王若尘论文 Oakland Museum Paper (Ruochen Wang)

Ruochen WangSociology 136Professor ReedExploring the East Bay Cosmopolitan Canopy: Friday night at OMCA Introduction:This paper consists of four parts: Literature Review, Methods, Results, Conclusion. The main topic is talked about the function and influence of the Cosmopolitan Canopy mainly based on the book The COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY, The Cultures of Cities. There are 4 main opinions on Literature Review part and 6 Arguments on Result part. The two main methods which are quantitative and qualitative research (data analysis and field notes) have been used for supporting these arguments. It also matched some theories come from the book The COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY.Literature Review:According to the book The COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY Race and Civility in Everyday life. The “cosmopolitan canopy” consists of race diversity, different interaction, a model of civility, common consent etc. Simply, he argued “a canopy, represent a special type of urban space, a peculiar zone that every visitor seems to recognize, appreciate and enjoy” (Anderson,2011:275). People will feel more comfortable in this public area. At this point, there was a same thing in Oakland museum. From other students’ field notes and my findings, we also use “friendly” or “kindness” to describe people who interact with others. People would laugh and communicate with each other without any barrier as this public place created a kind of harmonious atmosphere which everyone feels comfortable.Besides, he stated “eating good food in public appears to break down barriers” and “the resulting intimacy of this space helps make people feel connected”. (Anderson,2011:277) Actually, these common events and foods build a connection between different people in this public space. This is also the reason why people talk with strangers in front of the food trucks in Oakland museum. This intimate feeling comes from these events people join together. Sharing food and dancing connects with different people.In his opinion, people come from a different place will feel they have an equal right in cosmopolitan canopy, people are usually on their best behavior. He thinks if people come back to their own neighborhoods, people may be more possessive about space. (Anderson,2011:279) He also mentioned “Outside, in a more impersonal public space, there is less of a chance for such interaction”. (Anderson,2011:43) From my point of view, people will consider their behavior because this “public” situation give them irresistible power to resist their action. In other words, people’s behavior will out of control when they cannot feel this “public” sense. At this point, we should consider whether people in a real public space or in “personal” public. Moreover, this invisible rules of public enforce people to on their best behavior. “It means seeking to make others comfortable, rather than withdrawing from the unfamiliar.” (Anderson,2011:281)The other thing according to Anderson, “When diverse people are eating one another’s food, a social good is performed for those observing. As people become intimate through such shared experiences, some barriers can be broken.” (Anderson,2011:43) This kind of sharing things can help people to connect with others when they also sharing with them or engage in together.In contrast to Bay area, there are some things differ from Philadelphia we should pay attention to. First, the different demographic situation.Anderson argued the canopy will help people communicate with each other. In my opinion, one of the main reasons is related to the original culture in this place. This “cross-race communication” culture actually thanks to racial diversity. Similar as Philadelphia, black people occupied a large percent in Oakland. With this situation, people get used to interact with black people. But in the other city on Bay Area such as San Francisco consists of more Whites (41%) and Asians (34%), race segregation still persists. In summary, we saw more interracial interactions in this public space as the culture of this space is more pluralistic.Another reading The Cultures of Cities (Zukin.S) also mentioned about this public culture which related to symbolic economy and gentrification. He said “People with economic and political power have the greatest opportunity to shape public culture by controlling the building of the city’s public spaces in stone and concrete” When it comes to the Bay Area. Large group consists of majority white mid-class people in San Francisco created less chance to communicate with different people. Take Oakland museum for example, there are two things about public cultureand symbolic economy. The museum staff seeks to improve communication in this community by conducting these events, actually, they were creating a kind of public culture which everyone can engage in. The other thing is these Art exhibits (galleries, museums) are acceptable low-income residents, resulted in gentrification. The museum attracts higher class people come there, it’s also like a common public space for different class people. In this way, the museum (symbolic economy) enhances the connection between higher and lower class people.Methods:Except for reading, the two main methods I used is quantitative research and qualitative research. For quantitative research, I have searched some data from and . It mainly discussed about if different race number influence people’s behavior and the level of racial segregation shows of data. Other qualitative research way is ethnography which is the systematic study of people and cultures. It is designed to explore cultural phenomena where the researcher observes society from the point of view of the subject of the study. Specifically, I conducted my analysis by my observation and interview in Oakland museum. In addition, I also choose the other 11 students’ field notes and communicate with the staff of Oakland museum by email.First, I choose this field notes at random so that I can avoid bias. But one thing I choose subjectively is that I chose these field notes from a different time. Because I want to make my sources more diverse and reliable, which means I can ignore some objective thing like weather and time if the same thing happens in different time and weather. Then I coded these field notes and focus on their main points. I used another sheet (table) to collect the main ideas without people’s name and the time of these field notes. When I read notes, I pay more attention to thosefeelings of people who wrote these notes and the interaction (especially interracial communication) has been described by people. After that, I compared different people’s opinion to look for common sense and used this discrimination to match book’s theory.Finally, when I have my own opinion. I looked for these field notes again to find evidence which can support my argument. It’s also important to analyze the same thing by people’s different perspectives.Results:Quesiton1: Why most of people dress in the same style(causal) clothes in this public space? Argument 1: Cosmopolitan canopy offers people an opportunity to express themselves as individuals, each with his or her own style of dress, speech, and movement. Some people will choose their dress in terms of the occasion.Natasha Johnson described in his field notes: “I saw a black with blue sweater and dark jeans” and “I noticed people wearing shirts associated with the museum and assumed they were employees.” In another note from Sophie Hoogendijk, “I observe the appearances of these people and notice that most of them are dressed casually—wearing jeans, sweatshirts, jackets, shirts, blouses, dresses, sneakers, boots.” Mohamed also mentioned that in his observation: “The majority of people wore casual clothing with rain jackets expecting the rain.”According to field notes, most of people prefer to choose casual dress in this public space where they feel relax in there. People also will use some special clothes to express their personality, such as I saw two black Muslims women wore headscarf. People might need to dress in suit insome official occasion, but the cosmopolitan canopy such as Oakland museum just offer a freedom public space for people to release their character.Question2: Why most people still choose to interact with their own friends and family in this public space?Argument 2: Cosmopolitan canopy consists of different group, provide more chance for people to do interracial communication; People do the interracial communication depends on how they feel about “public” and “personal” space.Eight people mentioned the diversity of people in Oakland museum. Marie Lash wrote: “There were individuals from various racial background s and ages mingling and talking amongst each other” Natasha Johnson also talked about this: “A majority of the groups I observed were interracial but I did notice many interracial groups.” Joakim Slinning Lange noticed “different groups of people are sharing the tables without interacting with each other” When I went there, I was amazed by the diversity of race: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic. This event provides the chance for people to make friends with other people comes from different country. People can make up of interracial group or do cross-cultural communication in this cosmopolitan canopy. The other thing caught my eyes is that even if people come to this public space. They still talk more with their fiends or family they knew each other before. Joakim Slinnning also mentioned that “he did not think there was many accounts of strangers running into each other, but that the place was a good place for large groups of friends to meet up.”From my perspective, people willing to contact with strangers when they feel there are more public, people will do more interracial communication in this kind of public space. Oppositely, they prefer communicate with their intimate friends or family when they still think it's a personalspace. For example, people only talked to their friends on the table in front of the food trucks. But when they went to the dancing place (circle ground) they starts to talk to strangers. Anderson said: “Outside, in a more impersonal public space, there is less of a chance for such interaction.” For those people, the table they sharing food with their friends is their personal space in this public space. But when they go to some places they feel like public space, they will do more interaction with strangers.Question3: Why people always on their best behavior even they don't like that action? Argument 3: The rules of public space in people’s subconsciousness enforce people on their best behavior.Anderson said when people come back to their own space, they will feel sensitive for their personal space and things. From my point of view, sometimes people try to act perfect because they need to follow the public rules. Their civility that want to make other people comfortable under this subconsciousness of public rules.Sophie Hoogendijk said: “No one is excessively yelling or shouting, everyone appears to be respecting others’ conversations.” Alma Pastor also found this phenomenon, according his notes: “Although the couple was friendly with the stranger, they looked a little bit uncomfortable” The cosmopolitan canopy brings to people this rule of public space, like I need to show kindness and polite to strangers even I don't want to talk with them. People on their best behavior because they are under the control of public criteria.In sum up, my opinion is that the reason of people always on their best behavior in public space is not they want to act officially and politely. The reason is this kind of rules restricted people’sbehavior so that they have to show friendly to strangers, when they entered this cosmopolitan canopy, then they under the control of this canopy.Question 4: Why different people are more willing to interact with each other when they engage some activities together or share something?Argument 4: Those common things that everyone can engage in help people to build a connection with each other. Their race, class, social status would not be a barrier when they join in these events together.Some of them noticed the interaction of people who in front of food trucks. In one filed note, people said: “There were about 20 people dancing and 50+ looking at those dancing. Those people observing were simply observing, eating good, or having their conversation.” Sharing food and dancing these events without any application requirement will break the barriers between diverse people. They will have common topic and experience in this public space, then they can exchange their experience without any race or social status barrier.Question 5: Most of the people said the majority of the people in Friday night are white. Only one people think the largest group is African American. Why?Argument 5: People’s perspective will be influenced by their own race. (different background) There are nine people (include me) mentioned the demographic situation in Friday night is that most of people are Caucasian. Alma pastor wrote: “At first glance, there was a predominantly white population in this space”. In other field note from Domingo, he said “Inside was a mixed group of people of all ages and ethnic backgrounds but mainly white people were present.” Only one person Sofia Therese thought “the first group I saw was a larger group of African Americans. The group was mostly female, with one adorable young boy.” At the same time onApril 1st night, Eric H Chung wrote: “I walked down the aisle and saw mostly white people.” I also noticed both of them never mentioned about Chinese people, on my field note, I just said I have met a few of the Chinese people. I noticed these things like Chinese street signs and Chinese food truck as I come from China. In summary, People will notice these things related to their own race.The other thing I think it’s also related to main social problem we focus on. If I do this observation in China, we’ll never talk about race discrimination or immigrant issues. We will pay more attention to different social status, if people come from rural or they are original urban citizen. In 12 field notes, people talked more about racial difference, then age and gender.Question 6: The main function of a museum is artist exhibit. Museum needs to attract more people to get knowledge from this kind of space. Why museum will choose to host this kind of entertainment activity (Friday Night), not the normal art things?Argument: The art exhibit attracts middle or higher class of people to come there, some people who have lower wage and status also have the opportunity to interact with people who come from a higher position. Artist thing might result in gentrification. Then it will improve the people’s interaction.Some people mentioned it in their filed notes, there are few people go to gallery and those art commodities sales for a higher price in shop. And three of them think the food was expensive in there. But there was another one wrote: “This could suggest that only those with middle or upper class incomes would attend the event making it exclusive to some although it is possible some people attended the vent for free and chose not to buy food or drinks”. Overall, those eventattract people from different class, (gentrification) then also provide the opportunity for these people to interact with others although they belong to different class.Conclusion:In summary, I talked about the function of Cosmopolitan canopy. First, it provided the opportunity for people to express their personality. Second, the diverse character of canopy make people do more interracial communication, but I think this communication depends on the people’s concept of public and personal space. Third, people always on their best behavior. The reason from my analysis is the rules of public space in people’s subconsciousness enforce people on their best behavior. Fourth, those events without any privilege in terms of social status or race could improve people’s interaction and build one kind of intimate relationship. Fifth, people’s finding will be influenced by their own background. Finally, the artist exhibit will promote gentrification, then enhance the opportunity for people who come from different class to communicate with each other.One of the limitation of my findings is some of analysis just base on one or several people’s field notes, there was no enough evidence (data and example) to testify these arguments. The other thing is I didn't communicate with this field notes’ authors, so I missed some details and didn’t understand every information they mentioned in their notes. The last thing is I didn't familiar with the history of Bay Area and Philadelphia, so I cannot compare this two different cities situation completely. Next time, I should figure out these background information included some details.。