Introduction
Harkness Plaza is a sleepily, lazily peaceful place today. It bustles with life on the days of performances, but right now, nothing is up at the Lincoln Center. The security members have left their posts and are talking in hushed voices. I cannot make out what they are saying, but I think that they might be joking given their smiles. The information desk lady is reading a magazine, but she occasionally looks up and around; perhaps, she hopes for an inquisitive tourist. The few visitors keep to themselves; a few of them have headphones on and keep their eyes down, occupied with the screens of their phones. I do not approach them; I do not believe that they would want an interview. Just like them, I have a table to myself, but unlike them, I keep looking around. Still, I blend into this setting quite easily with my laptop and field notes; all I need to do to fit is mind my own business and respect the others’ space. Here, observation seems to be the most appropriate approach for an ethnographer, although the information desk lady does seem open to conversation.
Harkness Plaza is a public space that is a part of the Lincoln Center in New York City. Mostly, it is there to give the visitors some space to rest after a performance; it has a food court, and a few people choose to take food out to the Plaza. The area is nicely decorated; it is pleasant to sit here and relax. However, it is also a commercial area; the show tickets are bought in an office here, although a lot of visitors have a hard time finding this office. This space became the focus of my ethnographic research. I will try to represent the paradoxical nature of the Harkness Plaza by reporting my observations and interviews with people who visit it or work in it. This paper will present the results of my analysis in an attempt to demonstrate the two key themes that emerged from my data: diversification and isolation. I will argue that despite being quite diversified, the Plaza does not exactly promote interactions between diverse groups; rather, they remain quite isolated in this public space.
The paper will be structured as follows. First, the methodology of this ethnographic project will be explored, and I will make a statement about my position on the topic. Then, a brief historical comment and an analysis of the social space of the Plaza will be presented. Finally, the two main themes (diversification and distrust) will be explored using ethnographic literature. The conclusions will tie the findings together, expanding on the thesis.
Methodology and Position
The present paper is dedicated to an ethnographic study, and its methods are defined by this approach. Furthermore, the investigation of ethnography and its methods helped me to determine my own position. In the present section, I will offer an overview of my position and the methods that I used with an explanation of how I discovered and framed them with the help of the literature on the topic.
Ethnographic research requires the ethnographer to be engaged with the people he or she is studying (Geertz 1973: 13). Campbell and Lassiter (2015) state that ethnography depends on the collaboration of the researcher and the people who are the insiders of the group being studied. During my project, I found that this aspect is very important indeed since my ability to gain access to the information about Harkness plaza was defined by the cooperation of the potential and actual participants. Not all people were interested in participating, and I did not pressure them, but those who did take part made a great contribution to this work.
Campbell and Lassiter (2015) suggest that ethnography requires a “particular way of being with people,” which is characterized by engaging in “human relationships” (4). The same perspective is offered by Michelle Nayahamui Rooney (2018) who highlights the importance of experiencing the culture that one is describing (1). Shagrir (2017) adds that an ethnographer cannot apply the outsider approach, which is common in other research fields because in order to investigate groups, societies, and cultures, one needs to “join the natural environment” in which those phenomena can be observed (10). From this perspective, it would appear that the best anthropologist would share the culture that they would be studying. However, Narayan (1993) points out that it is reasonable to note the complexity of identities, which makes the dichotomy between insiders and outsiders less pronounced. Rather, Narayan (1993) suggests paying attention to our shifting identities, as well as individual experiences, positions, and goals of an ethnographer that are likely to affect the ways in which he or she is going to construct the knowledge.
While investigating Harkness Plaza, I was still in the process of determining my position. First, I considered my status with respect to the Plaza and its consequences for my ability to gain insights into its people. I am not an actual insider to the Plaza: I live in New York (where it is situated), but before I was involved in this project, I had hardly visited the place. However, as pointed out by Narayan (1993), our identities are very complex and capable of change. I did employ the Plaza just like any other visitor, and, in addition, the Plaza’s diversity makes sure that I am not unlikely to have a shared aspect of identity with some of the people who visit it. As a result, while I still do not consider myself an insider, I attempted to immerse myself in the socio-cultural context of the place to gain insights into the people visiting it. I also tried to connect with the insider group, which, for the Plaza, is predominantly constituted by its staff. This goal of developing a connection with the Plaza and its people is what probably defined my position during this project.
My goal can be used to explain the methods that I employed. Interviews and observation are common for ethnographies; it can be argued that they constitute the core of this approach to research (Campbell and Lassiter 2015: 1; Pelto 2017: 1-2). I intended to use both since they would allow me to engage the insiders of the Plaza and immerse myself in it. However, most Plaza visitors were not very willing to engage in conversation, which is why I had to rely on observation while also taking into account the data from the few interviews I did manage to obtain. In addition, I studied some information about the Harkness plaza with the help of relevant archival data, particularly that presented by the New York City Police Department (2019). I used this approach to gain better insights into the place’s history and its impact on the Plaza’s current state.
Furthermore, as highlighted by Campbell and Lassiter (2015), ethnography is interpretive by definition (6). In order to make my work interpretive, I introduced the sense-making analysis as described by Campbell and Lassiter (2015: 116-120). The process involved continuously reviewing the data from the field notes and interviews to the point of immersion and coding them in search of relevant themes within them. The sense-making culminated in establishing two primary themes; their reporting, from my perspective, can summarize the findings of my project.
Historical Information
According to my research on the topic, the Harkness Plaza is located in the Lincoln Center in Manhattan, New York City. It was built as a part of the “Lincoln Square Renewal Project,” which was launched in the 1950s by John Rockefeller (Young 2016). If we investigate the history of this area further, we will find that before becoming Lincoln Square, it was known as San Juan Hill. According to Young (2016), this neighborhood used to be described as mostly African American and poor; it was actually labeled as a “slum” by the New York City Housing Authority. However, the difficult socio-economic situation of the region attracted the attention of various humanitarian organizations, including the Young Men’s Christian Association. Young (2016) further suggests that the renovation of the area was also initiated because of the poor condition of the neighborhood.
By the 1950s, San Juan Hill was already a place of cultural significance. Live jazz prospered in the neighborhood even before it was turned into Lincoln Square. With the renovation, however, the Square, Center, and the Plaza became acknowledged cultural landmarks of New York. It is also noteworthy that despite the history of high crime rates prior to the renovation, the Center is now very safe with a little over 0.5 crimes per 1000 residents registered over the past month (New York City Police Department 2019). Thus, these days, the Plaza is a part of a historical, cultural center that has been made safer over decades.
Social Space Analysis
The analysis of the Harkness Plaza requires the consideration of its space. The design of social spaces is likely to have an impact on the way the people in them behave and socialize (Johnston 2013: 5, 23). In turn, their design is defined by their purposes (Li n.d.: 68). These statements are accurate for the Plaza, which is a multifunctional and versatile open public space. The Plaza is managed with the help of security, but it can still be described as open to the general public. The analysis of its key features as a social space can assist in making sense of the Plaza and its visitors and staff.
When observing the Plaza, I noticed that the majority of it is clearly meant for providing people with some space to rest and, possibly, eat while using their electronic devices. For that purpose, the Plaza is well-decorated, lit, and supplied with sufficient sitting spaces. It can also have music now and then, which is apparently meant to make the place even more welcoming. The Plaza has a food court and a separate area that has especially aesthetically pleasing decorations and lighting. Furthermore, the Plaza hosts a ticket office for shows, and a certain number of the visitors (probably around 15%) enter the Plaza specifically to get a ticket. It is particularly notable that the office is not established in the most convenient or obvious way judging by the fact that at least half of the people wanting a ticket appear to find it difficult to locate.
The visitors of the Plaza share at least some characteristics. A common feature is their age: mostly, middle-aged or older people come to the Plaza. Furthermore, they also appear to be white-collar workers, although this impression may be incorrect. The people looking for a ticket usually come with companions, and they also show some indecisiveness over which show to choose. They discuss the shows that they want to visit, but the people who sit down and relax in the public area do not seem very interested in conversing, even though some of them also have companions. The visitors commonly use headphones and also tend to sit in a similar way: they place themselves next to a wall and face the public area. This way, one cannot take a peek at their phone or computer screens. The people who do talk to each other keep their voices quiet to avoid disturbing anyone.
A small but permanent group of the people who remain in the Plaza is its staff, which includes the information desk clerks and security. The security members (eight of them) tend to talk to each other, and the information desk woman responds to the visitor’s questions from those related to the Plaza to those about the nearest washroom. The presence of the staff demonstrates that the space is managed (Johnston 2013: 5), which may have an impact on its safety.
Based on my observations, the design of the Plaza does not appear to be very good for helping newcomers in locating the ticket office, but it is suitable for resting and provides the necessary facilities for that purpose (from a food court to washroom). The people in the Plaza are apparently those who are interested in Lincoln Center and its performances, and they use this space predominantly for resting after or before such events. Thus, the Plaza is made to fulfill multiple purposes, and it succeeds in at least one of them, attracting the people who are interested in it.
Theme 1: Diversification
The Plaza is versatile and diverse; I would describe it as “diversified” because of the way it tends to change when it is used differently by different people for different purposes. Diversity is something that can be considered a fact of human societies; we are diverse in a number of ways, and our population is becoming more diverse as time passes (Crul 2016: 54-55; Harries et al. 2018: 1-2). Some of the examples of diversities within modern societies include ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and age. Given these diversities, it is generally believed that diverse spaces and the spaces that manage diversity well are good for human societies (Johnston 2013: 23). From my perspective, while the Plaza is not capable of embracing all of the human world diversity, it is still rather diversified by the people who created it and who visit it.
My first argument in favor of this position is that the Plaza is diverse through the virtue of its purposes. It is versatile (Li n.d.: 68): it is a place meant for rest, eating, and buying tickets. The people who visit it recognize this diversity of purposes, and as a result, the Plaza hosts several groups of people, some of which are only interested in the tickets, some of which want to sit down, and some of which want to have a snack. Furthermore, the Plaza is transformed during events: while it is commonly a quiet and not particularly crowded place, it becomes crowded when an event is held with the people who are interested in this particular event. Given that the events are also diverse, this aspect affects the Plaza’s population and their behavior. Thus, since the Plaza was created as a place with different, diversified purposes, it is bound to attract different, diversified groups.
From the perspective of the people’s diversity, two distinct groups were present in the Plaza throughout my observation: the visitors and the staff. This distinction matters in my opinion because their behavioral patterns were very different. While the majority of the visitors focused on their electronic devices, the staff members were more likely to interact with people. While the majority of the visitors kept silent, the staff felt comfortable enough to talk and joke with each other. It is also noteworthy that both the visitors and staff tended to talk to each other within their own groups; they were not particularly interested in talking to me. In summary, the staff acted like insiders: they knew each other enough to converse in a friendly way. However, the visitors were more diverse; while some of them did appear uncomfortable and unsure, those people were the ones who were lost and could not find their way, for example, to the ticket office.
Based on my observations, the new visitors (outsiders) commonly seek help from insiders, and they seem particularly likely to ask a staff member for assistance. That said, I did witness a few instances when a lost individual would ask a non-staff member for directions, and those directions were provided. This way, the insiders of the Plaza integrated the outsiders into it, offering them the necessary knowledge and allowing them to use this shared space more effectively.
The people who visit the Plaza appear rather diverse, although I have to admit that I was able to recognize only visible differences, especially skin color and approximate age. I also saw only one homeless person; I suspect that they might not be welcome there, but I did not witness anybody driven away by the staff. Furthermore, I cannot say that I saw many people with disabilities, and I would not be able to determine other aspects of the visitors’ identities. In general, the majority of the people who visit seem to be white-collar workers. Designing a space to be exclusionary is not an uncommon practice (Low 2006). As a result, I would not be surprised if particular populations were excluded from the Plaza deliberately or otherwise.
However, I observed that people from rather diverse backgrounds tend to visit the Plaza. Ethnic and racial minorities were present; also, while the majority of the visitors were middle-aged, the Plaza had younger and older people as well. The staff appeared predominantly but not exclusively white; they were quite diverse from the perspective of their age. As a result, I wonder if it is possible to be an insider or outsider to the Plaza. Geertz (1973) and especially Narayan (1993) highlighted the falsehood of this dichotomy; Narayan (1993) pointed out that identities are not always simple and one-dimensional. While the visitors to the Plaza are likely to be united by some similar features, especially those pertaining to the shows they come to take a look at, they are similarly likely to have rather diverse identities.
Furthermore, the Plaza hosts quite a number of newcomers like myself who only visit it rarely and are sometimes visibly uncomfortable and lost in the new environment. The insiders are willing to help the outsiders, but they are also not very interested in conversing with them. Based on my observations, it appears to me that the subtle diversification of the people of the Plaza does affect the interactions between them in that they are more likely to hold conversations within their groups. Possibly, one of the relevant effects is what can be described as distrust.
Theme 2: Distrust
Initially, I intended to describe the below-presented observations as arguments in favor of the idea of tolerance. Here, I have to acknowledge that my interpretation of the interactions that I have observed may have been skewed by my own perspectives. It is not an uncommon issue for a person working on ethnographic research (Campbell and Lassiter 2015: 47). The topic of tolerance is very interesting to me, and, in fact, ethnography is also based on the principle of accepting and appreciating varied, diverse perspectives and viewpoints (Rooney 2018: 1). As suggested by Lottholz (2018), an ethnographer who has a “fixation on peace and harmony” may find it difficult to recognize the signs of conflict that are not overt (21). As shown in another ethnographic study, it is not an uncommon mechanism of negotiating the experiences of bigotry and the strife for inclusion (Kirkham 2016: 14-15). In other words, a person may ignore everything that does not fit into the peaceful, tolerant narrative.
This problem was used to define my approach to investigating the data. I perceived or wanted to perceive Plaza as a tolerant space that manages its diversity well. However, this situation illustrated a rather negative impact of my perspectives and personal experiences on my analysis. I have to admit that there is little evidence supporting my initial idea, and I ended up reconsidering my observations and finding that the theme of distrust probably describes them better.
There is a rather notable amount of evidence supporting the idea that distrust unites the visitors and staff of the Plaza. As I mentioned, there is not much conversation; whenever people converse, it occurs either within their groups or to ask for directions. The unwillingness to talk to another person is among the things that limited me in my research; it was very difficult to find anyone ready to give an interview. In fact, I think that only the information desk lady did not appear put off by the question.
Furthermore, the way people sit down shows that they are not interested in conversation and that they want to protect their privacy. Most people try not to sit together with the people they do not know; they also tend to face in the same direction and appear to be hiding the screens of their phones and laptops from other people. These behaviors may have been fostered by distrust or paranoia, as well as the desire to protect one’s personal, private space (Low 2006). Some unease about communicating is shown by the people who came to a public place to sit on their own.
The design of the Plaza is not directly promoting isolation or distrust; after all, many of the sitting spaces are clearly meant for companies. However, one might argue that the fact that the Plaza has security might have something to do with the increase in paranoia since the 9/11 attack (Low 2006). The Plaza is rather quiet, and the New York City Police Department (2019) reports that it is a fairly safe area, which, as shown by Jane Jacobs (1993) in her chapters dedicated to public spaces like parks and streets, is not an insignificant feature. It can be suggested that the security may be responsible for this peace or that the mere presence of security is a crime deterrent. However, the fact that they are in a public space is as reassuring as it is a testament to how important surveillance has become for the US, as well as mistrust and paranoia.
Thus, the public space of the Plaza is mostly populated with people who prefer to isolate themselves and avoid talking to people from other groups while sitting in a manner that would prevent others from watching their screens. They demonstrate respect to others’ spaces, but it is not a friendly gesture; rather, the people from the Plaza extend this courtesy to others while wanting it for themselves. As a result, the themes of isolation, aloofness, and mistrust are present throughout my materials. Here, it can be mentioned again that diverse spaces are supposed to promote the ability of diverse populations to interact (Johnston 2013; Low 2006), but it does not appear to be the case for the Plaza. People in it remain aloof and distrustful, making the Plaza’s nature somewhat paradoxical.
Conclusions
The observation of the Plaza and the interviews with its insiders allows making the following conclusions about it. The Plaza, which is a part of a cultural center in New York City, is diverse because the population of New York City is diverse. Furthermore, the Plaza is diversified by design; it attracts the people who are interested in the Lincoln Center, which means that a number of diverse groups visit the place. The behaviors of the people at the Plaza suggest that at least two Plaza-specific groups can also be identified: the insiders and outsiders. I belong to the latter, although I have noticed that I share quite a few characteristics with other visitors.
As pointed out by Kirkham (2016) and Lottholz (2018), a culture that tries to encompass the call for tolerance in the face of persistent inequalities is complex and may be contradictory. This description may be correct for the Plaza. This space is diversified through its design, but it still attracts and admits certain populations, which may occur through the exclusion of other ones. Furthermore, despite being diversified, the Plaza does not promote interaction between diverse populations. In fact, despite being a public space, it does not appear to promote interaction at all. People prefer to communicate only with the members of their own groups and demonstrate distrust toward outsiders, including myself. Thus, the Plaza is a diversified public space where people do not trust one another and try (quite successfully) to isolate themselves or their group from everybody else.
This project helped me to realize some aspects of my biases and preconceptions that had initially prevented me from making sense of the data that I have gathered. This investigation can be expanded, and if I proceeded with it, I would try to make it more conflict-focused. I am very interested in conflict, but my observations occurred at a time when no notable conflicts could be observed. Furthermore, my observations suggest that certain aspects of the Plaza can be improved, and this approach to investigation would help to make it more practice-oriented. In particular, I noticed that the ticket office could have been more accessible; possibly, additional signs and indicators could be installed to help newcomers find their way. Further research might provide more details about the ways in which the Plaza functions and how effective it is in this regard; among other things, I could check its accessibility to people with disabilities. I consider this approach to my project as an alternative continuation of it.
References Cited
Campbell, Elizabeth, and Luke Eric Lassiter. 2015. Doing Ethnography Today: Theories, Methods, Exercises. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Crul, Maurice. 2016. Super-Diversity vs. Assimilation: How Complex Diversity in Majority–Minority Cities Challenges the Assumptions of Assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42.1: 54-68.
Geertz, Clifford.1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Harries, Bethan, Bridget Byrne, James Rhodes, and Stephanie Wallace. 2018. Diversity in Place: Narrations of Diversity in an Ethnically Mixed, Urban Area. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2018: 1-18.
Jacobs, Jane. 1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: The Modern Library.
Johnston, Katrina Leigh. 2013. “Public Space and Urban Life: A Spatial Ethnography of a Portland Plaza.” PhD diss., Portland State University.
Kirkham, Sam. 2016. Constructing multiculturalism at school: Negotiating tensions in talk about ethnic diversity. Discourse & Society 27.4: 383-400.
Li, Haile. n.d. ” Versatile Space: The Trend to Multi-functional Space and Design Strategy.” Fraunhofer IRB. Web.
Lottholz, Philipp. 2018. Critiquing anthropological imagination in peace and conflict studies: from empiricist positivism to a dialogical approach in ethnographic peace research. International Peacekeeping 25.5: 695-720.
Low, Setha M. 2006. The Erosion of Public Space and the Public Realm: Paranoia, Surveillance and Privatization in New York City. City & Society 18.1: 43-49.
Narayan, Kirin. 1993. How Native Is a “Native” Anthropologist? American Anthropologist 95.3: 671-686.
New York City Police Department. 2019. “NYC Crime Map.” New York City Police Department. Web.
Pelto, Pertti. 2017. Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rooney, Michelle Nayahamui. 2018. ” Other.” Hot Spots, Cultural Anthropology website. Web.
Shagrir, Leah. 2017. Journey to Ethnographic Research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Young, Michelle. 2016. “Lincoln Center: From Dutch Enclave and Notorious San Juan Hill to a Thriving Cultural Center.” 6SQFT. Web.