Comunicación núm. 7/2015, Arellano Medina c. Ecuador

Public and private spheres in the city entirely depend on the boundaries that separate them. Both for those who defend the private sphere from public intrusion and those who defend the public sphere from private encroachment, the erection of boundaries signifies an act of delimitation and protection. This boundary, which regulates concealment and exposure, plays a significant part in human societies. According to Nagel (1998b:3), ‘The boundary between what we reveal and what we do not, and some control over that boundary, are among the most important attributes of our humanity.’ This boundary between the public and the private faces two directions: on the one hand it keeps the disruptive material out of the public arena and, on the other hand, protects private life from the public gaze.

The separate identities of the public and private realms mainly result from the construction of the boundary between them; if the boundary is removed, how can a distinction be made? The character of each side depends, to a large extent, on the way this boundary is articulated, as much as the configuration of what lies behind the boundary (Figure 2.6). To study these boundaries, it is essential to know how they are constructed, what they are made of, what they are meant to signify, and how they relate to the spheres that lie on either side. There may be no intrinsic qualities to the subsections of the space. It is only the way this space is subdivided through boundaries that creates its character. A new housing estate that is developed on an open field, for example, establishes a series of physical boundaries and assigns meaning to these subdivisions.

These qualities and characters, therefore, are constructed through the process of boundary setting, which is a form of definition. By defining space, enclosing it within boundaries which separate the public and the private, the social relations take a spatial form; a concrete and relatively fixed representation of constantly changing social phenomena.

From this perspective, city building is essentially a boundary setting exercise. The space of the city is shaped by many forms and levels of boundaries, each with multi-level configurations and meanings. It is a process through which space is constantly divided and reshaped in new forms. A living city witnesses, throughout its history, constant change in its spatial configurations, shaped by changing boundaries which define and redefine areas to have different functions and meanings, such as those expressed in public or private distinction.

In ancient Greece, the law was identified with the boundary line that separated one household from the other. This was an actual space, a no-one’s land, which separated the two properties, as the two buildings were not permitted to touch. The notion of the law and the hedge were closely associated with each other for the Greeks, whose word for law, nomos, derived from nemein, which meant to distribute, to possess (what has been distributed), and to dwell (Arendt, 1958:63). The law of the polis, the city-state, was quite literally a wall, which enclosed a number of households living in a political community.

The Greek word polis, the Roman word urbs, the German word Zaun and the English

2.6 Boundaries are systems of signs which symbolize the separation of two realms. The character of each side depends, to a large extent, on the way this boundary is articulated (Los Angeles, USA)

word ‘town’ all originated from the notion of a ‘ring-wall’, a ‘circle’, a surrounding fence. This was also the case in ancient China, as we shall see in Chapter 7. The Romans even had a god for the boundary, Terminus, whom they revered highly (Arendt, 1958:63–

4). It was the boundary that demarcated a notion of household and group of households who formed a town or a city. The separation of public from private, an essential part of the constitution of society, depended on the erection and protection of boundaries.

What prevented the polis from violating the private lives of its citizens and made it hold sacred the boundaries surrounding each property was not respect for private property as we understand it, but the fact that without owning a house a man could not participate in the affairs of the world because he had no location in it which was properly his own. Even Plato, whose political plans foresaw the abolition of private property and an extension of the public sphere to the point of annihilating private life altogether, still speaks with great reverence of Zeus Herkeios, the protector of border lines, and calls the horoi, the boundaries between one estate and another, divine, without seeing any contradiction. (Arendt, 1958:29–30)

The barriers between the two realms are used to shape social relations and spatial arrangements. These boundaries are rooted in particular social and historical contexts.

2.7 The Berlin Wall separated two worlds from each other on the basis of their approach to private property (Berlin, Germany)

They are controlled by society, through peaceful means or forced agreements, and have evolved and transformed throughout history to create particular forms of distinction.

Remove this distinction between the public and private spheres and you have reshaped the entire society, as the communists believed they could do. The Berlin Wall separated two worlds from each other on the basis of their approach to private property (Figure 2.7). On the eastern side of the wall, there was a world in which private property was confiscated in the name of public interest. On the western side, there was a world in which private property was the foundation of social relations. The fact that people on both sides of the wall helped demolish it showed that such strict separation was not tenable and that this was an imposed boundary restricting the personal freedoms of most inhabitants of the city. The freedom of movement that the wall prevented was closely associated with the different approaches to the private control of space.

The same dynamics of the social realm may apply to the political realm. In liberal democratic politics, the existence of a dividing line between the public and private realms is a normative notion, where it is important for all to see that the line is kept clear.

Nolan’s report on Standards in Public Life (Nolan, 1995), a report commissioned by the British Prime Minister to investigate the conduct of public officials, for example, rejects the notion of ‘grey areas’ as ‘a rationalization of morally dubious behaviour’ (p. 16). The report defines seven principles of public life: self-lessness, integrity, objectivity,

accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (p. 14). Selflessness refers to the main boundary between the public and private realms: interest. Holders of public office are expected to take decisions on the basis of public interest and not their own financial or material gain. They should have the honesty of declaring their private interests. Integrity refers to the same boundary, as it asks public officers to avoid putting themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might influence their decision-making. Objectivity asks them to make their choices on merit, when making public appointments, awarding contracts and recommending individuals for rewards and benefits. Holders of public office are expected to be open about, and accountable for, their decisions and actions. They should give reasons for their actions, be prepared to submit themselves for appropriate scrutiny, and should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. The seven principles, then, seem to refer to separation of public and private interests as well as openness and accountability. The boundary between the public and private realms, therefore, is constructed through insisting on separation of interests and keeping the public realm accountable to all and open for scrutiny.

The boundary between the public and the private, as any other form of boundary, is an expression of a power that can subdivide space, give its subdivisions different meanings, and expect the others to share these meanings by believing in them. While the construction of such boundaries was crucial in the development of national states, they were not all successful enterprises. Many ethnic and linguistic communities, for example, are divided by national borders. For them, the narratives of nationalism that have legitimized the national borders make less sense than for the majority ethnic and religious groups who established these narratives. From the subdivisions inside the home to those at international levels, the establishment of a boundary signifies the power of defining space, and as such will have those who are satisfied by boundaries, as well as those who are discontented. The way forward could not be to abolish all distinctions and boundaries to create a formless chaos, in which the weak will suffer most; but to create sufficient flexibility to allow a dialogue between what is inside and what lies outside, and to allow the possibility of redrawing boundaries always to exist.