Jonathan R. Wynn’s piece, the Music/City, makes light of how festivals in Austin, Nashville, and Newport benefit their respective communities in which they take place.  Wynn claims the festivals present an opportunity for large groups of strangers to converge and commune, while at the same time operate as a walled off an inclusive space (7).  Wynn suggests these festivals/communities, instantaneous in nature, perform as an “occasional public or an arranged public” (9).  This idea of an “occasional or arranged public” brings me to the question that I posed to the class, “Does this process of festivalization lead to spontaneous cosmopolitan canopies or offer spaces that mimic the traits of a cosmopolitan canopy?”

As a class, we seemed to come to a consensus that although these festivals displayed aspects that could be attributed to spontaneous cosmopolitan canopies, these festivals at best mimicked some of the defining characteristics of what might constitute a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy. Wynn alludes to Anderson’s theory of a spontaneous community claiming cultural individuals, organizations, musicians, government/quasi – government entities, for profit entities, as well as audiences and communities converge within the space of the festival.  This illustrates that the festival is not only a neutral space that no one group exclusively owns, but there is also a common link amongst the audience in that they have all come to watch the same or different bands/musicians play (36).

It becomes apparent, upon examining Wynn’s research, that although the festivals appear to function in theory as spontaneous canopies (as Anderson would suggest), under the surface one can see these festivals mimic a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy rather than truly functioning as one.  Wynn mentions all the major festivals that have been established sold out faster in recent time than they ever have, even before lineups are announced (40).  With limits of the potential for locals of the community to participate in the festival, it can create an exclusive space within an existing area (such as a park or square) of a community that is not accessible to all.  This is reminiscent of Anderson’s description of the poor in the Reading Terminal and most similar to Kevin Loughran’s theory of the High Line as a product of the growth machine and uneven development of urban spaces.  The concept of the city as a growth machine is echoed in Wynn’s research as he points out Mayor Wynn claimed that audiences had to spend money to make his city a thriving one, and that progressing urban culture requires economic sources (12).

This requirement of human capital to participate does not limit a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy from occurring if everyone can purchase a ticket; however, it backfires when tickets sell out before lineups are announced and as a result “long brewing tensions between the festivals and their local communities exist” (40).  This exclusivity prevents a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy from occurring due to the lack of a neutral space that it fails to produce.  Space is dominated by a large like-minded majority possibly there for different bands/musicians; not all groups are present as some are inherently excluded through economic capital i.e. festival tickets.

Justin, toward the end of our class discussion, made a great point describing the festivals as pop- up shops.  Interested people go in, interconnect in some way out of a shared interest in the shop, but they have to be there to see it, creating a sense of shared experience and not necessarily a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy.  Justin’s point is very similar to David Grazian’s theory of a community as ambient, or the feeling of belonging arising through one’s participation around/among like-minded strangers.  This theory does not necessarily support the idea of a spontaneous cosmopolitan canopy occurring within the festivals, but rather a sense of a shared experience arising.

I would agree with this concept.  Festivals foster ambient communities rather than spontaneous cosmopolitan canopies as ambient communities.  Spontaneous cosmopolitan canopies have aspects of shared experience.  Those who participate in the experience do not have to engage in folk ethnography, as they would in a cosmopolitan canopy, because they are surrounded by like-minded individuals and not different groups.

When attempting to apply the concept of a cosmopolitan canopy to Bowdoin College, it was evident the College intended to represent the concept from the exterior.  When viewed from a student’s perspective, rather than a visitor’s [or anyone not familiar with Bowdoin], the class agreed that Bowdoin did not truly represent a cosmopolitan canopy.  Bowdoin is an “imagined community” based on the shared experiences of going to the College; however, it may not be a cosmopolitan canopy even though the College hopes to cultivate itself into one.

As a class, we acknowledged Bowdoin as a product of the administration.  Cosmetically, the College is increasingly diverse in the terms of characteristics that comprised a class of different people, from different backgrounds, with different ideas which play an integral part in the education and the growth of individuals within our community.  This image, designed by the administration, intimated a cosmopolitan canopy; however, due to the barriers of entry (education, upbringing, and admissions criteria), Bowdoin lacked the ability to function as a cosmopolitan canopy.  The College attempts to create a cosmopolitan canopy by admitting a diverse student body and by hiring a diverse faculty and staff, but as Anderson elaborates, although all racial groups may be present they may not be present proportionally (16).  In relation to the College, this under representation of racial groups combined with the lack of neutral or commercial spaces within the campus perpetuates a large white space.  Consequently, this negates any cosmopolitan canopy from occurring outside of a limited range of spaces on campus.  The College does not adequately provide enough neutral spaces that would allow for a cosmopolitan canopy, although Bowdoin tries to promote this image through their media portrayal of HL, Smith Union, Buck Fitness Center, and the dining halls on campus.

Within these spaces, students tend to cluster in groups of similarity rather than engage in folk ethnography.  This occurs because these places do not necessarily provide safe spaces for students (especially white, upper-middle-class, straight students) to test their assumptions and ideas about communities of color regarding aspects of the iconic ghetto.  Likewise, this does not allow for students of color to map their prejudices to the white space on the white students regardless of economic background.  Folk ethnography occurred on some level in these spaces, yet lacked proportionally when aligned to include racial groups.

Professor Greene discussed this idea in relation to Bowdoin’s homecoming on campus the prior week.  He explained two events happened simultaneously (intentionally); first, a BBQ, held near the football game which consisted of a large mainly white group while the second group, the AFAM, hosted a similar event at 30 College Street.  This represented a community of limited liability for returning alumni, free to enter and exit as they desired.  It also displayed the concept of collective memory and its application on the campus.  The alumni reclaimed and shared these spaces with current students.  This shared experience that a reunion and a homecoming weekend offer is interesting because it shows even through time we are connected to these alumni through place.  The spaces alumni have reclaimed seem to have taken on old and similar meaning to what is present today.  This can be viewed as a perpetuating cycle that is demonstrated today through the large white space that encompasses Bowdoin.  The smaller racial groups on campus are avoiding the large white spaces which negate any neutral or safe space to engage in folk ethnography.

Our discussion spurred two issues, the first is that Bowdoin (as an organization) attempts to promote the campus as a cosmopolitan canopy.  The second issue is the notion of the imagined Bowdoin community which arises through a shared affiliation to the College.  Cosmopolitan canopies, at least as Anderson defines them, do not exist at Bowdoin.  The quandary then becomes how do students on campus find and participate in cosmopolitan canopies?  Do student groups (LASO, AFAM) function as cosmopolitan or spontaneous cosmopolitan canopies in relation to these large white spaces present on Bowdoin’s campus?  Or does the way the College function as a white space inhibit these student groups from forming communities and engaging in folk ethnography?