Public Spaces and Private Spheres Part I

No need for a ten commandments monument here

It seems that there is a constant debate about monuments we choose to place on public lands, and often it seems the discussion is poorly framed or the arguments put forward in defense of some monuments lack a real understanding of the important reasons for removing them. Often, the overused word offensive is tossed around, but the meaning can shift and slide so that different people receive it differently. (I will look at the word offensive in another post.)

Let's start with the way we divide up land in our societies: there are public spaces and privates spheres with rules, laws, ordinances, and the like to regulate what we can do there. I know there are people who think all lands should be private and who oppose all laws governing what one can do on one's property, and I don't really want to go down that philosophical road. In part, it has no bearing on this discussion. In part, the reality is we do divide our land this way, so it is a distraction from the real issue. Like it or not, living as we do in communities, our actions impact others, and laws and ordinances try to regulate our interactions.

These two spheres represent different aspects of our societies, and how we choose "ornaments" for them has different symbolic implications.

In the private sphere, we have a lot more freedom of expression, but our actions are not unlimited. Some of these limitations make sense because they can intrude on neighbors, bring house prices down, cause others physical or financial harm, or burden others. For example, the ordinance about not running a church out of your home is not really about practicing religion. It is about parking and noise problems that come with a quantity of people regularly descending upon your house. But, people can put up seasonal decorations, and at Christmas, it is pretty common to see decorations, even of a religious nature.

Then, there are public spaces: parks, courthouses, town halls, municipal complexes, and the like. The statues, quotes, and other decorations we put there should reflect the function of the space they adorn. It may be some public art finds its way there as a way to create interest, but I'm more interested in the direct symbols of public life we place in our shared spaces that reflect community and society. Such decorations should not preference one group to the exclusion of others, signifying that everyone has access to these services.

How does this work in practice? My choices for my home reflect my personal tastes and potentially my beliefs. I'm not sure that the average person thinks much about how others decorate their homes beyond judging the esthetics or political and sports preferences, but one's home is a way to express some kind of individuality or group belonging. Whether you put up some banner of your favorite sports team, a flag sporting a flower and a butterfly that says spring, a political sign or even an advertisement for a company you used to do some work, these are all personal choices on personal property that reflect something about the owner(s). People may disagree or hate what you put there, but as long as you obey local ordinances, this is your expression of self to the world.

Businesses have a similar freedom as private entities. However, note that not everyone within that business can merely choose what to put on an office building or professional lawn. If you are not one of the "deciders" of the business, you don't get to choose anything that adorns the place of work. There are obvious reasons for that concerning what image the company wants to project and what branding they have. Businesses are interested in attracting and keeping customers. As a worker, there are parameters to your discussions with your clients. You could be fired for talking religion or politics because the business is not an appropriate place for those views that could alienate your customers. This is not to say that all personal discussion is banned, but rather that potentially divisive and alienating dialogue is not conducive to good business.

The public sphere works differently than those mentioned above. The courthouse is not a space for any one individual or group to express their personal beliefs, nor should it be some kind of branded space trying to attract clients. The government is an entity that works for everyone in the jurisdiction not just a few paying customers.

When we decide what to place on public lands, we need to ask what the purpose of the object is. Some decorations and statues may be symbolic: allegories of justice at the courthouse, for example. The Supreme Court does have some religious figures in friezes, but they are not there in isolation. When Christian conservatives intone that the godless would be upset to learn that Moses is pictured in the Court, they don't really understand context very well. Moses is included with allegorical figures in addition to lawgivers, like Confucius, Hammurabi, and Mohammed. He is not there to indicate that the Court is a function of Christianity. He is there as one figure of historical law among many others of various backgrounds.

Let's keep in mind that absence of a figure or reference on public land does not imply censure. If anything, absence here is silence on a figure, neither approval nor disapproval.  

A post like today's should be unnecessary, but sadly, it is necessary. There are people among us who need to see their specific beliefs reflected all around them, and if there is a silence, they claim some kind of reverse racism. There are Christians that claim if government is not explicitly endorsing their god then it is promoting atheism. This could not be further from the truth. Government is neutral on the issue, coming down on neither side of the issue, allowing each citizen to come to his or her own conclusions.