Freedom is often defined as the power to act, speak, or think without restraint (Oxford dictionaries, 2019). It is undeniable that city life is packed with overwhelming routines and responsibilities. Thus, it is not surprising why a lot of people find ways to experience freedom such as going outside of the city or participating in activities within the city that are unrelated to their routine, to “unwind” and experience freedom. In the book entitled “Regulating Eden” by Hermer (1967) and “Skateboarding, Space, and the City” by Borden (2001), both authors explain the influence of space in humans’ experience of freedom; however, both vary in their arguments. Hermer (1967) argues that parks constrain human behaviours through Emparkment, when space is under legislative authority, while Borden (2001) claims that skateboarding allows the city to become a site where freedom can be experienced—a “superarchitectural” space where architecture can be used beyond what it is meant for. While both authors suggest important points about the influence of space on human behaviour, I argue that people’s experience of freedom both in parks and skateboarding is just a delusion because of the existing geographic, behavioural, and sociodemographic restrictions that are evident in both practices. I discuss how these restrictions provide evidence that in society, we are more constrained than free, no matter what culture or subculture we belong to.
Is there a way to be “Free” in Society
Although expressed differently, Hermer (1967) and Borden (2001) suggests that the experience of “freedom” is dependent on a particular space/place. Hermer (1967) explains that recreational parks are “artificial” landscapes that are perceived as places that are “natural”, where one can get away and escape the surveillance of the city (Hermer, p.71). In this sense, Hermer (1967) suggests that the experience of freedom is dependent on a specific space because people desperately yearn for freedom from ordered spaces such as the city. In contrast, Borden (2001) believes that skaters’ experience of freedom is not restricted to a particular space but can be anywhere in the city. The author explains that although skateboarding is repressed and legislated against, skateboarders are still able to experience freedom through skateboarding by resisting orders (Borden, p.1). Borden (2001) termed the city as a “superarchitectural” space where skaters discover possibilities, and experience freedom in what once were static architectures, through various moves/tricks.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, in both Hermer and Borden, geographical restrictions exist such that people travel far away from the city or go to a specific location in the city where there are recreational parks in order to experience freedom; similarly, skaters must interact with a specific area and architectures in the city, such as in the streets and skateparks to be able to perform “freeing” movements. There are also places where skateboarding is entirely banned, as it is perceived as “disorder” to the ordered structure of the city (Borden, 2001, p.257). Although skateboarders claim the anarchist mentality, when police authorities arrive, they immediately escape the scene to avoid getting caught (Borden, 2001, p.257). In this sense, although skateboarders resist the idea of order, there are still limits to when and where resistance in space can be performed to experience freedom. This suggests that they are not completely free from surveillance or order. The experience of freedom in both parks and skateboarding is always dependent on a specific space. Thus, once taken away, freedom is also taken away.
Hermer argues that people’s perception of freedom is corrupted in parks is false because of the rules governing park use. This is evident in rules such as no littering, cleaning up after pets, staying in a designated area, and the prohibition of loud, abusive, and insulting language within the premises of the park. Borden (2001) argues that skateboarding is an open practice because skaters resist rules. Hermer (1967) suggests that the freedom that people desperately look for in parks is corrupted by intensive regulation from authority (p.4). The author suggests that people’s freedom in parks is ironic because they are still expected to comply with various rules and regulations within the park premises (p.101). In contrast, Borden (2001) suggests that skateboarding has now developed into a more open, and therefore, “free” subculture where any coded dress, language, and body language that was once only explicit to skaters is now accepted for skater identity (p. 140). However, the movements that skaters produce are similar. In fact, Borden suggests, skaters more likely to observe the moves through magazines and other skaters and modify the moves themselves (p.122). In this sense, freedom through skateboarding is still based on a co-skateboarder’s already created moves. In other words, for skaters’ to experience freedom, they still have to perform specific moves. Behavioural restrictions thus still exist in both park and skateboard culture such that in parks, people must abide by the rules that exist within the park premises. Similarly, skaters still need to behave in a certain way such that there is a specific way to use the skateboard and execute specific moves.
Hermer and Borden suggest that the experience of “freedom” is only limited to certain groups of people because, in order to experience freedom in parks, individuals must pay to be authorized to go to a designated area of the park and perform a particular recreational activity (p.43). This is particularly evident in camping sites, where people must pay for a permit to access the grounds. Thus, the experience of “freedom” cannot be accessed by everyone and is mostly favoured for those who can afford to pay the expenses required. The activities offered in parks are also reflective of the Euro-Canadian culture, making it less appealing for Indigenous people and others. In contrast, Borden (2001) argues that in skateboarding, there is no marginalization of class and race, and skaters tend to come from all kinds of backgrounds. For instance, skaters can trade in second-hand equipment, make skateboard decks from cheap plywoods, and skate in the streets instead of paying for skateparks (p.140). Borden also argues that skateboarding is a “racially mixed world” where racial and ethnic groups are easily integrated into skateboarding (p.140).
However, privilege still exists in skateboarding such that ‘veteran’ skaters’ are often discouraged to practice skateboarding due to the “scornful stares” and judgments from expert young skaters. Old skaters who do not have as much ability to perform moves and withstand the continual body strains and breakages are also discouraged from practicing skateboarding (Borden, 2001, p.140). Additionally, the lack of female skater portrayal in magazines suggests that all skateboarders are male. Although Borden believes that females are completely welcome to practice skateboarding (p.140), the predominantly male portrayal in skateboard magazines and other media outlets lead to young women to not participate in skateboarding. Thus, the groups who can experience freedom are most likely to be people from high socioeconomic status or young males.
Power and Agency
The existence of geographic, behavioural, and sociodemographic restrictions in space represents the themes of power and agency such that the structure of space is highly regulated, segregated, and disciplined by authority, which further influences people’s experience of space. In this sense, the government constrains people’s choices (i.e., agency) in ways that produce social order and marginalization such that only certain socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, age and gender can experience “freedom” in space.
Power operates in all aspects of life and all angles of space. We live in a highly ordered society where places such as parks, roads, and institutions, to even smaller places such as locker rooms, are ordered. This poses important health implications to those groups that are marginalized as a result of these ordered constructions. For instance, according to Hudson-Rodd (1998) and Wilson (2003), land shapes the cultural, spiritual, emotional, and social practices of Indigenous people. Thus, when Native lands are taken away and revamped into “healthified” spaces (Fusco, 2007) such as recreational parks, this creates a significant impact on the health of Indigenous people, especially when cultural practices such as healing rituals can no longer be performed. Similarly, when only certain people belonging to a particular class, gender, race/ethnicity and age can access these parks and perform “freeing” activities in the city, then how can everyone in society benefit from the promises of these architectures (e.g., improve physical activity participation in parks and skateparks)? Architectural designs, therefore, creates a sense of dis-ease (Hudson-Rodd, 1998) because of the expected bodies that are supposed to occupy the space. After all, both authors show that space ha a significant role in shaping physical culture. Specifically, the important role that the state plays in creating ordered places such as “natural” parks, framing people’s experience and perception of “natural” and “wild”, and restricting people from fully experiencing freedom in the city.
Hermer’s (1967) arguments about power operating in parks can be easily related to daily activities in the city such as power relations and norms in the subway, the streets where there are specific spaces for people to walk, drive, and bike on, and the existence of signage around the city that determines how people behave in space. However, Borden’s superarchitectural space is something novel and unfamiliar because it focuses on a small subset of the population, which makes it harder for others to relate to. Since Borden (2001) suggests that freedom can be experienced by resisting order through skateboarding, how may the idea of superarchitectural space apply to the greater population? In other words, aside from skateboarding, what other objects used in daily activities can allow an individual to resist orders and experience “freedom”? Furthermore, Hermer (1967) heavily focuses on the influence of government orders on people’s behaviour in parks and less discussion on what form of resistance exist in parks. According to Foucault (1978), “where there is power, there is resistance”. Thus, what forms of resistance exist in parks, and how do they influence or challenge social norms. In other words, how may park goers challenge the rules and norms that exist in park spaces?
Conclusion
To conclude, the experience of freedom in both parks and skateboarding as suggested by Hermer (1967) and Borden (2001) respectively is just a delusion because of the existing geographical, behavioural, and sociodemographic restrictions that are evident in both practices. People tend to go to parks, and skaters skate in particular areas such as unsurveyed streets and skateparks in the city to experience freedom. Thus, the experience of freedom for both park goers and skaters is dependent on a particular place rather than anywhere. Moreover, park goers and skaters are expected to behave in a particular manner such as abiding by the rules within the park premises and modifying already built moves from co-skaters respectively. In this sense, both park goers and skaters do not have the complete autonomy to do what they want because they are still expected to behave in a particular manner. Lastly, access to parks appears to be favoured towards White individuals in high socioeconomic status as it requires paying a fee, and the activities presented are reflective of the Euro-Canadian culture. Similarly, the lack of female portrayals in skateboarding magazines, and the prejudice of young skaters towards older skaters imply that restrictions exist in terms of what types of bodies are welcome to move in space. These points suggest that power is always present in space and people are always subject to a form of power even while performing an act of resistance. This suggests that people are more constrained than free because of the limited choices that they have in space.
In the end, both authors discuss the role of the state in the construction of ordered spaces to govern human interaction with nature and city architecture. Hermer (1967) focuses on the idea of governmentality, which suggests that North American parks are highly ordered and surveyed places. Borden (2001) discusses that the city is a superarchitectural space, where skateboarders can find freedom by resisting orders and performing various tricks. However, Hermer fails to address the acts of resistance in parks. Therefore, future researchers should look into what acts are considered resistance and how park-goers challenge the rules and regulations, norms, and expected practices in parks and how may these affect the social norms that exist in space. Moreover, Borden explains how freedom may be experienced in the city through skateboarding. However, Borden only focuses on one small subculture. Thus, since freedom has been suggested to be experienced through the interaction of body, object, and architecture, future researchers should look into other material things used by the general population on a daily (e.g., cars, bicycles, motorcycles, etc.), and how may resistance to order be performed through these material things.
Stuck on your essay?
