In his book The Help-Yourself City: Legitimacy and Inequality in DIY Urbanism, Gordan C.C. Douglas explores the contemporary phenomenon of “do-it-yourself urban design.” Douglas defines DIY urban design as “small-scale and unauthorized yet intentionally function and civic-minded physical interventions aimed at ‘improving’ the urban streetscape in forms analogous to or inspired by official efforts” (26). Through his scholarship, Douglas highlights the role DIY urbanism plays not only in place-making, but also in creating new forms of contemporary urban citizenship. While our class discussion briefly touched upon different forms of contemporary urban citizenship here at Bowdoin, the conversation left me curious about how and why Bowdoin students claim citizenship.
Unlike traditional forms of citizenship, modern forms of belonging have become flexible and performative. Citizenship no longer stems from birthright alone but from a combination of spatial practices and alternate forms of placemaking. In class we drew on the scholarship of Lefebvre, Centner, and Greene to examine emerging forms of contemporary citizenship. Lefebvre’s work Rights to the City calls for radical restructuring of the urban environment, where decision-making shifts from the hands of the government to urban inhabitants. This emphasizes urban space as one rooted in the everyday experiences of those who occupy it. Individuals also claim urban citizenship through Ryan Centner’s and Theo Greene’s notions of spatial capital and vicarious citizenship, respectively. Center’s concept of spatial capital enables individuals to claim rights to space through staking exclusionary claims on spaces that would otherwise be public. Therefore, those who employ spatial capital to claim rights to certain urban places simultaneously inhibit others from potentially also claiming that space. Greene’s concept of vicarious citizenship, on the other hand, enables non-residential folks to claim cultural forms of citizenship within a community. Together, this new literature informs more modern understandings of citizenship.
After reflecting on the questions and readings in class, I began to think more deeply about contemporary forms of citizenship in both the Brunswick and Bowdoin community. In class, I questioned whether Bowdoin students and Brunswick community members participate in DIY urban design. Some examples some folks identified were the makeshift signs Brunswick residents erect to deter parking, the hammocks Bowdoin students install on the quad, and the free “libraries” situated around the Brunswick area. These examples clearly exhibit more DIY urban design from Brunswick community members compared to that of Bowdoin students. Why is that so? Do Brunswick citizens feel they have more of a right to the Brunswick community than to Bowdoin? One student astutely pointed out that maybe the lack of DIY urban design on Bowdoin’s campus exemplifies Bowdoin students’ risk-averse nature. Is that true? Why do Bowdoin students refuse to break the rules? What, if anything, stands in the way of Bowdoin students participating in DIY urbanism? Do Bowdoin students participate in different forms of urban citizenship? Why or why not?
Thinking about citizenship in a Bowdoin-specific context informs many questions about contemporary forms of citizenship. However, using Bowdoin as our context simultaneously limits our understanding of modern citizenship. Douglas argues that “uneven development and neoliberal planning not only produce conditions that inspire do-it-yourselfers to act but also normalize the idea that the world is their playground” (69). Is it possible to disentangle governmental processes from that of DIY urban design? Maybe this question could speak to why students at Bowdoin do not participate in DIY urban design. Is it the bureaucratic structures that inhibit them? Does the lack of DIY urban design tell us something about modern citizenship on Bowdoin’s campus?
If Bowdoin students do not participate in forms of DIY urbanism, what does that say about their privilege? Douglas asserts that “the privileged also have greater freedom to choose whether to go along with or object to the status quo” (101), which touches on the themes I was concerned with in my third question. Douglas contends that those that can afford to engage in risk behavior (cis, white, straight men) tends to engage in these forms of DIY urban design. But what does it mean when folks actively choose not to participate in DIY urban design? What does that say about Bowdoin student privilege and trust in the greater Bowdoin governance strategies in place?
Using Bowdoin students as a lens for studying citizenship may not directly apply to Gordon’s concept of DIY urban design. But I think maybe concepts like spatial capital and vicarious citizenship could help us understand the ways in which folks form ideas of citizenship, particularly on Bowdoin’s campus.
Hannah, I love that you connect the readings to Bowdoin and ask: Do Brunswick citizens feel they have more of a right to the Brunswick community than to Bowdoin? One student astutely pointed out that maybe the lack of DIY urban design on Bowdoin’s campus exemplifies Bowdoin students’ risk-averse nature. Is that true? Why do Bowdoin students refuse to break the rules? What, if anything, stands in the way of Bowdoin students participating in DIY urbanism? Do Bowdoin students participate in different forms of urban citizenship? Why or why not? To answer your questions, I think that both Brunswick citizens and Brunswick students have a sense of entitlement towards ownership of the town. I agree with the student that pointed out Bowdoin students’ risk-averse nature. This nature is evident in the protests (or lack thereof) that we have; often, I have observed that students walk around campus with their AirPods in, preoccupied and in attune to their surroundings. In other words, students are becoming complacent. I believe that this stands in the way of Bowdoin students participating in DIY urbanism. However, Bowdoin students do participate in other forms of urban citizenship. They protest at rallies and they volunteer for organizations in cities like Portland.
I also find it very interesting that there is a pretty serious lack of involvement from students on Bowdoin campus, and in a way I think it can connect to what Douglas was saying about the role of the privileged. Although I am not trying to make broad assumptions about the entire student body, there certainly is a majority of students that seem to care more about grades and their future careers than the issues larger America is faced with as a whole. This may be because we are at a very elite institution where students are more focused on being valedictorian than making a change, or maybe because students come from a background where they were never exposed to issues that we see in poorer city areas. I obviously don’t know the answer to this, but I do definitely think that Bowdoin has a problem when it comes to students not stepping out of the societal rules, and instead stay quiet and study all day.
I think that there are a few reasons why Bowdoin students do not engage in a lot of DIY urbanism relative to the greater population. I think the lack of DIY urbanism is partially due to the fact that it seems that on the whole, Bowdoin’s administration is receptive to student problems which decreases the need for DIY urbanism. I also think that students are often so busy trying to manage academics, extracurriculars, and social time that people do not have the free time to engage in acts of DIY urbanism. I do, however, think that there are situations in which participating in acts of DIY urbanism might be necessary and beneficial to students. For example, for much of last year, my dorm building only had one working washing machine for about 50 students. Despite submitting work orders and attempts at fixing the machine, it remained broken and Bowdoin’s administration did not seem to want to replace it. In this instance and similar instances, I think it would be beneficial for Bowdoin students to take a greater stand, either through more contact with the administration or DIY urbanism.
You pose some interesting questions about the relationship between Bowdoin Students and DIY urbanism. Recently, I was thinking about some of the same things. More specifically the question of why don’t Bowdoin students participate in DIY urbanism? And more generally, why don’t we break the rules? I agree with you’re point that part of it has to due with privilege. Those that have privilege get the choice to go along with or break the status quo. At the same time, I have another perspective.
In my opinion, why we don’t see DIY urbanism has to do the relationship between students and the college. As an institution of higher education, students come here to gain knowledge, a degree, higher earning potential and social status that comes with graduating college. Students get this from the college by graduating and obtaining a degree. While the college is highly selective, there are numerous other people waiting and willing to take your spot if something were to happen. Additionally the school is extremely strict with punishments for academic and social violations. It is as if we are constantly on thin ice. Students fear acting out and getting in trouble as this could result in getting removed from the institution they depend on for their future pursuits. I see DIY urbanism as too large of a risk for Bowdoin students, as they know the institution would find out and likely discipline them accordingly. As bad as this sounds, students are expendable and have no inherent citizenship to Bowdoin, they have dependent citizenship. Their stake here is dependent on maintaining good academic and social standing. DIY Urbanism risks losing citizenship at Bowdoin and as a result students don’t do it.
When reading your response, I had a few ideas of DIY urbanism at Bowdoin and Brunswick. For starters, I do believe Brunswick locals have a stronger autonomy over the city as most Bowdoin students come and go, rarely staying in the community after graduation. I think it also has to do with Bowdoin’s lack of integration with the Brunswick community that, at least for me, makes me feel like an outsider or a guest when walking through the Brunswick area. As a student, I do not feel a part of the Brunswick community enough to create a type of DIY. While on the Bowdoin campus, I think it goes back to the idea that since it is such a small school, I would expect the administration to respond quickly to requests, unlike the government. I am not exactly sure how many years the ice skating rink goes back to, but in a way, I feel like it is a type of DIY urbanism. Even though today, Bowdoin creates the ice rink for students, I am sure it started years ago with a couple of kids who wanted to skate, trying to create an environment where they could do so on campus. This leads me to believe that Bowdoin responds to students’ requests and now takes charge of adding an ice rink every year.
Some really interesting points here. One thing that sticks out to me as a reason why we don’t see DIY urbanism at Bowdoin is quite simply because Bowdoin is really really nice place. I suppose we all may take it for granted at times, but by so many metrics Bowdoin is one of the very top academic institutions in the entire world. The school has loads of money, our facilities are pristine and still, there is a constant push to improve upon what is already here. We can of course discuss the economic realities of this and the need for the school to commit to such development to compete against other tops schools, but still the simple reality holds true. Bowdoin is a really nice, intensely privileged place. Sure there is a bureaucratic struggle here as well but it is far smaller and far more efficient than most municipal bodies. When things need to get done here, they happen and they happen quickly. Not so true in the real world.
Your reflection brings up many interesting points. I want to focus on reasons why Bowdoin students seemingly participate in very little DIY Urbanism on campus. I agree with Devin above that Bowdoin is an already really nice place. But I believe that Bowdoin students are told by the college to be “academically fearless” and to take academic risks, but there is no mention of being spatially fearless or trying to change the physical world we have around us here at Bowdoin. I believe Bowdoin students don’t undertake similar levels of DIY urbanism as what we see in Douglas’ book because of the schools devotion to keeping the campus as up to date as possible, disallowing for student participation in the creation of space on campus.
I think a lot of the reason that Bowdoin students do not participate in DIY urbanism is because of the way that Bowdoin as an institution caters to the student body. Governments of cities and even towns such as Brunswick do not listen as closely to their residents as Bowdoin does to its student body. Bowdoin advertises itself as a small college where each student’s voice is heard and student concerns are taken seriously. Due to this culture created by the institution, students have less of a reason to break rules than residents of a city do. Most of what we need as a student body is taken into consideration and implemented by the college.