Do-it-yourselfers seem to be different from regular criminals, even though they are criminals themselves. Their actions of, well vandalism, are legitimized because they are not reprimanded by local authorities. If anything, they are praised for their illegal acts, because unlike Rios’s and Jacques’s and Wright’s teens, these people are partaking in “constructive resistance”, not self-destruction or communal destruction. Their resistance to their respective city’s inaction is for “the good of the community”. They alter signs to make them clearer to drivers, engage in “guerilla planting”, spray paint bike lanes onto roads, etc. Although these changes seem like positive modifications to the community at large, it begs the question: Do the DIYers have the right to make these changes? I think they have every right to recognize and address a problem they think they have in their community, but I don’t believe that they should be taking these matter into their own hands. Although they are residents, there are still certain channels they must navigate in order to enact the changes they are wishing for. Once people start to believe they can do whatever they want because they were not initially held responsible, a chaos will ensue that at some point the city will not be able to control lightly. There are processes for a reason, and although the residents who engage in urban modification refuse to go through said processes because “they might as well,” it doesn’t detract from the fact that going through the city is the legal route and all else is unlawful.
There’s also this sentiment that the changes by these residents could also be a nuisance for others. Bike lanes are a great idea until drivers begin to get pissed off because now the street is narrower. Planting food in an empty lot is great unless someone bought the land to develop a building on that plot. If someone gets hurt from perhaps a resident’s poor design of a bike lane or new road sign, who would be responsible: the individual or the city? I’d say the individual but then the city didn’t hold them accountable so they would be partly at fault as well. Some cities just are not built for these changes and so residents could cause unnecessary headaches for city planners. For example, Boston is a very old city, with winding roads that often don’t make a ton of sense. Putting bike lanes in a lot of these streets would make the already narrow streets even narrower, maybe even leading to accidents like bikers getting hit during turns or running into an open door from a parked car. When many residents decide to make alterations, it is to help people but it isn’t to help everyone. If it isn’t going to help or please everyone, why go through the trouble and risk arrest or a fine? In addition, going about these changes alone makes the residents look selfish rather than activists. Partaking in collective action makes the issue seem more important and in need of a course of action instead of a self-centered resident who doesn’t like something and so changed it.
I thought the discussion about “do-it-yourselfers” was very intriguing. The idea of “constructive resistance” is interesting and I wonder how city planners and law-enforcement workers feel about this movement. I am hesitant to say that constructive resistance is a positive thing because I feel like the line between constructive and destructive resistance is fuzzy. Who is to make a judgement that a DIY public improvement project is actually an improvement? Also, I wonder how who exactly is doing the project effects how people react to this action. You raised this idea in referencing Rios, Jacques and Wright’s teens who are condemned for their illegal acts. I wonder if those teens were the ones doing the “constructive resistance” through public improvement projects, if they would be condemned or congratulated for their work. I am inclined to say that there would not be as much praise around these actions if it were not older community members taking action.
It is my belief that do-it-yourselfers (DIYers) have the right to make these changes. It does benefit some, though not all, and makes it worthwhile for these DIYers to resist and push back against the rules and restrictions cities impose upon its residents. I believe it is worth the risk of receiving a fine or the possibility of arrest; it sends a message to others who share the same beliefs but may not have the same chutzpah to initiate a movement to change laws or policies surrounding bike lanes in the city. It could be looked upon as a form of Emergent Norm Theory in which one key person, who may not be a leader per say, instigates the act of painting lines and as a result of this action this keynoter influences others within this space to make their own decisions regarding his/her behavior and either accept or reject the behavior. This could also be an instance of Convergence Theory through which this action of one motivates other like-minded individuals, who are passionate about the integration of bike lanes in the cities, to come together and attempt to push this issue (the lack of bike lanes) forward and have it integrated into cities.
I think the most interesting point you raise here is the comparison between “do-it-yourselfers” and Jacques’s and Wright’s and Rios’s teens. I had not considered this parallel before, but now I am also wondering what the difference is. These teens engaged in illegal acts as a way to push back against social order, in the same way that some DIY-ers seem to be doing. In relation to the formation of community gardens, we also discussed how the appropriation of space alternative to its intended purpose can be seen as a resistance identity to some extent, which sounds a lot like painting a bike lane into a street where it was not intended to be. This has me wondering—are DIYers engaging in a resistance identity in any capacity? I think when we originally discussed resistance identities, we determined they were a constructed identity that reflected frustrations at having the iconic ghetto mapped onto certain bodies, which may not strictly apply to DIYers. However, if the DIY city modifications and resistance identities manifest in the same way, can we see them as the same? Or, is it at least possible that some DIY city projects could be incorporated into a resistance identity, even if that act alone is not really a resistance identity?
I think what was really interesting that came up in our discussion, and your comment hear hardens back to it – is the nature of criminality in the matter and, in some cases like the altering of roads and bike paths, leads to negligence.
I think it’s important to remember why people are doing this, and the fact that even though they’re criminals, they’re doing it for what /they/ think is the betterment of their community. Just like we might think differently of those who steal for their starving children, is there a way we can think differently here? Maybe we should ask ourselves what drives this and rectify those underlying causes, instead of only litigating at the symptom level, regardless of wrong or right.