectionality is an essential framework required to recognize all aspects of an identity that enrich one’s life and experiences, and that compound and complicate oppressions and marginalization around it (ibid). She suggests that it is possible that
every combination of the social structures of an individuals identity (i.e. race, gender and class) produce qualitatively unique outcomes, confronting the important dimension of social
complexities (ibid: 207; 193). She quotes:
“Identity is not like pop-beads: people cannot discern the ‘woman part’ from the ‘African-American’ part or from the ‘middle-class part’. In other words, as ‘opposed to examining gender, race, class and nation, as separate systems of oppression,
intersectionality explores how these systems mutually construct one another” (Spelman, 1988; Collins, 1998:63 in Weldon in eds. Goertz and Mazur, 2008; 194).
Understanding intersectionality as the various dimensions of our social-self complexity, Crenshaw (1990) argues that it is ‘through an awareness of intersectionality that we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expressions in constructing group politics’ (1299). Weldon and Crenshaw thus both demonstrate how an individual’s identity is constructed through the intersection of multiple dimensions. This allows us to recognize that identity politics takes form at the site where categories intersect, and through an awareness where we can better acknowledge and comprehend the differences among us and the other (Crenshaw, 1990).
Thus, for this study, the concept of intersectionality allows us to reflect on the
experiences and challenges between the relationship of place, identity and Othering as we piece together how: (a) the intersectional dimensions within an individual makes for a unique, and mutli-dimensional identity; (b) these dimensions create a perception of the self which includes full and all attributes and affinities that defines one as who they are, and (c) they provide
opportunity to create this self-definition of our own identity. Through these pieces, we can later create links to examine how the domains in which these initiative set up, help reveal the
intersects of a participants identity so that both the self and the other no longer perceive the newcomer as an individual who is an isolated, sole-entity identity.
2.4) Conclusion: Knowledge Gained
After depicting identity, Othering and intersectionality in conjunction with social constructions, the theoretical underpinnings of identity in this Chapter highlights the significance a social setting has on individual and group identity formation. The construction and history of Othering,
demonstrates how historical boundaries, created by social structures of the past, continue to have an impact on the formation, perception and definition of ones’ own identity in the present. Designations utilized in the past, continue to haunt us in the present with the process of derogatory terms frequently used to refer to groups and collectives perceived as different.
These underpinnings illustrate how categorization of self and other - whether derived from fear of rising instabilities, way of stereotyping, or way of dominating and sustaining authority - contributes to the larger issue of how exclusion and social-boundary formations are molded to both an individual and groups of individuals upon integration. Where the process of Othering evades recognition of the intersectional-dimensions of the others identity (the notion of ‘own worlds’ between distinct groups - who are in fact sharing the same world), tensions
between the self and other escalate. Denial of the others, through failure of full recognition of the others self-created identity, fuels the process of socially constructed boundaries among and between our one world, filled – as it is - with increasing diversity. Understanding
identity-boundary formation in these ways, we can return to Loflands’ (1998) explanation of relationships that form between person-to-person in the public space and how these are characterized by fluidity. This notion of fluidity thus lies not so much in the shared use of space with others, let alone in the ‘meeting’, but rather in the exchange opportunities urban proximity offers for a ‘shift’ of perspective for each individual (Lofland, 1998). Through the experience of otherness, one’s own casual view of reality gets some competition from the others views and lifestyles, thus providing a sort of reflection on the selfs’ understanding of both the other and the space in which they share (ibid: 89).
One of the strongest engines that contribute to the shaping of boundaries today is the influx of foreigners from alien cultures into a shared physical place with others. However, what this combined theoretical understanding demonstrates is that ethnic boundaries between groups should be chiefly considered as constructions that are situational, contextual and changeable, rather than entities that are inherent in the essence of cultures (Ghorashi, 2014). By learning to communicate through exchanges within these domains, the intersects of an individuals identity can be revealed, thus diminishing the likelihood of labeling the other in generalized ways. This brings us to question: how can we communicate with others within these domains? How can,
cultures, ethnicities, identities and others learn to both live and interact together in sharing a community and particular place without facilitating the construction of self and other; boundaries and, dynamics of exclusion? How and where can events within a particular setting influence and facilitate thought - in the face of this other - who is not-you, but taken-as-you by others; and who you can become? (Pickering, 2001: 77).
As Migdal (2005:6) explains how although boundaries are barriers that specific groups and people establish as social constructions, ‘by no means are they airtight’. This research will thus draw on how creative mediums, which these initiative domains provide, elucidate to the development of an individuals identity in a particular setting. By reviewing the mechanics these initiatives utilize, this research will reveal the impact they have towards participants’ ability to communicate to others the deeper intersects of their own identity, thus, learning how to better live and interact with others in a shared community. This will help examine whether or not the strategy to overcome differences and boundaries to build a unified community, is by blending cultural materials through stories and self-reflection in one shared social setting (Nagel, 1994). Through recognizing their intersects of their own identity by fault of the creative mediums, this research will examine whether or not participants begin to identify their ability to adapt to the intersects, materials and values of the other. Thus, by demonstrating how these initiatives domains offer rich social encounters with others and where reflection towards one’s own sense of exclusion and inclusion takes place, the theories of public domain and identity, together, aim to demonstrate how it is in this environment where as distinct social worlds are introduced as ones own self develops, they also learn how to recognize and better understand their other. 2.5) The Strength of Art
Introduction
The section above introduced the theoretical scholarship upon which this thesis is build upon in relation to creating cohesive societies. After highlighting the significance and relationship both public domains and identity development have towards an individuals sense of belonging, this section will illustrate examples where creative mediums power have demonstrated their impact in facilitating a deeper sense of meaning for individuals who find themselves in unfamiliar shared social settings. By reviewing artistic examples that depict the ability creative practices
and art have in building bridges between individuals and communities of difference, this section will provide a blueprint to understanding the purpose of this research that focuses on the
importance art, creativity, and imagination has in building bridges between distinct social worlds.
Addressing the Dilemma of Difference through Art
The dilemma of difference of boundary formation that exists in individuals’ and groups’ cultural, social and spatial manifestations, remains a challenge not only to theorists and philosophers but also to current ways of thinking of city-building professions, city dwellers, and to ideas of urban governance and urban politics (Sandercock, 2003). Jean Paul Lederach (2005), Phillips (2005), Sandercock (2007), Kent, (2013), Ranciere (2005), theorize that, by addressing this dilemma of difference through active participation and engagement in creative measures, these cultural and social spatial manifestations can be brought closer together contributing to new and shared ways of thinking. The opportunity that artistic forums create for collaboration between individuals, facilitates a joint making-of-meaning that opens minds to the possibility of new meanings and possible futures not previously imagined (Kent, 2013). Sandercock (2003) explains how becoming a truly multicultural society of acceptance is more than a matter of bureaucratic management, or of citizenship legislation or of a top-down policy declaration of
multiculturalism, and that an alternate way of releasing and nurturing imagination in planning is by working collaboratively with artists.
Through various forms of artistic expression, Paluk (2009), Sánchez (2010), Papa and Singhal et al (2000), Lebaron and Cohen (2013) and, Sarra and Berman (2017), illustrate how media, visual representation, design, and other ways of engaging in creative expression contribute to revelations of the complex layers that exist within an individuals own sense and perceptions of identity, belonging and internal meaning in a particular place. In doing so, they depict how an individuals intersectional-dimensions of identity can be revealed, without the need for direct exchange of dialogue. As these intersects are revealed through one’s engagement with artistic practice, the self and other formed perceptions can be bridgeable, when recognizing the mirrored similarities one shares with the other.
Artistic Examples
Sarra and Berman (2017), shed light on the ancient African term – ‘Ubuntu’ that remains meaningful today in African-cultural context. The term offers multiple meanings in providing empowerment, embodied through its most generalized meaning: “human-ness”. To them, ‘human-ness’ is the notion that individuals well-being is intertwined with that of others in the community” (ibid: 6). Employing certain functions through the lens of Ubuntu - with the utility of individual imagination and practice in collective arts in the small-business space of Artist Proof Studio in Johannesburg - the term ‘facilitates an acceptance among the diversity of visions that exist within the space to form and inform other visions, including how to construct new business relationships in collaborative ways’ (ibid: 31). This studio that provides individuals an opportunity to review their own positions (and the positions of others), contributes to a shift of thinking from ‘imagining who we are, to, who we can become’ (ibid: 16). It is within this creative space, and by utilizing the collective-community mantra of Ubuntu, that ‘bridges
between one’s self and their neighbor are created which, facilitate a connection across boundaries of difference’ contributing to transforming interactions away from possible escalation of tensions and conflict (ibid:16).
This idea of imaginative measures to facilitate interaction, collaboration, and belonging within a particular space are considered by Papa et al. (2000) who bring attention to the impact mass media communication and communication research has on social transformation. His study, illustrates how media acts as an agency of national development by influencing social and behavioral change within and between individuals. He shows how media platforms have an impact on social beings and the interactions that take place between them as well as the learning opportunities these forums provide to inspire social change. Papa et al. (2000) concludes that by incorporating specific issues influencing individuals’ knowledge, attitudes and overt behavior, entertainment-education has the ability to attract attention, lead to the production of new
knowledge, ‘enter-educate’ audience and program listeners, and thereby invoke a motivation for social change (Papa et al, 2000). Sánchez (2010) adds to Papa’s study on the impact media communication has, through his study of borders and identities in Spanish cultures, with the use of cinema. Sánchez (2010) explains how cinema is a crucial medium which opens up an
alternative space to explore the engagement with the other’who seems to pose a threat to the national identity.
Paluk (2009), goes a step further into both Papa’s (et al) and Sánchez’s research by looking for clear answers on specific types of interventions that reduce both prejudice and conflict in real-world settings. Through focusing on a radio soap opera show in Rwanda, she illustrates how mass media outlets that use real-world evidence and storylines have a lasting affect on an individuals prejudice behavior. Her study demonstrates that, when discussions on media platforms focus on issues that surround social norms people can relate to, it captivates listeners to not only tune in, but also stimulate a level of empathy that has an effect on an individual’s perceptions toward other individuals. This reflection, in turn, has an effect on the internal perception of ones own self. Thus, we can draw from Paluk’s research, that the forum of radio - within the media communication platform - provides individuals with the opportunity to engage with diverse and different voices. The revelation of social norm-experiences these voices illustrate, through the stories they express on this platform, offers an intimate connection
between the listener and the story-teller. This connection facilitates a platform of mutually understanding, connecting one to the other. Captivating listeners with issues that they can relate to creates an internal connection between one and the other. This forum of media thus creates a space in which the can self-reflect on both themselves as well as the story-teller. It is during this self-reflection process, feelings of empathy are sparked. These, in turn, can contribute to the transcending of tensions and animosity towards the other, thus contributing to reducing conflicts that can arise between one who sees themselves as contrasting, or distinct, from the other. 2.6) Artistic Conclusion and Research Approach
The above section has depicted how various theorists, authors and researchers demonstrate the multi-layered impacts artistic and creative realms have on social transformation. These theorists together, demonstrate how the use of creativity, imagination, and art affects an individual’s sense of belonging and meaning, thus, facilitating the process of conflict transformation. By touching upon aspects of the theoretical scholarship of public domain and identity, this section has demonstrated how these concepts, all together, can be related to an individuals sense of
belonging and meaning in new and shared social settings with the other when creative mediums are employed.
As art functions as a tool that is participatory and inclusive, it helps reach the deepest layers of human beings – from within – and invokes an implicit recognition of shared humanity and creativity, which leads to – and inspires – alternative visions in collaboration with others (Lebaron & Cohen, 2013). This participatory and inclusive interaction between and individual and an other is what creates the exchange so essential to the concept of public domain. Thus, the ability to participate and provide artistic exchange, or shared art in the public domain can be effective in initiatives to de-escalate tensions and facilitate integration between diverse groups of people.
